-- diff -r 2bc1f3a24bc0 -r 178aed5d2c3c john/english/John10.html --- a/john/english/John10.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John10.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,1929 +1,1892 @@ - + + + ++ 1
+ +++ -1
LECTURE I
-1 In the beginning was the Word;
-and the Word was with God;
-and the Word was God.
-2 He was in the beginning with God.23 John the Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his principal object to show the divinity -of the Incarnate Word. Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two parts. In the first he states -the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by the things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In -regard to the first, he does two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he sets -forth the manner in which Christ’s divinity is made known to us (1:14). Concerning the first -he does two things. First he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of the incarnation of the -Word of God (1:6).
-Because there are two items to be considered in each thing, namely, its existence and its -operation or power, first he treats the existence of the Word as to his divine nature; secondly -of his power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first he does four things. First he shows when -the Word was: In the beginning was the Word; secondly where he was: and the Word was -with God; thirdly what fie was: and the Word was God; fourthly, in what way he was: He -was in the beginning with God. The first two pertain to the inquiry “whether something -exists”; the second two pertain to the inquiry “what something is.”
-24 With respect to the first of these four we must examine the meaning of the statement, In -the beginning was the Word. And here three things present themselves for careful study -according to the three parts of this statement. First it is necessary to investigate the name -Word; secondly the phrase in the beginning; thirdly the meaning of the Word was in the -beginning.
-25 To understand the name Word we should note that according to the Philosopher [On -Interpretation 16a3] vocal sounds are signs of the affections that exist in our soul. It is -customary in Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the names of their -signs, as in the statement, “And the rock was Christ” ( 1 Cor 10:4). It is fitting that what is -within our soul, and which is signified by our external word, be called a “word.” But whether -the name “word” belongs first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind, is -not our concern at present. However, it is obvious that what is signified by the vocal sound, as -existing interiorly in the soul, exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual -cause. Therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior word, we must first look at -the meaning of that which is exteriorly expressed in words.
-Now there are three things in our intellect: the intellectual power itself, the species of the -thing understood (and this species is its form, being to the intellect what the species of a color -is to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of the intellect, which is to understand. But none of -these is what is signified by the exterior vocal word: for the name “stone” does not signify the -substance of the intellect because this is not what the one naming intends; nor does it signify -the species, which is that by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the -intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the act itself of understanding since to -understand is not an action proceeding to the exterior from the one understanding, but an -action remaining within. Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which the one -understanding forms when understanding.
-Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two operations. According to its -operation which is called “the understanding of indivisibles,” it forms a definition; while -according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it forms an enunciation or -something of that sort. Hence, what is thus formed and expressed by the operation of the -intellect, whether by defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound signifies. So the -Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a name signifies is a definition. Hence, what is -thus expressed, i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word. Consequently it is -compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect understands, but as that in which it -understands, because it is in what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the -thing understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name “word.”
-Secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that a word is always something -that proceeds from an intellect existing in act; and furthermore, that a word is always a notion -(ratio) and likeness of the thing understood. So if the one understanding and the thing -understood are the same, then the word is a notion and likeness of the intellect from which it -proceeds. On the other hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood, then -the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding but of the thing understood, as -the conception which one has of a stone is a likeness of only the stone. But when the intellect -understands itself, its word is a likeness and notion of the intellect. And so Augustine (On the -Trinity IX, 5) sees a likeness of the Trinity in the Soul insofar as the mind understands itself, -but not insofar as it understands other things.
-It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any intellectual nature, for it is of the very -nature of understanding that the intellect in understanding should form something. Now what -is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in every being which understands there must -be a word.
-However, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic and divine; and so there are -three kinds of words. The human word, about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): “The fool -said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ “ The angelic word, about which it is said in Zechariah -(1:9), and in many places in Sacred Scripture, “And the angel said to me.” The third is the -divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light.’ “ So when the -Evangelist says, In the beginning was the Word, we cannot understand this as a human or -angelic word, because both these words have been made since man and angel have a cause -and principle of their existence and operation, and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist -before they do. The word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word was -not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word about which John speaks here -is the Word of God.
-26 We should note that this Word differs from our own word in three ways. The first -difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is formable before being formed, for -when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning. And so it is in -all other things that are understood by us, with the sole possible exception of the first -principles which, since they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any -discourse of reason. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, -the formation is not yet complete. It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing -perfectly that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and a word. Thus in our -mind there is both a “cogitation,” meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a -word, which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. So our word is first -in potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act. In consequence, the term -“cogitation” does not properly speaking apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says (On -the Trinity XV): “The Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation is not included, -lest anything changeable be supposed in God.” Anselm was speaking improperly when he -said: “For the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while cogitating.”
-27 The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect. -For since we cannot express all our conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect -words through which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is not that way -with God. For since he understands both himself and everything else through his essence, by -one act, the single divine Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the Persons but -also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So Augustine says: “If there were less in -the Word than is contained in the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would be -imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, it is only one.” “God speaks -once” (Jb 33:14).
-28 The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as we; but the divine Word -is of the same nature as God. And therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. -For the understood notion which the intellect is seen to fonn about some thing has only an -intelligible existence in our soul. Now in our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature -of the soul, because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word which our -intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it. But in God, to -understand and to be are the same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident -but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because whatever is in the nature of God -is God. Thus Damascene says that God is a substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words -are concepts in our mind.
-29 From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always understood as a -Person in the Divinity, since it implies only something expressed, by the one understanding; -also, that in the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues; and that it is -co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it was not first formable before being formed, -but was always in act; and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and expressive of -the whole being of the Father; and that it is co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, -since it is his substance.
-It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues forth and has a likeness to the -nature from which it issues is called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and -identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and appropriately called a “Son,” and -its production is called a generation.
-So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the term Word.
-30 There are four questions on this point, two of them from Chrysostom. The first is: Why -did John the Evangelist oinit the Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, In the -beginning was the Word?
-There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known to everyone in the Old -Testament, although not under the aspect of Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. -And so in the New Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he +
1 In the beginning was the Word;
+
+and the Word was with God;
+and the Word was God.
+2 He was in the beginning with God.23 John the Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his +principal object to show the divinity of the Incarnate Word. +Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two parts. In the first he +states the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by the +things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In regard to the first, he +does two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he +sets forth the manner in which Christ’s divinity is made +known to us (1:14). Concerning the first he does two things. First +he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of the incarnation of +the Word of God (1:6).
+Because there are two items to be considered in each thing, +namely, its existence and its operation or power, first he treats +the existence of the Word as to his divine nature; secondly of his +power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first he does four +things. First he shows when the Word was: In the beginning was the Word; secondly +where he was: and the Word was with +God; thirdly what fie was: and the Word was God; fourthly, in what +way he was: He was in the beginning +with God. The first two pertain to the inquiry +“whether something exists”; the second two pertain to +the inquiry “what something is.”
+24 With respect to the first of these four we must examine the +meaning of the statement, In the +beginning was the Word. And here three things present +themselves for careful study according to the three parts of this +statement. First it is necessary to investigate the name Word; +secondly the phrase in the +beginning; thirdly the meaning of the Word was in the beginning.
+25 To understand the name Word we should note that according to +the Philosopher [On Interpretation 16a3] vocal sounds are +signs of the affections that exist in our soul. It is customary in +Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the +names of their signs, as in the statement, “And the rock was +Christ” ( 1 Cor 10:4). It is fitting that what is within our +soul, and which is signified by our external word, be called a +“word.” But whether the name “word” belongs +first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind, +is not our concern at present. However, it is obvious that what is +signified by the vocal sound, as existing interiorly in the soul, +exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual +cause. Therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior +word, we must first look at the meaning of that which is exteriorly +expressed in words.
+Now there are three things in our intellect: the intellectual +power itself, the species of the thing understood (and this species +is its form, being to the intellect what the species of a color is +to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of the intellect, which +is to understand. But none of these is what is signified by the +exterior vocal word: for the name “stone” does not +signify the substance of the intellect because this is not what the +one naming intends; nor does it signify the species, which is that +by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the +intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the act itself of +understanding since to understand is not an action proceeding to +the exterior from the one understanding, but an action remaining +within. Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which +the one understanding forms when understanding.
+Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two +operations. According to its operation which is called “the +understanding of indivisibles,” it forms a definition; while +according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it +forms an enunciation or something of that sort. Hence, what is thus +formed and expressed by the operation of the intellect, whether by +defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound +signifies. So the Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a +name signifies is a definition. Hence, what is thus expressed, +i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word. Consequently +it is compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect +understands, but as that in which it understands, because it is in +what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the +thing understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name +“word.”
+Secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that +a word is always something that proceeds from an intellect existing +in act; and furthermore, that a word is always a notion (ratio) and +likeness of the thing understood. So if the one understanding and +the thing understood are the same, then the word is a notion and +likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds. On the other +hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood, +then the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding +but of the thing understood, as the conception which one has of a +stone is a likeness of only the stone. But when the intellect +understands itself, its word is a likeness and notion of the +intellect. And so Augustine (On the Trinity IX, 5) sees a +likeness of the Trinity in the Soul insofar as the mind understands +itself, but not insofar as it understands other things.
+It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any +intellectual nature, for it is of the very nature of understanding +that the intellect in understanding should form something. Now what +is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in every being +which understands there must be a word.
+However, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic +and divine; and so there are three kinds of words. The human word, +about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): “The fool said in +his heart, ‘There is no God.’ “ The angelic word, +about which it is said in Zechariah (1:9), and in many places in +Sacred Scripture, “And the angel said to me.” The third +is the divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, “And God +said, ‘Let there be light.’ “ So when the +Evangelist says, In the beginning +was the Word, we cannot understand this as a human or +angelic word, because both these words have been made since man and +angel have a cause and principle of their existence and operation, +and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist before they do. The +word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word +was not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word +about which John speaks here is the Word of God.
+26 We should note that this Word differs from our own word in +three ways. The first difference, according to Augustine, is that +our word is formable before being formed, for when I wish to +conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning. +And so it is in all other things that are understood by us, with +the sole possible exception of the first principles which, since +they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any +discourse of reason. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, +casts about this way and that, the formation is not yet complete. +It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing perfectly +that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and +a word. Thus in our mind there is both a “cogitation,” +meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a word, +which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. +So our word is first in potency before it is in act. But the Word +of God is always in act. In consequence, the term +“cogitation” does not properly speaking apply to the +Word of God. For Augustine says (On the Trinity XV): +“The Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation +is not included, lest anything changeable be supposed in +God.” Anselm was speaking improperly when he said: “For +the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while +cogitating.”
+27 The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the +divine Word is most perfect. For since we cannot express all our +conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect words through +which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is +not that way with God. For since he understands both himself and +everything else through his essence, by one act, the single divine +Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the Persons +but also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So +Augustine says: “If there were less in the Word than is +contained in the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would +be imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, +it is only one.” “God speaks once” (Jb +33:14).
+28 The third difference is that our word is not of the same +nature as we; but the divine Word is of the same nature as God. And +therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. For +the understood notion which the intellect is seen to fonn about +some thing has only an intelligible existence in our soul. Now in +our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature of the soul, +because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word +which our intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is +an accident of it. But in God, to understand and to be are the +same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident +but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because +whatever is in the nature of God is God. Thus Damascene says that +God is a substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words are +concepts in our mind.
+29 From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, +is always understood as a Person in the Divinity, since it implies +only something expressed, by the one understanding; also, that in +the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues; +and that it is co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it +was not first formable before being formed, but was always in act; +and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and +expressive of the whole being of the Father; and that it is +co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his +substance.
+It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues +forth and has a likeness to the nature from which it issues is +called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and +identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and +appropriately called a “Son,” and its production is +called a generation.
+So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the term Word.
+30 There are four questions on this point, two of them from +Chrysostom. The first is: Why did John the Evangelist oinit the +Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, In the beginning was the Word?
+There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known +to everyone in the Old Testament, although not under the aspect of +Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. And so in the New +Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he begins with the Word or Son.
-The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father through the Son: “Father, I have -manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me” (below 17:6). And so wishing -to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began with the Son, -at once adding something about the Father when he says, and the Word was with God.
-31 The second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say Word and not “Son,” -since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son?
-There are also two answers to this. First, because “son” means something begotten, and when -we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind -he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation. Thus he did not say “Son,” -but Word, which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a -material and changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in -an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name Word.
-The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider the Word as having come to -manifest the Father. But since the idea of manifesting is implied better in the name “Word” -than in the name “Son,” he preferred to use the name Word.
-32 The third question is raised by Augustine in his book Eighty-three Questions; and it is this. -In Greek, where we have “Word,” they have “Logos”; now since “Logos” signifies in Latin -both “notion” and “word” [i.e., ratio et verbum], why did the translators render it as “word” -and not “notion,” since a notion is something interior just as a word is?
-I answer that “notion” [ratio], properly speaking, names a conception of the mind precisely as -in the mind, even if through it nothing exterior comes to be; but “word” signifies a reference -to something exterior. And so because the Evangelist, when he said “Logos,” intended to -signify not only a reference to the Son’s existence in the Father, but also the operative power -of the Son, by which, through him, all things were made, our predecessors preferred to -translate it “Word,” which implies a reference to something exterior, rather than “notion “ -which implies merely a concept of the mind.
-33 The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many passages, Scripture, when -speaking of the Word of God, does not simply call him the Word, but adds “of God,” saying, -“the Word of God,” or “of the Lord”: “The Word of God on high is the foundation of -wisdom” (Sir 1:5); “His name is the Word of God” (Rv 19:13). Why then did the Evangelist, -when speaking here of the Word of God, not say, “In the beginning was the Word of God,” -but said In the beginning was the Word?
-I answer that although there are many participated truths, there is just one absolute Truth, -which is Truth by its very essence, that is, the divine act of being (esse); and by this Truth all -words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom elevated above all things, that is, -the divine Wisdom, by participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is one -absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a word are called speakers. Now -this is the divine Word which of itself is the Word elevated above all words. So in order that -the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he pointed out this Word -to us absolutely without any addition.
-And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something separate and elevated above -everything else, did this by affixing the article to the name (as the Platonists, wishing to -signify the separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated man, called them -the good per se, or man per se), so the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and -elevation of that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name “Logos,” so that if it -were stated in Latin we would say “the Word.”
-34 Secondly, we must consider the meaning of the phrase, In the beginning. We must note -that according to Origen, the word principium has many meanings [such as “principle,” -“source,” or “beginning”]. Since the word principium implies a certain order of one thing to -another, one can find a principium in all those things which have an order. First of all, order -is found in quantified things; and so there is a principle of number and lengths, as for -example, a line. Second, order is found in time; and so we speak of a “beginning” of time, or -of duration. Third, order is found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to -ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a “beginning”: “By this time you ought to be -teachers” (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the beginning and principle of our -wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the Wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as -to ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has become flesh, i.e., by -his incarnation. Fourth, in order is found in the production of a thing. In this perspective there -can be a principium on the part of the thing generated, that is, the first part of the thing -generated or made; as we say that the foundation is the beginning of a house. Another -principium is on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there are three “principles”: -of intention, which is the purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in -the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative faculty. Considering these -various ways of using the term, we now ask how principium is used here when it says, In the -beginning was the Word.
-35 We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. In one way so that principium is -understood as the Person of the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active -power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things that are brought into -existence. Hence we read: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). -And so the Lord said about himself: “I am the principium who also speaks to you” (below -8:25). Taking principium in this way, we should understand the statement, In the beginning -was the Word, as though he were saying, “The Word was in the Son,” so that the sense -would be: The Word himself is the principium, principle, in the sense in which life is said to -be “in” God, when this life is not something other than God.
-And this is the explanation of Origen. And so the Evangelist says In the beginning here in -order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the divinity of the Word by asserting -that he is a principle because, as determining all, a principle is most honored.
-36 In a second way principium can be understood as the Person of the Father, who is the -principle not only of creatures, but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, “Yours is -princely power (principium) in the day of your birth” (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads -In the beginning was the Word as though it means, “The Son was in the Father.” This is -Augustine’s understanding of it, as well as Origen’s. The Son, however, is said to be in the -Father because both have the same essence. Since the Son is his own essence, then the Son is -in whomsoever the Son’s essence is. Since, therefore, the essence of the Son is in the Father -by consubstantiality, it is fitting that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10): “I -am in the Father and the Father is in me.”
-37 In a third way, principium can be taken for the beginning of duration, so that the sense of -In the beginning was the Word is that the Word was before all things, as Augustine -explains it. According to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the eternity of the Word.
-The phrase In the beginning was the Word shows that no matter which beginning of -duration is taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal things which is -the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined span of time reaching back for many ages, at -that beginning the Word already was. Hence Hilary says (On the Trinity VII): “Go back -season by season, skip over the centuries, take away ages. Set down whatever you want as the -beginning in your opinion: the Word already was.” And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says: -“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything.” But what is -prior to the beginning of duration is eternal.
-38 And thus the first explanation asserts the causality of the Word; the second explanation -affirms the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who utters the Word; and the third +
The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father +through the Son: “Father, I have manifested your name to the +men whom you have given to me” (below 17:6). And so wishing +to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist +fittingly began with the Son, at once adding something about the +Father when he says, and the Word +was with God.
+31 The second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say +Word and not +“Son,” since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as +Son?
+There are also two answers to this. First, because +“son” means something begotten, and when we hear of the +generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation +is the kind he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable +generation. Thus he did not say “Son,” but Word, which signifies an intelligible +proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a material and +changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of +the Father in an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty +conjecture by using the name Word.
+The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider +the Word as having come to manifest the Father. But since the idea +of manifesting is implied better in the name “Word” +than in the name “Son,” he preferred to use the name +Word.
+32 The third question is raised by Augustine in his book +Eighty-three Questions; and it is this. In Greek, where we +have “Word,” they have “Logos”; now since +“Logos” signifies in Latin both “notion” +and “word” [i.e., ratio et verbum], why did the +translators render it as “word” and not +“notion,” since a notion is something interior just as +a word is?
+I answer that “notion” [ratio], properly speaking, +names a conception of the mind precisely as in the mind, even if +through it nothing exterior comes to be; but “word” +signifies a reference to something exterior. And so because the +Evangelist, when he said “Logos,” intended to signify +not only a reference to the Son’s existence in the Father, +but also the operative power of the Son, by which, through him, all +things were made, our predecessors preferred to translate it +“Word,” which implies a reference to something +exterior, rather than “notion “ which implies merely a +concept of the mind.
+33 The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many +passages, Scripture, when speaking of the Word of God, does not +simply call him the Word, but adds “of God,” saying, +“the Word of God,” or “of the Lord”: +“The Word of God on high is the foundation of wisdom” +(Sir 1:5); “His name is the Word of God” (Rv 19:13). +Why then did the Evangelist, when speaking here of the Word of God, +not say, “In the beginning was the Word of God,” but +said In the beginning was the +Word?
+I answer that although there are many participated truths, there +is just one absolute Truth, which is Truth by its very essence, +that is, the divine act of being (esse); and by this Truth +all words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom +elevated above all things, that is, the divine Wisdom, by +participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is +one absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a +word are called speakers. Now this is the divine Word which of +itself is the Word elevated above all words. So in order that the +Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he +pointed out this Word to us absolutely without any addition.
+And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something +separate and elevated above everything else, did this by affixing +the article to the name (as the Platonists, wishing to signify the +separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated +man, called them the good per se, or man per se), so +the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and elevation of +that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name +“Logos,” so that if it were stated in Latin we would +say “the Word.”
+34 Secondly, we must consider the meaning of the phrase, +In the beginning. We must +note that according to Origen, the word principium has many +meanings [such as “principle,” “source,” or +“beginning”]. Since the word principium implies +a certain order of one thing to another, one can find a +principium in all those things which have an order. First of +all, order is found in quantified things; and so there is a +principle of number and lengths, as for example, a line. Second, +order is found in time; and so we speak of a +“beginning” of time, or of duration. Third, order is +found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to +ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a +“beginning”: “By this time you ought to be +teachers” (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the +beginning and principle of our wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is +the Wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as to +ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has +become flesh, i.e., by his incarnation. Fourth, in order is found +in the production of a thing. In this perspective there can be a +principium on the part of the thing generated, that is, the +first part of the thing generated or made; as we say that the +foundation is the beginning of a house. Another principium +is on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there +are three “principles”: of intention, which is the +purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in +the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative +faculty. Considering these various ways of using the term, we now +ask how principium is used here when it says, In the beginning was the Word.
+35 We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. In +one way so that principium is understood as the Person of +the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active +power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things +that are brought into existence. Hence we read: “Christ the +power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). And so the +Lord said about himself: “I am the principium who also +speaks to you” (below 8:25). Taking principium in this +way, we should understand the statement, In the beginning was the Word, as though +he were saying, “The Word was in the Son,” so that the +sense would be: The Word himself is the principium, +principle, in the sense in which life is said to be +“in” God, when this life is not something other than +God.
+And this is the explanation of Origen. And so the Evangelist +says In the beginning here +in order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the +divinity of the Word by asserting that he is a principle because, +as determining all, a principle is most honored.
+36 In a second way principium can be understood as the +Person of the Father, who is the principle not only of creatures, +but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, “Yours +is princely power (principium) in the day of your +birth” (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads In the beginning was the Word as though +it means, “The Son was in the Father.” This is +Augustine’s understanding of it, as well as Origen’s. +The Son, however, is said to be in the Father because both have the +same essence. Since the Son is his own essence, then the Son is in +whomsoever the Son’s essence is. Since, therefore, the +essence of the Son is in the Father by consubstantiality, it is +fitting that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10): +“I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”
+37 In a third way, principium can be taken for the +beginning of duration, so that the sense of In the beginning was the Word is that +the Word was before all things, as Augustine explains it. According +to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the eternity of the +Word.
+The phrase In the beginning was +the Word shows that no matter which beginning of duration is +taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal +things which is the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined +span of time reaching back for many ages, at that beginning the +Word already was. Hence Hilary says (On the Trinity VII): +“Go back season by season, skip over the centuries, take away +ages. Set down whatever you want as the beginning in your opinion: +the Word already was.” And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says: +“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before +he made anything.” But what is prior to the beginning of +duration is eternal.
+38 And thus the first explanation asserts the causality of the +Word; the second explanation affirms the consubstantiality of the +Word with the Father, who utters the Word; and the third explanation affirms the co-eternity of the Word.
-39 Now we should consider that it says that the Word was (erat), which is stated in the past -imperfect tense. This tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we consider -the nature of time and of the things that exist in time. For what is future is not yet in act; but -what is at present is in act, and by the fact that it is in act what is present is not described as -having been. Now the past perfect tense indicates that something has existed, has already -come to an end, and has now ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other hand, -indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor has ceased to be, but still -endures. Thus, whenever John mentions eternal things he expressly says “was” (erat, past -imperfect tense), but when he refers to anything temporal he says “has been” (fuit, past -perfect tense), as will be clear later.
-But so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way to designate eternity is the -present tense, which indicates that some thing is in act, and this is always the characteristic of -eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): “I am who am.” And Augustine says: “He -alone truly is whose being does not know a past and a future.
-40 We should also note that this verb was, according to the Gloss, is not understood here as -indicating temporal changes, as other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. -Thus it is also called a substantive verb.
-41 Someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the Father since he is begotten by -the Father: for a human son, born from a human father, is subsequent to his father.
-I answer that there are three reasons why an originative principle is prior in duration to that -which derives from that principle. First of all, if the originative principle of anything precedes -in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the principle; thus a man does -not begin to write as soon as he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time. Secondly, if an -action is successive; consequently, even if the action should happen to begin at the same time -as the agent, the termination of the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as -soon as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend; but the fire exists before -it has ascended, because the motion by which it tends upward requires some time. Thirdly, by -the fact that sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its principle, just as -the beginning of a creature’s coming-to-be depends on the will of God, such that God existed -before any creature.
-Yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. God did not first exist -and then begin to generate the Word: for since the generation of the Word is nothing other -than an intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be understanding in potency -before understanding in act, which is impossible. Again, it is impossible that the generation of -the Word involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed before it was -formed (as happens in us who form words by “cogitating”), which is false, as was said. -Again, we cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration for his Son by -his own will, because God the Father does not generate the Son by his will, as the Arians -held, but naturally: for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and so -God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.
-An example of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in the brightness issuing from it: -for this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the fire. Again, if the fire -were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is why the Son is called the -brightness of the Father: “the brightness of his glory” (Heb 1:3). But this example lacks an -illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son, although in human sonship we -do not find coeternity: for we must attain our knowledge of divine things from many -likenesses in material things, for one likeness is not enough.
-The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with the Father: for “brightness” -indicates his unchangeability, “birth” points to the Word himself, but the name “Son” -suggests his consubstantiality.
-42 And so we give the Son various names to express his perfection, which cannot be -expressed by one name. We call him “Son” to show that he is of the same nature as the -Father; we call him “image” to show that he is not unlike the Father in any way; we call him -“brightness” to show that he is coeternal; and he is called the “Word” to show that he is -begotten in an immaterial manner.
-43 Then the Evangelist says, and the Word was with God, which is the second clause in his -account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two words which did not appear in -the first clause, that is, God, and with; for we have already explained the meanings of -“Word,” and “beginning. “Let us continue carefully by examining these two new words, and -to better understand the explanation of this second clause, we must say something about the -meaning of each so far as it is relevant to our purpose.
-44 At the outset, we should note that the name “God” signifies the divinity concretely and as -inherent in a subject, while the name “deity” signifies the divinity in the abstract and -absolutely. Thus the name “deity” cannot naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a -[divine] person, but only for the [divine] nature. But the name “God” can, by its natural mode -of signifying, stand for any one of the [divine] persons, just as the name “man” stands for any -individual (suppositum) possessing humanity. Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or -its predicate requires that the name “God” stand for the person, then it stands for the person, -as when we say, “God begets God.” Thus, when it says here that the Word was with God, it -is necessary that God stand for the person of the Father, because the preposition with -signifies the distinction of the Word, which is said to be with God. And although this -preposition signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a distinction in nature, since -the nature of the Father and of the Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist wished to -signify the person of the Father when he said God.
-45 Here we should note that the preposition with signifies a certain union of the thing -signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing signified by its grammatical object, just as -the preposition “in” does. However, there is a difference, because the preposition “in” -signifies a certain intrinsic union, whereas the preposition with implies in a certain way an -extrinsic union. And we state both in divine matters, namely, that the Son is in the Father and -with the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union -(if we may use such an expression, since “extrinsic” is improperly employed in divine -matters) refers only to a personal distinction, because the Son is distinguished from the Father -by origin alone. And so these two words designate both a consubstantiality in nature and -distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain union is implied; but distinction, -inasmuch as a certain otherness is signified as was said above.
-The preposition “in,” as was said, principally signifies consubstantiality, as implying an -intrinsic union and, by way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every -preposition is transitive. The preposition “with” principally signifies a personal distinction, -but also a consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so to speak, union. For -these reasons the Evangelist specifically used here the preposition “with” in order to express -the distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying, and the Word was with -God, that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with another.
-46 We should note further that this preposition with has four meanings, and these eliminate -four objections. First, the preposition with signifies the subsistence of its antecedent, because -things that do not subsist of themselves are not properly said to be “with” another; thus we do -not say that a color is with a body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of -themselves. But things that do subsist of themselves are properly said to be “with” another; -thus we say that a man is with a man, and a stone with a stone.
-Secondly, it signifies authority in its grammatical object. For we do not, properly speaking, -say that a king is with a soldier, but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it asserts a -distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with himself but rather that one man is -with another. Fourthly, it signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is -said to be with another, it suggests to us that there is some social union between them.
-Considering these four conditions implied in the meaning of this preposition with, the -Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, this -second clause, and the Word was with God. For if we omit one of the three explanations of, -In the beginning was the Word (namely, the one in which principium was understood as the -Son), certain heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other explanations -(namely, the one in which principium means the same as “before all things,” and the one in -which it is understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we can answer these -by the four conditions indicated by this preposition with.
-47 The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., -before all things. But before all things there was nothing. So if before all things there was -nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the imaginings of those who -think that whatever exists is somewhere and in some place. But this is rejected by John when -he says, with God, which indicates the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, -according to Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: with God; not -in some place, since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not enclosed by -any place.
-48 The second objection against the same explanation is this. You say that the Word was in -the beginning, i.e., before all things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed -from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be prior to that which -proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not proceed from another. This objection is -rejected when he says, the Word was with God, taking “with” according to its second -condition, as implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to Hilary, is -this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all things? The Evangelist answers: the -Word was with God, i.e., although the Word has no beginning of duration, still he does not -lack a principium or author, for he was with God as his author.
-49 The third objection, directed to the explanation in which principium is understood as the -Father, is this. You say that In the beginning was the Word, i.e., the Son was in the Father. -But that which is in something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as the -whiteness in a body does not subsist. This objection is solved by the statement, the Word -was with God, taking “with” in its first condition, as implying the subsistence of its -grammatical antecedent. So according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: In the beginning -was the Word, not as an accident, but he was with God, as subsisting, and a divine -hypostasis.
-50 The fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this. You say that the Word was in -the beginning, i.,e., in the Father. But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the -Son is not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered by the statement, and the -Word was with God, taking “with” in its third condition, as indicating distinction. Thus the -meaning, according to Alcuin and Bede, is this: The Word was with God, and he was with -the Father by a consubstantiality of nature, while still being “with” him through a distinction -in person.
-51 And so, and the Word was with God, indicates: the union of the Word with the Father in -nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according to Alcuin and Bede; the -subsistence of the Word in the divine nature, according to Chrysostom; and the authorship of -the Father in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.
-52 We should also note, according to Origen, that the Word was with God shows that the -Son has always been with the Father. For in the Old Testament it says that the word of the -Lord “came” to Jeremiah or to someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture. -But it does not say that the word of the Lord was “with” Jeremiah or anyone else, because the -word “comes” to those who begin to have the word after not having it. Thus the Evangelist -did not say that the Word “came” to the Father, but was “with” the Father, because, given the +
39 Now we should consider that it says that the Word was +(erat), which is stated in the past imperfect tense. This +tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we +consider the nature of time and of the things that exist in time. +For what is future is not yet in act; but what is at present is in +act, and by the fact that it is in act what is present is not +described as having been. Now the past perfect tense indicates that +something has existed, has already come to an end, and has now +ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other hand, +indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor +has ceased to be, but still endures. Thus, whenever John mentions +eternal things he expressly says “was” (erat, +past imperfect tense), but when he refers to anything temporal he +says “has been” (fuit, past perfect tense), as +will be clear later.
+But so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way +to designate eternity is the present tense, which indicates that +some thing is in act, and this is always the characteristic of +eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): “I am who +am.” And Augustine says: “He alone truly is whose being +does not know a past and a future.
+40 We should also note that this verb was, according to the +Gloss, is not understood here as indicating temporal changes, as +other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. Thus it +is also called a substantive verb.
+41 Someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the +Father since he is begotten by the Father: for a human son, born +from a human father, is subsequent to his father.
+I answer that there are three reasons why an originative +principle is prior in duration to that which derives from that +principle. First of all, if the originative principle of anything +precedes in time the action by which it produces the thing of which +it is the principle; thus a man does not begin to write as soon as +he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time. Secondly, if an +action is successive; consequently, even if the action should +happen to begin at the same time as the agent, the termination of +the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as soon +as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend; +but the fire exists before it has ascended, because the motion by +which it tends upward requires some time. Thirdly, by the fact that +sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its +principle, just as the beginning of a creature’s coming-to-be +depends on the will of God, such that God existed before any +creature.
+Yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine +Word. God did not first exist and then begin to generate the Word: +for since the generation of the Word is nothing other than an +intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be +understanding in potency before understanding in act, which is +impossible. Again, it is impossible that the generation of the Word +involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed +before it was formed (as happens in us who form words by +“cogitating”), which is false, as was said. Again, we +cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration +for his Son by his own will, because God the Father does not +generate the Son by his will, as the Arians held, but naturally: +for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and +so God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.
+An example of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in +the brightness issuing from it: for this brightness issues +naturally and without succession from the fire. Again, if the fire +were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is +why the Son is called the brightness of the Father: “the +brightness of his glory” (Heb 1:3). But this example lacks an +illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son, +although in human sonship we do not find coeternity: for we must +attain our knowledge of divine things from many likenesses in +material things, for one likeness is not enough.
+The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with +the Father: for “brightness” indicates his +unchangeability, “birth” points to the Word himself, +but the name “Son” suggests his consubstantiality.
+42 And so we give the Son various names to express his +perfection, which cannot be expressed by one name. We call him +“Son” to show that he is of the same nature as the +Father; we call him “image” to show that he is not +unlike the Father in any way; we call him “brightness” +to show that he is coeternal; and he is called the +“Word” to show that he is begotten in an immaterial +manner.
+43 Then the Evangelist says, and +the Word was with God, which is the second clause in his +account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two +words which did not appear in the first clause, that is, +God, and with; for we have already explained the +meanings of “Word,” and “beginning. “Let us +continue carefully by examining these two new words, and to better +understand the explanation of this second clause, we must say +something about the meaning of each so far as it is relevant to our +purpose.
+44 At the outset, we should note that the name “God” +signifies the divinity concretely and as inherent in a subject, +while the name “deity” signifies the divinity in the +abstract and absolutely. Thus the name “deity” cannot +naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a [divine] +person, but only for the [divine] nature. But the name +“God” can, by its natural mode of signifying, stand for +any one of the [divine] persons, just as the name “man” +stands for any individual (suppositum) possessing humanity. +Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or its predicate +requires that the name “God” stand for the person, then +it stands for the person, as when we say, “God begets +God.” Thus, when it says here that the Word was with God, it is necessary +that God stand for the person of the Father, because the +preposition with signifies +the distinction of the Word, which is said to be with God. And although this preposition +signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a +distinction in nature, since the nature of the Father and of the +Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist wished to signify the +person of the Father when he said God.
+45 Here we should note that the preposition with signifies a certain union of the +thing signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing +signified by its grammatical object, just as the preposition +“in” does. However, there is a difference, because the +preposition “in” signifies a certain intrinsic union, +whereas the preposition with +implies in a certain way an extrinsic union. And we state both in +divine matters, namely, that the Son is in the Father and +with the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to +consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union (if we may use such an +expression, since “extrinsic” is improperly employed in +divine matters) refers only to a personal distinction, because the +Son is distinguished from the Father by origin alone. And so these +two words designate both a consubstantiality in nature and +distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain +union is implied; but distinction, inasmuch as a certain otherness +is signified as was said above.
+The preposition “in,” as was said, principally +signifies consubstantiality, as implying an intrinsic union and, by +way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every +preposition is transitive. The preposition “with” +principally signifies a personal distinction, but also a +consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so +to speak, union. For these reasons the Evangelist specifically used +here the preposition “with” in order to express the +distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying, +and the Word was with God, +that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with +another.
+46 We should note further that this preposition with has four meanings, and these +eliminate four objections. First, the preposition with signifies +the subsistence of its antecedent, because things that do not +subsist of themselves are not properly said to be +“with” another; thus we do not say that a color is with +a body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of +themselves. But things that do subsist of themselves are properly +said to be “with” another; thus we say that a man is +with a man, and a stone with a stone.
+Secondly, it signifies authority in its grammatical object. For +we do not, properly speaking, say that a king is with a soldier, +but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it asserts a +distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with +himself but rather that one man is with another. Fourthly, it +signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is +said to be with another, it suggests to us that there is some +social union between them.
+Considering these four conditions implied in the meaning of this +preposition with, the +Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, +In the beginning was the +Word, this second clause, and the Word was with God. For if we +omit one of the three explanations of, In the beginning was the Word (namely, +the one in which principium was understood as the Son), +certain heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other +explanations (namely, the one in which principium means the +same as “before all things,” and the one in which it is +understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we +can answer these by the four conditions indicated by this +preposition with.
+47 The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word +was in the beginning, i.e., before all things. But before all +things there was nothing. So if before all things there was +nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the +imaginings of those who think that whatever exists is somewhere and +in some place. But this is rejected by John when he says, +with God, which indicates +the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, according to +Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: +with God; not in some place, +since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not +enclosed by any place.
+48 The second objection against the same explanation is this. +You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., before all +things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed +from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be +prior to that which proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not +proceed from another. This objection is rejected when he says, +the Word was with God, +taking “with” according to its second condition, as +implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to +Hilary, is this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all +things? The Evangelist answers: the +Word was with God, i.e., although the Word has no beginning +of duration, still he does not lack a principium or author, +for he was with God as his author.
+49 The third objection, directed to the explanation in which +principium is understood as the Father, is this. You say +that In the beginning was the +Word, i.e., the Son was in the Father. But that which is in +something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as +the whiteness in a body does not subsist. This objection is solved +by the statement, the Word was with +God, taking “with” in its first condition, as +implying the subsistence of its grammatical antecedent. So +according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: In the beginning was the Word, not as an +accident, but he was with +God, as subsisting, and a divine hypostasis.
+50 The fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this. +You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.,e., in the Father. +But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the Son is +not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered by the +statement, and the Word was with +God, taking “with” in its third condition, as +indicating distinction. Thus the meaning, according to Alcuin and +Bede, is this: The Word was with +God, and he was with the Father by a consubstantiality of +nature, while still being “with” him through a +distinction in person.
+51 And so, and the Word was with +God, indicates: the union of the Word with the Father in +nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according +to Alcuin and Bede; the subsistence of the Word in the divine +nature, according to Chrysostom; and the authorship of the Father +in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.
+52 We should also note, according to Origen, that the Word was with God shows that the Son +has always been with the Father. For in the Old Testament it says +that the word of the Lord “came” to Jeremiah or to +someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture. But +it does not say that the word of the Lord was “with” +Jeremiah or anyone else, because the word “comes” to +those who begin to have the word after not having it. Thus the +Evangelist did not say that the Word “came” to the +Father, but was “with” the Father, because, given the Father, the Word was with him.
-53 Then he says, and the Word was God. This is the third clause in John’s account, and it -follows most appropriately considering the order of teaching. For since John had said both -when and where the Word was, it remained to inquire what the Word was, that is, the Word -was God, taking “Word” as the subject, and “God” as the predicate.
-54 But since one should first inquire what a thing is before investigating where and when it is, -it seems that John violated this order by discussing these latter first.
-Origen answers this by saying that the Word of God is with man and with God in different -ways. The Word is with man as perfecting him, because it is through him that man becomes -wise and good: “She makes friends of God and prophets” (Wis 7:27). But the Word is not -with God as though the Father were perfected and enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is -with God as receiving natural divinity from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he has -it that he is the same God with him. And so, since the Word was with God by origin, it was -necessary to show first that the Word was in the Father and with the Father before showing -that the Word was God.
-55 This clause also enables us to answer two objections which arise from the foregoing. The -first is based on the name “Word,” and is this. You say that In the beginning was the Word, -and that the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that “word” is generally understood to -signify a vocal sound and the statement of something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. -But these words pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that the -Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.
-According to Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently answered by the above -account. Augustine says (Homily I On John) that it is obvious that in this passage “Word” -cannot be understood as a statement because, since a statement is in motion and passes away, -it could not be said that In the beginning was the Word, if this Word were something -passing away and in motion. The same thing is clear from and the Word was with God: for -to be “in” another is not the same as to be “with” another. Our word, since it does not subsist, -is not “with” us, but “in” us; but the Word of God is subsistent, and therefore “with” God. -And so the Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely remove the -ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of the Word, saying, and the Word -was God.
-56 The other question comes from his saying, with God. For since “with” indicates a -distinction, it could be thought that the Word was with God, i.e., the Father, as distinct from -him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once the consubstantiality of the Word with the -Father, saying, and the Word was God. As if to say: the Word is not separated from the -Father by a diversity of nature, because the Word itself is God.
-57 Note also the special way of signifying, since he says, the Word was God, using “God” -absolutely to show that he is not God in the same way in which the name of the deity is given -to a creature in Sacred Scripture. For a creature sometimes shares this name with some added -qualification, as when it says, “I have appointed you the God of Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1), in order to -indicate that he was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the god of -someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm (81:6): “I said, ‘You are gods.’” -—as if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is called God absolutely -because he is God by his own essence, and not by participation, as men and angels are.
-58 We should note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this clause, led astray by the -Greek manner of speaking. It is the custom among the Greeks to put the article before every -name in order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of John’s Gospel the name -“Word” in the statement, In the beginning was the Word, and also the name “God” in the -statement, and the Word was with God, are prefixed by the article, so as to read “the Word” -and “the God,” in order to indicate the eminence and distinction of the Word from other -words, and the principality of the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, the Word was -God, the article is not prefixed to the noun “God,” which stands for the person of the Son. -Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word, although he was Word by essence, was not -God by essence, but is called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by essence. -And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.
-59 Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the article used with the name “God” -implied the superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be used with the -name “God” when it is used as a predicate of another, but only when it is predicated of the -Father. Further, whenever said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the article. -However, we find the opposite to be the case in two statements of the Apostle, who calls -Christ “God,” using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, “the coming of the glory of the -great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” where “God” stands for the Son, and in the Greek the -article is used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says (Rom 9:5): “Christ, who is -God over all things, blessed forever,” and again the article is used with “God” in the Greek. -Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: “That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true -God and eternal life.” Thus, Christ is not God by participation, but truly God. And so the -theory of Origen is clearly false.
-Chrysostom gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use the article with the name -“God,” namely, because he had already mentioned God twice using the article, and so it was -not necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was implied. Or, a better reason would be that -“God” is used here as the predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the -article to accompany names used as predicates, since the article indicates separation. But if -“God” were used here as the subject, it could stand for any of the persons, as the Son or the -Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be used in the Greek.
-60 Then he says, He was in the beginning with God. This is the fourth clause and is -introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the Evangelist’s statement that the -Word was God, two false interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of -these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, and say that their wills are -in opposition. For example, those who put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as -the Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord said against this error -(Dt 6:4): “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”
-Since the Evangelist had said, the Word was with God; and the Word was God, they could -adduce this in support of their error by understanding the God with whom the Word is to be -one [God],and the Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the former; and -this is against the law of the Gospel. And so to exclude this he says, He was in the beginning -with God, as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a -distinct divinity, but he is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which lie is. Further, -lest his statement, and the Word was God, be taken to mean that the Word has an opposed -will, he added that the Word was in the beginning with God, namely, the Father; not as -divided from him or opposed, but having an identity of nature with him and a harmony of -will. This union comes about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and by -the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.
-61 The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is -less than the Father because it says below (14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And they say -the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to -exclude this the Evangelist added: He was in the beginning with God. For Arius admits the -first clause, In the beginning was the Word, but he will not admit that principium should be -taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in -the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this -is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of -creatures, but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was -never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always with God.
-62 Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is -excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius -attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these -two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist -attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He -says the Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God, i.e., the Word -was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but -with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the -Word when he adds, Through him all things came into being.
-63 Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, He was in the beginning with -God, when he says that it is not separate from the first three, but is in a certain sense their -epilogue. For the Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son’s and was about to -describe his power, in a way gathers together in a summary form, in this fourth clause, what -he had said in the first three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding was -in the beginning, he recalls the first clause; and by adding with God, he recalls the second, -so that we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is different than the Word -which was God; but this Word which was God was in the beginning with God.
-64 If one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the -errors of the heretics and of the philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said -that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his -being and duration; for they held that he was a mere man, who had merited divinity by his -good works. Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the -Evangelist excludes their errors saying, In the beginning was the Word, i.e., before all -things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not derive his beginning from the Virgin.
-Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God who took flesh did not -receive his beginning from the Virgin, but existed from eternity, still said that the person of -the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the Son, who took -flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father and Son were the same person; and so he -failed to distinguish the trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this error, -and the Word was with God, i.e., the Son was with the Father, as one person with another.
-Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The Evangelist rejects this when -he says, and the Word was God. Finally, Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. -The Evangelist excludes this by saying, He was in the beginning with God, as was -explained above.
-65 These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. I`or some of the ancient -philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from -any intellect or through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not place at the -beginning as the cause of things a reason or intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, -atoms, as Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as different -philosophers inaintained. Against these the Evangelist says, In the beginning was the Word, -from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning.
-Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that were made were subsistent, i.e., -existing separately in their own natures; and material things exist by participating in these. -For example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man, which he called Man -per se. So lest you suppose, as did Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be -Ideas separated from God, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was with God.
-Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent -and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were the likenesses and -ideas of all things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such a way as to be -under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was God.
-Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the -intellect, the one understanding, and what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he -thought that the world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He, the Word -alone, was in the beginning with God, in such a way that He does not exclude another -person, but only another coeternal nature.
-66 Note the difference in what has been said between John and the other Evangelists: how he -began his Gospel on a loftier plane than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in -time: “When Jesus was born in Bethlehem” (Mt 2:1); but John presents him existing from -eternity: In the beginning was the Word. They show him suddenly appearing among men: -“Now you dismiss your servant, 0 Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes -have seen your salvation” (Lk 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the Father: and -the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: “They gave glory to God who had -given such authority to men” (Mt 9:8); but John says that he is God: and the Word was God. -The others say he lives with men: “While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them” (Mt 17:21); -but John says that he has always been with the Father: He was in the beginning with God.
-67 Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was (erat) to show that the Word -of God transcends all times: present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: He was +
53 Then he says, and the Word +was God. This is the third clause in John’s account, +and it follows most appropriately considering the order of +teaching. For since John had said both when and where +the Word was, it remained to inquire what the Word was, that +is, the Word was God, taking +“Word” as the subject, and “God” as the +predicate.
+54 But since one should first inquire what a thing is before +investigating where and when it is, it seems that John violated +this order by discussing these latter first.
+Origen answers this by saying that the Word of God is with man +and with God in different ways. The Word is with man as perfecting +him, because it is through him that man becomes wise and good: +“She makes friends of God and prophets” (Wis 7:27). But +the Word is not with God as though the Father were perfected and +enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is with God as receiving +natural divinity from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he +has it that he is the same God with him. And so, since the Word was +with God by origin, it was necessary to show first that the Word +was in the Father and with the Father before showing that the Word +was God.
+55 This clause also enables us to answer two objections which +arise from the foregoing. The first is based on the name +“Word,” and is this. You say that In the beginning was the Word, and that +the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that “word” is +generally understood to signify a vocal sound and the statement of +something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. But these words +pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that +the Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.
+According to Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently +answered by the above account. Augustine says (Homily I On +John) that it is obvious that in this passage +“Word” cannot be understood as a statement because, +since a statement is in motion and passes away, it could not be +said that In the beginning was the +Word, if this Word were something passing away and in +motion. The same thing is clear from and the Word was with God: for to be +“in” another is not the same as to be +“with” another. Our word, since it does not subsist, is +not “with” us, but “in” us; but the Word of +God is subsistent, and therefore “with” God. And so the +Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely +remove the ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of +the Word, saying, and the Word was +God.
+56 The other question comes from his saying, with God. For since “with” +indicates a distinction, it could be thought that the Word was with God, i.e., the Father, +as distinct from him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once +the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, saying, +and the Word was God. As if +to say: the Word is not separated from the Father by a diversity of +nature, because the Word itself is God.
+57 Note also the special way of signifying, since he says, +the Word was God, using +“God” absolutely to show that he is not God in the same +way in which the name of the deity is given to a creature in Sacred +Scripture. For a creature sometimes shares this name with some +added qualification, as when it says, “I have appointed you +the God of Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1), in order to indicate that he +was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the +god of someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm +(81:6): “I said, ‘You are gods.’” —as +if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is +called God absolutely because he is God by his own essence, and not +by participation, as men and angels are.
+58 We should note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this +clause, led astray by the Greek manner of speaking. It is the +custom among the Greeks to put the article before every name in +order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of +John’s Gospel the name “Word” in the statement, +In the beginning was the +Word, and also the name “God” in the statement, +and the Word was with God, +are prefixed by the article, so as to read “the Word” +and “the God,” in order to indicate the eminence and +distinction of the Word from other words, and the principality of +the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, the Word was God, the article is not +prefixed to the noun “God,” which stands for the person +of the Son. Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word, +although he was Word by essence, was not God by essence, but is +called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by +essence. And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.
+59 Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the +article used with the name “God” implied the +superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be +used with the name “God” when it is used as a predicate +of another, but only when it is predicated of the Father. Further, +whenever said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the +article. However, we find the opposite to be the case in two +statements of the Apostle, who calls Christ “God,” +using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, “the coming +of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” +where “God” stands for the Son, and in the Greek the +article is used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says +(Rom 9:5): “Christ, who is God over all things, blessed +forever,” and again the article is used with +“God” in the Greek. Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: +“That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true +God and eternal life.” Thus, Christ is not God by +participation, but truly God. And so the theory of Origen is +clearly false.
+Chrysostom gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use +the article with the name “God,” namely, because he had +already mentioned God twice using the article, and so it was not +necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was implied. Or, a +better reason would be that “God” is used here as the +predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the +article to accompany names used as predicates, since the article +indicates separation. But if “God” were used here as +the subject, it could stand for any of the persons, as the Son or +the Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be used in the +Greek.
+60 Then he says, He was in the +beginning with God. This is the fourth clause and is +introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the +Evangelist’s statement that the Word was God, two false +interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of +these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, +and say that their wills are in opposition. For example, those who +put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as the +Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord +said against this error (Dt 6:4): “Hear O Israel: The Lord +our God is one Lord.”
+Since the Evangelist had said, the Word was with God; and the Word was +God, they could adduce this in support of their error by +understanding the God with whom the Word is to be one [God],and the +Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the +former; and this is against the law of the Gospel. And so to +exclude this he says, He was in the +beginning with God, as if to say, according to Hilary: I say +that the Word is God, not as if he has a distinct divinity, but he +is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which lie is. +Further, lest his statement, and +the Word was God, be taken to mean that the Word has an +opposed will, he added that the Word was in the beginning with God, namely, +the Father; not as divided from him or opposed, but having an +identity of nature with him and a harmony of will. This union comes +about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and +by the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.
+61 The Arians were able to draw out another error from the +above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it +says below (14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And +they say the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and +as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist +added: He was in the beginning with +God. For Arius admits the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, but he +will not admit that principium should be taken for the +Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that +the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in +no sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according +to Chrysostom, by this clause, He +was in the beginning, not of creatures, but in the beginning with God, i.e., +whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without the +Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always with God.
+62 Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless +inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there +are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed +solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in +whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than +whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to +the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He +says the Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God, i.e., +the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning +of creatures (as Arius held) , but with God, receiving being and +divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word +when he adds, Through him all +things came into being.
+63 Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, +He was in the beginning with +God, when he says that it is not separate from the first +three, but is in a certain sense their epilogue. For the +Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son’s +and was about to describe his power, in a way gathers together in a +summary form, in this fourth clause, what he had said in the first +three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding +was in the beginning, he +recalls the first clause; and by adding with God, he recalls the second, so that +we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is +different than the Word which was God; but this Word which was God +was in the beginning with +God.
+64 If one considers these four propositions well, he will find +that they clearly destroy all the errors of the heretics and of the +philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that +Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her +the beginning of his being and duration; for they held that he was +a mere man, who had merited divinity by his good works. Photinus +and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the +Evangelist excludes their errors saying, In the beginning was the Word, i.e., +before all things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not +derive his beginning from the Virgin.
+Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God +who took flesh did not receive his beginning from the Virgin, but +existed from eternity, still said that the person of the Father, +who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the +Son, who took flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father +and Son were the same person; and so he failed to distinguish the +trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this +error, and the Word was with +God, i.e., the Son was with the Father, as one person with +another.
+Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. +The Evangelist rejects this when he says, and the Word was God. Finally, Arius +said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist excludes +this by saying, He was in the +beginning with God, as was explained above.
+65 These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. I`or +some of the ancient philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, +maintained that the world did not come from any intellect or +through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not +place at the beginning as the cause of things a reason or +intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, atoms, as +Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as +different philosophers inaintained. Against these the Evangelist +says, In the beginning was the +Word, from whom, and not from chance, things derive their +beginning.
+Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that +were made were subsistent, i.e., existing separately in their own +natures; and material things exist by participating in these. For +example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man, +which he called Man per se. So lest you suppose, as did +Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be Ideas +separated from God, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was with God.
+Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the +Father was most eminent and first, but under him they placed a +certain mind in which there were the likenesses and ideas of all +things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such +a way as to be under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, +and the Word was God.
+Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in +God, and that in God, the intellect, the one understanding, and +what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he thought that the +world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He, +the Word alone, was in the +beginning with God, in such a way that He does not exclude +another person, but only another coeternal nature.
+66 Note the difference in what has been said between John and +the other Evangelists: how he began his Gospel on a loftier plane +than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in time: +“When Jesus was born in Bethlehem” (Mt 2:1); but John +presents him existing from eternity: In the beginning was the Word. They show +him suddenly appearing among men: “Now you dismiss your +servant, 0 Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes +have seen your salvation” (Lk 2:29); but John says that he +always existed with the Father: and the Word was with God. The +others show him as a man: “They gave glory to God who had +given such authority to men” (Mt 9:8); but John says that he +is God: and the Word was God. The others say he lives with men: +“While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them” (Mt +17:21); but John says that he has always been with the Father: +He was in the beginning with +God.
+67 Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was +(erat) to show that the Word of God transcends all times: +present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: He was beyond time: present, past and future, as the Gloss says.
--
- LECTURE 2
-3 All things were made through him,
-and without him nothing was made.
-What was made 4a in him was life.68 After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of the Divine Word, so far as it -can be told by man, he then shows the might of his power. First, he shows his power with -respect to all things that come into existence. Secondly, with respect to man. As to the first, -he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish these at present because they will be -distinguished in different ways according to the different explanations given by the saints.
-69 The first clause, All thifngs were made through him, is used to show three things -concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the -Father. For as stated earlier, the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed -the coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, “He was in the beginning with God.” -Here he excludes the same error when he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, All -things were made through him. For to be the principle of all the things that are made is -proper to the great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, “Whatever the Lord wills he -does, in heaven and on earth.”Thus the Word, through whom all things were made, is God, -great and coequal to the Father.
-70 Secondly, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show the coeternity of the Word with -the Father. For since someone might understand the earlier statement, “In the beginning was -the Word,” as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that before there were any creatures -there was a time in which the Word did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, All -things were made through him. For if all things were made through the Word, then time -was also. From this we can form the following argument: If all time was made through him, -there was no time before him or with him, because before all these, he was. Therefore they -[the Son and the Father] are eternally coeternal.
-71 Thirdly, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show the consubstantiality of the -Word with the Father. For if all things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot -be said to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word, since all -things were made through the Word. Consequently, there would have been another Word -through whom was made the Word of whom the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through -whom all things are made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither made -nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same -substance with the Father, since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a -substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through whom all things were made, -is consubstantial with the Father, since he is neither made, nor is he a creature.
-72 And so in saying All things were made through him, you have, according to -Chrysostom, the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the Word with the -Father, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according -to Augustine.
-73 Here we must guard against three errors. First, the error of Valentine. He understood All -things were made through him to mean that the Word proferred to the Creator the cause of -his creating the world; so that all things were made through the Word as if the Father’s -creating the world came from the Word. This leads to the position of those who said that God -created the world because of some exterior cause; and this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), -“The Lord made all things for himself.” The reason this is an error is that, as Origen says, if -the Word had been a cause to the Creator by offering him the material for making things, he -would not have said, All things were made through him, but on the contrary, that all things -were made through the Creator by the Word.
-74 Secondly, we must avoid the error of Origen. He said that the Holy Spirit was included -among all the things made through the Word; from which it follows that he is a creature. And -this is what Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy Spirit has the -same glory and substance and dignity as the Father and the Son, according to the words of -Matthew (28:19), “Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the -Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And, “There are three who give testimony’ in -heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” (l Jn 5:7). Thus -when the Evangelist says, All things were made through him, one should not understand -“all things” absolutely, but in the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All -things that were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if “all things” were taken -absolutely, it would follow that the Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him; and -this is blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor anything substantial with the Father -was made through the Word.
-75 Thirdly, we must avoid another of Origen’s errors. For he said that all things were made -through the Word as something is made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were -inferior to, and an instrument of, the Father. But it is clear from many places in Scripture that -the preposition “through” (per) does not signify inferiority in the thing which is its -grammatical object, i.e., in the Son or Word. For the Apostle says, “God is faithful, through -whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son” (1 Cor 1:9). If he “through” whom -something is done has a superior, then the Father has a superior. But this is false. Therefore, -the preposition “through” does not signify any inferiority in the Son when all things are said -to have been made through him.
-76 To explain this point further, we should note that when something is said to be made -through someone, the preposition “through” (per) denotes some sort of causality in its object -with respect to an operation; but not always the same kind of causality. For since an -operation, according to our manner of signifying, is considered to be medial between the one -acting and the thing produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two ways. In one way, -as issuing from the one operating, who is the cause of the action itself; in another way, as -terminated in the thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition “through” sometimes signifies -the cause of the operation insofar as it issues from the one operating: but sometimes as -terminated in the thing which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as issuing -from the one operating when the object of the preposition is either the efficient or formal -cause why the one operating is operating. For example, we have a formal cause when fire is -heating through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the fire’s heating. We have a movent or -efficient cause in cases where secondary agents act through primary agents; as when I say that -the bailiff acts through the king, because the king is the efficient cause of the bailiff’s acting. -This is the way Valentine understood that all things were made through the Word: as though -the Word were the cause of the maker’s production of all things. The preposition “through” -implies the causality of the operation as terminated in the thing produced when what is -signified through that causality is not the cause which operates, but the cause of the operation -precisely as terminated in the thing produced. So when I say, “The carpenter is making a -bench through [by means of] a hatchet,” the hatchet is not the cause of the carpenter’s -operating; but we do say that it is the cause of the bench’s being made by the one acting.
-And so when it says that All things were made through him, if the “through” denotes the -efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act, then in this sense the Father does nothing -through the Son, but he does all things through himself, as has been said. But if the “through” -denotes a formal cause, as when the Father operates through his widsom, which is his -essence, he operates through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because the -wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as when we say, “Christ, the power -of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24), then by appropriation we say that the Father -does all things through the Son, i.e., through his wisdom. And so Augustine says that the -phrase “from whom all things,” is appropriated to the Father; “through whom all things,” is -appropriated to the Son; and “in whom all things,” is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if -the “through” denotes causality from the standpoint of the thing produced, then the statement, -“The Father does all things through the Son,” is not [mere] appropriation but proper to the -Word, because the fact that he is a cause of creatures is had from someone else, namely the -Father, from whom he has being.
-However, it does not follow from this that the Word is the instrument of the Father, although -whatever is moved by another to effect something partakes of the nature of an instrument. For -when I say that someone works through a power received from another, this can be -understood in two ways. In one way, as meaning that the power of the giver and of the -receiver is numerically one and the same power; and in this way the one operating through a -power received from another is not inferior but equal to the one from whom he receives it. -Therefore, since the same power which the Father has he gives to the Son, through which the -Son works, when it is said that “the Father works through the Son,” one should not on that -account say that the Son is inferior to the Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, -rather, in those who receive from another not the same power, but another and created one. -And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor the Son are causes of the Father’s working, -and that neither is the minister or instrument of the Father, as Origen raved.
-77 If we carefully consider the words, All things were made through him, we can clearly -see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude. For whoever makes something must -preconceive it in his wisdom, which is the form and pattern of the thing made: as the form -preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the pattern of the cabinet to be made. So, God makes -nothing except through the conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived -wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly, it is impossible that he -should make anything except through the Son. And so Augustine says, in The Trinity, that the -Word is the art full of the living patterns of all things. Thus it is clear that all things which the -Father makes, he makes through him.
-78 It should be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the things which Moses -enumerates individually in God’s production of things, saying, “And God said, ‘Let there be -light’” (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, -saying, All things were made through him. The reason is that Moses wished to teach the -emanation of creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But John, hastening -toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead us specifically to a knowledge of the Creator -himself.
-79 Then he says, and without him nothing was made. This is the second clause which some -have distorted, as Augustine says in his work, The Nature of the Good. Because of John’s -manner of speaking here, they believed that he was using “nothing” in an affirmative sense; -as though nothing was something which was made without the Word. And so they claimed -that this clause was added by the Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not -made by the Word. They say that the Evangelist, having said that All things were made -through him, added and without him nothing was made. It was as if to say: I say that all -things were made through him in such a way that still something was made without him, that -is, the “nothing”.
-80 Three heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He affirmed, as Origen says, a -multitude of principles, and taught that from them came thirty eras. The first principles he -postulates are two: the Deep, which he calls God the Father, and Silence. And from these -proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and from Silence, he says, there are two other principles, -Mind and Truth; and from these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two -other principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras; thus making a total of -thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life there proceeded in time, the man Christ and the -Church. In this way Valentine affirmed many eras previous to the issuing forth of the Word. -And so he said that because the Evangelist had stated that all things were made through -him, then, lest anyone think that those previous eras had been effected through the Word, he -added, and without him nothing was made, i.e., all the preceding eras and all that had -existed in them. All of these John calls “nothing,” because they transcend human reason and -cannot be grasped by the mind.
-81 The second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus, who affirmed two opposing -principles: one is the source of incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He -said that after John had stated that All things were made through him, then, lest it be -thought that the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately added, and without -him nothing was made, i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called “nothing” because -their being consists in being continually transformed into nothing.
-82 The third error is that of those who claim that by “nothing” we should understand the -devil, according to Job (18:15), “May the companions of him who is not dwell in his house.” -And so they say that all things except the devil were made through the Word. In this way they -explain, without him nothing was made, that is, the devil.
-83 All these three errors, arising as they do from the same source, namely, taking “nothing” in -a positive sense, are excluded by the fact that “nothing” in not used here in an affirmative, but -in a merely negative sense: the sense being that all things were made through the Word in -such a way that there is nothing participating in existence that was not made through him.
-84 Perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous to add this clause, if it is to be -understood negatively, on the ground that the Evangelist, in stating that All things were -made through him, seems to have already said adequately enough that there is not -something that was not made through the Word.
-The answer to this is that, according to many expositors, this clause was added in many ways -for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one -reading the Old Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the creation of -things, would think that these were the only things made through the Word. And so after he -had said, All things were made through him, namely, those that Moses listed, the -Evangelist then added, and without him nothing was made, as though he were saying: None -of the things which exist, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. Indeed, -the Apostle also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that all things, visible and invisible, -were created in Christ; and here the Apostle makes specific mention of invisible things -because Moses had made no express mention of them on account of the lack of erudition of -that people, who could not be raised above the things of sense.
-Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added. For someone reading in the -Gospels of the many signs and miracles worked by Christ, such as, “The blind see, the lame -walk, lepers are cleansed” (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying, All things were made -through him, John meant that only the things mentioned in those Gospels, and nothing else, -were made through him. So lest anyone suspect this, the Evangelist adds, and without him -nothing was made. As if to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made -through him, but none of the things that were made, was made without him. And so, -according to Chrysostom, this clause is added to bring out his total causality, and serves, as it -were, to complete his previous statement.
-85 According to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to show that the Word has -operative power from another. For since the Evangelist had said, All things were made -through him, it might be supposed that the Father is excluded from all causality. For that -reason he added, and without him nothing was made. As if to say: All things were made -through him, but in such a way that the Father made all things with him. For “without him” is -equivalent to saying, “not alone,” so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through whom all -things were made, but he is the other one without whom nothing was made. It is as if he said: -Without him, with another working, i.e., with the Father, nothing was made, as it says, “I -was with him forming all things” (Prv 8:30).
-86 In a certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins, “The spiritual voice of the -eagle,” we find another rather beautiful exposition. It says there that the Greek has thoris -where the Latin has sine (without). Now thoris is the same as “outside” or “outside of.” It is -as if he had said: All things were made through him in such a way that outside him nothing -was made. And so he says this to show that all things are conserved through the Word and in -the Word, as stated in Hebrews ( 1:3), “He sustains all things by his powerful word.” Now -there are certain things that do not need their producer except to bring them into existence, -since after they have been produced they are able to subsist without any further activity on the -part of the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to come into existence, but -it continues to exist without any further action on the part of the builder. So lest anyone -suppose that all things were made through the Word in such a way that he is merely the cause -of their production and not of their continuation in existence, the Evangelist added, and -without him nothing was made, i.e., nothing was made outside of him, because he -encompasses all things, preserving them.
-87 This clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and several others in such a way -that “nothing” indicates sin. Accordingly, because All things were made through him might -be interpreted as including evil and sin, he added, and without him nothing, i.e., sin, was -made. For just as art is not the principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is through -itself the cause of their perfection and form, so the Word, who is the art of the Father, full of -living archetypes, is not the cause of any evil or disarrangement in things, particularly of the -evil of sin, which carries the full notion of evil. The per se cause of this evil is the will of the -creature, either a man or an angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained by its -nature. One who can act in virtue of his art but purposely violates it, is the cause of the -defects occurring in his works, not by reason of his art, but by reason of his will. So in such -cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but his will is. Consequently, evil is a -defect of the will and not of any art. And so to the extent that it is such [i.e., a defect], it is +
+
++ +LECTURE 2
+3 All things were made through him,
+
+and without him nothing was made.
+What was made 4a in him was life.68 After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of +the Divine Word, so far as it can be told by man, he then shows the +might of his power. First, he shows his power with respect to all +things that come into existence. Secondly, with respect to man. As +to the first, he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish +these at present because they will be distinguished in different +ways according to the different explanations given by the +saints.
+69 The first clause, All thifngs +were made through him, is used to show three things +concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the +equality of the Word to the Father. For as stated earlier, the +error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed the +coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, “He was in +the beginning with God.” Here he excludes the same error when +he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, All things were made through him. For to +be the principle of all the things that are made is proper to the +great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, “Whatever +the Lord wills he does, in heaven and on earth.”Thus the +Word, through whom all things were made, is God, great and coequal +to the Father.
+70 Secondly, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show +the coeternity of the Word with the Father. For since someone might +understand the earlier statement, “In the beginning was the +Word,” as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that +before there were any creatures there was a time in which the Word +did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, All things were made through him. For if +all things were made through the Word, then time was also. From +this we can form the following argument: If all time was made +through him, there was no time before him or with him, because +before all these, he was. Therefore they [the Son and the Father] +are eternally coeternal.
+71 Thirdly, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show +the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father. For if all +things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot be said +to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word, +since all things were made through the Word. Consequently, there +would have been another Word through whom was made the Word of whom +the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through whom all things are +made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither +made nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is +necessary to say that he is of the same substance with the Father, +since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a +substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through +whom all things were made, is consubstantial with the Father, since +he is neither made, nor is he a creature.
+72 And so in saying All things +were made through him, you have, according to Chrysostom, +the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the +Word with the Father, according to Hilary; and the +consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according to +Augustine.
+73 Here we must guard against three errors. First, the error of +Valentine. He understood All things +were made through him to mean that the Word proferred to the +Creator the cause of his creating the world; so that all things +were made through the Word as if the Father’s creating the +world came from the Word. This leads to the position of those who +said that God created the world because of some exterior cause; and +this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), “The Lord made all +things for himself.” The reason this is an error is that, as +Origen says, if the Word had been a cause to the Creator by +offering him the material for making things, he would not have +said, All things were made through +him, but on the contrary, that all things were made through +the Creator by the Word.
+74 Secondly, we must avoid the error of Origen. He said that the +Holy Spirit was included among all the things made through the +Word; from which it follows that he is a creature. And this is what +Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy +Spirit has the same glory and substance and dignity as the Father +and the Son, according to the words of Matthew (28:19), “Make +disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the +Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And, +“There are three who give testimony’ in heaven, the +Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are +one” (l Jn 5:7). Thus when the Evangelist says, All things were made through him, one +should not understand “all things” absolutely, but in +the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All things +that were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if “all +things” were taken absolutely, it would follow that the +Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him; and this is +blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor anything +substantial with the Father was made through the Word.
+75 Thirdly, we must avoid another of Origen’s errors. For +he said that all things were made through the Word as something is +made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were inferior to, +and an instrument of, the Father. But it is clear from many places +in Scripture that the preposition “through” +(per) does not signify inferiority in the thing which is its +grammatical object, i.e., in the Son or Word. For the Apostle says, +“God is faithful, through whom you were called into the +fellowship of his Son” (1 Cor 1:9). If he +“through” whom something is done has a superior, then +the Father has a superior. But this is false. Therefore, the +preposition “through” does not signify any inferiority +in the Son when all things are said to have been made through +him.
+76 To explain this point further, we should note that when +something is said to be made through someone, the preposition +“through” (per) denotes some sort of causality +in its object with respect to an operation; but not always the same +kind of causality. For since an operation, according to our manner +of signifying, is considered to be medial between the one acting +and the thing produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two +ways. In one way, as issuing from the one operating, who is the +cause of the action itself; in another way, as terminated in the +thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition “through” +sometimes signifies the cause of the operation insofar as it issues +from the one operating: but sometimes as terminated in the thing +which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as +issuing from the one operating when the object of the preposition +is either the efficient or formal cause why the one operating is +operating. For example, we have a formal cause when fire is heating +through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the fire’s +heating. We have a movent or efficient cause in cases where +secondary agents act through primary agents; as when I say that the +bailiff acts through the king, because the king is the efficient +cause of the bailiff’s acting. This is the way Valentine +understood that all things were made through the Word: as though +the Word were the cause of the maker’s production of all +things. The preposition “through” implies the causality +of the operation as terminated in the thing produced when what is +signified through that causality is not the cause which operates, +but the cause of the operation precisely as terminated in the thing +produced. So when I say, “The carpenter is making a bench +through [by means of] a hatchet,” the hatchet is not the +cause of the carpenter’s operating; but we do say that it is +the cause of the bench’s being made by the one acting.
+And so when it says that All +things were made through him, if the “through” +denotes the efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act, +then in this sense the Father does nothing through the Son, but he +does all things through himself, as has been said. But if the +“through” denotes a formal cause, as when the Father +operates through his widsom, which is his essence, he operates +through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because +the wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as +when we say, “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of +God” (1 Cor 1:24), then by appropriation we say that the +Father does all things through the Son, i.e., through his wisdom. +And so Augustine says that the phrase “from whom all +things,” is appropriated to the Father; “through whom +all things,” is appropriated to the Son; and “in whom +all things,” is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if the +“through” denotes causality from the standpoint of the +thing produced, then the statement, “The Father does all +things through the Son,” is not [mere] appropriation but +proper to the Word, because the fact that he is a cause of +creatures is had from someone else, namely the Father, from whom he +has being.
+However, it does not follow from this that the Word is the +instrument of the Father, although whatever is moved by another to +effect something partakes of the nature of an instrument. For when +I say that someone works through a power received from another, +this can be understood in two ways. In one way, as meaning that the +power of the giver and of the receiver is numerically one and the +same power; and in this way the one operating through a power +received from another is not inferior but equal to the one from +whom he receives it. Therefore, since the same power which the +Father has he gives to the Son, through which the Son works, when +it is said that “the Father works through the Son,” one +should not on that account say that the Son is inferior to the +Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, rather, in +those who receive from another not the same power, but another and +created one. And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor +the Son are causes of the Father’s working, and that neither +is the minister or instrument of the Father, as Origen raved.
+77 If we carefully consider the words, All things were made through him, we can +clearly see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude. +For whoever makes something must preconceive it in his wisdom, +which is the form and pattern of the thing made: as the form +preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the pattern of the +cabinet to be made. So, God makes nothing except through the +conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived +wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly, +it is impossible that he should make anything except through the +Son. And so Augustine says, in The Trinity, that the Word is +the art full of the living patterns of all things. Thus it is clear +that all things which the Father makes, he makes through him.
+78 It should be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the +things which Moses enumerates individually in God’s +production of things, saying, “And God said, ‘Let there +be light’” (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the +Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, saying, +All things were made through +him. The reason is that Moses wished to teach the emanation +of creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But +John, hastening toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead +us specifically to a knowledge of the Creator himself.
+79 Then he says, and without him +nothing was made. This is the second clause which some have +distorted, as Augustine says in his work, The Nature of the +Good. Because of John’s manner of speaking here, they +believed that he was using “nothing” in an affirmative +sense; as though nothing was something which was made without the +Word. And so they claimed that this clause was added by the +Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not made by the +Word. They say that the Evangelist, having said that All things were made through him, added +and without him nothing was +made. It was as if to say: I say that all things were made +through him in such a way that still something was made without +him, that is, the “nothing”.
+80 Three heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He +affirmed, as Origen says, a multitude of principles, and taught +that from them came thirty eras. The first principles he postulates +are two: the Deep, which he calls God the Father, and Silence. And +from these proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and from Silence, he +says, there are two other principles, Mind and Truth; and from +these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two +other principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras; +thus making a total of thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life +there proceeded in time, the man Christ and the Church. In this way +Valentine affirmed many eras previous to the issuing forth of the +Word. And so he said that because the Evangelist had stated that +all things were made through +him, then, lest anyone think that those previous eras had +been effected through the Word, he added, and without him nothing was made, i.e., +all the preceding eras and all that had existed in them. All of +these John calls “nothing,” because they transcend +human reason and cannot be grasped by the mind.
+81 The second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus, +who affirmed two opposing principles: one is the source of +incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He said +that after John had stated that All +things were made through him, then, lest it be thought that +the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately added, +and without him nothing was +made, i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called +“nothing” because their being consists in being +continually transformed into nothing.
+82 The third error is that of those who claim that by +“nothing” we should understand the devil, according to +Job (18:15), “May the companions of him who is not dwell in +his house.” And so they say that all things except the devil +were made through the Word. In this way they explain, without him nothing was made, that is, +the devil.
+83 All these three errors, arising as they do from the same +source, namely, taking “nothing” in a positive sense, +are excluded by the fact that “nothing” in not used +here in an affirmative, but in a merely negative sense: the sense +being that all things were made through the Word in such a way that +there is nothing participating in existence that was not made +through him.
+84 Perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous +to add this clause, if it is to be understood negatively, on the +ground that the Evangelist, in stating that All things were made through him, seems +to have already said adequately enough that there is not something +that was not made through the Word.
+The answer to this is that, according to many expositors, this +clause was added in many ways for a number of reasons. One of these +reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one reading the Old +Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the +creation of things, would think that these were the only things +made through the Word. And so after he had said, All things were made through him, +namely, those that Moses listed, the Evangelist then added, +and without him nothing was +made, as though he were saying: None of the things which +exist, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. +Indeed, the Apostle also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that +all things, visible and invisible, were created in Christ; and here +the Apostle makes specific mention of invisible things because +Moses had made no express mention of them on account of the lack of +erudition of that people, who could not be raised above the things +of sense.
+Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added. +For someone reading in the Gospels of the many signs and miracles +worked by Christ, such as, “The blind see, the lame walk, +lepers are cleansed” (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying, +All things were made through +him, John meant that only the things mentioned in those +Gospels, and nothing else, were made through him. So lest anyone +suspect this, the Evangelist adds, and without him nothing was made. As if +to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made +through him, but none of the things that were made, was made +without him. And so, according to Chrysostom, this clause is added +to bring out his total causality, and serves, as it were, to +complete his previous statement.
+85 According to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to +show that the Word has operative power from another. For since the +Evangelist had said, All things +were made through him, it might be supposed that the Father +is excluded from all causality. For that reason he added, +and without him nothing was +made. As if to say: All things were made through him, but in +such a way that the Father made all things with him. For +“without him” is equivalent to saying, “not +alone,” so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through +whom all things were made, but he is the other one without whom +nothing was made. It is as if he said: Without him, with another working, i.e., +with the Father, nothing was +made, as it says, “I was with him forming all +things” (Prv 8:30).
+86 In a certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins, +“The spiritual voice of the eagle,” we find another +rather beautiful exposition. It says there that the Greek has +thoris where the Latin has sine (without). Now +thoris is the same as “outside” or +“outside of.” It is as if he had said: All things were made through him in such +a way that outside him nothing was +made. And so he says this to show that all things are +conserved through the Word and in the Word, as stated in Hebrews ( +1:3), “He sustains all things by his powerful word.” +Now there are certain things that do not need their producer except +to bring them into existence, since after they have been produced +they are able to subsist without any further activity on the part +of the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to +come into existence, but it continues to exist without any further +action on the part of the builder. So lest anyone suppose that all +things were made through the Word in such a way that he is merely +the cause of their production and not of their continuation in +existence, the Evangelist added, and without him nothing was made, i.e., +nothing was made outside of him, because he encompasses all things, +preserving them.
+87 This clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and +several others in such a way that “nothing” indicates +sin. Accordingly, because All +things were made through him might be interpreted as +including evil and sin, he added, and without him nothing, i.e., sin, +was made. For just as art is +not the principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is +through itself the cause of their perfection and form, so the Word, +who is the art of the Father, full of living archetypes, is not the +cause of any evil or disarrangement in things, particularly of the +evil of sin, which carries the full notion of evil. The per +se cause of this evil is the will of the creature, either a man +or an angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained +by its nature. One who can act in virtue of his art but purposely +violates it, is the cause of the defects occurring in his works, +not by reason of his art, but by reason of his will. So in such +cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but his +will is. Consequently, evil is a defect of the will and not of any +art. And so to the extent that it is such [i.e., a defect], it is nothing.
-88 So then, this clause is added to show the universal causality of the Word, according to -Chrysostom; his association with the Father, according to Hilary; the power of the Word in -the preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the purity of his causality, because -he is so the cause of good as not to be the cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a -number of others.
-89 Then he says, What was made in him was life; and this is the third clause. Here we must -avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this to maintain that everything -that exists is alive: for example, stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world. He -understood the clause this way: What was made in him, comma, was life. But it was not life -unless alive. Therefore, whatever was made in him is alive. He also claimed that “in him” is -the same as saying “through him,” since very often in Scripture “in him” and “through him” -are interchangeable, as in “in him and through him all things were created” (Col 1:16). -However, our present explanation shows that this interpretation is false.
-90 There are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it without error. In that homily, “The -spiritual voice,” we find this explanation: What was made in him, i.e., through him, was -life, not in each thing itself, but in its cause. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is -always true that effects, whether produced by nature or by will, exist in their causes, not -according to their own existence, but according to the power of their appropriate cause. Thus, -lower effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their respective existences but -according to the power of the sun. Therefore, since the cause of all effects produced by God is -a certain life and an art full of living archetypes, for this reason What was made in him, i.e., -through him, was life, in its cause, i.e., in God.
-91 Augustine reads this another way, as: What was made, comma, in him was life. For -things can be considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are in the Word. -If they are considered as they are in themselves, then it is not true that all things are life or -even alive, but some lack life and some are alive. For example, the earth was made and -metals were made, but none is life, none is living; animals and men were made, and these, -considered in themselves, are not life, but merely living. Yet considered as they are in the -Word, they are not merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist spiritually in -the wisdom of God, and through which things were made by the Word, are life, just as a chest -made by an artisan is in itself neither alive nor life, yet the exemplar of the chest in the -artisan’s mind prior to the existence of the chest is in some sense living, insofar as it has an -intellectual existence in the mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is neither -in his essence nor is it his existence through the act of understanding of the artisan. But in -God, his act of understanding is his life and his essence. And so whatever is in God is not -only living, but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his essence. Hence the creature in -God is the creating essence. Thus, if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are -life. This is explained in another place.
-92 Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus: That which was made in him; -and then, was life. Here we should note that some things are said of the Son of God as such; -for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some things are said of him in -relation to ourselves; for example, we say he is Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in -both ways, such as wisdom and justice. Now in all things said absolutely and of the Son as -such, it is not said that he was “made”, for example, we do not say that the Son was made -God or omnipotent. But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways, the notion of being -made can be used, as in, “God made him [Jesus Christ] our wisdom, our justice, our -sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). And so, although he was always wisdom and -justice in himself, yet it can be said that he was newly made justice and wisdom for us.
-And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that although in himself the Son is life, -yet he was made life for us by the fact that he gave us life, as is said, “Just as in Adam all die, -so in Christ all will come to life” (1 Cor 15:22). And so he says “the Word that was made” -life for us in himself was life, so that after a time he could become life for us; and so he -immediately adds, and that life was the light of men.
-93 Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: And without him was made nothing, which -was made in him, and later it says, he was life. For he says (The Trinity II) that when the -Evangelist says without him nothing was made, one might be perplexed and ask whether -there are still other things made by him, that were not made through him, although not -without him, but with respect to which he was associated with the maker; and this clause is -added to correct the aforesaid error. Therefore lest this be so understood, when the Evangelist -says, All things were made through him, he adds, and without him nothing was made, -which was made, in him, that is, through him; and the reason for this is that he was life.
-For it is plain that all things are said to have been made through the Word inasmuch as the -Word, who proceeds from the Father, is God. But let us suppose that some father has a son -who does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but reaches such a state gradually. In -that case the father will do many things, not through the son, yet not without [having] him. -Since, therefore, the Son of God has from all eternity the same life that the Father has—“Just -as the Father possesses life in himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in himself” -(below 5:26)—one cannot say that God the Father, although he made nothing without the -Son, nevertheless made some things not through him, because he was life. For in living things -which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life precedes perfect life; but in per se life, -which does not participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no imperfection -at all. Accordingly, because the Word is per se life, there was never imperfect life in him, but -always perfect life. And so in such a way that nothing was made without him that was not -also made in him, i.e., through him.
-94 Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus: And without him was made -nothing that was made. The reason for this is that someone might believe that the Holy -Spirit was made through the Word. So to exclude this, the Evangelist says, that was made, -because the Holy Spirit is not something that is made. And afterward follows, In him was -life, which is introduced for two reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things his -causality was indefectible not only with respect to the things already produced, but also with -respect to things yet to be produced. As if to say: In him was life, by which he could not only -produce all things, but which has an unfailing flow and a causality for producing things -continually without undergoing any change, being a living fountain which is not diminished -in spite of its continuous outflow; whereas collected water, that is not living [i..e., running] -water, is diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10) says, “With you -is the fountain of life.” The second reason is to show that things are governed by the: Word. -For since In him was life, this shows that he produced things by his intellect and will, not by -a necessity of his nature, and that he governs the things he made. “The Word of God is -living” (Heb 4:12).
-Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his explanations that they admit no other -where he expounded anything in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek -works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely, And without him was -made nothing that was made.
--
- LECTURE 3
-4b And that life was the light of men.
-5 And the light shines in the darkness,
-and the darkness did not overcome it.95 Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar as he brought all things -into existence; here he describes his power as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a -light to men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v 4b); secondly, the light’s irradiation -(v 5a); thirdly, participation in the light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two -ways: first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, according to participation -in grace.
-As to the first point he says, And that life was the light of men.
-96 Here we should note first that, according to Augustine and many others, light is more -properly said of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose, however, thinks that -brightness is said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in whatever way the -name “light” is used, it implies a manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible -or sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible manifestation, then, according to -the nature of things, light is found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to -things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is discovered first in sensible -things, because we first used this name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; -although as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer way than to sensible -things.
-97 To clarify the statement, And that life was the light of men, we should remark that there -are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without light, because they have no -knowledge; for example, plants. Hence their life is not light. Other things both live and know, -but their knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with individual and -material things, as is the case with the brutes. So they have both life and a certain light. But -they do not have the light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the very -nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom not only this or that are made -manifest, but truth itself, which can be manifested and is manifestive to all.
-And so the Evangelist, speaking of the Word, not only says that he is life but also light, lest -anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says that he is the light of men, -lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as exists in the brutes.
-98 But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of men? Two answers have been -given to this. Chrysostom says that the Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a -knowledge of the Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men and therefore refers, in -keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels. Origen, however, says that participation in -this light pertains to men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the -Evangelist says, the light of men, he wants us to understand every rational nature.
-99 We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this life, because it is intellectual or -rational. For whereas all things that in some way move themselves are called living, only -those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life; and among lower creatures -only man moves himself, properly speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are -moved by themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is nevertheless not open to -opposite alternatives; hence they are not moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those -things that are moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act themselves. But -man, since he is master of his act, moves himself freely to all that he wills. Consequently, -man has perfect life, as does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which is -the light of men, is perfect life.
-100 We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural order of things, existence is first; -and the Evangelist implies this in his first statement, In the beginning was the Word. -Secondly, comes life; and this is mentioned next, In him was life. Thirdly comes -understanding; and that is mentioned next; And that life was the light of men. And, -according to Origen, he fittingly attributes light to life because light can be attributed only to -the living.
-101 We should note that light can be related in two ways to what is living: as an object and as -something in which they participate, as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external -light as an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an inner light by which the -eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing the external light. And so his statement, And that -life was the light of men, can be understood in two ways. First, that the light of men is taken -as an object that man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can see it, since -he alone is capable of the vision of God who “teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, -and enlightens us more than the birds of the air” Jb 35:11); for although other animals may -know certain things that are true, nevertheless, man alone knows the nature itself of truth.
-The light of men can also be taken as a light in which we participate. For we would never be -able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a participation in it; and this -participation is in man and is the superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about -which the Psalm (4:7) says, “The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us,” i.e., -of your Son, who is your face, by whom you are manifested.
-102 Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now considers its irradiation, saying, -And the light shines in the darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two -meanings of “darkness.”
-First, we might take “darkness” as a natural defect, that of the created mind. For the mind is -to that light of which the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun; because, -although air is receptive of the light of the sun, considered in itself it is a darkness. According -to this the meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, shines in the darkness, -i.e., in created souls and minds, by always shedding its light on all. “On a man from whom -the light is hidden” (Jb 3:23).
-And the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to overcome -something [comprehendere, to overcome, to comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so -forth], is to enclose and understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the -mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is impossible. And so, the -darkness did not overcome it. “Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb 36:26); -“Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought” as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is -found in that homily which begins, “The spiritual voice of the eagle.”
-103 We can explain this passage in another way by taking “darkness” as Augustine does, for -the natural lack of wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. “And I saw that wisdom -excells folly as much as light excells knowledge” (Ecc 2:13). Someone is without wisdom, -therefore, because he lacks the light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the -wise are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and wisdom, so by the lack of it -they are darkness. Now the fact that some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, -since on its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather, the foolish are -‘without that light because the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., they did not apprehend it, -not being able to attain a participation in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted -up, they did not persevere. “From the savage,” i.e., from the proud, “he hides his light,” i.e., -the light of wisdom, “and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may approach -it” (Jb 36:32); “They did not know the way to wisdom, nor did they remember her paths” (Bar -3:23).
-Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and lucid wisdom, nevertheless no -man is in such darkness as to be completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is -know by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in the darkness; for every -truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men -in darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the way, [ i.e., with respect to -the natural influx of knowledge] that Origen and Augustine explain this clause.
-104 Starting from And that life was the light of men, we can explain this in another way, -according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by Christ.
-After he had considered the creation of things through the Word, the Evangelist considers -here the restoration of the rational creature through Christ, saying, And that life, of the Word, -was the light of men, i.e., of all men in general, and not only of the Jews. For the Son of God -assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with grace and truth. “I came into -the world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37); “As long as I am in the world I am -the light of the world” (below 9:5). So he does not say, “the light of the Jews,” because -although previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known to the world. “I -have given you as a light to the nations, that you might be my salvation to the ends of the -earth” (Is 49:6).
-It was fitting to join light and life by saying, And that life was the light of men, in order to -show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, through a participation in grace, -“Grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge of -truth and wisdom.
-105 According to this explanation, the light shines in the darkness, can be expounded in -three ways, in the light of the three meanings of “darkness.”
-In one way, we can take “darkness” for punishment. For any sadness and suffering of heart -can be called a darkness, just as any joy can be called a light. “When I sit in darkness and in -suffering the Lord is my light,” i.e., my joy and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In -this explanation, the light shines in the darkness, is Christ coming into the world, having a -body capable of suffering and without sin, but “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). The -light is in the flesh, that is, the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a -likeness to sinful flesh. As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word of God, veiled about by the -darkness of the flesh, shines on the world; “I will cover the sun with a cloud” (Ez 32:7).
-106 Secondly, we can take “darkness” to mean the devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), “Our -struggle is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the -rulers of the world of this darkness.” Looked at this way he says, the light, i.e., the Son of -God, shines in the darkness, i.e., has descended into the world where darkness, i.e., the -devils, hold sway: “Now the prince of this world will be cast out” (below 12:31). And the -darkness, i.e., the devils, did not overcome it, i.e., were unable to obscure him by their -temptations, as is plain in Matthew (c 4)
-107 Thirdly, we can take “darkness” for the error or ignorance which filled the whole world -before the coming of Christ, “You were at one time darkness” (Eph 5:8). And so he says that -the light, i.e., the incarnate Word of God, shines in the darkness, i.e., upon the men of the -world, who are blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. “To enlighten those who sit in -darkness and in the shadow of death” (Lk 1:79), “The people who were sitting in darkness -saw a great light” (Is 9:2).
-And the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., did not overcome him. For in spite of the -number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by pride, who have -struggled against Christ (as is plain from the Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and -calumnies upon him, and finally killing him, nevertheless they did not overcome it, i.e., gain -the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness would not shine throughout the whole -world. Wisdom (7:30) says, “Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants it, -but wisdom,” that is, the incarnate Son of God, “is not overcome by wickedness,” that is, of -the Jews and of heretics, because it says, “She gave him the prize for his stern struggle that he -might know that wisdom is mightier than all else” (Wis 10:12).
--
- LECTURE 4
-6 There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.
-7 He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the light,
-so that through him all men might believe. 8 He was not the light,
-but [he came] in order to bear witness to the light.108 Above, the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word; here he begins to consider the -incarnation of the Word. And he does two things concerning this: first, he treats of the -witness to the incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the coming of the Word ( 1:9). -As to the first, he does two things: first, he describes the precursor who comes to bear -witness; secondly, he shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).
-He describes the precursor in four ways. First, according to his nature, There was a man. -Secondly, as to his authority, sent by God. I’hirdly, as to his suitability for the office, whose -name was John. Fourthly, as to the dignity of his office, He came as a witness.
-109 We should note with respect to the first that, as soon as the Evangelist begins speaking of -something temporal, he changes his manner of speech. When speaking above of eternal -things, he used the word “was” (erat), which is the past imperfect tense; and this indicates -that eternal things are without end. But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses -“was” (fuit, i.e., “has been”); this indicates temporal things as having taken place in the past -and coming to an end there.
-110 And so he says, There was a man (Fuit homo). This excludes at the very start the -incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the condition or nature of John. -They believed that John was an angel in nature, basing themselves on the words of the Lord, -“I send my messenger [in Greek, angelos] before you, who will prepare your way” (Mt -11:10); and the same thing is found in Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, -There was a man by nature, not an angel. “The nature of man is known, and that he cannot -contend in judgment with one who is stronger than himself” (Ecc 6:10).
-Now it “ is fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are more easily drawn to a man, since -he is like themselves. So in Hebrews (7:28) it says, “The law appoints men, who have -weakness, priests.” God could have governed men through angels, but he preferred men so -that we could be more instructed by their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.
-11 1 John is described by his authority when it says, sent by God. Indeed, although John was -not an angel in nature, he was so by his office, because he was sent by God. For the -distinctive office of angels is that they are sent by God and are messengers of God. “All are -ministering spirits, sent to serve” (Heb 1:14). Hence it is that “angel” means “messenger.” -And so men who are sent by God to announce something can be called angels. “Haggai the -messenger of the Lord” (Hg 1:13).
-If someone is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be sent by God. “How can they -preach unless they are sent?” as is said in Romans (10:15). And since they are sent by God, -they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their own. “We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus -Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). On the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by God, seeks -his own things or those of man, and not the things of Christ. And so he says here, There was -a man sent by God, so that we would understand that John proclaimed something divine, not -human.
-112 Note that there are three ways in which we see men sent by God. First, by an inward -inspiration. “And now the Lord God has sent me, and his spirit” (Is 48:16). As if to say: I -have been sent by God through an inward inspiration of the spirit. Secondly, by an expressed -and clear command, perceived by the bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in -this way; and so he says, “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and -who will go for us?’ Then I said, ‘Here I am! Send me’” (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by the order of a -prelate, who acts in the place of God in this matter. “I have pardoned in the person of Christ -for your sake” as it says in 2 Corinthians (2:10). This is why those who are sent by a prelate -are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy were sent by the Apostle.
-When it is said here, There was a man sent by God, we should understand that he was sent -by God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward command. “He who -sent me to baptize with water had said to me: ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come -down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit’ “ (below 1:33).
-113 We should not understand, There was a man sent by God, as some heretics did, who -believed that from the very beginning human souls were created without bodies along with -the angels, and that one’s soul is sent into the body when he is born, and that John was sent to -life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body. Rather, we should understand that he was sent by God to -baptize and preach.
-114 John’s fitness is given when he says, whose name was John. One must be qualified for -the office of bearing witness, because unless a witness is qualified, then no matter in what -way he is sent by another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now a man becomes qualified by -the grace, of God. “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor 15:10); “who has made us fit -ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist appropriately implies the -precursor’s fitness from his name when he says, whose name was John, which is interpreted, -“in whom is grace.”
-This name was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine preordination and before he was -born, as is clear from Luke (1:13), “You will name him John,” as the angel said to Zechariah. -Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1), “The Lord called me from the womb”; “He -who will be, his name is already called” (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist also indicates this from -his manner of speaking, when he says was, as to God’s preordination.
-115 Then he is described by the dignity of his office. First, his office is mentioned. Secondly, -the reason for his office, to bear witness to the light.
-116 Now his office is to bear witness; hence he says, He came as a witness.
-Here it should be remarked that God makes men, and everything else he makes, for himself. -“The Lord made all things for himself” (Prv 16:4). Not, indeed, to add anything to himself, -since he has no need of our good, but so that his goodness might be made manifest in all of -the things made by him, in that “his eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being -understood through the things that are made”(Rom 1:20). Thus, each creature is made as a -witness to God in so far as each creature is a certain witness of the divine goodness. So, the -vastness of creation is a witness to God’s power and omnipotence; and its beauty is a witness -to the divine wisdom. But certain men are ordained by God in a special way, so that they hear -witness to God not only naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by their good works. -Hence all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch as God is glorified among men by their -good works. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and -glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16). But those who not only share in God’s gifts -in themselves by acting well through the grace of God, but also spread them to others by their -teaching, influencing and encouraging others, are in a more special way witnesses to God. -“Everyone who calls upon my name, I have created for my glory” (Is 43:7). And so John -came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of God and to proclaim his praise.
-117 This office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great, because no one can testify -about something except in the manner in which he has shared in it. “We know of what we -speak, and we bear witness of what we see” (below 3:11). Hence, to bear witness to divine -truth indicates a knowledge of that truth. So Christ also had this office: “I have come into the -world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). But Christ testifies in one way and John -in another. Christ bears witness as the light who comprehends all things, indeed, as the -existing light itself. John bears witness only as participating in that light. And so Christ gives -testimony in a perfect manner and perfectly manifests the truth, while John and other holy -men give testimony in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John’s office, therefore, is -great both because of his participation in the divine light and because of a likeness to Christ, -who carried out this office. “I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and a commander -of the nations” (Is 55:4).
-118 The purpose of this office is given when he says, that he might bear witness to the -light. Here we should understand that there are two reasons for bearing witness about -something. One reason can be on the part of the thing with which the witness is concerned; -for example, if there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing. The other is on the part of -those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and slow to believe. John came as a witness, not -because of the thing about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says, bear -witness to the light, i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came, -therefore, to bear witness on account of those to whom he testified, so that through him (i.e., -John) all men might believe. For as light is not only visible in itself and of itself, but through -it all else can be seen, so the Word of God is not only light in himself, but he makes known -all things that are known. For since a thing is made known and understood through its form, -and all forms exist through the Word, who is the art full of living forms, the Word is light not -only in himself, but as making known all things; “all that appears is light” (Eph 5:13).
-And so it was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son “light,” because he came as “a -revealing light to the Gentiles” (Lk 2:32). Above, he called the Son of God the Word, by -which the Father expresses himself and every creature. Now since he is, properly speaking, -the light of men, and the Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the -salvation of men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name “Word” when speaking of the -Son, and says, “light.”
-119 But if that light is adequate of itself to make known all things, and not only itself, what -need does it have of any witness? This was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to -destroy the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints gave many reasons, against their opinion, -why Christ wanted to have the testimony of the prophets.
-Origen gives three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have certain witnesses, not -because he needed their testimony, but to ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses. Thus -we see in the order of the universe that God produces certain effects by means of intermediate -causes, not because he himself is unable to produce them without these intermediaries, but he -deigns to confer oil them the dignity of causality because he wishes to-ennoble these -intermediate causes. Similarly, even though God could have enlightened all men by himself -and lead them to a knowledge of himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to ennoble -certain men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain other men. “‘You are -my witnesses,’ says the Lord” (Is 43:10).
-A second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through his miracles. Yet, because they -were performed in time, they passed away with time and did not reach everyone. But the -words of the prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those present, but could -also reach those to come after. Hence the Lord willed that men come to a knowledge of the -Word through the testimony of the prophets, in order that not only those present, but also men -yet lo come, might be enlightened about him. So it says expressly, so that through him all -men might believe, i.e., not only those present, but also future generations.
-The third reason is that not all men are in the same condition, and all are not led or disposed -to a knowledge of the truth in the same way. For some are brought to a knowledge of the truth -by signs and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom. “The Jews require signs, and the -Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22). And so the Lord, m order to show the path of salvation to -all, willed both ways to be open. i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom, so that those -who would not be brought to the path of salvation by the miracles of the Old and New -Testaments, might be brought to a knowledge of the truth by the path of wisdom, as in the -prophets and other books of Sacred Scripture.
-A fourth reason, given by Chrysostom, is that certain men of weak understanding are unable -to grasp the truth and knowledge of God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down -to them and to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so that these others -might obtain from them in a human way the knowledge of divine things they could not reach -by themselves. And so he says, that through him all men might believe. As if to say: he -came as a witness, not for the sake of the light, but for the sake of men, so that through him -all men might believe. And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are fitting and -proper, and should be received as something needed by us for the knowledge of the truth.
-120 He says believe, because there are two ways of participating in the divine light. One is the -perfect participation which is present in glory, “In your light, we shall see the light” (Ps 3 -5:10). The other in imperfect and is acquired through faith, since he came as a witness. Of -these two ways it is said, “Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but then we -shall see face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). And in the same place we find, “Now I know in part, but -then I shall know even as I am known.” Among these two ways, the first is the way of -participation through faith, because through it we are brought to vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) -where our version has, “If you do not believe, you will not persist,” another version has, “If -you do not believe, you will not understand.” “All of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory with -unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory into his very image,” which we -have lost (2 Cor 3:18). “From the glory of faith to the glory of vision,” as a Gloss says.
-And so he says, that through him all men might believe, not as though all would see him -perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and later enjoy him through -vision in heaven.
-121 He says through him, to show that John is different than Christ. For Christ came so that -all might believe in him. “He who believes in me, as Scripture says, “Out of his heart shall -flow rivers of living water” (below 7:38). John, on the other hand, came that all men might -believe, not in him, but in Christ through him.
-One may object that not all have believed. So if John came to that all might believe through -him, he failed. I answer that both on the part of God, who sent John, and of John, who came, -the method used is adequate to bring all to the truth. But on the part of those “who have fixed -their eyes on the ground” (Ps 16:11 ), and refused to see the light, there was a failure, because -all did not believe.
-122 Now although John, of whom so much has been said, even including that he was sent by -God, is an eminent person, his coming is not sufficient to save men, because the salvation of -man lies in participating in the light. If John had been the light, his coming would have -sufficed to save men; but he was not the light. So he says, he was not the light. -Consequently, a light was needed that would suffice to save men.
-Or, we could look at it another way. John came to bear witness to the light. Now it is the -custom that the one who testifies is of greater authority than the one for whom he bears -witness. So, lest John be considered to have greater authority than Christ, the Evangelist says, -he was not the light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light. For he bears -witness not because he is greater, but because he is better known, even though he is not as -great.
-123 There is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the light. Conflicting with this is, “You -were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8); and “You are the -light of the world” (Mt 5:14). Therefore, John and the apostles and all good men are a light.
-I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this belongs to God alone. But if -“light” is taken without the article, then John and all holy men were made lights. The -meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very essence; but John and all the saints are -light by participation. So, because John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear -witness to the light; for fire is better exhibited by something afire than by anything else, and -color by something colored.
--
- LECTURE 5
-9 He [the Word] was the true light,
-which enlightens every man coming into this world.
-10 He was in the world, and through him the world was made,
-and the world did not know him.124 Above, the Evangelist considered the precursor and his witness to the incarnate Word; in -the present section he considers the incarnate Word himself. As to this he does three things. -First, he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come. Secondly, the benefit we received -from the coming of the Word (I:11). And thirdly, the way he came (1:14).
-The necessity for the Word’s coming is seen be the lack of divine knowledge in the world. He -points out this need for his coming when he says, “For this was I born, and I came into the -world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). To indicate this lack of divine -knowledge, the Evangelist does two things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to -God or the Word. Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).
-He shows in three ways that there was no defect in God or in the Word that prevented men -from knowing God and from being enlightened by the Word. First, from the efficacy of the -divine light itself, because He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into -this world. Secondly, from the presence of the divine light, because He was in the world. -Thirdly, from the obviousness of the light, because through him the world was made. So -the lack of divine knowledge in the world was not due to the Word, because it is sufficient. -First, he shows the nature of this efficiency, that is, He was the true light. Secondly, its very -efficiency, which enlightens every man.
-125 The divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because He was the true light. How the -Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be discussed again, because it was -sufficiently explained above. What we must discuss at present is how he is the true light. To -explain this, we should note that in Scripture the “true” is contrasted with three things. -Sometimes it is contrasted with the false, as in “Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak -the truth” (Eph 4:25). Sometimes it is contrasted with what is figurative, as in “The law was -given through Moses; grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17), because -the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by Christ. Sometimes it is contrasted -with what is something by participation, as in “that we may be in his true Son” (1 Jn 5:20), -who is not his Son by participation.
-Before the Word came there was in the world a certain light which the philosophers prided -themselves on having; but this was a false light, because as is said, “They became stultified in -their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; claiming to be wise, they became -fools” (Rom 1:21); “Every man is made foolish by his knowledge” (Jer 10:14). There was -another light from the teaching of the law which the Jews boasted of having; but this was a -symbolic light, “The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of -them” (Heb 10:1). There was also a certain light in the angels and in holy men in so far as -they knew God in a more special way by grace; but this was a participated light, “Upon whom -does his light not shine?” (Jb 25:3), which is like saying: Whoever shine, shine to the extent -that they participate in his light, i.e., God’s light.
-But the Word of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light, nor a participated light, but -the true light, i.e., light by his essence. Therefore he says, He was the true light.
-126 This excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who believed that Christ derived his -beginning from the Virgin. So, lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist, speaking of the -incarnation of the Word, says, He was the true light, i.e., eternally, not only before the -Virgin, but before every creature. This also excludes the error of Arius and Origen; they said -that Christ was not true God, but God by participation. If this were so, he could not be the -true light, as the Evangelist says here, and as in “God is light” (1 Jn 1:5), i.e., not by -participation, but the true light. So if the Word was the true light, it is plain that he is true -God. Now it is clear how the divine Word is effective in causing divine knowledge.
-127 The effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact that he enlightens every man -coming into this world. For everything which is what it is by participation is derived from -that which is such by its essence; just as everything afire is so by participation in fire, which -is fire by its very essence. Then since the Word is the true light by his very essence, then -everything that shines must do so through him, insofar as it participates in him. And so he -enlightens every man coming into this world.
-128 To understand this, we should know that “world” is taken in three ways in Scripture. -Sometimes, from the point of view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here, “through -him the world was made” (v 10). Sometimes, from the point of view of its perfection, which -it reaches through Christ, as in “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor -5:19). And sometimes it is taken from the point of view of its perversity, as in “The whole -world lies under the power of the evil one” (1 Jn 5:19).
-On the other hand, “enlightenment” or “being enlightened” by the Word is taken in two ways. -First, in relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in “The light of your countenance, O -Lord, is marked upon us” (Ps 4:7). Secondly, as the light of grace, “Be enlightened, O -Jerusalem” (Is 60:1).
-129 With these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to solve a difficulty which arises -here. For when the Evangelist says, he enlightens every man, this seems to be false, because -there are still many in darkness in the world. However, if we bear in mind these distinctions -and take “world” from the standpoint of its creation, and “enlighten” as referring to the light -of natural reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach. For all men coming into -this visible world are enlightened by the light of natural knowledge through participating in -this true light, which is the source of all the light of natural knowledge participated in by men.
-When the Evangelist speaks of man coming into this world, he does not mean that men had -lived for a certain time outside the world and then came into the world, since this is contrary -to the teaching of the Apostle in Romans (9:11), “When the children were not yet born nor -had they done anything good or evil.” Therefore, since they had done nothing before they -were born, it is plain that the soul does not exist p3or to its union with the body. He refers to -every man coming into this world, to show that men are enlightened by God with respect to -that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with respect to the intellect, which is -something external [to the world]. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and -intellectual. According to his bodily or sensible nature, man is enlightened by a bodily and -sensible light; but according to his soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an -intellectual and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world according to his -bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from the world. His intellectual nature is derived -from a source external to the world, as has been said, i.e., from God through creation; as in -“Until all flesh returns to its origin, and the spirit is directed to God, who made it” (Ecc 12:7). -For these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of every man coming into this world, he is -showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without, that is, the intellect.
-130 If we understand “enlightenment” with respect to the light of grace, then he enlightens -every man may be explained in three ways. The first way is by Origen in his homily, “The -great eagle,” and is this. “World” is understood from the point of view of its perfection, -which man attains by his reconciliation through Christ. And so we have, he enlightens every -man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, that is, the Church, which has -been enlightened by the light of grace.
-Chrysostom explains it another way. He takes “world” under the aspect of creation. Then the -sense is: He enlightens, i.e., the Word does, in so far as it depends on him, because he fails -no one, but rather “wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 -Tim 2:4); every man coming, i.e., who is born into this sensible world. If anyone is not -enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns from the light that enlightens.
-Augustine explains it a third way. For him, “every” has a restricted application, so that the -sense is: He enlightens every man coming into this world, not every man universally, but -every man who is enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word. According to -Augustine, the Evangelist says, coming into this world, in order to give the reason why man -needs to be enlightened, and he is taking “world” from the point of view of its perversity and -defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be enlightened because he is coming into -this world which is darkened by perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This -followed the spiritual world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), “To enlighten those who -sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.”
-131 The above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, who think than men were -created in the world from an opposing principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of -the devil when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or by the Word, -for “Christ came into the world to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8).
-132 So it is clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that the lack of knowledge in men is -not due to the Word, because he is effective in enlightening all, being the true light, which -enlightens every man coming into this world.
-But so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or absence of the true light, the -Evangelist rules this out adding, He was in the world. A comparable statement is found in -“He is not far from any one of us,” that is, God, “for in him we live, and move, and are” (Acts -17:28). It is as though the Evangelist were saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand -in order to enlighten us.
-133 We should remark that something is said to be “in the world” in three ways. In one way, -by being contained, as a thing in place exists in a place: “They are in the world” (below -17:11). In another way, as a part in a whole; for a part of the world is said to be in the world -even though it is not in a place. For example, supernatural substances, although not in the -world as in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts: “God ... who made heaven and earth, the -sea, and all things that are in them” (Ps 145:6). But the true light was not in the world in -either of these ways, because that light is neither localized nor is it a part of the universe. -Indeed, if we can speak this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since it -participates in a partial way in his goodness.
-Accordingly, the true light was in the world in a third way, i.e., as an efficient and preserving -cause: “I fill heaven and earth” as said in Jeremiah (23:24). However, there is a difference -between the way the Word acts and causes all things and the way in which other agents act. -For other agents act as existing externally: since they do not act except by moving and -altering a thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they work from without. -But God acts in all things from within, because he acts by creating. Now to create is to give -existence (esse) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in each thing, God, who by -acting gives esse acts in things from within. Hence God was in the world as one giving esse to -the world.
-134 It is customary to say that God is in all things by his essence, presence and power. To -understand what this means, we should know that someone is said to be by his power in all -the things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in the entire kingdom subject to -him, by his power. He is not there, however, by presence or essence., Someone is said to be -by presence in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is said to be in his -house by presence. And someone is said to be by essence in those things in which his -substance is; as a king is in one determinate place.
-Now we say that God is everywhere by his power, since all things are subject to his power: -“If I ascend into heaven, you are there.... If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in -the furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold -me” (Ps 138:8). He is also everywhere by his presence, because “all things are bare and open -to his eyes,” as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is present everywhere by his essence, be cause -his essence is innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be immediately joined -to its effect, because mover and moved must be together. Now God is the maker and -preserver of all things with respect to the esse of each. Hence, since the esse of a thing is -innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his essence, through which he creates all -things, is in all things.
-135 It should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses the word “was,” when he says, -He was in the world, showing that from the beginning of creation he was always in the -world, causing and preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to withhold -his power from the things he established, all would return to nothing and cease to be. Hence -Origen uses an apt example to show this, when he says that as a human vocal sound is to a -human word conceived in the mind, so is, the creature to the divine Word; for as our vocal -sound is the effect of the word conceived in our mind, so the creature is the effect of the -Word conceived in the divine mind. “For he spoke, and they were created” (Ps 148:5). Hence, -just as we notice that as soon as our inner word vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also -ceases, so, if the power of the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of them would -immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is “sustaining all things by his -powerful word” (Heb 1:3).
-136 So it is plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is not due to the absence of the -Word, because He was in the world; nor is it due to the invisibility or concealment of the -Word, because he has produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that is, the -world: “For from the greatness and beauty of creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly” -(Wis 13:5), and “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the -things that are made” (Rom 1:20). And so the Evangelist at once adds, and through him the -world was made, in order that that light might be manifested in it. For as a work of art -manifests the art of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain -representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of the Father, “He poured her -[wisdom] out upon all his works,” as is said in Sirach (1:10).
-Now it is clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to the Word, because he is -efficacious, being the true light; and he is at hand, since he was in the world; and he is -knowable, since through him the world was made.
-137 The Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he says, and the world did not -know him. As if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world, who did not know him.
-He says him in the singular, because earlier he had called the Word not only the “light of -men,” but also “God”; and so when he says him, he means God. Again, he uses “world” for -man. For the angels knew him by their understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; -but the world, i.e., man, who lives in the world, did not know him.
-138 We attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the nature of man or to his guilt. To -his nature, indeed, because although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to -the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge. “Man beholds him from -afar” (Jb 36:25), and immediately after, “God is great beyond our knowledge.” But if some -have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but above the world; and the -kind for whom the world was not worthy, because the world did not know him. Hence if -they mentally perceived anything eternal, that was insofar as they were not of this world.
-But if this lack is attributed to man’s guilt, then the phrase, the world did not know him, is a -kind of reason why God was not known by man; in this sense world is taken for inordinate -lovers of the world. It is as though it said, The world did not know him, because they were -lovers of the world. For the love of the world, as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us -from the knowledge of God, because “Love of the world makes one an enemy to God” (Jas -4:4); “The sensual man does not perceive the things that pertain to the Spirit of God” ( 1 Cor -2:14).
-139 From this we call answer the question of the Gentiles who futilely ask this: If it is only -recently that the Son of God is set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that -before that time he scorned human nature? We should say to them that he did not scorn the -world but was always in the world, and on his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their -own fault that some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world.
-140 We should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the incarnation of the Word to show -that the incarnate Word and that which “was in the beginning with God,” and God, are the -same. He repeats what he had said of him earlier. For above he had said he [the Word] “was -the light of men”; here he says he was the true light. Above, he said that “all things were -made through him”; here he says that through him the world was made. Earlier he had said, -“without him nothing was made,” i.e., according to one explanation, he conserves all things; -here he says, he was in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things. There he -had said, “the darkness did not overcome it”; here he says, the world did not know him. -And so, all he says after he was the true light, is an explanation of what he had said before.
-141 We can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to become incarnate. One is -because of the perversity of human nature which, because of its own malice, had been -darkened by vices and the obscurity of its own ignorance. And so he said before, the darkness -did not overcome it. Therefore, God came in the flesh so that the darkness might apprehend -the light, i.e., obtain a knowledge of it. “The people who walked in darkness saw a great -light” (Is 9:2).
-The second reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not enough. For the prophets -came and John had come; but they were not able to give sufficient enlightenment, because he -was not the light. And so, after the prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was -necessary that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of itself. And this is what -the Apostle says: “In past times, God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through -the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son” as we find in Hebrews (1:1). “We -have the prophetic message, to which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns” (2 Pt -1:19).
-The third reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures. For creatures were not sufficient -to lead to a knowledge of the Creator; hence he says, through him the world was made, and -the world did not know him. Thus it was necessary that the Creator himself come into the -world in the flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle says: “Since -in the wisdom of God the world did not know God by its wisdom, it pleased God to save -those who believe by the foolishness of our preaching” (1 Cor 1:21).
--
- LECTURE 6
-11 He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him;
-12 but whoever received him, he gave them power to become
-the sons of God, to all who believe in his name,
-13 who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the flesh,
-nor from man’s willing it, but from God.142 Having given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then shows the -advantage men gained from that incarnation. First, he shows the coming of the light (v 11); -secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit brought by the coming of the light (v -12).
-143 He shows that the light which was present in the world and evident, i.e., disclosed by its -effect, was nevertheless not known by the world. Hence, he came unto his own, in order to be -known. The Evangelist says, unto his own, i.e., to things that were his own, which he had -made. And he says this so that you do not think that when he says, he came, he means a local -motion in the sense that he came as though ceasing to be where he previously was and newly -beginning to be where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was. “I came -forth from the Father, and have come into the world,” as said below ( 16:2 8).
-He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some, because it was in a special -way his own. “In Judea God is known” (Ps 75:1); “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the -house of Israel” (Is 5:7). But it is better to say, unto his own, i.e., into the world created by -him. “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 23:1).
-144 But if he was previously in the world, how could he come into the world? I answer that -“coming to some place” is understood in two ways. First, that someone comes where he -absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone begins to be in a new way where -he was before. For example, a king, who up to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by -his power and later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously was: for he -comes by his substance where previously he was present only by his power. It was in this way -that the Son of God came into the world and yet was in the world. For he was there, indeed, -by his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He was there invisibly, -and he came in order to be visible.
-145 Then when he says, and his own did not receive him, we have the reception given him -by men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but these were not his own; -hence he says, his own did not receive him. “His own” are men, because they were formed -by him. “The Lord God formed man” (Gn 2:7); “Know that the Lord is God: he made us” (Ps -99:3). And he made them to his own image, “Let us make man to our image” (Gn 1:26).
-But it is better to say, his own, i.e., the Jews, did not receive him, through faith by believing, -and by showing honor to him. “I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive -me” (below 5:43), and “I honor my Father and you have dishonored me” (below 8:49). Now -the Jews are his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people. “The Lord -chose you to be his special people” (Dt 26:18). They are his own because related according to -the flesh, “from whom is Christ, according to the flesh,” as said in Romans (9:3). They are -also his own because enriched by his kindness, “I have reared and brought up sons” (Is 1:2). +
88 So then, this clause is added to show the universal causality +of the Word, according to Chrysostom; his association with the +Father, according to Hilary; the power of the Word in the +preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the purity +of his causality, because he is so the cause of good as not to be +the cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a number of +others.
+89 Then he says, What was made +in him was life; and this is the third clause. Here we must +avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this +to maintain that everything that exists is alive: for example, +stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world. He understood +the clause this way: What was made +in him, comma, was +life. But it was not life unless alive. Therefore, whatever +was made in him is alive. He also claimed that “in him” +is the same as saying “through him,” since very often +in Scripture “in him” and “through him” are +interchangeable, as in “in him and through him all things +were created” (Col 1:16). However, our present explanation +shows that this interpretation is false.
+90 There are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it +without error. In that homily, “The spiritual voice,” +we find this explanation: What was +made in him, i.e., through him, was life, not in each thing itself, but +in its cause. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is +always true that effects, whether produced by nature or by will, +exist in their causes, not according to their own existence, but +according to the power of their appropriate cause. Thus, lower +effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their +respective existences but according to the power of the sun. +Therefore, since the cause of all effects produced by God is a +certain life and an art full of living archetypes, for this reason +What was made in him, i.e., +through him, was life, in +its cause, i.e., in God.
+91 Augustine reads this another way, as: What was made, comma, in him was life. For things can be +considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are +in the Word. If they are considered as they are in themselves, then +it is not true that all things are life or even alive, but some +lack life and some are alive. For example, the earth was made and +metals were made, but none is life, none is living; animals and men +were made, and these, considered in themselves, are not life, but +merely living. Yet considered as they are in the Word, they are not +merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist +spiritually in the wisdom of God, and through which things were +made by the Word, are life, just as a chest made by an artisan is +in itself neither alive nor life, yet the exemplar of the chest in +the artisan’s mind prior to the existence of the chest is in +some sense living, insofar as it has an intellectual existence in +the mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is +neither in his essence nor is it his existence through the act of +understanding of the artisan. But in God, his act of understanding +is his life and his essence. And so whatever is in God is not only +living, but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his +essence. Hence the creature in God is the creating essence. Thus, +if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are life. +This is explained in another place.
+92 Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus: +That which was made in him; +and then, was life. Here we +should note that some things are said of the Son of God as such; +for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some +things are said of him in relation to ourselves; for example, we +say he is Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in both ways, +such as wisdom and justice. Now in all things said absolutely and +of the Son as such, it is not said that he was “made”, +for example, we do not say that the Son was made God or omnipotent. +But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways, the notion +of being made can be used, as in, “God made him [Jesus +Christ] our wisdom, our justice, our sanctification and +redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). And so, although he was always +wisdom and justice in himself, yet it can be said that he was newly +made justice and wisdom for us.
+And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that +although in himself the Son is life, yet he was made life for us by +the fact that he gave us life, as is said, “Just as in Adam +all die, so in Christ all will come to life” (1 Cor 15:22). +And so he says “the Word that was made” life for us +in himself was life, so that +after a time he could become life for us; and so he immediately +adds, and that life was the light +of men.
+93 Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: And without him was made nothing, which was +made in him, and later it says, he was life. For he says (The +Trinity II) that when the Evangelist says without him nothing was made, one might +be perplexed and ask whether there are still other things made by +him, that were not made through him, although not without him, but +with respect to which he was associated with the maker; and this +clause is added to correct the aforesaid error. Therefore lest this +be so understood, when the Evangelist says, All things were made through him, he +adds, and without him nothing was +made, which was made, in him, that is, through him; and the +reason for this is that he was +life.
+For it is plain that all things are said to have been made +through the Word inasmuch as the Word, who proceeds from the +Father, is God. But let us suppose that some father has a son who +does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but reaches +such a state gradually. In that case the father will do many +things, not through the son, yet not without [having] him. Since, +therefore, the Son of God has from all eternity the same life that +the Father has—“Just as the Father possesses life in +himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in +himself” (below 5:26)—one cannot say that God the +Father, although he made nothing without the Son, nevertheless made +some things not through him, because he was life. For in living +things which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life +precedes perfect life; but in per se life, which does not +participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no +imperfection at all. Accordingly, because the Word is per se +life, there was never imperfect life in him, but always perfect +life. And so in such a way that nothing was made without him that +was not also made in him, i.e., through him.
+94 Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus: +And without him was made nothing +that was made. The reason for this is that someone might +believe that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word. So to +exclude this, the Evangelist says, that was made, because the Holy Spirit +is not something that is made. And afterward follows, In him was life, which is introduced for +two reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things +his causality was indefectible not only with respect to the things +already produced, but also with respect to things yet to be +produced. As if to say: In him was +life, by which he could not only produce all things, but +which has an unfailing flow and a causality for producing things +continually without undergoing any change, being a living fountain +which is not diminished in spite of its continuous outflow; whereas +collected water, that is not living [i..e., running] water, is +diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10) +says, “With you is the fountain of life.” The second +reason is to show that things are governed by the: Word. For since +In him was life, this shows +that he produced things by his intellect and will, not by a +necessity of his nature, and that he governs the things he made. +“The Word of God is living” (Heb 4:12).
+Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his +explanations that they admit no other where he expounded anything +in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek +works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely, +And without him was made nothing +that was made.
++
++ +LECTURE 3
+4b And that life was the light of men.
+
+5 And the light shines in the darkness,
+and the darkness did not overcome it.95 Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar +as he brought all things into existence; here he describes his +power as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a light to +men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v 4b); secondly, +the light’s irradiation (v 5a); thirdly, participation in the +light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two ways: +first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, +according to participation in grace.
+As to the first point he says, And that life was the light of men.
+96 Here we should note first that, according to Augustine and +many others, light is more properly said of spiritual things than +of sensible things. Ambrose, however, thinks that brightness is +said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in +whatever way the name “light” is used, it implies a +manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible or +sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible +manifestation, then, according to the nature of things, light is +found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to +things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is +discovered first in sensible things, because we first used this +name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; although +as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer +way than to sensible things.
+97 To clarify the statement, And +that life was the light of men, we should remark that there +are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without +light, because they have no knowledge; for example, plants. Hence +their life is not light. Other things both live and know, but their +knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with +individual and material things, as is the case with the brutes. So +they have both life and a certain light. But they do not have the +light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the +very nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom +not only this or that are made manifest, but truth itself, which +can be manifested and is manifestive to all.
+And so the Evangelist, speaking of the Word, not only says that +he is life but also light, +lest anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says +that he is the light of men, +lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as +exists in the brutes.
+98 But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of +men? Two answers have been given to this. Chrysostom says that the +Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a knowledge of the +Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men and therefore +refers, in keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels. +Origen, however, says that participation in this light pertains to +men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the +Evangelist says, the light of +men, he wants us to understand every rational nature.
+99 We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this +life, because it is intellectual or rational. For whereas all +things that in some way move themselves are called living, only +those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life; +and among lower creatures only man moves himself, properly +speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are moved by +themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is +nevertheless not open to opposite alternatives; hence they are not +moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those things that are +moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act +themselves. But man, since he is master of his act, moves himself +freely to all that he wills. Consequently, man has perfect life, as +does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which +is the light of men, is perfect life.
+100 We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural +order of things, existence is first; and the Evangelist implies +this in his first statement, In the +beginning was the Word. Secondly, comes life; and this is +mentioned next, In him was +life. Thirdly comes understanding; and that is mentioned +next; And that life was the light +of men. And, according to Origen, he fittingly attributes +light to life because light can be attributed only to the +living.
+101 We should note that light can be related in two ways to what +is living: as an object and as something in which they participate, +as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external light as +an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an +inner light by which the eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing +the external light. And so his statement, And that life was the light of men, can +be understood in two ways. First, that the light of men is taken as an object that +man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can +see it, since he alone is capable of the vision of God who +“teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and enlightens +us more than the birds of the air” Jb 35:11); for although +other animals may know certain things that are true, nevertheless, +man alone knows the nature itself of truth.
+The light of men can also +be taken as a light in which we participate. For we would never be +able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a +participation in it; and this participation is in man and is the +superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about +which the Psalm (4:7) says, “The light of your countenance, O +Lord, is marked upon us,” i.e., of your Son, who is your +face, by whom you are manifested.
+102 Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now +considers its irradiation, saying, And the light shines in the +darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two +meanings of “darkness.”
+First, we might take “darkness” as a natural defect, +that of the created mind. For the mind is to that light of which +the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun; +because, although air is receptive of the light of the sun, +considered in itself it is a darkness. According to this the +meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, +shines in the darkness, i.e., in created souls and minds, by always +shedding its light on all. “On a man from whom the light is +hidden” (Jb 3:23).
+And the darkness did not +overcome it, i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to +overcome something [comprehendere, to overcome, to +comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so forth], is to enclose and +understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the +mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is +impossible. And so, the darkness did not overcome it. +“Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb +36:26); “Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought” +as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is found in that homily +which begins, “The spiritual voice of the eagle.”
+103 We can explain this passage in another way by taking +“darkness” as Augustine does, for the natural lack of +wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. “And I saw that +wisdom excells folly as much as light excells knowledge” (Ecc +2:13). Someone is without wisdom, therefore, because he lacks the +light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the wise +are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and +wisdom, so by the lack of it they are darkness. Now the fact that +some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, since on +its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather, +the foolish are ‘without that light because the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., +they did not apprehend it, not being able to attain a participation +in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted up, they +did not persevere. “From the savage,” i.e., from the +proud, “he hides his light,” i.e., the light of wisdom, +“and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may +approach it” (Jb 36:32); “They did not know the way to +wisdom, nor did they remember her paths” (Bar 3:23).
+Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and +lucid wisdom, nevertheless no man is in such darkness as to be +completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is know +by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in +the darkness; for every truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, +comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men in +darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the +way, [ i.e., with respect to the natural influx of knowledge] that +Origen and Augustine explain this clause.
+104 Starting from And that life +was the light of men, we can explain this in another way, +according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by +Christ.
+After he had considered the creation of things through the Word, +the Evangelist considers here the restoration of the rational +creature through Christ, saying, And that life, of the Word, was the +light of men, i.e., of all +men in general, and not only of the Jews. For the Son of God +assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with +grace and truth. “I came into the world for this, to testify +to the truth” (below 18:37); “As long as I am in the +world I am the light of the world” (below 9:5). So he does +not say, “the light of the Jews,” because although +previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known +to the world. “I have given you as a light to the nations, +that you might be my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Is +49:6).
+It was fitting to join light and life by saying, And that life was the light of men, in +order to show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, +through a participation in grace, “Grace and truth have come +through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge +of truth and wisdom.
+105 According to this explanation, the light shines in the darkness, can be +expounded in three ways, in the light of the three meanings of +“darkness.”
+In one way, we can take “darkness” for punishment. +For any sadness and suffering of heart can be called a darkness, +just as any joy can be called a light. “When I sit in +darkness and in suffering the Lord is my light,” i.e., my joy +and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In this explanation, +the light shines in the +darkness, is Christ coming into the world, having a body +capable of suffering and without sin, but “in the likeness of +sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). The light is in the flesh, that is, +the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a +likeness to sinful flesh. As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word +of God, veiled about by the darkness of the flesh, shines on the +world; “I will cover the sun with a cloud” (Ez +32:7).
+106 Secondly, we can take “darkness” to mean the +devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), “Our struggle is not against +flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the +rulers of the world of this darkness.” Looked at this way he +says, the light, i.e., the +Son of God, shines in the +darkness, i.e., has descended into the world where darkness, +i.e., the devils, hold sway: “Now the prince of this world +will be cast out” (below 12:31). And the darkness, i.e., the devils, +did not overcome it, i.e., +were unable to obscure him by their temptations, as is plain in +Matthew (c 4)
+107 Thirdly, we can take “darkness” for the error or +ignorance which filled the whole world before the coming of Christ, +“You were at one time darkness” (Eph 5:8). And so he +says that the light, i.e., +the incarnate Word of God, shines +in the darkness, i.e., upon the men of the world, who are +blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. “To enlighten +those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death” (Lk +1:79), “The people who were sitting in darkness saw a great +light” (Is 9:2).
+And the darkness did not +overcome it, i.e., did not overcome him. For in spite of the +number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by +pride, who have struggled against Christ (as is plain from the +Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and calumnies upon him, +and finally killing him, nevertheless they did not overcome it, +i.e., gain the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness +would not shine throughout the whole world. Wisdom (7:30) says, +“Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants +it, but wisdom,” that is, the incarnate Son of God, “is +not overcome by wickedness,” that is, of the Jews and of +heretics, because it says, “She gave him the prize for his +stern struggle that he might know that wisdom is mightier than all +else” (Wis 10:12).
++
++ +LECTURE 4
+6 There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.
+
+7 He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the +light,
+so that through him all men might believe. 8 He was not the +light,
+but [he came] in order to bear witness to the light.108 Above, the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word; +here he begins to consider the incarnation of the Word. And he does +two things concerning this: first, he treats of the witness to the +incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the coming of the +Word ( 1:9). As to the first, he does two things: first, he +describes the precursor who comes to bear witness; secondly, he +shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).
+He describes the precursor in four ways. First, according to his +nature, There was a man. +Secondly, as to his authority, sent +by God. I’hirdly, as to his suitability for the +office, whose name was John. +Fourthly, as to the dignity of his office, He came as a witness.
+109 We should note with respect to the first that, as soon as +the Evangelist begins speaking of something temporal, he changes +his manner of speech. When speaking above of eternal things, he +used the word “was” (erat), which is the past +imperfect tense; and this indicates that eternal things are without +end. But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses +“was” (fuit, i.e., “has been”); this +indicates temporal things as having taken place in the past and +coming to an end there.
+110 And so he says, There was a +man (Fuit homo). This excludes at the very start the +incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the +condition or nature of John. They believed that John was an angel +in nature, basing themselves on the words of the Lord, “I +send my messenger [in Greek, angelos] before you, who will +prepare your way” (Mt 11:10); and the same thing is found in +Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, There was a man by nature, not an angel. +“The nature of man is known, and that he cannot contend in +judgment with one who is stronger than himself” (Ecc +6:10).
+Now it “ is fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are +more easily drawn to a man, since he is like themselves. So in +Hebrews (7:28) it says, “The law appoints men, who have +weakness, priests.” God could have governed men through +angels, but he preferred men so that we could be more instructed by +their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.
+11 1 John is described by his authority when it says, sent by +God. Indeed, although John was not an angel in nature, he was so by +his office, because he was sent by God. For the distinctive office +of angels is that they are sent by God and are messengers of God. +“All are ministering spirits, sent to serve” (Heb +1:14). Hence it is that “angel” means +“messenger.” And so men who are sent by God to announce +something can be called angels. “Haggai the messenger of the +Lord” (Hg 1:13).
+If someone is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be +sent by God. “How can they preach unless they are +sent?” as is said in Romans (10:15). And since they are sent +by God, they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their own. +“We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor +4:5). On the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by +God, seeks his own things or those of man, and not the things of +Christ. And so he says here, There +was a man sent by God, so that we would understand that John +proclaimed something divine, not human.
+112 Note that there are three ways in which we see men sent by +God. First, by an inward inspiration. “And now the Lord God +has sent me, and his spirit” (Is 48:16). As if to say: I have +been sent by God through an inward inspiration of the spirit. +Secondly, by an expressed and clear command, perceived by the +bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in this way; +and so he says, “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, +‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ Then I +said, ‘Here I am! Send me’” (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by +the order of a prelate, who acts in the place of God in this +matter. “I have pardoned in the person of Christ for your +sake” as it says in 2 Corinthians (2:10). This is why those +who are sent by a prelate are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy +were sent by the Apostle.
+When it is said here, There was +a man sent by God, we should understand that he was sent by +God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward +command. “He who sent me to baptize with water had said to +me: ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is +the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit’ “ +(below 1:33).
+113 We should not understand, There was a man sent by God, as some +heretics did, who believed that from the very beginning human souls +were created without bodies along with the angels, and that +one’s soul is sent into the body when he is born, and that +John was sent to life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body. Rather, +we should understand that he was sent by God to baptize and +preach.
+114 John’s fitness is given when he says, whose name was John. One must be +qualified for the office of bearing witness, because unless a +witness is qualified, then no matter in what way he is sent by +another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now a man becomes +qualified by the grace, of God. “By the grace of God I am +what I am” (1 Cor 15:10); “who has made us fit +ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist +appropriately implies the precursor’s fitness from his name +when he says, whose name was +John, which is interpreted, “in whom is +grace.”
+This name was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine +preordination and before he was born, as is clear from Luke (1:13), +“You will name him John,” as the angel said to +Zechariah. Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1), +“The Lord called me from the womb”; “He who will +be, his name is already called” (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist +also indicates this from his manner of speaking, when he says was, +as to God’s preordination.
+115 Then he is described by the dignity of his office. First, +his office is mentioned. Secondly, the reason for his office, +to bear witness to the +light.
+116 Now his office is to bear witness; hence he says, +He came as a witness.
+Here it should be remarked that God makes men, and everything +else he makes, for himself. “The Lord made all things for +himself” (Prv 16:4). Not, indeed, to add anything to himself, +since he has no need of our good, but so that his goodness might be +made manifest in all of the things made by him, in that “his +eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being understood +through the things that are made”(Rom 1:20). Thus, each +creature is made as a witness to God in so far as each creature is +a certain witness of the divine goodness. So, the vastness of +creation is a witness to God’s power and omnipotence; and its +beauty is a witness to the divine wisdom. But certain men are +ordained by God in a special way, so that they hear witness to God +not only naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by +their good works. Hence all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch +as God is glorified among men by their good works. “Let your +light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and +glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16). But those +who not only share in God’s gifts in themselves by acting +well through the grace of God, but also spread them to others by +their teaching, influencing and encouraging others, are in a more +special way witnesses to God. “Everyone who calls upon my +name, I have created for my glory” (Is 43:7). And so John +came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of God and +to proclaim his praise.
+117 This office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great, +because no one can testify about something except in the manner in +which he has shared in it. “We know of what we speak, and we +bear witness of what we see” (below 3:11). Hence, to bear +witness to divine truth indicates a knowledge of that truth. So +Christ also had this office: “I have come into the world for +this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). But Christ +testifies in one way and John in another. Christ bears witness as +the light who comprehends all things, indeed, as the existing light +itself. John bears witness only as participating in that light. And +so Christ gives testimony in a perfect manner and perfectly +manifests the truth, while John and other holy men give testimony +in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John’s +office, therefore, is great both because of his participation in +the divine light and because of a likeness to Christ, who carried +out this office. “I made him a witness to the peoples, a +leader and a commander of the nations” (Is 55:4).
+118 The purpose of this office is given when he says, +that he might bear witness to the +light. Here we should understand that there are two reasons +for bearing witness about something. One reason can be on the part +of the thing with which the witness is concerned; for example, if +there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing. The other is +on the part of those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and +slow to believe. John came as a witness, not because of the thing +about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says, +bear witness to the light, +i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came, +therefore, to bear witness on account of those to whom he +testified, so that through +him (i.e., John) all men +might believe. For as light is not only visible in itself +and of itself, but through it all else can be seen, so the Word of +God is not only light in himself, but he makes known all things +that are known. For since a thing is made known and understood +through its form, and all forms exist through the Word, who is the +art full of living forms, the Word is light not only in himself, +but as making known all things; “all that appears is +light” (Eph 5:13).
+And so it was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son +“light,” because he came as “a revealing light to +the Gentiles” (Lk 2:32). Above, he called the Son of God the +Word, by which the Father expresses himself and every creature. Now +since he is, properly speaking, the light of men, and the +Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the +salvation of men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name +“Word” when speaking of the Son, and says, +“light.”
+119 But if that light is adequate of itself to make known all +things, and not only itself, what need does it have of any witness? +This was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to destroy +the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints gave many reasons, +against their opinion, why Christ wanted to have the testimony of +the prophets.
+Origen gives three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have +certain witnesses, not because he needed their testimony, but to +ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses. Thus we see in the order +of the universe that God produces certain effects by means of +intermediate causes, not because he himself is unable to produce +them without these intermediaries, but he deigns to confer oil them +the dignity of causality because he wishes to-ennoble these +intermediate causes. Similarly, even though God could have +enlightened all men by himself and lead them to a knowledge of +himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to ennoble certain +men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain +other men. “‘You are my witnesses,’ says the +Lord” (Is 43:10).
+A second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through +his miracles. Yet, because they were performed in time, they passed +away with time and did not reach everyone. But the words of the +prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those +present, but could also reach those to come after. Hence the Lord +willed that men come to a knowledge of the Word through the +testimony of the prophets, in order that not only those present, +but also men yet lo come, might be enlightened about him. So it +says expressly, so that through him +all men might believe, i.e., not only those present, but +also future generations.
+The third reason is that not all men are in the same condition, +and all are not led or disposed to a knowledge of the truth in the +same way. For some are brought to a knowledge of the truth by signs +and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom. “The Jews +require signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22). And +so the Lord, m order to show the path of salvation to all, willed +both ways to be open. i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom, +so that those who would not be brought to the path of salvation by +the miracles of the Old and New Testaments, might be brought to a +knowledge of the truth by the path of wisdom, as in the prophets +and other books of Sacred Scripture.
+A fourth reason, given by Chrysostom, is that certain men of +weak understanding are unable to grasp the truth and knowledge of +God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down to them and +to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so +that these others might obtain from them in a human way the +knowledge of divine things they could not reach by themselves. And +so he says, that through him all +men might believe. As if to say: he came as a witness, not +for the sake of the light, but for the sake of men, so that through him all men might believe. +And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are fitting +and proper, and should be received as something needed by us for +the knowledge of the truth.
+120 He says believe, because there are two ways of participating +in the divine light. One is the perfect participation which is +present in glory, “In your light, we shall see the +light” (Ps 3 5:10). The other in imperfect and is acquired +through faith, since he came as a witness. Of these two ways it is +said, “Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but +then we shall see face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). And in the +same place we find, “Now I know in part, but then I shall +know even as I am known.” Among these two ways, the first is +the way of participation through faith, because through it we are +brought to vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) where our version has, +“If you do not believe, you will not persist,” another +version has, “If you do not believe, you will not +understand.” “All of us, gazing on the Lord’s +glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to +glory into his very image,” which we have lost (2 Cor 3:18). +“From the glory of faith to the glory of vision,” as a +Gloss says.
+And so he says, that through him +all men might believe, not as though all would see him +perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and +later enjoy him through vision in heaven.
+121 He says through him, to show that John is different than +Christ. For Christ came so that all might believe in him. “He +who believes in me, as Scripture says, “Out of his heart +shall flow rivers of living water” (below 7:38). John, on the +other hand, came that all men might +believe, not in him, but in Christ through him.
+One may object that not all have believed. So if John came to +that all might believe through him, he failed. I answer that both +on the part of God, who sent John, and of John, who came, the +method used is adequate to bring all to the truth. But on the +part of those “who +have fixed their eyes on the ground” (Ps 16:11 ), and refused +to see the light, there was a failure, because all did not +believe.
+122 Now although John, of whom so much has been said, even +including that he was sent by God, is an eminent person, his coming +is not sufficient to save men, because the salvation of man lies in +participating in the light. If John had been the light, his coming +would have sufficed to save men; but he was not the light. So he +says, he was not the light. +Consequently, a light was needed that would suffice to save +men.
+Or, we could look at it another way. John came to bear witness +to the light. Now it is the custom that the one who testifies is of +greater authority than the one for whom he bears witness. So, lest +John be considered to have greater authority than Christ, the +Evangelist says, he was not the +light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light. +For he bears witness not because he is greater, but because he is +better known, even though he is not as great.
+123 There is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the +light. Conflicting with this is, “You were at one time +darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8); and +“You are the light of the world” (Mt 5:14). Therefore, +John and the apostles and all good men are a light.
+I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this +belongs to God alone. But if “light” is taken without +the article, then John and all holy men were made lights. The +meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very essence; but +John and all the saints are light by participation. So, because +John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear +witness to the light; for fire is better exhibited by something +afire than by anything else, and color by something colored.
++
++ +LECTURE 5
+9 He [the Word] was the true light,
+
+which enlightens every man coming into this world.
+10 He was in the world, and through him the world was made,
+and the world did not know him.124 Above, the Evangelist considered the precursor and his +witness to the incarnate Word; in the present section he considers +the incarnate Word himself. As to this he does three things. First, +he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come. Secondly, the +benefit we received from the coming of the Word (I:11). And +thirdly, the way he came (1:14).
+The necessity for the Word’s coming is seen be the lack of +divine knowledge in the world. He points out this need for his +coming when he says, “For this was I born, and I came into +the world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). +To indicate this lack of divine knowledge, the Evangelist does two +things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to God or +the Word. Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).
+He shows in three ways that there was no defect in God or in the +Word that prevented men from knowing God and from being enlightened +by the Word. First, from the efficacy of the divine light itself, +because He was the true light, +which enlightens every man coming into this world. Secondly, +from the presence of the divine light, because He was in the world. Thirdly, from the +obviousness of the light, because through him the world was made. So the +lack of divine knowledge in the world was not due to the Word, +because it is sufficient. First, he shows the nature of this +efficiency, that is, He was the +true light. Secondly, its very efficiency, which enlightens every man.
+125 The divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because +He was the true light. How +the Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be +discussed again, because it was sufficiently explained above. What +we must discuss at present is how he is the true light. To explain +this, we should note that in Scripture the “true” is +contrasted with three things. Sometimes it is contrasted with the +false, as in “Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak the +truth” (Eph 4:25). Sometimes it is contrasted with what is +figurative, as in “The law was given through Moses; grace and +truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17), because +the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by +Christ. Sometimes it is contrasted with what is something by +participation, as in “that we may be in his true Son” +(1 Jn 5:20), who is not his Son by participation.
+Before the Word came there was in the world a certain light +which the philosophers prided themselves on having; but this was a +false light, because as is said, “They became stultified in +their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; +claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1:21); +“Every man is made foolish by his knowledge” (Jer +10:14). There was another light from the teaching of the law which +the Jews boasted of having; but this was a symbolic light, +“The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the +image itself of them” (Heb 10:1). There was also a certain +light in the angels and in holy men in so far as they knew God in a +more special way by grace; but this was a participated light, +“Upon whom does his light not shine?” (Jb 25:3), which +is like saying: Whoever shine, shine to the extent that they +participate in his light, i.e., God’s light.
+But the Word of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light, +nor a participated light, but the true light, i.e., light by his +essence. Therefore he says, He was +the true light.
+126 This excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who +believed that Christ derived his beginning from the Virgin. So, +lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist, speaking of the +incarnation of the Word, says, He +was the true light, i.e., eternally, not only before the +Virgin, but before every creature. This also excludes the error of +Arius and Origen; they said that Christ was not true God, but God +by participation. If this were so, he could not be the true light, +as the Evangelist says here, and as in “God is light” +(1 Jn 1:5), i.e., not by participation, but the true light. So if the Word was the +true light, it is plain that he is true God. Now it is clear how +the divine Word is effective in causing divine knowledge.
+127 The effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact +that he enlightens every man coming +into this world. For everything which is what it is by +participation is derived from that which is such by its essence; +just as everything afire is so by participation in fire, which is +fire by its very essence. Then since the Word is the true light by +his very essence, then everything that shines must do so through +him, insofar as it participates in him. And so he enlightens every man coming into this +world.
+128 To understand this, we should know that “world” +is taken in three ways in Scripture. Sometimes, from the point of +view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here, +“through him the world was made” (v 10). Sometimes, +from the point of view of its perfection, which it reaches through +Christ, as in “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to +himself” (2 Cor 5:19). And sometimes it is taken from the +point of view of its perversity, as in “The whole world lies +under the power of the evil one” (1 Jn 5:19).
+On the other hand, “enlightenment” or “being +enlightened” by the Word is taken in two ways. First, in +relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in “The light +of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us” (Ps 4:7). +Secondly, as the light of grace, “Be enlightened, O +Jerusalem” (Is 60:1).
+129 With these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to +solve a difficulty which arises here. For when the Evangelist says, +he enlightens every man, +this seems to be false, because there are still many in darkness in +the world. However, if we bear in mind these distinctions and take +“world” from the standpoint of its creation, and +“enlighten” as referring to the light of natural +reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach. For all +men coming into this visible world are enlightened by the light of +natural knowledge through participating in this true light, which +is the source of all the light of natural knowledge participated in +by men.
+When the Evangelist speaks of man coming into this world, he does not +mean that men had lived for a certain time outside the world and +then came into the world, since this is contrary to the teaching of +the Apostle in Romans (9:11), “When the children were not yet +born nor had they done anything good or evil.” Therefore, +since they had done nothing before they were born, it is plain that +the soul does not exist p3or to its union with the body. He refers +to every man coming into this +world, to show that men are enlightened by God with respect +to that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with +respect to the intellect, which is something external [to the +world]. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and +intellectual. According to his bodily or sensible nature, man is +enlightened by a bodily and sensible light; but according to his +soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an intellectual +and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world +according to his bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from +the world. His intellectual nature is derived from a source +external to the world, as has been said, i.e., from God through +creation; as in “Until all flesh returns to its origin, and +the spirit is directed to God, who made it” (Ecc 12:7). For +these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of every man coming into this world, he is +showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without, +that is, the intellect.
+130 If we understand “enlightenment” with respect to +the light of grace, then he +enlightens every man may be explained in three ways. The +first way is by Origen in his homily, “The great +eagle,” and is this. “World” is understood from +the point of view of its perfection, which man attains by his +reconciliation through Christ. And so we have, he enlightens every +man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, +that is, the Church, which has been enlightened by the light of +grace.
+Chrysostom explains it another way. He takes “world” +under the aspect of creation. Then the sense is: He enlightens, i.e., the Word does, in so +far as it depends on him, because he fails no one, but rather +“wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of +the truth” (1 Tim 2:4); every +man coming, i.e., who is born into this sensible world. If +anyone is not enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns +from the light that enlightens.
+Augustine explains it a third way. For him, “every” +has a restricted application, so that the sense is: He enlightens every man coming into this +world, not every man universally, but every man who is +enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word. +According to Augustine, the Evangelist says, coming into this world, in order to give +the reason why man needs to be enlightened, and he is taking +“world” from the point of view of its perversity and +defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be enlightened +because he is coming into this world which is darkened by +perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This followed the +spiritual world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), “To +enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of +death.”
+131 The above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, +who think than men were created in the world from an opposing +principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of the devil +when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or +by the Word, for “Christ came into the world to destroy the +works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8).
+132 So it is clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that +the lack of knowledge in men is not due to the Word, because he is +effective in enlightening all, being the true light, which enlightens every +man coming into this +world.
+But so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or +absence of the true light, the Evangelist rules this out adding, +He was in the world. A +comparable statement is found in “He is not far from any one +of us,” that is, God, “for in him we live, and move, +and are” (Acts 17:28). It is as though the Evangelist were +saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand in order to +enlighten us.
+133 We should remark that something is said to be “in the +world” in three ways. In one way, by being contained, as a +thing in place exists in a place: “They are in the +world” (below 17:11). In another way, as a part in a whole; +for a part of the world is said to be in the world even though it +is not in a place. For example, supernatural substances, although +not in the world as in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts: +“God ... who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things +that are in them” (Ps 145:6). But the true light was not in +the world in either of these ways, because that light is neither +localized nor is it a part of the universe. Indeed, if we can speak +this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since +it participates in a partial way in his goodness.
+Accordingly, the true light was in the world in a third way, +i.e., as an efficient and preserving cause: “I fill heaven +and earth” as said in Jeremiah (23:24). However, there is a +difference between the way the Word acts and causes all things and +the way in which other agents act. For other agents act as existing +externally: since they do not act except by moving and altering a +thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they +work from without. But God acts in all things from within, because +he acts by creating. Now to create is to give existence +(esse) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in +each thing, God, who by acting gives esse acts in things +from within. Hence God was in the world as one giving esse +to the world.
+134 It is customary to say that God is in all things by his +essence, presence and power. To understand what this means, we +should know that someone is said to be by his power in all the +things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in +the entire kingdom subject to him, by his power. He is not there, +however, by presence or essence., Someone is said to be by presence +in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is +said to be in his house by presence. And someone is said to be by +essence in those things in which his substance is; as a king is in +one determinate place.
+Now we say that God is everywhere by his power, since all things +are subject to his power: “If I ascend into heaven, you are +there.... If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the +furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and +your right hand will hold me” (Ps 138:8). He is also +everywhere by his presence, because “all things are bare and +open to his eyes,” as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is +present everywhere by his essence, be cause his essence is +innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be +immediately joined to its effect, because mover and moved must be +together. Now God is the maker and preserver of all things with +respect to the esse of each. Hence, since the esse of +a thing is innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his +essence, through which he creates all things, is in all things.
+135 It should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses +the word “was,” when he says, He was in the world, showing that from +the beginning of creation he was always in the world, causing and +preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to +withhold his power from the things he established, all would return +to nothing and cease to be. Hence Origen uses an apt example to +show this, when he says that as a human vocal sound is to a human +word conceived in the mind, so is, the creature to the divine Word; +for as our vocal sound is the effect of the word conceived in our +mind, so the creature is the effect of the Word conceived in the +divine mind. “For he spoke, and they were created” (Ps +148:5). Hence, just as we notice that as soon as our inner word +vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also ceases, so, if the power of +the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of them would +immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is +“sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Heb +1:3).
+136 So it is plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is +not due to the absence of the Word, because He was in the world; nor is it due to +the invisibility or concealment of the Word, because he has +produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that +is, the world: “For from the greatness and beauty of +creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5), +and “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being +understood through the things that are made” (Rom 1:20). And +so the Evangelist at once adds, and +through him the world was made, in order that that light +might be manifested in it. For as a work of art manifests the art +of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain +representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of +the Father, “He poured her [wisdom] out upon all his +works,” as is said in Sirach (1:10).
+Now it is clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to +the Word, because he is efficacious, being the true light; and he is at hand, since +he was in the world; and he +is knowable, since through him the +world was made.
+137 The Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he +says, and the world did not know +him. As if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world, +who did not know him.
+He says him in the singular, because earlier he had called the +Word not only the “light of men,” but also +“God”; and so when he says him, he means God. Again, he +uses “world” for man. For the angels knew him by their +understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; but +the world, i.e., man, who +lives in the world, did not know +him.
+138 We attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the +nature of man or to his guilt. To his nature, indeed, because +although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to +the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge. +“Man beholds him from afar” (Jb 36:25), and immediately +after, “God is great beyond our knowledge.” But if some +have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but +above the world; and the kind for whom the world was not worthy, +because the world did not know +him. Hence if they mentally perceived anything eternal, that +was insofar as they were not of this world.
+But if this lack is attributed to man’s guilt, then the +phrase, the world did not know +him, is a kind of reason why God was not known by man; in +this sense world is taken +for inordinate lovers of the world. It is as though it said, +The world did not know him, +because they were lovers of the world. For the love of the world, +as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us from the knowledge +of God, because “Love of the world makes one an enemy to +God” (Jas 4:4); “The sensual man does not perceive the +things that pertain to the Spirit of God” ( 1 Cor 2:14).
+139 From this we call answer the question of the Gentiles who +futilely ask this: If it is only recently that the Son of God is +set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that +before that time he scorned human nature? We should say to them +that he did not scorn the world but was always in the world, and on +his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their own fault that +some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world.
+140 We should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the +incarnation of the Word to show that the incarnate Word and that +which “was in the beginning with God,” and God, are the +same. He repeats what he had said of him earlier. For above he had +said he [the Word] “was the light of men”; here he says +he was the true light. +Above, he said that “all things were made through him”; +here he says that through him the world was made. Earlier he had +said, “without him nothing was made,” i.e., according +to one explanation, he conserves all things; here he says, he was +in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things. +There he had said, “the darkness did not overcome it”; +here he says, the world did not +know him. And so, all he says after he was the true light, is an explanation of what he +had said before.
+141 We can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to +become incarnate. One is because of the perversity of human nature +which, because of its own malice, had been darkened by vices and +the obscurity of its own ignorance. And so he said before, the +darkness did not overcome it. Therefore, God came in the flesh so +that the darkness might apprehend the light, i.e., obtain a +knowledge of it. “The people who walked in darkness saw a +great light” (Is 9:2).
+The second reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not +enough. For the prophets came and John had come; but they were not +able to give sufficient enlightenment, because he was not the light. And so, after the +prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was necessary +that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of +itself. And this is what the Apostle says: “In past times, +God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through the +prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son” as we +find in Hebrews (1:1). “We have the prophetic message, to +which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns” (2 +Pt 1:19).
+The third reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures. +For creatures were not sufficient to lead to a knowledge of the +Creator; hence he says, through him +the world was made, and the world did not know him. Thus it +was necessary that the Creator himself come into the world in the +flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle +says: “Since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God +by its wisdom, it pleased God to save those who believe by the +foolishness of our preaching” (1 Cor 1:21).
++
++ +LECTURE 6
+11 He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him;
+
+12 but whoever received him, he gave them power to become
+the sons of God, to all who believe in his name,
+13 who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the +flesh,
+nor from man’s willing it, but from God.142 Having given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word, +the Evangelist then shows the advantage men gained from that +incarnation. First, he shows the coming of the light (v 11); +secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit brought +by the coming of the light (v 12).
+143 He shows that the light which was present in the world and +evident, i.e., disclosed by its effect, was nevertheless not known +by the world. Hence, he came unto his own, in order to be known. +The Evangelist says, unto his +own, i.e., to things that were his own, which he had made. +And he says this so that you do not think that when he says, he +came, he means a local motion in the sense that he came as though +ceasing to be where he previously was and newly beginning to be +where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was. +“I came forth from the Father, and have come into the +world,” as said below ( 16:2 8).
+He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some, +because it was in a special way his own. “In Judea God is +known” (Ps 75:1); “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is +the house of Israel” (Is 5:7). But it is better to say, unto +his own, i.e., into the world created by him. “The earth is +the Lord’s” (Ps 23:1).
+144 But if he was previously in the world, how could he come +into the world? I answer that “coming to some place” is +understood in two ways. First, that someone comes where he +absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone begins +to be in a new way where he was before. For example, a king, who up +to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by his power and +later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously +was: for he comes by his substance where previously he was present +only by his power. It was in this way that the Son of God came into +the world and yet was in the world. For he was there, indeed, by +his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He +was there invisibly, and he came in order to be visible.
+145 Then when he says, and his +own did not receive him, we have the reception given him by +men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but +these were not his own; hence he says, his own did not receive him. “His +own” are men, because they were formed by him. “The +Lord God formed man” (Gn 2:7); “Know that the Lord is +God: he made us” (Ps 99:3). And he made them to his own +image, “Let us make man to our image” (Gn 1:26).
+But it is better to say, his +own, i.e., the Jews, did not +receive him, through faith by believing, and by showing +honor to him. “I have come in the name of my Father, and you +do not receive me” (below 5:43), and “I honor my Father +and you have dishonored me” (below 8:49). Now the Jews are +his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people. +“The Lord chose you to be his special people” (Dt +26:18). They are his own because related according to the flesh, +“from whom is Christ, according to the flesh,” as said +in Romans (9:3). They are also his own because enriched by his +kindness, “I have reared and brought up sons” (Is 1:2). But although the Jews were his own, they did not receive him.
-146 However, there were not lacking those who did receive him. Hence he adds, but -whoever received him. The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying, but whoever, to -indicate that the deliverance would be more extensive than the promise, which had been made -only to his own, i.e., to the Jews. “The Lord is our law giver, the Lord is our king; he will -save us” (Is 33:22). But this deliverance was not only for his own, but for whoever received -him, i.e., whoever believe in him. “For I say that Christ was a minister to the circumcised, for -the sake of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8). The -Gentiles, however, [are delivered] by his mercy, because they were received through his -mercy.
-147 He says, whoever, to show that God’s grace is given without distinction to all who -receive Christ. “The grace of the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles”(Acts -10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only to men, but to women also. -“In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or -uncircumcised” (Gal 3:28).
-148 Then when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of God, we have the fruit of -his coming. First, he mentions the grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them power. Secondly, he -shows to whom it is given, to all who believe. Thirdly, he indicates the way it is given, not -from blood, and so forth.
-149 The fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because by it men are made sons of -God. “God sent his Son made from a woman ... so that we might receive our adoption as -sons” (Gal 4:5). And it was fitting that we, who. are sons of God by the fact that we are made -like the Son, should be reformed through the Son.
-150 So he says, he gave them power to become the sons of God. To understand this we -should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God. Hence men are sons of -God according to a threefold likeness to God. First, by the infusion of grace; hence anyone -having sanctifying grace is made a son of God. “You did not receive the spirit of slavery ... -but the spirit of adoption as sons,” as said in Romans (8:15). “Because you are sons of God, -God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (Gal 4:6).
-Secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions, because one who acts justly is a -son: “Love your enemies ... so that you may be the children of your Father” (Mt 5:44).
-Thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory. The glory of the soul by the light of -glory, “When he appears we shall be like him” (1 Jn 3:2); and the glory of the body, “He will -reform our lowly body” (Phil 3:21). Of these two it is said in Romans (8:23), “We are waiting -for our adoption as sons of God.”
-151 If we take the power to become the sons of God as referring to the perfection of our -actions and the attainment of glory, the statement offers no difficulty. For then when he says, -he gave them power, he is referring to the power of grace; and when a man possesses this, he -can perform works of perfection and attain glory, since “The grace of God is eternal life” -(Rom 6:23). According to this way we have, he gave them, to those who received him, power, -i.e., the infusion of grace, to become the sons of God, by acting well and acquiring glory.
-152 But if this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then his saying, he gave them power, -gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is not in our power to be made sons of God, -since it is not in our power to possess grace. We can understand, he gave them power, as a -power of nature; but this does not seem to be true since the infusion of grace is above our -nature. Or we can understand it as the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power -to become the sons of God. And in this sense he did not give them power to become sons of -God, but to be sons of God.
-153 The answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult, his justification requires an act -of consent by a movement of his free will. So, because it is in the power of men to consent -and not to consent, he gave them power. However, he gives this power of accepting grace in -two ways: by preparing it, and by offering it to him. For just as one who writes a book and -offers it to a man to read is said to give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace -was produced (as will be said below), and who “accomplished salvation on the earth” (Ps -73:12), gave us power to become the sons of God by offering grace.
-154 Yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to be moved to receive grace, needs -the help of divine grace, not indeed habitual grace, but movent grace. For this reason, -secondly, he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the reception of grace, -as in “Convert us to yourself, 0 Lord,” by moving our will to your love, “and we will be -converted” (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an interior call, of which it is said, -“Those whom he called,” by inwardly moving the will to consent to grace, “he justified,” by -infusing grace (Rom 8:3).
-155 Since by this grace man has the power of maintaining himself in the divine sonship, one -may read these words in another way. He gave them, i.e., those who receive him, power to -become the sons of God, i.e., the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine -sonship. “Everyone who is born from God does not sin, but the grace of God,” through which -we are reborn as children of God, “preserves him” (1 Jn 5:18).
-156 Thus, he gave them power to become the sons of God, through sanctifying grace, -through the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of glory; and he did this by -preparing this grace, moving their wills, and preserving this grace.
-157 Then when he says, to all who believe in his name, he shows those on whom the fruit of -his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either as explaining what was -said before, or as qualifying it. We can regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, -whoever received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by way of -explanation, who believe in his name. It is as though he were saying: To receive him is to -believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells in your hearts, as in “that Christ -may dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17). Therefore, they received him, who -believe in his name.
-158 Origen regards this as a qualifying statement, in his homily, “The spiritual voice.” In this -sense, many receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are not sons of God, -because they do not truly believe in his name; for they propose false dogmas about Christ by -taking away something from his divinity or humanity, as in “Every spirit that denies Christ is -not from God” (1 Jn 4:3). And so the Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, he -gave them, i.e., those who receive him by faith, power to become the sons of God, to those, -however, who believe in his name, i.e., who keep the name of Christ whole, in such a way as -not to lessen anything of the divinity or humanity of Christ.
-159 We can also refer this to formed faith, in the sense that to all, that is, he gave power to -become the sons of God, who believe in his name, i.e., those who do the works of salvation -through a faith formed by charity. For those who have only an unformed faith do not believe -in his name because they do not work unto salvation.
-However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better.
-160 Then when he says, who are born not from blood, he shows the way in which so great a -fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of the light’s coming is the -power given to men to become the sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are -born through a material generation he says, not from blood. And although the word “blood” -(sanguis) has no plural in Latin, but does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] -ignored a rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he does not say, -“from blood,” in the Latin manner, but “from bloods” (ex sanguinibus). This indicates -whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter in carnal generation. According to the -Philosopher [On the Generation of Animals, 1, c 18, 726a26-8], “semen is a residue derived -from useful nourishment in its final form.” So “blood” indicates either the seed of the male or -the menses of the female.
-The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the -woman. For although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, the -preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, nor from the desires of the flesh, -referring to the woman; nor from man’s willing it, as from an efficient cause; but from -God. It is as though he were saying: They became sons of God, not carnally, but spiritually.
-According to Augustine, “flesh” is taken here for the woman, because as the flesh obeys the -spirit, so woman should obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, “This, at last, is bone -of my bones.” And note, according to Augustine, that just as the possessions of a household -are wasted away if the woman rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the -flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, “We are not debtors to the flesh, so that -we should live according to the flesh” (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal -generation, we read, “In the womb of my mother I was molded into flesh” (Wis 7:1).
-161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold: the intellectual -appetite on the one hand, that is, the will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is -concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, not from blood. To indicate the -efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, nor from the desires of the flesh [ex -voluntate carnis, literally, “from the will of the flesh”], even though the concupiscence of the -flesh is improperly called a “will” in the sense of Galatians (5:17), “The flesh lusts against the -spirit.” Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, nor from man’s willing it. So, -the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but spiritual, because they were born from -God. “Every one who is born from God conquers the world” (1 Jn 5:4).
-162 Note, however, that this preposition de (“of,” or “from”), always signifies a material -cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial cause. Thus we say a blacksmith -makes a knife de ferro (“from” iron), and a father generates his son de seipso (“from” -himself), because something of his concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition a -(“by”) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition ex (“from,” or “by”)—[in the sense -of “out of” or “by reason of”]—is taken as something common, since it implies an efficient as -well as a material cause, although not a consubstantial cause.
-Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is “of” (de) the substance of the -Father and indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are adopted sons, -are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the preposition ex, saying of others that they are -born from God (ex Deo), but of the natural Son, he says that he is born of the Father (de -Patre).
-163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can discern the -difference between carnal and spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is -carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. “What is born from flesh is -itself flesh; and what is born from Spirit is itself spirit” (below 3:6). Again, because material -generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, it is unclean and begets -children who are sinners: “We were by nature children of wrath” as it says in Ephesians (2:3). -Again, because the former is from man’s willing it, that is, from man, it makes children of -men; but the latter, because it is from God, makes children of God.
-164 But if he intends to refer his statement, he gave them power, to baptism, in virtue of -which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his words the order of baptism: that is, -the first thing required is faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be -instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; then through baptism they are -reborn, not carnally froin blood, but spiritually from God.
--
- LECTURE 7
-14a And the Word was made flesh, and made his dwelling among us.
165 Having explained the necessity for the Word’s coming in the flesh as well as the benefits -this conferred, the Evangelist now shows the way he came (v 14a). He thus resumes the -thread with his earlier statement, he came unto his own. As if to say: The Word of God came -unto his own. But lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he shows the -manner in which he came, that is, by an incarnation. For he came in the manner in which he -was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. “God sent his Son -made from a woman” (Gal 4:4). And Augustine says about this that “He was sent in the -manner in which he was made.”
-According to Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the earlier statement, he gave them -power to become the sons of God. As if to say: If you wonder how he was able to give this -power to men, i.e., that they become sons of God, the Evangelist answers: because the Word -was made flesh, he made it possible for us to be made sons of God. “God sent his Son ... so -that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5).
-But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier statement, who are born from God. -For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from God, then, as though arguing in -support of this and to produce belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds -something which seems less seemly, namely, that the Word was made flesh. As if to say: Do -not wonder if men are born from God, because the Word was made flesh, i.e., God became -man.
-166 It should be noted that this statement, the Word was made flesh, has been -misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain ones have presumed that -the Word became flesh in the sense that he or something of him was turned into flesh, as -when flour is made into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who -postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the nature of God and of man was -the same. We can clearly see that this is false because, as was said above, “the Word was -God.” Now God is immutable, as is said, “I am the Lord, and I do not change” (Mal 3:6). -Hence in no way can it be said that he was turned into another nature. Therefore, one must -say in opposition to Eutyches, the Word was made flesh, i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but -not in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we were to say: “The man -became white,” not that he is that whiteness, but that he asstinled whiteness.
-167 There were others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh -but assumed it, nevertheless said that he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed -flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said, “the Word was made flesh with a soul.” -This was the error of Arius, who said that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of -God was there in place of a soul.
-The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in conflict with Sacred Scripture, -which often mentions the soul of Christ, as: “My soul is sad, even to the point of death” (Mt -26:38), and because certain affections of the soul are observed in Christ which can not -possibly exist in the Word of God or in flesh alone: “He began to be sorrowful and troubled” -(Mt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. Nor can an angel be united to a body as -its form, since an angel, according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a soul is -united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God cannot be the form of a body.
-Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the specific nature of flesh except through -its soul. This is shown by the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man -or a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an equivocal sense. So if the -Word did not assume flesh with a soul, it is obvious that he did not assume flesh. But the -Word was made flesh; therefore, he assumed flesh with a soul.
-168 And there were others who, influenced by this, said that the Word did indeed assume -flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word -took the place of the intellectual soul in Christ’s body. This was the error of Apollinaris. He -followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of the [scriptural] authorities cited above, was -forced to admit a soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions. But he said this -soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man Christ their place was taken by the Word.
-This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the authority of Sacred Scripture in -which certain things are said of Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive -soul, nor in flesh alone; for example, that Christ marvelled, as in Matthew (8:10). For to -marvel or wonder is a state which arises in a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises -to know the hidden cause of an observed effect. Therefore, just as sadness compels one to -place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, against Arius, so marvelling or amazement -forces one to admit, against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ.
-The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no flesh without a soul, so -there is no human flesh without a human soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word -assumed flesh which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of a rational -soul, he did not assume human flesh; consequently, one could not say: “God became man.”
-Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it. Therefore, he repaired what he -assumed. But if he did not assume a rational soul, he would not have repaired it. -Consequently, no fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the Word; and this is -false. Therefore, the Word was made flesh, i.e., assumed flesh which was animated by a -rational soul.
-169 But you may say: If the Word did assume flesh with such a soul, why did the Evangelist -not mention “rational soul,” instead of only “flesh,” saying, the Word was made flesh? I +
146 However, there were not lacking those who did receive him. +Hence he adds, but whoever received +him. The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying, +but whoever, to indicate that the deliverance would be more +extensive than the promise, which had been made only to his own, +i.e., to the Jews. “The Lord is our law giver, the Lord is +our king; he will save us” (Is 33:22). But this deliverance +was not only for his own, but for whoever received him, i.e., whoever +believe in him. “For I say that Christ was a minister to the +circumcised, for the sake of God’s truth, to confirm the +promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8). The Gentiles, +however, [are delivered] by his mercy, because they were received +through his mercy.
+147 He says, whoever, to show that God’s grace is given +without distinction to all who receive Christ. “The grace of +the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles”(Acts +10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only +to men, but to women also. “In Christ Jesus there is neither +male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or +uncircumcised” (Gal 3:28).
+148 Then when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of +God, we have the fruit of his coming. First, he mentions the +grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them power. Secondly, he shows +to whom it is given, to all who +believe. Thirdly, he indicates the way it is given, +not from blood, and so +forth.
+149 The fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because +by it men are made sons of God. “God sent his Son made from a +woman ... so that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal +4:5). And it was fitting that we, who. are sons of God by the fact +that we are made like the Son, should be reformed through the +Son.
+150 So he says, he gave them +power to become the sons of God. To understand this we +should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God. +Hence men are sons of God according to a threefold likeness to God. +First, by the infusion of grace; hence anyone having sanctifying +grace is made a son of God. “You did not receive the spirit +of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption as sons,” as said +in Romans (8:15). “Because you are sons of God, God sent the +Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (Gal 4:6).
+Secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions, +because one who acts justly is a son: “Love your enemies ... +so that you may be the children of your Father” (Mt +5:44).
+Thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory. The +glory of the soul by the light of glory, “When he appears we +shall be like him” (1 Jn 3:2); and the glory of the body, +“He will reform our lowly body” (Phil 3:21). Of these +two it is said in Romans (8:23), “We are waiting for our +adoption as sons of God.”
+151 If we take the power to become the sons of God as referring +to the perfection of our actions and the attainment of glory, the +statement offers no difficulty. For then when he says, he gave them +power, he is referring to the power of grace; and when a man +possesses this, he can perform works of perfection and attain +glory, since “The grace of God is eternal life” (Rom +6:23). According to this way we have, he gave them, to those who +received him, power, i.e., the infusion of grace, to become the +sons of God, by acting well and acquiring glory.
+152 But if this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then +his saying, he gave them +power, gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is +not in our power to be made sons of God, since it is not in our +power to possess grace. We can understand, he gave them power, as a +power of nature; but this does not seem to be true since the +infusion of grace is above our nature. Or we can understand it as +the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power to +become the sons of God. And +in this sense he did not give them power to become sons of God, but +to be sons of God.
+153 The answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult, +his justification requires an act of consent by a movement of his +free will. So, because it is in the power of men to consent and not +to consent, he gave them +power. However, he gives this power of accepting grace in +two ways: by preparing it, and by offering it to him. For just as +one who writes a book and offers it to a man to read is said to +give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace was +produced (as will be said below), and who “accomplished +salvation on the earth” (Ps 73:12), gave us power to become the sons of God +by offering grace.
+154 Yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to +be moved to receive grace, needs the help of divine grace, not +indeed habitual grace, but movent grace. For this reason, secondly, +he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the +reception of grace, as in “Convert us to yourself, 0 +Lord,” by moving our will to your love, “and we will be +converted” (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an +interior call, of which it is said, “Those whom he +called,” by inwardly moving the will to consent to grace, +“he justified,” by infusing grace (Rom 8:3).
+155 Since by this grace man has the power of maintaining himself +in the divine sonship, one may read these words in another way. He +gave them, i.e., those who receive him, power to become the sons of God, i.e., +the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine +sonship. “Everyone who is born from God does not sin, but the +grace of God,” through which we are reborn as children of +God, “preserves him” (1 Jn 5:18).
+156 Thus, he gave them power to +become the sons of God, through sanctifying grace, through +the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of +glory; and he did this by preparing this grace, moving their wills, +and preserving this grace.
+157 Then when he says, to all +who believe in his name, he shows those on whom the fruit of +his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either +as explaining what was said before, or as qualifying it. We can +regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, whoever +received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by +way of explanation, who believe in +his name. It is as though he were saying: To receive him is +to believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells +in your hearts, as in “that Christ may dwell in your hearts +through faith” (Eph 3:17). Therefore, they received him, who believe in his +name.
+158 Origen regards this as a qualifying statement, in his +homily, “The spiritual voice.” In this sense, many +receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are +not sons of God, because they do not truly believe in his name; for +they propose false dogmas about Christ by taking away something +from his divinity or humanity, as in “Every spirit that +denies Christ is not from God” (1 Jn 4:3). And so the +Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, he gave them, i.e., those who receive +him by faith, power to become the +sons of God, to those, however, who believe in his name, i.e., who keep +the name of Christ whole, in such a way as not to lessen anything +of the divinity or humanity of Christ.
+159 We can also refer this to formed faith, in the sense that to +all, that is, he gave power to +become the sons of God, who believe in his name, i.e., those +who do the works of salvation through a faith formed by charity. +For those who have only an unformed faith do not believe in his +name because they do not work unto salvation.
+However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what +preceded, is better.
+160 Then when he says, who are +born not from blood, he shows the way in which so great a +fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of +the light’s coming is the power given to men to become the +sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are born +through a material generation he says, not from blood. And although the word +“blood” (sanguis) has no plural in Latin, but +does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] ignored a +rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he +does not say, “from blood,” in the Latin manner, but +“from bloods” (ex sanguinibus). This +indicates whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter +in carnal generation. According to the Philosopher [On the +Generation of Animals, 1, c 18, 726a26-8], “semen is a +residue derived from useful nourishment in its final form.” +So “blood” indicates either the seed of the male or the +menses of the female.
+The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming +together, the man and the woman. For although the act of the +generative power as such is not subject to the will, the +preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, +nor from the desires of the +flesh, referring to the woman; nor from man’s willing it, as from +an efficient cause; but from +God. It is as though he were saying: They became sons of +God, not carnally, but spiritually.
+According to Augustine, “flesh” is taken here for +the woman, because as the flesh obeys the spirit, so woman should +obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, “This, at last, +is bone of my bones.” And note, according to Augustine, that +just as the possessions of a household are wasted away if the woman +rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the +flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, “We +are not debtors to the flesh, so that we should live according to +the flesh” (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal +generation, we read, “In the womb of my mother I was molded +into flesh” (Wis 7:1).
+161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation +is twofold: the intellectual appetite on the one hand, that is, the +will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is +concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, +not from blood. To indicate +the efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, +nor from the desires of the +flesh [ex voluntate carnis, literally, “from +the will of the flesh”], even though the concupiscence of the +flesh is improperly called a “will” in the sense of +Galatians (5:17), “The flesh lusts against the spirit.” +Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, +nor from man’s willing +it. So, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but +spiritual, because they were born from God. “Every one who is born +from God conquers the world” (1 Jn 5:4).
+162 Note, however, that this preposition de +(“of,” or “from”), always signifies a +material cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial +cause. Thus we say a blacksmith makes a knife de ferro +(“from” iron), and a father generates his son de +seipso (“from” himself), because something of his +concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition a +(“by”) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition +ex (“from,” or “by”)—[in the +sense of “out of” or “by reason +of”]—is taken as something common, since it implies an +efficient as well as a material cause, although not a +consubstantial cause.
+Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is +“of” (de) the substance of the Father and +indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are +adopted sons, are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the +preposition ex, saying of others that they are born +from God (ex +Deo), but of the natural Son, he says that he is born of +the Father (de Patre).
+163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal +generation, we can discern the difference between carnal and +spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is +carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. +“What is born from flesh is itself flesh; and what is born +from Spirit is itself spirit” (below 3:6). Again, because +material generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from +concupiscence, it is unclean and begets children who are sinners: +“We were by nature children of wrath” as it says in +Ephesians (2:3). Again, because the former is from man’s willing it, that is, +from man, it makes children of men; but the latter, because it is +from God, makes children of God.
+164 But if he intends to refer his statement, he gave them power, to baptism, in +virtue of which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his +words the order of baptism: that is, the first thing required is +faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be +instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; +then through baptism they are reborn, not carnally froin blood, but +spiritually from God.
++
++ +LECTURE 7
+14a And the Word was made flesh, and made his dwelling among +us.
+165 Having explained the necessity for the Word’s coming +in the flesh as well as the benefits this conferred, the Evangelist +now shows the way he came (v 14a). He thus resumes the thread with +his earlier statement, he came unto +his own. As if to say: The Word of God came unto his own. +But lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he +shows the manner in which he came, that is, by an incarnation. For +he came in the manner in which he was sent by the Father, by whom +he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. “God sent his Son made +from a woman” (Gal 4:4). And Augustine says about this that +“He was sent in the manner in which he was made.”
+According to Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the +earlier statement, he gave them +power to become the sons of God. As if to say: If you wonder +how he was able to give this power to men, i.e., that they become +sons of God, the Evangelist answers: because the Word was made flesh, he made it +possible for us to be made sons of God. “God sent his Son ... +so that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5).
+But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier +statement, who are born from +God. For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from +God, then, as though arguing in support of this and to produce +belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds something +which seems less seemly, namely, that the Word was made flesh. As if to say: +Do not wonder if men are born from God, because the Word was made flesh, i.e., God +became man.
+166 It should be noted that this statement, the Word was made flesh, has been +misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain +ones have presumed that the Word became flesh in the sense that he +or something of him was turned into flesh, as when flour is made +into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who +postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the +nature of God and of man was the same. We can clearly see that this +is false because, as was said above, “the Word was +God.” Now God is immutable, as is said, “I am the Lord, +and I do not change” (Mal 3:6). Hence in no way can it be +said that he was turned into another nature. Therefore, one must +say in opposition to Eutyches, the +Word was made flesh, i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but not +in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we +were to say: “The man became white,” not that he is +that whiteness, but that he asstinled whiteness.
+167 There were others who, although they believed that the Word +was not changed into flesh but assumed it, nevertheless said that +he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed flesh with a +soul, the Evangelist would have said, “the Word was made +flesh with a soul.” This was the error of Arius, who said +that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of God was +there in place of a soul.
+The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in +conflict with Sacred Scripture, which often mentions the soul of +Christ, as: “My soul is sad, even to the point of +death” (Mt 26:38), and because certain affections of the soul +are observed in Christ which can not possibly exist in the Word of +God or in flesh alone: “He began to be sorrowful and +troubled” (Mt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. +Nor can an angel be united to a body as its form, since an angel, +according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a +soul is united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God +cannot be the form of a body.
+Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the +specific nature of flesh except through its soul. This is shown by +the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man or +a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an +equivocal sense. So if the Word did not assume flesh with a soul, +it is obvious that he did not assume flesh. But the Word was made flesh; therefore, +he assumed flesh with a soul.
+168 And there were others who, influenced by this, said that the +Word did indeed assume flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a +sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word took the place of +the intellectual soul in Christ’s body. This was the error of +Apollinaris. He followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of +the [scriptural] authorities cited above, was forced to admit a +soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions. But he +said this soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man +Christ their place was taken by the Word.
+This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the +authority of Sacred Scripture in which certain things are said of +Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive +soul, nor in flesh alone; for example, that Christ marvelled, as in +Matthew (8:10). For to marvel or wonder is a state which arises in +a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises to know the +hidden cause of an observed effect. Therefore, just as sadness +compels one to place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, +against Arius, so marvelling or amazement forces one to admit, +against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ.
+The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no +flesh without a soul, so there is no human flesh without a human +soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word assumed flesh +which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of +a rational soul, he did not assume human flesh; consequently, one +could not say: “God became man.”
+Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it. +Therefore, he repaired what he assumed. But if he did not assume a +rational soul, he would not have repaired it. Consequently, no +fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the Word; +and this is false. Therefore, the +Word was made flesh, i.e., assumed flesh which was animated +by a rational soul.
+169 But you may say: If the Word did assume flesh with such a +soul, why did the Evangelist not mention “rational +soul,” instead of only “flesh,” saying, +the Word was made flesh? I answer that the Evangelist had four reasons for doing this.
-First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the Manichaeans, who said that the Word -did not assume true flesh, but only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been becoming -for the Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a creature of the devil. -And so to exclude this the Evangelist made special mention of the flesh, just as Christ -showed the truth of the resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit, saying: -“A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have” (Lk 24:39).
-Secondly, to show the greatness of God’s kindness to us. For it is evident that the rational -soul has a greater conformity to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign -of compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed to himself. But to -assume flesh too, which is something far removed from the simplicity of his nature, was a -sign of a much greater, indeed, of an incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1 -Tim 3:16): “Obviously great is the mystery of godliness which appeared in the flesh.” And so -to indicate this, the Evangelist mentioned only flesh.
-Thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in Christ. For God is indeed -united to other holy men, but only with respect to their soul; so it is said: “She [wisdom] -passes into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets” (Wis 7:27). But that the -Word of God is united to flesh is unique to Christ, according to the Psalmist: “I am alone -until I pass” (Ps 140:10). “Gold cannot equal it” (Jb 28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to -show the uniqueness of the union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, the Word was -made flesh.
-Fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man’s restoration For man was weak because of the flesh. -And thus the Evangelist, wishing to suggest that the coming of’ the Word was suited to the -task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in order to show that the weak flesh -was repaired by the flesh of the Word. And this is what the Apostle says: “The law was -powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of -sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 83).
-170 A question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that the Word assumed flesh, but -rather that the Word was made flesh. I answer that he did this to exclude the error of -Nestorius. He said that in Christ there were two persons and two sons, [one being the Son of -God] the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus he did not admit that the Blessed Virgin was -the mother of God.
-But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, for one particular -suppositum cannot be predicated of another. Accordingly, if the person or suppositum of the -Word is different than the person or suppositum of the man, in Christ, then what the -Evangelist says is not true, namely, the Word was made flesh. For a thing is made or -becomes something in order to be it; if, then, the Word is not man, it could not be said that -the Word became man. And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not “assumed,” -to show that the union of the Word to flesh is not such as was the “lifting up” of the prophets, -who were not “taken up” into a unity of person, but for the prophetic act. This union is such -as would truly make God man and man God, i.e., that God would be man.
-171 There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of the incarnation, did indeed -admit that the aforesaid assumption was terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in -God one person of God and man. But they said that in him there were two hypostases, i.e., -two supposita; one of a human nature, created and non-eternal, ‘and the other of the divine -nature, non-created and eternal. This is the first opinion presented in the Sentences (III, d6).
-According to this opinion the proposition, “God was made man and man was made God,” is -not true. Consequently, this opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where -it is said: “If anyone shall assert one person and two hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let -him be anathema.” And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at a -oneness of person, says, was made.
-172 If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is man in the way that anyone is, -man, namely, as having human nature. Not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a -divine suppositum united to a human nature. The statement, the Word was made flesh, does -not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the oneness of -a divine person. And the Word was made flesh through a union to flesh. Now a union is a -relation. And relations newly said of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on -the side of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to God.
-173 Now follows, and made his dwelling among us. This is distinguished in two ways from -what went before. The first consists in stating that above the Evangelist dealt with the -incarnation of the Word when he said, the Word was made flesh; but now he touches on the -manner of the incarnation, saying, and made his dwelling among us. For according to -Chrysostom and Hilary, by the Evangelist saying the Word was made flesh, someone might -think that he was converted into flesh and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but -only one nature compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the Evangelist, -excluding this, added, and made his dwelling among us, i.e., in our nature, yet so as to -remain distinct in his own. For what is converted into something does not remain distinct in -its nature from that into which it is converted.
-Furthermore, something which is not distinct from another does not dwell in it, because to -dwell implies a distinction between the dweller and that in which it dwells. But the Word -dwelt in our nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it. And so, inasmuch as human -nature was distinct from the nature of the Word in Christ, the former is called the dwelling -place and temple of the divinity, according to John (2:21): “But he spoke of the temple of his -body.”
-174 Now although what is said here by these holy men is orthodox, care must be taken to -avoid the reproach which some receive for this. For the early doctors and saints were so intent -upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith that they seemed meanwhile to fall -into the opposite ones. For example, Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who -destroyed the freedom of the will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have fallen into -the heresy of Pelagius. Along these lines, John the Evangelist added, and made his dwelling -among us, so that we would not think there was a mingling or transformation of natures in -Christ because he had said, the Word was made flesh.
-Nestorius misunderstood this phrase, and made his dwelling among us, and said that the -Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was not one person of God and of -man. For he held that the Word was united to human nature only by an indwelling through -grace. From this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not man.
-175 To clarify this we should know that we can consider two things in Christ: his nature and -person. In Christ there is a distinction in nature, but not in person, which is one and the same -in the two natures, since the human nature in Christ was assumed into a oneness of person. -Therefore, the indwelling which the saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so as to -say, he made his dwelling among us, i.e., the nature of the Word inhabited our nature; not -according to the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in Christ.
-176 The blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture. For -the Apostle calls the union of God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: “He, -being in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:6). Clearly, -God is not said to empty himself insofar as he dwells in the rational creature by grace, -because then the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptying themselves, since they too are -said to dwell in man through grace: for Christ, speaking of himself and of the Father says, -“We will come to him and make our home with him” (below 14:23); and of the Holy Spirit -the Apostle says: “The Spirit of God dwells in us” (1 Cor 3:16).
-Furthermore, if Christ was not God as to his person, he would have been most presumptuous -to say: “I and the Father are one” (below 10:30), and “Before Abraham came to be, I am,” as -is said below (8:58). Now “I” refers to the person of the speaker. And the one who was -speaking was a man, who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.
-177 However, another connection [besides that given in 173] with what went before is -possible, by saying that above he dealt with the incarnation of the Word, but that now he is -treating the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, he made his dwelling among us, -i.e., he lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter alludes to this when he says, “During all -the time that the Lord Jesus came and went among us” (Acts 1:21). “Afterwards, he was seen -on earth” (Bar 3:38).
-178 The Evangelist added this for two reasons. First, to show the marvelous likeness of the -Word to men, among whom he lived in such a way as to seem one of them. For he not only -willed to be like men in nature, but also in living with them on close terms without sin, in -order to draw to himself men won over by the charm of his way of life.
-Secondly, to show the truthfulness of his [the Evangelist’s] statements. For the Evangelist had -already said many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention more wonderful -things about him; and so that his testimony would be more credible he took as a proof of his -truthfulness the fact that he had lived with Christ, saying, he made his dwelling among us. -As if to say: I can well bear witness to him, because I lived on close terms with him. “We tell -you ... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1); “God raised him up -on the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people, but by witnesses -preordained by God,” that is, “to us who ate and drank with him” (Acts 10:40).
--
- LECTURE 8
-l4b And we have seen his glory,
-the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,
-full of grace and truth.179 Having set forth the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then begins to give the -evidence for the incarnate Word. He does two things about this. First, he shows the ways in -which the incarnate Word was made known. Secondly, he clarifies each way, below (1:16). -Now the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles in two ways: first of all, they -obtained knowledge of him by what they saw; secondly, by what they heard of the testimony -of John the Baptist. So first, he states what they saw about the Word; secondly, what they -heard from John (v 15).
-He states three things about the Word. First, the manifestation of his glory; hence he says, we -have seen his glory. Secondly, the uniqueness of his glory, when he adds, as of the Only -Begotten. Thirdly, the precise nature of this glory, because full of grace and truth.
-180 And we have seen his glory, can be connected in three ways with what went before. -First, it can be taken as an argument for his having said, the Word was made flesh. As if to -say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate because I and the other apostles -have seen his glory. “We know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see” -(below 3:11). “We tell you ... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes” (1 Jn -1:1).
-181 Secondly, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by taking this statement as -expressing many benefits. As if to say: The incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us -the benefit of becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory. For dull and feeble -eyes cannot see the light of the sun; but they can see it when it shines in a cloud or on some -opaque body. Now before the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of -seeing the divine light in itself, the light which enlightens every rational nature. And so, in -order that it might be more easily seen and contemplated by us, he covered it with the cloud -of our flesh: “They looked towards the desert, and saw the glory of the Lord in a cloud” (Ex -16:10), i.e., the Word of God in the flesh.
-182 According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to the gift of grace. For the -failure of the spiritual eyes of men to contemplate the divine light is due not only to their -natural limitations but also to the defects incurred by sin: “Fire,” that is, of concupiscence, -“fell on them, and they did not see the sun,” of justice (Ps 57:9). Hence in order that the -divine light might be seen by us, he healed our eyes, making an eye salve of his flesh, so that -with the salve of his flesh the Word might heal our eyes, weakened by the concupiscence of -the flesh. And this is why just after saying, the Word was made flesh, he says, we have seen -his glory. To indicate this the Lord made clay from his saliva and spread the clay upon the -eyes of the man born blind (below 9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the -head. Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed from the earth; but the -incarnate Word is from the head, i.e., from God the Father. So, when this clay was spread on -the eyes of men, we saw his glory.
-183 This is the glory of the Word Moses longed to see, saying, “Show me your glory” (Ex -32:18). But he did not deserve to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: “You shall see -my back” (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows and figures. But the apostles saw his brightness: “All of -us, gazing on the Lord’s glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory -into his very image” (2 Cor 3:18). For Moses and the other prophets saw in an obscure -manner and in figures the glory of the Word that was to be manifested to the world at the end -of their times; hence the Apostle says: “Now we see through a mirror,,in an obscure manner, -but then face to face” in 1 Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), “Isaiah said this when he -saw his glory.” But the apostles saw the very brilliance of the Word through his bodily -presence: “All of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory,” and so forth (2 Cor 3:18); “Blessed are the -eyes which see what you see. For many kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and -did not see it” (Lk 10:23).
-184 Then when he says, the glory as of the Only Begotten, he shows the uniqueness of his -glory. For since it is written of certain men that they were in glory, as of Moses it says that -“his face shone” (Ex 34:29), or was “horned,” according to another text, someone might say -that from the fact that they saw him [Jesus] in glory, it should not be said that the Word of -God was made flesh. But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, the glory as of the Only -Begotten of the Father. As if to say: His glory is not like the glory of an angel, or of Moses, -or Elijah, or Elisha, or anything like that. but the glory as of the Only Begotten; for as it is -said, “He [Jesus] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses” (Heb 3:3); “Who among the -sons of God is like God?” (Ps 88:7).
-185 The word as, according to Gregory, is used to express the fact. But according to -Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the fact: as if someone were to see a king approaching -in great glory and being asked by another to describe the king he saw, he could, if he wanted -to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory in one word, and say that he approached “as” a -king, i.e., as became a king. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by someone to -describe the glory of the Word which he had seen, and being unable to fully express it, said -that it was “as” of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such as became the Only Begotten of +
First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the +Manichaeans, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but +only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been becoming for the +Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a +creature of the devil. And so to exclude this the Evangelist made +special mention of the flesh, just as Christ showed the truth of +the resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit, +saying: “A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see +that I have” (Lk 24:39).
+Secondly, to show the greatness of God’s kindness to us. +For it is evident that the rational soul has a greater conformity +to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign of +compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed +to himself. But to assume flesh too, which is something far removed +from the simplicity of his nature, was a sign of a much greater, +indeed, of an incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1 +Tim 3:16): “Obviously great is the mystery of godliness which +appeared in the flesh.” And so to indicate this, the +Evangelist mentioned only flesh.
+Thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in +Christ. For God is indeed united to other holy men, but only with +respect to their soul; so it is said: “She [wisdom] passes +into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets” +(Wis 7:27). But that the Word of God is united to flesh is unique +to Christ, according to the Psalmist: “I am alone until I +pass” (Ps 140:10). “Gold cannot equal it” (Jb +28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to show the uniqueness of the +union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, the Word was made flesh.
+Fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man’s restoration +For man was weak because of the flesh. And thus the Evangelist, +wishing to suggest that the coming of’ the Word was suited to +the task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in +order to show that the weak flesh was repaired by the flesh of the +Word. And this is what the Apostle says: “The law was +powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his +Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, +condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 83).
+170 A question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that +the Word assumed flesh, but rather that the Word was made flesh. I answer that +he did this to exclude the error of Nestorius. He said that in +Christ there were two persons and two sons, [one being the Son of +God] the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus he did not admit +that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God.
+But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, +for one particular suppositum cannot be predicated of +another. Accordingly, if the person or suppositum of the +Word is different than the person or suppositum of the man, +in Christ, then what the Evangelist says is not true, namely, +the Word was made flesh. For +a thing is made or becomes something in order to be it; if, then, +the Word is not man, it could not be said that the Word became man. +And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not +“assumed,” to show that the union of the Word to flesh +is not such as was the “lifting up” of the prophets, +who were not “taken up” into a unity of person, but for +the prophetic act. This union is such as would truly make God man +and man God, i.e., that God would be man.
+171 There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of +the incarnation, did indeed admit that the aforesaid assumption was +terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in God one person +of God and man. But they said that in him there were two +hypostases, i.e., two supposita; one of a human nature, +created and non-eternal, ‘and the other of the divine nature, +non-created and eternal. This is the first opinion presented in the +Sentences (III, d6).
+According to this opinion the proposition, “God was made +man and man was made God,” is not true. Consequently, this +opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where it +is said: “If anyone shall assert one person and two +hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” +And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at +a oneness of person, says, was made.
+172 If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is +man in the way that anyone is, man, namely, as having human nature. +Not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a divine +suppositum united to a human nature. The statement, +the Word was made flesh, +does not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature +newly assumed into the oneness of a divine person. And the Word was made flesh through a +union to flesh. Now a union is a relation. And relations newly said +of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on the side +of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to God.
-186 The uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in four ways. First, in the -testimony which the Father gave to the Son. For John was one of the three who had seen -Christ transfigured on the mountain and heard the , voice of the Father saying: “This is my -beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 17:5). Of this glory it is said, “He received -honor and glory from God the Father ... ‘This is my beloved Son’” (2 Pt 1:17)
-Secondly, it is brought out by the service of the angels. For prior to the incarnation of Christ, -men were subject to the angels. But after it, angels ministered, as subjects, to Christ. “Angels -came and ministered to him” (Mt 4:11).
-Thirdly, it is brought out by the submission of nature. For all nature obeyed Christ and heeded -his slightest command, as something established by him, because “All things were made -through him” (above 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels nor to any creature, but -to the incarnate Word alone. And this is what we read, “What kind of man is this, for the -winds and the sea obey him?” (Mt 8:27).
-Fourthly, we see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses and the other prophets gave -commands to men and taught them not on their own authority, but on the authority of God. -So they said: “The Lord says this”; and “The Lord spoke to Moses.” But Christ speaks as the -Lord, and as one having power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, “I say to -you” (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said -that he taught as one “having authority” (Mt 7:29). Furthermore, other holy men worked -miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked them by his own power. In these -ways, then, the glory of the Word is unique.
-187 Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only Begotten, as here, and below (1 -:18): “it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him -known.” At other times we call him the First-born: “When he brings the Firstborn into the -world, he says, ‘Let all the angels of God adore him’ “ (Heb 1:6). The reason for this is that -just as it belongs to the whole Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to -be God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to what he is in himself; and in -this way he alone is uniquely God by his own essence. It is in this way that we say there is but -one God: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one” (Dt 6:4). At times, we even apply the -name of deity to others, insofar as a certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this -sense we speak of many gods: “Indeed, there are many gods and many lords” (1 Cor 8:5).
-Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as Begotten, and consider the way -in which this sonship is attributed to him, that is, through nature, we say that he is the Only -Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally begotten by the Father, the Begotten of -the Father is one only. But if we consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others -through a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through participation. And -because they are called sons of God by a likeness to him, he is called the First-born of all. -“Those whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, so -that he might be the First-born of many brothers” (Rom 8:29).
-So, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he is called the First-born insofar -as from his natural sonship, by means of a certain likeness and participation, a sonship is -granted to many.
-188 Then when he says, full of grace and truth, he determines the glory of the Word. As if -to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity. Now these words can be applied -to Christ in three ways.
-First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to someone so that he might be -united to God through it. So he who is most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now -some are joined to God by participating in a natural likeness: “Let us make man to our image -and likeness” (Gn 1:26). Some are joined by faith: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts -through faith” (Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because “He who abides in love -abides in God” (1 Jn 4:16). But all these ways are partial: because one is not perfectly united -to God by participating a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is by faith; nor is he loved to -the extent that he is lovable by charity—for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is -infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this infinitely. And so these unions are not -full.
-But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of a suppositum, we -find a full and perfect union with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all -the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were acts of the suppositum [or -person]. So he was full of grace insofar he did not receive any special gratuitous gift from -God, but that he should be God himself. “He gave him,” i.e., God the Father gave to the Son, -“a name which is above every name” (Phil 2:9). “He was foreordained to be the Son of God -in power” (Rom 1:4). He was also full of truth, because the human nature in Christ attained -to the divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine Truth itself. In other men -we find many participated truths, insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their minds -through many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said: “In whom all the treasures -of wisdom are hidden” (Col 2:3).
-189 Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the perfection of his soul. Then he is -said to be full of grace and truth inasmuch as in his soul there was the fulness of all graces -without measure: “God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions,” as we read below (3:34). Yet -it was given in fractions to all rational creatures, both angels and men. For according to -Augustine, just as there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the sense of -touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in Christ, who is the head of every -rational creature (and in a special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and -charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the -saints, we find participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift common to all the -saints, and that is charity. We read about this fulness of Christ’s grace: “There shall come -forth a shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of his root. And the -spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of -counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety” (Is 11:1).
-Further, Christ was also full of truth because his precious and h1essed soul knew every truth, -human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so Peter said to him, “You know -all things” (below 21:17). And the Psalm (88:25) says: “My truth,” i.e., the knowledge of -every truth, “and my mercy,” i.e., the fulness of all graces, “shall be with him.”
-190 In a third way these words can be explained in relation to his dignity as head, i.e., -inasmuch as Christ is the head of the Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate -grace to others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the inpouring of grace -and by meriting, through his teaching and works and the sufferings of his death, -superabundant grace for an infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is full -of grace insofar as he conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this perfect -justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no one just or bring anyone to -perfection. As we read: “The law was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, -sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his -flesh” (Rom 8:3).
-Again, he was full of truth insofar as he fulfilled the figures of the Old Law and the promises -made to the fathers. “Christ was a minister to the circumcised to confirm the promises made -to the fathers” (Rom 15:8); “All the promises of God are fulfilled in him” (2 Cor 1:20).
-Further, he is said to be full of grace because his teaching and manner of life were most -gracious. “Grace is poured out upon your lips” (Ps 44:3). And so it is said, “All the people -came to him early in the morning,” i.e., in the morning they were eager to come (Lk 21:38). -He was full of truth, because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor gloss over the -vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly and without deception. As it says below: -“Now you are speaking plainly” (16:29).
--
- LECTURE 9
-15 John bore witness to him, and he cried out saying:
-“This is the one of whom I said:
-‘He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me,
-because he existed before me.’”191 Having given the evidence by which the Word was made known to the apostles by sight, -the Evangelist then presents the evidence by which the Word was made known to persons -other than the apostles by their hearing the testimony of John. He does three things about this. -First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner of testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his -testimony is given.
-192 So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the -Father. But we are not believed, perhaps because we are held in suspicion. So let his witness -come forth, that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He is a faithful witness who -will not lie: “A faithful witness will not lie” (Prv 14:5), “You sent [messengers] to John, and -he bore witness to the truth” (below 5:33). John gives his testimony here and fulfills his office -with perseverance because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19) says, “Truthful lips -endure forever.”
-193 Then when he says, John bore witness to him, and he cried out, he describes the way -he bore witness, that is, it was with a cry. So he says, he cried out, i.e., freely without fear. -“Cry out in a loud voice.... Say to the cities of Judah: Here is your God” (Is 40:9). He cried -out ardently and with great fervor, because it is said, “His word burned like a torch” (Si 48:1); -“Seraphim cried one to another” (Is 6:3), which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of -spirit. The use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness are not made to a few in -figurative language or secretly, but that a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told -not to a few but to many. “Cry out, and do not stop” (Is 58:1).
-194 Then he adds his testimony. And he does two things. First, he shows that his testimony -was continuous. Secondly, he describes the person to whom he bore witness.
-195 The testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore witness to him not only -once but many times, and even before Christ had come to him. And so he says, This is the -one of whom I said, i.e., before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness to him. “And you, child, -shall be called the prophet of the Most High” (Lk 1:76). He pointed him out both as present -and when about to come. And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he -would come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying, Look! There is the Lamb of -God. This implies that Christ was physically present to John; for he had often come to John -before being baptized.
-196 Then he describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying, He who comes after me, -ranks ahead of me. Here we should note that John does not at once preach to his disciples -that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them little by little to higher things: first, by -preferring Christ to himself, even though John had such a great reputation and authority as to -be considered the Christ or one of the great prophets. Now he compares Christ to himself: -first, with regard to the order of their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and -thirdly, as to the time of their existence.
-197 With respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded Christ as a servant precedes -his master, and as a soldier his king, or as the morning star the sun: “See, I am sending my -messenger, and he will prepare the way before me” (Mal 3:1 ). So, He comes after me, in -being known to men, through my preaching. Observe that comes is in the present tense, -became in Greek the present participle is used.
-Now John preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to Chrysostom, because John was -a blood relation of Christ according to the flesh: “your relative, Elizabeth” (Lk 1.36). -Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his testimony might have been -open to question; accordingly, John came preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in -order that his testimony might have more force. Hence he says, “And I did not know him! -And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with water” (below 1:31).
-Secondly, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into act from potency, the -imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:46): “The -spiritual is not first, but the animal.” Accordingly, the perfect doctrine of Christ should have -been preceded by the less perfect teaching of John, which was in a certain manner midway -between the doctrine of the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ -from afar), and the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made Christ known.
-198 He [John] compares him to himself with respect to dignity when he says, he ranks ahead -of me [ante me factus est, literally, he “was made before me”]. It should be noted that it is -from this text that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that “He who comes -after me,” is to be understood of Christ as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, “was -made before me,” can only be understood of the Word of God, who existed before the flesh; -and for this reason Christ as the Word was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.
-According to Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, because if it were true, the -Baptist would not have said, he “was made before me, because he existed before me,” since -no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made before him. He rather would have -said the opposite: “He was before me, because he was made before me.” And so, according to -Chrysostom, these words should be taken as referring to his [Christ’s] dignity, that is, he was -preferred to me and placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to -preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of authority and in the -repute of men: “Gold will not be equal to it” (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred -ahead of me, that is, before my eyes, as the Gloss says and as the Greek text reads. As if to -say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my view and was recognized.
-199 He compares him to himself with respect to their duration, saying, because he existed -before me. As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail man of time. And -therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of him, yet it was fitting that he rank before me -in the reputation and opinion of men, because he preceded all things by his eternity: “Jesus -Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). “Before Abraham came to be, I -am,” as we read below (8:58).
-If we understand this passage as saying that he “was made before me,” it can be explained as -referring to the order of time according to the flesh. For in the instant of his conception Christ -was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul perfected by the virtues, and a body -possessed of all its distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: “A woman shall -enclose a man,” i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22). Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as -a perfect man before John was born; consequently he says that he “was made before me,” -because he was a perfect man before I came forth from the womb.
--
- LECTURE10
-16 Of his fullness we have all received—indeed, grace upon grace;
-17 because, while the law was given through Moses,
-grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.200 He follows with, Of his fullness we have all received words and those that follow to (v -19), “This is the testimony of John,” are taken in two ways. According to Origen, these are -the words of John the Baptist and are added by him to support what he had said previously. It -is as though he said: Truly, he existed before me, because of his fullness, i.e., of his grace, -not only I but all, including the prophets and patriarchs, have received, because all had the -grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate Word. According to this explanation, John the -Baptist began weaving the story of the incarnation at, “John bore witness to him” (v 15).
-But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from “John bore witness to him” (v -15), are those of John the Evangelist. And they are connected with the previous words, “full -of grace and truth,” as though he were saying: Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for -the Word which was learned through sight and by hearing, but here he explains each. First, -how he was made known to the apostles through sight, which was tantamount to receiving the -evidence from Christ. Secondly, how John bore witness to him, at “This is the testimony of -John” (v 19). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows that Christ is the origin, as a -fountain, of every spiritual grace. Secondly, he shows that grace is dispensed to us through -him and from him.
-201 He says first of all: We know from our own experience that we have seen him full of -grace and truth, because of his fullness we have all received. Now one fullness is that of -sufficiency, by which one is able to perform acts that are meritorious and excellent, as in the -case of Stephen. Again, there is a fullness of superabundance, by which the Blessed Virgin -excels all the saints because of the eminence and abundance of her merits. Further, there is a -fullness of efficiency and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as the author of -grace. For although the Blessed Virgin superabounds her grace into us, it is never as authoress -of grace. But grace flowed over from her soul into her body: for through the grace of the Holy -Spirit, not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God by love, but her womb was -supernaturally impregnated by the Holy Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace,” -he refers at once to the fullness of her womb, adding, “the Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). And -so the Evangelist, in order to show this unique fullness of efficiency and overflow in Christ, -said, Of his fullness we have all received, i.e., all the apostles and patriarchs and prophets -and just men who have existed, do now exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.
-202 Note that the preposition de [of, from] sometimes signifies efficiency, i.e., an originative -cause, as when it is said that a ray is or proceeds “from” the sun. In this way it signifies the -efficiency of grace in Christ, i.e., authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the -cause of all graces that are in intellectual creatures. “Come to me, all you who desire me, and -be filled with my fruits,” that is to say, share in the fullness of those fruits which come from -me (Si 24:26).
-But sometimes this preposition de signifies consubstantiality, as when it is said that the Son is -“of” the Father [de Patre]. In this usage, the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who -proceeds from him, consubstantial with him in nature, in power and in majesty. For although -the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the -same Holy Spirit who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified. “One and the same -Spirit produces all these” (1 Cor 12:11); “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (JI 2:28); -“If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him” (Rom 8:9). For the -unity of the Holy Spirit produces unity in the Church: “The Spirit of the Lord filled the whole -world” (Wis 1:7).
-In a third way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify it portion, as when we say “take -‘from’ this bread or wine [de hoc pane, vel vino],” i.e., take a portion and not the whole. -Taken in this way it signifies that those who take a part derive it from the fullness. For he -[Christ] received all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a perfect -fullness; but we participate through him some portion of his fullness; and this is according to -the measure which God grants to each. “Grace has been given to each of us according to the -degree to which Christ gives it” (Eph 4:7).
-203 Then when he says, grace upon grace, he shows the distribution of graces into us -through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we receive grace from Christ, as -its author. Secondly, that we receive wisdom from him (1:18). As to the first he does two -things. First, he shows that we have received of his fullness. Secondly, our need to receive it.
-204 First, he says that we have received of the fullness of Christ what is described as grace -upon grace. In the light of what is said, we are forced to understand that of his fullness we -have received grace, and that upon that grace we have received another. Accordingly, we -must see what that first grace is upon which we have received a second one, and also what -that second grace is.
-According to Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by the whole human race, was -the grace of the Old Testament received in the law. And this was indeed a great grace: “I will -give you a good gift” (Prv 4:2). For it was a great benefit for idolatrous men to receive -precepts from God, and a true knowledge of the one true God. “What is the advantage of -being a Jew, or the benefit of circumcision? It is great in every way. First indeed, because the -words of God were entrusted to them” (Rom 3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was first, we -have received a second far better. “He will follow grace with grace” (Zec 4:7).
-But was not the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was not, because the law gives only a -knowledge of sin, but does not take it away. “The law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb -7:19). Hence it was necessary that another grace come that would take away sin and reconcile -one with God.
-205 And so he says, because, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth -have come through Jesus Christ. Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above Moses the -lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now Moses was regarded as the greatest -of the prophets: “There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses” (Dt 34:10). But he -ranks Christ above Moses in excellence Mid in dignity of’ works, because the law was given -through Moses; and between these two, the One excels the other as the reality excels the -symbol and the truth the shadow: “The law had a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb -10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he works, because the law was given by Moses as -by one proclaiming it, but not originating it; for “The Lord alone is our lawgiver” (Is 33:22). -But grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ, as through the Lord and Author of -truth and grace, as was explained above.
-206 According to Augustine, however, the first grace is justifying and prevenient grace, -which is not given to us because of our works: “If it is by grace, it is not now by works” (Rom -11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is imperfect, we have received another grace which is -perfect, i.e., the grace of eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by -merits, nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone is prevenient grace, eternal -life is called a grace: “The grace of God is eternal life” (Rom 6:23). To be brief, whatever -grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole is called grace upon grace.
-The need for this second grace arises from the insufficiency of the law, which showed what -was to be done and what avoided; but it gave no help to fulfill what was commanded. Indeed, -what seemed to have been directed to life was the occasion for producing death. Hence the -Apostle says that the law was a minister of death: “If the ministry that condemned had glory, -the ministry that justifies has much more glory” (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised the help of -grace but did not fulfill, because “The law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). Again, -it prefigured the truth of the new grace by its sacrifices and ceremonies; indeed, its very rites -proclaimed that it was a figure. Hence is was necessary that Christ come, who by his own -death would destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that we might both -fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to our sins and our old way of life: “Our old self -was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6), and in order that the truth of the figures contained in the -law might be revealed and the promises made to the fathers be fulfilled.
-This can be explained in another way: truth has come through Jesus Christ, as to the -wisdom and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which he openly taught when he came -into the world: “I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth,” as we read below -(18:37).
-207 But if Christ is the Truth, as it says below (14:6), how did truth come [i.e., come to be, be -made] through him, because nothing can make itself? I answer that by his essence he is the -uncreated Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is begotten of the Father; but all created -truths were made through him, and these are certain participations and reflections of the first -Truth, which shines out in those souls who are holy.
--
- LECTURE 11
-18 No one has ever seen God;
-it is the Only Begotten Son,
-who is in the bosom of the Father,
-who has made him known.208 Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace from Christ as its author; -here he shows how they received it from him as a teacher. About this he does three things. -First, he shows the need for this teaching. Secondly, the competency of the teacher. Thirdly, -the teaching itself.
-209 The need for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom among men, which the -Evangelist implies by alluding to the ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men, -saying: No one has ever seen God. And he does this fittingly, for wisdom consists properly -in the knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine says that wisdom is the -knowledge of divine things, as science is the knowledge of human things.
-2 10 But this statement of the Evangelist, No one has ever seen God, seems to contradict -many passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in Isaiah (6:1): “I saw the Lord seated on a -high and lofty throne.” And about the same is found in 2 Samuel (6:2). Again in Matthew -(5:8), the Lord says: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”If someone were -to answer this last statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one has seen God, but -will see him in the future, as the Lord promises, the Apostle would exclude this, saying, “He -dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim 6:16).
-Because the Apostle says, “no man has seen,” someone might say that if he cannot be seen by -men, then at least he can be seen by angels; especially since God says, “Their angels in -heaven always see the face of my Father” (Mt 18:10). But it cannot be taken in this way -either, because it is said, “The sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in -heaven” (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in heaven, then it is plain that the sons -of the resurrection also see him: “When he appears we shall be like him, and we shall see him -as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).
-211 How then are we to understand what the Evangelist says: No one has ever seen God? To -understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three ways. First, through a created -substitute presented to the bodily sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he -saw three [men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized the mystery -of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to be men, and later believed to be angels. In -a second way, through a representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the -Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort are recorded in the -Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through an intelligible species abstracted from material -things; and in this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of creatures, see -with their intellect the greatness of the Creator, as it is said: “From the greatness and beauty -of creatures, their Creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5); “The invisible things of God -are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made,” as found in Romans -(1:20). In another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused by God into -spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the way Jacob saw God face to face, as it -says in Genesis (32:30). According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty +
173 Now follows, and made his +dwelling among us. This is distinguished in two ways from +what went before. The first consists in stating that above the +Evangelist dealt with the incarnation of the Word when he said, +the Word was made flesh; but +now he touches on the manner of the incarnation, saying, +and made his dwelling among +us. For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, by the +Evangelist saying the Word was made +flesh, someone might think that he was converted into flesh +and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one +nature compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the +Evangelist, excluding this, added, and made his dwelling among us, i.e., in +our nature, yet so as to remain distinct in his own. For what is +converted into something does not remain distinct in its nature +from that into which it is converted.
+Furthermore, something which is not distinct from another does +not dwell in it, because to dwell implies a distinction between the +dweller and that in which it dwells. But the Word dwelt in our +nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it. And so, +inasmuch as human nature was distinct from the nature of the Word +in Christ, the former is called the dwelling place and temple of +the divinity, according to John (2:21): “But he spoke of the +temple of his body.”
+174 Now although what is said here by these holy men is +orthodox, care must be taken to avoid the reproach which some +receive for this. For the early doctors and saints were so intent +upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith that they +seemed meanwhile to fall into the opposite ones. For example, +Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who destroyed the +freedom of the will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have +fallen into the heresy of Pelagius. Along these lines, John the +Evangelist added, and made his +dwelling among us, so that we would not think there was a +mingling or transformation of natures in Christ because he had +said, the Word was made +flesh.
+Nestorius misunderstood this phrase, and made his dwelling among us, and said +that the Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was +not one person of God and of man. For he held that the Word was +united to human nature only by an indwelling through grace. From +this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not man.
+175 To clarify this we should know that we can consider two +things in Christ: his nature and person. In Christ there is a +distinction in nature, but not in person, which is one and the same +in the two natures, since the human nature in Christ was assumed +into a oneness of person. Therefore, the indwelling which the +saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so as to say, he +made his dwelling among us, +i.e., the nature of the Word inhabited our nature; not according to +the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in +Christ.
+176 The blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the +authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle calls the union of +God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: “He, being +in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a +servant” (Phil 2:6). Clearly, God is not said to empty +himself insofar as he dwells in the rational creature by grace, +because then the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptying +themselves, since they too are said to dwell in man through grace: +for Christ, speaking of himself and of the Father says, “We +will come to him and make our home with him” (below 14:23); +and of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says: “The Spirit of God +dwells in us” (1 Cor 3:16).
+Furthermore, if Christ was not God as to his person, he would +have been most presumptuous to say: “I and the Father are +one” (below 10:30), and “Before Abraham came to be, I +am,” as is said below (8:58). Now “I” refers to +the person of the speaker. And the one who was speaking was a man, +who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.
+177 However, another connection [besides that given in 173] with +what went before is possible, by saying that above he dealt with +the incarnation of the Word, but that now he is treating the manner +of life of the incarnate Word, saying, he made his dwelling among us, i.e., he +lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter alludes to this +when he says, “During all the time that the Lord Jesus came +and went among us” (Acts 1:21). “Afterwards, he was +seen on earth” (Bar 3:38).
+178 The Evangelist added this for two reasons. First, to show +the marvelous likeness of the Word to men, among whom he lived in +such a way as to seem one of them. For he not only willed to be +like men in nature, but also in living with them on close terms +without sin, in order to draw to himself men won over by the charm +of his way of life.
+Secondly, to show the truthfulness of his [the +Evangelist’s] statements. For the Evangelist had already said +many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention more +wonderful things about him; and so that his testimony would be more +credible he took as a proof of his truthfulness the fact that he +had lived with Christ, saying, he made his dwelling among us. As if to +say: I can well bear witness to him, because I lived on close terms +with him. “We tell you ... what we have heard, what we have +seen with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1); “God raised him up on +the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people, +but by witnesses preordained by God,” that is, “to us +who ate and drank with him” (Acts 10:40).
++
++ +LECTURE 8
+l4b And we have seen his glory,
+
+the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,
+full of grace and truth.179 Having set forth the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist +then begins to give the evidence for the incarnate Word. He does +two things about this. First, he shows the ways in which the +incarnate Word was made known. Secondly, he clarifies each way, +below (1:16). Now the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles +in two ways: first of all, they obtained knowledge of him by what +they saw; secondly, by what they heard of the testimony of John the +Baptist. So first, he states what they saw about the Word; +secondly, what they heard from John (v 15).
+He states three things about the Word. First, the manifestation +of his glory; hence he says, we +have seen his glory. Secondly, the uniqueness of his glory, +when he adds, as of the Only +Begotten. Thirdly, the precise nature of this glory, because +full of grace and truth.
+180 And we have seen his +glory, can be connected in three ways with what went before. +First, it can be taken as an argument for his having said, +the Word was made flesh. As +if to say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate +because I and the other apostles have seen his glory. “We +know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see” +(below 3:11). “We tell you ... what we have heard, what we +have seen with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1).
+181 Secondly, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by +taking this statement as expressing many benefits. As if to say: +The incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us the benefit of +becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory. For +dull and feeble eyes cannot see the light of the sun; but they can +see it when it shines in a cloud or on some opaque body. Now before +the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of seeing +the divine light in itself, the light which enlightens every +rational nature. And so, in order that it might be more easily seen +and contemplated by us, he covered it with the cloud of our flesh: +“They looked towards the desert, and saw the glory of the +Lord in a cloud” (Ex 16:10), i.e., the Word of God in the +flesh.
+182 According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to +the gift of grace. For the failure of the spiritual eyes of men to +contemplate the divine light is due not only to their natural +limitations but also to the defects incurred by sin: +“Fire,” that is, of concupiscence, “fell on them, +and they did not see the sun,” of justice (Ps 57:9). Hence in +order that the divine light might be seen by us, he healed our +eyes, making an eye salve of his flesh, so that with the salve of +his flesh the Word might heal our eyes, weakened by the +concupiscence of the flesh. And this is why just after saying, +the Word was made flesh, he +says, we have seen his +glory. To indicate this the Lord made clay from his saliva +and spread the clay upon the eyes of the man born blind (below +9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the head. +Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed +from the earth; but the incarnate Word is from the head, i.e., from +God the Father. So, when this clay was spread on the eyes of men, +we saw his glory.
+183 This is the glory of the Word Moses longed to see, saying, +“Show me your glory” (Ex 32:18). But he did not deserve +to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: “You shall +see my back” (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows and figures. But the +apostles saw his brightness: “All of us, gazing on the +Lord’s glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from +glory to glory into his very image” (2 Cor 3:18). For Moses +and the other prophets saw in an obscure manner and in figures the +glory of the Word that was to be manifested to the world at the end +of their times; hence the Apostle says: “Now we see through a +mirror,,in an obscure manner, but then face to face” in 1 +Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), “Isaiah said this +when he saw his glory.” But the apostles saw the very +brilliance of the Word through his bodily presence: “All of +us, gazing on the Lord’s glory,” and so forth (2 Cor +3:18); “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see. For many +kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and did not see +it” (Lk 10:23).
+184 Then when he says, the glory +as of the Only Begotten, he shows the uniqueness of his +glory. For since it is written of certain men that they were in +glory, as of Moses it says that “his face shone” (Ex +34:29), or was “horned,” according to another text, +someone might say that from the fact that they saw him [Jesus] in +glory, it should not be said that the Word of God was made flesh. +But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the +Father. As if to say: His glory is not like the glory of an +angel, or of Moses, or Elijah, or Elisha, or anything like that. +but the glory as of the Only +Begotten; for as it is said, “He [Jesus] was counted +worthy of more glory than Moses” (Heb 3:3); “Who among +the sons of God is like God?” (Ps 88:7).
+185 The word as, according to Gregory, is used to express the +fact. But according to Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the +fact: as if someone were to see a king approaching in great glory +and being asked by another to describe the king he saw, he could, +if he wanted to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory in one +word, and say that he approached “as” a king, i.e., as +became a king. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by +someone to describe the glory of the Word which he had seen, and +being unable to fully express it, said that it was “as” +of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such as became the Only +Begotten of God.
+186 The uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in +four ways. First, in the testimony which the Father gave to the +Son. For John was one of the three who had seen Christ transfigured +on the mountain and heard the , voice of the Father saying: +“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” +(Mt 17:5). Of this glory it is said, “He received honor and +glory from God the Father ... ‘This is my beloved +Son’” (2 Pt 1:17)
+Secondly, it is brought out by the service of the angels. For +prior to the incarnation of Christ, men were subject to the angels. +But after it, angels ministered, as subjects, to Christ. +“Angels came and ministered to him” (Mt 4:11).
+Thirdly, it is brought out by the submission of nature. For all +nature obeyed Christ and heeded his slightest command, as something +established by him, because “All things were made through +him” (above 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels +nor to any creature, but to the incarnate Word alone. And this is +what we read, “What kind of man is this, for the winds and +the sea obey him?” (Mt 8:27).
+Fourthly, we see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses +and the other prophets gave commands to men and taught them not on +their own authority, but on the authority of God. So they said: +“The Lord says this”; and “The Lord spoke to +Moses.” But Christ speaks as the Lord, and as one having +power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, “I +say to you” (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of +the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said that he taught as one +“having authority” (Mt 7:29). Furthermore, other holy +men worked miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked +them by his own power. In these ways, then, the glory of the Word +is unique.
+187 Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only +Begotten, as here, and below (1 :18): “it is the Only +Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him +known.” At other times we call him the First-born: +“When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says, +‘Let all the angels of God adore him’ “ (Heb +1:6). The reason for this is that just as it belongs to the whole +Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to be +God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to what he +is in himself; and in this way he alone is uniquely God by his own +essence. It is in this way that we say there is but one God: +“Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one” (Dt 6:4). At +times, we even apply the name of deity to others, insofar as a +certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this sense we +speak of many gods: “Indeed, there are many gods and many +lords” (1 Cor 8:5).
+Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as +Begotten, and consider the way in which this sonship is attributed +to him, that is, through nature, we say that he is the Only +Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally begotten by +the Father, the Begotten of the Father is one only. But if we +consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others through +a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through +participation. And because they are called sons of God by a +likeness to him, he is called the First-born of all. “Those +whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image +of his Son, so that he might be the First-born of many +brothers” (Rom 8:29).
+So, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he +is called the First-born insofar as from his natural sonship, by +means of a certain likeness and participation, a sonship is granted +to many.
+188 Then when he says, full of +grace and truth, he determines the glory of the Word. As if +to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity. +Now these words can be applied to Christ in three ways.
+First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to +someone so that he might be united to God through it. So he who is +most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now some are joined +to God by participating in a natural likeness: “Let us make +man to our image and likeness” (Gn 1:26). Some are joined by +faith: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts through +faith” (Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because +“He who abides in love abides in God” (1 Jn 4:16). But +all these ways are partial: because one is not perfectly united to +God by participating a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is +by faith; nor is he loved to the extent that he is lovable by +charity—for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is +infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this +infinitely. And so these unions are not full.
+But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in +the unity of a suppositum, we find a full and perfect union +with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all +the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were +acts of the suppositum [or person]. So he was full of grace insofar he did not receive +any special gratuitous gift from God, but that he should be God +himself. “He gave him,” i.e., God the Father gave to +the Son, “a name which is above every name” (Phil 2:9). +“He was foreordained to be the Son of God in power” +(Rom 1:4). He was also full of +truth, because the human nature in Christ attained to the +divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine +Truth itself. In other men we find many participated truths, +insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their minds through +many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said: +“In whom all the treasures of wisdom are hidden” (Col +2:3).
+189 Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the +perfection of his soul. Then he is said to be full of grace and truth inasmuch as in +his soul there was the fulness of all graces without measure: +“God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions,” as we +read below (3:34). Yet it was given in fractions to all rational +creatures, both angels and men. For according to Augustine, just as +there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the +sense of touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in +Christ, who is the head of every rational creature (and in a +special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and +charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found +superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the saints, we find +participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift +common to all the saints, and that is charity. We read about this +fulness of Christ’s grace: “There shall come forth a +shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of +his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the +spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of +fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety” (Is +11:1).
+Further, Christ was also full of +truth because his precious and h1essed soul knew every +truth, human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so +Peter said to him, “You know all things” (below 21:17). +And the Psalm (88:25) says: “My truth,” i.e., the +knowledge of every truth, “and my mercy,” i.e., the +fulness of all graces, “shall be with him.”
+190 In a third way these words can be explained in relation to +his dignity as head, i.e., inasmuch as Christ is the head of the +Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate grace to +others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the +inpouring of grace and by meriting, through his teaching and works +and the sufferings of his death, superabundant grace for an +infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is +full of grace insofar as he +conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this +perfect justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no +one just or bring anyone to perfection. As we read: “The law +was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending +his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, +condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 8:3).
+Again, he was full of +truth insofar as he fulfilled the figures of the Old Law and +the promises made to the fathers. “Christ was a minister to +the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the fathers” +(Rom 15:8); “All the promises of God are fulfilled in +him” (2 Cor 1:20).
+Further, he is said to be full +of grace because his teaching and manner of life were most +gracious. “Grace is poured out upon your lips” (Ps +44:3). And so it is said, “All the people came to him early +in the morning,” i.e., in the morning they were eager to come +(Lk 21:38). He was full of +truth, because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor +gloss over the vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly +and without deception. As it says below: “Now you are +speaking plainly” (16:29).
++
++ +LECTURE 9
+15 John bore witness to him, and he cried out saying:
+
+“This is the one of whom I said:
+‘He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me,
+because he existed before me.’”191 Having given the evidence by which the Word was made known +to the apostles by sight, the Evangelist then presents the evidence +by which the Word was made known to persons other than the apostles +by their hearing the testimony of John. He does three things about +this. First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner of +testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his testimony is given.
+192 So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of +the Only Begotten of the Father. But we are not believed, perhaps +because we are held in suspicion. So let his witness come forth, +that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He is a +faithful witness who will not lie: “A faithful witness will +not lie” (Prv 14:5), “You sent [messengers] to John, +and he bore witness to the truth” (below 5:33). John gives +his testimony here and fulfills his office with perseverance +because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19) says, +“Truthful lips endure forever.”
+193 Then when he says, John bore +witness to him, and he cried out, he describes the way he +bore witness, that is, it was with a cry. So he says, he cried out, i.e., freely without fear. +“Cry out in a loud voice.... Say to the cities of Judah: Here +is your God” (Is 40:9). He cried out ardently and with great +fervor, because it is said, “His word burned like a +torch” (Si 48:1); “Seraphim cried one to another” +(Is 6:3), which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of +spirit. The use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness +are not made to a few in figurative language or secretly, but that +a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told not to a +few but to many. “Cry out, and do not stop” (Is +58:1).
+194 Then he adds his testimony. And he does two things. First, +he shows that his testimony was continuous. Secondly, he describes +the person to whom he bore witness.
+195 The testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore +witness to him not only once but many times, and even before Christ +had come to him. And so he says, This is the one of whom I said, i.e., +before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness to him. “And +you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High” (Lk +1:76). He pointed him out both as present and when about to come. +And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he +would come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying, +Look! There is the Lamb of +God. This implies that Christ was physically present to +John; for he had often come to John before being baptized.
+196 Then he describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying, +He who comes after me, ranks ahead +of me. Here we should note that John does not at once preach +to his disciples that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them +little by little to higher things: first, by preferring Christ to +himself, even though John had such a great reputation and authority +as to be considered the Christ or one of the great prophets. Now he +compares Christ to himself: first, with regard to the order of +their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and thirdly, +as to the time of their existence.
+197 With respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded +Christ as a servant precedes his master, and as a soldier his king, +or as the morning star the sun: “See, I am sending my +messenger, and he will prepare the way before me” (Mal 3:1 ). +So, He comes after me, in being known to men, through my preaching. +Observe that comes is in the +present tense, became in Greek the present participle is used.
+Now John preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to +Chrysostom, because John was a blood relation of Christ according +to the flesh: “your relative, Elizabeth” (Lk 1.36). +Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his +testimony might have been open to question; accordingly, John came +preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in order that his +testimony might have more force. Hence he says, “And I did +not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came +baptizing with water” (below 1:31).
+Secondly, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into +act from potency, the imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; +hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:46): “The spiritual is +not first, but the animal.” Accordingly, the perfect doctrine +of Christ should have been preceded by the less perfect teaching of +John, which was in a certain manner midway between the doctrine of +the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ from +afar), and the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made +Christ known.
+198 He [John] compares him to himself with respect to dignity +when he says, he ranks ahead of +me [ante me factus est, literally, he “was made +before me”]. It should be noted that it is from this text +that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that +“He who comes after me,” is to be understood of Christ +as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, “was made +before me,” can only be understood of the Word of God, who +existed before the flesh; and for this reason Christ as the Word +was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.
+According to Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, +because if it were true, the Baptist would not have said, he +“was made before me, because he existed before me,” +since no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made +before him. He rather would have said the opposite: “He was +before me, because he was made before me.” And so, according +to Chrysostom, these words should be taken as referring to his +[Christ’s] dignity, that is, he was preferred to me and +placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to +preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of +authority and in the repute of men: “Gold will not be equal +to it” (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred +ahead of me, that is, before +my eyes, as the Gloss says and as the Greek text reads. As if to +say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my +view and was recognized.
+199 He compares him to himself with respect to their duration, +saying, because he existed before +me. As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail +man of time. And therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of +him, yet it was fitting that he rank before me in the reputation +and opinion of men, because he preceded all things by his eternity: +“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and +forever” (Heb 13:8). “Before Abraham came to be, I +am,” as we read below (8:58).
+If we understand this passage as saying that he “was made +before me,” it can be explained as referring to the order of +time according to the flesh. For in the instant of his conception +Christ was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul +perfected by the virtues, and a body possessed of all its +distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: “A +woman shall enclose a man,” i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22). +Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as a perfect man before +John was born; consequently he says that he “was made before +me,” because he was a perfect man before I came forth from +the womb.
++
++ +LECTURE10
+16 Of his fullness we have all received—indeed, grace upon +grace;
+
+17 because, while the law was given through Moses,
+grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.200 He follows with, Of his +fullness we have all received words and those that follow to +(v 19), “This is the testimony of John,” are taken in +two ways. According to Origen, these are the words of John the +Baptist and are added by him to support what he had said +previously. It is as though he said: Truly, he existed before me, because +of his fullness, i.e., of +his grace, not only I but all, including the prophets and +patriarchs, have received, +because all had the grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate +Word. According to this explanation, John the Baptist began weaving +the story of the incarnation at, “John bore witness to +him” (v 15).
+But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from +“John bore witness to him” (v 15), are those of John +the Evangelist. And they are connected with the previous words, +“full of grace and truth,” as though he were saying: +Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for the Word which was +learned through sight and by hearing, but here he explains each. +First, how he was made known to the apostles through sight, which +was tantamount to receiving the evidence from Christ. Secondly, how +John bore witness to him, at “This is the testimony of +John” (v 19). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows that Christ is +the origin, as a fountain, of every spiritual grace. Secondly, he +shows that grace is dispensed to us through him and from him.
+201 He says first of all: We know from our own experience that +we have seen him full of grace and truth, because of his fullness we have all received. +Now one fullness is that of sufficiency, by which one is able to +perform acts that are meritorious and excellent, as in the case of +Stephen. Again, there is a fullness of superabundance, by which the +Blessed Virgin excels all the saints because of the eminence and +abundance of her merits. Further, there is a fullness of efficiency +and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as the author of +grace. For although the Blessed Virgin superabounds her grace into +us, it is never as authoress of grace. But grace flowed over from +her soul into her body: for through the grace of the Holy Spirit, +not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God by +love, but her womb was supernaturally impregnated by the Holy +Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, “Hail, full of +grace,” he refers at once to the fullness of her womb, +adding, “the Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). And so the +Evangelist, in order to show this unique fullness of efficiency and +overflow in Christ, said, Of his +fullness we have all received, i.e., all the apostles and +patriarchs and prophets and just men who have existed, do now +exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.
+202 Note that the preposition de [of, from] sometimes +signifies efficiency, i.e., an originative cause, as when it is +said that a ray is or proceeds “from” the sun. In this +way it signifies the efficiency of grace in Christ, i.e., +authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the cause of +all graces that are in intellectual creatures. “Come to me, +all you who desire me, and be filled with my fruits,” that is +to say, share in the fullness of those fruits which come from me +(Si 24:26).
+But sometimes this preposition de signifies +consubstantiality, as when it is said that the Son is +“of” the Father [de Patre]. In this +usage, the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from +him, consubstantial with him in nature, in power and in majesty. +For although the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other +than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the same Holy Spirit +who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified. “One +and the same Spirit produces all these” (1 Cor 12:11); +“I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (JI 2:28); +“If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not +belong to him” (Rom 8:9). For the unity of the Holy Spirit +produces unity in the Church: “The Spirit of the Lord filled +the whole world” (Wis 1:7).
+In a third way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify it +portion, as when we say “take ‘from’ this bread +or wine [de hoc pane, vel vino],” i.e., take a portion +and not the whole. Taken in this way it signifies that those who +take a part derive it from the fullness. For he [Christ] received +all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a +perfect fullness; but we participate through him some portion of +his fullness; and this is according to the measure which God grants +to each. “Grace has been given to each of us according to the +degree to which Christ gives it” (Eph 4:7).
+203 Then when he says, grace +upon grace, he shows the distribution of graces into us +through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we +receive grace from Christ, as its author. Secondly, that we receive +wisdom from him (1:18). As to the first he does two things. First, +he shows that we have received of his fullness. Secondly, our need +to receive it.
+204 First, he says that we have received of the fullness of +Christ what is described as grace +upon grace. In the light of what is said, we are forced to +understand that of his fullness we have received grace, and that +upon that grace we have received another. Accordingly, we must see +what that first grace is upon which we have received a second one, +and also what that second grace is.
+According to Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by +the whole human race, was the grace of the Old Testament received +in the law. And this was indeed a great grace: “I will give +you a good gift” (Prv 4:2). For it was a great benefit for +idolatrous men to receive precepts from God, and a true knowledge +of the one true God. “What is the advantage of being a Jew, +or the benefit of circumcision? It is great in every way. First +indeed, because the words of God were entrusted to them” (Rom +3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was first, we have received a +second far better. “He will follow grace with grace” +(Zec 4:7).
+But was not the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was +not, because the law gives only a knowledge of sin, but does not +take it away. “The law brought nothing to perfection” +(Heb 7:19). Hence it was necessary that another grace come that +would take away sin and reconcile one with God.
+205 And so he says, because, +while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come +through Jesus Christ. Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above +Moses the lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now +Moses was regarded as the greatest of the prophets: “There +did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses” (Dt +34:10). But he ranks Christ above Moses in excellence Mid in +dignity of’ works, because +the law was given through Moses; and between these two, the +One excels the other as the reality excels the symbol and the truth +the shadow: “The law had a shadow of the good things to +come” (Heb 10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he +works, because the law was given by Moses as by one proclaiming it, +but not originating it; for “The Lord alone is our +lawgiver” (Is 33:22). But grace and truth have come through Jesus +Christ, as through the Lord and Author of truth and grace, +as was explained above.
+206 According to Augustine, however, the first grace is +justifying and prevenient grace, which is not given to us because +of our works: “If it is by grace, it is not now by +works” (Rom 11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is imperfect, +we have received another grace which is perfect, i.e., the grace of +eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by +merits, nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone +is prevenient grace, eternal life is called a grace: “The +grace of God is eternal life” (Rom 6:23). To be brief, +whatever grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole is called +grace upon grace.
+The need for this second grace arises from the insufficiency of +the law, which showed what was to be done and what avoided; but it +gave no help to fulfill what was commanded. Indeed, what seemed to +have been directed to life was the occasion for producing death. +Hence the Apostle says that the law was a minister of death: +“If the ministry that condemned had glory, the ministry that +justifies has much more glory” (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised +the help of grace but did not fulfill, because “The law +brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). Again, it +prefigured the truth of the new grace by its sacrifices and +ceremonies; indeed, its very rites proclaimed that it was a figure. +Hence is was necessary that Christ come, who by his own death would +destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that +we might both fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to +our sins and our old way of life: “Our old self was crucified +with him” (Rom 6:6), and in order that the truth of the +figures contained in the law might be revealed and the promises +made to the fathers be fulfilled.
+This can be explained in another way: truth has come through Jesus Christ, as +to the wisdom and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which +he openly taught when he came into the world: “I came into +the world for this, to testify to the truth,” as we read +below (18:37).
+207 But if Christ is the Truth, as it says below (14:6), how did +truth come [i.e., come to be, be made] through him, because nothing +can make itself? I answer that by his essence he is the uncreated +Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is begotten of the +Father; but all created truths were made through him, and these are +certain participations and reflections of the first Truth, which +shines out in those souls who are holy.
++
++ +LECTURE 11
+18 No one has ever seen God;
+
+it is the Only Begotten Son,
+who is in the bosom of the Father,
+who has made him known.208 Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace +from Christ as its author; here he shows how they received it from +him as a teacher. About this he does three things. First, he shows +the need for this teaching. Secondly, the competency of the +teacher. Thirdly, the teaching itself.
+209 The need for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom +among men, which the Evangelist implies by alluding to the +ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men, saying: +No one has ever seen God. +And he does this fittingly, for wisdom consists properly in the +knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine says that +wisdom is the knowledge of divine things, as science is the +knowledge of human things.
+2 10 But this statement of the Evangelist, No one has ever seen God, seems to +contradict many passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in +Isaiah (6:1): “I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty +throne.” And about the same is found in 2 Samuel (6:2). Again +in Matthew (5:8), the Lord says: “Blessed are the pure in +heart, for they shall see God.”If someone were to answer this +last statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one +has seen God, but will see him in the future, as the Lord promises, +the Apostle would exclude this, saying, “He dwells in +unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim +6:16).
+Because the Apostle says, “no man has seen,” someone +might say that if he cannot be seen by men, then at least he can be +seen by angels; especially since God says, “Their angels in +heaven always see the face of my Father” (Mt 18:10). But it +cannot be taken in this way either, because it is said, “The +sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in +heaven” (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in +heaven, then it is plain that the sons of the resurrection also see +him: “When he appears we shall be like him, and we shall see +him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).
+211 How then are we to understand what the Evangelist says: +No one has ever seen God? To +understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three +ways. First, through a created substitute presented to the bodily +sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he saw three +[men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized +the mystery of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to +be men, and later believed to be angels. In a second way, through a +representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the +Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort +are recorded in the Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through +an intelligible species abstracted from material things; and in +this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of +creatures, see with their intellect the greatness of the Creator, +as it is said: “From the greatness and beauty of creatures, +their Creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5); “The +invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through +the things that are made,” as found in Romans (1:20). In +another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused +by God into spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the +way Jacob saw God face to face, as it says in Genesis (32:30). +According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty contemplation.
-But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of the above visions: for no created -species, whether it be that by which an external sense is informed, or by which the -imagination is informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine -essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence only what the species he has in his intellect -represents as it is. Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through any -species.
-The reason why no created species can represent the divine essence is plain: for nothing finite -can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot -represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is his own esse; and therefore his wisdom and -greatness and anything else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one -created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not a -knowledge of his essence, but a knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. -“Everyone sees him,” in one of the above ways, “from afar” (Jb 36:25), because we do not -know what God is by all these acts of knowing, but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis -says, in his Mystical Theology, that the perfect way in which God is known in this present life -is by taking away all creatures and every thing understood by us.
-212 There have been some who said that the divine essence will never by seen by any created -intellect, and that it is seen neither by the angels nor by the blessed. But this statement is -shown to be false and heretical in three ways, First, because it is contrary to the authority of -divine Scripture: “We shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2); “This is eternal life, that they know -you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (below 17:3). Secondly, -because the brightness of God is the same as his substance; for he does not give forth light by -participating in light, but through himself. And thirdly, because it is impossible for anyone to -attain perfect happiness except in the vision of the divine essence. This is because the natural -desire of the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the effects that it knows; but -this desire cannot be fulfilled unless it understands and knows the first universal cause of all -things, which is a cause that is not composed of cause and effect, as second causes are. -Therefore, to take away the possibility of the vision of the divine essence by man is to fake -away happiness itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be happy, it is necessary -that the divine essence be seen. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt -5:8).
-213 Three things should be noted about the vision of the divine essence. First, it will never be -seen with a bodily eye, either by sense or imagination, since only sensate bodily things are -perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: “God is spirit” (below 4:24). Secondly, that as -long as the human intellect is in the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed down by -the body so that it cannot attain the summit of contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is -free of passions and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it rises in the -contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord is. Now the highest degree of -contemplation is to see God through his essence; and so as long as a man lives in a body -which is necessarily subject to many passions, he cannot see God through his essence. “Man -will not see me and live” (Ex 33:20). Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine -essence it must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle says, “We would -prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly -abstracted by rapture from the senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2 Corinthians -(12:3).
-Thirdly, no created intellect (however abstracted, either by death, or separated from the body) -which does see the divine essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so it is commonly said -that although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, since it is most simple and has -no parts, yet it is not wholly seen, because this would be to comprehend it. For “wholly” -implies a certain mode. But any mode of God is the divine essence. Hence one who does not -see him wholly does not comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend a thing -through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is knowable in itself; -otherwise, although he may know it, he does not comprehend it. For example, one who -knows this proposition, “A triangle has three angles equal to two right angles,” by a -dialectical syllogism, does not know it as well as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not -know it wholly. But one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it wholly. -For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being and truth; while one is a knower -according to his amount of cognitive power. Now a created intellectual substance is finite; -hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite in power and being, and as a -consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot be known by any created intellect to the degree -that he is knowable. And thus he remains incomprehensible to every created intellect. -“Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself -comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his entity in being. “O most -mighty, great, powerful, your name is Lord of hosts, great in counsel, incomprehensible in -thought” (Jer 32:18).
-214 Using the above explanations, we can understand, No one has ever seen God. First, No -one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine essence, with the eye of the body of or the -imagination. Secondly, No one, living in this mortal life, has seen the divine essence in itself. -Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen God by a vision of comprehension. So when it is said -that certain ones have seen God with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen -through his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was said. And thus it was -necessary for us to receive wisdom, because No one has ever seen God.
-215 The Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom when he adds, it is the -Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. He shows the competence of this -teacher in three ways: by a natural likeness, by a singular excellence, and by a most perfect +
But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of +the above visions: for no created species, whether it be that by +which an external sense is informed, or by which the imagination is +informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative +of the divine essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence +only what the species he has in his intellect represents as it is. +Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through +any species.
+The reason why no created species can represent the divine +essence is plain: for nothing finite can represent the infinite as +it is; but every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot +represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is his own +esse; and therefore his wisdom and greatness and anything +else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one +created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen +through creatures is not a knowledge of his essence, but a +knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. “Everyone +sees him,” in one of the above ways, “from afar” +(Jb 36:25), because we do not know what God is by all these acts of +knowing, but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis says, in +his Mystical Theology, that the perfect way in which God is +known in this present life is by taking away all creatures and +every thing understood by us.
+212 There have been some who said that the divine essence will +never by seen by any created intellect, and that it is seen neither +by the angels nor by the blessed. But this statement is shown to be +false and heretical in three ways, First, because it is contrary to +the authority of divine Scripture: “We shall see him as he +is” (1 Jn 3:2); “This is eternal life, that they know +you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” +(below 17:3). Secondly, because the brightness of God is the same +as his substance; for he does not give forth light by participating +in light, but through himself. And thirdly, because it is +impossible for anyone to attain perfect happiness except in the +vision of the divine essence. This is because the natural desire of +the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the +effects that it knows; but this desire cannot be fulfilled unless +it understands and knows the first universal cause of all things, +which is a cause that is not composed of cause and effect, as +second causes are. Therefore, to take away the possibility of the +vision of the divine essence by man is to fake away happiness +itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be happy, +it is necessary that the divine essence be seen. “Blessed are +the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt 5:8).
+213 Three things should be noted about the vision of the divine +essence. First, it will never be seen with a bodily eye, either by +sense or imagination, since only sensate bodily things are +perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: “God is +spirit” (below 4:24). Secondly, that as long as the human +intellect is in the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed +down by the body so that it cannot attain the summit of +contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is free of passions +and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it +rises in the contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord +is. Now the highest degree of contemplation is to see God through +his essence; and so as long as a man lives in a body which is +necessarily subject to many passions, he cannot see God through his +essence. “Man will not see me and live” (Ex 33:20). +Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine essence it +must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle +says, “We would prefer to be absent from the body and present +with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly abstracted by +rapture from the senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2 +Corinthians (12:3).
+Thirdly, no created intellect (however abstracted, either by +death, or separated from the body) which does see the divine +essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so it is commonly said +that although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, +since it is most simple and has no parts, yet it is not wholly +seen, because this would be to comprehend it. For +“wholly” implies a certain mode. But any mode of God is +the divine essence. Hence one who does not see him wholly does not +comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend a thing +through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is +knowable in itself; otherwise, although he may know it, he does not +comprehend it. For example, one who knows this proposition, +“A triangle has three angles equal to two right +angles,” by a dialectical syllogism, does not know it as well +as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not know it wholly. But +one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it +wholly. For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being +and truth; while one is a knower according to his amount of +cognitive power. Now a created intellectual substance is finite; +hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite in power +and being, and as a consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot +be known by any created intellect to the degree that he is +knowable. And thus he remains incomprehensible to every created +intellect. “Behold, God is great, exceeding our +knowledge” (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself +comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his +entity in being. “O most mighty, great, powerful, your name +is Lord of hosts, great in counsel, incomprehensible in +thought” (Jer 32:18).
+214 Using the above explanations, we can understand, +No one has ever seen God. +First, No one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine +essence, with the eye of the body of or the imagination. Secondly, +No one, living in this mortal life, has seen the divine essence in +itself. Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen God by a vision of +comprehension. So when it is said that certain ones have seen God +with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen through +his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was +said. And thus it was necessary for us to receive wisdom, because +No one has ever seen God.
+215 The Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom +when he adds, it is the Only +Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. He shows +the competence of this teacher in three ways: by a natural +likeness, by a singular excellence, and by a most perfect consubstantiality.
-216 By natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his father. Wherefore it also follows -that one is called a son of God insofar as he shares in the likeness of his natural son; and one -knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since knowledge is attained through assimilation -[or “likeness to”]. Hence 1 John (3:2) says, “Now we are sons of God,” and he immediately -adds, “when he comes, we will be like him, and we will see him as he is.” Therefore, when -the Evangelist says Son, he implies a likeness as well as all aptitude for knowing God.
-217 Because this teacher knows God in a more special way than other sons do, the Evangelist -suggests this by his singular excellence, saying, the Only Begotten. As if to say: He knows -God more than other sons do. Hence, because he is the natural Son, having the same nature -and knowledge as the Father, he is called the Only Begotten. “The Lord said to me: ‘You are -my Son’” (Ps 2:7).
-218 Although he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking the ability to teach if he -were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a third point, namely, his consubstantiality to the -Father, when he says, who is in the bosom of the Father. “Bosom” is not to be taken here as -referring to men in their garments, but it indicates the secret things of the Father. For what we -carry in our bosom we do in secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed -power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. Therefore, in that bosom, i.e., in -the most secret things of the paternal nature and essence, which transcends all the power of -the creature, is the Only Begotten Son; and so he is consubstantial with the Father.
-What the Evangelist signifies by “bosom,” David expressed by “womb,” saying: “From the -womb, before the daystar,” i.e., from the inmost secret things of my essence, -incomprehensible to every created intellect, “I begot you” (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, -and of the same nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. “What man knows the things of -a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? So also, no one knows the things of God -except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends the divine essence, which -is his own.
-219 But the soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend him, because this is -attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. So the Lord also -says: “No one knows the Father except the Son, and any to whom the Son wishes to reveal -him”(Mt 11:27); we should understand this as referring to the knowledge of comprehension, -about which the Evangelist seems to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine -essence except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have shown the -competence of the teacher.
-220 We should note that the phrase, who is in the bosom of the Father, rejects the error of -those who say that the Father is invisible, but the Son is visible, though he was not seen in the -Old Testament. For from the fact that he is among the hidden things of the Father, it is plain -that he is naturally invisible, as is the Father. So it is said of him: “Truly, you are a hidden -God” (Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the incomprehensibility of the Son: “No one -knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt 11:27), -“What is the name of his son, if you know?” as we read in Proverbs (30:4)
-221 Then the Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching is handed down, saying that -it is the Only Begotten Son who has made him known. For in the past, the Only Begotten -Son revealed knowledge of God through the prophets, who made him known to the extent -that they shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things like, “The Word of the Lord -came to me.” But now the Only Begotten Son has made him known to the faithful: “It is I -who spoke; here I am” (Is 52:6); “God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in -past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in his Son” (Heb 1:1).
-And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority and usefulness, because it -was handed on immediately by the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. “It was first -announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb 2:3).
-222 But what did he make known except the one God? And even Moses did this: “Hear, O -Israel: the Lord your God is one” (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It added the mystery -of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses nor any of the prophets made known.
--
LECTURE12
--19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jeru’salem to -him, to ask him: “Who are you?” 20 He declared openly, and did not deny, and stated clearly, -“I am not the Messiah.” 21 And they questioned him, “Who then? Are you Elijah?” And he -said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he responded, “No.” 22 They therefore said to -him, “Who are you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. What have you to -say about yourself9" 23 He said, quoting the prophet Isaiah, “I am 6 a voice that cries in the -wilderness: Make a straight way for the Lord’” [Is 40:3].
223 Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to the apostles through the -testimony of John; here he develops this testimony more fully. First, he presents John’s -testimony to the people. Secondly, the testimony he gave of Christ to his own disciples -(below 1:35). If we carefully consider what was said, we discover a twofold testimony of -John to Christ: one which he gave to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence. For he -would not have said, “It is he” (below 1:30), unless he had given testimony in Christ’s -presence; and he would not have said, “of whom I said,” unless he gave testimony to him in -his absence. So first, the Evangelist develops the testimony John gave to Christ in his -absence; secondly, that he gave in his presence (v 29).
-Now these two testimonies differ, because the first was given when he was questioned; the -other was spontaneous. So in the first instance, we are given not only his testimony, but also -the questions. First, he was asked about himself; secondly, about his office (v 24). First we -are shown how John stated that he was not what he really was not; secondly, that he did not -deny what he was.
-224 As to the first, there are three questions and three answers, as is plain from the text. In the -first question there is great respect for John shown by the Jews. They had sent certain ones to -him to ask about his testimony. The greatness of their respect is gathered from four facts. -First, from the dignity of those who sent the questioners; for they were not sent by Galileans, -but by those who were first in rank among the people of Israel, namely, Judeans, of the tribe -of Juda, who lived about Jerusalem. It was from Juda that God chose the princes of the -people.
-Secondly, from the preeminence of the place, that is, from Jerusalem, which is the city of the -priesthood, the city dedicated to divine worship: “You people claim that Jerusalem is the -place where men must worship God” (below 4:20); “They will worship him with sacrifices -and offerings” (Is 19:21). Thirdly, from the authority of the messengers, who were religious -and from among the holier of the people, namely, priests and Levites; “You will be called the -priests of the Lord” (Is 61:6).
-Fourthly, from the fact that they sent them so that John might bear witness to himself, -indicating that they put such trust in his words as to believe John even when giving testimony -about himself. Hence he says they were sent to ask him, Who are you? They did not do this to -Christ; in fact they said to him: “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not -true” (below 8:13).
-225 Then when he says, He declared openly, and did not deny, John’s answer is given. The -Evangelist twice mentioned that John spoke forth to show his humility; for although he was -held in such high esteem among the Jews that they believed he might be the Messiah, he, on -his part, usurped no honor what was not due him; indeed, he stated clearly, I am not the -Messiah.
-226 What of’ the statement, He declared openly, and did not deny? For it seems that he did -deny, because he said that he was not the Messiah. It must be answered that he did not deny -the truth, for he said he was not the Messiah; otherwise he would have denied the truth. “A -very great iniquity, and a denial of the most high God” (Jb 31:28). Thus he did not deny the -truth, because however great he might have been considered, he did not become proud, -usurping for himself the honor of another. He stated clearly, I am not the Messiah; because -in truth he was not. “He was not the light,” as was said above (1:8).
-227 Why did John answer, I am not the Messiah, since those who had been sent did not ask -if he was the Messiah, but who he himself was? I answer that John directed his answer more -to the mind of the questioners than to their question. And we can understand this in two ways. -According to Origen, the priests and Levites came to John with a good intention. For they -knew from the Scriptures, and particularly from the prophecy of Daniel, that the time for the -coming of the Messiah had arrived. So, seeing John’s holiness, they suspected that he might -be the Messiah. So they sent to John, wishing to learn by their question, Who are you? -whether John would admit that he was the Messiah. And so he directs his answer to their -thoughts: I am not the Messiah.
-Chrysostom, however, says that they questioned him as a stratagem. For John was related to -priests, being the son of a chief priest, and he was holy. Yet, he bore witness to Christ, whose -family seemed lowly; for that reason they even said, “Is not this the son of the carpenter?”; -and they did not know him. So, preferring to have John as their master, not Christ, they sent -to him, intending to entice him by flattery and persuade him to take this honor for himself, -and to state that he was the Messiah. But John, seeing their evil intent, said, I am not the -Messiah.
-228 The second question is stated when they ask him, Who then? Are you Elijah? Here we -should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was to come, so to they waited for -Elijah, who would precede the Messiah: “I will send you Elijah, the prophet” (Mal 4:5). And -so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that he was the Messiah, pressed him -that at least he state if he were Elijah. And this is what they ask: Who then? Are you Elijah?
-229 There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from one body to another. And this -belief was current among the Jews of that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of -Elijah was in John’s body, because of the similarity of John’s actions to those of Elijah. And -they say that these messengers asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of -Elijah was in John. They support this with Christ’s statement, “He is Elijah who is to come,” -as is found in Matthew (11:14). But John’s answer conflicts with their opinion, as he says, I -am not. i.e., Elijah.
-They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not knowing whether his soul -was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that -John, a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only Begotten Son -of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know whether his soul had been in Elijah.
-230 So this was not the reason John was asked, Are you Elijah? Rather it was because they -took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die, but had been carried alive by a -whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly, they believed that he had suddenly appeared among -them.
-But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from parents who were known, and his -birth had been known to everyone. So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, “What do you think -this child will be?” One might say to this that it is not incredible that they should regard John -in the manner described. For a similar situation in found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod -thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though Christ had been preaching -and was known for some time before John had been beheaded. And so from a similar -stupidity and madness the Jews asked John whether he was Elijah.
-231 Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said, “He is Elijah” (Mt 11:14). The -angel gives us the answer: “He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk -1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., -because he showed a similarity to Elijah in his works.
-232 This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their office: because as Elijah will -precede the second coming of Christ, so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, “He will -go before him.” Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah lived in desert places, ate little -food and wore coarse clothing, as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, -his food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of camel’s hair. Thirdly, in their -zeal. For Elijah was filled with zeal; thus it was said, “I have been very zealous for the Lord” -(1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew -(14:6)
-233 Then when he says, Are you the Prophet? the third question is presented. Here there is a -difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), “And you, child, shall be called the prophet of -the Most High,” why does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a -prophet?
-There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not just a prophet, but more than a -prophet. For the other prophets only predicted future things from afar: “if there is a delay, -wait for it” (Hb 2:2).. But John proclaimed that the Messiah was present, pointing him out -with his finger: “Look, there is the Lamb of God,” as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord -says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9).
-Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a misunderstanding the Jews -associated three great personages with the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some -other person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy (18:15) says: “The Lord -your God will raise up a prophet for you.” And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact -none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other than Christ. And so they do -not ask simply whether he is a prophet, but whether he is that “greatest of the prophets.” And -this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask whether he is the Messiah; -secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the -article is used here as signifying the prophet, as it were, antonomastically.
-In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for assuming the office of -baptizing outside the order of the law and their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions -three persons to whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since “I will pour clean -water upon you, and you will be cleansed” (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the -person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 Kings that he divided the -water of the Jordan, and crossing over, was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman -the Syrian wash seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as mentioned in 2 -Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was baptizing, they believed that he was -one of those three: the Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, Are -you the Prophet? they are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called “prophet” in a special -way because of the many miracles he had performed; hence he himself says, “Let him come -to me, so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel” (2 Kgs 5:8). And to this John -answers, No, I am not Elisha.
-234 Then he shows how he declared who he was. First, the question of the messengers is -given; secondly, his answer (v 23).
-235 They said, Who are you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. As if to -say: We were sent to learn who you are; so tell us, What have you to say about yourself?
-Notice John’s devotion. He has already fulfilled what the Apostle says, “It is not I who now -live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). And so he does not answer, “I am the son of -Zachary,” or this or that, but only the way in which he followed Christ.
-236 So he says, I am a voice that cries in the wilderness. And he says that he is a voice -because from the point of view of origin, a voice comes after the [mental, interior] word, but -before the knowledge it causes. For we know a [mental, interior] word conceived in the heart -by means of the voice which speaks it, since it is its sign. But God the Father sent the -precursor John, who came to be in time, in order to make known his Word, which was -conceived from eternity. And so he fittingly says, I am a voice.
-237 The addition, that cries, can be understood in two ways: as referring to John, crying and -preaching in the wilderness; or to Christ crying in him, according to, “Do you want proof that -Christ is speaking in me” (2 Cor 13:3).
-Now he cries for four reasons. First of all, a cry implies a showing; and so he cries in order to -show that Christ is clearly speaking in John and in himself: “Now on the last, the great day of -the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink’” -(below 7:37). But he did not cry out in the prophets because prophecies were given in -enigmas and figures; so it is said that he was “wrapped in dark rain-clouds” (Ps 17:12). -Secondly, because a cry is made to those who are at a distance; and the Jews were far from -God. Thus it was necessary that he cry: “You have taken my friends and neighbors away from -me” (Ps 88:19). He cries, in the third place, because they were deaf: “Who is deaf, but my -servant?” (Is 42:19). He cries, fourthly, because he speaks with indignation, for they deserved -God’s wrath: “He will speak to them in his anger” (Ps 2:5).
-238 Note that he cries in the wilderness, because “The word of the Lord came to John, the -son of Zechariah, in the desert,” as we read in Luke (3:2). There can be both a literal and a -mystical reason for this. The literal reason is that by living in the desert he would be immune -from all sin, and so be more worthy to bear witness to Christ, and his testimony would be -more credible to men because of his life.
-The mystical reason is twofold. For the wilderness or desert designates paganism, according -to Isaiah (54:1); “She who is deserted has more children than she who has a husband.” -Accordingly, in order to show that God’s teaching would from now on not be in Jerusalem -alone, but also among the pagans, he cried in the wilderness. “The kingdom of God will be -taken away from you, and given to a people that will produce its fruits” (Mt 21:43). Again, -the desert can indicate Judea, which was already deserted: “Your house will be left to You, -deserted” (Mt 23:38). And so he cried in the desert, in the wilderness, i.e., in Judea, to -indicate that the people to whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God: “in a -desert land, where there is no way or water, so I have come to your sanctuary” (Ps 62:3).
-239 Why does he cry, Make a straight way for the Lord? Because this is the task for which -he was sent. “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go -before the face of the Lord to prepare his way” (Lk 1:76). The way, prepared and straight, for -receiving the Lord is the way of justice, according to Isaiah (26:7): “The way of the just is -straight.” For the way of the just is straight when the whole man is subject to God, i.e., the -intellect through faith, the will through love, and actions through obedience, are all subject to +
216 By natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his +father. Wherefore it also follows that one is called a son of God +insofar as he shares in the likeness of his natural son; and one +knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since knowledge is +attained through assimilation [or “likeness to”]. Hence +1 John (3:2) says, “Now we are sons of God,” and he +immediately adds, “when he comes, we will be like him, and we +will see him as he is.” Therefore, when the Evangelist says +Son, he implies a likeness as well as all aptitude for knowing God.
-And this was spoken, i.e., predicted, by the prophet Isaiah. As if to say: I am the one in -whom these things are fulfilled.
--
LECTURE13
--24 Now these men had been sent from the Pharisees, 25 and they put this further question to -him: “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 -John replied, “I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your midst whom you do not -recognize—27 the one who is to come after me, who ranks ahead of me—the strap of whose -sandal I am not worthy to unfasten.” 28 This happened at Bethany, on the far side of the -Jordan, where John was baptizing.
240 Above, we saw John bear witness to Christ as he was being questioned on matters -concerning himself; here, on matters concerning his office. Four things are set forth: first, -those who question him; secondly, their questions; thirdly, his answer, in which he bore -witness; and fourthly, the place where all this happened.
-241 His interrogators were Pharisees. Hence he says, Now these men had been sent from -the Pharisees. According to Origen, what is being said from this point on describes a -different testimony given by John; and further, those who were sent from the Pharisees are -not the same as those priests and Levites sent by the generality of the Jews, but others who -were specifically sent by the Pharisees. And according to this it says: Now these men had -been sent, not by the Jews, as the priests and Levites had been, but were others, from the -Pharisees. So he says about this that because the priests and Levites were educated and -respectful, they ask John humbly and respectfully whether he is the Messiah, or Elijah, or the -Prophet. But these others, who were from the Pharisees, according to their name “separated” -and importunate, used disdainful language. Thus they asked him, Why then do you baptize, -if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?
-But according to others, such as Gregory, Chrysostom, and Augustine, these Pharisees are the -same priests and Levites who had been sent by the Jews. For there was among the Jews a -certain sect which was separated from the others by reason of its external cult; and for this -reason its members were called Pharisees, i.e., “divided.” In this sect there were some priests -and Levites, and some of the people. And so, in order that the delegates [to John] might -possess a greater authority, they sent priests and Levites, who were Pharisees, thus furnishing -them with the dignity of a priestly caste and with religious authority.
-242 The Evangelist adds, these men had been sent from the Pharisees, to disclose, first, the -reason why they asked about John’s baptizing, which was not why they were sent. It is as -though he were saying: They were sent to ask John who he was. But they asked, Why do you -baptize? because they were from the Pharisees, whose religion was being challenged. -Secondly, as Gregory says, in order to show with what intention they asked John, “Who are -you?” (1:19). For the Pharisees, more than all the others, showed themselves crafty and -insulting to Christ. Thus they said of him: “He casts out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of -devils” (Mt 12:24). Further, they consulted with the Herodians on how to trap Jesus in his -speech (Mt 22:15). And so in saying that these men had been sent from the Pharisees, he -shows that they were disrespectful and were questioning him out of envy.
-243 Their questions concerned his office of baptizing. Hence he says that they asked him, -Why then do you baptize? Here we should note that they are asking not to learn, but to -obstruct. For since they saw many people coming to John because of the new rite of baptism, -foreign both to the rite of the Pharisees and of the law, they became envious of John and tried -all they could to hinder his baptism. But being unable to contain themselves any longer, they -reveal their envy and say, Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, -nor the Prophet? As if to say: You should not baptize, since you deny that you are any of -those three persons in whom baptism was prefigured, as was said above. In other words, if -you are not the Messiah, who will possess the fountain by which sins are washed away, nor -Elijah, nor the Prophet, i.e., Elisha, who made a dry passageway through the Jordan (2 Kgs -2:8), how do you dare baptize’? They are like envious persons who hinder the progress of -souls, “who say to the seers, ‘See no visions’” (Is 30:10).
-244 His answer is true: and so he says that John answered, I baptize with water. As if to say: -You should not be disturbed, if I, who am not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, -baptize; because my baptism is not completive but imperfect. For the perfection of baptism -requires the washing of the body and of the soul; and the body, by its nature, is indeed washed -by water, but the soul is washed by the Spirit alone. So, I baptize with water, i.e., I wash the -body with something bodily; but another will come who will baptize perfectly, namely, with -water and with the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash the body with water and the -spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the sanctification of the spirit will be distributed -throughout the body. “For John indeed baptized with water but you will be baptized with the -Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5).
-245 Then he bears witness to Christ. First, in relation to the Jews. Secondly, in relation to -himself (v 27).
-246 He relates him to the Jews when he says, But there is one standing in your midst. As if -to say: I have done an incomplete work, but there is another who will complete my work, and -he is standing in your midst.
-This is explained in a number of ways. First, according to Gregory, Chrysostom and -Augustine, it refers to the ordinary way Christ lived among men, because according to his -human nature he appeared to be like other men: “He, being in the form of God ... emptied -himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:6). And according to this he says, there is one -standing in your midst, i.e., in many ways he lived as one of you: “I am in your midst” (Lk -22:27), whom you do not recognize, i.e., you cannot grasp the fact that God was made man. -Likewise, you do not recognize how great he is according to the divine nature which is -concealed in him: “God is great, and exceeds our knowledge” (Jb 36:26). And so, as -Augustine says, “The lantern was lighted,” namely, John, “so that Christ might be found.” “I -have prepared a lamp for my anointed” (Ps 131:17).
-It is explained differently by Origen; and in two ways. First, as referring to the divinity of -Christ: and according to this, there is one standing, namely, Christ, in your midst, that is, in -the midst of all things; because he, as Word, has filled all from the beginning of creation: “I -fill heaven and earth” (Jer 23:24). Whom you do not recognize, because, as was said above -(1:10), “He was in the world ... and the world did not know him.”
-It is explained another way as referring to his causality of human wisdom. But there is one -standing in your midst, i.e., he shines in everyone’s understanding; because whatever light -and whatever wisdom exists in men has come to them from participating in the Word. And he -says, in your midst, because in the midst of man’s body lies the heart, to which is attributed a -certain wisdom and understanding; hence, although the intellect has no bodily organ, yet -because the heart is our chief organ, it is the custom to take it for the intellect. So he is said to -stand among men because of this likeness, insofar as he “enlightens every man coming into -this world” (1:9). Whom you do not recognize, because, as was said above (1:5), “The light -shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”
-In a fourth way, it is explained as referring to the prophetic foretelling of the Messiah. In this -sense the answer is directed chiefly to the Pharisees, who continually searched the writings of -the Old Testament in which the Messiah was foretold; and yet they did not recognize him. -And according to this it says, there is one standing in your midst, i.e., in the Sacred -Scriptures which you are always considering: “Search the Scriptures” (below 5:39); whom -you do not recognize, because your heart is hardened by unbelief, and your eyes blinded, so -that you do not recognize as present the person you believe is to come.
-247 Then John compares Christ to himself. First, he states the superiority of Christ as -compared to himself. Secondly, he shows the greatness of this superiority.
-248 He shows the superiority of Christ in comparison to himself both in preaching and in -dignity. Now, as to the order of preaching, John was the first to become known. Thus he says, -the one who is to come after me, to preach, to baptize and to die; because as was said in Luke -(1:76): “You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way.” John preceded Christ as -the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; for as is said, “The spiritual is not -first, but the animal” (1 Cor 15:46). For the entire life of John was a preparation for Christ; so -he said above, that he was “a voice that cries in the wilderness.”
-But Christ preceded John and all of us as the perfect precedes the imperfect and the exemplar -precedes the copy: “If any one wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his -cross, and follow me” (Mt 16:24); “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example” (1 Pt -2:21).
-Then he compares Christ to himself as to dignity, saying, who ranks ahead of me, i.e., he -has been placed above me and is above me in dignity, because as he says (below 3:30), “he -must increase, and I must decrease.”
-249 He touches on the greatness of his superiority when he says, the strap of whose sandal I -am not worthy to unfasten. As if to say: You must not suppose that he ranks ahead of me in -dignity in the way that one man is placed ahead of another, rather he is ranked so far above -me that I am nothing in comparison to him. And this is clear from the fact that it is he the -strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, which is the least service that can be -done for men. It is clear from this that John had made great progress in the knowledge of -God, so far that from the consideration of God’s infinite greatness, he completely lowered -himself and said that he himself was nothing. So did Abraham, when he recognized God, and -said (Gn 18:27), “1 will speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.” And so also did -Job, saying, “Now I see you, and so I reprove myself, and do penance in dust and ashes” (Jb -42:5). Isaiah also said, after he had seen the glory of God, “Before him all the nations are as if -they are not” (Is 40:17). And this is the literal explanation.
-250 This is also explained mystically. Gregory explains it so that the sandal, made from the -hides of dead animals, indicates our mortal human nature, which Christ assumed: “I will -stretch out my sandal to Edom” (Ps 59:10). The strap of Christ’s sandal is the union of his -divinity and humanity, which neither John nor anyone can unfasten or fully investigate, since -it is this which made God man and made man God. And so he says, the strap of whose -sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, i.e., to explain the mystery of the incarnation perfectly -and fully. For John and other preachers unfasten the strap of Christ’s sandal in some way, -although imperfectly.
-It is explained in another way by recalling that it was ordered in the Old Law that when a man -died without children, his brother was obligated to marry the wife of the dead man and raise -up children from her as his brother’s. And if he refused to marry her, then a close relative of -the dead man, if willing to marry her, was to remove the sandals of the dead man as a sign of -this willingness and marry her; and his home was then to be called the home of the man -whose sandals were removed (Dt 25:5). And so according to this he says, the strap of whose -sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, i.e., I am not worthy to have the bride, that is, the -Church, to which Christ has a right. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the bridegroom -of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize only in -water. As it says below (3:29): “It is the groom who has the bride.”
-251 The place where these events happened is mentioned when he says, This happened at -Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan. A question arises on this: Since Bethany is on the -Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, as is said in John (11:1 ) and also in Matthew -(26:6), how can he say that these things happened beyond the Jordan, which is quite far from -Jerusalem? Origen and Chrysostom answer that it should be called Bethabora, not Bethany, -which is a village on the far side of the Jordan; and that the reading “Bethany” is due to a -copyist’s error. However, since both the Greek and Latin versions have Bethany, one should -rather say that there are two places called Bethany: one is near Jerusalem on the side of the -Mount of Olives, and the other is on the far side of the Jordan where John was baptizing.
-252 The fact that he mentions the place has both a literal and a mystical reason. The literal -reason, according to Chrysostom, is that John wrote this Gospel for certain ones, perhaps still -alive, who would recall the time and who saw the place where these things happened. And so, -to lead us to a greater certitude, he makes them witnesses of the things they had seen.
-The mystical reason is that these places are appropriate for baptism. For in saying “Bethany,” -which is interpreted as “house of obedience,” he indicates that one must come to be baptized -through obedience to the faith. “To bring all the nations to have obedience to the faith” (Rom -1:5). But if the name of the place is “Bethabora,” which is interpreted as “house of -preparation,” it signifies that a man is prepared for eternal life through baptism.
-There is also a mystery in the fact that this happened on the far side of the Jordan. For -“Jordan” is interpreted as “the descent of them”; and according to Origen it signifies Christ, -who descended from heaven, as he himself says that he descended from heaven to do the will -of his Father (below 6:38).
-Further, the river Jordan aptly signifies baptism. For it is the border line between those who -received their inheritance from Moses on one side of the Jordan, and those who received it -from Josue on the other side. Thus baptism is a kind of border between Jews and Gentiles, -who journey to this place to wash themselves by coming to Christ so that they might put off -the debasement of sin. Forjust as the Jews had to cross the Jordan to enter the promised land, -so one must pass through baptism to enter into the heavenly land. And he says, on the far -side of the Jordan, to show that John preached the baptism of repentance even to those who -trangressed the law and sinners; and so the Lord also says, “I did not come to call the -righteous, but sinners” (Mt 9:13).
--
LECTURE14
--29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and he said, “Look! There is the Lamb of -God who takes away the sins of the world. 30 It is he of whom I said:
-‘After me is to come a man, who ranks ahead of me, because he existed before me.’
-31 And I did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with -water.” -32 John gave this testimony also:
-“I saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove, and resting on him. -33 And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water had said to me: -‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize -with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 Now I have seen for myself and have given testimony that he -is the Son of God.”
253 Above, John had given testimony to Christ when he was questioned. Here, he gives -testimony to him on his own initiative. First, he gives the testimony; secondly, he confirms it -(v 32). As to the first: first, the circumstances of the testimony are given; and secondly, the -testimony itself is given (v 29); thirdly, suspicion is removed from the witness (v 3 1).
-254 The circumstances are first described as to the time. Hence he says, The next day. This -gives credit to John for his steadfastness, because he bore witness to Christ not for just one -day or once, but on many days and frequently: “Every day I will bless you” (Ps 144:2). His -progress, too, is cited, because one day should not be just like the day before, but the -succeeding day should be different, i.e., better: “They will go from strength to strength” (Ps -83:8).
-Another circumstance mentioned is his manner of testifying, because John saw Jesus. This -shows his certitude, for testimony based on sight is most certain. The last circumstance he -mentions is about the one to whom he bore witness. Hence he says that he saw Jesus coming -toward him, i.e., from Galilee, as it says, “Jesus came from Galilee” (Mt 3:13). We should -not understand this as referring to the time when he came to be baptized, of which Matthew is -here speaking, but of another time, i.e., a time when he came to John after he had already -been baptized and was staying near the Jordan. Otherwise, he Would not have said, “‘The -man on whom yoti see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the I -loly Spirit.’ Now I have seen” (v 33). Therefore, he had already seen him and the Spirit come -down as a dove upon him.
-255 One reason why Christ now came to John was to confirm the testimony of John. For John -had spoken of Christ as “the one who is to come after me” (v 27). But since Christ was now -present, some might not understand who it was that was to come. So Christ came to John to -be pointed out by him, with John saying, Look! There is the Lamb of God. Another reason -Christ came was to correct an error. For some might believe that the first time Christ came, -i.e., to be baptized, he came to John to be cleansed from his sins. So, in order to preclude this, -Christ came to him even after his baptism. Accordingly, John clearly says, There is the -Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He committed no sin, but came to take -away sin. He also came to give us an example of humility, because as it is said, “The greater -you are the more humble you should be in all matters” (Sir 3:20).
-Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the Virgin, went in haste to the -mountainous country to visit John’s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his mother’s womb -and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as though performing a religious dance out of -reverence for Christ. And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of -humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out saying, Look! There is the -Lamb of God.
-256 With these words John gives his testimony showing the power of Christ. Then Christ’s -dignity is shown (v 30). He shows the power of Christ in two ways: first, by means of a -symbol; secondly, by explaining it (v 29).
-257 As to the first, we should note, as Origen says, that it was customary in the Old Law for -five animals to be offered in the temple: three land animals, namely, the heifer, goat and -sheep (although the sheep might be a ram, a sheep or a lamb) and two birds, namely, the -turtle-dove and the dove. All of these prefigured the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who “gave -himself for us as an offering to God,” as is said in Ephesians (5:2).
-Why then did the Baptist, when giving witness to Christ, specifically call him a Lamb? The -reason for this is that, as stated in Numbers (28:3), although there were other sacrifices in the -temple at other times, yet each day there was a time in which a lamb was offered every -morning, and another was offered in the evening. This never varied, but was regarded as the -principal offering, and the other offerings were in the form of additions. And so the lamb, -which was the principal sacrifice, signified Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although -all the saints who suffered for the faith of Christ contribute something to the salvation of the -faithful, they do this only inasmuch its they are immolated upon the oblation of the Lamb, -they being, as it were, in oblation added to the principal sacrifice. The lamb is offered in the -morning and in the evening because it is through Christ that the way is opened to the -contemplation and enjoyment of the intelligible things of God, and this pertains to “morning -knowledge”; and we are instructed how to use earthly things without staining ourselves, and -this pertains to “evening knowledge.” And so he says, Look! There is the Lamb of God, i.e., -the one signified by the lamb.
-He says, of God, because there are two natures in Christ, a human nature and a divine nature. -And it is due to the power of the divinity that this sacrifice has the power to cleanse and -sanctify us from our sins, inasmuch as “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” -(2 Cor 5:19). Or, he is called the Lamb of God, because offered by God, i.e., by Christ -himself, who is God; just as we call what a man offers the offering of the man. Or, he is -called the Lamb of God, that is, of the Father, because the Father provided man with an -oblation to offer that satisfied for sins, which man could not have through himself. So when -Isaac asked Abraham, “Where is the victim for the holocaust?” he answered, “God himself -will provide a victim for the holocaust” (Gn 22:7); “God did not spare his own Son, but -delivered him up for all of us” (Rom 8:32).
-258 Christ is called a Lamb, first, because of his purity: “Your lamb will be without blemish” -(Ex 12:5); “You were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver” (1 Pt 1:18). Secondly, -because of his gentleness: “Like a lamb before the shearer, he will not open his mouth” (Is -53:7). Thirdly, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on: “Lambs will be your -clothing” (Prv 27:26), “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14); and with respect to food: -“My flesh is for the life of the world” (below 6:52). And so Isaiah said (16:1 ): “Send forth, O -Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth.”
-259 Then when he says, who takes away the sins of the world, he explains the symbol he -used. In the law, sin could not be taken away either by a lamb or by any other sacrifice, -because as is said in Hebrews (10:4), “It is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of -bulls and goats.” This blood takes away, i.e., removes, the sins of the world. “Take away all -iniquity” (Hos 14:3). Or, takes away, i.e., he takes upon himself the sins of the whole world, -as is said, “He bore our sins in his own body” (1 Pt 2:24); “It was our infirmities that he bore, -our sufferings that he endured,” as we read in Isaiah (53:4).
-However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not “sins,” in order to show in a universal -way that he has taken away every kind of sin: “He is the offering for our sins” (1 Jn 2:2); or -because he died for one sin, that is, original sin: “Sin entered into this world through one -man” (Rom 5:12).
-260 Above, the Baptist bore witness to the power of Christ; now he bears witness to his -dignity, comparing Christ to himself in three respects. First, with respect to their office and -order of preaching. So he says, It is he, pointing him out, that is, the Lamb, of whom I said, -i.e., in his absence, After me is to come a man, to preach and baptize, who in birth came -after me.
-Christ is called a man by reason of his perfect age, because when he began to teach, after his -baptism, he had already reached a perfect age: “Jesus was now about thirty years of age” (Lk -3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all the virtues that were in him: -“Seven women,” i.e., the virtues, “will take hold of one man,” the perfect Christ (Is 4:1); -“Look, a man! His name is the Orient,” because he is the origin of all the virtues found in -others (Zec 6:12). He is also called a man because of his espousal, since he is the spouse of -the Church: “You will call me ‘my husband’” (Hos 2:16); “I espoused you to one husband” (2 -Cor 11:2).
-261 Secondly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to dignity when he says, who -ranks ahead of me. As if to say: Although he comes to preach after me, yet he ranks before -me in dignity. “See, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills” (Sg 2:8). -One such hill was John the Baptist, who was passed over by Christ, because as is said below -(3:30), “He must increase, and I must decrease.”
-262 Thirdly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to duration, saying, because he -existed before me. As if to say: It is not strange if he ranks ahead of me in dignity; because -although he is after me in time, he is before me in eternity, because he existed before me.
-This statement refutes a twofold error. First, that of Arius, for John does not say that “he was -made before me,” as though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity, -before every creature: “The Lord brought me forth before all the hills,” as is said in Proverbs -(8:25). The second error refuted is that of Paul of Samosata: for John said, he existed before -me, in order to show that he did not take his beginning from Mary. For if he had taken the -beginning of his existence from the Virgin, he would not have existed before the precursor, -who, in the order of human generation, preceded Christ by six months.
-263 Next (v 31), he precludes an erroneous conjecture from his testimony. For someone -might say that John bore witness to Christ because of his affection for him, coming from a -special friendship. And so, excluding this, John says, And I did not know him!; for John had -lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles happened during the birth of -Christ, such as the Magi and the star and so on, they were not known to John: both because he -was an infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, he had no association -with Christ. In the interim between his birth and baptism, Christ did not perform any -miracles, but led a life similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to all.
-264 It is clear that he worked no miracles in the interim until he was thirty years old from -what is said below (2:11): “This beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee.” This -shows the error of the book, The Infancy of the Savior. The reason he performed no miracles -during this period was that if his life had not been like that of other infants, the mystery of the -circumcision and incarnation might have been regarded as pure fancy. Accordingly, he -postponed showing his knowledge and power to another time, corresponding to the age when -other men reach the fulness of their knowledge and power. About this we read, “And Jesus -increased in grace and wisdom” (Lk 2:52); not that he acquired a power and wisdom that he -previously lacked, for in this respect he was perfect from the instant of his conception, but -because his power and wisdom were becoming known to men: “Indeed, you are a hidden -God” (Is 45:15).
-265 The reason why John did not know him was that he had so far seen no signs, and no one -else had known Christ through signs. Hence he adds: It was to reveal him to Israel that I -came baptizing with water. As if to say: My entire ministry is to reveal: “He was not the -light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light,” as was said above (1:8).
-266 He says, I came baptizing with water, to distinguish his baptism from that of Christ. -For Christ baptized not just in water, but in the Spirit, conferring grace; and so the baptism of -John was merely a sign, and not causative.
-John’s baptism made Christ known in three ways. First, by the preaching of John. For -although John could have prepared the way for the Lord and led the people to Christ without -baptizing, yet because of the novelty of the service many more came to him than would have -come if his preaching were done without baptism. Secondly, John’s baptism was useful -because of Christ’s humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John: “Christ -came to John, to be baptized by him” (Mt 3:13). This example of humility he gives us here is -that no one, however great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from any person -ordained for this purpose. Thirdly, because it was during Christ’s baptisin by John that the -power of the Father was present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit was present in the dove, by -which the powerand dignity of’Christ were all the more shown: “And the voice of the Father -was heard: ‘This is my beloved Son’” (Lk 3:22).
-267 Then when he says, John gave this testimony also, he confirms by the authority of God -the great things he testified to about Christ, that Christ alone would take away the sins of the -whole world. As to this he does three things. First, he presents a vision. Secondly, he tells us -the meaning of the vision (v 33). Thirdly, he shows what he learned from this vision (v 34).
-268 He presents the vision when he says, I saw the Spirit coming down on him from -heaven. When this actually happened John the Evangelist does not tell us, but Matthew and -Luke say that it took place when Christ was being baptized by John. And it was indeed fitting -for the Holy Spirit to be present at this baptism and to the person being baptized. It was -appropriate for the one baptized, for as the Son, existing by the Father, manifests the Father, -“Father, I have manifested your name” (below 17:6), so the Holy Spirit, existing by the Son, -manifests the Son, “He will glorify me, because he will receive from me” (below 16:14). It -was appropriate for this baptism because the baptism of Christ begins and consecrates our -baptism. Now our baptism is consecrated by invoking the whole Trinity: “Baptizing them in -the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). Thus, the ones we -invoke in our baptism were present at the baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Holy -Spirit in the dove, and the Son in his human nature.
-269 He says, coming down, because descent, since it has two termini, the start, which is from -above, and the end, which is below, suits baptism in both respects. For there is a twofold -spirit: one of the world and the other of God. The spirit of the world is the love of the world, -which is not from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him descend. But -the spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down to man from above and makes him -ascend: “We have not received the spirit of this world, but the spirit of God,” as is said in 1 -Corinthians (2:12). And so, because that spirit is from above, he says, coming down.
-Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive God’s goodness in the fulness in -which it is present in God, the communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain -coming down: “Every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (Jas -1:17).
-270 The Evangelist, in describing the manner of the vision and of the coming down, says that -the Holy Spirit did not appear in the spirit, i.e., in his nature, but in the form of a dove, saying, -that he came like a ove. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit cannot be seen in his nature, -as is said, “The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know -where it comes from or where it goes” (below 3:8), and because a spirit does not come down -but goes up, “The spirit lifted me up” (Ez 8:3).
-It was appropriate that the Son of God, who was made visible through flesh, should be made -known by the Holy Spirit in the visible form of a dove. However, the Holy Spirit did not -assume the dove into a unity of person, as the Son of God assumed human nature. The reason -for this is that the Son did not appear as a manifester but as a Savior. And so, according to -Pope Leo, it was appropriate that he be God and man: God, in order to provide a remedy; and -man, in order to offer an example. But the Holy Spirit appeared only to make known, and for -this it was sufficient merely to assume a visible form which was suitable for this purpose.
-271 As to whether this dove was a real animal and whether it existed prior to its appearance, -it seems reasonable to say that it was a real dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, -who, being the Truth, ought to have been manifested only by the truth. As to the other part of -the question, it would seem that the dove did not exist prior to its appearance, but was formed -at the time by the divine power, without any parental union, as the body of Christ was -conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not from a man’s seed. Yet it was a real dove, -for as Augustine says in his work, The Christian Combat: “It was not difficult for the -omnipotent God, who produced the entire universe of creatures from nothing, to form a real -body for the dove without the aid of other doves, just as it was not difficult to form the true -body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without natural semen.”
-Cyprian, in his The Unity of the Church, says: “It is said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the -form of a dove because the dove is a simple harmless animal, not bitter with gall, not savage -with its bites, not fierce with rending talons; it loves the dwellings of men, is able to live -together in one nest, together it raises its young, they remain together when they fly, spend -their life in mutual association, signify the concord of peace with the kiss of their bill, and -fulfill the law of harmony in all things.”
-272 Many reasons are given why the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove rather than in some other -form. First, because of its simplicity, for the dove is simple: “Be wise as serpents, and simple -as doves” (Mt 10:16). And the Holy Spirit, because he inclines souls to gaze on one thing, -that is, God, makes them simple; and so he appeared in the form of a dove. Further, according -to Augustine, the Holy Spirit also appeared in the form of fire over the heads of the -assembled apostles. This was done because some are simple, but lukewarm; while others are -fervent but guileful. And so in order that those sanctified by the Spirit may have no guile, the -Spirit is shown in the form of a dove; and in order that their simplicity may not grow tepid, -the Spirit is shown in fire.
-A dove was used, secondly, because of the unity of charity; for the dove is much aglow with -love: “One is my dove” (Sg 6:9). So, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit -appears in the form of a dove. Nor should it disturb you that when the Holy Spirit rested on -each of the disciples, there appeared separate tongues of fire; for although the Spirit appears -to be different according to the different functions of his gifts, he nevertheless unites us -through charity. And so, because of the first he appeared in separate tongues of fire, as is said, -“There are different kinds of gifts” (1 Cor 12:4); but he appears in the form of a dove because -of the second.
-A dove was used, thirdly,because of its groaning, for the dove has a groaning chant; so also -the Holy Spirit “pleads for us with indescribable groanings” (Rom 8:26); “Her maidens, -groaning like doves” (Na 2:7). Fourthly, because of the doves fertility, for the dove is a very -prolific animal. And so in order to signify the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the -Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This is why the Lord commanded an offering of -two doves (Lv 5:7).
-A dove was used, fifthly, because of its cautiousness. For it rests upon watery brooks, and -gazing into them can see the hawk flying overhead and so save itself: “His eyes are like doves -beside brooks of water” (Sg 5:12). And so, because our refuge and defense is found in -baptism, the Holy Spirit appropriately appeared in the form of a dove.
-The dove also corresponds to a figure in the Old Testament. For as the dove bearing the green -olive branch was a sign of God’s mercy to those who survived the waters of the deluge, so too -in baptism, the Holy Spirit, coming in the form of a dove, is a sign of the divine mercy which -takes away the sins of those baptized and confers grace.
-273 He says that the Holy Spirit was resting on him. If the Holy Spirit does not rest on -someone, it is due to two causes. One is sin. For all men except Christ are either suffering -from the wound of mortal sin, which banishes the Holy Spirit, or are darkened with the stain -of venial sin, which hinders some of the works of the Holy Spirit. But in Christ there was -neither mortal nor venial sin; so, the Holy Spirit in him was never disquieted, but was resting -on him.
-The other reason concerns charismatic graces, for the other saints do not always possess their -power. For example, the power to work miracles is not always present in the saints, nor is the -spirit of prophecy always in the prophets. But Christ always possessed the power to -accomplish any work of the virtues and the graces. So to indicate this, he says, resting on -him. Hence this was the characteristic sign for recognizing Christ, as the Gloss says. “The -Spirit of the Lord will rest on him” (Is 11:2), which we should understand of Christ as man, -according to which he is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.
-274 Then when he says, I did not know him, he teaches us how this vision should be -understood. For certain heretics, as the Ebionites, said that Christ was neither the Christ nor -the Son of God from the time he was born, but only began to be the Son of God and the -Christ when he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit at his baptism. But this is false, -because at the very hour of his birth the angel said to the shepherds: “This day a Savior has -been born for you in the city of David, Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:11). Therefore, so that we do -not believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in his baptism as though Christ needed -to receive the Spirit anew for his sanctification, the Baptist gives the reason for the Spirit’s -coming down. He says that the Spirit descended not for the benefit of Christ, but for our -benefit, that is, so that the grace of Christ might be made known to us. And so he says, And I -did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with +
217 Because this teacher knows God in a more special way than +other sons do, the Evangelist suggests this by his singular +excellence, saying, the Only +Begotten. As if to say: He knows God more than other sons +do. Hence, because he is the natural Son, having the same nature +and knowledge as the Father, he is called the Only Begotten. “The +Lord said to me: ‘You are my Son’” (Ps 2:7).
+218 Although he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking +the ability to teach if he were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a +third point, namely, his consubstantiality to the Father, when he +says, who is in the bosom of the +Father. “Bosom” is not to be taken here as +referring to men in their garments, but it indicates the secret +things of the Father. For what we carry in our bosom we do in +secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed +power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. +Therefore, in that bosom, i.e., in the most secret things of the +paternal nature and essence, which transcends all the power of the +creature, is the Only Begotten +Son; and so he is consubstantial with the Father.
+What the Evangelist signifies by “bosom,” David +expressed by “womb,” saying: “From the womb, +before the daystar,” i.e., from the inmost secret things of +my essence, incomprehensible to every created intellect, “I +begot you” (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, and of the +same nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. “What man +knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is in +him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of +God” (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends the divine +essence, which is his own.
+219 But the soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend +him, because this is attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who +is in the bosom of the Father. So the Lord also says: “No one +knows the Father except the Son, and any to whom the Son wishes to +reveal him”(Mt 11:27); we should understand this as referring +to the knowledge of comprehension, about which the Evangelist seems +to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine essence +except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have +shown the competence of the teacher.
+220 We should note that the phrase, who is in the bosom of the Father, +rejects the error of those who say that the Father is invisible, +but the Son is visible, though he was not seen in the Old +Testament. For from the fact that he is among the hidden things of +the Father, it is plain that he is naturally invisible, as is the +Father. So it is said of him: “Truly, you are a hidden +God” (Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the +incomprehensibility of the Son: “No one knows the Son except +the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt +11:27), “What is the name of his son, if you know?” as +we read in Proverbs (30:4)
+221 Then the Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching +is handed down, saying that it is the Only Begotten Son +who has made him known. For +in the past, the Only Begotten Son revealed knowledge of God +through the prophets, who made him known to the extent that they +shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things like, “The +Word of the Lord came to me.” But now the Only Begotten Son +has made him known to the +faithful: “It is I who spoke; here I am” (Is 52:6); +“God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in +past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in +his Son” (Heb 1:1).
+And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, +authority and usefulness, because it was handed on immediately by +the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. “It was first +announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard +him” (Heb 2:3).
+222 But what did he make known except the one God? And even +Moses did this: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is +one” (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It added the +mystery of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses +nor any of the prophets made known.
++
+LECTURE12
+++19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and +Levites from Jeru’salem to him, to ask him: “Who are +you?” 20 He declared openly, and did not deny, and stated +clearly, “I am not the Messiah.” 21 And they questioned +him, “Who then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I +am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he responded, +“No.” 22 They therefore said to him, “Who are +you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. What have +you to say about yourself9" 23 He said, quoting the prophet Isaiah, +“I am 6 a voice that cries in the wilderness: Make a straight +way for the Lord’” [Is 40:3].
+223 Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to +the apostles through the testimony of John; here he develops this +testimony more fully. First, he presents John’s testimony to +the people. Secondly, the testimony he gave of Christ to his own +disciples (below 1:35). If we carefully consider what was said, we +discover a twofold testimony of John to Christ: one which he gave +to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence. For he would +not have said, “It is he” (below 1:30), unless he had +given testimony in Christ’s presence; and he would not have +said, “of whom I said,” unless he gave testimony to him +in his absence. So first, the Evangelist develops the testimony +John gave to Christ in his absence; secondly, that he gave in his +presence (v 29).
+Now these two testimonies differ, because the first was given +when he was questioned; the other was spontaneous. So in the first +instance, we are given not only his testimony, but also the +questions. First, he was asked about himself; secondly, about his +office (v 24). First we are shown how John stated that he was not +what he really was not; secondly, that he did not deny what he +was.
+224 As to the first, there are three questions and three +answers, as is plain from the text. In the first question there is +great respect for John shown by the Jews. They had sent certain +ones to him to ask about his testimony. The greatness of their +respect is gathered from four facts. First, from the dignity of +those who sent the questioners; for they were not sent by +Galileans, but by those who were first in rank among the people of +Israel, namely, Judeans, of the tribe of Juda, who lived about +Jerusalem. It was from Juda that God chose the princes of the +people.
+Secondly, from the preeminence of the place, that is, from +Jerusalem, which is the city of the priesthood, the city dedicated +to divine worship: “You people claim that Jerusalem is the +place where men must worship God” (below 4:20); “They +will worship him with sacrifices and offerings” (Is 19:21). +Thirdly, from the authority of the messengers, who were religious +and from among the holier of the people, namely, priests and +Levites; “You will be called the priests of the Lord” +(Is 61:6).
+Fourthly, from the fact that they sent them so that John might +bear witness to himself, indicating that they put such trust in his +words as to believe John even when giving testimony about himself. +Hence he says they were sent to ask him, Who are you? They did not +do this to Christ; in fact they said to him: “You are bearing +witness to yourself; your testimony is not true” (below +8:13).
+225 Then when he says, He +declared openly, and did not deny, John’s answer is +given. The Evangelist twice mentioned that John spoke forth to show +his humility; for although he was held in such high esteem among +the Jews that they believed he might be the Messiah, he, on his +part, usurped no honor what was not due him; indeed, he stated clearly, I am not the +Messiah.
+226 What of’ the statement, He declared openly, and did not deny? +For it seems that he did deny, because he said that he was not the +Messiah. It must be answered that he did not deny the truth, for he +said he was not the Messiah; otherwise he would have denied the +truth. “A very great iniquity, and a denial of the most high +God” (Jb 31:28). Thus he did not deny the truth, because +however great he might have been considered, he did not become +proud, usurping for himself the honor of another. He stated +clearly, I am not the +Messiah; because in truth he was not. “He was not the +light,” as was said above (1:8).
+227 Why did John answer, I am +not the Messiah, since those who had been sent did not ask +if he was the Messiah, but who he himself was? I answer that John +directed his answer more to the mind of the questioners than to +their question. And we can understand this in two ways. According +to Origen, the priests and Levites came to John with a good +intention. For they knew from the Scriptures, and particularly from +the prophecy of Daniel, that the time for the coming of the Messiah +had arrived. So, seeing John’s holiness, they suspected that +he might be the Messiah. So they sent to John, wishing to learn by +their question, Who are you? +whether John would admit that he was the Messiah. And so he directs +his answer to their thoughts: I am +not the Messiah.
+Chrysostom, however, says that they questioned him as a +stratagem. For John was related to priests, being the son of a +chief priest, and he was holy. Yet, he bore witness to Christ, +whose family seemed lowly; for that reason they even said, +“Is not this the son of the carpenter?”; and they did +not know him. So, preferring to have John as their master, not +Christ, they sent to him, intending to entice him by flattery and +persuade him to take this honor for himself, and to state that he +was the Messiah. But John, seeing their evil intent, said, +I am not the Messiah.
+228 The second question is stated when they ask him, +Who then? Are you Elijah? +Here we should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was +to come, so to they waited for Elijah, who would precede the +Messiah: “I will send you Elijah, the prophet” (Mal +4:5). And so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that +he was the Messiah, pressed him that at least he state if he were +Elijah. And this is what they ask: Who then? Are you Elijah?
+229 There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from +one body to another. And this belief was current among the Jews of +that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of Elijah +was in John’s body, because of the similarity of John’s +actions to those of Elijah. And they say that these messengers +asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of Elijah +was in John. They support this with Christ’s statement, +“He is Elijah who is to come,” as is found in Matthew +(11:14). But John’s answer conflicts with their opinion, as +he says, I am not. i.e., Elijah.
+They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not +knowing whether his soul was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in +answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that John, a prophet +enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only +Begotten Son of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know +whether his soul had been in Elijah.
+230 So this was not the reason John was asked, Are you Elijah? Rather it was because +they took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die, +but had been carried alive by a whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly, +they believed that he had suddenly appeared among them.
+But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from +parents who were known, and his birth had been known to everyone. +So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, “What do you think +this child will be?” One might say to this that it is not +incredible that they should regard John in the manner described. +For a similar situation in found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod +thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though +Christ had been preaching and was known for some time before John +had been beheaded. And so from a similar stupidity and madness the +Jews asked John whether he was Elijah.
+231 Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said, +“He is Elijah” (Mt 11:14). The angel gives us the +answer: “He will go before him in the spirit and power of +Elijah” (Lk 1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah +in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., because he showed a +similarity to Elijah in his works.
+232 This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their +office: because as Elijah will precede the second coming of Christ, +so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, “He will go +before him.” Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah +lived in desert places, ate little food and wore coarse clothing, +as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, his +food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of +camel’s hair. Thirdly, in their zeal. For Elijah was filled +with zeal; thus it was said, “I have been very zealous for +the Lord” (1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his +zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew (14:6)
+233 Then when he says, Are you +the Prophet? the third question is presented. Here there is +a difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), “And you, +child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High,” why +does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a +prophet?
+There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not +just a prophet, but more than a prophet. For the other prophets +only predicted future things from afar: “if there is a delay, +wait for it” (Hb 2:2).. But John proclaimed that the Messiah +was present, pointing him out with his finger: “Look, there +is the Lamb of God,” as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord +says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9).
+Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a +misunderstanding the Jews associated three great personages with +the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some other +person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy +(18:15) says: “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for +you.” And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact +none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other +than Christ. And so they do not ask simply whether he is a prophet, +but whether he is that “greatest of the prophets.” And +this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask +whether he is the Messiah; secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, +whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the article is +used here as signifying the prophet, as it were, +antonomastically.
+In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for +assuming the office of baptizing outside the order of the law and +their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions three persons to +whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since +“I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be +cleansed” (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the +person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 +Kings that he divided the water of the Jordan, and crossing over, +was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman the Syrian wash +seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as +mentioned in 2 Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was +baptizing, they believed that he was one of those three: the +Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, +Are you the Prophet? they +are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called +“prophet” in a special way because of the many miracles +he had performed; hence he himself says, “Let him come to me, +so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel” (2 Kgs +5:8). And to this John answers, No, I am not Elisha.
+234 Then he shows how he declared who he was. First, the +question of the messengers is given; secondly, his answer (v +23).
+235 They said, Who are you? We +must take back an answer to those who sent us. As if to say: +We were sent to learn who you are; so tell us, What have you to say about yourself?
+Notice John’s devotion. He has already fulfilled what the +Apostle says, “It is not I who now live, but Christ lives in +me” (Gal 2:20). And so he does not answer, “I am the +son of Zachary,” or this or that, but only the way in which +he followed Christ.
+236 So he says, I am a voice +that cries in the wilderness. And he says that he is a voice +because from the point of view of origin, a voice comes after the +[mental, interior] word, but before the knowledge it causes. For we +know a [mental, interior] word conceived in the heart by means of +the voice which speaks it, since it is its sign. But God the Father +sent the precursor John, who came to be in time, in order to make +known his Word, which was conceived from eternity. And so he +fittingly says, I am a +voice.
+237 The addition, that +cries, can be understood in two ways: as referring to John, +crying and preaching in the wilderness; or to Christ crying in him, +according to, “Do you want proof that Christ is speaking in +me” (2 Cor 13:3).
+Now he cries for four reasons. First of all, a cry implies a +showing; and so he cries in order to show that Christ is clearly +speaking in John and in himself: “Now on the last, the great +day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If any +one thirsts, let him come to me and drink’” (below +7:37). But he did not cry out in the prophets because prophecies +were given in enigmas and figures; so it is said that he was +“wrapped in dark rain-clouds” (Ps 17:12). Secondly, +because a cry is made to those who are at a distance; and the Jews +were far from God. Thus it was necessary that he cry: “You +have taken my friends and neighbors away from me” (Ps 88:19). +He cries, in the third place, because they were deaf: “Who is +deaf, but my servant?” (Is 42:19). He cries, fourthly, +because he speaks with indignation, for they deserved God’s +wrath: “He will speak to them in his anger” (Ps +2:5).
+238 Note that he cries in the +wilderness, because “The word of the Lord came to +John, the son of Zechariah, in the desert,” as we read in +Luke (3:2). There can be both a literal and a mystical reason for +this. The literal reason is that by living in the desert he would +be immune from all sin, and so be more worthy to bear witness to +Christ, and his testimony would be more credible to men because of +his life.
+The mystical reason is twofold. For the wilderness or desert +designates paganism, according to Isaiah (54:1); “She who is +deserted has more children than she who has a husband.” +Accordingly, in order to show that God’s teaching would from +now on not be in Jerusalem alone, but also among the pagans, he +cried in the wilderness. +“The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to +a people that will produce its fruits” (Mt 21:43). Again, the +desert can indicate Judea, which was already deserted: “Your +house will be left to You, deserted” (Mt 23:38). And so he +cried in the desert, in the +wilderness, i.e., in Judea, to indicate that the people to +whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God: “in a +desert land, where there is no way or water, so I have come to your +sanctuary” (Ps 62:3).
+239 Why does he cry, Make a +straight way for the Lord? Because this is the task for +which he was sent. “And you, child, will be called the +prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the face of the +Lord to prepare his way” (Lk 1:76). The way, prepared and +straight, for receiving the Lord is the way of justice, according +to Isaiah (26:7): “The way of the just is straight.” +For the way of the just is straight when the whole man is subject +to God, i.e., the intellect through faith, the will through love, +and actions through obedience, are all subject to God.
+And this was spoken, i.e., predicted, by the prophet Isaiah. As if to say: I am +the one in whom these things are fulfilled.
++
+LECTURE13
+++24 Now these men had been sent from the Pharisees, 25 and they +put this further question to him: “Why then do you baptize, +if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 +John replied, “I baptize with water. But there is one +standing in your midst whom you do not recognize—27 the one +who is to come after me, who ranks ahead of me—the strap of +whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten.” 28 This happened +at Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan, where John was +baptizing.
+240 Above, we saw John bear witness to Christ as he was being +questioned on matters concerning himself; here, on matters +concerning his office. Four things are set forth: first, those who +question him; secondly, their questions; thirdly, his answer, in +which he bore witness; and fourthly, the place where all this +happened.
+241 His interrogators were Pharisees. Hence he says, +Now these men had been sent from +the Pharisees. According to Origen, what is being said from +this point on describes a different testimony given by John; and +further, those who were sent from the Pharisees are not the same as +those priests and Levites sent by the generality of the Jews, but +others who were specifically sent by the Pharisees. And according +to this it says: Now these men had +been sent, not by the Jews, as the priests and Levites had +been, but were others, from the +Pharisees. So he says about this that because the priests +and Levites were educated and respectful, they ask John humbly and +respectfully whether he is the Messiah, or Elijah, or the Prophet. +But these others, who were from the Pharisees, according to their +name “separated” and importunate, used disdainful +language. Thus they asked him, Why +then do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor +the Prophet?
+But according to others, such as Gregory, Chrysostom, and +Augustine, these Pharisees are the same priests and Levites who had +been sent by the Jews. For there was among the Jews a certain sect +which was separated from the others by reason of its external cult; +and for this reason its members were called Pharisees, i.e., +“divided.” In this sect there were some priests and +Levites, and some of the people. And so, in order that the +delegates [to John] might possess a greater authority, they sent +priests and Levites, who were Pharisees, thus furnishing them with +the dignity of a priestly caste and with religious authority.
+242 The Evangelist adds, these +men had been sent from the Pharisees, to disclose, first, +the reason why they asked about John’s baptizing, which was +not why they were sent. It is as though he were saying: They were +sent to ask John who he was. But they asked, Why do you baptize? because they were +from the Pharisees, whose religion was being challenged. Secondly, +as Gregory says, in order to show with what intention they asked +John, “Who are you?” (1:19). For the Pharisees, more +than all the others, showed themselves crafty and insulting to +Christ. Thus they said of him: “He casts out devils by +Beelzebub, the prince of devils” (Mt 12:24). Further, they +consulted with the Herodians on how to trap Jesus in his speech (Mt +22:15). And so in saying that these +men had been sent from the Pharisees, he shows that they +were disrespectful and were questioning him out of envy.
+243 Their questions concerned his office of baptizing. Hence he +says that they asked him, Why then +do you baptize? Here we should note that they are asking not +to learn, but to obstruct. For since they saw many people coming to +John because of the new rite of baptism, foreign both to the rite +of the Pharisees and of the law, they became envious of John and +tried all they could to hinder his baptism. But being unable to +contain themselves any longer, they reveal their envy and say, +Why then do you baptize if you are +not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? As if to say: +You should not baptize, since you deny that you are any of those +three persons in whom baptism was prefigured, as was said above. In +other words, if you are not the +Messiah, who will possess the fountain by which sins are +washed away, nor Elijah, nor the +Prophet, i.e., Elisha, who made a dry passageway through the +Jordan (2 Kgs 2:8), how do you dare baptize’? They are like +envious persons who hinder the progress of souls, “who say to +the seers, ‘See no visions’” (Is 30:10).
+244 His answer is true: and so he says that John answered, +I baptize with water. As if +to say: You should not be disturbed, if I, who am not the Messiah, +nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, baptize; because my baptism is not +completive but imperfect. For the perfection of baptism requires +the washing of the body and of the soul; and the body, by its +nature, is indeed washed by water, but the soul is washed by the +Spirit alone. So, I baptize with +water, i.e., I wash the body with something bodily; but +another will come who will baptize perfectly, namely, with water +and with the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash the body with +water and the spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the +sanctification of the spirit will be distributed throughout the +body. “For John indeed baptized with water but you will be +baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts +1:5).
+245 Then he bears witness to Christ. First, in relation to the +Jews. Secondly, in relation to himself (v 27).
+246 He relates him to the Jews when he says, But there is one standing in your midst. +As if to say: I have done an incomplete work, but there is another +who will complete my work, and he is standing in your midst.
+This is explained in a number of ways. First, according to +Gregory, Chrysostom and Augustine, it refers to the ordinary way +Christ lived among men, because according to his human nature he +appeared to be like other men: “He, being in the form of God +... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil +2:6). And according to this he says, there is one standing in your midst, +i.e., in many ways he lived as one of you: “I am in your +midst” (Lk 22:27), whom you +do not recognize, i.e., you cannot grasp the fact that God +was made man. Likewise, you do not recognize how great he is +according to the divine nature which is concealed in him: +“God is great, and exceeds our knowledge” (Jb 36:26). +And so, as Augustine says, “The lantern was lighted,” +namely, John, “so that Christ might be found.” “I +have prepared a lamp for my anointed” (Ps 131:17).
+It is explained differently by Origen; and in two ways. First, +as referring to the divinity of Christ: and according to this, +there is one standing, +namely, Christ, in your +midst, that is, in the midst of all things; because he, as +Word, has filled all from the beginning of creation: “I fill +heaven and earth” (Jer 23:24). Whom you do not recognize, because, as +was said above (1:10), “He was in the world ... and the world +did not know him.”
+It is explained another way as referring to his causality of +human wisdom. But there is one +standing in your midst, i.e., he shines in everyone’s +understanding; because whatever light and whatever wisdom exists in +men has come to them from participating in the Word. And he says, +in your midst, because in +the midst of man’s body lies the heart, to which is +attributed a certain wisdom and understanding; hence, although the +intellect has no bodily organ, yet because the heart is our chief +organ, it is the custom to take it for the intellect. So he is said +to stand among men because of this likeness, insofar as he +“enlightens every man coming into this world” (1:9). +Whom you do not recognize, +because, as was said above (1:5), “The light shines in the +darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”
+In a fourth way, it is explained as referring to the prophetic +foretelling of the Messiah. In this sense the answer is directed +chiefly to the Pharisees, who continually searched the writings of +the Old Testament in which the Messiah was foretold; and yet they +did not recognize him. And according to this it says, there is one standing in your midst, +i.e., in the Sacred Scriptures which you are always considering: +“Search the Scriptures” (below 5:39); whom you do not recognize, because your +heart is hardened by unbelief, and your eyes blinded, so that you +do not recognize as present the person you believe is to come.
+247 Then John compares Christ to himself. First, he states the +superiority of Christ as compared to himself. Secondly, he shows +the greatness of this superiority.
+248 He shows the superiority of Christ in comparison to himself +both in preaching and in dignity. Now, as to the order of +preaching, John was the first to become known. Thus he says, the +one who is to come after me, to preach, to baptize and to die; +because as was said in Luke (1:76): “You will go before the +face of the Lord to prepare his way.” John preceded Christ as +the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; for as +is said, “The spiritual is not first, but the animal” +(1 Cor 15:46). For the entire life of John was a preparation for +Christ; so he said above, that he was “a voice that cries in +the wilderness.”
+But Christ preceded John and all of us as the perfect precedes +the imperfect and the exemplar precedes the copy: “If any one +wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his +cross, and follow me” (Mt 16:24); “Christ suffered for +us, leaving you an example” (1 Pt 2:21).
+Then he compares Christ to himself as to dignity, saying, +who ranks ahead of me, i.e., +he has been placed above me and is above me in dignity, because as +he says (below 3:30), “he must increase, and I must +decrease.”
+249 He touches on the greatness of his superiority when he says, +the strap of whose sandal I am not +worthy to unfasten. As if to say: You must not suppose that +he ranks ahead of me in dignity in the way that one man is placed +ahead of another, rather he is ranked so far above me that I am +nothing in comparison to him. And this is clear from the fact that +it is he the strap of whose sandal +I am not worthy to unfasten, which is the least service that +can be done for men. It is clear from this that John had made great +progress in the knowledge of God, so far that from the +consideration of God’s infinite greatness, he completely +lowered himself and said that he himself was nothing. So did +Abraham, when he recognized God, and said (Gn 18:27), “1 will +speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.” And so +also did Job, saying, “Now I see you, and so I reprove +myself, and do penance in dust and ashes” (Jb 42:5). Isaiah +also said, after he had seen the glory of God, “Before him +all the nations are as if they are not” (Is 40:17). And this +is the literal explanation.
+250 This is also explained mystically. Gregory explains it so +that the sandal, made from the hides of dead animals, indicates our +mortal human nature, which Christ assumed: “I will stretch +out my sandal to Edom” (Ps 59:10). The strap of +Christ’s sandal is the union of his divinity and humanity, +which neither John nor anyone can unfasten or fully investigate, +since it is this which made God man and made man God. And so he +says, the strap of whose sandal I +am not worthy to unfasten, i.e., to explain the mystery of +the incarnation perfectly and fully. For John and other preachers +unfasten the strap of Christ’s sandal in some way, although +imperfectly.
+It is explained in another way by recalling that it was ordered +in the Old Law that when a man died without children, his brother +was obligated to marry the wife of the dead man and raise up +children from her as his brother’s. And if he refused to +marry her, then a close relative of the dead man, if willing to +marry her, was to remove the sandals of the dead man as a sign of +this willingness and marry her; and his home was then to be called +the home of the man whose sandals were removed (Dt 25:5). And so +according to this he says, the +strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, i.e., I +am not worthy to have the bride, that is, the Church, to which +Christ has a right. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the +bridegroom of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the +baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize only in water. As it says +below (3:29): “It is the groom who has the bride.”
+251 The place where these events happened is mentioned when he +says, This happened at Bethany, on +the far side of the Jordan. A question arises on this: Since +Bethany is on the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, as is +said in John (11:1 ) and also in Matthew (26:6), how can he say +that these things happened beyond the Jordan, which is quite far +from Jerusalem? Origen and Chrysostom answer that it should be +called Bethabora, not Bethany, which is a village on the far side +of the Jordan; and that the reading “Bethany” is due to +a copyist’s error. However, since both the Greek and Latin +versions have Bethany, one should rather say that there are two +places called Bethany: one is near Jerusalem on the side of the +Mount of Olives, and the other is on the far side of the Jordan +where John was baptizing.
+252 The fact that he mentions the place has both a literal and a +mystical reason. The literal reason, according to Chrysostom, is +that John wrote this Gospel for certain ones, perhaps still alive, +who would recall the time and who saw the place where these things +happened. And so, to lead us to a greater certitude, he makes them +witnesses of the things they had seen.
+The mystical reason is that these places are appropriate for +baptism. For in saying “Bethany,” which is interpreted +as “house of obedience,” he indicates that one must +come to be baptized through obedience to the faith. “To bring +all the nations to have obedience to the faith” (Rom 1:5). +But if the name of the place is “Bethabora,” which is +interpreted as “house of preparation,” it signifies +that a man is prepared for eternal life through baptism.
+There is also a mystery in the fact that this happened on the +far side of the Jordan. For “Jordan” is interpreted as +“the descent of them”; and according to Origen it +signifies Christ, who descended from heaven, as he himself says +that he descended from heaven to do the will of his Father (below +6:38).
+Further, the river Jordan aptly signifies baptism. For it is the +border line between those who received their inheritance from Moses +on one side of the Jordan, and those who received it from Josue on +the other side. Thus baptism is a kind of border between Jews and +Gentiles, who journey to this place to wash themselves by coming to +Christ so that they might put off the debasement of sin. Forjust as +the Jews had to cross the Jordan to enter the promised land, so one +must pass through baptism to enter into the heavenly land. And he +says, on the far side of the +Jordan, to show that John preached the baptism of repentance +even to those who trangressed the law and sinners; and so the Lord +also says, “I did not come to call the righteous, but +sinners” (Mt 9:13).
++
+LECTURE14
+++29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and he said, +“Look! There is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of +the world. 30 It is he of whom I said:
++‘After me is to come a man, who ranks ahead of me, because he +existed before me.’
+
+31 And I did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel +that I came baptizing with water.”32 John gave this testimony also:
++“I saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove, +and resting on him. 33 And I did not know him, but he who sent me +to baptize with water had said to me: ‘The man on whom you +see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with +the Holy Spirit.’ 34 Now I have seen for myself and have +given testimony that he is the Son of God.”
+253 Above, John had given testimony to Christ when he was +questioned. Here, he gives testimony to him on his own initiative. +First, he gives the testimony; secondly, he confirms it (v 32). As +to the first: first, the circumstances of the testimony are given; +and secondly, the testimony itself is given (v 29); thirdly, +suspicion is removed from the witness (v 3 1).
+254 The circumstances are first described as to the time. Hence +he says, The next day. This +gives credit to John for his steadfastness, because he bore witness +to Christ not for just one day or once, but on many days and +frequently: “Every day I will bless you” (Ps 144:2). +His progress, too, is cited, because one day should not be just +like the day before, but the succeeding day should be different, +i.e., better: “They will go from strength to strength” +(Ps 83:8).
+Another circumstance mentioned is his manner of testifying, +because John saw Jesus. This +shows his certitude, for testimony based on sight is most certain. +The last circumstance he mentions is about the one to whom he bore +witness. Hence he says that he saw Jesus coming toward him, i.e., from +Galilee, as it says, “Jesus came from Galilee” (Mt +3:13). We should not understand this as referring to the time when +he came to be baptized, of which Matthew is here speaking, but of +another time, i.e., a time when he came to John after he had +already been baptized and was staying near the Jordan. Otherwise, +he Would not have said, “‘The man on whom yoti see the +Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the I +loly Spirit.’ Now I have seen” (v 33). Therefore, he +had already seen him and the Spirit come down as a dove upon +him.
+255 One reason why Christ now came to John was to confirm the +testimony of John. For John had spoken of Christ as “the one +who is to come after me” (v 27). But since Christ was now +present, some might not understand who it was that was to come. So +Christ came to John to be pointed out by him, with John saying, +Look! There is the Lamb of +God. Another reason Christ came was to correct an error. For +some might believe that the first time Christ came, i.e., to be +baptized, he came to John to be cleansed from his sins. So, in +order to preclude this, Christ came to him even after his baptism. +Accordingly, John clearly says, There is the Lamb of God who takes away the +sins of the world. He committed no sin, but came to take +away sin. He also came to give us an example of humility, because +as it is said, “The greater you are the more humble you +should be in all matters” (Sir 3:20).
+Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the +Virgin, went in haste to the mountainous country to visit +John’s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his +mother’s womb and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as +though performing a religious dance out of reverence for Christ. +And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of +humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out +saying, Look! There is the Lamb of +God.
+256 With these words John gives his testimony showing the power +of Christ. Then Christ’s dignity is shown (v 30). He shows +the power of Christ in two ways: first, by means of a symbol; +secondly, by explaining it (v 29).
+257 As to the first, we should note, as Origen says, that it was +customary in the Old Law for five animals to be offered in the +temple: three land animals, namely, the heifer, goat and sheep +(although the sheep might be a ram, a sheep or a lamb) and two +birds, namely, the turtle-dove and the dove. All of these +prefigured the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who “gave +himself for us as an offering to God,” as is said in +Ephesians (5:2).
+Why then did the Baptist, when giving witness to Christ, +specifically call him a Lamb? The reason for this is that, as +stated in Numbers (28:3), although there were other sacrifices in +the temple at other times, yet each day there was a time in which a +lamb was offered every morning, and another was offered in the +evening. This never varied, but was regarded as the principal +offering, and the other offerings were in the form of additions. +And so the lamb, which was the principal sacrifice, signified +Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although all the saints +who suffered for the faith of Christ contribute something to the +salvation of the faithful, they do this only inasmuch its they are +immolated upon the oblation of the Lamb, they being, as it were, in +oblation added to the principal sacrifice. The lamb is offered in +the morning and in the evening because it is through Christ that +the way is opened to the contemplation and enjoyment of the +intelligible things of God, and this pertains to “morning +knowledge”; and we are instructed how to use earthly things +without staining ourselves, and this pertains to “evening +knowledge.” And so he says, Look! There is the Lamb of God, i.e., the one +signified by the lamb.
+He says, of God, because there are two natures in Christ, a +human nature and a divine nature. And it is due to the power of the +divinity that this sacrifice has the power to cleanse and sanctify +us from our sins, inasmuch as “God was, in Christ, +reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). Or, he is +called the Lamb of God, +because offered by God, i.e., by Christ himself, who is God; just +as we call what a man offers the offering of the man. Or, he is +called the Lamb of God, that +is, of the Father, because the Father provided man with an oblation +to offer that satisfied for sins, which man could not have through +himself. So when Isaac asked Abraham, “Where is the victim +for the holocaust?” he answered, “God himself will +provide a victim for the holocaust” (Gn 22:7); “God did +not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for all of us” +(Rom 8:32).
+258 Christ is called a Lamb, first, because of his purity: +“Your lamb will be without blemish” (Ex 12:5); +“You were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver” (1 +Pt 1:18). Secondly, because of his gentleness: “Like a lamb +before the shearer, he will not open his mouth” (Is 53:7). +Thirdly, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on: +“Lambs will be your clothing” (Prv 27:26), “Put +on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14); and with respect to +food: “My flesh is for the life of the world” (below +6:52). And so Isaiah said (16:1 ): “Send forth, O Lord, the +lamb, the ruler of the earth.”
+259 Then when he says, who takes +away the sins of the world, he explains the symbol he used. +In the law, sin could not be taken away either by a lamb or by any +other sacrifice, because as is said in Hebrews (10:4), “It is +impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of bulls and +goats.” This blood takes away, i.e., removes, the sins of the world. “Take away +all iniquity” (Hos 14:3). Or, takes away, i.e., he takes upon himself +the sins of the whole world, +as is said, “He bore our sins in his own body” (1 Pt +2:24); “It was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings +that he endured,” as we read in Isaiah (53:4).
+However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not +“sins,” in order to show in a universal way that he has +taken away every kind of sin: “He is the offering for our +sins” (1 Jn 2:2); or because he died for one sin, that is, +original sin: “Sin entered into this world through one +man” (Rom 5:12).
+260 Above, the Baptist bore witness to the power of Christ; now +he bears witness to his dignity, comparing Christ to himself in +three respects. First, with respect to their office and order of +preaching. So he says, It is he, pointing him out, that is, the +Lamb, of whom I said, i.e., +in his absence, After me is to come +a man, to preach and baptize, who in birth came after +me.
+Christ is called a man by reason of his perfect age, because +when he began to teach, after his baptism, he had already reached a +perfect age: “Jesus was now about thirty years of age” +(Lk 3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all +the virtues that were in him: “Seven women,” i.e., the +virtues, “will take hold of one man,” the perfect +Christ (Is 4:1); “Look, a man! His name is the Orient,” +because he is the origin of all the virtues found in others (Zec +6:12). He is also called a man because of his espousal, since he is +the spouse of the Church: “You will call me ‘my +husband’” (Hos 2:16); “I espoused you to one +husband” (2 Cor 11:2).
+261 Secondly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to +dignity when he says, who ranks +ahead of me. As if to say: Although he comes to preach after +me, yet he ranks before me in dignity. “See, he comes, +leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills” (Sg +2:8). One such hill was John the Baptist, who was passed over by +Christ, because as is said below (3:30), “He must increase, +and I must decrease.”
+262 Thirdly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to +duration, saying, because he existed before me. As if to say: It is +not strange if he ranks ahead of me in dignity; because although he +is after me in time, he is before me in eternity, because he existed before me.
+This statement refutes a twofold error. First, that of Arius, +for John does not say that “he was made before me,” as +though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity, +before every creature: “The Lord brought me forth before all +the hills,” as is said in Proverbs (8:25). The second error +refuted is that of Paul of Samosata: for John said, he existed +before me, in order to show that he did not take his beginning from +Mary. For if he had taken the beginning of his existence from the +Virgin, he would not have existed before the precursor, who, in the +order of human generation, preceded Christ by six months.
+263 Next (v 31), he precludes an erroneous conjecture from his +testimony. For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ +because of his affection for him, coming from a special friendship. +And so, excluding this, John says, And I did not know him!; for John had +lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles +happened during the birth of Christ, such as the Magi and the star +and so on, they were not known to John: both because he was an +infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, +he had no association with Christ. In the interim between his birth +and baptism, Christ did not perform any miracles, but led a life +similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to +all.
+264 It is clear that he worked no miracles in the interim until +he was thirty years old from what is said below (2:11): “This +beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee.” This +shows the error of the book, The Infancy of the Savior. The +reason he performed no miracles during this period was that if his +life had not been like that of other infants, the mystery of the +circumcision and incarnation might have been regarded as pure +fancy. Accordingly, he postponed showing his knowledge and power to +another time, corresponding to the age when other men reach the +fulness of their knowledge and power. About this we read, +“And Jesus increased in grace and wisdom” (Lk 2:52); +not that he acquired a power and wisdom that he previously lacked, +for in this respect he was perfect from the instant of his +conception, but because his power and wisdom were becoming known to +men: “Indeed, you are a hidden God” (Is 45:15).
+265 The reason why John did not know him was that he had so far +seen no signs, and no one else had known Christ through signs. +Hence he adds: It was to reveal him +to Israel that I came baptizing with water. As if to say: My +entire ministry is to reveal: “He was not the light, but he +came in order to bear witness to the light,” as was said +above (1:8).
+266 He says, I came baptizing +with water, to distinguish his baptism from that of Christ. +For Christ baptized not just in water, but in the Spirit, +conferring grace; and so the baptism of John was merely a sign, and +not causative.
+John’s baptism made Christ known in three ways. First, by +the preaching of John. For although John could have prepared the +way for the Lord and led the people to Christ without baptizing, +yet because of the novelty of the service many more came to him +than would have come if his preaching were done without baptism. +Secondly, John’s baptism was useful because of Christ’s +humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John: +“Christ came to John, to be baptized by him” (Mt 3:13). +This example of humility he gives us here is that no one, however +great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from any person +ordained for this purpose. Thirdly, because it was during +Christ’s baptisin by John that the power of the Father was +present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit was present in the dove, +by which the powerand dignity of’Christ were all the more +shown: “And the voice of the Father was heard: ‘This is +my beloved Son’” (Lk 3:22).
+267 Then when he says, John gave +this testimony also, he confirms by the authority of God the +great things he testified to about Christ, that Christ alone would +take away the sins of the whole world. As to this he does three +things. First, he presents a vision. Secondly, he tells us the +meaning of the vision (v 33). Thirdly, he shows what he learned +from this vision (v 34).
+268 He presents the vision when he says, I saw the Spirit coming down on him from +heaven. When this actually happened John the Evangelist does +not tell us, but Matthew and Luke say that it took place when +Christ was being baptized by John. And it was indeed fitting for +the Holy Spirit to be present at this baptism and to the person +being baptized. It was appropriate for the one baptized, for as the +Son, existing by the Father, manifests the Father, “Father, I +have manifested your name” (below 17:6), so the Holy Spirit, +existing by the Son, manifests the Son, “He will glorify me, +because he will receive from me” (below 16:14). It was +appropriate for this baptism because the baptism of Christ begins +and consecrates our baptism. Now our baptism is consecrated by +invoking the whole Trinity: “Baptizing them in the name of +the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt +28:19). Thus, the ones we invoke in our baptism were present at the +baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Holy Spirit in the +dove, and the Son in his human nature.
+269 He says, coming down, +because descent, since it has two termini, the start, which is from +above, and the end, which is below, suits baptism in both respects. +For there is a twofold spirit: one of the world and the other of +God. The spirit of the world is the love of the world, which is not +from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him +descend. But the spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down +to man from above and makes him ascend: “We have not received +the spirit of this world, but the spirit of God,” as is said +in 1 Corinthians (2:12). And so, because that spirit is from above, +he says, coming down.
+Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive +God’s goodness in the fulness in which it is present in God, +the communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain +coming down: “Every perfect gift is from above, coming down +from the Father of lights” (Jas 1:17).
+270 The Evangelist, in describing the manner of the vision and +of the coming down, says that the Holy Spirit did not appear in the +spirit, i.e., in his nature, but in the form of a dove, saying, +that he came like a ove. The reason for this is that the Holy +Spirit cannot be seen in his nature, as is said, “The Spirit +blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know +where it comes from or where it goes” (below 3:8), and +because a spirit does not come down but goes up, “The spirit +lifted me up” (Ez 8:3).
+It was appropriate that the Son of God, who was made visible +through flesh, should be made known by the Holy Spirit in the +visible form of a dove. However, the Holy Spirit did not assume the +dove into a unity of person, as the Son of God assumed human +nature. The reason for this is that the Son did not appear as a +manifester but as a Savior. And so, according to Pope Leo, it was +appropriate that he be God and man: God, in order to provide a +remedy; and man, in order to offer an example. But the Holy Spirit +appeared only to make known, and for this it was sufficient merely +to assume a visible form which was suitable for this purpose.
+271 As to whether this dove was a real animal and whether it +existed prior to its appearance, it seems reasonable to say that it +was a real dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, who, +being the Truth, ought to have been manifested only by the truth. +As to the other part of the question, it would seem that the dove +did not exist prior to its appearance, but was formed at the time +by the divine power, without any parental union, as the body of +Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not from +a man’s seed. Yet it was a real dove, for as Augustine says +in his work, The Christian Combat: “It was not +difficult for the omnipotent God, who produced the entire universe +of creatures from nothing, to form a real body for the dove without +the aid of other doves, just as it was not difficult to form the +true body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without +natural semen.”
+Cyprian, in his The Unity of the Church, says: “It +is said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove because +the dove is a simple harmless animal, not bitter with gall, not +savage with its bites, not fierce with rending talons; it loves the +dwellings of men, is able to live together in one nest, together it +raises its young, they remain together when they fly, spend their +life in mutual association, signify the concord of peace with the +kiss of their bill, and fulfill the law of harmony in all +things.”
+272 Many reasons are given why the Holy Spirit appeared as a +dove rather than in some other form. First, because of its +simplicity, for the dove is simple: “Be wise as serpents, and +simple as doves” (Mt 10:16). And the Holy Spirit, because he +inclines souls to gaze on one thing, that is, God, makes them +simple; and so he appeared in the form of a dove. Further, +according to Augustine, the Holy Spirit also appeared in the form +of fire over the heads of the assembled apostles. This was done +because some are simple, but lukewarm; while others are fervent but +guileful. And so in order that those sanctified by the Spirit may +have no guile, the Spirit is shown in the form of a dove; and in +order that their simplicity may not grow tepid, the Spirit is shown +in fire.
+A dove was used, secondly, because of the unity of charity; for +the dove is much aglow with love: “One is my dove” (Sg +6:9). So, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit +appears in the form of a dove. Nor should it disturb you that when +the Holy Spirit rested on each of the disciples, there appeared +separate tongues of fire; for although the Spirit appears to be +different according to the different functions of his gifts, he +nevertheless unites us through charity. And so, because of the +first he appeared in separate tongues of fire, as is said, +“There are different kinds of gifts” (1 Cor 12:4); but +he appears in the form of a dove because of the second.
+A dove was used, thirdly,because of its groaning, for the dove +has a groaning chant; so also the Holy Spirit “pleads for us +with indescribable groanings” (Rom 8:26); “Her maidens, +groaning like doves” (Na 2:7). Fourthly, because of the doves +fertility, for the dove is a very prolific animal. And so in order +to signify the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the Holy +Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This is why the Lord +commanded an offering of two doves (Lv 5:7).
+A dove was used, fifthly, because of its cautiousness. For it +rests upon watery brooks, and gazing into them can see the hawk +flying overhead and so save itself: “His eyes are like doves +beside brooks of water” (Sg 5:12). And so, because our refuge +and defense is found in baptism, the Holy Spirit appropriately +appeared in the form of a dove.
+The dove also corresponds to a figure in the Old Testament. For +as the dove bearing the green olive branch was a sign of +God’s mercy to those who survived the waters of the deluge, +so too in baptism, the Holy Spirit, coming in the form of a dove, +is a sign of the divine mercy which takes away the sins of those +baptized and confers grace.
+273 He says that the Holy Spirit was resting on him. If the Holy Spirit does +not rest on someone, it is due to two causes. One is sin. For all +men except Christ are either suffering from the wound of mortal +sin, which banishes the Holy Spirit, or are darkened with the stain +of venial sin, which hinders some of the works of the Holy Spirit. +But in Christ there was neither mortal nor venial sin; so, the Holy +Spirit in him was never disquieted, but was resting on him.
+The other reason concerns charismatic graces, for the other +saints do not always possess their power. For example, the power to +work miracles is not always present in the saints, nor is the +spirit of prophecy always in the prophets. But Christ always +possessed the power to accomplish any work of the virtues and the +graces. So to indicate this, he says, resting on him. Hence this was the +characteristic sign for recognizing Christ, as the Gloss says. +“The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him” (Is 11:2), +which we should understand of Christ as man, according to which he +is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.
+274 Then when he says, I did not +know him, he teaches us how this vision should be +understood. For certain heretics, as the Ebionites, said that +Christ was neither the Christ nor the Son of God from the time he +was born, but only began to be the Son of God and the Christ when +he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit at his baptism. But +this is false, because at the very hour of his birth the angel said +to the shepherds: “This day a Savior has been born for you in +the city of David, Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:11). Therefore, so +that we do not believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ +in his baptism as though Christ needed to receive the Spirit anew +for his sanctification, the Baptist gives the reason for the +Spirit’s coming down. He says that the Spirit descended not +for the benefit of Christ, but for our benefit, that is, so that +the grace of Christ might be made known to us. And so he says, +And I did not know him! And yet it +was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with water.
-275 There is a problem here. For he says, he who sent me to baptize. If he is saying that the -Father sent him, it is true. Also, if he is saying that the Son sent him, it is even more clear, -since it is said that both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not one of those -referred to in Jeremiah (23:21), “1 did not send the prophets, yet they ran.” But if the Son did -send him, how can he then say, I did not know him? If it is said that although he knew -Christ according to his divinity, yet he did not know him according to his humanity until after -he saw the Spirit coming down upon him, one might counter that the Holy Spirit descended -upon Christ when he was being baptized, and John had already known Christ before he was -baptized, otherwise he would not have said: “I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to -me?” (Mt 3:14).
-So we must say that this problem can be resolved in three ways. In one way, according to -Chrysostom, so that the meaning is to know familiarly; the sense being that I did not know -him, i.e., in a familiar way. And if the objection is raised that John says, “I ought to be -baptized by you,” it can be answered that two different times are being discussed: so that I -did not know him, refers to a time long before baptism, when he was not yet familiar with -Christ: but when he says, “I ought to be baptized by you,” he is referring to the time when -Christ was being baptized, when he was now familiar with Christ because of his frequent -visits. In another way, according to Jerome, it could be said that Christ was the Son of God -and the Savior of the world, and that John did in fact know this; but it was not through the -baptism that he knew that he was the Savior of the world. And so to remedy this ignorance he -adds, he is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit. But it is better to say with -Augustine that John knew certain things and was ignorant of others. Explaining what he did -not know, he adds that the power of baptizing, which Christ could have shared with his -faithful followers, would be reserved for himself alone. And this is what he says, he who sent -me to baptize with water ... is the one, exclusively and solely, who is to baptize with the -Holy Spirit, i.e., he and no one else, because this power he reserved for himself alone.
-276 We should note that a threefold power of Christ is found in baptism. One is the power of -efficiency, by which he interiorly cleanses the soul from the stain of sin. Christ has this power -as God, but not as man, and it cannot be communicated to any other. Another is the power of -ministry, which he does share with the faithful: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, -and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). Therefore priests have the power to -haptize as ministers. Christ too, as man, is called a minister, as the Apostle says. But he is -also the head of all the ministers of the Church.
-Because of this he alone has the power of excellence in the sacraments. And this excellence -shows itself in four things. First, in the institution of the sacraments, because no mere man or -even the entire Church could institute sacraments, or change the sacninients, or dispense with -the sacraments. For by their institution the sacraments give invisible grace, which only God -can give. Therefore, only one who is true God can institute sacraments. The second lies in the -efficacy of Christ’s merits, for the sacraments have their power from the merit of Christ’s -passion: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his -death” (Rom 6:3). The third is that Christ can confer the effect of baptism withmit the -sacrament; and this is peculiar to Christ. Fourthly, because at one time baptism was conferred -in the name of Christ, although this is no longer done.
-Now he did not communicate these four things to anyone; although he could have -communicated some of them, for example, that baptism be conferred in the name of Peter or -of someone else, and perhaps one of the remaining three. But this was not done lest schisins -arise in the Church by men putting their trust in those in whose name they were baptized.
-And so John, in stating that the Holy Spirit came down upon Christ, teaches that it is Christ -alone who baptizes interiorly by his own power.
-277 One might also say that when John said, “I ought to be baptized by you,” he recognized -Christ. through an interior revelation, but that when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down -upon him, he knew him through an exterior sign. And so he mentions both of these ways of -knowing. The first when he says, he who sent me to baptize with water had said to me, -i.e., revealed something in an interior way. The second when he adds, The man on whom -you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit.
-278 Then he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision, that is, that Christ is the Son -of God. And this is what he says, Now I have seen for myself, that is, the Spirit coming down -on him, and have given testimony that he, that is, Christ, is the Son of God, that is, the true -and natural Son. For there were adopted sons of the Father who had a likeness to the natural -Son of God: “Conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29). So he who baptizes in the -Holy Spirit, through whom we are adopted as sons, ought to fashion sons of God. “You did -not receive the spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption” (Rom 8:15). Therefore, because -Christ is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, the Baptist correctly concludes that he is the -true and pure Son of God: “that we may be in his true Son” (1 Jn 5:20).
-279 But if there were others who saw the Holy,Spirit coming down upon Christ, why did they -not also believe? I answer that they had not been so disposed for this. Or perhaps, this vision -was seen only by the Baptist.
--
LECTURE15
--35 On the following day John was standing there again with two of his disciples. 36 And -seeing Jesus walking by, he said, “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” 37 Hearing this, the two -disciples followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around, and seeing them following him said, “What -are you looking for?” They replied, “Rabbi (which means Teacher), where do you live?” 39 -“Come and see,” he replied. They went and saw where he lived, and they stayed with him the -rest of that day. It was about the tenth hour.
40 One of the two who had followed him after hearing John was Simon Peter’s brother, -Andrew. 41 The first thing fie did was to look for his brother Simon, and say to him, “We -have found the Messiah” (which means the Christ), 42 and he brought him to Jesus. Looking -at hini intently Jesus said, “You are Simon, son of John; you are to be called Cephas” (which -is translated Peter).
-280 Above, the Evangelist presented the Baptist’s testimony to the people; here he presents -his testimony to John’s disciples. First, his testimony is given; secondly, the fruit of this -testimony (v 37). As to the first he does three things: first, the one giving the testimony is -described; secondly, his way of testifying is given (v 36); and thirdly, his testimony itself, -Look! There is the Lamb of God.
-281 The witness is described when he says, On the following day John was standing there -again with two of his disciples. In saying standing, three things are noted about John. First, -his manner of teaching, which was different from that of Christ and his disciples. For Christ -went about teaching; hence it is said: “Jesus traveled over all Galilee” (Mt 4:23). The apostles -also traveled the world teaching: “Go to the whole world, and preach the good news to every -creature” (Mkl6:15). But John taught in one place; hence he says, standing, that is, in one -place, on the far side of the Jordan. And John spoke of Christ to all who came to him.
-The reason why Christ and his disciples taught going about is that the preaching of Christ was -made credible by miracles, and so they went to various places in order that the miracles and -powers of Christ might be made known. But the preaching of John was not confirmed by -miracles, so that is is written, “John performed no sign” (below 10:41), but by the merit and -sanctity of his life. And so he was standing in one place so that various people might stream -to him and be led to Christ by his holiness. Furthermore, if John had gone from place to place -to announce Christ without performing any miracles, his testimony would have been quite -unbelievable, since it would seem to be inopportune and he would seem to be forcing himself -upon the people.
-Secondly, John’s perseverence in the truth is noted, because John was not a reed shaken by -the wind, but was firm in the faith; “Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he will -not fall” (1 Cor 10:12); “1 will stand my watch” (Hb 2:1).
-Thirdly, and allegorically, it is noted that to stand is, in an allegorical sense, the same as to -fail or cease: “The oil stood,” i.e., failed (2 Kgs 4:6). So when Christ came John was -standing, because when the truth comes the figure ceases. John stands because the law passes -away.
-282 The manner of his testifying is presented as being certain, hecause based on sight. So he -says, seeing Jesus walking by. Here it should be remarked that the prophets bore witness to -Christ: “All the prophets bear witness to him” (Acts 10:43). So did the apostles as they -traveled the world: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of’ Judea and Samaria, -and to the remotest parts of the world” (Acts 1:8). However, their testimony was not about a -person then visible or present, but on one who was absent. In the case of the prophets about -one who was to come; in the case of the apostles, about one who was now gone. But John -bore witness when Christ was present and seen by him; and so he says, seeing Jesus, with the -eyes of his body and of his mind: “Look on the face of your Christ” (Ps 83:10); “They will -see eye to eye” (Is 5 2:8).
-He says, walking, to point out the mystery of the incarnation, in which the Word of God -assumed a changeable nature: “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world,” -as it says below (16:2 8).
-283 Then he gives John’s testimony in saying, Look! There is the Lamb of God. He says -this not just to point out the power of Christ, but also in admiration of it: “His name will be -called Wonderful” (Is 9:6). And this Lamb did possess truly wonderful power, because being -slain, it killed the lion—that lion, I say, of which it says: “Your enemy, the devil, goes about -like a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour” (1 Pt 5:8). And so this Lamb, victorius and -glorious, deserved to be called a lion: “Look! The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered” -(Rv 5:5).
-The testimony he bears is brief, Look! There is the Lamb of God. It is brief both because -the disciples before whom he testified had already been sufficiently instructed about Christ -from the things they had heard from John, and also because this is sufficient for John’s -intention, whose only aim was to lead them to Christ. Yet he does not say, “Go to him,” so -that the disciples would not seem to be doing Christ a favor by following him. But he does -praise the grace of Christ so that they would regard it as of benefit to themselves if they -followed Christ. And so he says, Look! There is the Lamb of God, i.e., here is the One in -whom is found the grace and the power which cleanses from sin; for the lamb was offered for +
275 There is a problem here. For he says, he who sent me to baptize. If he is +saying that the Father sent him, it is true. Also, if he is saying +that the Son sent him, it is even more clear, since it is said that +both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not one of +those referred to in Jeremiah (23:21), “1 did not send the +prophets, yet they ran.” But if the Son did send him, how can +he then say, I did not know +him? If it is said that although he knew Christ according to +his divinity, yet he did not know him according to his humanity +until after he saw the Spirit coming down upon him, one might +counter that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ when he was +being baptized, and John had already known Christ before he was +baptized, otherwise he would not have said: “I ought to be +baptized by you, and you come to me?” (Mt 3:14).
+So we must say that this problem can be resolved in three ways. +In one way, according to Chrysostom, so that the meaning is to know +familiarly; the sense being that I +did not know him, i.e., in a familiar way. And if the +objection is raised that John says, “I ought to be baptized +by you,” it can be answered that two different times are +being discussed: so that I did not +know him, refers to a time long before baptism, when he was +not yet familiar with Christ: but when he says, “I ought to +be baptized by you,” he is referring to the time when Christ +was being baptized, when he was now familiar with Christ because of +his frequent visits. In another way, according to Jerome, it could +be said that Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of the world, +and that John did in fact know this; but it was not through the +baptism that he knew that he was the Savior of the world. And so to +remedy this ignorance he adds, he is the one who is to baptize with the Holy +Spirit. But it is better to say with Augustine that John +knew certain things and was ignorant of others. Explaining what he +did not know, he adds that the power of baptizing, which Christ +could have shared with his faithful followers, would be reserved +for himself alone. And this is what he says, he who sent me to baptize with water ... is the +one, exclusively and solely, who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit, +i.e., he and no one else, because this power he reserved for +himself alone.
+276 We should note that a threefold power of Christ is found in +baptism. One is the power of efficiency, by which he interiorly +cleanses the soul from the stain of sin. Christ has this power as +God, but not as man, and it cannot be communicated to any other. +Another is the power of ministry, which he does share with the +faithful: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of +the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). Therefore +priests have the power to haptize as ministers. Christ too, as man, +is called a minister, as the Apostle says. But he is also the head +of all the ministers of the Church.
+Because of this he alone has the power of excellence in the +sacraments. And this excellence shows itself in four things. First, +in the institution of the sacraments, because no mere man or even +the entire Church could institute sacraments, or change the +sacninients, or dispense with the sacraments. For by their +institution the sacraments give invisible grace, which only God can +give. Therefore, only one who is true God can institute sacraments. +The second lies in the efficacy of Christ’s merits, for the +sacraments have their power from the merit of Christ’s +passion: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, +have been baptized into his death” (Rom 6:3). The third is +that Christ can confer the effect of baptism withmit the sacrament; +and this is peculiar to Christ. Fourthly, because at one time +baptism was conferred in the name of Christ, although this is no +longer done.
+Now he did not communicate these four things to anyone; although +he could have communicated some of them, for example, that baptism +be conferred in the name of Peter or of someone else, and perhaps +one of the remaining three. But this was not done lest schisins +arise in the Church by men putting their trust in those in whose +name they were baptized.
+And so John, in stating that the Holy Spirit came down upon +Christ, teaches that it is Christ alone who baptizes interiorly by +his own power.
+277 One might also say that when John said, “I ought to be +baptized by you,” he recognized Christ. through an interior +revelation, but that when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down upon +him, he knew him through an exterior sign. And so he mentions both +of these ways of knowing. The first when he says, he who sent me to baptize with water had said +to me, i.e., revealed something in an interior way. The +second when he adds, The man on +whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to +baptize with the Holy Spirit.
+278 Then he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision, +that is, that Christ is the Son of God. And this is what he says, +Now I have seen for myself, that is, the Spirit coming down on him, +and have given testimony that he, that is, Christ, is the Son of +God, that is, the true and natural Son. For there were adopted sons +of the Father who had a likeness to the natural Son of God: +“Conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29). So he +who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, through whom we are adopted as +sons, ought to fashion sons of God. “You did not receive the +spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption” (Rom 8:15). +Therefore, because Christ is the one who baptizes in the Holy +Spirit, the Baptist correctly concludes that he is the true and +pure Son of God: “that we may be in his true Son” (1 Jn +5:20).
+279 But if there were others who saw the Holy,Spirit coming down +upon Christ, why did they not also believe? I answer that they had +not been so disposed for this. Or perhaps, this vision was seen +only by the Baptist.
++
+LECTURE15
+++35 On the following day John was standing there again with two +of his disciples. 36 And seeing Jesus walking by, he said, +“Look! There is the Lamb of God.” 37 Hearing this, the +two disciples followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around, and seeing +them following him said, “What are you looking for?” +They replied, “Rabbi (which means Teacher), where do you +live?” 39 “Come and see,” he replied. They went +and saw where he lived, and they stayed with him the rest of that +day. It was about the tenth hour.
+40 One of the two who had followed him after hearing John was +Simon Peter’s brother, Andrew. 41 The first thing fie did was +to look for his brother Simon, and say to him, “We have found +the Messiah” (which means the Christ), 42 and he brought him +to Jesus. Looking at hini intently Jesus said, “You are +Simon, son of John; you are to be called Cephas” (which is +translated Peter).
+280 Above, the Evangelist presented the Baptist’s +testimony to the people; here he presents his testimony to +John’s disciples. First, his testimony is given; secondly, +the fruit of this testimony (v 37). As to the first he does three +things: first, the one giving the testimony is described; secondly, +his way of testifying is given (v 36); and thirdly, his testimony +itself, Look! There is the Lamb of +God.
+281 The witness is described when he says, On the following day John was standing there +again with two of his disciples. In saying standing, three +things are noted about John. First, his manner of teaching, which +was different from that of Christ and his disciples. For Christ +went about teaching; hence it is said: “Jesus traveled over +all Galilee” (Mt 4:23). The apostles also traveled the world +teaching: “Go to the whole world, and preach the good news to +every creature” (Mkl6:15). But John taught in one place; +hence he says, standing, that is, in one place, on the far side of +the Jordan. And John spoke of Christ to all who came to him.
+The reason why Christ and his disciples taught going about is +that the preaching of Christ was made credible by miracles, and so +they went to various places in order that the miracles and powers +of Christ might be made known. But the preaching of John was not +confirmed by miracles, so that is is written, “John performed +no sign” (below 10:41), but by the merit and sanctity of his +life. And so he was standing +in one place so that various people might stream to him and be led +to Christ by his holiness. Furthermore, if John had gone from place +to place to announce Christ without performing any miracles, his +testimony would have been quite unbelievable, since it would seem +to be inopportune and he would seem to be forcing himself upon the +people.
+Secondly, John’s perseverence in the truth is noted, +because John was not a reed shaken by the wind, but was firm in the +faith; “Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he +will not fall” (1 Cor 10:12); “1 will stand my +watch” (Hb 2:1).
+Thirdly, and allegorically, it is noted that to stand is, in an +allegorical sense, the same as to fail or cease: “The oil +stood,” i.e., failed (2 Kgs 4:6). So when Christ came John +was standing, because when the truth comes the figure ceases. John +stands because the law passes away.
+282 The manner of his testifying is presented as being certain, +hecause based on sight. So he says, seeing Jesus walking by. Here it should +be remarked that the prophets bore witness to Christ: “All +the prophets bear witness to him” (Acts 10:43). So did the +apostles as they traveled the world: “You will be my +witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of’ Judea and Samaria, and +to the remotest parts of the world” (Acts 1:8). However, +their testimony was not about a person then visible or present, but +on one who was absent. In the case of the prophets about one who +was to come; in the case of the apostles, about one who was now +gone. But John bore witness when Christ was present and seen by +him; and so he says, seeing Jesus, with the eyes of his body and of +his mind: “Look on the face of your Christ” (Ps 83:10); +“They will see eye to eye” (Is 5 2:8).
+He says, walking, to +point out the mystery of the incarnation, in which the Word of God +assumed a changeable nature: “I came forth from the Father, +and have come into the world,” as it says below (16:2 8).
+283 Then he gives John’s testimony in saying, Look! There is the Lamb of God. He says +this not just to point out the power of Christ, but also in +admiration of it: “His name will be called Wonderful” +(Is 9:6). And this Lamb did possess truly wonderful power, because +being slain, it killed the lion—that lion, I say, of which it +says: “Your enemy, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion, +seeking whom he can devour” (1 Pt 5:8). And so this Lamb, +victorius and glorious, deserved to be called a lion: “Look! +The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered” (Rv 5:5).
+The testimony he bears is brief, Look! There is the Lamb of God. It is +brief both because the disciples before whom he testified had +already been sufficiently instructed about Christ from the things +they had heard from John, and also because this is sufficient for +John’s intention, whose only aim was to lead them to Christ. +Yet he does not say, “Go to him,” so that the disciples +would not seem to be doing Christ a favor by following him. But he +does praise the grace of Christ so that they would regard it as of +benefit to themselves if they followed Christ. And so he says, +Look! There is the Lamb of +God, i.e., here is the One in whom is found the grace and +the power which cleanses from sin; for the lamb was offered for sins, as we have said.
-284 The fruit of his testimony is given when he says, Hearing this, the two disciples -followed Jesus. First, the fruit resulting from the testimony of John and his disciples is given. -Secondly, the fruit resulting from the preaching of Christ (v 43). In relation to the first: first, -the fruit arising from John’s testimony is given; secondly, the fruit coming from the preaching -of one of his disciples (v 40). With respect to the first he does two things. First, he shows the -very beginning of the fruit coming from John’s testimony. Secondly, its consummation as -accomplished by Christ (v 38).
-285 He says, Hearing this, John saying, “Look! There is the Lamb of God,” the two -disciples, who were with him, followed Jesus, literally. going with him, First, the fact that it -is John who speaks while Christ is silent, and that disciples gather to Christ through the -words of John, all this points out a mystery. For Christ is the groom of the Church, and John, -the friend and groomsman of the groom. Now the function of the groomsman is to present the -bride to the groom, and verbally make known the agreements; the role of the groom is to be -silent, from modesty, and to make arrangements for his new bride as he wills. Thus, the -disciples are presented by John to Christ and espoused in faith. John speaks, Christ is silent; -yet after Christ accepts them, he carefully instructs them.
-We can note, secondly, that no one was converted when John praised the dignity of Christ, -saying, he “ranks ahead of me,” and “I am not worthy to unfasten the strap of his sandal.” But -the disciples followed Christ when John revealed Christ’s humility and about the mystery of -the incarnation; and this is because we are more moved by Christ’s humility and the -sufferings he endured for us. So it is said: “Your name is like oil poured out,” i.e., mercy, by -which you have obtained salvation for all; and the text immediately follows with, “young -maidens have greatly loved you” (Sg 1:2).
-We can note, thirdly, that the words of a preacher are like seed falling on different kinds of -ground: on one they bear fruit, and on another they do not. So too, John, when he preaches, -does not convert all his disciples to Christ, but only two, those who were well disposed. The -others are envious of Christ, and they even question him, as mentioned in Matthew (9:14).
-Fourthly, we may note that John’s disciples, after hearing his witness to Christ, did not at -once thrust themselves forward to speak with him hastily; rather, seriously and with a certain -modesty, they tried to speak to Christ alone and in a private place: “There is a time and fitness -for everything” (Ecc 8:6).
-286 The consummation of this fruit is now set forth (v 38), for what John began is completed -by Christ, since “the law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). And Christ does two -things. First, he questions the disciples who were following him. Secondly, he teaches them -(v 39). As to the first we have: first, the question of Christ is given; secondly, the answer of -the disciples.
-287 He says, Jesus turned around, and seeing them following him said. According to the -literal sense we should understand that Christ was walking in front of them, and these two -disciples, following him, did not see his face at all; and so Christ turns to them to holster their -confidence. This lets us know that Christ gives confidence and hope to all who begin to -follow hini with a pure heart: “She goes to meet those who desire her” (Wis 6:14). Now Jesus -turns to us in order that we may see him; this will happen in that blessed vision when he will -show us his face, as is said: “Show us your face, and we will be saved” (Ps 79:4). For as long -as we are in this world we see his back, because it is through his effects that we acquire a -knowledge of him; so it is said, “You will see my back” (Ex 33:23). Again, he turns to give -us the riches of his mercy. This is requested in Psalm 89 (13): “Turn to us, 0 Lord.” For as -long as Christ withholds the help of his mercy he seems to be turned away from us. And so -Jesus turned to the disciples of John who were following him in order to show them his face -and to pour his grace upon them.
-288 Christ examines them specifically about their intention. For all who follow Christ do not -have the same intention: some follow him for the sake of temporal goods, and others for -spiritual goods. And so the Lord asks their intention, saying, What are you looking for?; not -in order to learn their intention, but so that, after they showed a proper intention, he might -make them more intimate friends and show that they are worthy to hear him.
-289 It may be remarked that these are the first words which Christ speaks in this Gospel. And -this is appropriate, because the first thing that God asks of a man is a proper intention. And, -according to Origen, after the six words that John had spoken, Christ spoke the seventh. The -first words spoken by John were when, bearing witness to Christ, he cried out, saying, “This -is the one of whom I said.” The second is when he said, “I am not worthy to unfasten the strap -of his sandal.” The third is, “I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your midst -whom you do not recognize.” The fourth is, “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” The fifth, “I -saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove.” The sixth, when he says here, -“Look! There is the Lamb of God.” But it is Christ who speaks the seventh words so that we -may understand, in a mystical sense, that rest, which is signified by the seventh day, will -come to us through Christ, and that in him is found the fulness of the seven gifts of the Holy -Spirit.
-290 The disciples answer; and although there was one question, they gave two answers. First, -why they are following Christ, namely, to learn; thus they call him Teacher, Rabbi (which -means Teacher). As if to say: We ask you to teach us. For they already knew what is stated -in Matthew (23:10): “You have one Teacher, the Christ.” The second answer is what they -want in following him, that is, Where do you live? And literally, it can be said that in truth -they were looking for the home of Christ. For because of the great and wonderful things they -had heard about him from John, they were not satisfied with questioning him only once and in -a superficial way, but wanted to do so frequently and seriously. And so they wanted to know -where his home was so that they might visit him often, according to the advice of the wise -man: “If you see a man of understanding, go to him early” (Sir 6:36), and “Happy is the man -who hears me, who watches daily at my gates” (Prv 8:34).
-In the allegorical sense, God’s home is in heaven, according to the Psalm (122:1 ): “I have -lifted up my eyes to you, who live in heaven.” So they asked where Christ was living because -our purpose in following him should be that Christ leads us to heaven, i.e., to heavenly glory.
-Finally, in the moral sense, they ask, Where do you live? as though desiring to learn what -qualities men should possess in order to be worthy to have Christ dwell in them. Concerning -this dwelling Ephesians (2:22) says: “You are being built into a dwelling place for God.” And -the Song (1:6) says: “Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you graze your flock, where -you rest at midday.”
-291 Then when he says, Come and see, Christ’s instruction of the disciples is given. First we -have the instruction of the disciples by Christ; secondly, their obedience is cited; and thirdly, -the time is given.
-292 First he says, Come and see, that is, where I live. There is a difficulty here: for since the -Lord says, “The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), why does he -tell them to Come and see where he lives? I answer, according to Chrysostom, that when the -Lord says, “The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his head,” he showed that he had -no home of his own, but not that he did not remain in someone else’s home. And such was -the home he invited them to see, saying, Come and see.
-In the mystical sense, he says, Come and see, because the dwelling of God, whether of glory -or grace, cannot be known except by experience: for it cannot be explained in words: “I will -give him a white stone upon which is written a new name, which no one knows but he who -receives it” (Rv 2:17). And so he says, Come and see: Come, by believing and working; and -see, by experiencing and understanding.
-293 It should be noted that we can attain to this knowledge in four ways. First, by doing good -works; so he says, Come: “When shall I come and appear before the face of God” (Ps 41:3). -Secondly, by the rest or stillness of the mind: “Be still and see” (Ps 45:10). Thirdly, by tasting -the divine sweetness: “Taste and see that the I.ord is sweet” O’s 33:9). Fourthly, by acts of -devotion: “Let us lift up our hearts and hands in prayer” (Lam 3:41). And so the Lord says: “it -is I myself. Feel and see” (Lk 24:39).
-294 Next the obedience of the disciples is mentioned; for immediately they went and saw, -because by coming they saw him, and seeing they did not leave him. Thus it says, and they -stayed with him the rest of that day, for as stated below (6:45): “Every one who hears the -Father, and has learned, comes to me.” For those who leave Christ have not yet seen him as -they should. But those who have seen him by perfectly believing stayed with him the rest of -that day; hearing and seeing that blessed day, they spent a blessed night: “Happy are your -men, and happy are your servants, who always stand before you” (1 Kgs 8:10). And as -Augustine says: “Let us also build a dwelling in our heart and fashion a home where he may -come and teach us.”
-And he says, that day, because there can be no night where the light of Christ is present, -where there is the Sun of justice.
-295 The time is given when he says, It was about the tenth hour. The Evangelist mentions -this in order that, considering the literal sense, he might give credit to Christ and the disciples. -For the tenth hour is near the end of the day. And this praises Christ who was so eager to -teach that not even the lateness of the hour induced him to postpone teaching them; but he -taught them at the tenth hour. “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not let -your hands be idle” (Ecc 11:6).
-296 The moderation of the disciples is also praised, because even at the tenth hour, when men -usually have eaten and are less self-possessed for receiving wisdom, they were both self-possessed and prepared to hear wisdom and were not hindered because of food or wine. But -this is not unexpected, for they had been disciples of John, whose drink was water and whose -food was the locust and wild honey.
-297 According to Augustine, however, the tenth hour signifies the law, which was given in -ten precepts. And so the disciples came to Christ at the tenth hour and remained with him to -be taught so that the law might be fulfilled by Christ, since it could not be fulfilled by the -Jews. And so at that hour he is called Rabbi, that is, Teacher.
-298 Then (v 40), he sets forth the fruit produced by the disciple of John who was converted to -Christ. First, the disciple is described; secondly, the fruit begun by him (v 41); thirdly, the +
284 The fruit of his testimony is given when he says, +Hearing this, the two disciples +followed Jesus. First, the fruit resulting from the +testimony of John and his disciples is given. Secondly, the fruit +resulting from the preaching of Christ (v 43). In relation to the +first: first, the fruit arising from John’s testimony is +given; secondly, the fruit coming from the preaching of one of his +disciples (v 40). With respect to the first he does two things. +First, he shows the very beginning of the fruit coming from +John’s testimony. Secondly, its consummation as accomplished +by Christ (v 38).
+285 He says, Hearing +this, John saying, “Look! There is the Lamb of +God,” the two +disciples, who were with him, followed Jesus, literally. going with +him, First, the fact that it is John who speaks while Christ is +silent, and that disciples gather to Christ through the words of +John, all this points out a mystery. For Christ is the groom of the +Church, and John, the friend and groomsman of the groom. Now the +function of the groomsman is to present the bride to the groom, and +verbally make known the agreements; the role of the groom is to be +silent, from modesty, and to make arrangements for his new bride as +he wills. Thus, the disciples are presented by John to Christ and +espoused in faith. John speaks, Christ is silent; yet after Christ +accepts them, he carefully instructs them.
+We can note, secondly, that no one was converted when John +praised the dignity of Christ, saying, he “ranks ahead of +me,” and “I am not worthy to unfasten the strap of his +sandal.” But the disciples followed Christ when John revealed +Christ’s humility and about the mystery of the incarnation; +and this is because we are more moved by Christ’s humility +and the sufferings he endured for us. So it is said: “Your +name is like oil poured out,” i.e., mercy, by which you have +obtained salvation for all; and the text immediately follows with, +“young maidens have greatly loved you” (Sg 1:2).
+We can note, thirdly, that the words of a preacher are like seed +falling on different kinds of ground: on one they bear fruit, and +on another they do not. So too, John, when he preaches, does not +convert all his disciples to Christ, but only two, those who were +well disposed. The others are envious of Christ, and they even +question him, as mentioned in Matthew (9:14).
+Fourthly, we may note that John’s disciples, after hearing +his witness to Christ, did not at once thrust themselves forward to +speak with him hastily; rather, seriously and with a certain +modesty, they tried to speak to Christ alone and in a private +place: “There is a time and fitness for everything” +(Ecc 8:6).
+286 The consummation of this fruit is now set forth (v 38), for +what John began is completed by Christ, since “the law +brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). And Christ does +two things. First, he questions the disciples who were following +him. Secondly, he teaches them (v 39). As to the first we have: +first, the question of Christ is given; secondly, the answer of the +disciples.
+287 He says, Jesus turned +around, and seeing them following him said. According to the +literal sense we should understand that Christ was walking in front +of them, and these two disciples, following him, did not see his +face at all; and so Christ turns to them to holster their +confidence. This lets us know that Christ gives confidence and hope +to all who begin to follow hini with a pure heart: “She goes +to meet those who desire her” (Wis 6:14). Now Jesus turns to +us in order that we may see him; this will happen in that blessed +vision when he will show us his face, as is said: “Show us +your face, and we will be saved” (Ps 79:4). For as long as we +are in this world we see his back, because it is through his +effects that we acquire a knowledge of him; so it is said, +“You will see my back” (Ex 33:23). Again, he turns to +give us the riches of his mercy. This is requested in Psalm 89 +(13): “Turn to us, 0 Lord.” For as long as Christ +withholds the help of his mercy he seems to be turned away from us. +And so Jesus turned to the disciples of John who were following him +in order to show them his face and to pour his grace upon them.
+288 Christ examines them specifically about their intention. For +all who follow Christ do not have the same intention: some follow +him for the sake of temporal goods, and others for spiritual goods. +And so the Lord asks their intention, saying, What are you looking for?; not in order +to learn their intention, but so that, after they showed a proper +intention, he might make them more intimate friends and show that +they are worthy to hear him.
+289 It may be remarked that these are the first words which +Christ speaks in this Gospel. And this is appropriate, because the +first thing that God asks of a man is a proper intention. And, +according to Origen, after the six words that John had spoken, +Christ spoke the seventh. The first words spoken by John were when, +bearing witness to Christ, he cried out, saying, “This is the +one of whom I said.” The second is when he said, “I am +not worthy to unfasten the strap of his sandal.” The third +is, “I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your +midst whom you do not recognize.” The fourth is, “Look! +There is the Lamb of God.” The fifth, “I saw the Spirit +coming down on him from heaven like a dove.” The sixth, when +he says here, “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” But it +is Christ who speaks the seventh words so that we may understand, +in a mystical sense, that rest, which is signified by the seventh +day, will come to us through Christ, and that in him is found the +fulness of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
+290 The disciples answer; and although there was one question, +they gave two answers. First, why they are following Christ, +namely, to learn; thus they call him Teacher, Rabbi (which means Teacher). As if to +say: We ask you to teach us. For they already knew what is stated +in Matthew (23:10): “You have one Teacher, the Christ.” +The second answer is what they want in following him, that is, +Where do you live? And +literally, it can be said that in truth they were looking for the +home of Christ. For because of the great and wonderful things they +had heard about him from John, they were not satisfied with +questioning him only once and in a superficial way, but wanted to +do so frequently and seriously. And so they wanted to know where +his home was so that they might visit him often, according to the +advice of the wise man: “If you see a man of understanding, +go to him early” (Sir 6:36), and “Happy is the man who +hears me, who watches daily at my gates” (Prv 8:34).
+In the allegorical sense, God’s home is in heaven, +according to the Psalm (122:1 ): “I have lifted up my eyes to +you, who live in heaven.” So they asked where Christ was +living because our purpose in following him should be that Christ +leads us to heaven, i.e., to heavenly glory.
+Finally, in the moral sense, they ask, Where do you live? as though desiring to +learn what qualities men should possess in order to be worthy to +have Christ dwell in them. Concerning this dwelling Ephesians +(2:22) says: “You are being built into a dwelling place for +God.” And the Song (1:6) says: “Show me, you whom my +soul loves, where you graze your flock, where you rest at +midday.”
+291 Then when he says, Come +and see, Christ’s instruction of the disciples is +given. First we have the instruction of the disciples by Christ; +secondly, their obedience is cited; and thirdly, the time is +given.
+292 First he says, Come and +see, that is, where I live. There is a difficulty here: for +since the Lord says, “The Son of Man does not have any place +to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), why does he tell them to +Come and see where he lives? +I answer, according to Chrysostom, that when the Lord says, +“The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his +head,” he showed that he had no home of his own, but not that +he did not remain in someone else’s home. And such was the +home he invited them to see, saying, Come and see.
+In the mystical sense, he says, Come and see, because the dwelling of +God, whether of glory or grace, cannot be known except by +experience: for it cannot be explained in words: “I will give +him a white stone upon which is written a new name, which no one +knows but he who receives it” (Rv 2:17). And so he says, +Come and see: Come, by +believing and working; and +see, by experiencing and understanding.
+293 It should be noted that we can attain to this knowledge in +four ways. First, by doing good works; so he says, Come: +“When shall I come and appear before the face of God” +(Ps 41:3). Secondly, by the rest or stillness of the mind: +“Be still and see” (Ps 45:10). Thirdly, by tasting the +divine sweetness: “Taste and see that the I.ord is +sweet” O’s 33:9). Fourthly, by acts of devotion: +“Let us lift up our hearts and hands in prayer” (Lam +3:41). And so the Lord says: “it is I myself. Feel and +see” (Lk 24:39).
+294 Next the obedience of the disciples is mentioned; for +immediately they went and +saw, because by coming they saw him, and seeing they did not +leave him. Thus it says, and they +stayed with him the rest of that day, for as stated below +(6:45): “Every one who hears the Father, and has learned, +comes to me.” For those who leave Christ have not yet seen +him as they should. But those who have seen him by perfectly +believing stayed with him the rest +of that day; hearing and seeing that blessed day, they spent +a blessed night: “Happy are your men, and happy are your +servants, who always stand before you” (1 Kgs 8:10). And as +Augustine says: “Let us also build a dwelling in our heart +and fashion a home where he may come and teach us.”
+And he says, that day, because there can be no night where the +light of Christ is present, where there is the Sun of justice.
+295 The time is given when he says, It was about the tenth hour. The +Evangelist mentions this in order that, considering the literal +sense, he might give credit to Christ and the disciples. For the +tenth hour is near the end of the day. And this praises Christ who +was so eager to teach that not even the lateness of the hour +induced him to postpone teaching them; but he taught them at the +tenth hour. “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening +do not let your hands be idle” (Ecc 11:6).
+296 The moderation of the disciples is also praised, because +even at the tenth hour, when men usually have eaten and are less +self-possessed for receiving wisdom, they were both self-possessed +and prepared to hear wisdom and were not hindered because of food +or wine. But this is not unexpected, for they had been disciples of +John, whose drink was water and whose food was the locust and wild +honey.
+297 According to Augustine, however, the tenth hour signifies +the law, which was given in ten precepts. And so the disciples came +to Christ at the tenth hour and remained with him to be taught so +that the law might be fulfilled by Christ, since it could not be +fulfilled by the Jews. And so at that hour he is called Rabbi, that +is, Teacher.
+298 Then (v 40), he sets forth the fruit produced by the +disciple of John who was converted to Christ. First, the disciple +is described; secondly, the fruit begun by him (v 41); thirdly, the consummation of this fruit by Christ (v 42).
-299 The disciple is described by name when he says, Andrew, i.e., “manly”. “Act manfully, -and let Your heart be strong,” as it says in Psalm 30 (v 25). he mentions his name in order to -show his privilege: he was not only the first to be perfectly converted to Christ, but he also -preached Christ. So, as Stephen was the first martyr after Christ, so Andrew was the first -Christian.
-He is described, secondly, by his relationship, that is, as Simon Peter’s brother, for he was -the younger. And this is mentioned to commend him, for although younger in age, he became -first in faith.
-He is described, thirdly, by his discipleship, because he was one of the two who had -followed him. His name is mentioned in order to show that Andrew’s privilege was -remarkable. For the name of the other disciple is not mentioned: either because it was John -the Evangelist himself, who through humility followed the practice in his Gospel of not -mentioning his own name when he was involved in some event; or, according to Chrysostom, -because the other one was not a notable person, nor had he done anything great, and so there -was no need to mention his name. Luke does the same in his Gospel (10:1), where he does -not mention the names of the seventy-two disciples sent out by the Lord, because they were -not the outstanding and important persons that the apostles were. Or, according to Alcuin, this -other disciple was Philip: for the Evangelist, after discussing Andrew, begins at once with -Philip, saying: “On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip” -(below 1:43).
-He is commended, fourthly, for the zeal of his devotion; hence he says that Andrew followed -him, i.e., Jesus: “My foot has followed in his steps” (Jb 23:11).
-300 The fruit begun by Andrew is mentioned when he says, The first thing he did was to -look for his brother Simon. He first mentions the one for whom he bore fruit, that is, his -brother, in order to mark the perfection of his conversion. For as Peter says, in the Itinerary of -Clement, the evident sign of a perfect conversion of anyone is that, once converted, the closer -one is to him the more he tries to convert him to Christ. And so Andrew, being now perfectly -converted, does not keep the treasure he found to himself, but hurries and quickly runs to his -brother to share with him the good things he has received. And so he says the first thing he, -that is, Andrew, did was to look for his brother Simon, so that related in blood he might -make him related in faith: “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city” (Prv -18:19); “Let him who hears say, ‘Come’ “ (Rv 22:17).
-301 Secondly, he mentions the words spoken by Andrew, We have found the Messiah -(which means the Christ). Here, according to Chrysostom, he is tacitly answering a certain -question: namely, that if someone were to ask what they had been instructed about by Christ, -they would have the ready answer that through the testimony of the Scriptures he instructed -him in such a way that he knew he was the Christ. And so he says, We have found the -Messiah. He implies by this that he had previously sought him by desire for a long time: -“Happy is the man who finds wisdom” (Prv 3:13).
-“Messiah,” which is Hebrew, is translated as “Christos” in Greek, and in Latin as “Unctus” -(anointed), because he was anointed in a special way with invisible oil, the oil of the Holy -Spirit. So Andrew explicitly designates him by this title: “Your God has anointed you with -the oil of gladness above your fellows,” i.e., above all the saints. For all the saints are -anointed with that oil, but Christ was singularly anointed and is singularly holy. So, as -Chrysostom says, he does not simply call him “Messiah,” but the Messiah.
-302 Thirdly, he mentions the fruit he produced, because he brought him, that is, Peter, to -Jesus. This gives recognition to Peter’s obedience, for he came at once, without delay. And -consider the devotion of Andrew: for he brought him to Jesus and not to himself (for he knew -that he himself was weak); and so he leads him to Christ to be instructed by him. This shows -us that the efforts and the aim of preachers should not be to win for themselves the fruits of -their preaching, i.e., to turn them to their own private benefit and honor, but to bring them to -Jesus, i.e., to refer them to his glory and honor: “What we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus -Christ,” as is said in 2 Corinthians (4:5).
-303 The consummation of this fruit is given when he says, Looking at him intently Jesus -said. Here Christ, wishing to raise him up to faith in His divinity, begins to perform works of -divinity, making know things that are hidden. First of all, things which are hidden in the -present: so looking at him, i.e, as soon as Jesus saw him, he considered him by the power of -his divinity and called him by name, saying, You are Simon. This is not surprising, for as it -is said: “Man sees the appearances, but the Lord sees the heart” (I Sm 16:7). This name is -appropriate for the mystery. For “Simon” means “obedient,” to indicate that obedience is -necessary for one who has been converted to Christ through faith: “He gives the Holy Spirit -to all who obey him” (Acts 5:32).
-304 Secondly, he reveals things hidden in the past. Hence he says, son of John, because that -was the name of Simon’s father; or he says, “son of Jonah,” as we find in Matthew (16:17), -“Simon Bar-Jonah.” And each name is appropriate to this mystery. For “John” means -“grace,” to indicate that it is through grace that men come to the faith of Christ: “You are -saved by his grace” (Eph 2:5). And “Jonah” means “dove,” to indicate that it is by the Holy -Spirit, who has been given to us, that we are made strong in our love for God: “The love of -God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5).
-305 Thirdly, he reveals things hidden in the future. So he says, you are to be called Cephas -(which is translated Peter), and in Greek, “head.” And this is appropriate to this mystery, -which is that he who was to be the head of the others and the vicar of Christ should remain -firm. As Matthew (16:18) says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”
-306 There is a question here about the literal meaning. First, why did Christ give Simon a -name at the beginning of his conversion, rather than will that he have this name from the time -of his birth? Two different answers have been given for this. The first, according to -Chrysostom, is that divinely given names indicate a certain eminence in spiritual grace. Now -when God confers a special grace upon anyone, the name indicating that grace is given at -one’s birth: as in the case of John the Baptist, who was named before he was born, because he -had been sanctified in his mother’s womb. But sometimes a special grace is given during the -course of one’s life: then such names are divinely given at that time and not at birth: as in the -case of Abraham and Sarah, whose names were changed when they received the promise that -their posterity would multiply. Likewise, Peter is named in a divine way when he is called to -the faith of Christ and to the grace of apostleship, and particularly because he was appointed -Prince of the apostles of the entire Church—which was not done with the other apostles.
-But, according to Augustine, if he had been called Cephas from birth, this mystery would not -have been apparent. And so the Lord willed that he should have one name at birth, so that by -changing his name the mystery of the Church, which was built on his confession of faith, -would be apparent. Now “Peter” (Petrus) is derived from “rock” (petra). But the rock. was -Christ. Thus, the name “Peter” signifies the Church, which was built upon that solid and -immovable rock which is Christ.
-307 The second question is whether this name was given to Peter at this time, or at the time -mentioned by Matthew (16:18). Augustine answers that this name was given to Simon at this -time; and at the event reported by Matthew the Lord is not giving this name but reminding -him of the name that was given, so that Christ is using this name as already given. But others -think that this name was given when the Lord said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will -build my church” (Mt 16:18); and in this passage in the Gospel of John, Christ is not giving -this name, but foretelling what will be given later.
-308 The third question is about the calling of Peter and Andrew: for here it says that they -were called near the Jordan, because they were John’s disciples; but in Matthew (4:18) it says -that Christ called them by the Sea of Galilee. The answer to this is that there was a triple -calling of the apostles. The first was a call to knowledge or friendship and faith; and this is -the one recorded here. The second consisted in the prediction of their office: “From now on -you will be catching men” (Lk 5:10). The third call was to their apostleship, which is -mentioned by Matthew (4:18). This was the perfect call because after this they were not to -return to their own pursuits.
--
LECTURE16
--43 On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip, he said, -“Follow me.” 44 Now Philip came from Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter. 45 -Philip sought out Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found the one Moses spoke of in the -law - the prophets too - Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” 46 “From Nazareth!” Nathanael -replied, “What good can come from th1t place?” Philip said, “Come and see.” 47 When Jesus -saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him: “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is -no guile.” 48 Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied and said, “Before -Philip called you, I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree.” 49 “Rabbi,” said -Nathanael, “you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” 50 Jesus responded and said, -“You believed just because I said to you that I saw you sitting under the fig tree! You will see -greater things than this.” 51 He went on to say, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the -heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
309 After having shown the fruit produced by John’s preaching and that of his disciples, the -Evangelist now shows the fruit obtained from the preaching of Christ. First, he deals with the -conversion of one disciple as the result of Christ’s preaching. Secondly, the conversion of -others due to the preaching of the disciple just converted to Christ (v 45). As to the first he -does three things: first, the occasion when the disciple is called is given; secondly, his calling -is described; thirdly, his situation.
-310 The occasion of his calling was the departure of Jesus from Judea. So he says, On the -following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip. There are three -reasons why Jesus left for Galilee, two of which are literal. One of these is that after being -baptized by John and desiring to shed honor on the Baptist, he left Judea for Galilee so that -his presence would not obscure and lessen John’s teaching authority (while he still retained -that state); and this teaches us to show honor to one another, as is said in Romans (12:10).
-The second reason is that there are no distinguished persons in Galilee: “No prophet is to rise -from Galilee” (below 7:52). And so, to show the greatness of his power, Christ wished to go -there and choose there the princes of the earth, who are greater than the prophets: “He has -turned the desert into pools of water,” as we read in Psalm 106 (v 35).
-The third reason is mystical: for “Galilee” means “passage.” So Christ desired to go from -Judea into Galilee in order to indicate that on “on the following day,” i.e., on the day of grace, -that is, the day of the Good News, he would pass from Judea into Galilee, i.e., to save the -Gentiles: “Is he going to go to those who are dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the -Gentiles?” (below 7:35).
-311 A disciple’s vocation is to follow: hence he says that after Christ found Philip he said, -Follow me. Note that sometimes man finds God, but without knowing it, as it were: “He who -finds me will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord” (Prv 8:35). And at other times -God finds the man, in order to bestow honor and greatness upon him: “I have found David, -my servant” (Ps 88:2 1 ). Christ found Philip in this way, that is, to call him to the faith and to -grace. And so he says at once, Follow me.
-312 There is a question here: Why did not Jesus call his disciples at the very beginning? -Chrysostorn answers that he did not wish to call anyone before someone clung to him -spontaneoulsy because of John’s preaching, for men are drawn by example more than by -words.
-313 One might also ask why Philip followed Christ immediately after only a word, while -Andrew followed Christ after hearing about him from John, and Peter after hearing from -Andrew.
-Three answers can be given. One is that Philip had already been instructed by John: for -according to one of the explanations given above, Philip was that other disciple who followed -Christ along with Andrew. Another is that Christ’s voice had power not only to act on one’s -hearing from without, but also on the heart from within: “My words are like fire” (Jer 23:29). -For the voice of Christ was spoken not only to the exterior, but it enkindled the interior of the -faithful to love him. The third answer is that Philip. had perhaps already been instructed about -Christ by Andrew and Peter, since they were from the same town. In fact, this is what the -Evangelist seems to imply by adding, Now Philip came from Bethsaida, the same town as -Andrew and Peter.
-314 This gives us the situation of the disciples he called: for they were from Bethsaida. And -this is appropriate to this mystery. For “Bethsaida” means “house of hunters,” to show the -attitude of Philip, Peter and Andrew at that time, and because it was fitting to call, from the -house of hunters, hunters who were to capture souls for life: “I will send my hunters” (Jer -16:16).
-315 Now the fruit produced by the disciple who was converted to Christ is given. First, the -beginning of the fruit, coming from this disciple. Secondly, its consummation by Christ (v -47). As to the first, he does three things: first, the statement of Philip is given; secondly, -Nathanael’s response; and thirdly, Philip’s ensuing advice.
-316 As to the first, note that just as Andrew, after having been perfectly converted, was eager -to lead his brother to Christ, so too Philip with regard to his brother, Nathanael. And so he -says that Philip found Nathanael, whom he probably looked for as Andrew did for Peter; and -this was a sign of a perfect conversion. The word “Nathanael” means “gift of God”; and it is -God’s gift if anyone is converted to Christ.
-He tells him that all the prophecies and the law have been fulfilled, and that the desires of -their holy forefathers are not in vain, but have been guaranteed, and that what God has -promised was now accomplished. We have found the one Moses spoke of in the law—the -prophets too—Jesus. We understand by this that Nathanael was fairly learned in the law, -and that Philip, now having learned about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ through -the things he himself knew, that is, from the law and the prophets. So he says, the one Moses -spoke of in the law. For Moses wrote of Christ: “If you believed Moses, you would perhaps -believe me, for he wrote of me” (below 5:46). The prophets too wrote of Christ: “All the -prophets bear witness to him” (Acts 10:43).
-317 Note that Philip says three things about Christ that are in agreement with the law and the -prophets. First, the name: for he says, We have found Jesus. And this agrees with the -prophets: “I will send them a Savior” (Is 19:20); “1 will rejoice in God, my Jesus” (Hb 3:18).
-Secondly, the family from which Christ took his human origin, when he says, son of Joseph, -i.e., who was of the house and family of David. And although Jesus did not derive his origin -from him, yet he did derive it from the Virgin, who was of the same line as Joseph. He calls -him the son of Joseph, because Jesus was considered to be the son of the one to whom his -mother was married. So it is said: “the son of Joseph (as was supposed)” (Lk 3:23). Nor is it -strange that Philip called him the son of Joseph, since his own mother, who was aware of his -divine incarnation, called him his son: “Your father and I have been looking for you in -sorrow” (Lk 2:48). Indeed, if one is called the son of another because he is supported by him, -this is more reason why Joseph should be called the father of Jesus, even though he was not -so according to the flesh: for he not only supported him, but was the husband of his virgin -mother. However, Philip calls him the son of Joseph (not as though he was born from the -union of Joseph and the Virgin) because he knew that Christ would be born from the line of -David; and this was the house and family of Joseph, to whom Mary was married. And this -also is in agreement with the prophets: “I will raise up a just branch for David” (Jer 23:5).
-Thirdly, he mentions his native land, saying, from Nazareth; not because he had been born -there, but because he was brought up there; but he had been born in Bethlehem. Philip omits -to mention Bethlehem but not Nazareth because, while the birth of Christ was not known to -many, the place where he was brought up was. And this also agrees with the prophets: “A -shoot will arise from the root of Jesse, and a flower (or Nazarene, according to another -version) will rise up from his roots” (Is I I: I).
-318 Then when he says, Nathanael replied, the answer of Nathanael is given. His answer -can be interpreted as an assertion or as a question; and in either way it is suitable to Philip’s -affirmation. If it is taken as an assertion, as Augustine does, the meaning is: “Some good can -come from Nazareth.” In other words, from a city with that name it is possible that there -come forth to us some very excellent grace or some outstanding teacher to preach to us about -the flower of the virtues and the purity of sanctity; for “Nazareth” means “flower.” We can -understand from this that Nathanael, being quite learned in the law and a student of the -Scriptures, knew that the Savior was expected to come from Nazareth—something that was -not so clear even to the Scribes and Pharisees. And so when Philip said, We have found -Jesus from Nazareth, his hopes were lifted and he answered: “Indeed, some good can come -from Nazareth.”
-But if we take his answer as a question, as Chrysostom does, then the sense is: From -Nazareth! What good can come from that place? As if to say: Everything else you say -seems credible, because his name and his lineage are consistent with the prophecies, but your -statement that he is from Nazareth does not seem possible. For Nathanael understood from -the Scriptures that the Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to: “And you, -Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of you a ruler -will come forth, who will rule my people Israel,” as we read in Matthew (2:6). And so, not -finding Philip’s statement in agreement with the prophecy, he prudently and moderately -inquires about its truth, What good can come from that place?
-319 Then Philip’s advice is given, Come and see. And this advice suits either interpretation -of Nathanael’s answer. To the assertive interpretation it is as though he says: You say that -something good can come from Nazareth, but I say that the good I state to you is of such a -nature and so marvelous that I am unable to express it in words, so Come and see. To the -interpretation that makes it a question, it as as though he says: You wonder and say: What -good can come from that place?, thinking that this is impossible according to the Scriptures. -But if you are willing to experience what I experienced, you will understand that what I say is -true, so Come and see.
-Then, not discouraged by his questions, Philip brings Nathanael to Christ. He knew that he -would no longer argue with him if he tasted the words and teaching of Christ. And in this, -Philip was imitating Christ who earlier answered those who had asked about the place where -he lived: “Come and see ... “Come to him, and be enlightened” (Ps 33:6).
-320 Then when he says, When Jesus saw Nathanael, the consummation of this fruit by -Christ is described. We should note that there are two ways in which men are converted to -Christ: some by miracles they have seen and things experienced in themselves or in others; -others are converted through internal insights, through prophecy and the foreknowledge of -what is hidden in the future. The second way is more efficacious than the first: for devils and -certain men who receive their help can simulate marvels; but to predict the future can only be -done by divine power. “Tell us what is to come, and we will say that you are gods” (Is 41:23); -“Prophecies are for those who believe.” And so our Lord draws Nathanael to the faith not by -miracles but by making known things which are hidden. And so he says of him, Here is a -true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.
-321 Christ mentions three hidden matters: things hidden in the present, in the heart; past -facts; and future heavenly matters. To know these three things is not a human but a divine +
299 The disciple is described by name when he says, Andrew, i.e., “manly”. +“Act manfully, and let Your heart be strong,” as it +says in Psalm 30 (v 25). he mentions his name in order to show his +privilege: he was not only the first to be perfectly converted to +Christ, but he also preached Christ. So, as Stephen was the first +martyr after Christ, so Andrew was the first Christian.
+He is described, secondly, by his relationship, that is, as +Simon Peter’s brother, +for he was the younger. And this is mentioned to commend him, for +although younger in age, he became first in faith.
+He is described, thirdly, by his discipleship, because he was +one of the two who had followed +him. His name is mentioned in order to show that +Andrew’s privilege was remarkable. For the name of the other +disciple is not mentioned: either because it was John the +Evangelist himself, who through humility followed the practice in +his Gospel of not mentioning his own name when he was involved in +some event; or, according to Chrysostom, because the other one was +not a notable person, nor had he done anything great, and so there +was no need to mention his name. Luke does the same in his Gospel +(10:1), where he does not mention the names of the seventy-two +disciples sent out by the Lord, because they were not the +outstanding and important persons that the apostles were. Or, +according to Alcuin, this other disciple was Philip: for the +Evangelist, after discussing Andrew, begins at once with Philip, +saying: “On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, +and coming upon Philip” (below 1:43).
+He is commended, fourthly, for the zeal of his devotion; hence +he says that Andrew followed him, i.e., Jesus: “My foot has +followed in his steps” (Jb 23:11).
+300 The fruit begun by Andrew is mentioned when he says, +The first thing he did was to look +for his brother Simon. He first mentions the one for whom he +bore fruit, that is, his brother, in order to mark the perfection +of his conversion. For as Peter says, in the Itinerary of +Clement, the evident sign of a perfect conversion of anyone is +that, once converted, the closer one is to him the more he tries to +convert him to Christ. And so Andrew, being now perfectly +converted, does not keep the treasure he found to himself, but +hurries and quickly runs to his brother to share with him the good +things he has received. And so he says the first thing he, that is, Andrew, +did was to look for his brother +Simon, so that related in blood he might make him related in +faith: “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a +strong city” (Prv 18:19); “Let him who hears say, +‘Come’ “ (Rv 22:17).
+301 Secondly, he mentions the words spoken by Andrew, +We have found the Messiah (which +means the Christ). Here, according to Chrysostom, he is +tacitly answering a certain question: namely, that if someone were +to ask what they had been instructed about by Christ, they would +have the ready answer that through the testimony of the Scriptures +he instructed him in such a way that he knew he was the Christ. And +so he says, We have found the +Messiah. He implies by this that he had previously sought +him by desire for a long time: “Happy is the man who finds +wisdom” (Prv 3:13).
+“Messiah,” which is Hebrew, is translated as +“Christos” in Greek, and in Latin as +“Unctus” (anointed), because he was anointed in a +special way with invisible oil, the oil of the Holy Spirit. So +Andrew explicitly designates him by this title: “Your God has +anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows,” +i.e., above all the saints. For all the saints are anointed with +that oil, but Christ was singularly anointed and is singularly +holy. So, as Chrysostom says, he does not simply call him +“Messiah,” but the +Messiah.
+302 Thirdly, he mentions the fruit he produced, because +he brought him, that is, +Peter, to Jesus. This gives +recognition to Peter’s obedience, for he came at once, +without delay. And consider the devotion of Andrew: for he brought +him to Jesus and not to himself (for he knew that he himself was +weak); and so he leads him to Christ to be instructed by him. This +shows us that the efforts and the aim of preachers should not be to +win for themselves the fruits of their preaching, i.e., to turn +them to their own private benefit and honor, but to bring them to +Jesus, i.e., to refer them to his glory and honor: “What we +preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ,” as is said in 2 +Corinthians (4:5).
+303 The consummation of this fruit is given when he says, +Looking at him intently Jesus +said. Here Christ, wishing to raise him up to faith in His +divinity, begins to perform works of divinity, making know things +that are hidden. First of all, things which are hidden in the +present: so looking at him, +i.e, as soon as Jesus saw him, he considered him by the power of +his divinity and called him by name, saying, You are Simon. This is not surprising, +for as it is said: “Man sees the appearances, but the Lord +sees the heart” (I Sm 16:7). This name is appropriate for the +mystery. For “Simon” means “obedient,” to +indicate that obedience is necessary for one who has been converted +to Christ through faith: “He gives the Holy Spirit to all who +obey him” (Acts 5:32).
+304 Secondly, he reveals things hidden in the past. Hence he +says, son of John, because that was the name of Simon’s +father; or he says, “son of Jonah,” as we find in +Matthew (16:17), “Simon Bar-Jonah.” And each name is +appropriate to this mystery. For “John” means +“grace,” to indicate that it is through grace that men +come to the faith of Christ: “You are saved by his +grace” (Eph 2:5). And “Jonah” means +“dove,” to indicate that it is by the Holy Spirit, who +has been given to us, that we are made strong in our love for God: +“The love of God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy +Spirit” (Rom 5:5).
+305 Thirdly, he reveals things hidden in the future. So he says, +you are to be called Cephas (which +is translated Peter), and in Greek, “head.” And +this is appropriate to this mystery, which is that he who was to be +the head of the others and the vicar of Christ should remain firm. +As Matthew (16:18) says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I +will build my church.”
+306 There is a question here about the literal meaning. First, +why did Christ give Simon a name at the beginning of his +conversion, rather than will that he have this name from the time +of his birth? Two different answers have been given for this. The +first, according to Chrysostom, is that divinely given names +indicate a certain eminence in spiritual grace. Now when God +confers a special grace upon anyone, the name indicating that grace +is given at one’s birth: as in the case of John the Baptist, +who was named before he was born, because he had been sanctified in +his mother’s womb. But sometimes a special grace is given +during the course of one’s life: then such names are divinely +given at that time and not at birth: as in the case of Abraham and +Sarah, whose names were changed when they received the promise that +their posterity would multiply. Likewise, Peter is named in a +divine way when he is called to the faith of Christ and to the +grace of apostleship, and particularly because he was appointed +Prince of the apostles of the entire Church—which was not +done with the other apostles.
+But, according to Augustine, if he had been called Cephas from +birth, this mystery would not have been apparent. And so the Lord +willed that he should have one name at birth, so that by changing +his name the mystery of the Church, which was built on his +confession of faith, would be apparent. Now “Peter” +(Petrus) is derived from “rock” (petra). +But the rock. was Christ. Thus, the name “Peter” +signifies the Church, which was built upon that solid and immovable +rock which is Christ.
+307 The second question is whether this name was given to Peter +at this time, or at the time mentioned by Matthew (16:18). +Augustine answers that this name was given to Simon at this time; +and at the event reported by Matthew the Lord is not giving this +name but reminding him of the name that was given, so that Christ +is using this name as already given. But others think that this +name was given when the Lord said, “You are Peter, and upon +this rock I will build my church” (Mt 16:18); and in this +passage in the Gospel of John, Christ is not giving this name, but +foretelling what will be given later.
+308 The third question is about the calling of Peter and Andrew: +for here it says that they were called near the Jordan, because +they were John’s disciples; but in Matthew (4:18) it says +that Christ called them by the Sea of Galilee. The answer to this +is that there was a triple calling of the apostles. The first was a +call to knowledge or friendship and faith; and this is the one +recorded here. The second consisted in the prediction of their +office: “From now on you will be catching men” (Lk +5:10). The third call was to their apostleship, which is mentioned +by Matthew (4:18). This was the perfect call because after this +they were not to return to their own pursuits.
++
+LECTURE16
+++43 On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and +coming upon Philip, he said, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip +came from Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip +sought out Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found the one +Moses spoke of in the law - the prophets too - Jesus, son of +Joseph, from Nazareth.” 46 “From Nazareth!” +Nathanael replied, “What good can come from th1t +place?” Philip said, “Come and see.” 47 When +Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him: “Here +is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.” 48 Nathanael +asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied and +said, “Before Philip called you, I saw you when you were +sitting under the fig tree.” 49 “Rabbi,” said +Nathanael, “you are the Son of God; you are the King of +Israel.” 50 Jesus responded and said, “You believed +just because I said to you that I saw you sitting under the fig +tree! You will see greater things than this.” 51 He went on +to say, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the heavens +opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of +Man.”
+309 After having shown the fruit produced by John’s +preaching and that of his disciples, the Evangelist now shows the +fruit obtained from the preaching of Christ. First, he deals with +the conversion of one disciple as the result of Christ’s +preaching. Secondly, the conversion of others due to the preaching +of the disciple just converted to Christ (v 45). As to the first he +does three things: first, the occasion when the disciple is called +is given; secondly, his calling is described; thirdly, his +situation.
+310 The occasion of his calling was the departure of Jesus from +Judea. So he says, On the following +day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip. +There are three reasons why Jesus left for Galilee, two of which +are literal. One of these is that after being baptized by John and +desiring to shed honor on the Baptist, he left Judea for Galilee so +that his presence would not obscure and lessen John’s +teaching authority (while he still retained that state); and this +teaches us to show honor to one another, as is said in Romans +(12:10).
+The second reason is that there are no distinguished persons in +Galilee: “No prophet is to rise from Galilee” (below +7:52). And so, to show the greatness of his power, Christ wished to +go there and choose there the princes of the earth, who are greater +than the prophets: “He has turned the desert into pools of +water,” as we read in Psalm 106 (v 35).
+The third reason is mystical: for “Galilee” means +“passage.” So Christ desired to go from Judea into +Galilee in order to indicate that on “on the following +day,” i.e., on the day of grace, that is, the day of the Good +News, he would pass from Judea into Galilee, i.e., to save the +Gentiles: “Is he going to go to those who are dispersed among +the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?” (below 7:35).
+311 A disciple’s vocation is to follow: hence he says that +after Christ found Philip he said, Follow me. Note that sometimes man finds +God, but without knowing it, as it were: “He who finds me +will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord” (Prv +8:35). And at other times God finds the man, in order to bestow +honor and greatness upon him: “I have found David, my +servant” (Ps 88:2 1 ). Christ found Philip in this way, that +is, to call him to the faith and to grace. And so he says at once, +Follow me.
+312 There is a question here: Why did not Jesus call his +disciples at the very beginning? Chrysostorn answers that he did +not wish to call anyone before someone clung to him spontaneoulsy +because of John’s preaching, for men are drawn by example +more than by words.
+313 One might also ask why Philip followed Christ immediately +after only a word, while Andrew followed Christ after hearing about +him from John, and Peter after hearing from Andrew.
+Three answers can be given. One is that Philip had already been +instructed by John: for according to one of the explanations given +above, Philip was that other disciple who followed Christ along +with Andrew. Another is that Christ’s voice had power not +only to act on one’s hearing from without, but also on the +heart from within: “My words are like fire” (Jer +23:29). For the voice of Christ was spoken not only to the +exterior, but it enkindled the interior of the faithful to love +him. The third answer is that Philip. had perhaps already been +instructed about Christ by Andrew and Peter, since they were from +the same town. In fact, this is what the Evangelist seems to imply +by adding, Now Philip came from +Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter.
+314 This gives us the situation of the disciples he called: for +they were from Bethsaida. And this is appropriate to this mystery. +For “Bethsaida” means “house of hunters,” +to show the attitude of Philip, Peter and Andrew at that time, and +because it was fitting to call, from the house of hunters, hunters +who were to capture souls for life: “I will send my +hunters” (Jer 16:16).
+315 Now the fruit produced by the disciple who was converted to +Christ is given. First, the beginning of the fruit, coming from +this disciple. Secondly, its consummation by Christ (v 47). As to +the first, he does three things: first, the statement of Philip is +given; secondly, Nathanael’s response; and thirdly, +Philip’s ensuing advice.
+316 As to the first, note that just as Andrew, after having been +perfectly converted, was eager to lead his brother to Christ, so +too Philip with regard to his brother, Nathanael. And so he says +that Philip found Nathanael, whom he probably looked for as Andrew +did for Peter; and this was a sign of a perfect conversion. The +word “Nathanael” means “gift of God”; and +it is God’s gift if anyone is converted to Christ.
+He tells him that all the prophecies and the law have been +fulfilled, and that the desires of their holy forefathers are not +in vain, but have been guaranteed, and that what God has promised +was now accomplished. We have found +the one Moses spoke of in the law—the prophets +too—Jesus. We understand by this that Nathanael was +fairly learned in the law, and that Philip, now having learned +about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ through the things +he himself knew, that is, from the law and the prophets. So he +says, the one Moses spoke of in the +law. For Moses wrote of Christ: “If you believed +Moses, you would perhaps believe me, for he wrote of me” +(below 5:46). The prophets +too wrote of Christ: “All the prophets bear witness to +him” (Acts 10:43).
+317 Note that Philip says three things about Christ that are in +agreement with the law and the prophets. First, the name: for he +says, We have found Jesus. +And this agrees with the prophets: “I will send them a +Savior” (Is 19:20); “1 will rejoice in God, my +Jesus” (Hb 3:18).
+Secondly, the family from which Christ took his human origin, +when he says, son of Joseph, +i.e., who was of the house and family of David. And although Jesus +did not derive his origin from him, yet he did derive it from the +Virgin, who was of the same line as Joseph. He calls him the son of +Joseph, because Jesus was considered to be the son of the one to +whom his mother was married. So it is said: “the son of +Joseph (as was supposed)” (Lk 3:23). Nor is it strange that +Philip called him the son of Joseph, since his own mother, who was +aware of his divine incarnation, called him his son: “Your +father and I have been looking for you in sorrow” (Lk 2:48). +Indeed, if one is called the son of another because he is supported +by him, this is more reason why Joseph should be called the father +of Jesus, even though he was not so according to the flesh: for he +not only supported him, but was the husband of his virgin mother. +However, Philip calls him the son of Joseph (not as though he was +born from the union of Joseph and the Virgin) because he knew that +Christ would be born from the line of David; and this was the house +and family of Joseph, to whom Mary was married. And this also is in +agreement with the prophets: “I will raise up a just branch +for David” (Jer 23:5).
+Thirdly, he mentions his native land, saying, from Nazareth; not because he had been +born there, but because he was brought up there; but he had been +born in Bethlehem. Philip omits to mention Bethlehem but not +Nazareth because, while the birth of Christ was not known to many, +the place where he was brought up was. And this also agrees with +the prophets: “A shoot will arise from the root of Jesse, and +a flower (or Nazarene, according to another version) will rise up +from his roots” (Is I I: I).
+318 Then when he says, Nathanael +replied, the answer of Nathanael is given. His answer can be +interpreted as an assertion or as a question; and in either way it +is suitable to Philip’s affirmation. If it is taken as an +assertion, as Augustine does, the meaning is: “Some good can +come from Nazareth.” In other words, from a city with that +name it is possible that there come forth to us some very excellent +grace or some outstanding teacher to preach to us about the flower +of the virtues and the purity of sanctity; for +“Nazareth” means “flower.” We can +understand from this that Nathanael, being quite learned in the law +and a student of the Scriptures, knew that the Savior was expected +to come from Nazareth—something that was not so clear even to +the Scribes and Pharisees. And so when Philip said, We have found Jesus from Nazareth, his +hopes were lifted and he answered: “Indeed, some good can +come from Nazareth.”
+But if we take his answer as a question, as Chrysostom does, +then the sense is: From Nazareth! +What good can come from that place? As if to say: Everything +else you say seems credible, because his name and his lineage are +consistent with the prophecies, but your statement that he is +from Nazareth does not seem +possible. For Nathanael understood from the Scriptures that the +Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to: “And you, +Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of +Judah: for out of you a ruler will come forth, who will rule my +people Israel,” as we read in Matthew (2:6). And so, not +finding Philip’s statement in agreement with the prophecy, he +prudently and moderately inquires about its truth, What good can come from that place?
+319 Then Philip’s advice is given, Come and see. And this advice suits +either interpretation of Nathanael’s answer. To the assertive +interpretation it is as though he says: You say that something good +can come from Nazareth, but I say that the good I state to you is +of such a nature and so marvelous that I am unable to express it in +words, so Come and see. To +the interpretation that makes it a question, it as as though he +says: You wonder and say: What good +can come from that place?, thinking that this is impossible +according to the Scriptures. But if you are willing to experience +what I experienced, you will understand that what I say is true, so +Come and see.
+Then, not discouraged by his questions, Philip brings Nathanael +to Christ. He knew that he would no longer argue with him if he +tasted the words and teaching of Christ. And in this, Philip was +imitating Christ who earlier answered those who had asked about the +place where he lived: “Come and see ... “Come to him, +and be enlightened” (Ps 33:6).
+320 Then when he says, When +Jesus saw Nathanael, the consummation of this fruit by +Christ is described. We should note that there are two ways in +which men are converted to Christ: some by miracles they have seen +and things experienced in themselves or in others; others are +converted through internal insights, through prophecy and the +foreknowledge of what is hidden in the future. The second way is +more efficacious than the first: for devils and certain men who +receive their help can simulate marvels; but to predict the future +can only be done by divine power. “Tell us what is to come, +and we will say that you are gods” (Is 41:23); +“Prophecies are for those who believe.” And so our Lord +draws Nathanael to the faith not by miracles but by making known +things which are hidden. And so he says of him, Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no +guile.
+321 Christ mentions three hidden matters: things hidden in the +present, in the heart; past facts; and future heavenly matters. To +know these three things is not a human but a divine achievement.
-He mentions things hidden in the present when he says, Here is a true Israelite, in whom -there is no guile. Here we have, first, the prior revelation of Christ; secondly, Nathanael’s -question, How do you know me?
-322 First he says, When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him. As if to say: Before -Nathanael reached him, Jesus said, Here is a true Israelite. He said this about him before he -came to him, because had he said it after he came, Nathanael might have believed that Jesus -had heard it from Philip.
-Christ said, Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. Now “Israel” has two -meanings. One of these, as the Gloss says, is “most righteous”.—“Do not fear, my most -righteous servant, whom I have chosen” (Is 44:2). Its second meaning is “the man who sees -God.” And according to each meaning Nathanael is a true Israelite. For since one in whom -there is no guile is called righteous, Nathanael is said to be a true Israelite, in whom there is -no guile. As if to say: You truly represent your race because you are righteous and without -guile. Further, because man sees God through cleanness of heart and simplicity, Christ said, a -true Israelite, i.e., you are a man who truly sees God because you are simple and without +
He mentions things hidden in the present when he says, +Here is a true Israelite, in whom +there is no guile. Here we have, first, the prior revelation +of Christ; secondly, Nathanael’s question, How do you know me?
+322 First he says, When Jesus +saw Nathanael coming toward him. As if to say: Before +Nathanael reached him, Jesus said, Here is a true Israelite. He said this +about him before he came to him, because had he said it after he +came, Nathanael might have believed that Jesus had heard it from +Philip.
+Christ said, Here is a true +Israelite, in whom there is no guile. Now +“Israel” has two meanings. One of these, as the Gloss +says, is “most righteous”.—“Do not fear, my +most righteous servant, whom I have chosen” (Is 44:2). Its +second meaning is “the man who sees God.” And according +to each meaning Nathanael is a true Israelite. For since one in +whom there is no guile is called righteous, Nathanael is said to be +a true Israelite, in whom there is +no guile. As if to say: You truly represent your race +because you are righteous and without guile. Further, because man +sees God through cleanness of heart and simplicity, Christ said, +a true Israelite, i.e., you +are a man who truly sees God because you are simple and without guile.
-Further, he said, in whom there is no guile, so that we do not think that it was with malice -that Nathanael asked: What good can come from that place?
-323 Augustine has a different explanation of this passage. It is clear that all are born under -sin. Now those who have sin in their hearts but outwardly pretend to be just are called -guileful. But a sinner who admits that he is a sinner is not guileful. So Christ said, Here is a -true Israelite, in whom there is no guile, not because Nathanael was without sin, or because -he had no need of a physician, for no one is born in such a way as not to need a physician; but -he was praised by Christ because he admitted his sins.
-324 Then when he says, How do you know me?, we have Nathanael’s question. For -Nathanael, in wonder at the divine power in this revelation of what is hidden, because this can -only be from God—“The heart is depraved and inscrutable, and who is able to know it? I the -Lord search the heart and probe the loins” (Jer 17:9); “Man sees the appearances, but the Lord -sees the heart” (I Sin 16:7)—asks, How do you know me? Here we can recognize -Nathanael’s humility, because, although he had been praised, he did not become elated, but -held this praise of himself suspect. “My people, who call you blessed, they are deceiving you” -(Is 3:12).
-325 Then he touches on matters in the past, saying, Before Philip called you, I saw you -when you were sitting under the fig tree. First we have the statement of Christ; secondly, -the confession of Nathanael.
-326 As to the first, we should note that Nathanael might have had two misgivings about -Christ. One, that Christ said this in order to win his friendship by flattery; the other, that -Christ had learned what he knew from others. So, to remove Nathanael’s suspicions and raise -him to higher things, Christ reveals certain hidden matters that no one could know except in a -divine way, that is, things that related only to Nathanael. He refers to these when he says, -Before Philip called you, I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree. In the literal -sense, this means that Nathanael was under a fig tree when he was called by Philip—which -Christ knew by divine power, for “The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun” (Sir -23:28).
-In the mystical sense, the fig tree signifies sin: both because we find a fig tree, bearing only -leaves but no fruit, being cursed, as a symbol of sin (Mt 11:19); and because Adam and Eve, -after they had sinned, made clothes from fig leaves. So he says here, when you were sitting -under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of sin, before you were called to grace, I saw you, -with the eye of mercy; for God’s predestination looks upon the predestined, who are living -under sin, with an eye of pity, for as Ephesians (1:4) says, “ He chose us before the -foundation of the world.” And he speaks of this eye here: I saw you, by predestining you from +
Further, he said, in whom there +is no guile, so that we do not think that it was with malice +that Nathanael asked: What good can +come from that place?
+323 Augustine has a different explanation of this passage. It is +clear that all are born under sin. Now those who have sin in their +hearts but outwardly pretend to be just are called guileful. But a +sinner who admits that he is a sinner is not guileful. So Christ +said, Here is a true Israelite, in +whom there is no guile, not because Nathanael was without +sin, or because he had no need of a physician, for no one is born +in such a way as not to need a physician; but he was praised by +Christ because he admitted his sins.
+324 Then when he says, How do +you know me?, we have Nathanael’s question. For +Nathanael, in wonder at the divine power in this revelation of what +is hidden, because this can only be from God—“The heart +is depraved and inscrutable, and who is able to know it? I the Lord +search the heart and probe the loins” (Jer 17:9); “Man +sees the appearances, but the Lord sees the heart” (I Sin +16:7)—asks, How do you know +me? Here we can recognize Nathanael’s humility, +because, although he had been praised, he did not become elated, +but held this praise of himself suspect. “My people, who call +you blessed, they are deceiving you” (Is 3:12).
+325 Then he touches on matters in the past, saying, Before Philip called you, I saw you when you +were sitting under the fig tree. First we have the statement +of Christ; secondly, the confession of Nathanael.
+326 As to the first, we should note that Nathanael might have +had two misgivings about Christ. One, that Christ said this in +order to win his friendship by flattery; the other, that Christ had +learned what he knew from others. So, to remove Nathanael’s +suspicions and raise him to higher things, Christ reveals certain +hidden matters that no one could know except in a divine way, that +is, things that related only to Nathanael. He refers to these when +he says, Before Philip called you, +I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree. In the +literal sense, this means that Nathanael was under a fig tree when +he was called by Philip—which Christ knew by divine power, +for “The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the +sun” (Sir 23:28).
+In the mystical sense, the fig tree signifies sin: both because +we find a fig tree, bearing only leaves but no fruit, being cursed, +as a symbol of sin (Mt 11:19); and because Adam and Eve, after they +had sinned, made clothes from fig leaves. So he says here, when you +were sitting under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of sin, +before you were called to grace, I saw you, with the eye of mercy; +for God’s predestination looks upon the predestined, who are +living under sin, with an eye of pity, for as Ephesians (1:4) says, +“ He chose us before the foundation of the world.” And +he speaks of this eye here: I saw you, by predestining you from eternity.
-Or, the meaning is, according to Gregory: I saw you when you were sitting under the fig -tree, i.e., under the shadow of the law. “The law has only a shadow of the good things to -come” (Heb 10:1).
-327 Hearing this, Nathanael is immediately converted, and, seeing the power of the divinity -in Christ, breaks out in words of conversion and praise, saying, Rabbi, you are the Son of -God. Here he considers three things about Christ. First, the fullness of his knowledge, when -he says, Rabbi, which is translated as Teacher. As if to say: You are perfect in knowledge. -For he had already realized what is said in Matthew (23:10): “You have one Teacher, the -Christ.” Secondly, the excellence of his singular grace, when he says, you are the Son of -God. For it is due to grace alone that one becomes a son of God by adoption. And it is also -through grace that one is a son of God through union; and this is exclusive to the man Christ, -because that man is the Son of God not due to any preceding merit, but through the grace of -union. Thirdly, he considers the greatness of his power when he says, you are the King of -Israel, i.e., awaited by Israel as its king and defender: “His power is everlasting” (Dn 7:14).
-328 A question comes up at this point, according to Chrysostom. For since Peter, who after -many miracles and much teaching, confessed what Nathanael confesses here about Christ, -that is, you are the Son of God, merited a blessing, as the Lord said: “Blessed are you, Simon -Bar-Jona” (Mt 16:17), why not the same for Nathanael, who said the same thing before seeing -any miracles or receiving any teaching? Chrysostom answers that the reason for this is that -even though Nathanael and Peter spoke the same words, the meaning of the two was not the -same. For Peter acknowledged that Christ was the true Son of God by nature, i.e., he was -man, and yet truly God; but Nathanael acknowledged that Christ was the Son of God by -means of adoption, in the sense of, “I said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most -High”(Ps 81:6). This is clear from what Nathanael said next: for if he had understood that -Christ was the Son of God by nature, he would not have said, you are the King of Israel, but -“of the whole world.” It is also clear from the fact that Christ added nothing to the faith of -Peter, since it was perfect, but stated that he would build the Church on that profession. But -he raises Nathanael to greater things, since the greater part of his profession was deficient; to -greater things, i.e., to a knowledge of his divinity.
-329 And so he said, You will see greater things than this. Here we have, thirdly, an allusion -to the future. As if to say: Because I have revealed the past to you, you believe that I am the -Son of God only by adoption, and the King of Israel; but I will bring you to greater -knowledge, so that you may believe that I am the natural Son of God, and the King of all -ages. And accordingly he says, Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened -and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. By this, according to -Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is the true Son of God, and God. For the -peculiar task of angels is to minister and be subject: “Bless the Lord, all of you, his angels, his -ministers, who do his will” (Ps 102:20). So when you see angels minister to me, you will be -certain that I am the true Son of God. “When he leads his First-Begotten into the world, he -says: ‘Let all the angels of God adore him’” (Heb 1:6).
-330 When did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, during the passion, when an angel -stood by to comfort Christ (Lk 22:13); again, at the resurrection, when the apostles found two -angels who were standing over the tomb. Again, at the ascension, when the angels said to the -apostles: “Men of Galilee, why are you standing here looking up to heaven? This Jesus, who -has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have seen him going -into heaven” (Acts 1:11 ).
-331 Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier for Nathanael to believe what -he foretells about the future, saying, you will see. For one who has revealed the truth about -things hidden in the past, has an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is -true. He says, the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man, because, in -his mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this point of view, angels -ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as -was said.
-332 According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his divinity in a beautiful way. For it is -recorded that Jacob dreamed of a ladder, standing on the ground, with “the angels of God -ascending and descending on it” (Gn 28:16). Then Jacob arose and poured oil on a stone and -said, “Truly, the Lord is in this place” (Gn 28:16). Now that stone is Christ, whom the -builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was poured on him. He is set up as a -pillar, because he was to be the foundation of the Church: “No one can lay another foundation -except that which has been laid” (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are ascending and descending -inasmuch as they are ministering and serving before him. So he said, Amen, amen, I say to -you, you will see the heavens opened, and so forth, as if to say: Because you are truly an -Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many believe that I am the one signified by -the stone anointed by Jacob, for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him +
Or, the meaning is, according to Gregory: I saw you when +you were sitting under the fig +tree, i.e., under the shadow of the law. “The law has +only a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb 10:1).
+327 Hearing this, Nathanael is immediately converted, and, +seeing the power of the divinity in Christ, breaks out in words of +conversion and praise, saying, Rabbi, you are the Son of God. Here he +considers three things about Christ. First, the fullness of his +knowledge, when he says, Rabbi, which is translated as Teacher. +As if to say: You are perfect in knowledge. For he had already +realized what is said in Matthew (23:10): “You have one +Teacher, the Christ.” Secondly, the excellence of his +singular grace, when he says, you +are the Son of God. For it is due to grace alone that one +becomes a son of God by adoption. And it is also through grace that +one is a son of God through union; and this is exclusive to the man +Christ, because that man is the Son of God not due to any preceding +merit, but through the grace of union. Thirdly, he considers the +greatness of his power when he says, you are the King of Israel, i.e., +awaited by Israel as its king and defender: “His power is +everlasting” (Dn 7:14).
+328 A question comes up at this point, according to Chrysostom. +For since Peter, who after many miracles and much teaching, +confessed what Nathanael confesses here about Christ, that is, you +are the Son of God, merited +a blessing, as the Lord said: “Blessed are you, Simon +Bar-Jona” (Mt 16:17), why not the same for Nathanael, who +said the same thing before seeing any miracles or receiving any +teaching? Chrysostom answers that the reason for this is that even +though Nathanael and Peter spoke the same words, the meaning of the +two was not the same. For Peter acknowledged that Christ was the +true Son of God by nature, i.e., he was man, and yet truly God; but +Nathanael acknowledged that Christ was the Son of God by means of +adoption, in the sense of, “I said: You are gods, and all of +you the sons of the Most High”(Ps 81:6). This is clear from +what Nathanael said next: for if he had understood that Christ was +the Son of God by nature, he would not have said, you are the King +of Israel, but “of the whole world.” It is also clear +from the fact that Christ added nothing to the faith of Peter, +since it was perfect, but stated that he would build the Church on +that profession. But he raises Nathanael to greater things, since +the greater part of his profession was deficient; to greater +things, i.e., to a knowledge of his divinity.
+329 And so he said, You +will see greater things than +this. Here we have, thirdly, an allusion to the future. As +if to say: Because I have revealed the past to you, you believe +that I am the Son of God only by adoption, and the King of Israel; +but I will bring you to greater knowledge, so that you may believe +that I am the natural Son of God, and the King of all ages. And +accordingly he says, Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the +angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. By +this, according to Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is +the true Son of God, and God. For the peculiar task of angels is to +minister and be subject: “Bless the Lord, all of you, his +angels, his ministers, who do his will” (Ps 102:20). So when +you see angels minister to me, you will be certain that I am the +true Son of God. “When he leads his First-Begotten into the +world, he says: ‘Let all the angels of God adore +him’” (Heb 1:6).
+330 When did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, during +the passion, when an angel stood by to comfort Christ (Lk 22:13); +again, at the resurrection, when the apostles found two angels who +were standing over the tomb. Again, at the ascension, when the +angels said to the apostles: “Men of Galilee, why are you +standing here looking up to heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken +from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have seen +him going into heaven” (Acts 1:11 ).
+331 Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier +for Nathanael to believe what he foretells about the future, +saying, you will see. For +one who has revealed the truth about things hidden in the past, has +an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is +true. He says, the angels of God +ascending and descending on the Son of Man, because, in his +mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this +point of view, angels ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as +he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as was said.
+332 According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his +divinity in a beautiful way. For it is recorded that Jacob dreamed +of a ladder, standing on the ground, with “the angels of God +ascending and descending on it” (Gn 28:16). Then Jacob arose +and poured oil on a stone and said, “Truly, the Lord is in +this place” (Gn 28:16). Now that stone is Christ, whom the +builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was +poured on him. He is set up as a pillar, because he was to be the +foundation of the Church: “No one can lay another foundation +except that which has been laid” (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are +ascending and descending inasmuch as they are ministering and +serving before him. So he said, Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the +heavens opened, and so forth, as if to say: Because you are +truly an Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many +believe that I am the one signified by the stone anointed by Jacob, +for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him [viz. Jesus].
-333 Or, the angels are, according to Augustine, the preachers of Christ: “Go, swift angels, to a -nation rent and torn to pieces,” as it says in Isaiah (18:2). They ascend through contemplation, -just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2); and they descend by -instructing their neighbor. On the Son of Man, i.e., for the honor of Christ, because “what -we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). In order that they might ascend and -descend, the heavens were opened, because heavenly graces must be given to preachers if -they are to ascend and descend. “The heavens broke at the presence of God” (Ps 67:9); “1 saw -the heavens open” (Rv 4:1 ).
-334 Now the reason why Nathanael was not chosen to be an apostle after such a profession of -faith is that Christ did not want the conversion of the world to the faith to be attributed to -human wisdom, but solely to the power of God. And so he did not choose Nathanael as an -apostle, since he was very learned in the law; he rather chose simple and uneducated men. -“Not many of you are learned,” and “God chose the simple of the world” (1 Cor 1:26).
+333 Or, the angels are, according to Augustine, the preachers of +Christ: “Go, swift angels, to a nation rent and torn to +pieces,” as it says in Isaiah (18:2). They ascend through +contemplation, just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven +(2 Cor 12:2); and they descend by instructing their neighbor. +On the Son of Man, i.e., for +the honor of Christ, because “what we preach is not +ourselves, but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). In order that they +might ascend and descend, the heavens were opened, because heavenly +graces must be given to preachers if they are to ascend and +descend. “The heavens broke at the presence of God” (Ps +67:9); “1 saw the heavens open” (Rv 4:1 ).
+334 Now the reason why Nathanael was not chosen to be an apostle +after such a profession of faith is that Christ did not want the +conversion of the world to the faith to be attributed to human +wisdom, but solely to the power of God. And so he did not choose +Nathanael as an apostle, since he was very learned in the law; he +rather chose simple and uneducated men. “Not many of you are +learned,” and “God chose the simple of the world” +(1 Cor 1:26).
+
-10 -
LECTURE I -
- + +1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the -sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a -robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him -the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by -name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before -them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will -not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of -strangers.
+10
+LECTURE I
++1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the +sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a +thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd +of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his +voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 +When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the +sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will +not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the +voice of strangers.
+1364 After our Lord showed that his teaching had power to -enlighten, he here shows that he has power to give life. First, he shows this -by word; secondly, by a miracle (chap 11). Concerning the first he does three -things. First, he shows that he has life-giving power; secondly, his manner of -giving life (v 11); thirdly, he explains his power to give life (v 19). The -first part is divided into three parts. First, our Lord relates a parable; -secondly, the Evangelist mentions the necessity for explaining it (v 6); -thirdly, our Lord explains the parable (v 7). - -
He relates the parable to them, -saying, Truly, truly, I say to you. It concerns two things, a thief and -the shepherd of the sheep. Thus he does three things. First, he mentions the -mark of a thief and robber; secondly, a characteristic of the shepherd (v 2); -thirdly, the effect each of these has (v 4). - -
1365 To understand this parable we must consider who the -sheep are, namely, that they are the faithful of Christ and those in the grace -of God: "We are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand" (Ps -95:7); "You, the people, are the sheep of my pasture" [Ez 34:31]. And so the -sheepfold is the multitude of the faithful: "I will surely gather all of you, O -Jacob, I will gather the remnant of Israel; I will set them together like sheep -in a fold" (Mic 2:12). The door of the sheepfold is explained in different ways -by Chrysostom and by Augustine. - -
1366 According to Chrysostom, Christ calls Sacred Scripture -the door, according to "Pray for us also that God may open to us a door for the -word" (Col 4:3). Sacred Scripture is called a door, as Chrysostom says, first -of all, because through it we have access to the knowledge of God: "which he -promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures" (Rom 1:2). -Secondly, for just as the door guards the sheep, so Sacred Scripture preserves -the life of the faithful: "You search the scriptures, because you think that in -them you have eternal life" (5:39). Thirdly, because the door keeps the wolf -from entering; so Sacred Scripture keeps heretics from harming the faithful: -"Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, -for correction" (2 Tim 3:16). So, the one who does not enter by the door is the -one who does not enter by Sacred Scripture to teach the people. Our Lord says -of such: "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of -men" (Matt 15:9); "You have made void the word of God" (Matt 15:6). This, then, -is the mark of the thief: he does not enter by the door, but in some other way. [1] - -
He adds that the thief climbs, -and this is appropriate to this parable because thieves climb the walls, -instead of entering by the door, and drop into the sheepfold. It also corresponds -to the truth, because the reason why some teach what conflicts with Sacred -Scripture is due to pride: "If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree -with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords -with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing" (1 Tim 6:3). -Referring to this he says that such a person climbs, that is, through -pride. The one who climbs in by another way, that man is a thief, -because he snatches what is not his, and a robber, because he kills what -he snatches: "If thieves came to you, if plunderers by night - how you have -been destroyed" (Obad v 5). - -
According to this explanation, the -relation with what preceded is made in this way: Since our Lord had said, "If -you were blind, you would have no guilt," the Jews might have answered: "We do -not believe you, but this is not due to our blindness. It is because of your -own error that we have turned away from you." And so our Lord rejects this, and -wishes to show that he is not in error because he enters by the door, by Sacred -Scripture, that is, he teaches what is contained in Sacred Scripture. - -
1367 Against this interpretation is the fact that when our -Lord explains this further on, he says, I am the door. So it seems that -we should understand the door to be Christ. In answer to this, Chrysostom says -that in this parable our Lord refers to himself both as the door and the -shepherd; but this is from different points of view, because a door and a -shepherd are different.[2] -Now aside from Christ nothing is more fittingly called a door than Sacred -Scripture, for the reasons given above. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is -fittingly called a door. - +enlighten, he here shows that he has power to give life. First, he +shows this by word; secondly, by a miracle (chap 11). Concerning +the first he does three things. First, he shows that he has +life-giving power; secondly, his manner of giving life (v 11); +thirdly, he explains his power to give life (v 19). The first part +is divided into three parts. First, our Lord relates a parable; +secondly, the Evangelist mentions the necessity for explaining it +(v 6); thirdly, our Lord explains the parable (v 7).
+He relates the parable to them, saying, Truly, truly, I say +to you. It concerns two things, a thief and the shepherd of the +sheep. Thus he does three things. First, he mentions the mark of a +thief and robber; secondly, a characteristic of the shepherd (v 2); +thirdly, the effect each of these has (v 4).
+1365 To understand this parable we must consider who the sheep +are, namely, that they are the faithful of Christ and those in the +grace of God: "We are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of +his hand" (Ps 95:7); "You, the people, are the sheep of my pasture" +[Ez 34:31]. And so the sheepfold is the multitude of the faithful: +"I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob, I will gather the +remnant of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a fold" +(Mic 2:12). The door of the sheepfold is explained in different +ways by Chrysostom and by Augustine.
+1366 According to Chrysostom, Christ calls Sacred Scripture the +door, according to "Pray for us also that God may open to us a door +for the word" (Col 4:3). Sacred Scripture is called a door, as +Chrysostom says, first of all, because through it we have access to +the knowledge of God: "which he promised beforehand through his +prophets in the holy scriptures" (Rom 1:2). Secondly, for just as +the door guards the sheep, so Sacred Scripture preserves the life +of the faithful: "You search the scriptures, because you think that +in them you have eternal life" (5:39). Thirdly, because the door +keeps the wolf from entering; so Sacred Scripture keeps heretics +from harming the faithful: "Every scripture inspired by God is also +profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction" (2 Tim 3:16). +So, the one who does not enter by the door is the one who does not +enter by Sacred Scripture to teach the people. Our Lord says of +such: "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the +precepts of men" (Matt 15:9); "You have made void the word of God" +(Matt 15:6). This, then, is the mark of the thief: he does not +enter by the door, but in some other way. [1]
+He adds that the thief climbs, and this is appropriate to +this parable because thieves climb the walls, instead of entering +by the door, and drop into the sheepfold. It also corresponds to +the truth, because the reason why some teach what conflicts with +Sacred Scripture is due to pride: "If any one teaches otherwise and +does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and +the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with +conceit, he knows nothing" (1 Tim 6:3). Referring to this he says +that such a person climbs, that is, through pride. The one +who climbs in by another way, that man is a thief, because +he snatches what is not his, and a robber, because he kills +what he snatches: "If thieves came to you, if plunderers by night - +how you have been destroyed" (Obad v 5).
+According to this explanation, the relation with what preceded +is made in this way: Since our Lord had said, "If you were blind, +you would have no guilt," the Jews might have answered: "We do not +believe you, but this is not due to our blindness. It is because of +your own error that we have turned away from you." And so our Lord +rejects this, and wishes to show that he is not in error because he +enters by the door, by Sacred Scripture, that is, he teaches what +is contained in Sacred Scripture.
+1367 Against this interpretation is the fact that when our Lord +explains this further on, he says, I am the door. So it +seems that we should understand the door to be Christ. In answer to +this, Chrysostom says that in this parable our Lord refers to +himself both as the door and the shepherd; but this is from +different points of view, because a door and a shepherd are +different.[2] +Now aside from Christ nothing is more fittingly called a door than +Sacred Scripture, for the reasons given above. Therefore, Sacred +Scripture is fittingly called a door.
1368 According to Augustine, the door is Christ, because one -enters through him: "After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door!" (Rev -4:1). Therefore, any one who enters the sheepfold should enter by the door, -that is, by Christ, and not by another way.[3] - -
Note that both the sheep and their -shepherd enter into the sheepfold: the sheep in order to be secure there, and -the shepherd in order to guard the sheep. And so, if you wish to enter as a -sheep to be kept safe there, or as a shepherd to keep the people safe, you must -enter the sheepfold through Christ. You must not enter by any other way, as did -the philosophers who treated the principle virtues, and the Pharisees who -established the ceremonial traditions. These are neither sheep nor shepherds -because, as our Lord says, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, -i.e., does not enter by Christ, but climbs in by another way, that man is a -thief and a robber, because he destroys both himself and others. For Christ -and no one else is the door into the sheepfold, that is, the multitude of the -faithful: "We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1); -"there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" -(Acts 4:12). - -
According to this exposition, the -connection with what went before is made in this way: Because they said that -they could see without Christ - "now that you say, 'We see'" - our Lord shows -that this is not true, because they do not enter by the door. Thus he says, Truly, -truly, I say to you… - -
It should be noted that just as one -who does not enter by the door as a sheep cannot be kept safe, so one who -enters as a shepherd cannot guard the sheep unless he enters by the door, -namely, by Christ. This is the door through which the true shepherds have -entered: "And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by -God, just as Aaron was" (Heb 5:4). Evil shepherds do not enter by the door, but -by ambition and secular power and simony; and these are thieves and robbers: -"They set up princes, but without my knowledge," that is, without my approval -(Hos 8:5). Further, he says such a person climbs in by another way, -because the door, namely, Christ, since it is small through humility - "Learn -from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart" (Matt 11:29) - can be entered only -by those who imitate the humility of Christ. Therefore, those who do not enter -by the door but climb in by another way are the proud. They do not imitate him -who, although he was God, became man; and they do not recognize his lowering of -himself. - -
1369 Now he considers the shepherd. First, he mentions the -mark of the shepherd; secondly, he shows through signs that he is the shepherd -(v 3). - -
1370 The mark of the true shepherd is to enter by the door, -that is, by the testimony of Sacred Scripture. Thus Christ said: "Everything -written about me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be -fulfilled" (Lk 24:44). He is called a shepherd: "I am not troubled when I -follow you as my shepherd" [Jer 17:16]; "He rebukes and trains and teaches -them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock" (Sir 18:13). - -
But if the door is Christ, as -Augustine explains it, then in entering by the door, he enters by himself.[4] -And this is special to Christ: for no one can enter the door, i.e., to -beatitude, except by the truth, because beatitude is nothing else than joy in -the truth. But Christ, as God, is the truth; therefore, as man, he enters by -himself, that is, by the truth, which he is as God. We, however, are not the -truth, but children of the light, by participating in the true and uncreated -light. Consequently, we have to enter by the truth which is Christ: "Sanctify -them in the truth" (17:17); "If any one enters by me, he will be saved" (10:9). -If one wishes to enter even as a shepherd, he must enter by the door, that is, -Christ, according to his truth, will and consent. Thus we read in Ezekiel -(24:23): "And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he -shall feed them." This is like saying: They must be given by me, and not by -others or themselves. - -
1371 Now he mentions the signs of a good shepherd; and there -are three. The first relates to the gatekeeper, and is that the good shepherd -is let in by him. As to this he says, to him the gatekeeper opens. This -gatekeeper, according to Chrysostom, is the one who opens the way to a -knowledge of Sacred Scripture.[5] -The first one to do this was Moses, who first received and established Sacred -Scripture. And Moses opened to Christ, because as was said above: "If you -believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me" (5:46). - -
Or, according to Augustine, the -gatekeeper is Christ himself, because he brings us himself.[6] -He says, "He opens himself who reveals himself, and we enter only by his -grace." "For by grace you have been saved" (Eph 2:8). It does not matter if -Christ, who is the door, is also the gatekeeper; for certain things are -compatible in spiritual matters that cannot occur in physical reality. Now -there seems to be a greater difference between a shepherd and a door than -between a door and a gatekeeper. Therefore, since Christ can be called both a -shepherd and a door, as was said, much more so can he be called a door and a -gatekeeper. But if you prefer that someone other than Moses or Christ be the -gatekeeper, then consider the Holy Spirit the gatekeeper, as Augustine says.[7] -For it is the office of a gatekeeper to open the door, and it says below of the -Holy Spirit that "He will guide you into all the truth" (16:13). And Christ is -the door insofar as he is the Truth. - -
1372 The second sign relates to the sheep, and it is that -they obey the shepherd. This is what he says, the sheep hear his voice. -This is reasonable if the resemblance to a natural shepherd is considered: -because just as sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd due to familiar -experience, so righteous believers hear the voice of Christ: "O that today you -would harken to his voice" (Ps 95:7). - -
1373 But what of the fact that many who are Christ's sheep -did not hear his voice, as Paul; or that some who were not his sheep did here -it, as Judas? One might reply that Judas was Christ's sheep for that time as to -his present righteousness. And Paul, when he did not hear the voice of Christ, -was not a sheep but a wolf; but when the voice of Christ came it changed the -wolf into a sheep. This reply could be accepted if it were not contrary to a -statement in Ezekiel (34:4): "The crippled you have not bound up, the strayed -you have not brought back." It seems from this that even when they were -crippled and strayed they were sheep. Therefore, one must say that here our -Lord is speaking of his sheep not only according to their present righteousness -but even according to their eternal predestination. For there is a certain -voice of Christ that only the predestined can hear, i.e., "He who endures to -the end" (Matt 10:22). - -
Again, he says, the sheep hear -his voice, because they might offer as an excuse for their unbelief the -fact that not only they, but none of the leaders believed in him. So he says in -answer to this, the sheep hear his voice, as if saying: They do not -believe because they are not my sheep. - -
1374 The third sign is taken from the actions of the -shepherd. Here he mentions four actions of a good shepherd: the first being -that he knows his sheep. He says, he calls his own sheep by name, which -shows his knowledge of and familiarity with his sheep, for we call by name -those whom we know familiarly: "I know you by name" (Ex 33:17). This is part of -the office of a shepherd according to: "Be diligent to know the countenance of -your flock" [Prv 27:23]. This applies to Christ according to his present -knowledge, but even more so considering eternal predestination, by which he -knew them by name from eternity: "He determined the number of the stars, he -gives to all of them their names" (Ps 147:4); "The Lord knows those who are -his" (2 Tim 2:19). - -
The second action of a good -shepherd is that he leads them out, i.e., he separates them from the -society of those who are evil: "He brought them out of darkness and gloom" (Ps -107:14). - -
The third is that having separated -them from evil and having brought them into the sheepfold, he has brought -out all his own, from the sheepfold. He does this, first, for the salvation -of others: "I will send survivors to the nations" (Is 66:19); "Behold, I send -you as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Matt 10:16), so that they can make sheep -out of the wolves. Secondly, they are to show the direction and way to eternal -life: "To guide our feet into the way of peace" (Lk 1:79). - -
Fourthly, the good shepherd goes -before his sleep by the example of a good life; so he says, he goes before -them, although this is not what the literal shepherd does, for he follows, -as in "I took him from following the ewes" [Ps 78:70]. But the good shepherd -goes before them by example, "not as domineering over those in your charge but -being examples to the flock" (1 Pet 5:3). And Christ does go before them: for -he was the first to die for the teaching of the truth - "If any man would come -after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matt -16:24); and he went before all into everlasting life - "He who opens the breach -will go up before them" (Mic 2:13). - +enters through him: "After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open +door!" (Rev 4:1). Therefore, any one who enters the sheepfold +should enter by the door, that is, by Christ, and not by another +way.[3]
+Note that both the sheep and their shepherd enter into the +sheepfold: the sheep in order to be secure there, and the shepherd +in order to guard the sheep. And so, if you wish to enter as a +sheep to be kept safe there, or as a shepherd to keep the people +safe, you must enter the sheepfold through Christ. You must not +enter by any other way, as did the philosophers who treated the +principle virtues, and the Pharisees who established the ceremonial +traditions. These are neither sheep nor shepherds because, as our +Lord says, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, +i.e., does not enter by Christ, but climbs in by another way, +that man is a thief and a robber, because he destroys both +himself and others. For Christ and no one else is the door into the +sheepfold, that is, the multitude of the faithful: "We have peace +with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1); "there is no +other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" +(Acts 4:12).
+According to this exposition, the connection with what went +before is made in this way: Because they said that they could see +without Christ - "now that you say, 'We see'" - our Lord shows that +this is not true, because they do not enter by the door. Thus he +says, Truly, truly, I say to you…
+It should be noted that just as one who does not enter by the +door as a sheep cannot be kept safe, so one who enters as a +shepherd cannot guard the sheep unless he enters by the door, +namely, by Christ. This is the door through which the true +shepherds have entered: "And one does not take the honor upon +himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was" (Heb 5:4). +Evil shepherds do not enter by the door, but by ambition and +secular power and simony; and these are thieves and robbers: "They +set up princes, but without my knowledge," that is, without my +approval (Hos 8:5). Further, he says such a person climbs in by +another way, because the door, namely, Christ, since it is +small through humility - "Learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly +in heart" (Matt 11:29) - can be entered only by those who imitate +the humility of Christ. Therefore, those who do not enter by the +door but climb in by another way are the proud. They do not imitate +him who, although he was God, became man; and they do not recognize +his lowering of himself.
+1369 Now he considers the shepherd. First, he mentions the mark +of the shepherd; secondly, he shows through signs that he is the +shepherd (v 3).
+1370 The mark of the true shepherd is to enter by the door, that +is, by the testimony of Sacred Scripture. Thus Christ said: +"Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the prophets +and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44). He is called a +shepherd: "I am not troubled when I follow you as my shepherd" [Jer +17:16]; "He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them +back, as a shepherd his flock" (Sir 18:13).
+But if the door is Christ, as Augustine explains it, then in +entering by the door, he enters by himself.[4] And this is special to Christ: for +no one can enter the door, i.e., to beatitude, except by the truth, +because beatitude is nothing else than joy in the truth. But +Christ, as God, is the truth; therefore, as man, he enters by +himself, that is, by the truth, which he is as God. We, however, +are not the truth, but children of the light, by participating in +the true and uncreated light. Consequently, we have to enter by the +truth which is Christ: "Sanctify them in the truth" (17:17); "If +any one enters by me, he will be saved" (10:9). If one wishes to +enter even as a shepherd, he must enter by the door, that is, +Christ, according to his truth, will and consent. Thus we read in +Ezekiel (24:23): "And I will set up over them one shepherd, my +servant David, and he shall feed them." This is like saying: They +must be given by me, and not by others or themselves.
+1371 Now he mentions the signs of a good shepherd; and there are +three. The first relates to the gatekeeper, and is that the good +shepherd is let in by him. As to this he says, to him the +gatekeeper opens. This gatekeeper, according to Chrysostom, is +the one who opens the way to a knowledge of Sacred +Scripture.[5] +The first one to do this was Moses, who first received and +established Sacred Scripture. And Moses opened to Christ, because +as was said above: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, +for he wrote of me" (5:46).
+Or, according to Augustine, the gatekeeper is Christ himself, +because he brings us himself.[6] He says, "He opens himself who reveals himself, +and we enter only by his grace." "For by grace you have been saved" +(Eph 2:8). It does not matter if Christ, who is the door, is also +the gatekeeper; for certain things are compatible in spiritual +matters that cannot occur in physical reality. Now there seems to +be a greater difference between a shepherd and a door than between +a door and a gatekeeper. Therefore, since Christ can be called both +a shepherd and a door, as was said, much more so can he be called a +door and a gatekeeper. But if you prefer that someone other than +Moses or Christ be the gatekeeper, then consider the Holy Spirit +the gatekeeper, as Augustine says.[7] For it is the office of a gatekeeper to open +the door, and it says below of the Holy Spirit that "He will guide +you into all the truth" (16:13). And Christ is the door insofar as +he is the Truth.
+1372 The second sign relates to the sheep, and it is that they +obey the shepherd. This is what he says, the sheep hear his +voice. This is reasonable if the resemblance to a natural +shepherd is considered: because just as sheep recognize the voice +of their shepherd due to familiar experience, so righteous +believers hear the voice of Christ: "O that today you would harken +to his voice" (Ps 95:7).
+1373 But what of the fact that many who are Christ's sheep did +not hear his voice, as Paul; or that some who were not his sheep +did here it, as Judas? One might reply that Judas was Christ's +sheep for that time as to his present righteousness. And Paul, when +he did not hear the voice of Christ, was not a sheep but a wolf; +but when the voice of Christ came it changed the wolf into a sheep. +This reply could be accepted if it were not contrary to a statement +in Ezekiel (34:4): "The crippled you have not bound up, the strayed +you have not brought back." It seems from this that even when they +were crippled and strayed they were sheep. Therefore, one must say +that here our Lord is speaking of his sheep not only according to +their present righteousness but even according to their eternal +predestination. For there is a certain voice of Christ that only +the predestined can hear, i.e., "He who endures to the end" (Matt +10:22).
+Again, he says, the sheep hear his voice, because they +might offer as an excuse for their unbelief the fact that not only +they, but none of the leaders believed in him. So he says in answer +to this, the sheep hear his voice, as if saying: They do not +believe because they are not my sheep.
+1374 The third sign is taken from the actions of the shepherd. +Here he mentions four actions of a good shepherd: the first being +that he knows his sheep. He says, he calls his own sheep by +name, which shows his knowledge of and familiarity with his +sheep, for we call by name those whom we know familiarly: "I know +you by name" (Ex 33:17). This is part of the office of a shepherd +according to: "Be diligent to know the countenance of your flock" +[Prv 27:23]. This applies to Christ according to his present +knowledge, but even more so considering eternal predestination, by +which he knew them by name from eternity: "He determined the number +of the stars, he gives to all of them their names" (Ps 147:4); "The +Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19).
+The second action of a good shepherd is that he leads them +out, i.e., he separates them from the society of those who are +evil: "He brought them out of darkness and gloom" (Ps 107:14).
+The third is that having separated them from evil and having +brought them into the sheepfold, he has brought out all his +own, from the sheepfold. He does this, first, for the salvation +of others: "I will send survivors to the nations" (Is 66:19); +"Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Matt 10:16), +so that they can make sheep out of the wolves. Secondly, they are +to show the direction and way to eternal life: "To guide our feet +into the way of peace" (Lk 1:79).
+Fourthly, the good shepherd goes before his sleep by the example +of a good life; so he says, he goes before them, although +this is not what the literal shepherd does, for he follows, as in +"I took him from following the ewes" [Ps 78:70]. But the good +shepherd goes before them by example, "not as domineering over +those in your charge but being examples to the flock" (1 Pet 5:3). +And Christ does go before them: for he was the first to die for the +teaching of the truth - "If any man would come after me, let him +deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matt 16:24); and +he went before all into everlasting life - "He who opens the breach +will go up before them" (Mic 2:13).
1375 Now he considers the effect that both the thief and the -shepherd have upon the sheep. First, he mentions the effect of the good -shepherd; secondly, the effect of the wolf and the thief (v5). - -
1376 He says, first, that the sheep follow him who -goes before them. This is easy to see, because subjects follow in the steps of -their leaders, as is stated: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an -example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21); "My foot has held -fast to his steps" (Job 23:11). The sheep follow for they know his voice, -i.e., they know it and take delight in it: "Let me hear your voice, for your -voice is sweet" (Song 2:14). - +shepherd have upon the sheep. First, he mentions the effect of the +good shepherd; secondly, the effect of the wolf and the thief +(v5).
+1376 He says, first, that the sheep follow him who goes +before them. This is easy to see, because subjects follow in the +steps of their leaders, as is stated: "Christ also suffered for +you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" +(1 Pet 2:21); "My foot has held fast to his steps" (Job 23:11). The +sheep follow for they know his voice, i.e., they know it and +take delight in it: "Let me hear your voice, for your voice is +sweet" (Song 2:14).
1377 The effect that the thief has is that the sheep do not -follow him for very long, but only for a time; so he says, a stranger they -will not follow, i.e., they do not follow a false and heretical teacher: -"The children who are strangers have lied to me" [Ps 17:46]. Thus Paul did not -follow false teachers for long. But they will flee from him, because -"Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor 15:33). They flee for they do not -know, that is, do not approve of, the voice of strangers, meaning -their teaching, which spreads stealthily like a cancer. -
-LECTURE 2 - -
- -6 This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not -understand what he was saying to them. 7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, -truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are -thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. 9 I am the door; if any -one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 -The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have -life, and have it abundantly."[8]
1378 Here the Evangelist tells why it was necessary to -explain the above similitude; and this necessity was caused by the failure of -his listeners to understand. First, he mentions the reason why they failed to -understand; secondly, he says they failed to understand. - -
1379 The cause of their failure to understand was that -Christ was speaking in figures. The Evangelist says, This figure [proverbium] -Jesus used with them. A figure [proverbium], properly speaking, -is the use of one word in place of another, when it is intended that one word -be understood from its likeness to the other. This is also called a parable [parabola]. -Our Lord spoke in figures, first of all, because of the wicked, in order to -conceal from them the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: "To you it has been -given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in -parables" (Lk 8:10). Secondly, because of the good, so that his figures might -stir them up to make further inquiry. So, after our Lord spoke his figures or -parables to the crowds, his disciples questioned him in private, as mentioned -in Matthew (13:10) and Mark (4:10). This is the reason why Augustine says: "Our -Lord feeds" the believing crowds "with clear words, and stirs up" his disciples -"with things that are obscure."[9] - -
1380 The Evangelist discloses their failure to understand -when he says, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. -The ignorance which resulted from Christ's figures was both useful and harmful. -For the good and the just [who tried to understand them] it was useful for -giving praise to God; for although they did not understand, they believed and -praised the Lord and his wisdom which was so far above them: "It is the glory -of God to conceal the word" [Prv 25:2]. But for the wicked, it was a source of -harm, because, failing to understand, they blasphemed: "But these men revile -whatever they do not understand" (Jude 10). As Augustine observes, when both -the good and the wicked hear the words of the Gospel, and neither of them -understands, the good person says that what was said was true and good, but -that he does not understand it. Such a person is knocking and deserves to have -the door opened, provided he perseveres. But the wicked person says that what -was said had no meaning or was evil.[10] - - -
1381 Now our Lord explains the similitude. If the above similitude -is examined correctly, it contains two principal clauses, followed by others. -The first is: "He who does not enter the sheepfold by the door…is a thief and a -robber." The second is: "He who enters by the door is the shepherd of the -sheep." Accordingly, this section is divided into two parts. First, he explains -the first clause; then the second clause (v 11). Concerning the first he does -two things: first, he explains the first clause; secondly, he proves it (v 7). -The first clause mentions a door, a thief and a robber; so first he explains -the door, then the thief and then the robber (v 8). - +follow him for very long, but only for a time; so he says, a +stranger they will not follow, i.e., they do not follow a false +and heretical teacher: "The children who are strangers have lied to +me" [Ps 17:46]. Thus Paul did not follow false teachers for long. +But they will flee from him, because "Bad company ruins good +morals" (1 Cor 15:33). They flee for they do not know, that +is, do not approve of, the voice of strangers, meaning their +teaching, which spreads stealthily like a cancer.
+
+
+LECTURE 2
+++6 This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand +what he was saying to them. 7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, +truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came +before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. +9 I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and +will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to +steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and +have it abundantly."[8]
+1378 Here the Evangelist tells why it was necessary to explain +the above similitude; and this necessity was caused by the failure +of his listeners to understand. First, he mentions the reason why +they failed to understand; secondly, he says they failed to +understand.
+1379 The cause of their failure to understand was that Christ +was speaking in figures. The Evangelist says, This figure +[proverbium] Jesus used with them. A figure +[proverbium], properly speaking, is the use of one word in +place of another, when it is intended that one word be understood +from its likeness to the other. This is also called a parable +[parabola]. Our Lord spoke in figures, first of all, because +of the wicked, in order to conceal from them the mysteries of the +kingdom of heaven: "To you it has been given to know the secrets of +the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables" (Lk 8:10). +Secondly, because of the good, so that his figures might stir them +up to make further inquiry. So, after our Lord spoke his figures or +parables to the crowds, his disciples questioned him in private, as +mentioned in Matthew (13:10) and Mark (4:10). This is the reason +why Augustine says: "Our Lord feeds" the believing crowds "with +clear words, and stirs up" his disciples "with things that are +obscure."[9]
+1380 The Evangelist discloses their failure to understand when +he says, but they did not understand what he was saying to +them. The ignorance which resulted from Christ's figures was +both useful and harmful. For the good and the just [who tried to +understand them] it was useful for giving praise to God; for +although they did not understand, they believed and praised the +Lord and his wisdom which was so far above them: "It is the glory +of God to conceal the word" [Prv 25:2]. But for the wicked, it was +a source of harm, because, failing to understand, they blasphemed: +"But these men revile whatever they do not understand" (Jude 10). +As Augustine observes, when both the good and the wicked hear the +words of the Gospel, and neither of them understands, the good +person says that what was said was true and good, but that he does +not understand it. Such a person is knocking and deserves to have +the door opened, provided he perseveres. But the wicked person says +that what was said had no meaning or was evil.[10]
+1381 Now our Lord explains the similitude. If the above +similitude is examined correctly, it contains two principal +clauses, followed by others. The first is: "He who does not enter +the sheepfold by the door…is a thief and a robber." The +second is: "He who enters by the door is the shepherd of the +sheep." Accordingly, this section is divided into two parts. First, +he explains the first clause; then the second clause (v 11). +Concerning the first he does two things: first, he explains the +first clause; secondly, he proves it (v 7). The first clause +mentions a door, a thief and a robber; so first he explains the +door, then the thief and then the robber (v 8).
1382 Concerning the first he says, So Jesus again said to -them, to gain their attention and have them understand the similitude: "The -man of understanding may acquire skill to understand a proverb and a figure" -(Prv 1:6). Jesus said, Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door. Now -the purpose of a door is to conduct one into the inner rooms of a house; and -this is fitting to Christ, for one must enter into the secrets of God through -him: "This is the gate of the Lord," that is, Christ, "the righteous shall -enter through it" (Ps 118:20). He says, I am the door of the sheep, -because through Christ not only the shepherds are brought into the present -Church or enter into everlasting happiness, but the sheep also. Thus he says -below: "My sheep hear my voice…and they follow me; and I give them eternal -life" (10:27). - -
1383 Then when he says, All who came before me are -thieves and robbers, he explains what he had said about thieves and -robbers. First, he shows who the thieves and robbers are; secondly, their sign. - -
1384 In regard to the first, we should avoid the error of -the Manicheans, who rejected the Old Testament on the ground that it says here that -all who came before me are thieves. They maintained that the fathers of the -Old Testament, who came before Christ, were evil and have been damned. - -
The falsity of this view is clear -from three things. First, from what this parable says. For the statement, all -who came before me, is intended as a description of the previous statement, -which mentioned those who do not enter by the door. Therefore, all who came -before me, but not through me, that is, not entering by the door, are -thieves and robbers. It is clear that all the patriarchs and prophets, whom -the Christ-to-come had sent forerunners, entered by the door, i.e., Christ. For -although he took flesh and became man in time, he was the Word of God from all -eternity: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (Heb -13:8). Indeed, the prophets were sent by the Word and Wisdom of God: "In every -generation she," the Wisdom of God, "passes into holy souls and makes them -friends of God, and prophets" (Wis 7:27). Accordingly, we expressly read in the -prophets that the word of God came to this or that prophet, who prophesied by -participating in the Word of God. - -
Secondly, the falsity of the -teaching of the Manicheans is seen when our Lord says, all who came before -me, implying that they were thrusting themselves forward on their own -authority and were not sent by God: "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran" -(Jer 23:21). Indeed, such prophets have not come from the Word of God: "Woe to -the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Ez -13:3). But the fathers of the Old Testament were not of this type, as has been -said. - -
Thirdly, this falsity is seen from -the fact that he shows what effect their words had, for we read, but the -sheep did not heed them. Therefore, those whom the sheep did heed were not -thieves and robbers. Now the people of Israel did listen to the prophets, and -those who did not heed them were rebuked in Sacred Scripture: "Which of the -prophets did not your fathers persecute?" (Acts 7:52); "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, -killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!" (Matt 23:37). - -
1385 Having excluded this error, it must be said that all -who came before me, that is, independently of me, without divine -inspiration and authority, and not with the intention of seeking the glory of -God but acquiring their own, are thieves, insofar as they take for -themselves what is not theirs, that is, the authority to teach - "Your princes -are rebels and companions of thieves" (Is 1:23) - and robbers, because -they kill with their corrupt doctrine - "You make it a den of robbers" (Matt -21:13); "As robbers lie in wait for a man…they murder on the way" (Hos 6:9). But -the sheep, that is, the predestined, did not heed them, the thieves -and robbers, otherwise they would not have been Christ's sheep, because, as was -said before, "A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him." -Furthermore, this is commanded in Deuteronomy: "You shall not listen to the -words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams" (13:3). - -
-1386 I am the door. Here he clarifies his explanation: first, of the -door; secondly, of the thief (v 10). Concerning the first, he does two things: -first, he repeats what he intends to explain; and secondly, he gives the -explanation (v 9). - -1387 He repeats what he had already said, namely, I am -the door: "If she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar" -(Song 8:9), that is, let us grant her an incorruptible power. - -
1388 He explains this when he says, if any one enters by -me, he will be saved. First, he shows that the purpose of a door, which is -to keep the sheep safe, applies to himself; secondly, he mentions the manner in -which they are kept safe (v 9b). - -
1389 The door safeguards the sheep by keeping those within -from going out, and by protecting them from strangers who want to come in. And -this applies to Christ, for he is our safeguard and protection. And this is -what he says: if any one, not with insincerity, enters, into the -fellowship of the Church and of the faithful, by me, the door, he will be -saved, i.e., if he perseveres: "For there is no other name under heaven -given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12); "We shall be saved by -his life" (Rom 5:10). - -
1390 The way the sheep are safeguarded is set forth when he -says that he will go in and out and find pasture. This statement can be -explained in four ways. First of all, according to Chrysostom, it simply -affirms the security and freedom of those who cling to Christ.[11] -For one who enters some other way than by the door does not have free entry and -exit; but one who does enter by the door has free exit, because he can leave -freely. Therefore, when he says, he will go in and out, the meaning is -that the Apostles adhering to Christ enter with security by living with the -faithful, who are within the Church, and with unbelievers who are outside, when -they became masters of the whole world and no one wished to cast them out: "Let -the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh appoint a man over the -congregation, who shall go out before them and come in before them…that the -congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep which have no shepherd" (Num -27:16). And find pasture, find delight in converting others, and find -joy even when persecuted by unbelievers for the name of Christ: "Then they left -the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer -dishonor for the name," as we read in Acts (5:41). - -
1391 Secondly, this can be explained as Augustine does in -his Commentary on John.[12] -Two things are incumbent upon anyone who acts well, namely to be well-ordered -to the things that are within him, and to those that are without. Within a -person is the spirit, and without is the body: "Though our outer nature is -wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day" (2 Cor 4:16). -Therefore, a person who clings to Christ will go in through contemplation, -to protect his conscience - "When I enter my house," i.e., my conscience, "I -shall find rest with her," i.e., with wisdom (Wis 8:16) - and out, -namely, by good actions, to tame the body - "Man goes forth to his work and to -his labor until the evening" (Ps 104:23) - and find pasture, in a clean -and sincere conscience - "I will appear before your sight: I will be satisfied -when your glory appears" [Ps 16:15]. Again, by his actions he will find -pasture, i.e., fruit - "He shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his -sheaves with him" (Ps 126:6). - -
- -
1392 The third explanation is also Augustine's as well as -that given by Gregory in his Commentary on Ezekiel.[13] -The meaning, then, is this. Such a one will go in, i.e., into the -Church, by believing - "I shall go over into the place of the wonderful -tabernacle" [Ps 41:5], and this is to enter the Church Militant; and out, -from the Church Militant into the Church Triumphant - "Go forth, O daughters of -Zion, and behold King Solomon, with the crown with which his mother crowned him -on the day of the wedding" (Song 3:11); and find pasture, that is, the -pastures of doctrine and grace in the Church Militant - "He makes me lie down -in green pastures"; and the pastures of glory in the Church Triumphant: "I will -feed them with good pasture" (Ez 34:14). - +them, to gain their attention and have them understand the +similitude: "The man of understanding may acquire skill to +understand a proverb and a figure" (Prv 1:6). Jesus said, Truly, +truly, I say to you, I am the door. Now the purpose of a door +is to conduct one into the inner rooms of a house; and this is +fitting to Christ, for one must enter into the secrets of God +through him: "This is the gate of the Lord," that is, Christ, "the +righteous shall enter through it" (Ps 118:20). He says, I am the +door of the sheep, because through Christ not only the +shepherds are brought into the present Church or enter into +everlasting happiness, but the sheep also. Thus he says below: "My +sheep hear my voice…and they follow me; and I give them +eternal life" (10:27).
+1383 Then when he says, All who came before me are thieves +and robbers, he explains what he had said about thieves and +robbers. First, he shows who the thieves and robbers are; secondly, +their sign.
+1384 In regard to the first, we should avoid the error of the +Manicheans, who rejected the Old Testament on the ground that it +says here that all who came before me are thieves. They +maintained that the fathers of the Old Testament, who came before +Christ, were evil and have been damned.
+The falsity of this view is clear from three things. First, from +what this parable says. For the statement, all who came before +me, is intended as a description of the previous statement, +which mentioned those who do not enter by the door. Therefore, +all who came before me, but not through me, that is, not +entering by the door, are thieves and robbers. It is clear +that all the patriarchs and prophets, whom the Christ-to-come had +sent forerunners, entered by the door, i.e., Christ. For although +he took flesh and became man in time, he was the Word of God from +all eternity: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for +ever" (Heb 13:8). Indeed, the prophets were sent by the Word and +Wisdom of God: "In every generation she," the Wisdom of God, +"passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and +prophets" (Wis 7:27). Accordingly, we expressly read in the +prophets that the word of God came to this or that prophet, who +prophesied by participating in the Word of God.
+Secondly, the falsity of the teaching of the Manicheans is seen +when our Lord says, all who came before me, implying that +they were thrusting themselves forward on their own authority and +were not sent by God: "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran" +(Jer 23:21). Indeed, such prophets have not come from the Word of +God: "Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and +have seen nothing" (Ez 13:3). But the fathers of the Old Testament +were not of this type, as has been said.
+Thirdly, this falsity is seen from the fact that he shows what +effect their words had, for we read, but the sheep did not heed +them. Therefore, those whom the sheep did heed were not thieves +and robbers. Now the people of Israel did listen to the prophets, +and those who did not heed them were rebuked in Sacred Scripture: +"Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?" (Acts +7:52); "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning +those who are sent to you!" (Matt 23:37).
+1385 Having excluded this error, it must be said that all who +came before me, that is, independently of me, without divine +inspiration and authority, and not with the intention of seeking +the glory of God but acquiring their own, are thieves, +insofar as they take for themselves what is not theirs, that is, +the authority to teach - "Your princes are rebels and companions of +thieves" (Is 1:23) - and robbers, because they kill with +their corrupt doctrine - "You make it a den of robbers" (Matt +21:13); "As robbers lie in wait for a man…they murder on the +way" (Hos 6:9). But the sheep, that is, the predestined, +did not heed them, the thieves and robbers, otherwise they +would not have been Christ's sheep, because, as was said before, "A +stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him." +Furthermore, this is commanded in Deuteronomy: "You shall not +listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams" +(13:3).
++
+1386 I am the door. Here he clarifies his explanation: +first, of the door; secondly, of the thief (v 10). Concerning the +first, he does two things: first, he repeats what he intends to +explain; and secondly, he gives the explanation (v 9).1387 He repeats what he had already said, namely, I am the +door: "If she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of +cedar" (Song 8:9), that is, let us grant her an incorruptible +power.
+1388 He explains this when he says, if any one enters by me, +he will be saved. First, he shows that the purpose of a door, +which is to keep the sheep safe, applies to himself; secondly, he +mentions the manner in which they are kept safe (v 9b).
+1389 The door safeguards the sheep by keeping those within from +going out, and by protecting them from strangers who want to come +in. And this applies to Christ, for he is our safeguard and +protection. And this is what he says: if any one, not with +insincerity, enters, into the fellowship of the Church and +of the faithful, by me, the door, he will be saved, i.e., if +he perseveres: "For there is no other name under heaven given among +men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12); "We shall be saved by +his life" (Rom 5:10).
+1390 The way the sheep are safeguarded is set forth when he says +that he will go in and out and find pasture. This statement +can be explained in four ways. First of all, according to +Chrysostom, it simply affirms the security and freedom of those who +cling to Christ.[11] For one who enters some other way than by the +door does not have free entry and exit; but one who does enter by +the door has free exit, because he can leave freely. Therefore, +when he says, he will go in and out, the meaning is that the +Apostles adhering to Christ enter with security by living with the +faithful, who are within the Church, and with unbelievers who are +outside, when they became masters of the whole world and no one +wished to cast them out: "Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of +all flesh appoint a man over the congregation, who shall go out +before them and come in before them…that the congregation of +the Lord may not be as sheep which have no shepherd" (Num 27:16). +And find pasture, find delight in converting others, and +find joy even when persecuted by unbelievers for the name of +Christ: "Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that +they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name," as we +read in Acts (5:41).
+1391 Secondly, this can be explained as Augustine does in his +Commentary on John.[12] Two things are incumbent upon anyone who acts +well, namely to be well-ordered to the things that are within him, +and to those that are without. Within a person is the spirit, and +without is the body: "Though our outer nature is wasting away, our +inner nature is being renewed every day" (2 Cor 4:16). Therefore, a +person who clings to Christ will go in through +contemplation, to protect his conscience - "When I enter my house," +i.e., my conscience, "I shall find rest with her," i.e., with +wisdom (Wis 8:16) - and out, namely, by good actions, to +tame the body - "Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until +the evening" (Ps 104:23) - and find pasture, in a clean and +sincere conscience - "I will appear before your sight: I will be +satisfied when your glory appears" [Ps 16:15]. Again, by his +actions he will find pasture, i.e., fruit - "He shall come +home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him" (Ps +126:6).
++
1392 The third explanation is also Augustine's as well as that +given by Gregory in his Commentary on Ezekiel.[13] The meaning, +then, is this. Such a one will go in, i.e., into the Church, +by believing - "I shall go over into the place of the wonderful +tabernacle" [Ps 41:5], and this is to enter the Church Militant; +and out, from the Church Militant into the Church Triumphant +- "Go forth, O daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon, with the +crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of the wedding" +(Song 3:11); and find pasture, that is, the pastures of +doctrine and grace in the Church Militant - "He makes me lie down +in green pastures"; and the pastures of glory in the Church +Triumphant: "I will feed them with good pasture" (Ez 34:14).
1393 Fourthly, there is an explanation found in the work, On -the Spirit and the Soul, which has been incorrectly attributed to -Augustine.[14] -Here it is said that such a one will go in, that is, the saints will go -in to contemplate the divinity of Christ, and out, to consider his -humanity; and they will find pasture in both, because in both they will -taste the joys of contemplation: "Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty" -(Is 33:17). - -
1394 Now he considers the thief. First, he mentions the mark -of the thief; secondly, he says that he himself has the opposite -characteristic, I came that they may have life. - +the Spirit and the Soul, which has been incorrectly attributed +to Augustine.[14] Here it is said that such a one will go +in, that is, the saints will go in to contemplate the divinity +of Christ, and out, to consider his humanity; and they will +find pasture in both, because in both they will taste the +joys of contemplation: "Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty" +(Is 33:17).
+1394 Now he considers the thief. First, he mentions the mark of +the thief; secondly, he says that he himself has the opposite +characteristic, I came that they may have life.
1395 He says that those who do not enter by the door, i.e., -those who have come independently of me, are thieves and robbers; and they are -evil. For in the first place, the thief comes only to steal, i.e., to -usurp what is not his; these are the agitators and heretics, who fasten on to -those who belong to Christ: "He lies in ambush to catch the ones who are poor" -[Ps 9:4]. Secondly, the thief comes to kill, and he kills by bringing in -perverse teachings and evil practices: "As robbers lie in wait for a man…they -murder on the way" (Hos 6:9). Thirdly, the thief comes to destroy, by casting -into everlasting destruction: "My people have been lost sheep" (Jer 50:6). But -these traits are not in me. - -
1396 I came that they may have life. This is like -saying: The above have not come in by me, otherwise they would do as I do. But -they do the contrary, because they steal, and kill and destroy. I came that -they may have life, that is, the life of righteousness, by entering into -the Church Militant through faith: "My righteous one shall live by faith" (Heb -10:38). We read of this life in 1 John (3:14) that "We know that we have passed -out of death into life, because we love the brethren." And have it -abundantly, that is, have eternal life, when they leave the body. We read -below of this life: "This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true -God" (17:3). -
-LECTURE 3 - -
- -11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down -his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own -the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the -wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hireling and -cares nothing for the sheep."[15]
1397 Here he explains the second clause of the parable, "he -who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). First, he gives -the explanation; secondly, he makes it clear (v 14). First, he explains that he -is the good shepherd; secondly, he states the office of a good shepherd (v -11b); thirdly, he shows that the opposite is found in an evil shepherd (v 12). - +those who have come independently of me, are thieves and robbers; +and they are evil. For in the first place, the thief comes only +to steal, i.e., to usurp what is not his; these are the +agitators and heretics, who fasten on to those who belong to +Christ: "He lies in ambush to catch the ones who are poor" [Ps +9:4]. Secondly, the thief comes to kill, and he kills by bringing +in perverse teachings and evil practices: "As robbers lie in wait +for a man…they murder on the way" (Hos 6:9). Thirdly, the +thief comes to destroy, by casting into everlasting +destruction: "My people have been lost sheep" (Jer 50:6). But these +traits are not in me.
+1396 I came that they may have life. This is like saying: +The above have not come in by me, otherwise they would do as I do. +But they do the contrary, because they steal, and kill and destroy. +I came that they may have life, that is, the life of +righteousness, by entering into the Church Militant through faith: +"My righteous one shall live by faith" (Heb 10:38). We read of this +life in 1 John (3:14) that "We know that we have passed out of +death into life, because we love the brethren." And have it +abundantly, that is, have eternal life, when they leave the +body. We read below of this life: "This is eternal life, that they +know thee the only true God" (17:3).
+
+
+LECTURE 3
+++11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life +for the sheep. 12 He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose +own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep +and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He +flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the +sheep."[15]
+1397 Here he explains the second clause of the parable, "he who +enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). First, he +gives the explanation; secondly, he makes it clear (v 14). First, +he explains that he is the good shepherd; secondly, he states the +office of a good shepherd (v 11b); thirdly, he shows that the +opposite is found in an evil shepherd (v 12).
1398 He says, in regard to the first, I am the good -shepherd. That Christ is a shepherd is clear enough, for as a flock is led -and fed by the shepherd, so the faithful are nourished by Christ with spiritual -food, and even with his own body and blood: "For you were straying like sheep, -but now have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls" (1 Pet 2:25); -"He will feed his flock like a shepherd" (Is 40:11). To distinguish himself -from an evil shepherd and thief, he adds, good. Good, I say, because he -fulfills the office of a shepherd, just as a soldier is called good who -fulfills the office of a soldier. But since Christ had said above that the -shepherd enters by the door, and here he says that he is the shepherd, and -before he said he was the door (v 9), then he must enter through himself. And -he does enter through himself, because he manifests himself and through himself -knows the Father. We, however, enter through him, because it is by him that we -are led to happiness. - -
Note that only he is the door, -because no one else is the true light, but only shares in the light: "He," John -the Baptizer, "was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light" (1:8). -But we read of Christ that "He was the true light, which enlightens every man" -[1:9]. Therefore, no one else refers to himself as a door; Christ reserved this -for himself. But being a shepherd he did share with others, and conferred it on -his members: for Peter was a shepherd, and the other apostles were shepherds, -as well as all good bishops: "I will give you shepherds after my own heart" -(Jer 3:15). Now, although the Church's rulers, who are her children, are all -shepherds, as Augustine says, yet he expressly says, I am the good shepherd, -in order to emphasize the virtue of charity.[16] -For no one is a good shepherd unless he has become one with Christ by love, and -has become a member of the true shepherd. - +shepherd. That Christ is a shepherd is clear enough, for as a +flock is led and fed by the shepherd, so the faithful are nourished +by Christ with spiritual food, and even with his own body and +blood: "For you were straying like sheep, but now have returned to +the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls" (1 Pet 2:25); "He will +feed his flock like a shepherd" (Is 40:11). To distinguish himself +from an evil shepherd and thief, he adds, good. Good, I say, +because he fulfills the office of a shepherd, just as a soldier is +called good who fulfills the office of a soldier. But since Christ +had said above that the shepherd enters by the door, and here he +says that he is the shepherd, and before he said he was the door (v +9), then he must enter through himself. And he does enter through +himself, because he manifests himself and through himself knows the +Father. We, however, enter through him, because it is by him that +we are led to happiness.
+Note that only he is the door, because no one else is the true +light, but only shares in the light: "He," John the Baptizer, "was +not the light, but came to bear witness to the light" (1:8). But we +read of Christ that "He was the true light, which enlightens every +man" [1:9]. Therefore, no one else refers to himself as a door; +Christ reserved this for himself. But being a shepherd he did share +with others, and conferred it on his members: for Peter was a +shepherd, and the other apostles were shepherds, as well as all +good bishops: "I will give you shepherds after my own heart" (Jer +3:15). Now, although the Church's rulers, who are her children, are +all shepherds, as Augustine says, yet he expressly says, I am +the good shepherd, in order to emphasize the virtue of +charity.[16] +For no one is a good shepherd unless he has become one with Christ +by love, and has become a member of the true shepherd.
1399 The office of a good shepherd is charity; thus he says, -the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. It should be noted -that there is a difference between a good shepherd and an evil one: the good -shepherd is intent upon the welfare of the flock, but the evil one is intent -upon his own. This difference is touched upon by Ezekiel (34:2): "Ho, shepherds -of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" -Therefore, one who uses the flock only to feed himself is not a good shepherd. -From this it follows that an evil shepherd, even over animals, is not willing -to sustain any loss for the flock, since he does not intend the welfare of the -flock, but his own. But a good shepherd, even over animals, endures many things -for the flock whose welfare he has at heart. Thus Jacob said in Genesis -(31:40): "By day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night." However, when -dealing with mere animals it is not necessary that a good shepherd expose -himself to death for the safety of the flock. But because the spiritual safety -of the human flock outweighs the bodily life of the shepherd, when danger -threatens the safety of the flock the spiritual shepherd ought to suffer the -loss of his bodily life for the safety of the flock. This is what our Lord -says, the good shepherd lays down his life, i.e., his bodily life, for -the sheep, the sheep who are his by authority and charity. Both are -required, for they must belong to him and he must love them; the first without -the second is not enough. Furthermore, Christ has given us an example of this -teaching: "He laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for -the brethren" (1 Jn 3:16). - +the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. It +should be noted that there is a difference between a good shepherd +and an evil one: the good shepherd is intent upon the welfare of +the flock, but the evil one is intent upon his own. This difference +is touched upon by Ezekiel (34:2): "Ho, shepherds of Israel who +have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" +Therefore, one who uses the flock only to feed himself is not a +good shepherd. From this it follows that an evil shepherd, even +over animals, is not willing to sustain any loss for the flock, +since he does not intend the welfare of the flock, but his own. But +a good shepherd, even over animals, endures many things for the +flock whose welfare he has at heart. Thus Jacob said in Genesis +(31:40): "By day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night." +However, when dealing with mere animals it is not necessary that a +good shepherd expose himself to death for the safety of the flock. +But because the spiritual safety of the human flock outweighs the +bodily life of the shepherd, when danger threatens the safety of +the flock the spiritual shepherd ought to suffer the loss of his +bodily life for the safety of the flock. This is what our Lord +says, the good shepherd lays down his life, i.e., his bodily +life, for the sheep, the sheep who are his by authority and +charity. Both are required, for they must belong to him and he must +love them; the first without the second is not enough. Furthermore, +Christ has given us an example of this teaching: "He laid down his +life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" +(1 Jn 3:16).
1400 Now he considers the evil shepherd, showing that he -possesses characteristics contrary to those of the good shepherd. First, he -mentions the marks of an evil shepherd; secondly, he shows how these marks -follow one another (v 12). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he -gives the marks of an evil shepherd; secondly, he mentions the danger which -threatens the flock because of an evil shepherd: the wolf snatches them and -scatters them. - -
1401 Note that from what has been said about the good and -evil shepherd, there are three differences in their traits: first in their -intentions; secondly, in their solicitude; and thirdly in their affections. - -
1402 First, they differ in their intentions, and this is -implied by their very names. For the first is called a good shepherd, and this -implies that he intends to feed the flock: "Should not shepherds feed the -sheep?" (Ez 34:2). But the other one, the evil shepherd, is called a hireling, -as though he were intent on his wages. Thus they differ in this: the good -shepherd looks to the benefit of the flock, while the hireling seeks mainly his -own advantage. This is also the difference between a king and a tyrant, as the -Philosopher says, because when a king rules he intends to benefit his subjects, -while a tyrant seeks his own interest.[17] -So a tyrant is like a hireling: "If it seems right to you, give me my wages" -(Zech 11:12). - -
1403 But may not even good shepherds seek a wage? It seems -so, for "Reward those who wait for thee" (Si 36:16); "The Lord God comes…his -reward is with him" (Is 40:10); "How many of my father's hired servants have -bread enough and to spare!" (Lk 15:17). - -
I answer that wages can be taken in -a general sense and in a proper sense. In a general sense, a wage is anything -conferred by reason of merits. And because everlasting life, which is God - -"This is true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20) - is conferred by reason of -merits, everlasting life is said to be a wage. And this is a wage that every -good shepherd can and should seek. In the strict sense, however, a wage is different -from an inheritance, and a wage is not sought after by a true child, who is -entitled to the inheritance. A wage is sought after by servants and hirelings. -Thus, since everlasting life is our inheritance, any one who works with an eye -towards it is working as a child; but any one who aims at something different -(for example, one who longs for worldly gain, or takes delight in the honor of -being a prelate) is a hireling. - -
1404 Secondly, they differ in their solicitude. We read of -the good shepherd that the sheep are his own, not only as a trust, but also by -love and solicitude: "I hold you in my heart" (Phil 1:7). On the other hand, it -is said of the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, i.e., the hireling -has no care for them: "My shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the -shepherds have fed themselves" (Ez 34:8). - +possesses characteristics contrary to those of the good shepherd. +First, he mentions the marks of an evil shepherd; secondly, he +shows how these marks follow one another (v 12). Concerning the +first he does two things: first, he gives the marks of an evil +shepherd; secondly, he mentions the danger which threatens the +flock because of an evil shepherd: the wolf snatches them and +scatters them.
+1401 Note that from what has been said about the good and evil +shepherd, there are three differences in their traits: first in +their intentions; secondly, in their solicitude; and thirdly in +their affections.
+1402 First, they differ in their intentions, and this is implied +by their very names. For the first is called a good shepherd, and +this implies that he intends to feed the flock: "Should not +shepherds feed the sheep?" (Ez 34:2). But the other one, the evil +shepherd, is called a hireling, as though he were intent on his +wages. Thus they differ in this: the good shepherd looks to the +benefit of the flock, while the hireling seeks mainly his own +advantage. This is also the difference between a king and a tyrant, +as the Philosopher says, because when a king rules he intends to +benefit his subjects, while a tyrant seeks his own +interest.[17] +So a tyrant is like a hireling: "If it seems right to you, give me +my wages" (Zech 11:12).
+1403 But may not even good shepherds seek a wage? It seems so, +for "Reward those who wait for thee" (Si 36:16); "The Lord God +comes…his reward is with him" (Is 40:10); "How many of my +father's hired servants have bread enough and to spare!" (Lk +15:17).
+I answer that wages can be taken in a general sense and in a +proper sense. In a general sense, a wage is anything conferred by +reason of merits. And because everlasting life, which is God - +"This is true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20) - is conferred by +reason of merits, everlasting life is said to be a wage. And this +is a wage that every good shepherd can and should seek. In the +strict sense, however, a wage is different from an inheritance, and +a wage is not sought after by a true child, who is entitled to the +inheritance. A wage is sought after by servants and hirelings. +Thus, since everlasting life is our inheritance, any one who works +with an eye towards it is working as a child; but any one who aims +at something different (for example, one who longs for worldly +gain, or takes delight in the honor of being a prelate) is a +hireling.
+1404 Secondly, they differ in their solicitude. We read of the +good shepherd that the sheep are his own, not only as a trust, but +also by love and solicitude: "I hold you in my heart" (Phil 1:7). +On the other hand, it is said of the hireling, whose own the +sheep are not, i.e., the hireling has no care for them: "My +shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have +fed themselves" (Ez 34:8).
1405 Thirdly, they differ in their affections. For the good -shepherd, who loves his flock, lays down his life for it, i.e., he -exposes himself to dangers that affect his bodily life. But the evil shepherd, -because he has no love for the flock, flees when he sees the wolf. Thus he -says, he sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees. Here, the -wolf is understood in three ways. First, for the devil as tempting: "What -fellowship has a wolf with a lamb? No more has a sinner with a godly man" (Si -13:17). Secondly, it stands for the heretic who destroys: "beware of false -prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous -wolves" (Matt 7:15); "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in -among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29). Thirdly, it stands for the -raging tyrant: "Her princes in the midst of her are like wolves" (Ez 22:27). -Therefore, the good shepherd must guard the flock against these three wolves, -so that when he sees the wolf, i.e., the devil tempting, the deceiving heretic -and the raging tyrant, he can oppose him. Against those who do not, we read, -"You have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of -Israel" (Ez 13:5). - -
Accordingly, we read of the evil -shepherd that he leaves the sheep and flees: "Woe to my worthless -shepherd, who deserts the flock" (Zech 11:17). As if to say: You are not a -shepherd, but only appear to be one: "Even her hired soldiers in her midst are -like fatted calves; yea, they have turned and fled together, they do not stand" -(Jer 46:21). - +shepherd, who loves his flock, lays down his life for it, +i.e., he exposes himself to dangers that affect his bodily life. +But the evil shepherd, because he has no love for the flock, flees +when he sees the wolf. Thus he says, he sees the wolf coming and +leaves the sheep and flees. Here, the wolf is understood in +three ways. First, for the devil as tempting: "What fellowship has +a wolf with a lamb? No more has a sinner with a godly man" (Si +13:17). Secondly, it stands for the heretic who destroys: "beware +of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but +inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matt 7:15); "I know that after my +departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the +flock" (Acts 20:29). Thirdly, it stands for the raging tyrant: "Her +princes in the midst of her are like wolves" (Ez 22:27). Therefore, +the good shepherd must guard the flock against these three wolves, +so that when he sees the wolf, i.e., the devil tempting, the +deceiving heretic and the raging tyrant, he can oppose him. Against +those who do not, we read, "You have not gone up into the breaches, +or built up a wall for the house of Israel" (Ez 13:5).
+Accordingly, we read of the evil shepherd that he leaves the +sheep and flees: "Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the +flock" (Zech 11:17). As if to say: You are not a shepherd, but only +appear to be one: "Even her hired soldiers in her midst are like +fatted calves; yea, they have turned and fled together, they do not +stand" (Jer 46:21).
1406 But in Matthew (10:23) we find the contrary: "When they -persecute you in one town, flee to the next." Therefore, it seems to be lawful -for a shepherd to flee. I reply that there are two answers to this. One is that -given by Augustine in his Commentary on John.[18] -There are two kinds of flight: that of the soul and that of the body. When we -read here, he leaves the sheep and flees, we can understand it to mean the -flight of the soul: for when an evil shepherd fears personal danger from a -wolf, he does not dare to resist his injustices but flees, not by running away, -but by withdrawing his encouragement, refusing to care for his flock. - -
This should be the explanation when -considering the first kind of wolf [the tempting devil], because it is not -necessary to physically flee from the devil. - -
But since sometimes a shepherd does -flee physically because of certain wolves, such as powerful heretics and -tyrants, another answer must be given, as found in Augustine's Letter to -Honoratus.[19] -As he says, it seems lawful to flee, even physically, from the wolves, not only -because of the authority of our Lord, as cited above, but because of the -example of certain saints, as Athanasius and others, who fled from their -persecutors. For what is censured is not the flight itself, but the neglect of -the flock; so, if the shepherd could flee without abandoning his flock, it -would not be blameworthy. Sometimes it is the prelate himself who is the one -sought, and at other times, it is the entire flock. It is obvious that if the -prelate alone is sought, others can be assigned to guard the flock in his -territory, and console and govern the flock in his place. So if he flees under -these circumstances, he is not said to leave the sheep. In this way, it is -lawful to flee in certain cases. But if the whole flock is sought, then either -all the shepherds should be with the people, or some should remain while the -others leave. But if all desert the flock, then these words apply, he sees -the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees. - -
1407 Here he mentions the twofold danger that threatens. One -is the ravaging of the sheep; so he says, and the wolf snatches them, -i.e., takes for himself what belongs to another, for the faithful are Christ's -sheep. Therefore, leaders of sects and wolves snatch the sheep when they entice -Christ's faithful to their own teachings: "My sheep have become food for all -the wild beasts" (Ez 34:8). The other danger is that the sheep be scattered; so -he says, and scatters them, insofar as some are led astray and others -persevere: "My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none -to search or seek for them" (Ez 34:6). - -
1408 Now he shows how the above-mentioned marks are related, -for the third follows from the first two. Since the evil shepherd seeks his own -advantage and has no love or solicitude for the flock, it follows that he is -not willing to endure any inconvenience for them. Thus he says of the hireling, -he flees, for this reason, because he is a hireling, that is, he -seeks his own advantage, which is the first mark; and cares nothing for the -sheep, i.e., he does not love them, and is not solicitous for them, which -is the second mark. So we read in Job (39:16) about the evil shepherd: "She -deals cruelly with her young, as if they were not hers." The opposite is true -of the good shepherd, for he seeks the welfare of his flock, and not his own: -"Not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit" -(Phil 4:17). Furthermore, he is concerned for his sheep, that is, he loves them -and is solicitous for them: "I hold you in my heart" (Phil 1:7). -
-LECTURE 4 - -
- -14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know -me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for -the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring -them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one -shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, -that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my -own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; -this charge I have received from my Father."[20]
1409 Here our Lord proves his explanation. First, he -restates what he intends to prove; secondly, he gives the proof, I know my -own…(v 14b); and thirdly, he amplifies on it (v 17). - +persecute you in one town, flee to the next." Therefore, it seems +to be lawful for a shepherd to flee. I reply that there are two +answers to this. One is that given by Augustine in his +Commentary on John.[18] There are two kinds of flight: that of the +soul and that of the body. When we read here, he leaves the +sheep and flees, we can understand it to mean the flight of the +soul: for when an evil shepherd fears personal danger from a wolf, +he does not dare to resist his injustices but flees, not by running +away, but by withdrawing his encouragement, refusing to care for +his flock.
+This should be the explanation when considering the first kind +of wolf [the tempting devil], because it is not necessary to +physically flee from the devil.
+But since sometimes a shepherd does flee physically because of +certain wolves, such as powerful heretics and tyrants, another +answer must be given, as found in Augustine's Letter to +Honoratus.[19] As he says, it seems lawful to flee, even +physically, from the wolves, not only because of the authority of +our Lord, as cited above, but because of the example of certain +saints, as Athanasius and others, who fled from their persecutors. +For what is censured is not the flight itself, but the neglect of +the flock; so, if the shepherd could flee without abandoning his +flock, it would not be blameworthy. Sometimes it is the prelate +himself who is the one sought, and at other times, it is the entire +flock. It is obvious that if the prelate alone is sought, others +can be assigned to guard the flock in his territory, and console +and govern the flock in his place. So if he flees under these +circumstances, he is not said to leave the sheep. In this way, it +is lawful to flee in certain cases. But if the whole flock is +sought, then either all the shepherds should be with the people, or +some should remain while the others leave. But if all desert the +flock, then these words apply, he sees the wolf coming and +leaves the sheep and flees.
+1407 Here he mentions the twofold danger that threatens. One is +the ravaging of the sheep; so he says, and the wolf snatches +them, i.e., takes for himself what belongs to another, for the +faithful are Christ's sheep. Therefore, leaders of sects and wolves +snatch the sheep when they entice Christ's faithful to their own +teachings: "My sheep have become food for all the wild beasts" (Ez +34:8). The other danger is that the sheep be scattered; so he says, +and scatters them, insofar as some are led astray and others +persevere: "My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, +with none to search or seek for them" (Ez 34:6).
+1408 Now he shows how the above-mentioned marks are related, for +the third follows from the first two. Since the evil shepherd seeks +his own advantage and has no love or solicitude for the flock, it +follows that he is not willing to endure any inconvenience for +them. Thus he says of the hireling, he flees, for this +reason, because he is a hireling, that is, he seeks his own +advantage, which is the first mark; and cares nothing for the +sheep, i.e., he does not love them, and is not solicitous for +them, which is the second mark. So we read in Job (39:16) about the +evil shepherd: "She deals cruelly with her young, as if they were +not hers." The opposite is true of the good shepherd, for he seeks +the welfare of his flock, and not his own: "Not that I seek the +gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit" (Phil +4:17). Furthermore, he is concerned for his sheep, that is, he +loves them and is solicitous for them: "I hold you in my heart" +(Phil 1:7).
+
+
+LECTURE 4
+++14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 +as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my +life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this +fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there +shall be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father +loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18 +No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have +power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this +charge I have received from my Father."[20]
+1409 Here our Lord proves his explanation. First, he restates +what he intends to prove; secondly, he gives the proof, I know +my own…(v 14b); and thirdly, he amplifies on it (v +17).
1410 He says, I am the good shepherd, which has been -explained above: "As a shepherd seeks out his flock…so will I seek out my -sheep" (Ez 34:12). - -
1411 Then he says, I know my own, he proves what he -says. Now he says two things about himself, that he is a shepherd, and that he -is good. First, he proves that he is a shepherd; secondly, that he is a good -shepherd. - -
1412 He proves he is a shepherd by the two signs of a -shepherd already mentioned. The first of these is that he calls his own sheep -by name. Concerning this he says, I know my own: "The Lord knows those -who are his" (2 Tim 2:19). I know, I say, not just with mere knowledge -only, but with a knowledge joined with approval and love: "To him who loves us -and has freed us from our sins" (Rev 1:5). The second sign is that the sheep -hear his voice and know him. And concerning this he says, and my own know -me. My own, I say, by predestination, by vocation and by grace. This is -like saying: They love me and obey me. Thus, we must understand that they have -a loving knowledge about which we read: "They shall all know me, from the least -of them to the greatest" (Jer 31:34). - -
1413 He shows that he is a good shepherd by mentioning that -he has the office of a good shepherd, which is to lay down his life for his -sheep. First, he shows the reason for this; secondly, he gives a sign of it; -and thirdly, he shows the fruit of his sign. - -
1414 The reason for this sign, that is, of his laying down -his life for his sheep, is the knowledge he has of the Father. Concerning this -he says, as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my -life for the sheep. This statement can be explained in two ways. In one -way, so that "as" indicates just a similarity in knowledge; and taken this way, -such knowledge can be given to a creature: "I shall know even as I am known" [1 -Cor 13:12], i.e., as I am known without obscurity, so I will know -without obscurity. In another way, the "as" implies an equality of knowledge. -And then to know the Father as he is known by him is proper to the Son alone, -because only the Son knows the Father comprehensively, just as the Father knows -the Son comprehensively: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one -knows the Father except the Son" (Matt 11:27), that is, with a comprehensive -knowledge. Our Lord says this because in knowing the Father, he knows the will -of the Father that the Son should die for the salvation of the human race. He -is also saying here that he is the mediator between God and man. For as he is -related to the sheep as known by them and as knowing them, so also he is -related to the Father, because as the Father knows him, so he knows the Father. - +explained above: "As a shepherd seeks out his flock…so will +I seek out my sheep" (Ez 34:12).
+1411 Then he says, I know my own, he proves what he says. +Now he says two things about himself, that he is a shepherd, and +that he is good. First, he proves that he is a shepherd; secondly, +that he is a good shepherd.
+1412 He proves he is a shepherd by the two signs of a shepherd +already mentioned. The first of these is that he calls his own +sheep by name. Concerning this he says, I know my own: "The +Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19). I know, I say, +not just with mere knowledge only, but with a knowledge joined with +approval and love: "To him who loves us and has freed us from our +sins" (Rev 1:5). The second sign is that the sheep hear his voice +and know him. And concerning this he says, and my own know me. +My own, I say, by predestination, by vocation and by grace. +This is like saying: They love me and obey me. Thus, we must +understand that they have a loving knowledge about which we read: +"They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" +(Jer 31:34).
+1413 He shows that he is a good shepherd by mentioning that he +has the office of a good shepherd, which is to lay down his life +for his sheep. First, he shows the reason for this; secondly, he +gives a sign of it; and thirdly, he shows the fruit of his +sign.
+1414 The reason for this sign, that is, of his laying down his +life for his sheep, is the knowledge he has of the Father. +Concerning this he says, as the Father knows me and I know the +Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. This statement +can be explained in two ways. In one way, so that "as" indicates +just a similarity in knowledge; and taken this way, such knowledge +can be given to a creature: "I shall know even as I am known" [1 +Cor 13:12], i.e., as I am known without obscurity, so I will +know without obscurity. In another way, the "as" implies an +equality of knowledge. And then to know the Father as he is known +by him is proper to the Son alone, because only the Son knows the +Father comprehensively, just as the Father knows the Son +comprehensively: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no +one knows the Father except the Son" (Matt 11:27), that is, with a +comprehensive knowledge. Our Lord says this because in knowing the +Father, he knows the will of the Father that the Son should die for +the salvation of the human race. He is also saying here that he is +the mediator between God and man. For as he is related to the sheep +as known by them and as knowing them, so also he is related to the +Father, because as the Father knows him, so he knows the +Father.
1415 Then when he says, and I lay down my life for the -sheep, he gives the sign: "By this we know love, that he laid down his life -for us" (1 Jn 3:16). But since there are three substances in Christ, namely the -substance of the Word, of the soul, and of the body, one might ask who is -speaking when he says, I lay down my life ["my life" can also be -literally translated as "my soul"]. If you say that the Word is speaking here, -it is not true, because the Word never laid down his soul, since He was never -separated from his soul. If you say that the soul is speaking, this too seems -impossible, because nothing is separated from itself. And if you say that -Christ says this referring to his body, it does not seem to be so, because his -body does not have the power to take up its soul. Therefore, one must say that -when Christ died, his soul was separated from his flesh, otherwise Christ would -not have been truly dead. But in Christ, his divinity was never separated from -his soul or his flesh; but was united to his soul, as it descended to the lower -world, and to his body, as it lay in the tomb. And therefore, his body, by the -power of his divinity, laid down his soul [or life] by the power of his -divinity, and took it up again.[21] - -
1416 Then when he says, and I have other sheep, he -sets down the fruit of Christ's death, which is the salvation not only of the -Jews but of the Gentiles as well. For since he had said, "I lay down my life -for the sheep," the Jews, who regarded themselves as God's sheep - "We thy -people, the flock of thy pasture" (Ps 79:13) - could have said that he laid -down his life for them alone. But our Lord adds that it is not only for them, -but for others too: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and -not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are -scattered abroad" (11:51). - -
1417 In regard to this fruit our Lord does three things. -First, he mentions the predestination of the Gentiles; secondly, their vocation -through grace; and thirdly their justification. - -
As to the first he says, and I -have other sheep, that is, the Gentiles, that are not of this fold, i.e., -of the family of the flesh of Israel, which was in a way a flock: "I will -surely gather all of you, O Jacob" (Mic 2:12). For as sheep are enclosed in a -fold, so the Jews were kept enclosed within the precepts of the Law, as we read -in Galatians (c 3). These other sheep, I say, that is, the Gentiles, I have -from my Father through an eternal predestination: "Ask of me, and I will make -the nations your heritage" (Ps 2:8); "I will give you as a light to the -nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth" (Is 49:6). - +sheep, he gives the sign: "By this we know love, that he laid +down his life for us" (1 Jn 3:16). But since there are three +substances in Christ, namely the substance of the Word, of the +soul, and of the body, one might ask who is speaking when he says, +I lay down my life ["my life" can also be literally +translated as "my soul"]. If you say that the Word is speaking +here, it is not true, because the Word never laid down his soul, +since He was never separated from his soul. If you say that the +soul is speaking, this too seems impossible, because nothing is +separated from itself. And if you say that Christ says this +referring to his body, it does not seem to be so, because his body +does not have the power to take up its soul. Therefore, one must +say that when Christ died, his soul was separated from his flesh, +otherwise Christ would not have been truly dead. But in Christ, his +divinity was never separated from his soul or his flesh; but was +united to his soul, as it descended to the lower world, and to his +body, as it lay in the tomb. And therefore, his body, by the power +of his divinity, laid down his soul [or life] by the power of his +divinity, and took it up again.[21]
+1416 Then when he says, and I have other sheep, he sets +down the fruit of Christ's death, which is the salvation not only +of the Jews but of the Gentiles as well. For since he had said, "I +lay down my life for the sheep," the Jews, who regarded themselves +as God's sheep - "We thy people, the flock of thy pasture" (Ps +79:13) - could have said that he laid down his life for them alone. +But our Lord adds that it is not only for them, but for others too: +"He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for +the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are +scattered abroad" (11:51).
+1417 In regard to this fruit our Lord does three things. First, +he mentions the predestination of the Gentiles; secondly, their +vocation through grace; and thirdly their justification.
+As to the first he says, and I have other sheep, that is, +the Gentiles, that are not of this fold, i.e., of the family +of the flesh of Israel, which was in a way a flock: "I will surely +gather all of you, O Jacob" (Mic 2:12). For as sheep are enclosed +in a fold, so the Jews were kept enclosed within the precepts of +the Law, as we read in Galatians (c 3). These other sheep, I say, +that is, the Gentiles, I have from my Father through an eternal +predestination: "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your +heritage" (Ps 2:8); "I will give you as a light to the nations, +that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth" (Is 49:6).
1418 As to the second he says, I must bring them also, -i.e., according to the plans of divine predestination it is time to call them -to grace. - -
This seems to conflict with what -our Lord says in Matthew (15:24): "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the -house of Israel." I answer that Jesus was sent only to the sheep of the house -of Israel in the sense of preaching to them personally, as we read in Romans -(15:8): "Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, -in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs." It was through the -apostles that he brought in the Gentiles: "From them I will send survivors to -the nations" (Is 66:19). - -
1419 In regard to the third he says, and they will heed -my voice. Here he mentions three things necessary for righteousness in the -Christian religion. The first is obedience to the commandments of God. -Concerning this he says, and they will heed my voice, i.e., they will -observe my commandments: "Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded -you" (Matt 28:20); "People whom I had not known," i.e., whom I did not approve, -served me. As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps 18:43). - -
The second is the unity of charity, -and concerning this he says, so there shall be one flock, i.e., one -Church of the faithful from the two peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles: "One -faith" (Eph 4:5); "For he is our peace, who has made us both one" (Eph 2:14). - -
The third is the unity of faith, -and in regard to this he says, one shepherd: "They shall all have one -shepherd," that is, the Jews and the Gentiles (Ez 37:24). - -
1420 Now our Lord explains his proof: first, he amplifies on -the reason for the sign [his death for his sheep]; secondly, he explains the -sign, or the effect (v 18); thirdly, he shows that the reason is appropriate (v -18b). - +i.e., according to the plans of divine predestination it is time to +call them to grace.
+This seems to conflict with what our Lord says in Matthew +(15:24): "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of +Israel." I answer that Jesus was sent only to the sheep of the +house of Israel in the sense of preaching to them personally, as we +read in Romans (15:8): "Christ became a servant to the circumcised +to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given +to the patriarchs." It was through the apostles that he brought in +the Gentiles: "From them I will send survivors to the nations" (Is +66:19).
+1419 In regard to the third he says, and they will heed my +voice. Here he mentions three things necessary for +righteousness in the Christian religion. The first is obedience to +the commandments of God. Concerning this he says, and they will +heed my voice, i.e., they will observe my commandments: +"Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt +28:20); "People whom I had not known," i.e., whom I did not +approve, served me. As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps +18:43).
+The second is the unity of charity, and concerning this he says, +so there shall be one flock, i.e., one Church of the +faithful from the two peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles: "One +faith" (Eph 4:5); "For he is our peace, who has made us both one" +(Eph 2:14).
+The third is the unity of faith, and in regard to this he says, +one shepherd: "They shall all have one shepherd," that is, +the Jews and the Gentiles (Ez 37:24).
+1420 Now our Lord explains his proof: first, he amplifies on the +reason for the sign [his death for his sheep]; secondly, he +explains the sign, or the effect (v 18); thirdly, he shows that the +reason is appropriate (v 18b).
1421 Our Lord says that the reason for his death is the -knowledge he has of the Father, saying, "as the Father knows me and I know the -Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep." In explaining this he says, for -this reason the Father loves me. From this it is clear that the Father -knows him with a knowledge joined with approval, for this reason, I say, -because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. - -
1422 But is it true that his death is the cause of the -Father's love? It seems not, because something temporal is not the cause of -something eternal. But Christ's death is in the temporal order, while the love -of God for Christ is eternal. I answer that Christ is speaking here of the -Father's love for him as having a human nature. Accordingly, this passage can -be understood in three ways. In one way, so that because indicates a -cause, while in the other way it indicates the term or sign of love. - -
If it is taken casually, then the -meaning is: because I lay down my life, i.e., endure death, for this -reason the Father loves me, that is, he grants me the effect of his love, -which is the glory and exaltation of my body: "He humbled himself and became -obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted -him and bestowed on him a name which is above every name" (Phil 2:8). - -
But one might object to this that -good works cannot merit the divine love. For since our works are meritorious to -the extent that they are given life by charity - "If I give away all I have…but -have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Cor 13:3) - and since God is the first to -love - "In this is love, not that we love God but that he first loved us" [1 Jn -4:10] - it is clear that his love precedes all our merit. This can be answered -by saying that no one can merit God's love; nevertheless, we can merit by our -good works the effect of God's love, that is, an increase of grace and the -reception of the good of glory, both of which God bestows on us because of his -love. Thus we can say that for this reason God loves this or that person, that -is, bestows on him the effect of his love, because he obeys his commandments. -And so we can say about Christ as man, that for this reason the Father loves -him, that is, has exalted him and given him the brightness of glory, because he -laid down his life in death. - -
But if because indicates a -sign of love, then he meaning is this: for this reason the Father loves me, -because I lay down my life, as if to say: This is a sign that the Father -loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again, that is, -I fulfill his commands and will and endure death. For an obvious sign of love -is that a person, out of charity, fulfills the commands of God.[22] - -
1423 Now he explains the effect of the sign. And since the -sign was "I lay down my life for the sheep," he explains how he lays it down. -First, he excludes violence; secondly, he speaks of his power. - -
1424 The violence he excludes is that which could be -employed in taking a life: such violence was not accomplished in Christ. -Concerning this he says, no one takes it from me, that is, my life, by -violence, but I lay it down, by my own power, that is, of my own -accord: "Can the prey be taken from the mighty?" (Is 49:24). - -
But did not the Jews use violence -against Christ? They did insofar as it was in them; but this violence was not -in Christ because he laid down his life voluntarily, when he willed. Thus we -read above (7:30) that the Jews wanted to arrest him but were unable "because -his hour had not yet come." It was voluntary "not as though he was forced to -die, but he condescended to be killed," [23] -as Augustine says. - -
1425 He adds something about his power when he says, I -have power to lay it down. Apropos of this it should be noted that since -the union of the soul and body is natural, their separation is natural. And -although the cause of this separation and death can be voluntary, yet among -human beings death is always natural. Now nature is not subject to the will of -any mere human, since nature, as well as the will, are from God. Therefore, the -death of any mere human person must be natural. But in Christ, his own nature -and every other nature are subject to his will, just like artifacts are subject -to the will of the artisan. Thus, according to the pleasure of his will, he -could lay down his life when he willed, and he could take it up again; no mere -human being can do this, although he could voluntarily use some instrument to -kill himself. This explains why the centurion, seeing that Christ did not die -by a natural necessity, but by his own [will] - since "Jesus cried again with a -loud voice and yielded up his spirit" (Matt 27:50) - recognized a divine power -in him, and said: "Truly, this was the Son of God" (Matt 27:54). Again, the -Apostle says in 1 Corinthians (1:18): "For the word of the cross is folly to -those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God," -that is, his great power was revealed in the very death of Christ.[24] - +knowledge he has of the Father, saying, "as the Father knows me and +I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep." In +explaining this he says, for this reason the Father loves +me. From this it is clear that the Father knows him with a +knowledge joined with approval, for this reason, I say, +because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.
+1422 But is it true that his death is the cause of the Father's +love? It seems not, because something temporal is not the cause of +something eternal. But Christ's death is in the temporal order, +while the love of God for Christ is eternal. I answer that Christ +is speaking here of the Father's love for him as having a human +nature. Accordingly, this passage can be understood in three ways. +In one way, so that because indicates a cause, while in the +other way it indicates the term or sign of love.
+If it is taken casually, then the meaning is: because I lay +down my life, i.e., endure death, for this reason the Father +loves me, that is, he grants me the effect of his love, which +is the glory and exaltation of my body: "He humbled himself and +became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God +has highly exalted him and bestowed on him a name which is above +every name" (Phil 2:8).
+But one might object to this that good works cannot merit the +divine love. For since our works are meritorious to the extent that +they are given life by charity - "If I give away all I +have…but have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Cor 13:3) - and +since God is the first to love - "In this is love, not that we love +God but that he first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10] - it is clear that his +love precedes all our merit. This can be answered by saying that no +one can merit God's love; nevertheless, we can merit by our good +works the effect of God's love, that is, an increase of grace and +the reception of the good of glory, both of which God bestows on us +because of his love. Thus we can say that for this reason God loves +this or that person, that is, bestows on him the effect of his +love, because he obeys his commandments. And so we can say about +Christ as man, that for this reason the Father loves him, that is, +has exalted him and given him the brightness of glory, because he +laid down his life in death.
+But if because indicates a sign of love, then he meaning +is this: for this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down +my life, as if to say: This is a sign that the Father loves me, +because I lay down my life, that I may take it again, that +is, I fulfill his commands and will and endure death. For an +obvious sign of love is that a person, out of charity, fulfills the +commands of God.[22]
+1423 Now he explains the effect of the sign. And since the sign +was "I lay down my life for the sheep," he explains how he lays it +down. First, he excludes violence; secondly, he speaks of his +power.
+1424 The violence he excludes is that which could be employed in +taking a life: such violence was not accomplished in Christ. +Concerning this he says, no one takes it from me, that is, +my life, by violence, but I lay it down, by my own power, +that is, of my own accord: "Can the prey be taken from the +mighty?" (Is 49:24).
+But did not the Jews use violence against Christ? They did +insofar as it was in them; but this violence was not in Christ +because he laid down his life voluntarily, when he willed. Thus we +read above (7:30) that the Jews wanted to arrest him but were +unable "because his hour had not yet come." It was voluntary "not +as though he was forced to die, but he condescended to be killed," +[23] as +Augustine says.
+1425 He adds something about his power when he says, I have +power to lay it down. Apropos of this it should be noted that +since the union of the soul and body is natural, their separation +is natural. And although the cause of this separation and death can +be voluntary, yet among human beings death is always natural. Now +nature is not subject to the will of any mere human, since nature, +as well as the will, are from God. Therefore, the death of any mere +human person must be natural. But in Christ, his own nature and +every other nature are subject to his will, just like artifacts are +subject to the will of the artisan. Thus, according to the pleasure +of his will, he could lay down his life when he willed, and he +could take it up again; no mere human being can do this, although +he could voluntarily use some instrument to kill himself. This +explains why the centurion, seeing that Christ did not die by a +natural necessity, but by his own [will] - since "Jesus cried again +with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit" (Matt 27:50) - +recognized a divine power in him, and said: "Truly, this was the +Son of God" (Matt 27:54). Again, the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians +(1:18): "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are +perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God," +that is, his great power was revealed in the very death of +Christ.[24]
1426 Here he shows that the above-mentioned reason is -appropriate, for to fulfill a command shows love for the one commanding. Thus -he says, this charge I have received from my Father, that is, to lay -down my life and take it up again: "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, -and my Father will love him" (14:23). -
-LECTURE 5 -
- -19 There was again a division among the Jews because of -these words. 20 Many of them said, "He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen -to him?" 21 Others said, "These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can -a demon open the eyes of the blind?" 22 It was the feast of the Dedication at -Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the -portico of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered round him and said to him, "How -long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 -Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do -in my Father's name, they bear witness to me; 26 but you do not believe, -because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know -them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never -perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has -given to me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the -Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."[25]
1427 After showing that he has power to give life and -showing his manner of doing so, our Lord here shows how this power to give life -belongs to him. First, the Evangelist mentions the dispute which arose among -the crowd on his point; secondly, he gives the discussion between the Jewish -leaders and Christ (v 22). Concerning the first he does three things. First, he -mentions the dispute within the crowd; secondly, he gives the opinion of one -side; and then states the reasonable position of the other side. - -
1428 The dispute arose within the crowd which was listening -to Christ because of what he said. The Evangelist says, There was again a -division among the Jews because of these words. Since some of them -understood his words correctly, and others did not, they argued among -themselves: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword," that is, the sword -of gospel teaching, which some believed and others deny (Matt 10:34). "He pours -contempt upon princes" (Ps 107:40). - -
1429 The opinion of one party to the argument was false. -About this he says, Many of them said…He says, Many, because as -we read in Ecclesiastes [1:15]: "The number of fools is infinite." They said, He -has a demon, and he is mad, for it is the habit of the foolish to always -give an evil interpretation to matters about which they are in doubt; whereas -the opposite should be done. Thus they revile whatever they do not know, as we -read in the letter of Jude. And so because they were incapable of understanding -our Lord's words - for "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did -not comprehend it" [1:5] -they blasphemed, saying, he has a demon, and he is -mad. And they try to turn others away from him, saying Why listen to -him? - -
These blasphemers accuse Christ of -two things. First, that he has a demon. As if to say: He is not speaking due to -the Holy Spirit, but from a wicked spirit. Something similar is found in Acts -about Paul: "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities [demons]" (17:18). -Now the fact is that a person who has his own and familiar demon is always -spiritually mad, but not always mad in a bodily way. But some can be possessed -by a demon, and these are always mad even in a bodily way. Thus it was said of -Christ "He has become mad" (Mk 3:21). Secondly, to show that Christ has a demon -in this way, they say, and he is mad. "Your great learning is turning -you mad" (Acts 26:24). Yet their blasphemy is not surprising, because they are -sensual and, as we read in 1 Corinthians [2:14]: "The sensual person does not -perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God." - +appropriate, for to fulfill a command shows love for the one +commanding. Thus he says, this charge I have received from my +Father, that is, to lay down my life and take it up again: "If +a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him" +(14:23).
+
+
+LECTURE 5
+++19 There was again a division among the Jews because of these +words. 20 Many of them said, "He has a demon, and he is mad; why +listen to him?" 21 Others said, "These are not the sayings of one +who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?" 22 It was +the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and +Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. 24 So +the Jews gathered round him and said to him, "How long will you +keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 +Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works +that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness to me; 26 but you +do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep +hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give +them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall +snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given to me is +greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the +Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."[25]
+1427 After showing that he has power to give life and showing +his manner of doing so, our Lord here shows how this power to give +life belongs to him. First, the Evangelist mentions the dispute +which arose among the crowd on his point; secondly, he gives the +discussion between the Jewish leaders and Christ (v 22). Concerning +the first he does three things. First, he mentions the dispute +within the crowd; secondly, he gives the opinion of one side; and +then states the reasonable position of the other side.
+1428 The dispute arose within the crowd which was listening to +Christ because of what he said. The Evangelist says, There was +again a division among the Jews because of these words. Since +some of them understood his words correctly, and others did not, +they argued among themselves: "I have not come to bring peace, but +a sword," that is, the sword of gospel teaching, which some +believed and others deny (Matt 10:34). "He pours contempt upon +princes" (Ps 107:40).
+1429 The opinion of one party to the argument was false. About +this he says, Many of them said…He says, Many, +because as we read in Ecclesiastes [1:15]: "The number of fools is +infinite." They said, He has a demon, and he is mad, for it +is the habit of the foolish to always give an evil interpretation +to matters about which they are in doubt; whereas the opposite +should be done. Thus they revile whatever they do not know, as we +read in the letter of Jude. And so because they were incapable of +understanding our Lord's words - for "the light shines in the +darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" [1:5] -they +blasphemed, saying, he has a demon, and he is mad. And they +try to turn others away from him, saying Why listen to +him?
+These blasphemers accuse Christ of two things. First, that he +has a demon. As if to say: He is not speaking due to the Holy +Spirit, but from a wicked spirit. Something similar is found in +Acts about Paul: "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities +[demons]" (17:18). Now the fact is that a person who has his own +and familiar demon is always spiritually mad, but not always mad in +a bodily way. But some can be possessed by a demon, and these are +always mad even in a bodily way. Thus it was said of Christ "He has +become mad" (Mk 3:21). Secondly, to show that Christ has a demon in +this way, they say, and he is mad. "Your great learning is +turning you mad" (Acts 26:24). Yet their blasphemy is not +surprising, because they are sensual and, as we read in 1 +Corinthians [2:14]: "The sensual person does not perceive those +things that pertain to the Spirit of God."
1430 This opinion is refuted by the statements of the other -side, and this is in two ways. First, by the profundity of Christ's words. Thus -he says, Others, that is, those who rightly understood, said, These -are not the sayings of one who has a demon. This was like saying: It is -clear from what he is saying that he is not mad, because his words are orderly -and profound: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" -(6:69). And Paul says, "I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking -the sober truth" (Acts 26:25). Secondly, this opinion is refuted by the -greatness of the miracle worked by Christ. Thus they say, Can a demon open -the eyes of the blind? This means: Was not this one of the greatest of -miracles? They were correct in believing that it could be performed only by the -power of God: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" (9:33). - -
1431 It should be noted that there are certain "miracles" -which can be performed by the power of demons and angels, and there are others -which in no way can be accomplished by their power. Those things which are -above the order of nature no creature whatever can perform by its own power, -since the creature itself is subject to the laws of nature. God alone, who is -above nature, can act above the order of nature. Therefore, whatever any -creature performs must remain within the order of nature, an angel, either good -or wicked, is able to do, when it is permitted. Thus, by using the seeds which -in natural things are ordered to the generation of certain animals, they are -able to effect the generation of these animals, as Pharaoh's magicians did (Ex -7:11). Again, they can produce changes affecting the nature of a thing; thus, -they can heal the sick who could be helped by the power of nature. - -
But things that absolutely -transcend the order of nature can be performed by God alone, or by good angels -and saintly men through God's power, which they obtain through prayer. Such -would be the conferring of sight on the blind and the raising of the dead; for -the power of nature cannot extend to the restoring of sight or to the raising -of the dead. Consequently, a demon cannot open the eyes of a blind man or raise -the dead, because this is done by God alone, and by the saints through the -power of God. - -
1432 Here we see the dispute which the Jewish leaders -initiated with Christ. First, the Evangelist gives the question asked by the -Jews; secondly, Christ's answer (v 25); and thirdly, the effect of this answer -(v 31). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he describes the -circumstances of the questioning; secondly, he gives the question itself (v -24). The circumstances of the questioning are described with respect to three -things: the time, the place, and the persons who ask the question. - -
1433 He mentions the specific time first, saying, it was (encaenia) -the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem. To understand this we have to -know, as Augustine says, that an "encaenia" was the feast of the dedication of -a church.[26] -The Greek word, caenos, is the same as the Latin word for "new." Thus an -encaenia is the same as a renewal; and even in everyday speech, when -something is dedicated to some use, it is said to be "encaeniated," which is -the same thing as being renewed. Thus the encaenia, the feast of the -Dedication, was the feast and commemoration of the dedication of the temple, -for when we newly dedicate some church to the divine worship, we celebrate its -being set aside for a sacred purpose; and in memory of this we celebrate it -every year on the same day. Thus every year the Jews celebrated the encaenia, -the remembrance of the dedication of the temple. - -
1434 To understand why there is a feast for the consecration -of a church, we should note that all the feasts in the Church are celebrated in -remembrance of God's blessings: "I will recount the steadfast love of the Lord" -(Is 63:7). Again in Psalm 117 [v 1], after David called to mind God's many -blessings, saying, "Give praise to the Lord, for he is good," he adds, -"Solemnize this day, with shady boughs, even to the horn of the altar" [v 26]. - -
We recall God's benefits to us as -being of three kinds. Sometimes, as they are found in our head, the Lord Jesus -Christ. Thus we celebrate the feast of his birth, and of his resurrection, and -so on. Sometimes we recall them as found in our fellow members, that is, in the -saints, who are members of the Church. This is fitting, for as the Apostle -says: "If one member is honored, all rejoice together" (1 Cor 12:26). Thus we -celebrate the feasts of Saints Peter and Paul, and the other saints. But at -times we recall God's benefits as found in the entire Church: for example, the -benefits of the sacraments and other things granted to the Church in general. -Now a material church building is like a sign of the gathering of the faithful -of the Church, and in this building all the sacraments of grace are dispensed. -So it is in memory of these benefits that we celebrate the feast of the -dedication of a church. Indeed, such a feast is greater than the feast of any -saint, just as the benefits conferred upon the whole Church, which benefits we -celebrate, exceed the benefits conferred on some saint and recalled during his -feast. - -
1435 Recall that the temple at Jerusalem had been -consecrated three times: first by Solomon (1 Kgs c 8); secondly, during the -time of Ezra by Zerubbabel and Jesus, the high priest (Ezra c 6); thirdly, by -the Maccabees, for it says in 1 Maccabees (c 4) that they went up to Jerusalem -to cleanse the holy places. Now this feast was not celebrated in memory of the -dedication by Solomon, because that took place in the fall, i.e., in the -seventh month; nor was it in memory of the dedication made at the time of Ezra, -for this took place during the spring, i.e., the ninth day of March. But it was -in memory of the dedication made by the Maccabees, which took place during the -winter. And so to show this he mentions the specific time, saying, it was -winter. - -
There is also a mystical reason for -mentioning the time. As Gregory says (Morals 2), the Evangelist took -care to mention the season as winter in order to indicate the chill of evil in -the hearts of those listening, that is, the Jews: "As a well keeps its water -cold, so she keeps cold her wickedness" [Jer 6:7]; and we read of this winter: -"The winter is past, the rain is over and gone" (Song 2:11).[27] - -
1436 Then he describes the place, and Jesus was walking -in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. He describes it first in a -general way, in the temple: "The Lord is in his holy temple" (Ps 11:4); -secondly, in more detail, saying, in the portico of Solomon. We have to -know that the temple included not just its main building, but the surrounding -porticos as well; it was on these porticos that the people stood and prayed, -for only the priests prayed in the temple. It was called the portico of Solomon -because it was the place where Solomon stood and prayed when the temple was -being dedicated: "Then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the -presence of all the assembly of Israel" (1 Kgs 8:22). - -
1437 One might object that the temple which Solomon built -was destroyed, and so was his portico. I answer that the temple was rebuilt according -to the specifications of the previous one; and so just as that portico was -called the portico of Solomon in the first instance, it was called the same -later out of respect for him. - -
1438 The persons who question Christ are described as to -their malice; thus he says, so the Jews gathered round him, unwarmed by -loving charity, but burning with the desire to harm him. They came to attack -him, surrounding and pressing him in on all sides: "Many bulls encompass me" -(Ps 22:12); "Ephraim has encompassed me" (Hos 11:12). - -
1439 Then when he says, and said to him…we see the -Jews questioning him. First, he mentions the pretended reason for their -questions when he says, How long will you keep us in suspense? Their -manner is flattering because they want it to appear that they desire to know -the truth about him. It is like they were saying: We are hanging in -anticipation. How long will you keep us unsatisfied? "Hope deferred makes the -heart sick" (Prv 13:12). - -
Secondly, they state their -question, If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. Note their perversity; -for since they resent Christ's calling himself the Son of God (5:18), they do -not ask him if he is the Son of God, but If you are the Christ, tell us -plainly. They hoped by this to obtain grounds for accusing him before -Pilate for inciting sedition and making himself king - which was in opposition -to Caesar and offensive to the Romans. Thus it was that when the Jews accused -Christ of making himself the Son of God, Pilate was not very impressed; but -when they said: "Every one who makes himself a king sets himself against -Caesar" (19:12), he was swayed against Christ. This is why they say, If you -are the Christ, or a king, or anointed, tell us plainly. - -
Secondly, notice their wickedness, -because they say, plainly. It was like saying: Up to now you have not -taught in public, but more or less in secret; but in reality, Christ said -everything openly and was present for the festival days, and said nothing in -secret: "I have spoken openly to the world…I have said nothing secretly" -(18:20). - +side, and this is in two ways. First, by the profundity of Christ's +words. Thus he says, Others, that is, those who rightly +understood, said, These are not the sayings of one who has a +demon. This was like saying: It is clear from what he is saying +that he is not mad, because his words are orderly and profound: +"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" +(6:69). And Paul says, "I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I +am speaking the sober truth" (Acts 26:25). Secondly, this opinion +is refuted by the greatness of the miracle worked by Christ. Thus +they say, Can a demon open the eyes of the blind? This +means: Was not this one of the greatest of miracles? They were +correct in believing that it could be performed only by the power +of God: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" +(9:33).
+1431 It should be noted that there are certain "miracles" which +can be performed by the power of demons and angels, and there are +others which in no way can be accomplished by their power. Those +things which are above the order of nature no creature whatever can +perform by its own power, since the creature itself is subject to +the laws of nature. God alone, who is above nature, can act above +the order of nature. Therefore, whatever any creature performs must +remain within the order of nature, an angel, either good or wicked, +is able to do, when it is permitted. Thus, by using the seeds which +in natural things are ordered to the generation of certain animals, +they are able to effect the generation of these animals, as +Pharaoh's magicians did (Ex 7:11). Again, they can produce changes +affecting the nature of a thing; thus, they can heal the sick who +could be helped by the power of nature.
+But things that absolutely transcend the order of nature can be +performed by God alone, or by good angels and saintly men through +God's power, which they obtain through prayer. Such would be the +conferring of sight on the blind and the raising of the dead; for +the power of nature cannot extend to the restoring of sight or to +the raising of the dead. Consequently, a demon cannot open the eyes +of a blind man or raise the dead, because this is done by God +alone, and by the saints through the power of God.
+1432 Here we see the dispute which the Jewish leaders initiated +with Christ. First, the Evangelist gives the question asked by the +Jews; secondly, Christ's answer (v 25); and thirdly, the effect of +this answer (v 31). Concerning the first he does two things: first, +he describes the circumstances of the questioning; secondly, he +gives the question itself (v 24). The circumstances of the +questioning are described with respect to three things: the time, +the place, and the persons who ask the question.
+1433 He mentions the specific time first, saying, it was +(encaenia) the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem. +To understand this we have to know, as Augustine says, that an +"encaenia" was the feast of the dedication of a church.[26] The Greek word, +caenos, is the same as the Latin word for "new." Thus an +encaenia is the same as a renewal; and even in everyday +speech, when something is dedicated to some use, it is said to be +"encaeniated," which is the same thing as being renewed. Thus the +encaenia, the feast of the Dedication, was the feast and +commemoration of the dedication of the temple, for when we newly +dedicate some church to the divine worship, we celebrate its being +set aside for a sacred purpose; and in memory of this we celebrate +it every year on the same day. Thus every year the Jews celebrated +the encaenia, the remembrance of the dedication of the +temple.
+1434 To understand why there is a feast for the consecration of +a church, we should note that all the feasts in the Church are +celebrated in remembrance of God's blessings: "I will recount the +steadfast love of the Lord" (Is 63:7). Again in Psalm 117 [v 1], +after David called to mind God's many blessings, saying, "Give +praise to the Lord, for he is good," he adds, "Solemnize this day, +with shady boughs, even to the horn of the altar" [v 26].
+We recall God's benefits to us as being of three kinds. +Sometimes, as they are found in our head, the Lord Jesus Christ. +Thus we celebrate the feast of his birth, and of his resurrection, +and so on. Sometimes we recall them as found in our fellow members, +that is, in the saints, who are members of the Church. This is +fitting, for as the Apostle says: "If one member is honored, all +rejoice together" (1 Cor 12:26). Thus we celebrate the feasts of +Saints Peter and Paul, and the other saints. But at times we recall +God's benefits as found in the entire Church: for example, the +benefits of the sacraments and other things granted to the Church +in general. Now a material church building is like a sign of the +gathering of the faithful of the Church, and in this building all +the sacraments of grace are dispensed. So it is in memory of these +benefits that we celebrate the feast of the dedication of a church. +Indeed, such a feast is greater than the feast of any saint, just +as the benefits conferred upon the whole Church, which benefits we +celebrate, exceed the benefits conferred on some saint and recalled +during his feast.
+1435 Recall that the temple at Jerusalem had been consecrated +three times: first by Solomon (1 Kgs c 8); secondly, during the +time of Ezra by Zerubbabel and Jesus, the high priest (Ezra c 6); +thirdly, by the Maccabees, for it says in 1 Maccabees (c 4) that +they went up to Jerusalem to cleanse the holy places. Now this +feast was not celebrated in memory of the dedication by Solomon, +because that took place in the fall, i.e., in the seventh month; +nor was it in memory of the dedication made at the time of Ezra, +for this took place during the spring, i.e., the ninth day of +March. But it was in memory of the dedication made by the +Maccabees, which took place during the winter. And so to show this +he mentions the specific time, saying, it was winter.
+There is also a mystical reason for mentioning the time. As +Gregory says (Morals 2), the Evangelist took care to mention +the season as winter in order to indicate the chill of evil in the +hearts of those listening, that is, the Jews: "As a well keeps its +water cold, so she keeps cold her wickedness" [Jer 6:7]; and we +read of this winter: "The winter is past, the rain is over and +gone" (Song 2:11).[27]
+1436 Then he describes the place, and Jesus was walking in +the temple, in the portico of Solomon. He describes it first in +a general way, in the temple: "The Lord is in his holy +temple" (Ps 11:4); secondly, in more detail, saying, in the +portico of Solomon. We have to know that the temple included +not just its main building, but the surrounding porticos as well; +it was on these porticos that the people stood and prayed, for only +the priests prayed in the temple. It was called the portico of +Solomon because it was the place where Solomon stood and prayed +when the temple was being dedicated: "Then Solomon stood before the +altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel" (1 +Kgs 8:22).
+1437 One might object that the temple which Solomon built was +destroyed, and so was his portico. I answer that the temple was +rebuilt according to the specifications of the previous one; and so +just as that portico was called the portico of Solomon in the first +instance, it was called the same later out of respect for him.
+1438 The persons who question Christ are described as to their +malice; thus he says, so the Jews gathered round him, +unwarmed by loving charity, but burning with the desire to harm +him. They came to attack him, surrounding and pressing him in on +all sides: "Many bulls encompass me" (Ps 22:12); "Ephraim has +encompassed me" (Hos 11:12).
+1439 Then when he says, and said to him…we see the +Jews questioning him. First, he mentions the pretended reason for +their questions when he says, How long will you keep us in +suspense? Their manner is flattering because they want it to +appear that they desire to know the truth about him. It is like +they were saying: We are hanging in anticipation. How long will you +keep us unsatisfied? "Hope deferred makes the heart sick" (Prv +13:12).
+Secondly, they state their question, If you are the Christ, +tell us plainly. Note their perversity; for since they resent +Christ's calling himself the Son of God (5:18), they do not ask him +if he is the Son of God, but If you are the Christ, tell us +plainly. They hoped by this to obtain grounds for accusing him +before Pilate for inciting sedition and making himself king - which +was in opposition to Caesar and offensive to the Romans. Thus it +was that when the Jews accused Christ of making himself the Son of +God, Pilate was not very impressed; but when they said: "Every one +who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar" (19:12), he +was swayed against Christ. This is why they say, If you are the +Christ, or a king, or anointed, tell us plainly.
+Secondly, notice their wickedness, because they say, +plainly. It was like saying: Up to now you have not taught +in public, but more or less in secret; but in reality, Christ said +everything openly and was present for the festival days, and said +nothing in secret: "I have spoken openly to the world…I have +said nothing secretly" (18:20).
1440 Now we have the answer of Christ, where he shows their -unbelief, proving they were deceitful in saying they wished to know the truth -when they said, "How long will you keep us in suspense?" He shows this in two -ways. First, because they did not believe his words; and about this he says, I -told you, and you do not believe. As if to say: You say to me, "If you are -the Christ," the king, "tell us." But I told you, that is, I told you -the truth, and you do not believe. "If I tell you, you will not believe" -(Lk 22:67). - -
He shows this in a second way -because they do not believe his works. And about this he says: the works -that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness to me. He first shows -their unbelief in his works; secondly, the reason for their unbelief (v 26). - -
1441 As to the first he says, the works that I do…. -This was like saying: You cannot be persuaded and satisfied by my words, nor -even by those great works which I do in my Father's name, i.e., for his -glory. They bear witness to me, because they can be performed by God -alone. Thus they clearly show that I have come from God: "The tree is known by -its fruit" (Matt 12:33); "These very works which I am doing, bear witness" -(5:36). But you do not believe: "Though he had done so many signs before -them, yet they did not believe in him" (12:37). For this reason they are -inexcusable: "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, -they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father -(15:24). - -
1442 The reason for their unbelief is that they are -separated from Christ's sheep. So he says, but you do not believe, because -you do not belong to my sheep. He does three things concerning this. First, -he says that they are excluded from membership in the sheep of Christ; -secondly, he shows the dignity of his sheep (v 27); thirdly, he proves that no -one will snatch his sheep out of his hands (v 29). - -
1443 He mentions that they are not among his sheep when he -says, you do not belong to my sheep, i.e., you are not predestined to -believe, but foreknown to eternal destruction. For the very fact that we -believe is due to God: "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of -Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil -1:29); "For by grace you have been saved thorough faith; and this is not your -own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). And this is given only to those -for whom it was prepared from eternity; thus, only those believe in him who -have been ordained to this by God through an eternal predestination: "As many -as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48); "We believe that we -shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 15:11). - -
1444 But should anyone be told that he is not predestined? -It seems that he should not be told: for since no one can be saved unless he is -predestined, if one is told that he is not predestined, he would be driven to -despair. And so our Lord was driving the Jews to despair when he said to them, you -do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My answer to this is -that in this group there was something common to all, that is, they were not -preordained by God to believe at that time; and there was also something -special, that is, some of them were preordained to believe later. Thus, some of -them did believe later, for we read in Acts (c 2) that three thousand of them -believed in one day. But some were not preordained to do this. Therefore, it -did not militate against hope to say to a group, some of whom were preordained -to believe later, that they did not belong to his sheep, because no one of them -could apply this definitely to himself. But it would militate against hope if -Christ had said this to some definite person.[28] - +unbelief, proving they were deceitful in saying they wished to know +the truth when they said, "How long will you keep us in suspense?" +He shows this in two ways. First, because they did not believe his +words; and about this he says, I told you, and you do not +believe. As if to say: You say to me, "If you are the Christ," +the king, "tell us." But I told you, that is, I told you the +truth, and you do not believe. "If I tell you, you will not +believe" (Lk 22:67).
+He shows this in a second way because they do not believe his +works. And about this he says: the works that I do in my +Father's name, they bear witness to me. He first shows their +unbelief in his works; secondly, the reason for their unbelief (v +26).
+1441 As to the first he says, the works that I +do…. This was like saying: You cannot be persuaded and +satisfied by my words, nor even by those great works which I do +in my Father's name, i.e., for his glory. They bear +witness to me, because they can be performed by God alone. Thus +they clearly show that I have come from God: "The tree is known by +its fruit" (Matt 12:33); "These very works which I am doing, bear +witness" (5:36). But you do not believe: "Though he had done +so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him" +(12:37). For this reason they are inexcusable: "If I had not done +among them the works which no one else did, they would not have +sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father +(15:24).
+1442 The reason for their unbelief is that they are separated +from Christ's sheep. So he says, but you do not believe, because +you do not belong to my sheep. He does three things concerning +this. First, he says that they are excluded from membership in the +sheep of Christ; secondly, he shows the dignity of his sheep (v +27); thirdly, he proves that no one will snatch his sheep out of +his hands (v 29).
+1443 He mentions that they are not among his sheep when he says, +you do not belong to my sheep, i.e., you are not predestined +to believe, but foreknown to eternal destruction. For the very fact +that we believe is due to God: "For it has been granted to you that +for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also +suffer for his sake" (Phil 1:29); "For by grace you have been saved +thorough faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of +God" (Eph 2:8). And this is given only to those for whom it was +prepared from eternity; thus, only those believe in him who have +been ordained to this by God through an eternal predestination: "As +many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48); "We +believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" +(Acts 15:11).
+1444 But should anyone be told that he is not predestined? It +seems that he should not be told: for since no one can be saved +unless he is predestined, if one is told that he is not +predestined, he would be driven to despair. And so our Lord was +driving the Jews to despair when he said to them, you do not +believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My answer to +this is that in this group there was something common to all, that +is, they were not preordained by God to believe at that time; and +there was also something special, that is, some of them were +preordained to believe later. Thus, some of them did believe later, +for we read in Acts (c 2) that three thousand of them believed in +one day. But some were not preordained to do this. Therefore, it +did not militate against hope to say to a group, some of whom were +preordained to believe later, that they did not belong to his +sheep, because no one of them could apply this definitely to +himself. But it would militate against hope if Christ had said this +to some definite person.[28]
1445 Now he reveals the dignity of his sheep when he says, my -sheep hear my voice. He here mentions four things: two of them are what we -do in reference to Christ; the other two, which correspond to the first two are -what Christ does in us. - -
1446 The first thing we do is to obey Christ. Concerning -this he says, my sheep, through predestination, hear my voice, by -believing and obeying my precepts: "O that today you would harken to his voice! -Harden not your hearts" (Ps 95:7). - +sheep hear my voice. He here mentions four things: two of them +are what we do in reference to Christ; the other two, which +correspond to the first two are what Christ does in us.
+1446 The first thing we do is to obey Christ. Concerning this he +says, my sheep, through predestination, hear my +voice, by believing and obeying my precepts: "O that today you +would harken to his voice! Harden not your hearts" (Ps 95:7).
1447 The second thing, corresponding to this, is what Christ -does, which is to give his love and approval. Concerning this he says, and I -know them, that is, I love and approve of them: "The Lord knows those who -are his" (2 Tim 2:19). This is like saying: The very fact that they hear me is -due to the fact that I know them by an eternal election. - -
But if a person cannot believe -unless God gives this to him, it seems that unbelief should not be imputed to -anyone. I answer that it is imputed to them because they are the cause why it -is not given to them. Thus, I cannot see the light unless I am enlightened by -the sun. Yet if I were to close my eyes, I would not see the light; but this is -not due to the sun but to me, because by closing my eyes I am the cause of my -not being enlightened. Now sin, for example, original sin, and in some persons -actual sin, is the cause why we are not enlightened by God through faith. This -cause is in everyone. Thus, all who are left by God are left by reason of the -just judgment of God, and those who are chosen are lifted up by God's mercy. - +does, which is to give his love and approval. Concerning this he +says, and I know them, that is, I love and approve of them: +"The Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19). This is like +saying: The very fact that they hear me is due to the fact that +I know them by an eternal election.
+But if a person cannot believe unless God gives this to him, it +seems that unbelief should not be imputed to anyone. I answer that +it is imputed to them because they are the cause why it is not +given to them. Thus, I cannot see the light unless I am enlightened +by the sun. Yet if I were to close my eyes, I would not see the +light; but this is not due to the sun but to me, because by closing +my eyes I am the cause of my not being enlightened. Now sin, for +example, original sin, and in some persons actual sin, is the cause +why we are not enlightened by God through faith. This cause is in +everyone. Thus, all who are left by God are left by reason of the +just judgment of God, and those who are chosen are lifted up by +God's mercy.
1448 The third thing, which is what we do, concerns our -imitation of Christ. So he says, and they follow me: "My foot has held -fast his steps" (Job 23:11); "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an -example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21). - -
1449 The corresponding fourth part, which is what Christ -does, is the bestowing of a reward. Concerning this he says, and I give them -eternal life. This is like saying: They follow me by walking the path of -gentleness and innocence in this life, and I will see that afterwards they will -follow me by entering into the joys of eternal life. - -
Our Lord shows in three ways that -this reward will never end. Something can end in three ways. First of all, by -its very nature, for example, if it is corruptible. But this reward is incorruptible -of its very nature. Thus He says, I give them eternal life, which is -incorruptible and ever-living enjoyment of God: "This is eternal life, that -they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (17:3). -As Augustine says, this is the pasture which he spoke before (v 9).[29] -Indeed, eternal life is called a good pasture because it is entirely verdant -and nothing withers away. Secondly, a thing can end because the one receiving -it ends, or does not guard it well. But this will not happen to that reward; so -he says, and they shall never perish, that is, the sheep will never -perish. This conflicts with Origen, for he said that the saints in glory are -able to sin.[30] -Yet our Lord says, they shall never perish, because they will be preserved -forever: "He who conquers I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; -never shall he go out of it" (Rev 3:12). Thirdly, a thing can end by being -snatched by force: for perhaps Adam would not have been cast out if the -Deceiver had not been there. But this will not happen in eternal life, and so -he says, and no one shall snatch them, that is, the sheep, out of my -hand, that is, from my protection and loyalty: "The souls of the righteous -are in the hand of God" (Wis 3:1). As Augustine says: "There the wolf does not +imitation of Christ. So he says, and they follow me: "My +foot has held fast his steps" (Job 23:11); "Christ also suffered +for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his +steps" (1 Pet 2:21).
+1449 The corresponding fourth part, which is what Christ does, +is the bestowing of a reward. Concerning this he says, and I +give them eternal life. This is like saying: They follow me by +walking the path of gentleness and innocence in this life, and I +will see that afterwards they will follow me by entering into the +joys of eternal life.
+Our Lord shows in three ways that this reward will never end. +Something can end in three ways. First of all, by its very nature, +for example, if it is corruptible. But this reward is incorruptible +of its very nature. Thus He says, I give them eternal life, +which is incorruptible and ever-living enjoyment of God: "This is +eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus +Christ whom thou hast sent" (17:3). As Augustine says, this is the +pasture which he spoke before (v 9).[29] Indeed, eternal life is called +a good pasture because it is entirely verdant and nothing withers +away. Secondly, a thing can end because the one receiving it ends, +or does not guard it well. But this will not happen to that reward; +so he says, and they shall never perish, that is, the sheep +will never perish. This conflicts with Origen, for he said that the +saints in glory are able to sin.[30] Yet our Lord says, they shall never +perish, because they will be preserved forever: "He who +conquers I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never +shall he go out of it" (Rev 3:12). Thirdly, a thing can end by +being snatched by force: for perhaps Adam would not have been cast +out if the Deceiver had not been there. But this will not happen in +eternal life, and so he says, and no one shall snatch them, +that is, the sheep, out of my hand, that is, from my +protection and loyalty: "The souls of the righteous are in the hand +of God" (Wis 3:1). As Augustine says: "There the wolf does not snatch, nor the thief steal, nor the robber kill."[31] - -
1450 He now proves what he had said above about the dignity -of his sheep, namely, that no one can snatch them from his hand. His reason is -this: No one can snatch what is in the hand of my Father; but the Father's hand -and mine are the same; therefore, no one can snatch what is in my hand. -Concerning this he does three things: first, he gives the minor premise by -showing that the Father had communicated divinity to him, saying, what my -Father has given to me, through an eternal generation, is greater than -all. "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also -to have life in himself" (5:26). It is greater than any power: "He has -given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man" (5:27); -it is greater than any reverence and honor: "God had bestowed on him the -name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should -bow" (Phil 2:9). Therefore, what my Father has given to me, that is, -that I am his Word, his only begotten, and the splendor of his light, is -greater than all. - -
Secondly, he mentions the greatness -of the Father's power, which concerns the major premise, when he says, and -no one is able to snatch, take by violence or secretly pilfer, out of my -Father's hand, from the power of my Father, or from me, who am the might of -the Father - although as Augustine says, it is better to say "from the power of -the Father" than "from me." [32] -Now no one is able to snatch out of my Father's hand, because he is the -almighty One who is not subject to violence, and he is all-wise from whom -nothing is hidden: "He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength" (Job 9:4). - -
Thirdly, he affirms his unity with -the Father, and from this the conclusion follows. Thus he says, I and the -Father are one. As if to say: no one shall snatch them out of my hand, -because I and the Father are one, by a unity of essence, for the Father -and the Son are the same in nature. - +name="_ftnref31" id="_ftnref31">[31]
+1450 He now proves what he had said above about the dignity of +his sheep, namely, that no one can snatch them from his hand. His +reason is this: No one can snatch what is in the hand of my Father; +but the Father's hand and mine are the same; therefore, no one can +snatch what is in my hand. Concerning this he does three things: +first, he gives the minor premise by showing that the Father had +communicated divinity to him, saying, what my Father has given +to me, through an eternal generation, is greater than +all. "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted +the Son also to have life in himself" (5:26). It is greater +than any power: "He has given him authority to execute judgment, +because he is the Son of man" (5:27); it is greater than any +reverence and honor: "God had bestowed on him the name which is +above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" +(Phil 2:9). Therefore, what my Father has given to me, that +is, that I am his Word, his only begotten, and the splendor of his +light, is greater than all.
+Secondly, he mentions the greatness of the Father's power, which +concerns the major premise, when he says, and no one is able to +snatch, take by violence or secretly pilfer, out of my +Father's hand, from the power of my Father, or from me, who am +the might of the Father - although as Augustine says, it is better +to say "from the power of the Father" than "from me." [32] Now no one is +able to snatch out of my Father's hand, because he is the +almighty One who is not subject to violence, and he is all-wise +from whom nothing is hidden: "He is wise in heart, and mighty in +strength" (Job 9:4).
+Thirdly, he affirms his unity with the Father, and from this the +conclusion follows. Thus he says, I and the Father are one. +As if to say: no one shall snatch them out of my hand, +because I and the Father are one, by a unity of essence, for +the Father and the Son are the same in nature.
1451 This statement rejects two errors: that of Arius, who -distinguished the essence [of the Father from that of the Son], and that of -Sabellius, who did not distinguish the person [of the Father from the person of -the Son]. We escape both Charybdis and Scylla, for by the fact that Christ -says, one, he saves us from Arius, because if one, then they are not -different [in nature]. And by the fact that he says, we are, he saves us -from Sabellius, for if we are, then the Father and the Son are not the same -[person]. - -
Yet the Arians, deceived by their -wickedness, try to deny this, and say that a creature can in some sense be one -with God, and in this sense the Son can be one with the Father. The falsity of -this can be shown in three ways. First, from our very manner of speaking. For -it is clear that "one" is asserted as "being"; thus, just as something is not -said to be a being absolutely except according to its substance, so it is not -said to be one except according to its substance or nature. Now something is -asserted absolutely when it is asserted with no added qualification. Therefore, -because I and the Father are one, is asserted absolutely, without any -qualifications added, it is plain that they are one according to substance and -nature. But we never find that God and a creature are one without some added qualification, -as in 1 Corinthians (6:17): "He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit -with him." Therefore, it is clear that the Son of God is not one with the -Father as a creature can be.[33] - -
Secondly, we can see this from his -previous statement, what my Father has given me is greater than all. He -draws the conclusion from this: I and the Father are one. This is like -saying: We are one to the extent that the Father has given me that which is -greater than all. - -
Thirdly, it is clear from his -intention. For our Lord proves that no one will snatch the sheep from his hand -precisely because no one can snatch from the hand of his Father. But this would -not follow if his power were less than the power of the Father. Therefore, the -Father and Son are one in nature, honor and power. -
-LECTURE 6 - -
31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus -answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of -these do you stone me?" 33 The Jews answered him, "We stone you for no good -work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God." 34 Jesus -answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? 35 If he -called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), -36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated [sanctified] and sent into the -world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37 If I am -not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, -even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and -understand [believe] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 39 Again -they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands. 40 He went away -again across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and there he -remained. 41 And many came to him; and they said, "John did no sign, but -everything that John said about this man was true." 42 And many believed in him -there.[34] - +distinguished the essence [of the Father from that of the Son], and +that of Sabellius, who did not distinguish the person [of the +Father from the person of the Son]. We escape both Charybdis and +Scylla, for by the fact that Christ says, one, he saves us +from Arius, because if one, then they are not different [in +nature]. And by the fact that he says, we are, he saves us +from Sabellius, for if we are, then the Father and the Son are not +the same [person].
+Yet the Arians, deceived by their wickedness, try to deny this, +and say that a creature can in some sense be one with God, and in +this sense the Son can be one with the Father. The falsity of this +can be shown in three ways. First, from our very manner of +speaking. For it is clear that "one" is asserted as "being"; thus, +just as something is not said to be a being absolutely except +according to its substance, so it is not said to be one except +according to its substance or nature. Now something is asserted +absolutely when it is asserted with no added qualification. +Therefore, because I and the Father are one, is asserted +absolutely, without any qualifications added, it is plain that they +are one according to substance and nature. But we never find that +God and a creature are one without some added qualification, as in +1 Corinthians (6:17): "He who is united to the Lord becomes one +spirit with him." Therefore, it is clear that the Son of God is not +one with the Father as a creature can be.[33]
+Secondly, we can see this from his previous statement, what +my Father has given me is greater than all. He draws the +conclusion from this: I and the Father are one. This is like +saying: We are one to the extent that the Father has given me that +which is greater than all.
+Thirdly, it is clear from his intention. For our Lord proves +that no one will snatch the sheep from his hand precisely because +no one can snatch from the hand of his Father. But this would not +follow if his power were less than the power of the Father. +Therefore, the Father and Son are one in nature, honor and +power.
+
+
+LECTURE 6
+31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered +them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which +of these do you stone me?" 33 The Jews answered him, "We stone you +for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make +yourself God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your +law, 'I said, you are gods'? 35 If he called them gods to whom the +word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of +him whom the Father consecrated [sanctified] and sent into the +world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of +God'? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not +believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, +believe the works, that you may know and understand [believe] that +the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 39 Again they tried to +arrest him, but he escaped from their hands. 40 He went away again +across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and +there he remained. 41 And many came to him; and they said, "John +did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was +true." 42 And many believed in him there.[34]
1452 We have seen the teaching of Christ; and now we see the -effect this teaching has on the Jews. First, Jesus reproves their fierceness; -secondly, he defends himself against the charge of blasphemy; and thirdly, he -escapes from their violence (v 39). - -
1453 Concerning the first, two things are done. First, we -see the violence of the Jews inciting them to stone Christ. The Evangelist -says, The Jews took up stones again to stone him. They were hard of -heart and unable to understand his profound message; and so, being like stones, -they resort to stones: "When I spoke to them they fought against me without -cause" [Ps 119:7]. - -
1454 Secondly, we see our Lord reprove their violence, -saying, I have shown you many good works. First, he reminds them of the -benefits given to them; secondly, he reproves their violence. He recalls the -benefits he granted in healing the sick, in teaching them and performing his -miracles. So he answered them saying, I have shown you many good works, -by healing, teaching and working miracles - "He has done all things well" (Mk -7:37) - from the Father, whose glory I have sought in all these things - -"Yet I do not seek my own glory" (8:50). And he reproves their violence when he -says, for which of these do you stone me? This was like saying: You -should honor one who does good to you, not stone him: "Is evil a recompense for -good?" (Jer 18:20). - -
1455 Now our Lord defends himself from the charge of -blasphemy. First, we see him accused of blasphemy by the Jews; and secondly, -Christ proves his innocence (v 34). - -
1456 With respect to the first, the Evangelist says, The -Jews answered him, We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy. There -are five things to be considered here. First, what seems to be the motive for -their stoning him, namely, his blasphemy. For Leviticus commands that -blasphemers be stoned: "Bring out of the camp him who has blasphemed; and let -all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let the congregation stone -him" [24:14]. Mentioning this motive, they say, We stone you for no good -work but for blasphemy. - -
Secondly, they specify his -blasphemy. It is blasphemy not only to attribute to God what is not appropriate -to him, but also to attribute to another what belongs to God alone. So, it is -blasphemy not only to say that God is a body, but also to say that a creature -can create: "It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mk 2:7). -Thus the Jews were saying that our Lord was a blasphemer not in the first way, -but for usurping for himself what is proper to God: because you, being a -man, make yourself God. - -
The third thing to be considered is -that the Jews understood the words of Christ, I and the Father are one, -better than the Arians did. Thus they were incensed because they understood -that I and the Father are one could only be said if the Father and Son -are equal. This is what they say, you make yourself God, claiming by -your words that you are God, which is not true, you, being a man. - -
The fourth point to consider is -that the distance between God and man is so great that it was unbelievable to -them that someone with a human nature could be God. So they significantly say, because -you, being a man, make yourself God. Yet this unbelief could have been -dispelled by what is read in the Psalm, "What is man that you are mindful of -him? Or the son of man that you visit him?" [Ps 8:5]; and in Habakkuk (1:5): -"For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told," this -is, the work of the incarnation, which surpasses every mind. - -
The fifth thing to consider is that -they do not agree with themselves: for on the one hand, they say that Christ -does good works, saying, we stone you for no good work; and on the other -hand, they accuse him of blasphemy, usurping for himself the honor of God. Now -these conflict with each other, for he could not accomplish miracles from God -if he blasphemed God, because "A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a -bad tree bear good fruit" (Mt 7:18). And this applied especially to Christ. - +effect this teaching has on the Jews. First, Jesus reproves their +fierceness; secondly, he defends himself against the charge of +blasphemy; and thirdly, he escapes from their violence (v 39).
+1453 Concerning the first, two things are done. First, we see +the violence of the Jews inciting them to stone Christ. The +Evangelist says, The Jews took up stones again to stone him. +They were hard of heart and unable to understand his profound +message; and so, being like stones, they resort to stones: "When I +spoke to them they fought against me without cause" [Ps 119:7].
+1454 Secondly, we see our Lord reprove their violence, saying, +I have shown you many good works. First, he reminds them of +the benefits given to them; secondly, he reproves their violence. +He recalls the benefits he granted in healing the sick, in teaching +them and performing his miracles. So he answered them saying, I +have shown you many good works, by healing, teaching and +working miracles - "He has done all things well" (Mk 7:37) - +from the Father, whose glory I have sought in all these +things - "Yet I do not seek my own glory" (8:50). And he reproves +their violence when he says, for which of these do you stone +me? This was like saying: You should honor one who does good to +you, not stone him: "Is evil a recompense for good?" (Jer +18:20).
+1455 Now our Lord defends himself from the charge of blasphemy. +First, we see him accused of blasphemy by the Jews; and secondly, +Christ proves his innocence (v 34).
+1456 With respect to the first, the Evangelist says, The Jews +answered him, We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy. +There are five things to be considered here. First, what seems to +be the motive for their stoning him, namely, his blasphemy. For +Leviticus commands that blasphemers be stoned: "Bring out of the +camp him who has blasphemed; and let all who heard him lay their +hands upon his head, and let the congregation stone him" [24:14]. +Mentioning this motive, they say, We stone you for no good work +but for blasphemy.
+Secondly, they specify his blasphemy. It is blasphemy not only +to attribute to God what is not appropriate to him, but also to +attribute to another what belongs to God alone. So, it is blasphemy +not only to say that God is a body, but also to say that a creature +can create: "It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" +(Mk 2:7). Thus the Jews were saying that our Lord was a blasphemer +not in the first way, but for usurping for himself what is proper +to God: because you, being a man, make yourself God.
+The third thing to be considered is that the Jews understood the +words of Christ, I and the Father are one, better than the +Arians did. Thus they were incensed because they understood that +I and the Father are one could only be said if the Father +and Son are equal. This is what they say, you make yourself +God, claiming by your words that you are God, which is not +true, you, being a man.
+The fourth point to consider is that the distance between God +and man is so great that it was unbelievable to them that someone +with a human nature could be God. So they significantly say, +because you, being a man, make yourself God. Yet this +unbelief could have been dispelled by what is read in the Psalm, +"What is man that you are mindful of him? Or the son of man that +you visit him?" [Ps 8:5]; and in Habakkuk (1:5): "For I am doing a +work in your days that you would not believe if told," this is, the +work of the incarnation, which surpasses every mind.
+The fifth thing to consider is that they do not agree with +themselves: for on the one hand, they say that Christ does good +works, saying, we stone you for no good work; and on the +other hand, they accuse him of blasphemy, usurping for himself the +honor of God. Now these conflict with each other, for he could not +accomplish miracles from God if he blasphemed God, because "A sound +tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit" +(Mt 7:18). And this applied especially to Christ.
1457 Here our Lord defends himself against the charge of -blasphemy. First, he gives his defense; secondly, he shows them the truth (v -37). He defends himself by divine authority, and so first, he mentions the -authority of Scripture; secondly, he explains its meaning; and thirdly, he -draws his conclusion. - +blasphemy. First, he gives his defense; secondly, he shows them the +truth (v 37). He defends himself by divine authority, and so first, +he mentions the authority of Scripture; secondly, he explains its +meaning; and thirdly, he draws his conclusion.
1458 The Evangelist says, Jesus answered them: Is it not -written in your law (in Psalm 82:6): I said, you are gods? Here we -should note that "law" is understood in three ways in Scripture. Some times it -is taken in a general sense for the entire Old Testament, containing the five -books of Moses, the prophets and the hagiographies. This is the way in your -law is understood here, meaning in the Old Testament. For this quotation is -from the psalms which are referred to as the law because the entire Old -Testament is considered to have the authority of law. Sometimes "law" is -understood as distinct from the prophets, psalms, and the hagiographies; this -is the way Luke uses it in "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and -the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44). Again, at other -times it is distinguished from the prophets. In this sense the psalms and the -other books of the Old Testament, other than the Pentateuch, are included -within the prophets, on the ground that the Old Testament was produced by a -prophetic spirit. This is the way it is understood in Matthew: "On these two -commandments depend all the law and the prophets" (Mt 23:40). - -
1459 The word "God" is also used in three senses. Sometimes -it signifies the divine nature itself, and then it is used only in the -singular: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4). At other -times it is taken in a denominative sense: in this way idols are called gods: -"All the gods of the peoples are idols" (Ps 96:5). And sometimes someone is -called a god because of a certain participation in divinity, or in some sublime -power divinely infused. In this way, even judges are called gods in Scripture: -"If the thief is not known, the owner of the house shall be brought to the -gods," that is, to the judges [Ex 22:8]; "You shall not speak ill of the gods," -that is, of the rulers [Ex 22:28]. This is the way the word "god" is taken -here, when he says, I said, you are gods, i.e., you share in some divine -power superior to the human. - -
1460 Then when he says, If he called them gods to whom -the word of God came, he shows the meaning of the authority he cited. This -was like saying: He called them gods because they participated in something -divine insofar as they participated in God's word, which was spoken to them. -For due to God's word a person obtains some participation in the divine power -and purity: "You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you" -(15:3); and in Exodus (c 34) we read that the face of Moses shone when he heard -the words of the Lord. - -
From what has been said above, one -might argue in this way: It is clear that a person by participating in the word -of God becomes god by participation. But a thing does not become this or that -by participation unless it participates in what is this or that by its essence: -for example, a thing does not become fire by participation unless it -participates in what is fire by its essence. Therefore, one does not become god -by participation unless he participates in what is God by essence. Therefore, -the Word of God, that is the Son, by participation in whom we become gods, is -God by essence. But our Lord, rather than argue so profoundly against the Jews, -preferred to argue in a more human way. He says, and scripture cannot be -broken, in order to show the irrefutable truth of Scripture: "O Lord, your -word endures forever" [Ps 118:89].[35] - +written in your law (in Psalm 82:6): I said, you are +gods? Here we should note that "law" is understood in three +ways in Scripture. Some times it is taken in a general sense for +the entire Old Testament, containing the five books of Moses, the +prophets and the hagiographies. This is the way in your law +is understood here, meaning in the Old Testament. For this +quotation is from the psalms which are referred to as the law +because the entire Old Testament is considered to have the +authority of law. Sometimes "law" is understood as distinct from +the prophets, psalms, and the hagiographies; this is the way Luke +uses it in "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the +prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44). Again, at +other times it is distinguished from the prophets. In this sense +the psalms and the other books of the Old Testament, other than the +Pentateuch, are included within the prophets, on the ground that +the Old Testament was produced by a prophetic spirit. This is the +way it is understood in Matthew: "On these two commandments depend +all the law and the prophets" (Mt 23:40).
+1459 The word "God" is also used in three senses. Sometimes it +signifies the divine nature itself, and then it is used only in the +singular: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut +6:4). At other times it is taken in a denominative sense: in this +way idols are called gods: "All the gods of the peoples are idols" +(Ps 96:5). And sometimes someone is called a god because of a +certain participation in divinity, or in some sublime power +divinely infused. In this way, even judges are called gods in +Scripture: "If the thief is not known, the owner of the house shall +be brought to the gods," that is, to the judges [Ex 22:8]; "You +shall not speak ill of the gods," that is, of the rulers [Ex +22:28]. This is the way the word "god" is taken here, when he says, +I said, you are gods, i.e., you share in some divine power +superior to the human.
+1460 Then when he says, If he called them gods to whom the +word of God came, he shows the meaning of the authority he +cited. This was like saying: He called them gods because they +participated in something divine insofar as they participated in +God's word, which was spoken to them. For due to God's word a +person obtains some participation in the divine power and purity: +"You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you" +(15:3); and in Exodus (c 34) we read that the face of Moses shone +when he heard the words of the Lord.
+From what has been said above, one might argue in this way: It +is clear that a person by participating in the word of God becomes +god by participation. But a thing does not become this or that by +participation unless it participates in what is this or that by its +essence: for example, a thing does not become fire by participation +unless it participates in what is fire by its essence. Therefore, +one does not become god by participation unless he participates in +what is God by essence. Therefore, the Word of God, that is the +Son, by participation in whom we become gods, is God by essence. +But our Lord, rather than argue so profoundly against the Jews, +preferred to argue in a more human way. He says, and scripture +cannot be broken, in order to show the irrefutable truth of +Scripture: "O Lord, your word endures forever" [Ps 118:89].[35]
1461 Then when he says, do you say of him whom the Father -sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, he draws his -conclusion. If, with Hilary, we refer this to Christ insofar as he has a human -nature, the meaning is this: Some people are called gods only because they -participate in God's word. How then can you say, you are blaspheming, -that is, how can you consider it blasphemy, if that man who is united in person -to the Word of God is called God? [36] -This is why he says, whom the Father sanctified. For although God -sanctifies all who are sanctified - "Sanctify them in truth" (17:17) - he -sanctified Christ in a special way. He sanctifies others to be adopted children -- "You have received the spirit of adoption" (Rom 8:15) - but he sanctified -Christ to be the Son of God by nature, united in person to the Word of God. -These words, whom the Father sanctified, show this in two ways. For if -God sanctifies as Father, it is clear that he sanctifies Christ as his Son: "He -was predestined to be the Son of God by the Spirit of sanctification" [Rom -1:4]. We can also see this by his saying, and sent into the world. For -it is not fitting for a thing to be sent some place unless it existed before it -was sent there. Therefore, he whom the Father sent into the world in a visible -way, is the Son of God, who existed before he was visible: for as we saw above, -"He was in the world, and the world was made through him" (1:10); and "God sent -the Son into the world" (3:17). Do you say of him whom the Father sent into -the world, you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? This -was like saying: I, who am united in person to the Word, have much more reason -to say this than those to whom the word of God came. - -
1462 But how did the Jews realize that he was claiming to be -the Son of God? Our Lord did not say this expressly. I answer that although our -Lord did not say this expressly, yet from what he did say - I and the Father -are one and what my Father has given to me is greater than all - they -understood that he received his nature from the Father and was one in nature -with him. But to receive the same nature from another, and to be it, is to be a -son. - +sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, he +draws his conclusion. If, with Hilary, we refer this to Christ +insofar as he has a human nature, the meaning is this: Some people +are called gods only because they participate in God's word. How +then can you say, you are blaspheming, that is, how can you +consider it blasphemy, if that man who is united in person to the +Word of God is called God? [36] This is why he says, whom the Father +sanctified. For although God sanctifies all who are sanctified +- "Sanctify them in truth" (17:17) - he sanctified Christ in a +special way. He sanctifies others to be adopted children - "You +have received the spirit of adoption" (Rom 8:15) - but he +sanctified Christ to be the Son of God by nature, united in person +to the Word of God. These words, whom the Father sanctified, +show this in two ways. For if God sanctifies as Father, it is clear +that he sanctifies Christ as his Son: "He was predestined to be the +Son of God by the Spirit of sanctification" [Rom 1:4]. We can also +see this by his saying, and sent into the world. For it is +not fitting for a thing to be sent some place unless it existed +before it was sent there. Therefore, he whom the Father sent into +the world in a visible way, is the Son of God, who existed before +he was visible: for as we saw above, "He was in the world, and the +world was made through him" (1:10); and "God sent the Son into the +world" (3:17). Do you say of him whom the Father sent into the +world, you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of +God? This was like saying: I, who am united in person to the +Word, have much more reason to say this than those to whom the +word of God came.
+1462 But how did the Jews realize that he was claiming to be the +Son of God? Our Lord did not say this expressly. I answer that +although our Lord did not say this expressly, yet from what he did +say - I and the Father are one and what my Father has given to +me is greater than all - they understood that he received his +nature from the Father and was one in nature with him. But to +receive the same nature from another, and to be it, is to be a +son.
1463 But if, with Augustine, we refer him whom the Father -sanctified to Christ as God, then the meaning is this: him whom the -Father sanctified is he whom he has begotten holy, or sanctified, from -eternity.[37] -The other things which follow should be explained in the same way as Hilary -does. Yet the better explanation is to refer everything to Christ as man. - +sanctified to Christ as God, then the meaning is this: him +whom the Father sanctified is he whom he has begotten holy, or +sanctified, from eternity.[37] The other things which follow should be +explained in the same way as Hilary does. Yet the better +explanation is to refer everything to Christ as man.
1464 Then when he says, If I am not doing the works of my -Father, then do not believe me, he proves the truth of the foregoing. This -is like saying: Although in your opinion I am only human, yet I am not -blaspheming when I say that I am truly God, because I truly am. He does two -things concerning this: first, he presents the argument of his works; secondly, -he draws his conclusion (v 38b). - -
1465 He does two things concerning the first. In the first -place he says that in the absence of his works they would have an excuse. He -says, If I am not doing the works of my Father, i.e., the same ones that -he does, and with the same might and power, then do not believe me. -"Whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise" (5:19). - -
Secondly, he says that they are -convicted by his very works: but if I do them, the same works the Father -does, then even though you do not believe me, who appears as a son of -man, believe the works, i.e., these works show that I am the Son of God: -"If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not -have sin" (15:24). - -
1466 Now he draws his conclusion, saying, that you may -know and believe that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. For the -clearest indication of the nature of a thing is taken from its works. -Therefore, from the fact that he does the works of God it can be clearly known -and believed that Christ is God. Accordingly he says: I will argue from my -works themselves, that you may know and believe what you cannot see with -your own eyes, that is, that the Father is in me and I am in the Father: -"I am in the Father and the Father in me," by a unity of essence (14:10). The -Father is in me and I am in the Father and "I and the Father are one," have -the same meaning. - -
Hilary explains this well by saying -that there is this difference between God and man: man being a composite, is -not his own nature; but God, being entirely simple, is his own existence and -his own nature. Therefore, in whomever the nature of God is, there is God.[38] -And so, since the Father is God and the Son is God, where the nature of the -Father is, there is the Father, and where the nature of the Son is, there is -the Son. Therefore, since the nature of the Father is in the Son, and -conversely, the Father is in the Son, and conversely. But as Augustine remarks, -although God is in man and man is in God - "He who abides in love abides in -God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16) - this does not mean that they are one -in essence. Rather, man is in God, that is, under the divine care and protection, -and God is in man, by the likeness of his grace.[39] -However, the only Son is in the Father and the Father is in him as equals. - +Father, then do not believe me, he proves the truth of the +foregoing. This is like saying: Although in your opinion I am only +human, yet I am not blaspheming when I say that I am truly God, +because I truly am. He does two things concerning this: first, he +presents the argument of his works; secondly, he draws his +conclusion (v 38b).
+1465 He does two things concerning the first. In the first place +he says that in the absence of his works they would have an excuse. +He says, If I am not doing the works of my Father, i.e., the +same ones that he does, and with the same might and power, then +do not believe me. "Whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son +does likewise" (5:19).
+Secondly, he says that they are convicted by his very works: +but if I do them, the same works the Father does, then +even though you do not believe me, who appears as a son of +man, believe the works, i.e., these works show that I am the +Son of God: "If I had not done among them the works which no one +else did, they would not have sin" (15:24).
+1466 Now he draws his conclusion, saying, that you may know +and believe that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. +For the clearest indication of the nature of a thing is taken from +its works. Therefore, from the fact that he does the works of God +it can be clearly known and believed that Christ is God. +Accordingly he says: I will argue from my works themselves, that +you may know and believe what you cannot see with your own +eyes, that is, that the Father is in me and I am in the +Father: "I am in the Father and the Father in me," by a unity +of essence (14:10). The Father is in me and I am in the +Father and "I and the Father are one," have the same +meaning.
+Hilary explains this well by saying that there is this +difference between God and man: man being a composite, is not his +own nature; but God, being entirely simple, is his own existence +and his own nature. Therefore, in whomever the nature of God is, +there is God.[38] And so, since the Father is God and the Son is +God, where the nature of the Father is, there is the Father, and +where the nature of the Son is, there is the Son. Therefore, since +the nature of the Father is in the Son, and conversely, the Father +is in the Son, and conversely. But as Augustine remarks, although +God is in man and man is in God - "He who abides in love abides in +God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16) - this does not mean that +they are one in essence. Rather, man is in God, that is, under the +divine care and protection, and God is in man, by the likeness of +his grace.[39] However, the only Son is in the Father and the +Father is in him as equals.
1467 Now our Lord turns away from the obstinacy of the Jews. -First, the Evangelist shows they were obstinate; secondly, we see that Christ -turns away from this; thirdly, we see what effect this had. - -
1468 The Evangelist shows their inflexibility by the fact -that after so many confirmations of the truth, after the evidence of so many -miracles and wonders, they still persist in their evil. So again they tried -to arrest him, to apprehend him, not in order to believe and understand, -but in their rage to do him harm; they were even the more enraged because he -had more clearly expressed his equality with the Father: "They hold fast to deceit, -they refuse to return" (Jer 8:5). - +First, the Evangelist shows they were obstinate; secondly, we see +that Christ turns away from this; thirdly, we see what effect this +had.
+1468 The Evangelist shows their inflexibility by the fact that +after so many confirmations of the truth, after the evidence of so +many miracles and wonders, they still persist in their evil. So +again they tried to arrest him, to apprehend him, not in +order to believe and understand, but in their rage to do him harm; +they were even the more enraged because he had more clearly +expressed his equality with the Father: "They hold fast to deceit, +they refuse to return" (Jer 8:5).
1469 But our Lord turns away from their rage, and so the -Evangelist says, but he escaped from their hands. Here we see, first, -that he left them by escaping from their hands. He did this for two reasons. To -show that he could not be restrained unless he willed: "Passing through the -midst of them he went away" (Lk 4:30); "No one takes it from me, but I lay it -down of my own accord" (10:18). Secondly, to give us the example of turning -away from persecution when this can be done without endangering the faith: "Do -not make your stand against one who can injure you" [Sir 8:14]. - -
We see, secondly, where he went -when the Evangelist says, he went away again across the Jordan to the place -where John at first baptized. The mystical reason for this is that at some -time, through the apostles, Jesus would go to convert the Gentiles. The literal -reason is twofold. First, this place was near Jerusalem, and since his passion -was near, he did not wish to be too far away. Secondly, he wanted to recall the -witness which John had given there, when he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who -takes away the sin of the world" (1:29), as well as the Father's testimony to -his Son, Christ, at the time of his baptism. - +Evangelist says, but he escaped from their hands. Here we +see, first, that he left them by escaping from their hands. He did +this for two reasons. To show that he could not be restrained +unless he willed: "Passing through the midst of them he went away" +(Lk 4:30); "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own +accord" (10:18). Secondly, to give us the example of turning away +from persecution when this can be done without endangering the +faith: "Do not make your stand against one who can injure you" [Sir +8:14].
+We see, secondly, where he went when the Evangelist says, he +went away again across the Jordan to the place where John at first +baptized. The mystical reason for this is that at some time, +through the apostles, Jesus would go to convert the Gentiles. The +literal reason is twofold. First, this place was near Jerusalem, +and since his passion was near, he did not wish to be too far away. +Secondly, he wanted to recall the witness which John had given +there, when he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the +sin of the world" (1:29), as well as the Father's testimony to his +Son, Christ, at the time of his baptism.
1470 The effect of this turning away was that many were -converted to the faith. Three points are made about this conversion. First, -many imitated his works; so he says, and many came to him, namely, by -imitating his works: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will -give you rest" (Matt 11:28). Secondly, many professed him in word, and they -said, John did no sign. By this they profess Christ's superiority to John. -The reason for this was that John was sent as a witness to Christ; thus he -should show that he was worthy to be believed and his testimony would be shown -to be true. Now this is fittingly done by holiness of life. On the other hand, -Christ came as God; consequently, it was fitting that he show the signs of -divine power. And so John stood out by the sanctity of his life; Christ, -however, in addition to this, performed works which manifested his divine -power. This was in accord with the practice of the rulers of antiquity that -when in the presence of a higher power a lesser power did not display the -insignia of its power. Thus, in the presence of the Dictator, the Consuls took -down their insignia. So it was not fitting that John, who possessed less power, -because he was a precursor and witness, should employ the insignia of divine -power; only Christ should have done this. They profess the truth of John's -witness to Christ, saying, but everything that John said about this man, -Christ, was true. They were saying: Although John did no sign, he -nevertheless said all things truthfully about Christ. Thirdly, he reveals the faith -in their hearts, saying, and many believed in him there. As Augustine -remarks, they grasped Christ remaining, whom the Jews wanted to seize waning, -because through the lamp they had come to the day. For John was that lamp and -gave testimony to the day.[40] - - - -
-
-
- -- -- -[1] In -Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 324; cf. -Catena Aurea, 10:1-5. - -
- -- -[2] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5. - -
- -- -[3] Tract. -in Io., 45, ch. 2, col. 1720; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:1-5. - -
- -- -[4] loc. -cit; also Tract. in Io., 47, ch. 1, col. 1733; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13. - -
- -- -[5] In -Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 324; cf. -Catena Aurea, 10:1-5. - -
- -- -[6] Tract. -in Io., 46, ch. 2, col. 1728; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:1-5. - -
- -[7] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5. - +converted to the faith. Three points are made about this +conversion. First, many imitated his works; so he says, and many +came to him, namely, by imitating his works: "Come to me, all +who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt +11:28). Secondly, many professed him in word, and they said, +John did no sign. By this they profess Christ's superiority to +John. The reason for this was that John was sent as a witness to +Christ; thus he should show that he was worthy to be believed and +his testimony would be shown to be true. Now this is fittingly done +by holiness of life. On the other hand, Christ came as God; +consequently, it was fitting that he show the signs of divine +power. And so John stood out by the sanctity of his life; Christ, +however, in addition to this, performed works which manifested his +divine power. This was in accord with the practice of the rulers of +antiquity that when in the presence of a higher power a lesser +power did not display the insignia of its power. Thus, in the +presence of the Dictator, the Consuls took down their insignia. So +it was not fitting that John, who possessed less power, because he +was a precursor and witness, should employ the insignia of divine +power; only Christ should have done this. They profess the truth of +John's witness to Christ, saying, but everything that John said +about this man, Christ, was true. They were saying: +Although John did no sign, he nevertheless said all things +truthfully about Christ. Thirdly, he reveals the faith in their +hearts, saying, and many believed in him there. As Augustine +remarks, they grasped Christ remaining, whom the Jews wanted to +seize waning, because through the lamp they had come to the day. +For John was that lamp and gave testimony to the day.[40]
+
+
+
+
+
++- -[1] In +Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 324; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:1-5.
- -[8] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:10 in the Summa -Theologiae: III, q. 50, a. 1, obj. 3; q. 55, a. 5, obj. 3. - +
++[2] Ibid.; cf. +Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
++- -[3] Tract. in +Io., 45, ch. 2, col. 1720; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
- -[9] Tract. -in Io., 45, ch. 6, col. 1721; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:6. - +
+- -[4] loc. cit; +also Tract. in Io., 47, ch. 1, col. 1733; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:11-13.
- -[10] Tract. -in Io., 45, ch. 7, col. 1722. - +
+- -[5] In +Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 324; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:1-5.
- -[11] In Ioannem hom., -59, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 325; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:7-10. - +
+- -[6] Tract. in +Io., 46, ch. 2, col. 1728; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
- -[12] Tract. -in Io., 45, ch. 15, col. 1726-27; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:7-10. - +
+- -[7] Ibid.; cf. +Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
- -[13] Gregory, Super -Ezek. Hom, 13; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:7-10. - +
+- -[8] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 10:10 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 50, a. +1, obj. 3; q. 55, a. 5, obj. 3.
- -[14] De Spiritu et Anima, -ch. IX; PL 40, col. 785. - +
+- -[9] Tract. in +Io., 45, ch. 6, col. 1721; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:6.
- -[15] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:11 in the Summa -Theologiae: II-II, q. 184, a. 5; q. 185, a. 4; Jn 12: ST II-II, q. -185, a. 5, obj. 1. - +
++[10] +Tract. in Io., 45, ch. 7, col. 1722.
++- -[11] In +Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 325; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:7-10.
- -[16] -Tract. in Io., 46, ch. 1, col. 1727-28; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13. - +
+- -[12] +Tract. in Io., 45, ch. 15, col. 1726-27; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:7-10.
- -[17] -Aristotle. - +
+- -[13] Gregory, +Super Ezek. Hom, 13; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:7-10.
- -[18] -Augustine, Tract. in Io., 46, ch. 8, col. 1732; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13. - +
+- -[14] De +Spiritu et Anima, ch. IX; PL 40, col. 785.
- -[19] -Augustine, Epistola CCXXVII, ch. 2; PL 33, col. -1014. cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13. - +
++[15] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 10:11 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. +184, a. 5; q. 185, a. 4; Jn 12: ST II-II, q. 185, a. 5, obj. +1.
++- -[16]Tract. +in Io., 46, ch. 1, col. 1727-28; cf. Catena Aurea, +10:11-13.
- -[20] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:16 in the Summa -Theologiae: III, q. 35, a. 8, ad 1; Jn 10:17: ST III, q. 5, a. 4, s. -c.; Jn 10:18: ST III, q. 5, a. 3; q. 47, a. 1, obj. 1; q. 47, a. 2, ad -1; q. 50, a. 3, obj. 1; q. 53, a. 4, s. c. - +
++[17] +Aristotle.
++- -[18] +Augustine, Tract. in Io., 46, ch. 8, col. 1732; cf. +Catena Aurea, 10:11-13.
- -[21] -summa-three substances in Christ; his body and soul were separated at death but -his divinity remained united to both. - +
+- -[19] +Augustine, Epistola CCXXVII, ch. 2; PL 33, col. 1014. cf. +Catena Aurea, 10:11-13.
- -[22] Summa-- -God's love is the cause of human love, but works done in charity merit the -increase of the effects of God's love. - +
+- -[20] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 10:16 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. +35, a. 8, ad 1; Jn 10:17: ST III, q. 5, a. 4, s. c.; Jn +10:18: ST III, q. 5, a. 3; q. 47, a. 1, obj. 1; q. 47, a. 2, +ad 1; q. 50, a. 3, obj. 1; q. 53, a. 4, s. c.
- -[23] Tract., -in Io., 31, ch. 5, col. 1638. - +
+- -[21] +summa-three substances in Christ; his body and soul were separated +at death but his divinity remained united to both.
- -[24] summa-Christ's -entire nature was subject to His will. - +
++[22] Summa-- +God's love is the cause of human love, but works done in charity +merit the increase of the effects of God's love.
++- -[23] +Tract., in Io., 31, ch. 5, col. 1638.
- -[25] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:27in the Summa -Theologiae: I-II, q. 108, a. 4, ad 3; Jn 30: ST III, q. 17, a. 1, -obj. 5. - +
+- -[24] +summa-Christ's entire nature was subject to His will.
- -[26] -Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 2, col. 1741; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30. - +
+- -[25] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 10:27in the Summa Theologiae: I-II, q. +108, a. 4, ad 3; Jn 30: ST III, q. 17, a. 1, obj. 5.
- -[27] Moralia, II, ch. 2, no. 2; PL 75, col. 555C; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30. - +
+- -[26]Tract. +in Io., 48, ch. 2, col. 1741; cf. Catena Aurea, +10:22-30.
- -[28] 1443, +
++[27] +Moralia, II, ch. 2, no. 2; PL 75, col. 555C; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:22-30.
++- -[28] 1443, 1444, Summa-predestination and preordination. He begins to mention -predestination in 1373, but says more about it here, also 1447, why it is the -fault of some why it is not given to them to believe. - +predestination in 1373, but says more about it here, also 1447, why +it is the fault of some why it is not given to them to believe.
- -[29] -Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 5, col. 1742; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30. - +
+- -[29]Tract. +in Io., 48, ch. 5, col. 1742; cf. Catena Aurea, +10:22-30.
- -[30] Origen - +
+- -[30] +Origen
- -[31] Tract. -in Io., 48, ch. 6, col. 1743; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:22-30. - +
+- -[31] +Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 6, col. 1743; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:22-30.
- -[32] Ibid, -48, ch. 6, col. 1743; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30. - +
+- -[32] +Ibid, 48, ch. 6, col. 1743; cf. Catena Aurea, +10:22-30.
- -[33] Summa, -Christ is one with the Father absolutely, creatures can only become one with -God in a qualified sense. - +
+- -[33] Summa, +Christ is one with the Father absolutely, creatures can only become +one with God in a qualified sense.
- -[34] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:36 in the Summa -Theologiae: III, q. 34, a. 1, s. c.; Jn 10:38: ST III, q. 43, a. 1; -Jn 10:41: ST III, q. 27, a. 5, ad 3; q. 38, a. 2, obj. 2. - +
+- -[34] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 10:36 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. +34, a. 1, s. c.; Jn 10:38: ST III, q. 43, a. 1; Jn 10:41: +ST III, q. 27, a. 5, ad 3; q. 38, a. 2, obj. 2.
- -[35] -Summa-because we become gods by participating in the Word of God, the Word must -be divine. - +
+- -[35] +Summa-because we become gods by participating in the Word of God, +the Word must be divine.
- -[36] De -Trin., 7, ch. 24; PL 10; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:31-38. - +
+- -[36] De +Trin., 7, ch. 24; PL 10; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:31-38.
- -[37] Tract. -in Io., 48, ch. 10, col. 1745; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:31-38. - +
++[37] +Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 10, col. 1745; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:31-38.
++- -[38] Hilary, +De Trin., 9, ch. 61; PL 10, col. 330B.
- -[38] Hilary, -De Trin., 9, ch. 61; PL 10, col. 330B. - +
+- -[39] +Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 10, col. 1745; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:31-38.
- -- -[39] Tract. -in Io., 48, ch. 10, col. 1745; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:31-38. - +
+- -[40] +Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 12, col. 1746; cf. Catena +Aurea, 10:39-42.
- -+ + + diff -r 2bc1f3a24bc0 -r 178aed5d2c3c john/english/John11.html --- a/john/english/John11.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John11.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,2100 +1,2071 @@ - + + + +[40] Tract. -in Io., 48, ch. 12, col. 1746; cf. Catena -Aurea, 10:39-42. - +
- -- -11 -
LECTURE I -
1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment -and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the -sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love is ill." 4 But when Jesus -heard it he said, "This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, -so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it." 5 Now Jesus loved -Martha and her sister and Lazarus.[1]
1471 Above, our Lord shows his life-giving power by word; -here he confirms it with a miracle, by raising Lazarus from the dead. First, we -see the illness of Lazarus; secondly, his being raised from the dead (v 6); and -thirdly, the effect this produced (v 45). The Evangelist does three things -concerning the first: first, the illness of Lazarus is mentioned; secondly, his -illness is made known (v 3); thirdly, we see the reason for his illness (v 4). -Concerning the first he does three things: first, he describes the person who -was ill; secondly, where he was living; and thirdly, he mentions one of his -relatives. - -
1472 The one who was ill was Lazarus; Now a certain man -was ill, Lazarus. This presents to us a believer who hopes in God, but -still suffers the weakness introduced by sin, of whom we read: "Be gracious to -me, O Lord, for I am languishing" (Ps 6:2). For Lazarus means "one who is -helped by the Lord"; and so this name signifies one who has confidence in -divine help: "My help comes from the Lord" (Ps 121:2). - -
1473 Lazarus was at Bethany, of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. The village of Bethany was near Jerusalem, and our Lord was often a guest there, as has been said above many times. It -means "a house of obedience," and leads us to understand that if one who is ill -obeys God, he can easily be cured by him, just as one who is sick and obeys his -doctor gains his health. In 2 Kings (5:13) the servants of Naaman said to him: -"My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you -not have done it?" - -
Bethany was the home of Mary and -Martha, the sisters of Lazarus. Martha and Mary represent two ways of life, the -active and the contemplative. And we can understand from the above that it is -by obedience that one becomes perfect, both in the active and in the -contemplative life. - -
1474 His relative was Mary, it was Mary who anointed the -Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. The Evangelist -describes this Mary by her most famous action so we can distinguish her from -the many other women with the same name. Still, there is some disagreement -among the saints about this Mary. Some, like Jerome and Origen, say that this -Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is not the same as the sinner mentioned in Luke -(7:37): "A woman of the city, who was a sinner…brought an alabaster flask of -ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his -feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head."[2] -So, as Chrysostom says, she was not the prostitute mentioned in Luke.[3] -The Mary mentioned by John was an honorable woman, eager to receive Christ, -while the name of the woman who was the sinner was kept secret. Furthermore, -the Mary mentioned here by John could have done for Christ at the time of his -passion because of her special devotion and love something similar to what was -done for him by the sinner out of remorse and love. John, in order to praise -her, is mentioning here, in anticipation, the action she would perform later -[Jn 12:1-8]. - -
Others, such as Augustine and -Gregory, say that this Mary, mentioned by John, is the same as the sinner -mentioned by Luke.[4] -Augustine bases his reason on this text. For the Evangelist is speaking here of -the time before Mary anointed our Lord [for the second time] at the time of the -passion; as John says further on: "Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure -nard and anointed the feet of Jesus." So he says that what the Evangelist has -mentioned here is the same event mentioned by Luke (7:37). [Ambrose maintains -both sides.] 11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>[5] So, according to -the opinion of Augustine, it is clear that the sinner mentioned by Luke is this -Mary whose brother Lazarus was ill. [Augustine says] a consuming fever -was wasting his wretched body with its furnace-like flames.[6] - -
1475 The sisters of Lazarus, who were taking care of him, -inform Jesus of his illness. Grief-stricken at the misfortune of the ailing -youth, the sisters sent to him, Jesus, saying, Lord, he whom you love -is ill. This message brings to mind three things for consideration. First, -we see that the friends of God are sometimes afflicted with bodily illness; -thus, if someone has a bodily illness, this is not a sign that the person is -not a friend of God. Eliphaz mistakenly argued against Job that it was: "Think -now, who that was innocent every perished? Or where were the upright cut off?" -(Job 4:7). Accordingly, they say, Lord, he whom you love is ill: "For -the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights" -(Prv 3:12). - -
The second thing to note is that -his sisters do not say, "Lord, come and heal him," but simply to mention his -sickness, he is ill. This indicates that it is enough merely to state -one's need to a friend, without adding a request. For a friend, since he wills -the good of his friend as his own good, is just as interested in warding off -harm from his friends as he is in warding it off from himself. And this is -especially true of the one who most truly loves: "The Lord preserves all who -love him" (Ps 145:20). - -
The third thing to consider is that -these two sisters, who wanted the cure of their sick brother, did not come in -person to Christ, as did the paralytic (Lk 5:18), and the centurion (Matt 8:5). -This was because of the confidence they had in Christ due to the special love -and friendship which he had shown for them; or, perhaps it was their grief that -kept them away: "A friend, if he is steadfast, will be to you as yourself" [Sir -6:11]. - +
++- -11
+LECTURE I
+++1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village +of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord +with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother +Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he +whom you love is ill." 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, "This +illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the +Son of God may be glorified by means of it." 5 Now Jesus loved +Martha and her sister and Lazarus.[1]
+1471 Above, our Lord shows his life-giving power by word; here +he confirms it with a miracle, by raising Lazarus from the dead. +First, we see the illness of Lazarus; secondly, his being raised +from the dead (v 6); and thirdly, the effect this produced (v 45). +The Evangelist does three things concerning the first: first, the +illness of Lazarus is mentioned; secondly, his illness is made +known (v 3); thirdly, we see the reason for his illness (v 4). +Concerning the first he does three things: first, he describes the +person who was ill; secondly, where he was living; and thirdly, he +mentions one of his relatives.
+1472 The one who was ill was Lazarus; Now a certain man was +ill, Lazarus. This presents to us a believer who hopes in God, +but still suffers the weakness introduced by sin, of whom we read: +"Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am languishing" (Ps 6:2). For +Lazarus means "one who is helped by the Lord"; and so this name +signifies one who has confidence in divine help: "My help comes +from the Lord" (Ps 121:2).
+1473 Lazarus was at Bethany, of Bethany, the village of Mary +and her sister Martha. The village of Bethany was near +Jerusalem, and our Lord was often a guest there, as has been said +above many times. It means "a house of obedience," and leads us to +understand that if one who is ill obeys God, he can easily be cured +by him, just as one who is sick and obeys his doctor gains his +health. In 2 Kings (5:13) the servants of Naaman said to him: "My +father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, +would you not have done it?"
+Bethany was the home of Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus. +Martha and Mary represent two ways of life, the active and the +contemplative. And we can understand from the above that it is by +obedience that one becomes perfect, both in the active and in the +contemplative life.
+1474 His relative was Mary, it was Mary who anointed the Lord +with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. The Evangelist +describes this Mary by her most famous action so we can distinguish +her from the many other women with the same name. Still, there is +some disagreement among the saints about this Mary. Some, like +Jerome and Origen, say that this Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is +not the same as the sinner mentioned in Luke (7:37): "A woman of +the city, who was a sinner…brought an alabaster flask of +ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began +to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her +head."[2] So, as +Chrysostom says, she was not the prostitute mentioned in +Luke.[3] The +Mary mentioned by John was an honorable woman, eager to receive +Christ, while the name of the woman who was the sinner was kept +secret. Furthermore, the Mary mentioned here by John could have +done for Christ at the time of his passion because of her special +devotion and love something similar to what was done for him by the +sinner out of remorse and love. John, in order to praise her, is +mentioning here, in anticipation, the action she would perform +later [Jn 12:1-8].
+Others, such as Augustine and Gregory, say that this Mary, +mentioned by John, is the same as the sinner mentioned by +Luke.[4] +Augustine bases his reason on this text. For the Evangelist is +speaking here of the time before Mary anointed our Lord [for the +second time] at the time of the passion; as John says further on: +"Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the +feet of Jesus." So he says that what the Evangelist has mentioned +here is the same event mentioned by Luke (7:37). [Ambrose maintains +both sides.] 11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>[5] So, +according to the opinion of Augustine, it is clear that the sinner +mentioned by Luke is this Mary whose brother Lazarus was +ill. [Augustine says] a consuming fever was wasting his +wretched body with its furnace-like flames.[6]
+1475 The sisters of Lazarus, who were taking care of him, inform +Jesus of his illness. Grief-stricken at the misfortune of the +ailing youth, the sisters sent to him, Jesus, saying, +Lord, he whom you love is ill. This message brings to mind +three things for consideration. First, we see that the friends of +God are sometimes afflicted with bodily illness; thus, if someone +has a bodily illness, this is not a sign that the person is not a +friend of God. Eliphaz mistakenly argued against Job that it was: +"Think now, who that was innocent every perished? Or where were the +upright cut off?" (Job 4:7). Accordingly, they say, Lord, he +whom you love is ill: "For the Lord reproves him whom he loves, +as a father the son in whom he delights" (Prv 3:12).
+The second thing to note is that his sisters do not say, "Lord, +come and heal him," but simply to mention his sickness, he is +ill. This indicates that it is enough merely to state one's +need to a friend, without adding a request. For a friend, since he +wills the good of his friend as his own good, is just as interested +in warding off harm from his friends as he is in warding it off +from himself. And this is especially true of the one who most truly +loves: "The Lord preserves all who love him" (Ps 145:20).
+The third thing to consider is that these two sisters, who +wanted the cure of their sick brother, did not come in person to +Christ, as did the paralytic (Lk 5:18), and the centurion (Matt +8:5). This was because of the confidence they had in Christ due to +the special love and friendship which he had shown for them; or, +perhaps it was their grief that kept them away: "A friend, if he is +steadfast, will be to you as yourself" [Sir 6:11].
1476 Now we have the reasons for the foregoing: first, the -illness of Lazarus; secondly, the reason why, according to Augustine, his -sisters did not come in person to Christ (v 5).[7] - -
1477 The reason for the illness of Lazarus is the -glorification of the Son of God; thus the Evangelist says, when Jesus heard -it he said, This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God. -Here we should note that some physical illness is unto death and some is not. -Those are unto death which are not ordained to something else. Further, every -evil of punishment is inflicted by divine providence: "Does evil befall a city, -unless the Lord has done it?" (Amos 3:6). But as for the evil of fault, God is -not the author, but the punisher. Now all things that are from God are ordered. -Consequently, every evil of punishment is ordered to something: some to death, -and some to something else. This illness was not ordered to death, but to the -glory of God. - -
1478 But Lazarus did die! Yes, otherwise he would not have -had the odor of one four days in the tomb, nor would his raising have been a -miracle. I answer that his illness was not ordained to death as a final end, -but to something else, as has been said, that is, that he who was raised, -chastened as it were, might live a holy life for the glory of God, and that the -Jewish people who saw this miracle might be converted to the faith: "The Lord -has chastened me sorely but he has not given me over to death" (Ps 118:18). -Thus he adds, it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be -glorified by means of it. - -
In this passage, according to -Chrysostom, the words "for" and "that" do not indicate the reason for the -events, but their sequence. For Lazarus was not made ill so that from it God -might be glorified; rather, his illness came from some other cause, and from it -the fact followed that the Son of God would be glorified insofar as Christ used -it for the glory of God by raising Lazarus. [8] - -
This is true in one way, but not in -another. It is possible to consider two reasons for Lazarus' illness. One is -the natural cause, and from this point of view the statement of Chrysostom is -true, because Lazarus' illness, considering its natural causes, was not -ordained to his rising from the dead. But we can consider another reason, and -this is divine providence; and then Chrysostom's statement is not true. For -under divine providence an illness of this kind was ordained to the glory of -God. And so according to this, the "for" and the "that" do indicate the reason. -It is the same as saying: it is for the glory of God, because although -it was not ordained to this from the intent of its natural cause, yet from the -intent of divine providence it was ordained to the glory of God, insofar as, -once the miracle had been performed, people would believe in Christ and escape -real death. So he says, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of -it. - -
Here our Lord clearly calls himself -the Son of God: for he was to be glorified in the resurrection of Lazarus -because he is true God: "that we may be in his true Son" [1 Jn 5:20]; "It was -not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be -made manifest in him" (9:3). - +illness of Lazarus; secondly, the reason why, according to +Augustine, his sisters did not come in person to Christ (v +5).[7]
+1477 The reason for the illness of Lazarus is the glorification +of the Son of God; thus the Evangelist says, when Jesus heard it +he said, This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of +God. Here we should note that some physical illness is unto +death and some is not. Those are unto death which are not ordained +to something else. Further, every evil of punishment is inflicted +by divine providence: "Does evil befall a city, unless the Lord has +done it?" (Amos 3:6). But as for the evil of fault, God is not the +author, but the punisher. Now all things that are from God are +ordered. Consequently, every evil of punishment is ordered to +something: some to death, and some to something else. This illness +was not ordered to death, but to the glory of God.
+1478 But Lazarus did die! Yes, otherwise he would not have had +the odor of one four days in the tomb, nor would his raising have +been a miracle. I answer that his illness was not ordained to death +as a final end, but to something else, as has been said, that is, +that he who was raised, chastened as it were, might live a holy +life for the glory of God, and that the Jewish people who saw this +miracle might be converted to the faith: "The Lord has chastened me +sorely but he has not given me over to death" (Ps 118:18). Thus he +adds, it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be +glorified by means of it.
+In this passage, according to Chrysostom, the words "for" and +"that" do not indicate the reason for the events, but their +sequence. For Lazarus was not made ill so that from it God might be +glorified; rather, his illness came from some other cause, and from +it the fact followed that the Son of God would be glorified insofar +as Christ used it for the glory of God by raising Lazarus. [8]
+This is true in one way, but not in another. It is possible to +consider two reasons for Lazarus' illness. One is the natural +cause, and from this point of view the statement of Chrysostom is +true, because Lazarus' illness, considering its natural causes, was +not ordained to his rising from the dead. But we can consider +another reason, and this is divine providence; and then +Chrysostom's statement is not true. For under divine providence an +illness of this kind was ordained to the glory of God. And so +according to this, the "for" and the "that" do indicate the reason. +It is the same as saying: it is for the glory of God, +because although it was not ordained to this from the intent of its +natural cause, yet from the intent of divine providence it was +ordained to the glory of God, insofar as, once the miracle had been +performed, people would believe in Christ and escape real death. So +he says, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of +it.
+Here our Lord clearly calls himself the Son of God: for he was +to be glorified in the resurrection of Lazarus because he is true +God: "that we may be in his true Son" [1 Jn 5:20]; "It was not that +this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be +made manifest in him" (9:3).
1479 Here, according to Augustine, the Evangelist gives the -reason why Lazarus' two sisters did not come to Christ, and it was due to their -confidence in him because of the special love he had for them; so the -Evangelist remarks, now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.[9] -Indeed, he who is the Consoler of the sorrowful loved the sorrowing sisters, -and he who was the Savior of the weary loved the weary and dead Lazarus: "Yea, -he loved his people; all those consecrated to him were in his hand" (Deut -33:3). -
-LECTURE 2 - -
+- +reason why Lazarus' two sisters did not come to Christ, and it was +due to their confidence in him because of the special love he had +for them; so the Evangelist remarks, now Jesus loved Martha and +her sister and Lazarus.[9] Indeed, he who is the Consoler of the sorrowful +loved the sorrowing sisters, and he who was the Savior of the weary +loved the weary and dead Lazarus: "Yea, he loved his people; all +those consecrated to him were in his hand" (Deut 33:3).6 So when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days -longer in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, -"Let us go into Judea again." 8 The disciples said to him, "Rabbi, the Jews -were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?" 9 Jesus -answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any one walks in the day, -he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if any one -walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him."
+
+LECTURE 2
++6 So when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days longer +in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the +disciples, "Let us go into Judea again." 8 The disciples said to +him, "Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are +you going there again?" 9 Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve +hours in the day? If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, +because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if any one walks in +the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him."
+1480 Here the Evangelist presents the raising of the dead -Lazarus. First, we see that Christ desired to do this; and secondly, the -sequence of events surrounding the raising are given (v 17). We see three -things related to the first. First, our Lord allows the death; secondly, he -states his intention to go to the place where Lazarus died (v 7); and thirdly, -he reveals his intention to raise him (v 11). - -
1481 Christ allowed this death by prolonging his stay beyond -the Jordan: so when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days longer in -the place where he was. One may infer from this that Lazarus died on the -very day that Jesus received the message from his sisters: for when Christ went -to the place where he died, it was already the fourth day. After receiving the -message, Christ then remained two days in the same place, and on the day after -these two days, he went to Judea. He delayed these few days for two reasons. -First, so that the death of Lazarus would not be prevented by his presence; for -where life is present, death has no entry. In the second place, in order to -make the miracle more credible, and so that people would not say that Christ -revived Lazarus, not from death, but only from a coma. - +Lazarus. First, we see that Christ desired to do this; and +secondly, the sequence of events surrounding the raising are given +(v 17). We see three things related to the first. First, our Lord +allows the death; secondly, he states his intention to go to the +place where Lazarus died (v 7); and thirdly, he reveals his +intention to raise him (v 11).
+1481 Christ allowed this death by prolonging his stay beyond the +Jordan: so when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days +longer in the place where he was. One may infer from this that +Lazarus died on the very day that Jesus received the message from +his sisters: for when Christ went to the place where he died, it +was already the fourth day. After receiving the message, Christ +then remained two days in the same place, and on the day after +these two days, he went to Judea. He delayed these few days for two +reasons. First, so that the death of Lazarus would not be prevented +by his presence; for where life is present, death has no entry. In +the second place, in order to make the miracle more credible, and +so that people would not say that Christ revived Lazarus, not from +death, but only from a coma.
1482 Here (v 7) our Lord declares his intention to go to the -place where Lazarus died. First, we see our Lord's plan; secondly, we see the -fear in the disciples (v 8); and thirdly, we have our Lord dispelling their -fear (v 9). - +place where Lazarus died. First, we see our Lord's plan; secondly, +we see the fear in the disciples (v 8); and thirdly, we have our +Lord dispelling their fear (v 9).
1483 With respect to the first the Evangelist says, Then -after this, the prolonged delay, he said, Jesus did, to the -disciples, Let us go into Judea again. One might ask here why Christ made a -point of mentioning to the apostles that he was about to go into Judea again, -since he had not done this on other occasions. The reason for this was that the -Jews had just recently persecuted Christ in Judea and had almost stoned him; -indeed, that is why he had left. So it was to be expected that when Christ -wanted to go there again, the disciples would become fearful. And because -"Darts that are foreseen do not strike and foreseen evils are more easily -borne,"[10] -as Gregory says, our Lord mentioned his planned journey to them to calm their -fears. As to the mystical sense, we can understand by the fact that Christ is -returning once again to Judea, that he will return again at the end of the -world to the Jews, who will be converted to Christ: "A hardening has come upon -part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in" (Rom 11:25). - -
1484 The fear of the disciples is mentioned when the -Evangelist says, the disciples said to him, Rabbi, the Jews were but now -seeking to stone you, and you are going there again? This was like saying: -It seems that you are deliberately going to your death. Yet their fear was -unreasonable, because the disciples had God with them as their protector, and -one who is with God should not fear: "Let us stand up together. Who is my -adversary?" (Is 50:8); "The Lord is my light and my salvation: whom shall I -fear?" (Ps 26:2). - +after this, the prolonged delay, he said, Jesus did, +to the disciples, Let us go into Judea again. One might ask +here why Christ made a point of mentioning to the apostles that he +was about to go into Judea again, since he had not done this on +other occasions. The reason for this was that the Jews had just +recently persecuted Christ in Judea and had almost stoned him; +indeed, that is why he had left. So it was to be expected that when +Christ wanted to go there again, the disciples would become +fearful. And because "Darts that are foreseen do not strike and +foreseen evils are more easily borne,"[10] as Gregory says, our Lord +mentioned his planned journey to them to calm their fears. As to +the mystical sense, we can understand by the fact that Christ is +returning once again to Judea, that he will return again at the end +of the world to the Jews, who will be converted to Christ: "A +hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of +the Gentiles come in" (Rom 11:25).
+1484 The fear of the disciples is mentioned when the Evangelist +says, the disciples said to him, Rabbi, the Jews were but now +seeking to stone you, and you are going there again? This was +like saying: It seems that you are deliberately going to your +death. Yet their fear was unreasonable, because the disciples had +God with them as their protector, and one who is with God should +not fear: "Let us stand up together. Who is my adversary?" (Is +50:8); "The Lord is my light and my salvation: whom shall I fear?" +(Ps 26:2).
1485 Our Lord dispels this fear by strengthening them. The -Evangelist says, Jesus answered, his disciples, Are there not twelve -hours in the day? First, we see something about the time; secondly, what -time is suited for walking; thirdly, what time is not. - -
1486 To understand this passage we should note that it has -been explained in three ways. The first way is that of Chrysostom, and is this. -Are there not twelve hours in the day? is like saying: You hesitate to -go up to Judea because the Jews recently wanted to stone me; but the day has -twelve hours, and what happens at one hour does not happen in another. So, -although they would have stoned me before, they would not want to do this at -another hour: "For everything there is a season" (Eccl 3:1); "Every matter has -its time and way" (Eccl 8:6).[11] - +Evangelist says, Jesus answered, his disciples, Are there +not twelve hours in the day? First, we see something about the +time; secondly, what time is suited for walking; thirdly, what time +is not.
+1486 To understand this passage we should note that it has been +explained in three ways. The first way is that of Chrysostom, and +is this. Are there not twelve hours in the day? is like +saying: You hesitate to go up to Judea because the Jews recently +wanted to stone me; but the day has twelve hours, and what happens +at one hour does not happen in another. So, although they would +have stoned me before, they would not want to do this at another +hour: "For everything there is a season" (Eccl 3:1); "Every matter +has its time and way" (Eccl 8:6).[11]
1487 A literal question arises because he is speaking here -either of the natural or of the artificial day. If he is speaking of the -natural day, then what he says is false: because the natural day does not have -twelve but twenty-four hours. Again, if he is speaking of the artificial day, -his statement is false: because it is true only at the equinox, for not all -artificial days have twelve hours. I answer that we should understand this to -refer to the artificial day, because all artificial days have twelve hours. For -the hours of such days are distinguished in two ways. Some are equal in length -and some are not. Those equal in length are distinguished according to the -circle of the equator: and according to this not all days have twelve hours, -but some have more and some less, except at the equator. The hour not equal in -length are more distinguished according to the ascensions of the zodiac on -account of its obliquity: because the zodiac does not ascend equally in all its -parts, but at the equator equally. Now each artificial day has twelve of these -unequal hours, because every day has six signs which ascend during the day, and -six at night; but those which ascend in summer have a slower motion than those -which ascend in winter, and of course the ascent of each sign makes up two -hours. - -
1488 If any one walks in the day, that is, honorably, -and without consciousness of any evil - "Let us conduct ourselves becomingly as -in that day" (Rom 13:13) - he does not stumble, that is, he does not come -upon anything that might harm him. And this is because he sees the light of -this world, i.e., the light of righteousness is in him: "Light dawns for -the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart" (Ps 97:11). It is like our -Lord were saying: We can go securely because we are walking during the day. - -
1489 But if any one walks in the night, that is, in -the night of iniquities, he will easily find dangers. Concerning this night we -read: "Those who sleep at night" (1 Thess 5:7). But such a one, he stumbles, -that is, strikes against something, because the light, of righteousness, -is not in him. - +either of the natural or of the artificial day. If he is speaking +of the natural day, then what he says is false: because the natural +day does not have twelve but twenty-four hours. Again, if he is +speaking of the artificial day, his statement is false: because it +is true only at the equinox, for not all artificial days have +twelve hours. I answer that we should understand this to refer to +the artificial day, because all artificial days have twelve hours. +For the hours of such days are distinguished in two ways. Some are +equal in length and some are not. Those equal in length are +distinguished according to the circle of the equator: and according +to this not all days have twelve hours, but some have more and some +less, except at the equator. The hour not equal in length are more +distinguished according to the ascensions of the zodiac on account +of its obliquity: because the zodiac does not ascend equally in all +its parts, but at the equator equally. Now each artificial day has +twelve of these unequal hours, because every day has six signs +which ascend during the day, and six at night; but those which +ascend in summer have a slower motion than those which ascend in +winter, and of course the ascent of each sign makes up two +hours.
+1488 If any one walks in the day, that is, honorably, and +without consciousness of any evil - "Let us conduct ourselves +becomingly as in that day" (Rom 13:13) - he does not +stumble, that is, he does not come upon anything that might +harm him. And this is because he sees the light of this +world, i.e., the light of righteousness is in him: "Light dawns +for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart" (Ps 97:11). It +is like our Lord were saying: We can go securely because we are +walking during the day.
+1489 But if any one walks in the night, that is, in the +night of iniquities, he will easily find dangers. Concerning this +night we read: "Those who sleep at night" (1 Thess 5:7). But such a +one, he stumbles, that is, strikes against something, +because the light, of righteousness, is not in +him.
1490 A certain Greek, Theophylactus, explains this another -way.[12] -Beginning at If any one walks in the day, he says that the "day" is the -presence of Christ in the world, and the "night" is the time after Christ's -passion. So the meaning is this: The Jews are not to be feared because as long -as I am in the world it is not you, but I, who am in danger. Thus, when the -Jews wanted to arrest Christ, he said to the crowd: "If you seek me, let these -men go. This was to fulfill the word which he had spoken, 'Of those whom you -gavest me I lost not one'" (18:8). But if any one walks in the night, -that is, in the time after the passion, you should be afraid to go into Judea, -because you will suffer persecution from the Jews: "Strike the shepherd and the -sheep will be scattered." - +way.[12] +Beginning at If any one walks in the day, he says that the +"day" is the presence of Christ in the world, and the "night" is +the time after Christ's passion. So the meaning is this: The Jews +are not to be feared because as long as I am in the world it is not +you, but I, who am in danger. Thus, when the Jews wanted to arrest +Christ, he said to the crowd: "If you seek me, let these men go. +This was to fulfill the word which he had spoken, 'Of those whom +you gavest me I lost not one'" (18:8). But if any one walks in +the night, that is, in the time after the passion, you should +be afraid to go into Judea, because you will suffer persecution +from the Jews: "Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be +scattered."
1491 Augustine explains it another way, so that the "day" -indicates Christ: "We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day" -(9:4), and "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world" (9:5).[13] -The twelve hours of this day are the twelve apostles: "Did I not choose you, -the twelve?" (6:71). But what should we say of what follows: "And one of you is -a devil?" Judas, therefore, was not an hour of this day because he gave no -light. We should say that our Lord spoke these words [about the twelve] not in -reference to Judas, but to his successor, who was Matthias. Thus, the sense of Are -there not twelve hours in the day? is as though he were saying: You are the -hours, I am the day. Just as the hours follow the day, so you must follow me. -So, if I wish to go to Judea you ought not to precede me or change my will, but -you should follow me. He said something similar to Peter: "Get behind me, Satan!" -(Matt 16:23), i.e., do not go ahead of me, but follow me by imitating my will. If -any one walks in the day is the same as saying: You should not fear any -danger, because you are going with me who am the day. So just as one who walks -in the day does not run into anything, that is, does not stumble, so -also you who walk with me: "If God is for us, who is against us?" (Rom 8:31). -And this is because he sees the light of this world in me. But if any -one walks in the night, in the darkness of ignorance and sin, then he -stumbles; and this is because the spiritual light is not in him, -not because of a defect in the light, but because of his own rebellion: "There -are those who rebel against the light" (Job 24:13). -
-LECTURE 3 - -
+- +indicates Christ: "We must work the works of him who sent me, while +it is day" (9:4), and "As long as I am in the world, I am the light +of the world" (9:5).[13] The twelve hours of this day are the twelve +apostles: "Did I not choose you, the twelve?" (6:71). But what +should we say of what follows: "And one of you is a devil?" Judas, +therefore, was not an hour of this day because he gave no light. We +should say that our Lord spoke these words [about the twelve] not +in reference to Judas, but to his successor, who was Matthias. +Thus, the sense of Are there not twelve hours in the day? is +as though he were saying: You are the hours, I am the day. Just as +the hours follow the day, so you must follow me. So, if I wish to +go to Judea you ought not to precede me or change my will, but you +should follow me. He said something similar to Peter: "Get behind +me, Satan!" (Matt 16:23), i.e., do not go ahead of me, but follow +me by imitating my will. If any one walks in the day is the +same as saying: You should not fear any danger, because you are +going with me who am the day. So just as one who walks in the day +does not run into anything, that is, does not stumble, so +also you who walk with me: "If God is for us, who is against us?" +(Rom 8:31). And this is because he sees the light of this +world in me. But if any one walks in the night, in the +darkness of ignorance and sin, then he stumbles; and this is +because the spiritual light is not in him, not +because of a defect in the light, but because of his own rebellion: +"There are those who rebel against the light" (Job 24:13).11 Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, "Our friend -Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep." 12 The -disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover." 13 Now -Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in -sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead; 15 and for your sake -I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him." -16 Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that -we may die with him."
+
+LECTURE 3
++11 Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, "Our friend +Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep." 12 +The disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will +recover." 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought +that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them +plainly, "Lazarus is dead; 15 and for your sake I am glad that I +was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him." 16 +Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also +go, that we may die with him."
+1492 Above, our Lord mentioned his intention of going to the -place where Lazarus had died; now he reveals his intention to raise him. The -Evangelist first mentions this intention; secondly, the attitude of the -disciples (v 16). First, we see our Lord stating his intention implicitly and -rather obscurely; secondly, the Evangelist mentions how slow the disciples were -to understand this (v 12); and thirdly, we see our Lord stating his intention -plainly (v 14). - -
1493 The Evangelist says, Thus he spoke, and then he said -to them, that is, having said those things already mentioned, Jesus now -says to his disciples, Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep. According -to Chrysostom, this seems to be a second reason for the disciples not to fear: -the first was based on their innocence, because he who walks in the day does -not stumble; but this reason is based on current necessity, it being necessary -to go there.[14] - +place where Lazarus had died; now he reveals his intention to raise +him. The Evangelist first mentions this intention; secondly, the +attitude of the disciples (v 16). First, we see our Lord stating +his intention implicitly and rather obscurely; secondly, the +Evangelist mentions how slow the disciples were to understand this +(v 12); and thirdly, we see our Lord stating his intention plainly +(v 14).
+1493 The Evangelist says, Thus he spoke, and then he said to +them, that is, having said those things already mentioned, +Jesus now says to his disciples, Our friend Lazarus has fallen +asleep. According to Chrysostom, this seems to be a second +reason for the disciples not to fear: the first was based on their +innocence, because he who walks in the day does not stumble; but +this reason is based on current necessity, it being necessary to go +there.[14]
1494 We see three things about this. First, he recalls his -previous friendship with the dead man, saying, Our friend Lazarus. This -was to say: He was a friend because of the many things and favors he did for -us; so we should not neglect him in his needs: "He who overlooks his own -advantage for the sake of a friend is just" [Prv 12:26]. - -
1495 Secondly, he mentions that help is needed now, saying, has -fallen asleep, and so should be helped: "A brother is born for adversity" -(Prv 17:17). Lazarus has fallen asleep, with respect to the Lord, as -Augustine says; but with respect to men he was dead, as they were unable to revive -him.[15] -We should note that the word "sleep" can be understood in several ways. -Sometimes it refers to a natural sleep: "So Samuel went and lay down [slept] in -his place" (1 Sam 3:9); and "You shall sleep securely" [Job 11:18]. Sometimes -it indicates the sleep of death: "We would not have you ignorant, brethren, -concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have -no hope" (1 Thess 4:13). Sometimes it is understood as some kind of negligence: -"Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep" (Ps 121:4). And -sometimes it means the sleep of sin: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the -dead" (Eph 5:14). Again, it can mean the repose of contemplation: "I slept, but -my heart was awake" (Song 5:2). It can also signify the rest of future glory: -"In peace I will both lie down and sleep" (Ps 4:8). - -
Death is called a sleep because of -the hope we have of a resurrection; so death has come to be called a sleep from -the time that Christ died and arose: "I lie down and sleep" (Ps 3:6). - -
1496 Thirdly, he shows his power to raise one from death -when he says, but I go to awake him out of sleep. By this he tells us -that he woke him from the grave with as little effort as you wake a person who -is sleeping in bed. This is not surprising because he is the one who raises the -dead and gives life; so it was said above (5:28): "The hour is coming, and now -is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God." - -
1497 The Evangelist now mentions that the disciples were -slow to understand this (v 12). First, he gives a sign of their slowness, and -this is that they did not answer our Lord in accord with his meaning. Secondly, -their slowness is clearly shown (v 13). - +previous friendship with the dead man, saying, Our friend +Lazarus. This was to say: He was a friend because of the many +things and favors he did for us; so we should not neglect him in +his needs: "He who overlooks his own advantage for the sake of a +friend is just" [Prv 12:26].
+1495 Secondly, he mentions that help is needed now, saying, +has fallen asleep, and so should be helped: "A brother is +born for adversity" (Prv 17:17). Lazarus has fallen asleep, +with respect to the Lord, as Augustine says; but with respect to +men he was dead, as they were unable to revive him.[15] We should note +that the word "sleep" can be understood in several ways. Sometimes +it refers to a natural sleep: "So Samuel went and lay down [slept] +in his place" (1 Sam 3:9); and "You shall sleep securely" [Job +11:18]. Sometimes it indicates the sleep of death: "We would not +have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that +you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thess 4:13). +Sometimes it is understood as some kind of negligence: "Behold, he +who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep" (Ps 121:4). And +sometimes it means the sleep of sin: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise +from the dead" (Eph 5:14). Again, it can mean the repose of +contemplation: "I slept, but my heart was awake" (Song 5:2). It can +also signify the rest of future glory: "In peace I will both lie +down and sleep" (Ps 4:8).
+Death is called a sleep because of the hope we have of a +resurrection; so death has come to be called a sleep from the time +that Christ died and arose: "I lie down and sleep" (Ps 3:6).
+1496 Thirdly, he shows his power to raise one from death when he +says, but I go to awake him out of sleep. By this he tells +us that he woke him from the grave with as little effort as you +wake a person who is sleeping in bed. This is not surprising +because he is the one who raises the dead and gives life; so it was +said above (5:28): "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead +will hear the voice of the Son of God."
+1497 The Evangelist now mentions that the disciples were slow to +understand this (v 12). First, he gives a sign of their slowness, +and this is that they did not answer our Lord in accord with his +meaning. Secondly, their slowness is clearly shown (v 13).
1498 Concerning the first note that although our Lord was -speaking of the sleep of death, they understood him to mean a natural sleep. -And because it is a sign of health when the sick sleep, the disciples said, if -he has fallen asleep, he will recover. They were saying: This is clearly a -sign of health; and since he is sleeping, it does not seem to be helpful to go -and awake him. - +speaking of the sleep of death, they understood him to mean a +natural sleep. And because it is a sign of health when the sick +sleep, the disciples said, if he has fallen asleep, he will +recover. They were saying: This is clearly a sign of health; +and since he is sleeping, it does not seem to be helpful to go and +awake him.
1499 The Evangelist mentions their slowness to understand, -saying, now Jesus had spoken of his death, since they did not realize -this. Our Lord said to them, according to Matthew, "Are you also still without -understanding?" And we read of the wise: "The wise man may also hear…and -understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles" -(Prv 1:5-6) - -
1500 Then our Lord explicitly states his intention to raise -him (v 14). First, he tells them that Lazarus has died, which shows his -knowledge; secondly, he mentions his attitude towards his death, which shows -his providence; and thirdly, he makes known his intention to go to the place -where he died, which shows his compassion or mercy. - -
1501 He states that Lazarus has died when he says plainly, Lazarus -is dead, i.e., he has submitted to the common law of death which no one can -escape: "What man can live and never see death?" (Ps 89:48). - -
1502 He shows his own attitude towards this death, saying, and -for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. This -can be explained in two ways. - -
The first way is this. We have -heard that Lazarus was sick. And although I was not there I have told you that -he has died and for your sake I am glad, i.e., because it is for your -benefit, so that you may experience my divinity, because even though I was not -there I saw all this: "All are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom -we have do to" (Heb 4:13). This is not surprising, because the divinity is -present to all things: "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" (Jer 23:24). So that -you may believe not as though they were to believe for the first time, but in -order that they might believe more firmly and more strongly, in the sense of "I -believe; help my unbelief" (Mk 9:23). - -
The other explanation is this: I -am glad that he is dead and this is for your sake, for our benefit, so -that you may believe. Accordingly, I am glad that I was not there, -for if I had been there, he would not have died. But because he is now dead, it -will be a greater miracle when I raise one already decomposing. As a result, -your faith will be get stronger, for it is greater to raise one who is dead -than to keep him from dying. - -
We can learn from this that evils -are sometimes a reason for joy, insofar as they are directed to some good: "We -know that everything works for good with those who love him" (Rom 8:28). - -
1503 He mentions his plan to go when he says, but let us -go to him. Here we see God's mercy, for in his mercy he takes the initiative -and draws to himself those living in sin, who are dead and unable of themselves -to come to him: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore have I -drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer 31:3]. - -
1504 Now the attitude of the disciples is given, and this -can be interpreted in two ways; in one way as indicating a lack of confidence; -and in the other as indicating love. Chrysostom interprets it in the first way. -As was mentioned above, all the disciples feared the Jews, but especially -Thomas. Indeed, before the passion he was weaker than the others and had less -faith, but after he became stronger and was beyond reproach, traveling the -whole world alone. [16] -So, because of this lack of confidence he says to his fellow disciples, Let -us also go, that we may die with him. This was like saying: He does not -fear death; he fully wants to go, willing to deliver both himself and us over -to death. - -
Augustine interprets it in the -second way. For Thomas and the other disciples loved Christ so much that they -wanted either to live with him while he was here, or die with him, so that they -would not find themselves again without consolation if he left them alone by -dying.[17] -It was with this feeling that Thomas said to his fellow disciples, Let us -also go, that we may die with him. He was saying: He wants to go, and is in -danger of death. Shall we stay here to live? No. Let us also go, that we may -die with him: "If we suffer with him, we shall reign with him" [Rom 8:17]; -"One has died for all; therefore all have died" (2 Cor 5:14). -
-LECTURE 4 - -
+- +saying, now Jesus had spoken of his death, since they did +not realize this. Our Lord said to them, according to Matthew, "Are +you also still without understanding?" And we read of the wise: +"The wise man may also hear…and understand a proverb and a +figure, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prv 1:5-6)17 Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already -been in the tomb for four days. 18 Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles -off, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them -concerning their brother. 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went -and met him, while Mary sat in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if -you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 And even now I know that -whatever you ask from God, God will give you." 23 Jesus said to her, "Your -brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise -again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the -resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he -live, 26 and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe -this?" 27 She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the -Son of [the living] God, he who is coming into the world."
1500 Then our Lord explicitly states his intention to raise him +(v 14). First, he tells them that Lazarus has died, which shows his +knowledge; secondly, he mentions his attitude towards his death, +which shows his providence; and thirdly, he makes known his +intention to go to the place where he died, which shows his +compassion or mercy.
+1501 He states that Lazarus has died when he says plainly, +Lazarus is dead, i.e., he has submitted to the common law of +death which no one can escape: "What man can live and never see +death?" (Ps 89:48).
+1502 He shows his own attitude towards this death, saying, +and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you +may believe. This can be explained in two ways.
+The first way is this. We have heard that Lazarus was sick. And +although I was not there I have told you that he has died and +for your sake I am glad, i.e., because it is for your benefit, +so that you may experience my divinity, because even though I was +not there I saw all this: "All are open and laid bare to the eyes +of him with whom we have do to" (Heb 4:13). This is not surprising, +because the divinity is present to all things: "Do I not fill +heaven and earth?" (Jer 23:24). So that you may believe not as +though they were to believe for the first time, but in order that +they might believe more firmly and more strongly, in the sense of +"I believe; help my unbelief" (Mk 9:23).
+The other explanation is this: I am glad that he is dead +and this is for your sake, for our benefit, so that you +may believe. Accordingly, I am glad that I was not +there, for if I had been there, he would not have died. But +because he is now dead, it will be a greater miracle when I raise +one already decomposing. As a result, your faith will be get +stronger, for it is greater to raise one who is dead than to keep +him from dying.
+We can learn from this that evils are sometimes a reason for +joy, insofar as they are directed to some good: "We know that +everything works for good with those who love him" (Rom 8:28).
+1503 He mentions his plan to go when he says, but let us go +to him. Here we see God's mercy, for in his mercy he takes the +initiative and draws to himself those living in sin, who are dead +and unable of themselves to come to him: "I have loved you with an +everlasting love; therefore have I drawn you, taking pity on you" +[Jer 31:3].
+1504 Now the attitude of the disciples is given, and this can be +interpreted in two ways; in one way as indicating a lack of +confidence; and in the other as indicating love. Chrysostom +interprets it in the first way. As was mentioned above, all the +disciples feared the Jews, but especially Thomas. Indeed, before +the passion he was weaker than the others and had less faith, but +after he became stronger and was beyond reproach, traveling the +whole world alone. [16] So, because of this lack of confidence he says +to his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with +him. This was like saying: He does not fear death; he fully +wants to go, willing to deliver both himself and us over to +death.
+Augustine interprets it in the second way. For Thomas and the +other disciples loved Christ so much that they wanted either to +live with him while he was here, or die with him, so that they +would not find themselves again without consolation if he left them +alone by dying.[17] It was with this feeling that Thomas said to +his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with +him. He was saying: He wants to go, and is in danger of death. +Shall we stay here to live? No. Let us also go, that we may die +with him: "If we suffer with him, we shall reign with him" [Rom +8:17]; "One has died for all; therefore all have died" (2 Cor +5:14).
+
+
+LECTURE 4
++17 Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already +been in the tomb for four days. 18 Bethany was near Jerusalem, +about two miles off, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and +Mary to console them concerning their brother. 20 When Martha heard +that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the +house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my +brother would not have died. 22 And even now I know that whatever +you ask from God, God will give you." 23 Jesus said to her, "Your +brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to him, "I know that he +will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said +to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, +though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and whoever lives and believes +in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" 27 She said to him, +"Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of [the +living] God, he who is coming into the world."
+1505 The Evangelist, after telling us that Lazarus was to be -raised, now describes the events surrounding it. First, he mentions some -others; secondly, he reveals Christ's feelings (v 33); thirdly, he describes -the actual raising of Lazarus (v 38). As for the others, he first mentions the condition -of Lazarus; secondly, the consolation the Jews were giving to his sisters (v -19); and thirdly, the devotion of these sisters (v 20). - -
1506 The condition of Lazarus is described as to the time of -his death and to his location; Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus -had already been in the tomb for four days. This makes it clear, as we said -above, that Lazarus had died the very day Christ was told about his illness. - +raised, now describes the events surrounding it. First, he mentions +some others; secondly, he reveals Christ's feelings (v 33); +thirdly, he describes the actual raising of Lazarus (v 38). As for +the others, he first mentions the condition of Lazarus; secondly, +the consolation the Jews were giving to his sisters (v 19); and +thirdly, the devotion of these sisters (v 20).
+1506 The condition of Lazarus is described as to the time of his +death and to his location; Now when Jesus came, he found that +Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. This makes +it clear, as we said above, that Lazarus had died the very day +Christ was told about his illness.
1507 According to Augustine, these four days signify four -deaths.[18] -The first day indicates the death of original sin, which we humans contract as -offspring: "Sin came in to the world through one man and death through sin" -(Rom 5:12). The other three days refer to death by actual sin: for every mortal -sin is called a death: "Evil shall slay the wicked" (Ps 34:21). These days are -differentiated according to which law is transgressed. - -
Thus the second day indicates the -transgression of the law of nature: "They have transgressed the laws…broken the -everlasting covenant," that is, the law of nature (Is 24:5). The third day -signifies the transgression of the written law: "Did not Moses give you the -law? Yet none of you keeps the law" (7:19). The fourth day represents the -transgression of the Law of the Gospel and of grace; and this is more serious -than the others: "A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at -the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think -will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the -blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of -grace?" (Heb 10:28-29). - -
Another interpretation would be -this: The first day is the sin of the heart: "Remove the evil of your thoughts -from before my eyes" [Is 1:16]. The second day is the sin of speech: "Let no -evil talk come out of your mouths" (Eph 4:29). The third day is the sin of -deed: "Cease to do evil" (Is 1:16). The fourth day is customary sin arising -from evil habit: "You can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer 13:23). - -
But no matter how it is -interpreted, our Lord sometimes heals those who have been dead four days, that -is, those who have transgressed the law of the Gospel, and those who are held -fast by habits of sin. - +deaths.[18] +The first day indicates the death of original sin, which we humans +contract as offspring: "Sin came in to the world through one man +and death through sin" (Rom 5:12). The other three days refer to +death by actual sin: for every mortal sin is called a death: "Evil +shall slay the wicked" (Ps 34:21). These days are differentiated +according to which law is transgressed.
+Thus the second day indicates the transgression of the law of +nature: "They have transgressed the laws…broken the +everlasting covenant," that is, the law of nature (Is 24:5). The +third day signifies the transgression of the written law: "Did not +Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law" (7:19). The +fourth day represents the transgression of the Law of the Gospel +and of grace; and this is more serious than the others: "A man who +has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony +of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think +will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and +profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and +outraged the Spirit of grace?" (Heb 10:28-29).
+Another interpretation would be this: The first day is the sin +of the heart: "Remove the evil of your thoughts from before my +eyes" [Is 1:16]. The second day is the sin of speech: "Let no evil +talk come out of your mouths" (Eph 4:29). The third day is the sin +of deed: "Cease to do evil" (Is 1:16). The fourth day is customary +sin arising from evil habit: "You can do good who are accustomed to +do evil" (Jer 13:23).
+But no matter how it is interpreted, our Lord sometimes heals +those who have been dead four days, that is, those who have +transgressed the law of the Gospel, and those who are held fast by +habits of sin.
1508 Next we are told what favored the presence of the visitors -and how many there were. Their presence was facilitated due to the fact that -the deceased was near Jerusalem; the Evangelist says, Bethany was near -Jerusalem, about two miles [fifteen stadia] off. This was almost two miles, -because a mile contains eight stadia. Thus it was easy for many of the Jews to -go there from Jerusalem. - -
The mystical interpretation is -this: Bethany means "the house of obedience," and Jerusalem means "the vision -of peace." Thus we may understand that those who are in the state of obedience -are near the peace of eternal life: "My sheep hear my voice…and I give them -eternal life" (10:27). He says fifteen stadia, because anyone who wishes -to go from Bethany, i.e., the state of obedience, to the heavenly Jerusalem, -must pass through fifteen stadia. The first seven belong to the observance of -the Old Law, for the number seven pertains to the Old Law, which keeps the -seventh day holy. The other eight belong to the fulfilling of the New -Testament, for the number eight refers to the New Testament because of the -octave of the resurrection. - -
Their number is mentioned as being -many; and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them. This -was an act of piety: "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" -(Rom 12:15); "Do not fail those who weep, but mourn with those who mourn" (Sir -7:34). - -
1509 Now the Evangelist describes the sisters: first, -Martha; then Mary. He describes Martha in three ways: as going to meet Christ; -the devotion she showed to Christ (v 21); and thirdly, the degree of -enlightenment to which Christ raised her. - +and how many there were. Their presence was facilitated due to the +fact that the deceased was near Jerusalem; the Evangelist says, +Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles [fifteen stadia] +off. This was almost two miles, because a mile contains eight +stadia. Thus it was easy for many of the Jews to go there from +Jerusalem.
+The mystical interpretation is this: Bethany means "the house of +obedience," and Jerusalem means "the vision of peace." Thus we may +understand that those who are in the state of obedience are near +the peace of eternal life: "My sheep hear my voice…and I +give them eternal life" (10:27). He says fifteen stadia, +because anyone who wishes to go from Bethany, i.e., the state of +obedience, to the heavenly Jerusalem, must pass through fifteen +stadia. The first seven belong to the observance of the Old Law, +for the number seven pertains to the Old Law, which keeps the +seventh day holy. The other eight belong to the fulfilling of the +New Testament, for the number eight refers to the New Testament +because of the octave of the resurrection.
+Their number is mentioned as being many; and many of the Jews +had come to Martha and Mary to console them. This was an act of +piety: "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" +(Rom 12:15); "Do not fail those who weep, but mourn with those who +mourn" (Sir 7:34).
+1509 Now the Evangelist describes the sisters: first, Martha; +then Mary. He describes Martha in three ways: as going to meet +Christ; the devotion she showed to Christ (v 21); and thirdly, the +degree of enlightenment to which Christ raised her.
1510 We are told that Martha immediately went to meet Jesus, -when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him without -delay. The Evangelist says, was coming, perhaps because when Christ was -drawing near someone went ahead and told Martha that Jesus was on his way; and -when she heard this, she at once ran to meet him. The reason why Martha was the -first to hear about this and hurry out alone was due to her anxiety; thus our -Lord says in Luke (10:41), "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled -about many things." And so, since she was occupied with every detail, she was -constantly coming and going and was more likely to meet the messengers. But -Mary sat with those who had come from Jerusalem, and the news would not have -reached her as soon. Chrysostom thinks that Martha did not tell Mary about this -at once because Mary was with the Jews, and Martha knew that they were -persecuting Christ and had already planned his death. So, she was afraid that -if she told her, and Mary also came to meet Christ, they too would have come -with her. For this reason she preferred not to tell her.[19] - - -
But if the Jews were conspiring -against Christ, why were they there with Lazarus and his sisters, who were intimate -friends of Christ, and like his disciples? Chrysostom answers that they were -there in spite of the orders of their leaders, to comfort them, because they -were good women and in great need. Or again, they were there because they were -not evil men, but were well-disposed toward Christ; for a great number of the -people were believers.[20] - -
Mystically, these events signify -the active life, which is signified by Martha, who went to meet Christ in order -to serve his members; and the contemplative life, which is signified by Mary, -who sat at home dedicating herself to the repose of contemplation and to purity -of conscience: "When I enter my house, I shall find rest with her" (Wis 8:16). - -
1511 Martha is shown to have an extraordinary devotion; Martha -said to Jesus, Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. -Here she reverently mentions two things to Christ: one of these look to the -past, and the other to the future. She looks to the past when she says, Lord, -if you had been here, my brother would not have died: for she believed that -there would be no place for death when the Lord was present, since she had seen -the woman healed by merely touching the fringe of Jesus' garment (Matt 9:20). -This was reasonable, for life is contrary to death; but Christ is life and the -tree of life: "She [wisdom] is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her" -(Prv 3:18). So if the tree of life could preserve one from death, much more -could Christ. However, her faith was as yet imperfect, for she thought that -Christ had less power when he was absent than when he was present. Thus she -said, Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. Of -course, this can be said of a limited and created power, but it should not be -said of the infinite and uncreated power which is God, because God is equally -related to things both present and absent; indeed, all things are present to -him: "Am I a God at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off?" (Jer 23:23). - -
She looks to the future when she -adds, and even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you. -In saying this she spoke the partial truth - for it belonged to Christ as -having a human nature to petition God; thus we read that he often prayed, and -above it is said, "If any one is a worshipper of God and does his will, God -listens to him" (9:31). Yet it was less than the whole truth; for by saying -this she seemed to be thinking of Christ as a saintly man who could by his -prayer revive one already dead, just as Elisha by his prayer raised one who was -dead. - +when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met +him without delay. The Evangelist says, was coming, +perhaps because when Christ was drawing near someone went ahead and +told Martha that Jesus was on his way; and when she heard this, she +at once ran to meet him. The reason why Martha was the first to +hear about this and hurry out alone was due to her anxiety; thus +our Lord says in Luke (10:41), "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and +troubled about many things." And so, since she was occupied with +every detail, she was constantly coming and going and was more +likely to meet the messengers. But Mary sat with those who had come +from Jerusalem, and the news would not have reached her as soon. +Chrysostom thinks that Martha did not tell Mary about this at once +because Mary was with the Jews, and Martha knew that they were +persecuting Christ and had already planned his death. So, she was +afraid that if she told her, and Mary also came to meet Christ, +they too would have come with her. For this reason she preferred +not to tell her.[19]
+But if the Jews were conspiring against Christ, why were they +there with Lazarus and his sisters, who were intimate friends of +Christ, and like his disciples? Chrysostom answers that they were +there in spite of the orders of their leaders, to comfort them, +because they were good women and in great need. Or again, they were +there because they were not evil men, but were well-disposed toward +Christ; for a great number of the people were believers.[20]
+Mystically, these events signify the active life, which is +signified by Martha, who went to meet Christ in order to serve his +members; and the contemplative life, which is signified by Mary, +who sat at home dedicating herself to the repose of contemplation +and to purity of conscience: "When I enter my house, I shall find +rest with her" (Wis 8:16).
+1511 Martha is shown to have an extraordinary devotion; +Martha said to Jesus, Lord, if you had been here, my brother +would not have died. Here she reverently mentions two things to +Christ: one of these look to the past, and the other to the future. +She looks to the past when she says, Lord, if you had been here, +my brother would not have died: for she believed that there +would be no place for death when the Lord was present, since she +had seen the woman healed by merely touching the fringe of Jesus' +garment (Matt 9:20). This was reasonable, for life is contrary to +death; but Christ is life and the tree of life: "She [wisdom] is a +tree of life to those who lay hold of her" (Prv 3:18). So if the +tree of life could preserve one from death, much more could Christ. +However, her faith was as yet imperfect, for she thought that +Christ had less power when he was absent than when he was present. +Thus she said, Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not +have died. Of course, this can be said of a limited and created +power, but it should not be said of the infinite and uncreated +power which is God, because God is equally related to things both +present and absent; indeed, all things are present to him: "Am I a +God at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off?" (Jer +23:23).
+She looks to the future when she adds, and even now I know +that whatever you ask from God, God will give you. In saying +this she spoke the partial truth - for it belonged to Christ as +having a human nature to petition God; thus we read that he often +prayed, and above it is said, "If any one is a worshipper of God +and does his will, God listens to him" (9:31). Yet it was less than +the whole truth; for by saying this she seemed to be thinking of +Christ as a saintly man who could by his prayer revive one already +dead, just as Elisha by his prayer raised one who was dead.
1512 We see how she advanced when the Evangelist adds, Jesus -said to her, Your brother will rise again. Because she was still imperfect -in her understanding, our Lord raised her to higher things by his teaching. -First, he foretells the resurrection of her brother; secondly, he shows that he -has the power to resurrect (v 25). Concerning the first, he does two things. -First, he foretells the coming miracle; secondly, we see Martha's understanding -of the resurrection (v 24). - -
1513 The miracle our Lord foretold is the raising of -Lazarus; thus he says, Your brother will rise again: "Thy dead shall -live, their bodies shall rise" (Is 26:19). We should note here that Christ -raised three persons from death: the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue -(Matt 9:25); the widow's son, who was being carried outside the gate of the -city (Lk 7:12); and Lazarus, who had been four days in the tomb. The girl was -still in her home, the youth was outside the gate, and Lazarus was in the tomb. -He raised the girl in the presence of only a few witnesses: the girl's father -and mother, and the three disciples, Peter, James, and John. He raised the -young man in the presence of a large group. And Lazarus was raised with a -number of people standing by, and when Christ was deeply affected. These three -persons represent three kinds or genera of sins. Some sin by consenting in -their hearts to mortal sin; and these are signified by the girl who was dead in -her own home. Others sin by outside signs and acts, and these are signified by -the dead youth who was being carried outside the city gate. Finally, those who -are firmly habituated to sin are buried in the tomb. Yet, our Lord raises all -of them. But those who sin only by consent, and die by sinning mortally, are -more easily raised. And because their sin is private, it is healed with a -private corrective. When sin advances without, it needs public remedy. - +said to her, Your brother will rise again. Because she was +still imperfect in her understanding, our Lord raised her to higher +things by his teaching. First, he foretells the resurrection of her +brother; secondly, he shows that he has the power to resurrect (v +25). Concerning the first, he does two things. First, he foretells +the coming miracle; secondly, we see Martha's understanding of the +resurrection (v 24).
+1513 The miracle our Lord foretold is the raising of Lazarus; +thus he says, Your brother will rise again: "Thy dead shall +live, their bodies shall rise" (Is 26:19). We should note here that +Christ raised three persons from death: the daughter of the ruler +of the synagogue (Matt 9:25); the widow's son, who was being +carried outside the gate of the city (Lk 7:12); and Lazarus, who +had been four days in the tomb. The girl was still in her home, the +youth was outside the gate, and Lazarus was in the tomb. He raised +the girl in the presence of only a few witnesses: the girl's father +and mother, and the three disciples, Peter, James, and John. He +raised the young man in the presence of a large group. And Lazarus +was raised with a number of people standing by, and when Christ was +deeply affected. These three persons represent three kinds or +genera of sins. Some sin by consenting in their hearts to mortal +sin; and these are signified by the girl who was dead in her own +home. Others sin by outside signs and acts, and these are signified +by the dead youth who was being carried outside the city gate. +Finally, those who are firmly habituated to sin are buried in the +tomb. Yet, our Lord raises all of them. But those who sin only by +consent, and die by sinning mortally, are more easily raised. And +because their sin is private, it is healed with a private +corrective. When sin advances without, it needs public remedy.
1514 Martha's understanding of the promised resurrection is -given when the Evangelist says, Martha said to him, I know that he will rise -again in the resurrection at the last day. It had never been heard that -anyone had raised a person who had been four days in the tomb, so it would not -have entered Martha's heart that Jesus would raise Lazarus from the dead then -and there. But she did believe that this would happen at the general -resurrection. Therefore, she says, I know, that is, I hold it with the -greatest certainty, that he will rise again at the last day: "I will -raise him up at the last day" (6:40). - -
1515 When the Evangelist says, Jesus said to her, I am -the resurrection and the life, our Lord raises Martha to higher things. -First, Jesus shows his own might and power; secondly, he mentions the effect of -his power, he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live; and -thirdly, he demands faith, Do you believe this? - +given when the Evangelist says, Martha said to him, I know that +he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day. It had +never been heard that anyone had raised a person who had been four +days in the tomb, so it would not have entered Martha's heart that +Jesus would raise Lazarus from the dead then and there. But she did +believe that this would happen at the general resurrection. +Therefore, she says, I know, that is, I hold it with the +greatest certainty, that he will rise again at the last day: +"I will raise him up at the last day" (6:40).
+1515 When the Evangelist says, Jesus said to her, I am the +resurrection and the life, our Lord raises Martha to higher +things. First, Jesus shows his own might and power; secondly, he +mentions the effect of his power, he who believes in me, though +he die, yet shall he live; and thirdly, he demands faith, Do +you believe this?
1516 His power is life-giving; thus he says, I am the -resurrection and the life. It is as though he were saying to Martha: Do you -believe that your brother will rise on the last day? But this general event, -that all will rise, will be caused by my power. Consequently, I, by whose power -all will rise at that time, am also able to raise your brother now. - -
He is saying two things, namely, -that he is the resurrection and the life. We should note that some need -to share in the effect of life: some, indeed, because they have lost life; and -others, not because they have lost it, but in order that the life they have may -be preserved. In regard to the first he says, I am the resurrection, -because those who have lost their life by death are restored. In regard to the -second he says, and the life, by which the living are preserved. - -
We should note further that the -statement, I am the resurrection, is a causal one. It is the same as -saying: I am the cause of the resurrection, for this manner of speaking is -usually applied only to those who are the cause of something. Now Christ is the -total cause of our resurrection, both of bodies and souls; and so the -statement, I am the resurrection, indicates the cause. He is saying: The -entire fact that everyone will rise in their souls and in their bodies will be -due to me: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection -of the dead" (1 Cor 15:21). - -
Furthermore, the fact that I am -the resurrection is due to the fact that I am the life: for it is -because of life that they are restored to life, just as it is because of fire -that something aflame which has been extinguished is rekindled: "In him was -life, and the life was the light of men" (1:4). - -
1517 However, the effect corresponds to the power; thus he -says, he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever -lives and believes in me shall never die. First, he treats of the effect -which corresponds to the first power [the power to resurrect]; secondly, the -effect which corresponds to the second power [the power to give life]. - -
The first thing he said about his -power is that he is the resurrection. The effect which corresponds to this is -that the dead are brought to life by him. Referring to this he says, he who -believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live. The reason for this is -that I am the cause of the resurrection, and the effect of this cause is -obtained by believing in me. He says, he who believes in me, though he die, -yet shall he live, because by believing he has me within himself - "that -Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17). And one who has me, -has the cause of the resurrection. Therefore, he who believes in me shall -live. We saw before (5:25) that some will rise through faith: "the hour is -coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and -those who hear will live," with a spiritual life, by rising from the death of -sin, and they will also live with a natural life by rising from the penalty of -[physical] death. - -
The second thing he says of his -power is that he is life. The effect which corresponds to this is the -preservation of life. Thus he says, and whoever lives and believes in me, -whoever lives a life of righteousness, "the righteous shall live by his faith" -(Hab 2:4), shall never die, that is, with an eternal death. But they -will have eternal life: "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who -sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life" (6:40). This should -not be understood to mean that one will not physically die; he will die, but he -will be raised up in a soul to a never-ending life, and his flesh will rise and -he will never die again. Thus John continued, "and I will raise him up at the -last day" (6:40). - +resurrection and the life. It is as though he were saying to +Martha: Do you believe that your brother will rise on the last day? +But this general event, that all will rise, will be caused by my +power. Consequently, I, by whose power all will rise at that time, +am also able to raise your brother now.
+He is saying two things, namely, that he is the resurrection +and the life. We should note that some need to share in the +effect of life: some, indeed, because they have lost life; and +others, not because they have lost it, but in order that the life +they have may be preserved. In regard to the first he says, I am +the resurrection, because those who have lost their life by +death are restored. In regard to the second he says, and the +life, by which the living are preserved.
+We should note further that the statement, I am the +resurrection, is a causal one. It is the same as saying: I am +the cause of the resurrection, for this manner of speaking is +usually applied only to those who are the cause of something. Now +Christ is the total cause of our resurrection, both of bodies and +souls; and so the statement, I am the resurrection, +indicates the cause. He is saying: The entire fact that everyone +will rise in their souls and in their bodies will be due to me: +"For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the +resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor 15:21).
+Furthermore, the fact that I am the resurrection is due +to the fact that I am the life: for it is because of life +that they are restored to life, just as it is because of fire that +something aflame which has been extinguished is rekindled: "In him +was life, and the life was the light of men" (1:4).
+1517 However, the effect corresponds to the power; thus he says, +he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and +whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. First, he +treats of the effect which corresponds to the first power [the +power to resurrect]; secondly, the effect which corresponds to the +second power [the power to give life].
+The first thing he said about his power is that he is the +resurrection. The effect which corresponds to this is that the dead +are brought to life by him. Referring to this he says, he who +believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live. The reason +for this is that I am the cause of the resurrection, and the effect +of this cause is obtained by believing in me. He says, he who +believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, because by +believing he has me within himself - "that Christ may dwell in your +hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17). And one who has me, has the cause +of the resurrection. Therefore, he who believes in me shall +live. We saw before (5:25) that some will rise through faith: +"the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice +of the Son of God, and those who hear will live," with a spiritual +life, by rising from the death of sin, and they will also live with +a natural life by rising from the penalty of [physical] death.
+The second thing he says of his power is that he is life. The +effect which corresponds to this is the preservation of life. Thus +he says, and whoever lives and believes in me, whoever lives +a life of righteousness, "the righteous shall live by his faith" +(Hab 2:4), shall never die, that is, with an eternal death. +But they will have eternal life: "For this is the will of my +Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should +have eternal life" (6:40). This should not be understood to mean +that one will not physically die; he will die, but he will be +raised up in a soul to a never-ending life, and his flesh will rise +and he will never die again. Thus John continued, "and I will raise +him up at the last day" (6:40).
1518 Jesus requires faith so he can bring her to perfection: -thus he says, Do you believe this? First, our Lord's question is given. -Our Lord does not ask this out of ignorance, because he knew her faith. Indeed, -it was he who had infused the faith into her: for the act of faith is from God. -But he asks this question in order that she might profess outwardly the faith -she had in her heart: as we read, "For man believes with his heart and so is -justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Rom 10:10). - -
1519 Secondly, we are given the woman's answer, Yes, -Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Yet -this answer seems to be unrelated to what our Lord had said. For he had said, I -am the resurrection and the life, and then he asked her whether she -believed this. She did not answer: "I believe that you are the resurrection and -the life," but I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. - -
There are two explanations for -this. Chrysostom thinks that Martha did not understand the profound words of -Christ and answered as one bewildered: Lord, I do not understand what you are -saying, namely, that you are the resurrection and the life; but I do believe -this, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.[21] -Augustine, on the other hand, says that Martha answers this way because it -gives the reason for all that our Lord had said.[22] -It is as though she were saying: Whatever you say about your power and the -effect of salvation, I believe it all; because I believe something more, which -is the root of all these things, that is, that you are the Christ, the Son -of the living God. - -
1520 Martha's profession is complete, for she professes -Christ's dignity, his nature and his mission, that is, to be made flesh. She -professes his dignity, both royal and priestly, when she says, you are the -Christ. Now "Christ" means "anointed." And kings and priests are anointed. -Consequently, Christ is king and priest. So the angel said: "To you is born -this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:11). -Furthermore, he is a "Christ" in a unique way, for others are anointed with a -visible oil, but he is anointed with an invisible oil, that is, with the Holy -Spirit, and more abundantly than others: "God, your God, has anointed you with -the oil of gladness above your fellows" (Ps 45:7). Indeed, he was anointed -above his fellows "for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit" (3:34). - -
Then she professes that Christ's -nature is divine and equal to the Father; she says, the Son of the living -God. In calling him uniquely the Son of the living God, she affirms the -truth of his sonship: for he is not the true Son of God unless he is of the -same nature as his Father. Thus it is said of Christ: "That we may be in his -true Son, Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" [1 Jn 5:20]. - -
She professes the mystery of his -mission when she says, he who is coming into the world, by assuming -flesh. Peter professed the same: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living -God" (Matt 16:16); and Christ says, "I came from the Father and have come into -the world" (16:28). -
-LECTURE 5 - -
+- +thus he says, Do you believe this? First, our Lord's +question is given. Our Lord does not ask this out of ignorance, +because he knew her faith. Indeed, it was he who had infused the +faith into her: for the act of faith is from God. But he asks this +question in order that she might profess outwardly the faith she +had in her heart: as we read, "For man believes with his heart and +so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" +(Rom 10:10).28 When she had said this, she went and called her sister -Mary, saying quietly, "The Teacher is here and is calling for you." 29 And when -she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come -to the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. 31 When -the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly -and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep -there. 32 Then Mary, when she came where Jesus was and saw him, fell at his -feet, saying to him, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have -died." 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also -weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled [himself]; 34 and he said, -"Where have you laid him?" They said to him, "Lord, come and see." 35 Jesus -wept. 36 So the Jews said, "See how he loved him." 37 But some of them said, -"Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from -dying."
1519 Secondly, we are given the woman's answer, Yes, Lord; I +believe that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Yet +this answer seems to be unrelated to what our Lord had said. For he +had said, I am the resurrection and the life, and then he +asked her whether she believed this. She did not answer: "I believe +that you are the resurrection and the life," but I believe that +you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
+There are two explanations for this. Chrysostom thinks that +Martha did not understand the profound words of Christ and answered +as one bewildered: Lord, I do not understand what you are saying, +namely, that you are the resurrection and the life; but I do +believe this, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of the +living God.[21] Augustine, on the other hand, says that Martha +answers this way because it gives the reason for all that our Lord +had said.[22] +It is as though she were saying: Whatever you say about your power +and the effect of salvation, I believe it all; because I believe +something more, which is the root of all these things, that is, +that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
+1520 Martha's profession is complete, for she professes Christ's +dignity, his nature and his mission, that is, to be made flesh. She +professes his dignity, both royal and priestly, when she says, +you are the Christ. Now "Christ" means "anointed." And kings +and priests are anointed. Consequently, Christ is king and priest. +So the angel said: "To you is born this day in the city of David a +Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:11). Furthermore, he is a +"Christ" in a unique way, for others are anointed with a visible +oil, but he is anointed with an invisible oil, that is, with the +Holy Spirit, and more abundantly than others: "God, your God, has +anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" (Ps +45:7). Indeed, he was anointed above his fellows "for it is not by +measure that he gives the Spirit" (3:34).
+Then she professes that Christ's nature is divine and equal to +the Father; she says, the Son of the living God. In calling +him uniquely the Son of the living God, she affirms the truth of +his sonship: for he is not the true Son of God unless he is of the +same nature as his Father. Thus it is said of Christ: "That we may +be in his true Son, Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" +[1 Jn 5:20].
+She professes the mystery of his mission when she says, he +who is coming into the world, by assuming flesh. Peter +professed the same: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" +(Matt 16:16); and Christ says, "I came from the Father and have +come into the world" (16:28).
+
+
+LECTURE 5
++28 When she had said this, she went and called her sister +Mary, saying quietly, "The Teacher is here and is calling for you." +29 And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. 30 Now +Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still in the place +where Martha had met him. 31 When the Jews who were with her in the +house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they +followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep +there. 32 Then Mary, when she came where Jesus was and saw him, +fell at his feet, saying to him, "Lord, if you had been here, my +brother would not have died." 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and +the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in +spirit and troubled [himself]; 34 and he said, "Where have you laid +him?" They said to him, "Lord, come and see." 35 Jesus wept. 36 So +the Jews said, "See how he loved him." 37 But some of them said, +"Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this +man from dying."
+1521 The Evangelist, after describing Martha, now describes -Mary. First, he mentions how she was called; secondly, her meeting with Christ; -and thirdly, the devotion she showed him (v 32). - +Mary. First, he mentions how she was called; secondly, her meeting +with Christ; and thirdly, the devotion she showed him (v 32).
1522 Mary was called by Martha, who had been consoled and -instructed by Christ, as she did not want her sister to miss such consolation. When -she had said this, the previous words, to the Lord, she went and called -her sister Mary, saying quietly, The Teacher is here and is calling for you. -She called her sister quietly: "The words of the wise heard in quiet…" (Eccl -9:17). She did this because a number of Jews were with her sister, as has been -said; and perhaps there were some among them who did not like Jesus, or would -have left, or who, if they had heard what Martha said, would not have followed -her. As for the mystical sense, we may understand that one more efficaciously -calls upon Christ in quiet or in private: "In quietness and in trust shall be -your strength" (Is 30:15). - -
1523 There is a problem about her saying, the Teacher is -here and is calling for you. This seems to be false, because our Lord did -not tell Martha to call Mary. Augustine says that the Evangelist omitted this -detail from his account for the sake of brevity, for perhaps our Lord did tell -Martha to call her.[23] -However, others say that Martha considered the very presence of Christ as a -call. Martha was thinking: If he is here, it would be inexcusable for one not -to go to meet him. - -
1524 Next, the Evangelist describes Mary going to meet -Christ. He does three things about this: first, he mentions her promptness; -secondly, the place where she meets Christ; and thirdly those who came with her -(v 31). - -
1525 Mary went to Christ promptly, not delaying on account -of her sorrow, or hesitating because of those who were with her. But when -she heard it, she rose quickly from the house where she was and went to -him, Jesus. It is clear from this that Martha would not have arrived before -Mary if Mary had been immediately told of Jesus' coming. Further, this -furnishes us with the example that we are not to delay when called to Christ: -"Do not delay to turn to the Lord, nor postpone it from day to day" (Sir 5:7); -"I will hear him as a teacher" [Is 50:4]. - -
1526 Mary meets Christ at the same place where Martha had -spoken to him; Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still in -the place where Martha had met him. The Evangelist mentions this so that we -do not think that Mary's trip was unnecessary, for Christ could have reached -her village just as quickly as Martha did. But Christ remained where he was so -as not to appear to be thrusting himself into a miracle. Yet once he is asked -and prompted, he does perform a miracle, once they realize that Lazarus is -dead, and so the miracle cannot be denied. We can also understand from this -that when we wish to have the advantage of Christ we should go to meet him, and -not wait until he accommodates himself to us; rather, we should accommodate -ourselves to him: "They shall turn to you, but you shall not turn to them" (Jer -15:19). - -
1527 Those who followed Mary are described when the -Evangelist says, the Jews who were with her in the house…followed her. -The reason they followed her is given when he says, supposing that she was -going to the tomb to weep there. They thought that her action was inspired -by her grief, since they had not heard what Martha had said to her. This was a -commendable thing for the Jews to do, for as Sirach (7:34) says: "Do not fail -those who weep." Still, that they did follow Mary was an effect of divine -providence, and it was, as Augustine says, so that with all these present when -Lazarus was raised, this great miracle of raising one who had been dead for -four days would have many witnesses.[24] - -
1528 Then when he says, then Mary, when she came where -Jesus was and saw him, fell at his feet, we see Mary's devotion to Jesus. -First, we see the devotion she showed by her actions and secondly, the devotion -she showed by her words. - +instructed by Christ, as she did not want her sister to miss such +consolation. When she had said this, the previous words, to +the Lord, she went and called her sister Mary, saying quietly, +The Teacher is here and is calling for you. She called her +sister quietly: "The words of the wise heard in quiet…" +(Eccl 9:17). She did this because a number of Jews were with her +sister, as has been said; and perhaps there were some among them +who did not like Jesus, or would have left, or who, if they had +heard what Martha said, would not have followed her. As for the +mystical sense, we may understand that one more efficaciously calls +upon Christ in quiet or in private: "In quietness and in trust +shall be your strength" (Is 30:15).
+1523 There is a problem about her saying, the Teacher is here +and is calling for you. This seems to be false, because our +Lord did not tell Martha to call Mary. Augustine says that the +Evangelist omitted this detail from his account for the sake of +brevity, for perhaps our Lord did tell Martha to call her.[23] However, others +say that Martha considered the very presence of Christ as a call. +Martha was thinking: If he is here, it would be inexcusable for one +not to go to meet him.
+1524 Next, the Evangelist describes Mary going to meet Christ. +He does three things about this: first, he mentions her promptness; +secondly, the place where she meets Christ; and thirdly those who +came with her (v 31).
+1525 Mary went to Christ promptly, not delaying on account of +her sorrow, or hesitating because of those who were with her. But +when she heard it, she rose quickly from the house where she +was and went to him, Jesus. It is clear from this that +Martha would not have arrived before Mary if Mary had been +immediately told of Jesus' coming. Further, this furnishes us with +the example that we are not to delay when called to Christ: "Do not +delay to turn to the Lord, nor postpone it from day to day" (Sir +5:7); "I will hear him as a teacher" [Is 50:4].
+1526 Mary meets Christ at the same place where Martha had spoken +to him; Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still +in the place where Martha had met him. The Evangelist mentions +this so that we do not think that Mary's trip was unnecessary, for +Christ could have reached her village just as quickly as Martha +did. But Christ remained where he was so as not to appear to be +thrusting himself into a miracle. Yet once he is asked and +prompted, he does perform a miracle, once they realize that Lazarus +is dead, and so the miracle cannot be denied. We can also +understand from this that when we wish to have the advantage of +Christ we should go to meet him, and not wait until he accommodates +himself to us; rather, we should accommodate ourselves to him: +"They shall turn to you, but you shall not turn to them" (Jer +15:19).
+1527 Those who followed Mary are described when the Evangelist +says, the Jews who were with her in the house…followed +her. The reason they followed her is given when he says, +supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. They +thought that her action was inspired by her grief, since they had +not heard what Martha had said to her. This was a commendable thing +for the Jews to do, for as Sirach (7:34) says: "Do not fail those +who weep." Still, that they did follow Mary was an effect of divine +providence, and it was, as Augustine says, so that with all these +present when Lazarus was raised, this great miracle of raising one +who had been dead for four days would have many witnesses.[24]
+1528 Then when he says, then Mary, when she came where Jesus +was and saw him, fell at his feet, we see Mary's devotion to +Jesus. First, we see the devotion she showed by her actions and +secondly, the devotion she showed by her words.
1529 In regard to the first, notice her security and humility. -She is secure because, contrary to the orders of the leaders that no one -profess Christ, she is neither shamed by the crowd nor does she show any regard -for the Jews' mistrust of Christ. Even though some of Christ's enemies are -present, she runs to him: "The righteous are bold as a lion" (Prv 28:1). - -
She shows her humility because she -fell at his feet, which was not said about Martha: "Humble yourselves -therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you" (1 -Pet 5:6); "Let us worship at his foot stool" (Ps 132:7). - -
1530 She shows her devotion in words when she says to him, Lord, -if you had been here, my brother would not have died. For she believed that -he was the life, and where he was there would be no place for death: "What fellowship -has light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). It is like saying, says Augustine: "As -long as you were present with us, no sickness or infirmity dared to appear -among those with whom Life was a guest. O faithless fellowship! While you were -still living in the world, your friend died. If a friend dies, what will an -enemy suffer?"[25] - -
1531 Next (v 33), Christ's feelings are presented. Christ -did not answer Mary in the same way that he answered Martha; because of the -crowd which was present he did not say anything, but showed his power by his -actions. First, we see Christ's affection for Mary; secondly, the remarks of -the Jews about Christ's affection (v 36). Concerning the first, the Evangelist -does three things. First, he mentions the affection present in the heart of -Christ; secondly, how he expressed it in words (v 34); and thirdly, how he -revealed it by his tears (v 35). - -
1532 With regard to the first, he says, When Jesus saw -her weeping…We should note here that Christ is truly divine and truly -human. And so in his actions we find almost everywhere that the divine is -mingled with the human, and the human with the divine. And if at times -something human is mentioned about Christ, something divine is immediately -added. Indeed, we read of no weakness of Christ greater than his passion; yet -as he hangs on the cross divine events are manifested: the sun is obscured, -rocks are rent, the bodies of the saints that had been asleep arise. Even at -his birth, as he lay in the manger, a star shines in the heavens, the angels -sing his praises, and the Magi and kings offer gifts. We have a similar -situation here: for Christ experiences a certain weakness in his human -affections, becoming disturbed over the death of Lazarus. We read, he was -deeply moved in spirit and troubled himself. - +She is secure because, contrary to the orders of the leaders that +no one profess Christ, she is neither shamed by the crowd nor does +she show any regard for the Jews' mistrust of Christ. Even though +some of Christ's enemies are present, she runs to him: "The +righteous are bold as a lion" (Prv 28:1).
+She shows her humility because she fell at his feet, +which was not said about Martha: "Humble yourselves therefore under +the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you" (1 Pet +5:6); "Let us worship at his foot stool" (Ps 132:7).
+1530 She shows her devotion in words when she says to him, +Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. +For she believed that he was the life, and where he was there would +be no place for death: "What fellowship has light with darkness?" +(2 Cor 6:14). It is like saying, says Augustine: "As long as you +were present with us, no sickness or infirmity dared to appear +among those with whom Life was a guest. O faithless fellowship! +While you were still living in the world, your friend died. If a +friend dies, what will an enemy suffer?"[25]
+1531 Next (v 33), Christ's feelings are presented. Christ did +not answer Mary in the same way that he answered Martha; because of +the crowd which was present he did not say anything, but showed his +power by his actions. First, we see Christ's affection for Mary; +secondly, the remarks of the Jews about Christ's affection (v 36). +Concerning the first, the Evangelist does three things. First, he +mentions the affection present in the heart of Christ; secondly, +how he expressed it in words (v 34); and thirdly, how he revealed +it by his tears (v 35).
+1532 With regard to the first, he says, When Jesus saw her +weeping…We should note here that Christ is truly divine +and truly human. And so in his actions we find almost everywhere +that the divine is mingled with the human, and the human with the +divine. And if at times something human is mentioned about Christ, +something divine is immediately added. Indeed, we read of no +weakness of Christ greater than his passion; yet as he hangs on the +cross divine events are manifested: the sun is obscured, rocks are +rent, the bodies of the saints that had been asleep arise. Even at +his birth, as he lay in the manger, a star shines in the heavens, +the angels sing his praises, and the Magi and kings offer gifts. We +have a similar situation here: for Christ experiences a certain +weakness in his human affections, becoming disturbed over the death +of Lazarus. We read, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled +himself.
1533 In regard to this disturbance, we should note his -compassion; secondly, his discernment; and thirdly, his power. There is -compassion for a right reason, for one is rightly troubled by the sadness and -the evils which afflict others. About this the Evangelist says, When Jesus -saw her weeping. "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" -(Rom 12:15). - -
1534 There is discernment, because Jesus is troubled in -harmony with the judgment of reason. Thus the Evangelist says that he was deeply -moved in spirit, that is, observing the judgment of reason. In the -Scriptures the spirit is also called the mind or reason, as in Ephesians -(4:23): "Be renewed in the spirit of your minds." Sometimes these emotions of -the sensitive part are neither evoked by the spirit, nor preserve the -moderation of reason; rather, they go against it. But this did not happen in -Christ because he was deeply moved in spirit. - -
But what does it indicate to say -that he was deeply moved in spirit (fremuit spiritu)? It seems that it -indicates anger: "A king's wrath is like the growling (fremitus) of a -lion" (Prv 19:12). It also seems to indicate indignation or resentment, -according to Psalm 112 (v 10): "He gnashes (fremet) his teeth and melts -away." I answer that Christ's being deeply moved indicates a certain anger and -resentment of the heart. For all anger and resentment are caused by some kind -of pain and sadness. Now there are two things involved here: the one about -which Christ was troubled was death, which was inflicted upon the human race on -account of sin; the other, which he resented, was the cruelty of death and of -the devil. Thus, just as when one wants to repel an enemy he is saddened by the -evils inflicted by him, and indignant at the very though of him, so too Christ -was saddened and indignant. - -
1535 There was power here because Christ troubled himself by -his own command. Sometimes such emotions arise for an inappropriate reason, as -when a person rejoices over something evil, or is saddened over what is good: -like they "who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil" -(Prv 2:14). But this was not the case with Christ; thus he says, When Jesus -saw her weeping…he troubled himself. And sometimes such emotions arise for -a good reason, but are not moderated by reason. So he says, he was deeply -moved in spirit. Further, although these emotions are moderated, they -sometimes spring up before the judgment of reason, as when they are sudden. -This was not the case with Christ either, because every movement of his -sensitive appetite was according to the control and command of reason. - -
Thus he says, he troubled -himself (turbovit semetipsum). This was like saying: He took on this -sadness by a judgment of reason. - -
But how does this agree with the -statement of Isaiah [42:4]: "He will not be sad nor troubled"? I answer that -this refers to a sadness which precedes the judgment of reason and is -immoderate. Christ willed to be troubled and to feel sadness for three reasons. -First, to show the condition and the truth of his human nature. Secondly, so -that by controlling his own sadness, he might teach us to moderate our own -sadness. The Stoics had taught that a wise man is never sad. But it seems very -inhuman not to be sad at the death of another. However, there are some who become -excessively sad over the evils which afflict their friends. Now our Lord willed -to be sad in order to teach us that there are times when we should be sad, -which is contrary to the opinion of the Stoics; and he preserved a certain -moderation in his sadness, which is contrary to the excessively sad type. Thus -the Apostle says: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning -those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 -Thess 4:13). "Weep for the dead, for he lacks the light" (Si 22:11), and then -it continues, "Weep less bitterly for the dead, for he has attained rest." The -third reason is to tell us that we should be sad and weep for those who -physically die: "I am utterly spent and crushed" (Ps 38:8). [26] - -
1536 Then our Lord shows the emotion in his own heart by -words; he says, Where have you laid him? Was our Lord really ignorant of -the place where he had been buried? It seems not, for just as in his absence he -knew, because of his divinity, of Lazarus' death, so in the same way he knew -where his tomb was. Why did he ask about something he already knew? I answer -that he did not ask as though he did not know, but upon being shown the tomb by -the people, he wanted them to admit that Lazarus had died and was buried. In -this way he could prevent the miracle from being doubted. - -
There are also two mystical reasons -for this. One is that a person who asks a question does not seem to know the -things he asks about. Now, Lazarus in his tomb signifies those who are dead in -their sins. And so our Lord presents himself as ignorant of where Lazarus is to -have us understand that he does not, in a way, know sinners, according to: "I -never knew you" (Matt 7:23); and in Genesis God said to Adam, "Where are you?" -(3:9). The other reason is that if anyone rises from sin to the state of divine -righteousness, it is due to the depths of divine predestination, the depths of -which we are ignorant: "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been -his counselor?" (Rom 11:34); "For who among them has stood in the council of -the Lord to perceive and hear his word" (Jer 23:18). And so our Lord, implying -this, acts as one who does not know, since we also do not know this. Thus our -Lord's question is given, and the answer of the people, when the Evangelist -says, They said to him, Lord, come and see. Come, by showing -mercy; and see, by giving your attention: "Consider my affliction and my -trouble, and forgive all my sins" (Ps 25:18). - -
1537 Next, our Lord reveals his emotion with tears; the Evangelist -says, he wept. Now his tears did not flow from necessity, but out of -compassion and for a purpose. Christ was a well-spring of compassion, and he -wept in order to show us that it is not blameworthy to weep out of compassion: -"My son, let your tears fall for the dead" (Sir 38:16). He wept with a purpose, -which was to teach us that we should weep because of sin: "I am weary with my -moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears" (Ps 6:6). - -
1538 The Evangelist mentions the remarks that were made -about Christ's affection when he says, So the Jews said, See how he loved -him! First, he mentions those who sympathize with Christ's affection; -secondly, those who doubted his previous miracle (v 37). - -
The Evangelist infers that some sympathize with Christ's affection when he -says, So the Jews said, after Christ showed his affections by his words -and tears, See how he loved him!: for love is especially manifested when -people are afflicted: "A brother is born for adversity" (Prv 17:17). As for the -mystical sense, we understand by this that God loves us even when we are -sinners, for if he did not love us he would not have said: "For I came not to -call the righteous, but sinners" (Matt 9:13). So we read in Jeremiah (31:3): "I -have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my -faithfulness to you." - -
1539 Those who doubted his previous miracle were from the -group which envied Christ. The Evangelist says, But some of them, the -Jews, said, Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this -man from dying? It was the same as saying: If he loved him so much that he -now weeps over his death, it seems that he did not want him to die, for sadness -concerns things that we do not want. So, if he died against Christ's wishes, it -seems that Christ was not able to prevent his death; and all the more it seems -that he could not open the eyes of the man born blind. Or, one could say that -the Jews were speaking out of wonder or astonishment, as Elisha spoke when he -said, "Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?" (2 Kings 2:14); and David in -"Lord, where is thy steadfast love of old?" (Ps 89:49). -
-LECTURE 6 - -
38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it -was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, "Take away the stone." -Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, by this time there will -be an odor, for he has been dead for four days." 40 Jesus said to her, "Did I -not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?" 41 So -they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I -thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 I knew that thou hearest me always, but -I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe -that thou didst send me." 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, -"Lazarus, come out." 44 [Immediately] the dead man came out, his hands and feet -bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, -"Unbind him, and let him go."[27]
1540 The Evangelist, after having given certain preambles to -the raising of Lazarus, now presents the raising itself. He considers four -things: first, Christ's arrival at the tomb; second, the removal of the stone -(v 39); third, Christ's prayer; and fourth, the actual raising of the dead -Lazarus (v 43). - -
1541 In regard to the first he says, Then Jesus, deeply -moved again, came to the tomb. The Evangelist is careful to frequently -mention that Christ wept and was deeply moved because, as Chrysostom says, he -will later show the power of his divinity.[28] -And so he affirms that Christ experienced the weaker and humbler marks of our -nature so that we do not doubt the reality of his human nature. And just as -John shows his divine nature and power more explicitly than the other -Evangelists, so he also mentions his weaker aspects, and other such things -which especially reveal the affections of Christ's human nature. - -
As for the mystical sense, he was -deeply moved in order that we might understand that those who rise from sin -should continue to weep without interruption, according to: "All the day I go -about mourning" (Ps 38:6). - -
Or, one could say that while Christ -was deeply moved before due to the death of Lazarus, he is deeply moved now -because of the unbelief of the Jews. Thus the Evangelist mentioned their doubt -about his previous miracle, when they said, "Could not he who opened the eyes -of the blind man have kept this man from dying." Indeed, he was deeply moved -with compassion and pity for these Jews: "He saw a great throng; and he had -compassion on them" (Matt 14:14). - -
1542 The Evangelist next mentions the removal of the stone; -and he does four things about this. First, he describes the stone; secondly, he -mentions the order of Christ to remove it; thirdly, he adds the objection to -taking away the stone; fourthly, he states that the order was carried out. - +compassion; secondly, his discernment; and thirdly, his power. +There is compassion for a right reason, for one is rightly troubled +by the sadness and the evils which afflict others. About this the +Evangelist says, When Jesus saw her weeping. "Rejoice with +those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" (Rom 12:15).
+1534 There is discernment, because Jesus is troubled in harmony +with the judgment of reason. Thus the Evangelist says that he +was deeply moved in spirit, that is, observing the judgment of +reason. In the Scriptures the spirit is also called the mind or +reason, as in Ephesians (4:23): "Be renewed in the spirit of your +minds." Sometimes these emotions of the sensitive part are neither +evoked by the spirit, nor preserve the moderation of reason; +rather, they go against it. But this did not happen in Christ +because he was deeply moved in spirit.
+But what does it indicate to say that he was deeply moved in +spirit (fremuit spiritu)? It seems that it indicates anger: +"A king's wrath is like the growling (fremitus) of a lion" +(Prv 19:12). It also seems to indicate indignation or resentment, +according to Psalm 112 (v 10): "He gnashes (fremet) his +teeth and melts away." I answer that Christ's being deeply moved +indicates a certain anger and resentment of the heart. For all +anger and resentment are caused by some kind of pain and sadness. +Now there are two things involved here: the one about which Christ +was troubled was death, which was inflicted upon the human race on +account of sin; the other, which he resented, was the cruelty of +death and of the devil. Thus, just as when one wants to repel an +enemy he is saddened by the evils inflicted by him, and indignant +at the very though of him, so too Christ was saddened and +indignant.
+1535 There was power here because Christ troubled himself by his +own command. Sometimes such emotions arise for an inappropriate +reason, as when a person rejoices over something evil, or is +saddened over what is good: like they "who rejoice in doing evil +and delight in the perverseness of evil" (Prv 2:14). But this was +not the case with Christ; thus he says, When Jesus saw her +weeping…he troubled himself. And sometimes such emotions +arise for a good reason, but are not moderated by reason. So he +says, he was deeply moved in spirit. Further, although these +emotions are moderated, they sometimes spring up before the +judgment of reason, as when they are sudden. This was not the case +with Christ either, because every movement of his sensitive +appetite was according to the control and command of reason.
+Thus he says, he troubled himself (turbovit +semetipsum). This was like saying: He took on this sadness by a +judgment of reason.
+But how does this agree with the statement of Isaiah [42:4]: "He +will not be sad nor troubled"? I answer that this refers to a +sadness which precedes the judgment of reason and is immoderate. +Christ willed to be troubled and to feel sadness for three reasons. +First, to show the condition and the truth of his human nature. +Secondly, so that by controlling his own sadness, he might teach us +to moderate our own sadness. The Stoics had taught that a wise man +is never sad. But it seems very inhuman not to be sad at the death +of another. However, there are some who become excessively sad over +the evils which afflict their friends. Now our Lord willed to be +sad in order to teach us that there are times when we should be +sad, which is contrary to the opinion of the Stoics; and he +preserved a certain moderation in his sadness, which is contrary to +the excessively sad type. Thus the Apostle says: "But we would not +have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that +you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thess 4:13). +"Weep for the dead, for he lacks the light" (Si 22:11), and then it +continues, "Weep less bitterly for the dead, for he has attained +rest." The third reason is to tell us that we should be sad and +weep for those who physically die: "I am utterly spent and crushed" +(Ps 38:8). [26]
+1536 Then our Lord shows the emotion in his own heart by words; +he says, Where have you laid him? Was our Lord really +ignorant of the place where he had been buried? It seems not, for +just as in his absence he knew, because of his divinity, of +Lazarus' death, so in the same way he knew where his tomb was. Why +did he ask about something he already knew? I answer that he did +not ask as though he did not know, but upon being shown the tomb by +the people, he wanted them to admit that Lazarus had died and was +buried. In this way he could prevent the miracle from being +doubted.
+There are also two mystical reasons for this. One is that a +person who asks a question does not seem to know the things he asks +about. Now, Lazarus in his tomb signifies those who are dead in +their sins. And so our Lord presents himself as ignorant of where +Lazarus is to have us understand that he does not, in a way, know +sinners, according to: "I never knew you" (Matt 7:23); and in +Genesis God said to Adam, "Where are you?" (3:9). The other reason +is that if anyone rises from sin to the state of divine +righteousness, it is due to the depths of divine predestination, +the depths of which we are ignorant: "For who has known the mind of +the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" (Rom 11:34); "For who +among them has stood in the council of the Lord to perceive and +hear his word" (Jer 23:18). And so our Lord, implying this, acts as +one who does not know, since we also do not know this. Thus our +Lord's question is given, and the answer of the people, when the +Evangelist says, They said to him, Lord, come and see. +Come, by showing mercy; and see, by giving your +attention: "Consider my affliction and my trouble, and forgive all +my sins" (Ps 25:18).
+1537 Next, our Lord reveals his emotion with tears; the +Evangelist says, he wept. Now his tears did not flow from +necessity, but out of compassion and for a purpose. Christ was a +well-spring of compassion, and he wept in order to show us that it +is not blameworthy to weep out of compassion: "My son, let your +tears fall for the dead" (Sir 38:16). He wept with a purpose, which +was to teach us that we should weep because of sin: "I am weary +with my moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears" (Ps +6:6).
+1538 The Evangelist mentions the remarks that were made about +Christ's affection when he says, So the Jews said, See how he +loved him! First, he mentions those who sympathize with +Christ's affection; secondly, those who doubted his previous +miracle (v 37).
+The Evangelist infers that some sympathize with Christ's +affection when he says, So the Jews said, after Christ +showed his affections by his words and tears, See how he loved +him!: for love is especially manifested when people are +afflicted: "A brother is born for adversity" (Prv 17:17). As for +the mystical sense, we understand by this that God loves us even +when we are sinners, for if he did not love us he would not have +said: "For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matt +9:13). So we read in Jeremiah (31:3): "I have loved you with an +everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to +you."
+1539 Those who doubted his previous miracle were from the group +which envied Christ. The Evangelist says, But some of them, +the Jews, said, Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind +man have kept this man from dying? It was the same as saying: +If he loved him so much that he now weeps over his death, it seems +that he did not want him to die, for sadness concerns things that +we do not want. So, if he died against Christ's wishes, it seems +that Christ was not able to prevent his death; and all the more it +seems that he could not open the eyes of the man born blind. Or, +one could say that the Jews were speaking out of wonder or +astonishment, as Elisha spoke when he said, "Where is the Lord, the +God of Elijah?" (2 Kings 2:14); and David in "Lord, where is thy +steadfast love of old?" (Ps 89:49).
+
+
+LECTURE 6
+++38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it was a +cave, and a stone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, "Take away the +stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, by +this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead for four +days." 40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you would +believe you would see the glory of God?" 41 So they took away the +stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank thee +that thou hast heard me. 42 I knew that thou hearest me always, but +I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they +may believe that thou didst send me." 43 When he had said this, he +cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." 44 [Immediately] the +dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his +face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let +him go."[27]
+1540 The Evangelist, after having given certain preambles to the +raising of Lazarus, now presents the raising itself. He considers +four things: first, Christ's arrival at the tomb; second, the +removal of the stone (v 39); third, Christ's prayer; and fourth, +the actual raising of the dead Lazarus (v 43).
+1541 In regard to the first he says, Then Jesus, deeply moved +again, came to the tomb. The Evangelist is careful to +frequently mention that Christ wept and was deeply moved because, +as Chrysostom says, he will later show the power of his +divinity.[28] And so he affirms that Christ experienced the +weaker and humbler marks of our nature so that we do not doubt the +reality of his human nature. And just as John shows his divine +nature and power more explicitly than the other Evangelists, so he +also mentions his weaker aspects, and other such things which +especially reveal the affections of Christ's human nature.
+As for the mystical sense, he was deeply moved in order that we +might understand that those who rise from sin should continue to +weep without interruption, according to: "All the day I go about +mourning" (Ps 38:6).
+Or, one could say that while Christ was deeply moved before due +to the death of Lazarus, he is deeply moved now because of the +unbelief of the Jews. Thus the Evangelist mentioned their doubt +about his previous miracle, when they said, "Could not he who +opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying." +Indeed, he was deeply moved with compassion and pity for these +Jews: "He saw a great throng; and he had compassion on them" (Matt +14:14).
+1542 The Evangelist next mentions the removal of the stone; and +he does four things about this. First, he describes the stone; +secondly, he mentions the order of Christ to remove it; thirdly, he +adds the objection to taking away the stone; fourthly, he states +that the order was carried out.
1543 The stone is described as being over the tomb; he says, -it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Note that in those regions they -had certain cavities in the form of caves that were used as human burial -places, and in them they could bury many bodies over the course of time. So -they have an entrance which they could close and open with a stone when -necessary. Thus we read, a stone lay upon it, i.e., over the entrance to -the cave. We read the same in Genesis (c 23) when Abraham purchased a field and -a cave for the burial of his wife Sarah. - -
In the mystical sense, the cave -signifies the depths of sin, which it is said: "I have come into deep waters, -and the flood sweeps over me" (Ps 69:2). The stone laid upon the cave signifies -the Law, which was written on stone, and which did not take away sin, but held -them in sin, because they sinned more gravely in acting against the Law. Thus -we read in Galatians (3:22): "The scripture consigned all things to sin" (Gal -3:22). - +it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Note that in those +regions they had certain cavities in the form of caves that were +used as human burial places, and in them they could bury many +bodies over the course of time. So they have an entrance which they +could close and open with a stone when necessary. Thus we read, +a stone lay upon it, i.e., over the entrance to the cave. We +read the same in Genesis (c 23) when Abraham purchased a field and +a cave for the burial of his wife Sarah.
+In the mystical sense, the cave signifies the depths of sin, +which it is said: "I have come into deep waters, and the flood +sweeps over me" (Ps 69:2). The stone laid upon the cave signifies +the Law, which was written on stone, and which did not take away +sin, but held them in sin, because they sinned more gravely in +acting against the Law. Thus we read in Galatians (3:22): "The +scripture consigned all things to sin" (Gal 3:22).
1544 Then when he says, Jesus said, Take away the stone, -he gives Christ's order to remove the stone. One might ask: Since it is a -greater thing to raise the dead than to remove a stone, why did not Christ also -use his power to remove the stone? Chrysostom says that this was done in order -to secure greater certitude about this miracle, that is, to make them such -witnesses to the miracle that they could not, like they did in the case of the -blind man, say and maintain that this was not the same person.[29] - -
As for the mystical sense, -according to Augustine, the removing of the stone signifies the removal of the -weight of the legal observances from Christ's faithful who came into the Church -from the Gentiles, for some wanted to impose these observances on them.[30] -Thus St. James says: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to -lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" (Acts 15:28); and -Peter says in the same work: "Why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke -upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able -to bear" (Acts 15:10). Concerning this our Lord says, Take away the stone, -i.e., the burden of the Law, and preach peace. - -
Or, the stone signifies those in -the Church who live wickedly, and so are a scandal to those who would believe, -because they hinder their conversion. We read about this stone in Psalm 91 (v -12): "Lest you dash your foot against a stone." This is the stone that our Lord -orders removed: "Remove every obstruction from my people's way" (Is 57:14). - +he gives Christ's order to remove the stone. One might ask: Since +it is a greater thing to raise the dead than to remove a stone, why +did not Christ also use his power to remove the stone? Chrysostom +says that this was done in order to secure greater certitude about +this miracle, that is, to make them such witnesses to the miracle +that they could not, like they did in the case of the blind man, +say and maintain that this was not the same person.[29]
+As for the mystical sense, according to Augustine, the removing +of the stone signifies the removal of the weight of the legal +observances from Christ's faithful who came into the Church from +the Gentiles, for some wanted to impose these observances on +them.[30] +Thus St. James says: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and +to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary +things" (Acts 15:28); and Peter says in the same work: "Why do you +make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples +which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts +15:10). Concerning this our Lord says, Take away the stone, +i.e., the burden of the Law, and preach peace.
+Or, the stone signifies those in the Church who live wickedly, +and so are a scandal to those who would believe, because they +hinder their conversion. We read about this stone in Psalm 91 (v +12): "Lest you dash your foot against a stone." This is the stone +that our Lord orders removed: "Remove every obstruction from my +people's way" (Is 57:14).
1545 Next, we see Martha's objection. First, we see what she -said; secondly, the words of Christ's answer. - -
1546 The Evangelist mentions Martha's words when he says, Martha, -the sister of the dead man, said to him, Lord, by this time there will be an -odor, for he has been dead four days. As for the literal sense, this -happened in order to show the truth of the miracle, as his members were already -beginning to corrupt and dissolve. As for the mystical sense, one who -habitually sins is said to smell, that is, the foul odor of his reputation is -spread abroad by his sins. For just as good works spread a good odor, as the -Apostle says - "We are the aroma of Christ to God" (2 Cor 2:15) - so from evil -works there arises an evil odor and a stench. Such a person is aptly described -in terms of "four days," for he is pressed by the weight of earthly sins and -sensual desires, and earth is the last of the four elements: "The stench and -foul smell of him will rise" (Joel 2:20). - -
1547 Christ answers her, saying, Did not I tell you that -if you would believe you would see the glory of God? Here our Lord seems to -reprove Martha for not remembering what Christ had said to her: "He who -believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live." For Martha was not certain -that Christ could raise a person who had been dead four days. Although Christ -had recently raised certain dead persons, this seemed impossible to believe of -her brother because of the long time he had been dead. And so our Lord said, Did -not I tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God? -that is, the raising of your brother, by which God will be glorified. - -
Although our Lord had said to his -apostles before that this miracle would be for his glory, saying, "so that the -Son of God may be glorified by means of it" (11:4), that is, by means of this -death, he now says to Martha that this miracle will be for the glory of God. -The reason for this is that the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the -Holy Spirit is the same. However, he did not mention the glory of the Son here -so as not to excite the Jews who were present and ready to dispute him. - -
1548 These words of our Lord suggest two fruits of our -faith. The first is the performing of miracles, which is due to faith: "If you -have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move -hence to yonder place,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to -you" (Matt 17:19). The Apostle also says: "If I have all faith, so as to remove -mountains…." (1 Cor 13:2); and in Mark (16:20) we read: "And they went forth -and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the -message by the signs that attended it." Now this working of miracles is for the -glory of God; thus he says, if you would believe you would see the glory of -God. - -
The second fruit is the vision of -eternal glory, which is due as a reward to faith; thus he says, you would -see the glory of God: "If you do not believe, you will not understand," as -we read in Isaiah [7:9], in an alternate version; and in 1 Corinthians it is -said: "For now we see in a mirror dimly," by faith, "but then face to face." - -
1549 Next, the Evangelist mentions that the command was -carried out, saying, So they took away the stone. We may consider here, -according to Origen, that the delay in removing the stone was caused by the -sister of the deceased.[31] -Consequently, the raising of her brother was delayed as long as she detained -Christ with her talk; but as soon as the command of Christ was obediently -carried out, her brother was raised. And we can learn from this not to -interpose anything between the commands of Christ and their execution if we -desire the effect of salvation to follow at once: "As soon as they heard of me -they obeyed me" (Ps 18:44). - -
1550 Then he considers the prayer of Christ, in which he -gives thanks. The Evangelist mentions four things in this regard. First, he -mentions his way of praying; secondly, the efficacy of his prayer; thirdly, he -excludes Christ's need to pray; and fourthly he mentions the usefulness of his -prayer. - +said; secondly, the words of Christ's answer.
+1546 The Evangelist mentions Martha's words when he says, +Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, Lord, by this +time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days. As +for the literal sense, this happened in order to show the truth of +the miracle, as his members were already beginning to corrupt and +dissolve. As for the mystical sense, one who habitually sins is +said to smell, that is, the foul odor of his reputation is spread +abroad by his sins. For just as good works spread a good odor, as +the Apostle says - "We are the aroma of Christ to God" (2 Cor 2:15) +- so from evil works there arises an evil odor and a stench. Such a +person is aptly described in terms of "four days," for he is +pressed by the weight of earthly sins and sensual desires, and +earth is the last of the four elements: "The stench and foul smell +of him will rise" (Joel 2:20).
+1547 Christ answers her, saying, Did not I tell you that if +you would believe you would see the glory of God? Here our Lord +seems to reprove Martha for not remembering what Christ had said to +her: "He who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live." For +Martha was not certain that Christ could raise a person who had +been dead four days. Although Christ had recently raised certain +dead persons, this seemed impossible to believe of her brother +because of the long time he had been dead. And so our Lord said, +Did not I tell you that if you would believe you would see the +glory of God? that is, the raising of your brother, by which +God will be glorified.
+Although our Lord had said to his apostles before that this +miracle would be for his glory, saying, "so that the Son of God may +be glorified by means of it" (11:4), that is, by means of this +death, he now says to Martha that this miracle will be for the +glory of God. The reason for this is that the glory of the Father +and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the same. However, he did +not mention the glory of the Son here so as not to excite the Jews +who were present and ready to dispute him.
+1548 These words of our Lord suggest two fruits of our faith. +The first is the performing of miracles, which is due to faith: "If +you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this +mountain, 'Move hence to yonder place,' and it will move; and +nothing will be impossible to you" (Matt 17:19). The Apostle also +says: "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains…." (1 +Cor 13:2); and in Mark (16:20) we read: "And they went forth and +preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed +the message by the signs that attended it." Now this working of +miracles is for the glory of God; thus he says, if you would +believe you would see the glory of God.
+The second fruit is the vision of eternal glory, which is due as +a reward to faith; thus he says, you would see the glory of +God: "If you do not believe, you will not understand," as we +read in Isaiah [7:9], in an alternate version; and in 1 Corinthians +it is said: "For now we see in a mirror dimly," by faith, "but then +face to face."
+1549 Next, the Evangelist mentions that the command was carried +out, saying, So they took away the stone. We may consider +here, according to Origen, that the delay in removing the stone was +caused by the sister of the deceased.[31] Consequently, the raising of +her brother was delayed as long as she detained Christ with her +talk; but as soon as the command of Christ was obediently carried +out, her brother was raised. And we can learn from this not to +interpose anything between the commands of Christ and their +execution if we desire the effect of salvation to follow at once: +"As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps 18:44).
+1550 Then he considers the prayer of Christ, in which he gives +thanks. The Evangelist mentions four things in this regard. First, +he mentions his way of praying; secondly, the efficacy of his +prayer; thirdly, he excludes Christ's need to pray; and fourthly he +mentions the usefulness of his prayer.
1551 Christ's way of praying is appropriate, because Jesus -lifted up his eyes, that is, he lifted up his understanding, directing it -in prayer to the Father above. As for us, if we wish to pray according to the -example of Christ's prayer, we have to raise the eyes of our mind to him by -turning them from the memories, thoughts and desires of present things. We also -lift our eyes to God when we do not rely on our own merits, but hope in his -mercy alone: "To thee I lift up my eyes, O thou who art enthroned in the -heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as -the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord -our God, till he have mercy upon us" (Ps 123:1); and "Let us lift up our hearts -and hands to God in heaven" (Lam 3:41). - -
1552 He mentions the efficacy of this prayer when he says, Father, -I thank thee that thou hast heard me. Here we have a sign that God is quick -to give, as we read: "Lord, thou wilt hear the desire of the meek" (Ps 10:17), -so that he hears our desires even before they are put into words: "He will -surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry; when he hears it, he will -answer you" (Is 30:19); and again in the same book: "While they are yet -speaking I will hear" (65:24). Therefore, with much more reason we can think -that God the Father, anticipating the prayer of our Lord, the Savior, would -have heard him: for the tears which Christ shed at the death of Lazarus acted -as a prayer. - -
By giving thanks at the beginning -of his prayer, Christ gives us the example that when we pray, we should thank -God for the benefits we have already received before asking for new ones: "Give -thanks in all circumstances" (1 Thess 5:18). - +lifted up his eyes, that is, he lifted up his understanding, +directing it in prayer to the Father above. As for us, if we wish +to pray according to the example of Christ's prayer, we have to +raise the eyes of our mind to him by turning them from the +memories, thoughts and desires of present things. We also lift our +eyes to God when we do not rely on our own merits, but hope in his +mercy alone: "To thee I lift up my eyes, O thou who art enthroned +in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of +their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so +our eyes look to the Lord our God, till he have mercy upon us" (Ps +123:1); and "Let us lift up our hearts and hands to God in heaven" +(Lam 3:41).
+1552 He mentions the efficacy of this prayer when he says, +Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. Here we have a +sign that God is quick to give, as we read: "Lord, thou wilt hear +the desire of the meek" (Ps 10:17), so that he hears our desires +even before they are put into words: "He will surely be gracious to +you at the sound of your cry; when he hears it, he will answer you" +(Is 30:19); and again in the same book: "While they are yet +speaking I will hear" (65:24). Therefore, with much more reason we +can think that God the Father, anticipating the prayer of our Lord, +the Savior, would have heard him: for the tears which Christ shed +at the death of Lazarus acted as a prayer.
+By giving thanks at the beginning of his prayer, Christ gives us +the example that when we pray, we should thank God for the benefits +we have already received before asking for new ones: "Give thanks +in all circumstances" (1 Thess 5:18).
1553 If the phrase, that thou hast heard me, is -interpreted as applying to Christ insofar as he is human, there is no -difficulty: for as having a human nature Christ is less than the Father and, -accordingly, it is appropriate for him to pray to the Father and be heard by -him. But if, as Chrysostom wants, it is applied to Christ as God, then there is -a problem: for as God, it is not fitting that he pray or be heard, but rather -that he hear the prayers of others.[32] -Consequently, it should be said that one is heard when his will is fulfilled. -Now the will of the Father is always fulfilled, because "He does whatever he -pleases" (Ps 115:3). Therefore, since the will of the Father is the same as the -will of the Son, whenever the Father fulfills his own will, he fulfills the -will of the Son. Thus, the Son says, as Word, that thou hast heard me, -i.e., that you have done those things which were in your Word to be done. For -he spoke and they were done. - -
1554 Christ's need to pray is excluded when he says, I -knew that thou hearest me always. Here our Lord vaguely shows his own -divinity. As if to say: In order that my will be done I do not need prayer, -because from eternity my will has been fulfilled: "In all things he was heard -for his reverence" [Heb 5:7]. I knew with certitude that thou hearest -me, the Word, always: because whatever you do, these things are in -me to be done. - -
1555 Again, thou hearest me in my human nature always, -because my will is always conformed to your will. But I have said this on -account of the people standing by, that they may believe that thou didst send -me. We understand from this that our Lord did and said many things for the -benefit of others: "For I have given you an example, that you also should do as -I have done to you" (13:15). For every action of Christ is a lesson for us. In -particular, Christ wanted to show by his prayer that he was not separated from -the Father, but recognized him as his principle. And so he added, that they -may believe that thou didst send me: "And this is eternal life, that they -know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (17:3); "God -sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). And this is -the benefit coming from his prayer. - -
1556 Now the Evangelist considers the raising of Lazarus; -and he does three things. First, he mentions the voice of the one awakening -him; secondly, the effect of his voice (v 44); and thirdly, the command to -unbind the one awakened. - +interpreted as applying to Christ insofar as he is human, there is +no difficulty: for as having a human nature Christ is less than the +Father and, accordingly, it is appropriate for him to pray to the +Father and be heard by him. But if, as Chrysostom wants, it is +applied to Christ as God, then there is a problem: for as God, it +is not fitting that he pray or be heard, but rather that he hear +the prayers of others.[32] Consequently, it should be said that one is +heard when his will is fulfilled. Now the will of the Father is +always fulfilled, because "He does whatever he pleases" (Ps 115:3). +Therefore, since the will of the Father is the same as the will of +the Son, whenever the Father fulfills his own will, he fulfills the +will of the Son. Thus, the Son says, as Word, that thou hast +heard me, i.e., that you have done those things which were in +your Word to be done. For he spoke and they were done.
+1554 Christ's need to pray is excluded when he says, I knew +that thou hearest me always. Here our Lord vaguely shows his +own divinity. As if to say: In order that my will be done I do not +need prayer, because from eternity my will has been fulfilled: "In +all things he was heard for his reverence" [Heb 5:7]. I knew +with certitude that thou hearest me, the Word, +always: because whatever you do, these things are in me to +be done.
+1555 Again, thou hearest me in my human nature +always, because my will is always conformed to your will. +But I have said this on account of the people standing by, that +they may believe that thou didst send me. We understand from +this that our Lord did and said many things for the benefit of +others: "For I have given you an example, that you also should do +as I have done to you" (13:15). For every action of Christ is a +lesson for us. In particular, Christ wanted to show by his prayer +that he was not separated from the Father, but recognized him as +his principle. And so he added, that they may believe that thou +didst send me: "And this is eternal life, that they know thee +the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (17:3); +"God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal +4:4). And this is the benefit coming from his prayer.
+1556 Now the Evangelist considers the raising of Lazarus; and he +does three things. First, he mentions the voice of the one +awakening him; secondly, the effect of his voice (v 44); and +thirdly, the command to unbind the one awakened.
1557 The voice of the one awakening Lazarus is described as -loud: When he had said this, that is, Jesus, he cried with a loud -voice. As for the literal sense, this was done to refute the error of -certain Jews and of the Gentiles that the souls of the dead lingered in the -tombs with their bodies. So, he cried with a loud voice, as though -summoning from afar the soul which was not present in the tomb. - -
Or, and this is a better -explanation, it might be said that Christ's voice is described as loud because -of its great power: for its power was so great that it raised Lazarus who had -been dead four days, just as one asleep is roused from sleep: "He gave power to -his voice" [Ps 67:34]. Further, this loud voice represents that loud voice -which will sound at the general resurrection and by which all will be roused -from their graves: "At midnight there was a cry" (Matt 25:6). - -
He cried out, I say, saying, Lazarus, -come out. He called him by his own name because such was the power of his -voice that all the dead without distinction would have been awakened if he had -not limited it to one by mentioning his name, as Augustine says when speaking -of the Word of the Lord.[33] -Again, we understand from this that Christ calls sinners to come out from -living in sin: "Come out of her, my people" (Rev 18:4). We are also called to -let our sins come out of concealment by revealing them in confession: "If I -have concealed my transgressions from men" (Job 31:33). - -
1558 Then (v 44), the effect of this voice is given: first, -the resurrection of the dead man; secondly, his condition. The resurrection of -the dead man was immediately after our Lord's command: immediately the dead -man came out. For such was the power of Christ's voice that it gave life -without any delay, as will happen at the general resurrection when the dead -will rise in the twinkling of an eye when they hear the sound of the trumpet: -"And the dead in Christ will rise first" (1 Thess 4:16). For Christ's mission -was already being anticipated, as it was stated above: "The hour is coming, and -now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear -will live" (5:25). In this way what our Lord said was fulfilled: "I go to awake -him" (11:11). - -
As to the condition of the one -rising, he is described as having his hands and feet bound with bandages, -with which the people of ages past wrapped their dead, and his face wrapped -with a cloth, in order to hide his gruesome appearance. He was commanded to -rise bound and wrapped to provide a greater proof of the miracle. - +loud: When he had said this, that is, Jesus, he cried +with a loud voice. As for the literal sense, this was done to +refute the error of certain Jews and of the Gentiles that the souls +of the dead lingered in the tombs with their bodies. So, he +cried with a loud voice, as though summoning from afar the soul +which was not present in the tomb.
+Or, and this is a better explanation, it might be said that +Christ's voice is described as loud because of its great power: for +its power was so great that it raised Lazarus who had been dead +four days, just as one asleep is roused from sleep: "He gave power +to his voice" [Ps 67:34]. Further, this loud voice represents that +loud voice which will sound at the general resurrection and by +which all will be roused from their graves: "At midnight there was +a cry" (Matt 25:6).
+He cried out, I say, saying, Lazarus, come out. He called +him by his own name because such was the power of his voice that +all the dead without distinction would have been awakened if he had +not limited it to one by mentioning his name, as Augustine says +when speaking of the Word of the Lord.[33] Again, we understand from this +that Christ calls sinners to come out from living in sin: "Come out +of her, my people" (Rev 18:4). We are also called to let our sins +come out of concealment by revealing them in confession: "If I have +concealed my transgressions from men" (Job 31:33).
+1558 Then (v 44), the effect of this voice is given: first, the +resurrection of the dead man; secondly, his condition. The +resurrection of the dead man was immediately after our Lord's +command: immediately the dead man came out. For such was the +power of Christ's voice that it gave life without any delay, as +will happen at the general resurrection when the dead will rise in +the twinkling of an eye when they hear the sound of the trumpet: +"And the dead in Christ will rise first" (1 Thess 4:16). For +Christ's mission was already being anticipated, as it was stated +above: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the +voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live" (5:25). In +this way what our Lord said was fulfilled: "I go to awake him" +(11:11).
+As to the condition of the one rising, he is described as having +his hands and feet bound with bandages, with which the +people of ages past wrapped their dead, and his face wrapped +with a cloth, in order to hide his gruesome appearance. He was +commanded to rise bound and wrapped to provide a greater proof of +the miracle.
1559 When Jesus says, Unbind him and let him go, he -orders that he be unbound so that those who do this may be more reliable -witnesses to the miracle and have it more forcefully impressed on their memory. -Furthermore, when they approach and touch him, they can see that is really he. -He adds, and let him go, to show that this miracle is not an illusion: -for at times certain magicians have seemed to raise the dead, but those who -were raised could not live as they formerly had because their raising was not -real but illusory. - -
1560 Augustine gives a mystical explanation to this entire -verse beginning at The dead man came out. He does this in two ways, -depending on two ways of coming out. The sinner comes out when by repenting he -passes from the practice of sin to the state of righteousness: "Come out from -them, and be separate from them" (2 Cor 6:17). However, his hands are bound -with bandages, i.e., with carnal desires, because, although he is rising from -his sins, he cannot escape such annoyances as long as he lives in the body. -Thus the Apostle says: "I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with -my flesh I serve the law of sin" (Rom 7:25). His face being wrapped with a -cloth signifies that in this life we cannot have full knowledge of God: "For -now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face" (1 Cor 12:12). Christ -commands them to unbind him and let him go because after this life all the -veils are lifted from those who rise from sin, so that they may contemplate God -"face to face" (1 Cor 12:12). Then we will be unbound from the corruptibility -of the flesh which is like a chain binding and weighing down the soul and -keeping it from full and clear contemplation: "Loose the bonds from your neck, -O captive daughter of Zion" (Is 52:2). This is one way to come out in a -spiritual manner, and is given by Augustine in his work, The Book of -Eighty-Three Questions.[34] - -
Another way to come out is by confession, -about which it is said: "He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, -but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy" (Prv 28:13). One -comes out in this way by leaving his secret sins by disclosing them in -confession. Now that one confesses is due to God calling him with a loud voice, -that is, by grace. And the one who confesses, as still guilty, is the dead -person still wrapped in bandages. In order for his sins to be loosed, the -ministers are commanded to loose him and let him go. For the disciples loose -those whom Christ by himself vivifies inwardly, because they are absolved, -being vivified by the ministry of the priests: "Whatever you loose on earth -shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19). - -
1561 Some who consider this mystery say that just as Christ -by himself vivified Lazarus, and once he was vivified he was ordered to be -loosed by the disciples, so God vivifies a soul from within by grace by -remitting its guilt and absolving it from the debt of eternal punishment; but -priests, by the power of the keys, absolve in regard to the temporal -punishment. But this position attributes too little to the keys of the Church. -For it is proper to the sacraments of the New Law that in them grace is -conferred. But the sacraments exist in the administration of the ministers. -Thus, in the sacrament of penance, contrition and confession behave materially -on the part of the one receiving the sacrament; but the causative power of the -sacrament lies in the absolution of the priest, by the power of the keys, -through which he somehow applies the effect of our Lord's passion to the one he -absolves so that he obtains remission. Therefore, if the priest only absolved -the punishment, the sacrament of penance would not confer a grace by which -guilt is remitted; and consequently it would not be a sacrament of the New Law. -Therefore, one must say that just as in the sacrament of baptism, the priest, -by pronouncing the words and washing outwardly, exercises the ministry of -baptism, while Christ baptizes inwardly, so the priest, by the power of the -keys, outwardly administers the ministry of absolution, while Christ remits the -guilt by grace.[35] - +orders that he be unbound so that those who do this may be more +reliable witnesses to the miracle and have it more forcefully +impressed on their memory. Furthermore, when they approach and +touch him, they can see that is really he. He adds, and let him +go, to show that this miracle is not an illusion: for at times +certain magicians have seemed to raise the dead, but those who were +raised could not live as they formerly had because their raising +was not real but illusory.
+1560 Augustine gives a mystical explanation to this entire verse +beginning at The dead man came out. He does this in two +ways, depending on two ways of coming out. The sinner comes out +when by repenting he passes from the practice of sin to the state +of righteousness: "Come out from them, and be separate from them" +(2 Cor 6:17). However, his hands are bound with bandages, i.e., +with carnal desires, because, although he is rising from his sins, +he cannot escape such annoyances as long as he lives in the body. +Thus the Apostle says: "I of myself serve the law of God with my +mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" (Rom 7:25). His +face being wrapped with a cloth signifies that in this life we +cannot have full knowledge of God: "For now we see in a mirror +dimly, but then face to face" (1 Cor 12:12). Christ commands them +to unbind him and let him go because after this life all the veils +are lifted from those who rise from sin, so that they may +contemplate God "face to face" (1 Cor 12:12). Then we will be +unbound from the corruptibility of the flesh which is like a chain +binding and weighing down the soul and keeping it from full and +clear contemplation: "Loose the bonds from your neck, O captive +daughter of Zion" (Is 52:2). This is one way to come out in a +spiritual manner, and is given by Augustine in his work, The +Book of Eighty-Three Questions.[34]
+Another way to come out is by confession, about which it is +said: "He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he +who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy" (Prv 28:13). One +comes out in this way by leaving his secret sins by disclosing them +in confession. Now that one confesses is due to God calling him +with a loud voice, that is, by grace. And the one who confesses, as +still guilty, is the dead person still wrapped in bandages. In +order for his sins to be loosed, the ministers are commanded to +loose him and let him go. For the disciples loose those whom Christ +by himself vivifies inwardly, because they are absolved, being +vivified by the ministry of the priests: "Whatever you loose on +earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19).
+1561 Some who consider this mystery say that just as Christ by +himself vivified Lazarus, and once he was vivified he was ordered +to be loosed by the disciples, so God vivifies a soul from within +by grace by remitting its guilt and absolving it from the debt of +eternal punishment; but priests, by the power of the keys, absolve +in regard to the temporal punishment. But this position attributes +too little to the keys of the Church. For it is proper to the +sacraments of the New Law that in them grace is conferred. But the +sacraments exist in the administration of the ministers. Thus, in +the sacrament of penance, contrition and confession behave +materially on the part of the one receiving the sacrament; but the +causative power of the sacrament lies in the absolution of the +priest, by the power of the keys, through which he somehow applies +the effect of our Lord's passion to the one he absolves so that he +obtains remission. Therefore, if the priest only absolved the +punishment, the sacrament of penance would not confer a grace by +which guilt is remitted; and consequently it would not be a +sacrament of the New Law. Therefore, one must say that just as in +the sacrament of baptism, the priest, by pronouncing the words and +washing outwardly, exercises the ministry of baptism, while Christ +baptizes inwardly, so the priest, by the power of the keys, +outwardly administers the ministry of absolution, while Christ +remits the guilt by grace.[35]
1562 Yet a difficulty arises from the fact that those who -usually come for baptism are children who have not been justified before -baptism, but obtain the grace of remission in baptism, whereas those who come -for absolution are adults, who usually have obtained the remission of their -sins beforehand by contribution; consequently, the absolution that follows seem -to contribute nothing to the remission of sins. - -
If this matter is carefully -considered as affecting adults, in both cases it will be seen that there is a -perfect parallel. For it happens that certain adults having a desire to be -baptized obtain the remission of their sins by the baptism of desire before -they actually receive the sacrament of baptism; and yet the baptism which -follows, so far as what it is of itself is concerned, effects the remission of -sins, although it does not so function in a person whose sins are already -remitted, but he obtains only an increase of grace. However, if an adult was -not perfectly disposed before baptism to obtain the remission of his sins, -still in the very act of being baptized he obtains their remission by the power -of baptism, unless he places some obstacle to the Holy Spirit by his -insincerity. The same must be said of penance. For if a person was fully -contrite before the absolution of the priest, he obtains the remission of his -sins by having the desire to subject himself to the keys of the Church, without -which there would not be true contrition. But if there was not beforehand a -full contrition sufficient for remission, he obtains the remission of his guilt -in the absolution, unless he puts an obstacle to the Holy Spirit. And the same -is true in the Eucharist and in the Anointing of the Sick, and in the other -sacraments. -
-LECTURE 7 - -
- -45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary [to -Mary and Martha] and had seen what he did, believed in him; 46 but some of them -went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 So the chief -priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, "What are we to do? -For this man performs many signs. 48 If we let him go on thus, every one will -believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our place and our -nation." 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to -them, "You know nothing at all; 50 you do not understand that it is expedient -for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation -should not perish." 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high -priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, 52 and not -for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are -scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to -death.[36]
1563 After describing the death and resurrection of Lazarus, -the Evangelist now sets forth the effect of his resurrection. First, its effect -on the people; secondly, its effect on their leaders (v 47). - +usually come for baptism are children who have not been justified +before baptism, but obtain the grace of remission in baptism, +whereas those who come for absolution are adults, who usually have +obtained the remission of their sins beforehand by contribution; +consequently, the absolution that follows seem to contribute +nothing to the remission of sins.
+If this matter is carefully considered as affecting adults, in +both cases it will be seen that there is a perfect parallel. For it +happens that certain adults having a desire to be baptized obtain +the remission of their sins by the baptism of desire before they +actually receive the sacrament of baptism; and yet the baptism +which follows, so far as what it is of itself is concerned, effects +the remission of sins, although it does not so function in a person +whose sins are already remitted, but he obtains only an increase of +grace. However, if an adult was not perfectly disposed before +baptism to obtain the remission of his sins, still in the very act +of being baptized he obtains their remission by the power of +baptism, unless he places some obstacle to the Holy Spirit by his +insincerity. The same must be said of penance. For if a person was +fully contrite before the absolution of the priest, he obtains the +remission of his sins by having the desire to subject himself to +the keys of the Church, without which there would not be true +contrition. But if there was not beforehand a full contrition +sufficient for remission, he obtains the remission of his guilt in +the absolution, unless he puts an obstacle to the Holy Spirit. And +the same is true in the Eucharist and in the Anointing of the Sick, +and in the other sacraments.
+
+
+LECTURE 7
+++45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary [to +Mary and Martha] and had seen what he did, believed in him; 46 but +some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had +done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the +council and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many +signs. 48 If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, +and the Romans will come and destroy both our place and our +nation." 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that +year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; 50 you do not +understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for +the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." 51 He did +not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he +prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, 52 and not for the +nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are +scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they took counsel how to +put him to death.[36]
+1563 After describing the death and resurrection of Lazarus, the +Evangelist now sets forth the effect of his resurrection. First, +its effect on the people; secondly, its effect on their leaders (v +47).
1564 He does two things concerning the first. First, he says -that certain ones among them believed, Many of the Jews therefore, who had -come to Mary and Martha to console them, and had seen what he did, -believed in him. And no wonder, because such a miracle had not been heard -of from the beginning of time, that is, that one dead four days in the tomb -should be raised to life. Also, our Lord had said that he would perform this -miracle for those standing by, so that they might believe in him. And so his -words were not empty, but many believed because of the miracle they saw: "Jews -demand signs" (1 Cor 1:22). - -
1565 Secondly, he mentions that some were spreading news of -the miracle, saying, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them -what Jesus had done. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, they -told the chief priests what Jesus had done in order to soften them towards -Christ and to reproach them for conspiring against Jesus, who had worked such -marvels. In another way, and this is better, they told them these things in -order to incite them against Christ: for they were unbelievers and were -scandalized at the miracle. This is clear from the way the Evangelist describes -it, for after saying that many of the Jews…believed in him, he adds in -contrast, but some of them went to the Pharisees. These are the ones of -whom we read: "Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not -believe in him…For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" -(12:37, 43). - +that certain ones among them believed, Many of the Jews +therefore, who had come to Mary and Martha to console them, +and had seen what he did, believed in him. And no wonder, +because such a miracle had not been heard of from the beginning of +time, that is, that one dead four days in the tomb should be raised +to life. Also, our Lord had said that he would perform this miracle +for those standing by, so that they might believe in him. And so +his words were not empty, but many believed because of the miracle +they saw: "Jews demand signs" (1 Cor 1:22).
+1565 Secondly, he mentions that some were spreading news of the +miracle, saying, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told +them what Jesus had done. This can be understood in two ways. +In one way, they told the chief priests what Jesus had done in +order to soften them towards Christ and to reproach them for +conspiring against Jesus, who had worked such marvels. In another +way, and this is better, they told them these things in order to +incite them against Christ: for they were unbelievers and were +scandalized at the miracle. This is clear from the way the +Evangelist describes it, for after saying that many of the +Jews…believed in him, he adds in contrast, but some +of them went to the Pharisees. These are the ones of whom we +read: "Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did +not believe in him…For they loved the praise of men more +than the praise of God" (12:37, 43).
1566 Next (v 47), the Evangelist mentions the effect of the -miracle on the leaders. First, we have their evil conspiracy against Christ; -secondly, we see how Christ escaped it (v 54). He does three things concerning -the first. First, he mentions the gathering of the council; secondly, the -problem that confronted them (v 47); and thirdly, their solution of this -problem (v 49). - -
1567 In regard to the first, three things are mentions about -the wickedness of the chief priests. First of all, their status: for they were -not the common people, but the chief priests and the Pharisees. Chief -priests, because they were in charge of sacred matters; and they were Pharisees -because they had the appearance of religion. Thus was fulfilled what was stated -in Genesis (49:5): "Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their -swords": for the founders of the sect of the Pharisees were descended from -Simeon, and the chief priests were clearly from the tribe of Levi. - -
Secondly, we see that their -wickedness was deliberate; thus he says, they gathered the council in -order to make their plans: "O my soul, come not into their council" (Gen 49:6); -"Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked" (Ps 1:1). But -we also read: "No counsel can avail against the Lord" (Prv 21:30). - -
Thirdly, we see their evil -intention, because it was against Jesus, i.e., the Savior: "All who hate me -whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me" (Ps 41:7); "Come, let -us make plots against Jeremiah" (Jer 18:18). - -
1568 Now (v 47b), he mentions their problem: first, he gives -the reason for this problem; secondly, the core of the problem (v 48). - -
1569 It was the miracles of Christ that raised their -problem; so they said, What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. -They were blind, for they still called him a man after such a great -demonstration of his divinity. As he himself said: "The works which the Father -has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me -witness" (5:35). In truth, they were no less foolish than the blind because -they wondered what they should do, whereas there was nothing for them to do but -believe: "What signs do you do, that we may see, and believe you?" (6:30). See -how many signs he did work! Even they said, this man performs many signs: -"Their wickedness blinded them" (Wis 2:21). - -
1570 The root of their problem was that they feared the -losses that would follow. The Evangelist mentions two things referring to this. -First, their loss of spiritual leadership. He says about this, If we let him -go on thus, every one will believe in him. This, of course, would be the -best for all concerned, because it is faith in Christ that saves and leads to -eternal life: "But these are written that you may believe…and that believing -you may have life in his name" (20:31). But in relation to their wicked -intention this was terrifying to them, for they believed that no one who -believed in Christ would obey them. And so, because of their ambition, they -backed away from salvation and took others with themselves: "But Diotrephes, -who likes to put himself first does not acknowledge my authority" (3 Jn 1:9). - +miracle on the leaders. First, we have their evil conspiracy +against Christ; secondly, we see how Christ escaped it (v 54). He +does three things concerning the first. First, he mentions the +gathering of the council; secondly, the problem that confronted +them (v 47); and thirdly, their solution of this problem (v +49).
+1567 In regard to the first, three things are mentions about the +wickedness of the chief priests. First of all, their status: for +they were not the common people, but the chief priests and the +Pharisees. Chief priests, because they were in charge of sacred +matters; and they were Pharisees because they had the appearance of +religion. Thus was fulfilled what was stated in Genesis (49:5): +"Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their +swords": for the founders of the sect of the Pharisees were +descended from Simeon, and the chief priests were clearly from the +tribe of Levi.
+Secondly, we see that their wickedness was deliberate; thus he +says, they gathered the council in order to make their +plans: "O my soul, come not into their council" (Gen 49:6); +"Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked" (Ps +1:1). But we also read: "No counsel can avail against the Lord" +(Prv 21:30).
+Thirdly, we see their evil intention, because it was against +Jesus, i.e., the Savior: "All who hate me whisper together about +me; they imagine the worst for me" (Ps 41:7); "Come, let us make +plots against Jeremiah" (Jer 18:18).
+1568 Now (v 47b), he mentions their problem: first, he gives the +reason for this problem; secondly, the core of the problem (v +48).
+1569 It was the miracles of Christ that raised their problem; so +they said, What are we to do? For this man performs many +signs. They were blind, for they still called him a man after +such a great demonstration of his divinity. As he himself said: +"The works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these +very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:35). In truth, +they were no less foolish than the blind because they wondered what +they should do, whereas there was nothing for them to do but +believe: "What signs do you do, that we may see, and believe you?" +(6:30). See how many signs he did work! Even they said, this man +performs many signs: "Their wickedness blinded them" (Wis +2:21).
+1570 The root of their problem was that they feared the losses +that would follow. The Evangelist mentions two things referring to +this. First, their loss of spiritual leadership. He says about +this, If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in +him. This, of course, would be the best for all concerned, +because it is faith in Christ that saves and leads to eternal life: +"But these are written that you may believe…and that +believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). But in relation +to their wicked intention this was terrifying to them, for they +believed that no one who believed in Christ would obey them. And +so, because of their ambition, they backed away from salvation and +took others with themselves: "But Diotrephes, who likes to put +himself first does not acknowledge my authority" (3 Jn 1:9).
1571 Secondly, he mentions their ambition for temporal -possessions when he says, and the Romans will come and destroy both our -place and our nation. This seems to follow from the other, as Augustine -says, for if all believed in Christ, there would be no one left to defend the -temple of God against the Romans, because they would have abandoned the holy -temple and the laws of their fathers, as they thought the teaching of Christ -was directed against these.[37] -But this does not really seem to have much bearing on the issue, since they -would still be subject to the Romans and would not be planning to war against -them. Thus, it seems better to say, with Chrysostom, that they said this -because they observed that Christ was being honored by the people as a king.[38] -And because the Romans had ordered that no one could be king unless they had -appointed him, they were afraid that if the Romans heard that they were regarding -Christ as a king, they would look upon the Jews as rebels. Then they would move -against them and destroy their city and nation: "Every one who makes himself a -king sets himself against Caesar" (19:12). - -
1572 Notice their pitiable state, for they fear nothing but -the loss of temporal things, and do not think of eternal life: "The fountain of -Jacob alone, in a land of grain and wine" (Deut 33:28). But as we read in -Proverbs (10:24): "What the wicked dreads will come upon him"; and so after our -Lord's passion and glorification, the Romans overcame and displaced them, -taking their land and nation. - -
1573 The Evangelist sets down the resolution of the problem -when he says, But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said -to them. First, we have the decision; secondly, the explanation of the -decision (v 51); and thirdly, its acceptance by the assembly (v 53). Concerning -the first he does two things. First, he describes the one making the decision; -secondly, he gives the words of the decision. - -
1574 The one making the decision is described by his name -and office. By his name, that is, Caiaphas. This name was appropriate to -his wickedness for it means, first of all, "investigator," and it attests to -his presumption: "He who is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by -glory" [Prv 25:27]. For he was presumptuous when he said, "I adjure you by the -living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" (Matt 26:63). -Secondly, it means "sagacious," which testifies to his cunning, because he strove -to procure the death of Christ. Thirdly, it means "vomiting," which attests to -his foolishness: "Like a dog that returns to his vomit" (Prv 26:11). - -
He is described by his office, -namely, as high priest that year. Here we should note, as stated in Leviticus -(c 8), that the Lord appointed one high priest, at whose death another was to -succeed and was to exercise the office of high priest throughout his life. But -later, as ambition and quarrels grew among the Jews, it was agreed that there -should be a number of high priests, and that all who had attained to this -office would exercise it in turn, year by year. (And sometimes they obtained -this office by money; as Josephus says.) And to indicate this situation he says -of the time, that year. - +possessions when he says, and the Romans will come and destroy +both our place and our nation. This seems to follow from the +other, as Augustine says, for if all believed in Christ, there +would be no one left to defend the temple of God against the +Romans, because they would have abandoned the holy temple and the +laws of their fathers, as they thought the teaching of Christ was +directed against these.[37] But this does not really seem to have much +bearing on the issue, since they would still be subject to the +Romans and would not be planning to war against them. Thus, it +seems better to say, with Chrysostom, that they said this because +they observed that Christ was being honored by the people as a +king.[38] And +because the Romans had ordered that no one could be king unless +they had appointed him, they were afraid that if the Romans heard +that they were regarding Christ as a king, they would look upon the +Jews as rebels. Then they would move against them and destroy their +city and nation: "Every one who makes himself a king sets himself +against Caesar" (19:12).
+1572 Notice their pitiable state, for they fear nothing but the +loss of temporal things, and do not think of eternal life: "The +fountain of Jacob alone, in a land of grain and wine" (Deut 33:28). +But as we read in Proverbs (10:24): "What the wicked dreads will +come upon him"; and so after our Lord's passion and glorification, +the Romans overcame and displaced them, taking their land and +nation.
+1573 The Evangelist sets down the resolution of the problem when +he says, But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that +year, said to them. First, we have the decision; secondly, the +explanation of the decision (v 51); and thirdly, its acceptance by +the assembly (v 53). Concerning the first he does two things. +First, he describes the one making the decision; secondly, he gives +the words of the decision.
+1574 The one making the decision is described by his name and +office. By his name, that is, Caiaphas. This name was +appropriate to his wickedness for it means, first of all, +"investigator," and it attests to his presumption: "He who is a +searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory" [Prv 25:27]. For +he was presumptuous when he said, "I adjure you by the living God, +tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" (Matt 26:63). +Secondly, it means "sagacious," which testifies to his cunning, +because he strove to procure the death of Christ. Thirdly, it means +"vomiting," which attests to his foolishness: "Like a dog that +returns to his vomit" (Prv 26:11).
+He is described by his office, namely, as high priest that +year. Here we should note, as stated in Leviticus (c 8), that +the Lord appointed one high priest, at whose death another was to +succeed and was to exercise the office of high priest throughout +his life. But later, as ambition and quarrels grew among the Jews, +it was agreed that there should be a number of high priests, and +that all who had attained to this office would exercise it in turn, +year by year. (And sometimes they obtained this office by money; as +Josephus says.) And to indicate this situation he says of the time, +that year.
1575 Next (v 49b), the Evangelist gives the words of the one -making the decision, who first reproaches them for their sluggishness, saying, You -know nothing at all; you do not understand. This was like saying: You are -sluggish and you understand this affair even more sluggishly. And so, secondly, -he reveals his wickedness, saying, it is expedient for you that one man -should die for the people. - -
These words have one meaning -according to the intention of Caiaphas, and another according to the -explanation of the Evangelist. In order to explain them according to the evil -intention of Caiaphas, we should note that, as mentioned in Deuteronomy (13:1), -the Lord had commanded: "If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of -dreams…and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,'…that prophet or that -dreamer of dreams shall be put to death." And so, according to this law, -Caiaphas believed that Christ would turn the people from the worship of God: -"We found this man perverting our nation" (Lk 23:2). Thus he says, You know -nothing at all, that is, the Law. You do not understand that it is -expedient for you that one man, this man, should die, so that the -whole nation is not deceived. This is like saying: The welfare of one man must -be ignored for the public good. Thus Deuteronomy (13:5) continues: "So you -shall purge the evil from the midst of you." "Drive out the wicked person from -among you" (1 Cor 5:13). - +making the decision, who first reproaches them for their +sluggishness, saying, You know nothing at all; you do not +understand. This was like saying: You are sluggish and you +understand this affair even more sluggishly. And so, secondly, he +reveals his wickedness, saying, it is expedient for you that one +man should die for the people.
+These words have one meaning according to the intention of +Caiaphas, and another according to the explanation of the +Evangelist. In order to explain them according to the evil +intention of Caiaphas, we should note that, as mentioned in +Deuteronomy (13:1), the Lord had commanded: "If a prophet arises +among you, or a dreamer of dreams…and if he says, 'Let us go +after other gods,'…that prophet or that dreamer of dreams +shall be put to death." And so, according to this law, Caiaphas +believed that Christ would turn the people from the worship of God: +"We found this man perverting our nation" (Lk 23:2). Thus he says, +You know nothing at all, that is, the Law. You do not +understand that it is expedient for you that one man, this man, +should die, so that the whole nation is not deceived. This +is like saying: The welfare of one man must be ignored for the +public good. Thus Deuteronomy (13:5) continues: "So you shall purge +the evil from the midst of you." "Drive out the wicked person from +among you" (1 Cor 5:13).
1576 But the Evangelist explains this another way, saying, He -did not say this of his own accord. He mentions three things: first, the -author of these words; secondly, their correct meaning (v 51b); and thirdly, -the Evangelist adds to the words of Caiaphas (v 52). - +did not say this of his own accord. He mentions three things: +first, the author of these words; secondly, their correct meaning +(v 51b); and thirdly, the Evangelist adds to the words of Caiaphas +(v 52).
1577 In regard to the first we should note that because one -might suppose that Caiaphas spoke these words by his own impulse, the -Evangelist rejects this, saying, He did not say this of his own accord. -By this he lets us understand that at times a person does speak of his own -accord. For a human being is what is the chief thing in him; but this is the -intellect and reason. Thus a human being is what he is because of reason. -Therefore, when a human being speaks from his own reason, he speaks of his own -accord. But when he speaks under a higher and external impulse he does not -speak of his own accord. Now this happens in two ways. Sometimes one is moved -by the divine Spirit: "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father -speaking through you" (Matt 10:20). But sometimes one is moved by a wicked -spirit, as those who rave. And both of these are sometimes said to prophesy. That -those who are moved by the Holy Spirit prophesy is asserted in 2 Peter (1:21): -"No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit -spoke from God." Again, that those moved by a wicked spirit prophesy is found -in Jeremiah (29:26): "The Lord has made you a priest instead of Jehoiada the -priest, to have charge in the house of the Lord over every madman [one who -raves] who prophesies." - -
Note also that at times some may -speak by an impulse of the Holy Spirit or of an evil spirit in such a way that -they lose the use of reason and are somehow seized. At other times, the use of -reason can remain and they are not seized. When the sense powers are -overflowing due to a higher impression, the reason is hindered, and disturbed -and seized. An evil spirit has the power of affecting the imagination, since it -is a power united to a physical organ. And such an evil spirit can so affect -the imagination by a strong impression that as a result the reason is hindered; -yet it is not forced to consent. This is the condition of those seized by an -evil spirit. - -
1578 We have to decide, therefore, whether Caiaphas spoke -these words by the impulse of the Holy Spirit or of an evil spirit. It seems -that he did not speak by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is -the spirit of truth (cf. Jer 15), and the wicked spirit is the spirit of lying: -"I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets" -(1 Kgs 22:22). But it is obvious that Caiaphas spoke a lie, saying, it is -expedient for you that one man should die. Therefore, he did not speak by -an impulse of the Holy Spirit, as it seems, but he prophesied by the impulse of -a raving wicked spirit. - -
However, this does not seem to -agree with the words of the Evangelist, for if it were such John would not have -added, who was high priest that year. He mentions the dignity of -Caiaphas in order to suggest that he spoke by an impulse of the Holy Spirit to -speak truths about the future for the precise benefit of their subjects. -Apropos of what is said in opposition to this, namely, that the statement, it -is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, is false, this -can be answered this way. The death of Christ considered in itself was -expedient for all, even for those who killed him: "who is the savior of all -men, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10); "So that by the grace of -God he might taste death for every one" (Heb 2:9). In another way, one can take -it is expedient for you as meaning "for the people." Hence the Evangelist, -where Caiaphas says that one man should die for the people, uses below -the words for the nation. - -
1579 The words of the Evangelist seem to indicate that he -was a prophet, since he says, he prophesied; for if a person prophesies, -it follows that he is a prophet. According to Origen, however, it does not -follow that every one who prophesies is a prophet; but if one is a prophet, he -does prophesy.[39] -For sometimes an act is granted to a person, but not the state to which it is -appropriate: for example, not every one who does something just is just, but -one who is just does just things. - -
Furthermore, it should be noted -that two acts concur in order that someone prophesy: namely, seeing - "He who -is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer" (1 Sam 9:9) - and -announcing - "He who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and -encouragement" (1 Cor 14:3). Now it sometimes happens that a person has both, -and yet is not properly speaking a prophet: for sometimes a person has a -prophetic vision, as Nebuchadnezaar and Pharaoh, and similarly announces the -vision to others; yet they cannot be called prophets because they lack -something, namely, an understanding of the vision, which is necessary in a -vision, as stated in Daniel [10:1]: "A word was revealed to Daniel…and he -understood the word: for there is need of understanding a vision." Caiaphas, -however, although he did not have a prophetic vision, did announce a prophetic -matter insofar as he announced the benefit of Christ's death. For sometimes the -Holy Spirit moves one to all that pertains to prophecy, and sometimes to -something only. In the case of Caiaphas, he enlightened neither his mind nor -his imagination. Consequently, his mind and imagination remained intent on -evil; yet he moved his tongue to tell the manner in which the salvation of the -people would be accomplished. Thus, he is not called a prophet except insofar -as he performed a prophetic act in announcing, his imagination and reason -remaining fixed in the contrary. It is clear from this that he was no more a -prophet than was Balaam's donkey. - -
1580 When the Evangelist says, and not for the nation -only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad, -the Evangelist adds to the words of the high priest, and says that Jesus was to -die not only for the nation of the Jewish people, as Caiaphas said - "So Jesus -also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own -blood" (Heb 13:12) - but he adds, even for the whole world. Thus he added, to -gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. - -
Here one must guard against the -error of the Manichees, who said that certain souls are the divine substance -and are called the children of God, and that God came to gather together these -children into one. This is erroneous because it is stated in Ezekiel (18:4): -"All souls are mine," that is, by creation. Consequently, the statement, to -gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad, does not mean -that they have already received the spirit of adoption, because, as Gregory -says, they were as yet neither his sheep nor children of God by adoption.[40] -Rather it should be taken according to predestination. It is as though he were -saying: to gather into one, namely, into the unity of the faith - "And I -have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also…so there -shall be one flock, one shepherd" (10:16); "The Lord builds up Jerusalem; he -gathers the outcasts [the dispersed] of Israel" (Ps 147:2) - the children of -God, predestined from eternity - "For those whom he foreknew he also -predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be -the first-born of many brethren" (Rom 8:29), the brethren, that is, who are -scattered abroad in diverse ceremonies and nations. - -
1581 Then when he says, So from that day on they took -counsel how to put him to death, the Evangelist sets down the agreement -among the Jews on the death of Christ. But did they not previously think of -putting him to death? It seems so, because before in many places it is stated -that the Jews sought to kill him. I answer that they previously did have some -desire to kill him, but from that day on, incited to anger by the words -of Caiaphas, they ended with a firm proposal to kill him "For their feet run to -evil" (Prv 1:16). -
-LECTURE 8 - -
- -54 Jesus therefore no longer went about openly among the -Jews, but went from there to the country near the wilderness, to a town called -Ephraim; and there he stayed with the disciples. 55 Now the Passover of the -Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the -Passover, to purify themselves. 56 They were looking for Jesus and saying to -one another as they stood in the temple, "What do you think? That he will not -come to the feast?" 57 Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders -that if any one knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might -arrest him.
1582 Here the Evangelist sets down how Christ escaped from -their malice: first, the way he escaped; secondly, the effect this had on the -people of making them question (v 56). - +might suppose that Caiaphas spoke these words by his own impulse, +the Evangelist rejects this, saying, He did not say this of his +own accord. By this he lets us understand that at times a +person does speak of his own accord. For a human being is what is +the chief thing in him; but this is the intellect and reason. Thus +a human being is what he is because of reason. Therefore, when a +human being speaks from his own reason, he speaks of his own +accord. But when he speaks under a higher and external impulse he +does not speak of his own accord. Now this happens in two ways. +Sometimes one is moved by the divine Spirit: "It is not you who +speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Matt +10:20). But sometimes one is moved by a wicked spirit, as those who +rave. And both of these are sometimes said to prophesy. That those +who are moved by the Holy Spirit prophesy is asserted in 2 Peter +(1:21): "No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved +by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Again, that those moved by a +wicked spirit prophesy is found in Jeremiah (29:26): "The Lord has +made you a priest instead of Jehoiada the priest, to have charge in +the house of the Lord over every madman [one who raves] who +prophesies."
+Note also that at times some may speak by an impulse of the Holy +Spirit or of an evil spirit in such a way that they lose the use of +reason and are somehow seized. At other times, the use of reason +can remain and they are not seized. When the sense powers are +overflowing due to a higher impression, the reason is hindered, and +disturbed and seized. An evil spirit has the power of affecting the +imagination, since it is a power united to a physical organ. And +such an evil spirit can so affect the imagination by a strong +impression that as a result the reason is hindered; yet it is not +forced to consent. This is the condition of those seized by an evil +spirit.
+1578 We have to decide, therefore, whether Caiaphas spoke these +words by the impulse of the Holy Spirit or of an evil spirit. It +seems that he did not speak by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, for +the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth (cf. Jer 15), and the wicked +spirit is the spirit of lying: "I will go forth, and will be a +lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets" (1 Kgs 22:22). But +it is obvious that Caiaphas spoke a lie, saying, it is expedient +for you that one man should die. Therefore, he did not speak by +an impulse of the Holy Spirit, as it seems, but he prophesied by +the impulse of a raving wicked spirit.
+However, this does not seem to agree with the words of the +Evangelist, for if it were such John would not have added, who +was high priest that year. He mentions the dignity of Caiaphas +in order to suggest that he spoke by an impulse of the Holy Spirit +to speak truths about the future for the precise benefit of their +subjects. Apropos of what is said in opposition to this, namely, +that the statement, it is expedient for you that one man should +die for the people, is false, this can be answered this way. +The death of Christ considered in itself was expedient for all, +even for those who killed him: "who is the savior of all men, +especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10); "So that by the +grace of God he might taste death for every one" (Heb 2:9). In +another way, one can take it is expedient for you as meaning +"for the people." Hence the Evangelist, where Caiaphas says that +one man should die for the people, uses below the words for +the nation.
+1579 The words of the Evangelist seem to indicate that he was a +prophet, since he says, he prophesied; for if a person +prophesies, it follows that he is a prophet. According to Origen, +however, it does not follow that every one who prophesies is a +prophet; but if one is a prophet, he does prophesy.[39] For sometimes an +act is granted to a person, but not the state to which it is +appropriate: for example, not every one who does something just is +just, but one who is just does just things.
+Furthermore, it should be noted that two acts concur in order +that someone prophesy: namely, seeing - "He who is now called a +prophet was formerly called a seer" (1 Sam 9:9) - and announcing - +"He who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and +encouragement" (1 Cor 14:3). Now it sometimes happens that a person +has both, and yet is not properly speaking a prophet: for sometimes +a person has a prophetic vision, as Nebuchadnezaar and Pharaoh, and +similarly announces the vision to others; yet they cannot be called +prophets because they lack something, namely, an understanding of +the vision, which is necessary in a vision, as stated in Daniel +[10:1]: "A word was revealed to Daniel…and he understood the +word: for there is need of understanding a vision." Caiaphas, +however, although he did not have a prophetic vision, did announce +a prophetic matter insofar as he announced the benefit of Christ's +death. For sometimes the Holy Spirit moves one to all that pertains +to prophecy, and sometimes to something only. In the case of +Caiaphas, he enlightened neither his mind nor his imagination. +Consequently, his mind and imagination remained intent on evil; yet +he moved his tongue to tell the manner in which the salvation of +the people would be accomplished. Thus, he is not called a prophet +except insofar as he performed a prophetic act in announcing, his +imagination and reason remaining fixed in the contrary. It is clear +from this that he was no more a prophet than was Balaam's +donkey.
+1580 When the Evangelist says, and not for the nation only, +but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered +abroad, the Evangelist adds to the words of the high priest, +and says that Jesus was to die not only for the nation of the +Jewish people, as Caiaphas said - "So Jesus also suffered outside +the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood" +(Heb 13:12) - but he adds, even for the whole world. Thus he added, +to gather into one the children of God who are scattered +abroad.
+Here one must guard against the error of the Manichees, who said +that certain souls are the divine substance and are called the +children of God, and that God came to gather together these +children into one. This is erroneous because it is stated in +Ezekiel (18:4): "All souls are mine," that is, by creation. +Consequently, the statement, to gather into one the children of +God who are scattered abroad, does not mean that they have +already received the spirit of adoption, because, as Gregory says, +they were as yet neither his sheep nor children of God by +adoption.[40] +Rather it should be taken according to predestination. It is as +though he were saying: to gather into one, namely, into the +unity of the faith - "And I have other sheep, that are not of this +fold; I must bring them also…so there shall be one flock, +one shepherd" (10:16); "The Lord builds up Jerusalem; he gathers +the outcasts [the dispersed] of Israel" (Ps 147:2) - the +children of God, predestined from eternity - "For those whom he +foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his +Son, in order that he might be the first-born of many brethren" +(Rom 8:29), the brethren, that is, who are scattered abroad +in diverse ceremonies and nations.
+1581 Then when he says, So from that day on they took counsel +how to put him to death, the Evangelist sets down the agreement +among the Jews on the death of Christ. But did they not previously +think of putting him to death? It seems so, because before in many +places it is stated that the Jews sought to kill him. I answer that +they previously did have some desire to kill him, but from that +day on, incited to anger by the words of Caiaphas, they ended +with a firm proposal to kill him "For their feet run to evil" (Prv +1:16).
+
+
+LECTURE 8
+++54 Jesus therefore no longer went about openly among the +Jews, but went from there to the country near the wilderness, to a +town called Ephraim; and there he stayed with the disciples. 55 Now +the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the +country to Jerusalem before the Passover, to purify themselves. 56 +They were looking for Jesus and saying to one another as they stood +in the temple, "What do you think? That he will not come to the +feast?" 57 Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders +that if any one knew where he was, he should let them know, so that +they might arrest him.
+1582 Here the Evangelist sets down how Christ escaped from their +malice: first, the way he escaped; secondly, the effect this had on +the people of making them question (v 56).
1583 The way he escaped was to hide himself and leave the -presence of the Jews: for after their plan, he moved more cautiously and no -longer went about openly among the Jews. He did not withdraw to a populated -city, but into a remote region, a country near the wilderness, to a town -called Ephraim; and there he stayed with his disciples. - -
1584 But did he lack the power by which, if he had wished, -he could have lived publicly among the Jews and they would not do anything to -him? Of course not. He did not do this because he did not have the power, but -as an example for the disciples. This shows that it is not a sin if his -faithful withdraw from the sight of their persecutors, choosing rather to evade -the fury of the wicked by hiding, than kindle it more by showing themselves: -"When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next" (Matt 10:23). - -
Moreover, Origen says that no one -should place himself in danger; but when dangers are immediately threatening, -it is very praiseworthy not to run from professing Christ or not to refuse to -suffer death for the sake of the truth.[41] -No one should place himself in danger for two reason. First, because it is very -presumptuous to place oneself in danger, both on account of a lack of -experience of one's own virtue, which is sometimes found to be fragile, and on -account of the uncertainty about the outcome; "Let any one who thinks that he -stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12). Secondly, lest by presenting -ourselves to our persecutors, we give them the occasion to be more wicked and -culpable: "Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor -10:32). - -
1585 Now the effect of his leaving, that the people -questioned, is set down: first, the occasion for their questioning; secondly, -their questioning; and thirdly, the reason for their questioning. - +presence of the Jews: for after their plan, he moved more +cautiously and no longer went about openly among the Jews. +He did not withdraw to a populated city, but into a remote region, +a country near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim; and +there he stayed with his disciples.
+1584 But did he lack the power by which, if he had wished, he +could have lived publicly among the Jews and they would not do +anything to him? Of course not. He did not do this because he did +not have the power, but as an example for the disciples. This shows +that it is not a sin if his faithful withdraw from the sight of +their persecutors, choosing rather to evade the fury of the wicked +by hiding, than kindle it more by showing themselves: "When they +persecute you in one town, flee to the next" (Matt 10:23).
+Moreover, Origen says that no one should place himself in +danger; but when dangers are immediately threatening, it is very +praiseworthy not to run from professing Christ or not to refuse to +suffer death for the sake of the truth.[41] No one should place +himself in danger for two reason. First, because it is very +presumptuous to place oneself in danger, both on account of a lack +of experience of one's own virtue, which is sometimes found to be +fragile, and on account of the uncertainty about the outcome; "Let +any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor +10:12). Secondly, lest by presenting ourselves to our persecutors, +we give them the occasion to be more wicked and culpable: "Give no +offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor +10:32).
+1585 Now the effect of his leaving, that the people questioned, +is set down: first, the occasion for their questioning; secondly, +their questioning; and thirdly, the reason for their +questioning.
1586 Two occasions for their questioning and wondering are -mentioned. The first was the nature of the time, because the Passover of the -Jews was at hand, when the flight of the Hebrews out of Egypt was recalled: -"It is the Lord's Passover" (Ex 12:11). He adds, of the Jews, because -they celebrated their Passover in an unholy and unbecoming way: for when one -celebrates the Passover in a devout way it is called the Passover of God: "Your -assemblies I will not abide," as we read in Isaiah (1:13). - -
The second occasion was gathering -of the people, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem. For as we -see from Exodus (c 23), the children of Israel were to present themselves to -the Lord three times a year on the three festivals, and the foremost of these -was the Passover. And so a great number traveled to Jerusalem, where the temple -was located. But because it was not yet actually the Paschal time, when they -were obliged to go, the Evangelist tells why they went then, adding, before -the Passover, to purify themselves. For no one dared to eat the lamb if he -was unclean, and so they went before the Passover so that, by purifying -themselves in the meantime, they could fittingly eat the lamb on the Passover. -This gives us an example that we should purify ourselves during Lent by fasts -and good works, so that on the Passover we might receive the body of our Lord -in a fitting manner. - +mentioned. The first was the nature of the time, because the +Passover of the Jews was at hand, when the flight of the +Hebrews out of Egypt was recalled: "It is the Lord's Passover" (Ex +12:11). He adds, of the Jews, because they celebrated their +Passover in an unholy and unbecoming way: for when one celebrates +the Passover in a devout way it is called the Passover of God: +"Your assemblies I will not abide," as we read in Isaiah +(1:13).
+The second occasion was gathering of the people, and many +went up from the country to Jerusalem. For as we see from +Exodus (c 23), the children of Israel were to present themselves to +the Lord three times a year on the three festivals, and the +foremost of these was the Passover. And so a great number traveled +to Jerusalem, where the temple was located. But because it was not +yet actually the Paschal time, when they were obliged to go, the +Evangelist tells why they went then, adding, before the +Passover, to purify themselves. For no one dared to eat the +lamb if he was unclean, and so they went before the Passover so +that, by purifying themselves in the meantime, they could fittingly +eat the lamb on the Passover. This gives us an example that we +should purify ourselves during Lent by fasts and good works, so +that on the Passover we might receive the body of our Lord in a +fitting manner.
1587 The reason for their questioning is mentioned as due to -Christ's absence: they were looking for Jesus, not to honor him, but to -tell him, and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, what do you -think? That he will not come to the feast? But note that when a festival -day is celebrated in a holy manner, Christ is always present: "For where two or -three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18:20). -And so let us, when we gather together in the house of God, seek Jesus by -consoling each other and by praying that he come to our festival day. But Jesus -does not come when a feast is not celebrated in a holy manner: "Your new moons -and your appointed feasts my soul hates" (Is 1:4). - +Christ's absence: they were looking for Jesus, not to honor +him, but to tell him, and saying to one another as they stood in +the temple, what do you think? That he will not come to the +feast? But note that when a festival day is celebrated in a +holy manner, Christ is always present: "For where two or three are +gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18:20). +And so let us, when we gather together in the house of God, seek +Jesus by consoling each other and by praying that he come to our +festival day. But Jesus does not come when a feast is not +celebrated in a holy manner: "Your new moons and your appointed +feasts my soul hates" (Is 1:4).
1588 He adds the reason for their questioning and for the -absence of Jesus, saying, the chief priests and the Pharisees had given -orders that if any one knew where he was, that is, Jesus, he should let -them know, so that they might arrest him, to kill him. "You will seek me -and die in your sin" (8:21). As Augustine says, we who know where Christ is, -that is, at the right hand of the Father, should tell them so that they may -truly apprehend him by faith.[42] - -
- -
- -- -[1] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 11:3 in the Summa -Theologiae: II-II, q. 83, a. 17. - +absence of Jesus, saying, the chief priests and the Pharisees +had given orders that if any one knew where he was, that is, +Jesus, he should let them know, so that they might arrest +him, to kill him. "You will seek me and die in your sin" +(8:21). As Augustine says, we who know where Christ is, that is, at +the right hand of the Father, should tell them so that they may +truly apprehend him by faith.[42]
+
+
++- -[1] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 11:3 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 83, a. +17.
- -[2] cf. -Jerome, Evang. Ioan.; PL 29, col. 670; Origen. - +
+- -[2] cf. Jerome, +Evang. Ioan.; PL 29, col. 670; Origen.
- -[3] In Ioannem hom., 62, ch. -1; PG 59, col. 342; cf. Catena Aurea, -11:1-5. - +
+- -[3] In +Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 342; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:1-5.
- -[4] Augustine, De consensus evangelistarum, 2, ch. 79; PL 34; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:1-5. - -
Gregory, Epistola V ad -Theoctistam; PL 77; col. 449C. - +
+- -[4] Augustine, +De consensus evangelistarum, 2, ch. 79; PL 34; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:1-5.
+Gregory, Epistola V ad Theoctistam; PL 77; col. 449C.
- -[5] Ambrose, -Expos. sec. Lucam, I, ch. 8; PL 15, col. 1537B. - +
++[5] Ambrose, +Expos. sec. Lucam, I, ch. 8; PL 15, col. 1537B.
++- -[6] Sermones +de Verbis Domini 52; PL 38; cf. Catena Aurea, +11:1-5.
- -[6] Sermones -de Verbis Domini 52; PL 38; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:1-5. - +
+- -[7]Tract. in +Io., 49, ch. 5, col. 1749; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:1-5.
- -[7] -Tract. in Io., 49, ch. 5, col. 1749; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:1-5. - +
++[8] In +Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 343; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:1-5.
++- -[9] Tract. in +Io., 49, ch. 7, col. 1749; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:1-5.
- -[8] In Ioannem hom., 62, ch. -1; PG 59, col. 343; cf. Catena Aurea, -11:1-5. - +
+- -[10] See +Moralia, Lib. 7, ch. 28, no. 34; PL 75, col. 784C
- -[9] Tract. -in Io., 49, ch. 7, col. 1749; cf. Catena -Aurea, 11:1-5. - +
+- -[11] +Chrysostom-did not seem to be in In Ioannem.
- -- -[10] See Moralia, -Lib. 7, ch. 28, no. 34; PL 75, col. 784C - -
- -[11] Chrysostom-did not seem to be in In Ioannem. - +
+- -[12] +Theolphylactus; probably (Enarratio in Evangelium S. +Ioannis; PG 124;) cf. Catena Aurea, 11:6-10.
- -[12] Theolphylactus; probably (Enarratio in Evangelium S. -Ioannis; PG 124;) cf. Catena Aurea, 11:6-10. - +
+- -[13] +Tract. in Io., 49, ch. 8, col. 1750; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:6-10.
- -[13] Tract. -in Io., 49, ch. 8, col. 1750; cf. Catena -Aurea, 11:6-10. - +
+- -[14] In +Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 343; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:11-16.
- -[14] In Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 343; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:11-16. - +
+- -[15] +Tract. in Io., 49, ch. 9, col. 1751; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:11-16.
- -[15] Tract. -in Io., 49, ch. 9, col. 1751; cf. Catena -Aurea, 11:11-16. - +
+- -[16] In +Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 344; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:11-16.
- -[16] In Ioannem hom., -62, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 344; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:11-16. - +
+- -[17] See +Tract. in Io., 49, ch. 12; PL 35, col. 1752.
- -[17] See Tract. -in Io., 49, ch. 12; PL 35, col. 1752. - +
+- -[18]Tract. +in Io., 49, ch. 12, col. 1752-3; cf. Catena Aurea, +11:17-27.
- -[18] -Tract. in Io., 49, ch. 12, col. 1752-3; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:17-27. - +
+- -[19] In +Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 345.
- -[19] In -Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 345. - +
+- -[20] In +Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 345; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:17-27.
- -[20] In Ioannem hom., 62, ch. -2; PG 59, col. 345; cf. Catena Aurea, -11:17-27. - +
+- -[21] In +Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 346; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:17-27.
- -[21] In Ioannem hom., 62, ch. -3; PG 59, col. 346; cf. Catena Aurea, -11:17-27. - +
+- -[22]Tract. +in Io., 49, ch. 15, col. 1745; cf. Catena Aurea, +11:17-27.
- -[22] -Tract. in Io., 49, ch. 15, col. 1745; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:17-27. - +
+- -[23]Tract. +in Io., 49, 16; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:17-27.
- -[23] -Tract. in Io., 49, 16; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:17-27. - +
+- -[24] +Tract. in Io., 49, ch. 17, col. 1754; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:28-32.
- -[24] Tract. -in Io., 49, ch. 17, col. 1754; cf. Catena -Aurea, 11:28-32. - +
+- -[25] +Sermones de Verbis Domini 52; PL 38; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:28-32.
- -[25] Sermones de Verbis Domini -52; PL 38; cf. -Catena Aurea, 11:28-32. - +
+- -[26] +Summa-Christ's weeping proves the appropriateness of human emotions +to some situations; Christ's emotions as wholly under the control +of His reason.
- -[26] -Summa-Christ's weeping proves the appropriateness of human emotions to some -situations; Christ's emotions as wholly under the control of His reason. - +
+- -[27] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 11:41 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. +21, a. 3; q. 43, a. 1; q. 43, a. 2, obj. 2; Jn 42, III, q. 21, a. +1, ad 1; q. 21, a. 3, ad 1; q. 43, a. 2, ad 2.
- -[27] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 11:41 in the Summa Theologiae: -III, q. 21, a. 3; q. 43, a. 1; q. 43, a. 2, obj. 2; Jn 42, III, q. 21, a. 1, ad -1; q. 21, a. 3, ad 1; q. 43, a. 2, ad 2. - +
+- -[28] In +Ioannem hom., 63, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 350; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:33-41.
- -[28] In Ioannem hom., 63, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 350; cf. Catena Aurea, -11:33-41. - +
+- -[29] In +Ioannem hom., 63, ch. 2; PG 59, col 350-351; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:33-41.
- -[29] In -Ioannem hom., 63, ch. 2; PG 59, col 350-351; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:33-41. - +
+- -[30]Tract. +in Io., 49 ch. 22, col. 1756; also De diversis quaest. +83, q. 61; Cf. Catena Aurea, 11:33-41.
- -[30] -Tract. in Io., 49 ch. 22, col. 1756; also De -diversis quaest. 83, q. 61; Cf. Catena -Aurea, 11:33-41. - +
+- -[31] Origen, +In Ioan., XXVIII, ch. 3; PG 14, col. 371; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:33-41.
- -[31] Origen, -In Ioan., XXVIII, ch. 3; PG 14, col. 371; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:33-41. - +
+- -[32] In +Ioannem hom., 64, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 357; cf. Catena +Aurea, 41-46.
- -[32] In -Ioannem hom., 64, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 357; cf. -Catena Aurea, 41-46. - +
+- -[33] +Sermones de Verbis Domini 52; PL 38; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:41-46.
- -[33] Sermones de Verbis Domini -52; PL 38; cf. -Catena Aurea, 11:41-46. - +
+- -[34] De +diversis quaest. 83, q. 65; PL 40, col. 60; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:41-46.
- -[34] De -diversis quaest. 83, q. 65; PL 40, col. 60; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:41-46. - +
+- -[35] Summa-in +the sacrament of penance, sins are forgiven and punishment remitted +through the ministry of the priest.
- -[35] -Summa-in the sacrament of penance, sins are forgiven and punishment remitted -through the ministry of the priest. - +
+- -[36] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 11:47 in the Summa Theologiae: q. 43, a. +1, s. c.; Jn 11:50: ST III, q. 50, a. 1, s. c.; Jn 11:51: +ST II-II, q. 173, a. 4, s. c.
- -[36] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 11:47 in the Summa -Theologiae: q. 43, a. 1, s. c.; Jn 11:50: ST III, q. 50, a. 1, s. -c.; Jn 11:51: ST II-II, q. 173, a. 4, s. c. - +
+- -[37]Tract. +in Io., 49, ch. 26, col. 1757; cf. Catena Aurea, +11:47-53.
- -[37] -Tract. in Io., 49, ch. 26, col. 1757; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:47-53. - +
+- -[38] In +Ioannem hom., 64, ch. 3; PG 59, col 359; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:47-53.
- -[38] In Ioannem hom., 64, ch. -3; PG 59, col 359; cf. Catena Aurea, -11:47-53. - +
+- -[39] Origen, +In Ioan., XXVIII, ch. 12; PG 14, col. 384; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:47-53.
- -[39] Origen, -In Ioan., XXVIII, ch. 12; PG 14, col. 384; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:47-53. - +
+- -[40] See +Hom. IV, ch. 1; PL 76, col. 1089-90.
- -[40] See Hom. -IV, ch. 1; PL 76, col. 1089-90. - +
+- -[41] Origen, +In Ioan., XXVIII, ch. 18; PG 14, col. 397; cf. Catena +Aurea, 54-57.
- -[41] -Origen, In Ioan., XXVIII, ch. 18; PG 14, col. 397; cf. Catena Aurea, 54-57. - +
+- -[42] +Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 4, col. 1759; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:54-57.
- -+ + + diff -r 2bc1f3a24bc0 -r 178aed5d2c3c john/english/John12.html --- a/john/english/John12.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John12.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,2440 +1,2450 @@ - + + + +[42] Tract. -in Io., 50, ch. 4, col. 1759; cf. Catena -Aurea, 11:54-57. - +
- -- + +12 -
LECTURE I -
1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a -supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. 3 -Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of -Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the -fragrance of the ointment. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who -was to betray him), said, 5 "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred -denarii and given to the poor?" 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor -but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what -was put into it.[1]
+- +paralytic and the man born blind, why did they want to kill only +Lazarus? Chrysostom gives four reasons.[11] First, because this miracle was +more evident, it was performed before many people, and it was +absolutely astounding to see a man dead for four days walking and +speaking. The second reason was that Lazarus was a well-known +person, while the blind man was unimportant, so much so that they +even expelled him from the temple. The third reason was because +this miracle was accomplished near the time of a great feast, and +all the Jewish people who had come for the feast disregarded the +solemnities and went to Bethany. The fourth reason was that in the +other miracles they could accuse Christ of breaking the Sabbath, +and in this way alienate the people from him; but this time that +way was closed. And so because they could find no reason to attack +Jesus, they attacked Lazarus as the best way to conceal the +miracle: "Their feet run to evil and they make haste to shed blood" +(Prv 1:16).12
+LECTURE I
++1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where +Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made +him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the +table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard +and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; +and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4 But +Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), +said, 5 "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii +and given to the poor?" 6 This he said, not that he cared for the +poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he +used to take what was put into it.[1]
+1589 So far the Evangelist has been showing the power of -Christ's divinity by what he did and taught during his public life. Now he -begins to show the power of his divinity as manifested in his passion and -death. - -
First, he treats of Christ's -passion and death; secondly, of his resurrection (c 20). The first is divided -into three parts: in the first he states what caused or occasioned Christ's -passion and death; in the second, how Christ prepared his disciples, since his -death involved his physical separation from them (c 13); in the third, he -describes his passion and death (c 18). - -
Now there were two things which -caused or occasioned the passion of Christ: the glory of Christ, which aroused -the envy of the Jews, and their disbelief, which blinded them. So first, he -treats of the glory Christ received; secondly, of the unbelief of the Jews (v -37). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how Christ -received glory from other people; secondly, how he received glory from God (v -27). Concerning the first he does three things: first, he shows how Christ -received glory from his intimate friends; secondly, from the crowd of the -Jewish people (v 9): thirdly, from the Gentiles (v 20). Concerning the first he -does two things: first, he shows the glory Christ received by being ministered -to by his friends; secondly, how this kindled the indignation of the one who -was to betray him (v 4). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he -describes the time; secondly, the place (v 1); and thirdly, the kindness shown -to Christ (v 2). - -
1590 He says first, what we have already stated: that before -the Passover Christ went into a region near the wilderness, and since the feast -was drawing near, the Jews began to look for him. Thus, when the paschal season -was at hand, during which the symbolic lamb was immolated, he, as the true -lamb, came to the place where he would suffer and of his own free will be -immolated for the salvation of the world: "He was offered because it was his -own will," as we read in Isaiah [53:7]. - -
The Evangelist says Christ came -there six days before the Passover, to inform us that by the day of the -Passover he did not mean the fourteenth day of the first month (when according -to the twelfth chapter of Exodus, the Passover lamb was slain in the evening), -but the fifteenth day. This entire day was festive, and that year it fell on -the Friday our Lord suffered. Thus the sixth day before the Passover was the -first day of the week, i.e., the Palm Sunday on which our Lord entered Jerusalem. Consequently, Christ came to Bethany on the previous day, that is, on the -Sabbath. This is what he means by the phrase, six days before the Passover. - +Christ's divinity by what he did and taught during his public life. +Now he begins to show the power of his divinity as manifested in +his passion and death.
+First, he treats of Christ's passion and death; secondly, of his +resurrection (c 20). The first is divided into three parts: in the +first he states what caused or occasioned Christ's passion and +death; in the second, how Christ prepared his disciples, since his +death involved his physical separation from them (c 13); in the +third, he describes his passion and death (c 18).
+Now there were two things which caused or occasioned the passion +of Christ: the glory of Christ, which aroused the envy of the Jews, +and their disbelief, which blinded them. So first, he treats of the +glory Christ received; secondly, of the unbelief of the Jews (v +37). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how +Christ received glory from other people; secondly, how he received +glory from God (v 27). Concerning the first he does three things: +first, he shows how Christ received glory from his intimate +friends; secondly, from the crowd of the Jewish people (v 9): +thirdly, from the Gentiles (v 20). Concerning the first he does two +things: first, he shows the glory Christ received by being +ministered to by his friends; secondly, how this kindled the +indignation of the one who was to betray him (v 4). In regard to +the first he does three things: first, he describes the time; +secondly, the place (v 1); and thirdly, the kindness shown to +Christ (v 2).
+1590 He says first, what we have already stated: that before the +Passover Christ went into a region near the wilderness, and since +the feast was drawing near, the Jews began to look for him. Thus, +when the paschal season was at hand, during which the symbolic lamb +was immolated, he, as the true lamb, came to the place where he +would suffer and of his own free will be immolated for the +salvation of the world: "He was offered because it was his own +will," as we read in Isaiah [53:7].
+The Evangelist says Christ came there six days before the +Passover, to inform us that by the day of the Passover he did +not mean the fourteenth day of the first month (when according to +the twelfth chapter of Exodus, the Passover lamb was slain in the +evening), but the fifteenth day. This entire day was festive, and +that year it fell on the Friday our Lord suffered. Thus the sixth +day before the Passover was the first day of the week, i.e., the +Palm Sunday on which our Lord entered Jerusalem. Consequently, +Christ came to Bethany on the previous day, that is, on the +Sabbath. This is what he means by the phrase, six days before +the Passover.
1591 This number is very appropriate to the mystery to be -enacted. First of all, because of the number itself, for six is a perfect -number. For God completed the works of creation in six days. For this reason it -was appropriate that it should take six days to accomplish the work of the -passion, which would restore all things: "to reconcile all things, whether on -earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20); "God -was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19). - -
Secondly, it is appropriate to the -mystery, considering its foreshadowing. For Exodus (v 12) commanded that on the -tenth day of the first month every man was to take a lamb for his household and -keep it for the sacrifice. Thus it was also on the tenth day of the first -month, i.e., on the sixth day before the fifteenth day, that our Lord decided -to enter Jerusalem, drawing near to the place where he would be sacrificed. This -is clear from what follows: "The next day a great crowd who had come to the -feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm -trees and went out to meet him" (12:12). - -
1592 Then when he says, Jesus came to Bethany, the -place is mentioned. Bethany was a village near Jerusalem, and it means the -"house of obedience." This also is appropriate to the mystery. First, as -regards a reason for the passion: "He became obedient unto death" (Phil 2:8). -Secondly, with respect to the fruit of the passion, which is obtained only by -those who obey Christ: "He became the source of eternal salvation to all who -obey him" (Heb 5:9). - -
It is significant that he added, where -Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead, because in the house of -obedience those who are spiritually dead are raised to life by being restored -to the way of righteousness: "By one man's obedience many will be made -righteous" (Rom 5:19). According to the literal sense, however, this was -written to show that Christ came to Bethany in order to revive the memory of -the resurrection of Lazarus: "He has caused his wonderful works to be -remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful" as we read in the Psalm (11:4). - -
1593 Then when he says, there they made him a supper, -he mentions the kindness shown to Christ by his friends: first, by his friends -in general; secondly, in particular. Martha served, etc. - -
1594 It was also appropriate to this mystery that they -served him a supper there, at Bethany, because the Lord is spiritually refreshed -in the house of obedience since our obedience pleases him, according to: -"Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the -door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me" (Rev 3:20). - -
1595 Next he mentions the three people who attended or sat -with Jesus: Martha, Lazarus and Mary. Martha signifies the prelates who are -appointed to serve in the churches: "This is how one should regard us, as -servants of Christ and stewardess of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor 4:1). Thus we -read that Martha served: "Martha was busy with much serving" [Lk 10:40]. -Lazarus, who had been raised to life, signifies those who have been brought -from sin to the state of righteousness by the ministry or service of the -prelates; and they, alone with the other righteous, feast spiritually with the -Lord. Thus he says, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him: "Let -the just feast and rejoice before God and be delighted with gladness" [Ps -67:4]. Mary signifies the contemplatives, for we read in Luke (10:39): "Mary -sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching." - -
1596 Three things are mentioned about Mary's kindness: -first, the ointment she used; secondly, the kindness she offered; thirdly, its -effect. - -
With regard to the ointment, three -things are noted. First, the amount, and it was a large amount, a pound -of ointment: "If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in -proportion" (Tobit 4:8). Secondly, its matter, for it was made of nard: -"While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance" (Song -1:11). Recall that nard is a short black aromatic herb; and the ointment which -is made from it has a fragrance which has the power to give strength and -comfort. Thirdly, its composition is noted, for the nard is described as pisticus. -According to Augustine, the word pisticus is taken from the place where -nard originates.[2] However, it is better to -interpret this word as meaning "true" or "pure," that is, as not adulterated: -for pistis in Greek is the same as our fides [truthful, honest]. -He adds that it was costly, because it was made from nard, which -is used in costly ointments, and perhaps other expensive ingredients were added -to it. This teaches us that we should offer to God those things we regard as -most precious: "I will offer to thee burnt offerings of fatlings, with the -smoke of the sacrifice of rams" (Ps 66:15); "Cursed be the cheat who has a male -in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished" -(Mal 1:14). - -
See Mary's humility, for she fell -down at the feet of Jesus and anointed the feet of Jesus, according to, -"Let us worship at his footstool" (Ps 132:7). Secondly, see her devotion, for -she wiped his feet with her hair, in this way making an offering of -herself: "Yield your members to God as instruments of righteousness" (Rom -6:13). - -
He mentions the effect of her -ministering when he says, and the house was filled with the fragrance of the -ointment. This tells us of the goodness of this ointment, which filled the -entire house: "We will run after thee to the odor of thy ointments" [Song 1:3]. - -
1597 The question is raised as to whether this woman is the -same woman who anointed our Lord as mentioned in Luke (7:37), Matthew (26:7) -and Mark (14:3). We learn from Jerome and Chrysostom that many think that the -sinful woman mentioned by Luke is not the sister of Lazarus, Mary, who is said -[in John] to have anointed the Lord.[3] Origen adds that [in -John] she is also not the woman of whom Matthew and Mark speak, but they were -speaking of some other woman.[4] He gives three reasons -for this opinion. The first is based on the time: for the woman in John -anointed the Lord six days before the Passover, while the woman mentioned by -Matthew and Mark did so some time during the two days preceding the Passover. -For Matthew prefaces his account by stating that the Lord said: "You know that -after two days the Passover is coming" (Matt 26:2); and in Mark we read: "It -was now two days before the Passover and the feast of the Unleavened Bread" (Mk -14:1). The second reason is based on the place: for in Matthew and Mark the -woman is said to have anointed the Lord in the house of Simon the leper, but in -John she seems to be in the house of Martha, for we read that Martha was -serving the guests. And Augustine agrees with -this. The third reason is from the action itself: for the woman in Matthew and -Mark anointed the head of our Lord, while the one in John anointed his feet. - -
On the other hand, Augustine and -Gregory claim that the four Evangelists are speaking of one and the same woman, -but that she anointed our Lord twice.[5] The first time, mentioned -by Luke, was at the beginning of her conversion, some time during the middle of +enacted. First of all, because of the number itself, for six is a +perfect number. For God completed the works of creation in six +days. For this reason it was appropriate that it should take six +days to accomplish the work of the passion, which would restore all +things: "to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven, +making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20); "God was in +Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).
+Secondly, it is appropriate to the mystery, considering its +foreshadowing. For Exodus (v 12) commanded that on the tenth day of +the first month every man was to take a lamb for his household and +keep it for the sacrifice. Thus it was also on the tenth day of the +first month, i.e., on the sixth day before the fifteenth day, that +our Lord decided to enter Jerusalem, drawing near to the place +where he would be sacrificed. This is clear from what follows: "The +next day a great crowd who had come to the feast heard that Jesus +was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and +went out to meet him" (12:12).
+1592 Then when he says, Jesus came to Bethany, the place +is mentioned. Bethany was a village near Jerusalem, and it means +the "house of obedience." This also is appropriate to the mystery. +First, as regards a reason for the passion: "He became obedient +unto death" (Phil 2:8). Secondly, with respect to the fruit of the +passion, which is obtained only by those who obey Christ: "He +became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Heb +5:9).
+It is significant that he added, where Lazarus was, whom +Jesus had raised from the dead, because in the house of +obedience those who are spiritually dead are raised to life by +being restored to the way of righteousness: "By one man's obedience +many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). According to the literal +sense, however, this was written to show that Christ came to +Bethany in order to revive the memory of the resurrection of +Lazarus: "He has caused his wonderful works to be remembered; the +Lord is gracious and merciful" as we read in the Psalm (11:4).
+1593 Then when he says, there they made him a supper, he +mentions the kindness shown to Christ by his friends: first, by his +friends in general; secondly, in particular. Martha served, +etc.
+1594 It was also appropriate to this mystery that they served +him a supper there, at Bethany, because the Lord is spiritually +refreshed in the house of obedience since our obedience pleases +him, according to: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any +one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and +eat with him, and he with me" (Rev 3:20).
+1595 Next he mentions the three people who attended or sat with +Jesus: Martha, Lazarus and Mary. Martha signifies the prelates who +are appointed to serve in the churches: "This is how one should +regard us, as servants of Christ and stewardess of the mysteries of +God" (1 Cor 4:1). Thus we read that Martha served: "Martha +was busy with much serving" [Lk 10:40]. Lazarus, who had been +raised to life, signifies those who have been brought from sin to +the state of righteousness by the ministry or service of the +prelates; and they, alone with the other righteous, feast +spiritually with the Lord. Thus he says, and Lazarus was one of +those at table with him: "Let the just feast and rejoice before +God and be delighted with gladness" [Ps 67:4]. Mary signifies the +contemplatives, for we read in Luke (10:39): "Mary sat at the +Lord's feet and listened to his teaching."
+1596 Three things are mentioned about Mary's kindness: first, +the ointment she used; secondly, the kindness she offered; thirdly, +its effect.
+With regard to the ointment, three things are noted. First, the +amount, and it was a large amount, a pound of ointment: "If +you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion" +(Tobit 4:8). Secondly, its matter, for it was made of nard: +"While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance" +(Song 1:11). Recall that nard is a short black aromatic herb; and +the ointment which is made from it has a fragrance which has the +power to give strength and comfort. Thirdly, its composition is +noted, for the nard is described as pisticus. According to +Augustine, the word pisticus is taken from the place where +nard originates.[2] However, it is better to interpret this word as +meaning "true" or "pure," that is, as not adulterated: for +pistis in Greek is the same as our fides [truthful, +honest]. He adds that it was costly, because it was made +from nard, which is used in costly ointments, and perhaps other +expensive ingredients were added to it. This teaches us that we +should offer to God those things we regard as most precious: "I +will offer to thee burnt offerings of fatlings, with the smoke of +the sacrifice of rams" (Ps 66:15); "Cursed be the cheat who has a +male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what +is blemished" (Mal 1:14).
+See Mary's humility, for she fell down at the feet of Jesus +and anointed the feet of Jesus, according to, "Let us +worship at his footstool" (Ps 132:7). Secondly, see her devotion, +for she wiped his feet with her hair, in this way making an +offering of herself: "Yield your members to God as instruments of +righteousness" (Rom 6:13).
+He mentions the effect of her ministering when he says, and +the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. This +tells us of the goodness of this ointment, which filled the entire +house: "We will run after thee to the odor of thy ointments" [Song +1:3].
+1597 The question is raised as to whether this woman is the same +woman who anointed our Lord as mentioned in Luke (7:37), Matthew +(26:7) and Mark (14:3). We learn from Jerome and Chrysostom that +many think that the sinful woman mentioned by Luke is not the +sister of Lazarus, Mary, who is said [in John] to have anointed the +Lord.[3] Origen +adds that [in John] she is also not the woman of whom Matthew and +Mark speak, but they were speaking of some other woman.[4] He gives three +reasons for this opinion. The first is based on the time: for the +woman in John anointed the Lord six days before the Passover, while +the woman mentioned by Matthew and Mark did so some time during the +two days preceding the Passover. For Matthew prefaces his account +by stating that the Lord said: "You know that after two days the +Passover is coming" (Matt 26:2); and in Mark we read: "It was now +two days before the Passover and the feast of the Unleavened Bread" +(Mk 14:1). The second reason is based on the place: for in Matthew +and Mark the woman is said to have anointed the Lord in the house +of Simon the leper, but in John she seems to be in the house of +Martha, for we read that Martha was serving the guests. And +Augustine agrees with this. The third reason is from the action +itself: for the woman in Matthew and Mark anointed the head of our +Lord, while the one in John anointed his feet.
+On the other hand, Augustine and Gregory claim that the four +Evangelists are speaking of one and the same woman, but that she +anointed our Lord twice.[5] The first time, mentioned by Luke, was at the +beginning of her conversion, some time during the middle of Christ's public life. The second time, mentioned by the other three -Evangelists, was a few days before Christ's passion. Thus the same act is -mentioned here in John and in Matthew and Mark. - -
As for the discrepancy in the time, -Augustine says that John preserved the historical order, while Matthew and Mark -merely remembered that it took place just prior to Judas' betrayal, which was -believed to have been occasioned by this event. As for the argument based on -the difference of place, there is no reason why the house of Simon the leper -could not be the house of Mary and Martha, since Simon might have been the head -of the house. He is called a leper because at one time he was a leper, but was -cured by Christ. As far as the act itself is concerned, Augustine says that the -woman anointed both the head and feet of Jesus. - -
1598 If the objection is raised that according to Mark she -broke the alabaster jar and poured ointment on the head of Jesus, one might -answer this in two ways. First, that it was broken in such a way that some -remained for anointing his feet; secondly, she could have anointed his feet -first, and then, breaking the jar, poured the rest on his head. - +Evangelists, was a few days before Christ's passion. Thus the same +act is mentioned here in John and in Matthew and Mark.
+As for the discrepancy in the time, Augustine says that John +preserved the historical order, while Matthew and Mark merely +remembered that it took place just prior to Judas' betrayal, which +was believed to have been occasioned by this event. As for the +argument based on the difference of place, there is no reason why +the house of Simon the leper could not be the house of Mary and +Martha, since Simon might have been the head of the house. He is +called a leper because at one time he was a leper, but was cured by +Christ. As far as the act itself is concerned, Augustine says that +the woman anointed both the head and feet of Jesus.
+1598 If the objection is raised that according to Mark she broke +the alabaster jar and poured ointment on the head of Jesus, one +might answer this in two ways. First, that it was broken in such a +way that some remained for anointing his feet; secondly, she could +have anointed his feet first, and then, breaking the jar, poured +the rest on his head.
1599 Mystically, the pound Mary used denotes the work of -justice, for it belongs to justice to weigh things and give pound for pound: -"Their weight shall be equal" [Ezek 45:11]. Now four other virtues must be -added if the work of justice is to be perfect. First, compassion: and so he -says, ointment, which, because it is soothing, represents mercy: "For -judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy" (James 2:12). -Secondly, humility is needed: so he says, nard, which, since it is a -small herb, signifies humility: "The greater you are, the more you must humble -yourself" (Si 3:18). Thirdly, faith is needed: thus he says, pure (pisticus), -that is believing (fidelis): "The righteous shall live by his faith" -(Hab 2:4). Fourthly, charity must be present: so he says, costly, for -charity alone pays the price for eternal life: "If I give away all I have…but -have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Cor 13:3). - -
The works of justice anoint both -the feet and head of Jesus. By his feet we understand the mystery of his -humanity; and by his head, his divinity, according to: "The head of Christ is -God" (1 Cor 11:3). Thus one who venerates the divinity and humanity of Christ -is said to anoint his head and feet. - -
Or, we can take the head as -indicating the very person of Christ, according to: "He has made him the head -over all things for the church" (Eph 1:22). Then the feet are Christ's -faithful, of whom we read: "As you did it to one of the least of these my -brethren, you did it to me" (Matt 25:40); "How beautiful upon the mountains are -the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace" (Is 52:7). Thus, -one who honors Christ himself, anoints the head of Christ; and one who serves -his faithful anoints our Lord's feet. - -
Again, because the hair is produced -from what is superfluous in the body, one dries the Lord's feet with his hair -when he takes what he has in surplus and relieves the needs of his neighbor: -"Give that which remains as alms" [Lk 11:41]. Thus Augustine says: "If you have -a surplus of anything, give it to the poor and you have dried the feet of the -Lord."[6] - -
The fact that the house was filled -with the fragrance of the ointment signifies that because of the works of -justice, the Church enjoys and is filled with a good name: "We are the aroma of -Christ" (2 Cor 2:15). - +justice, for it belongs to justice to weigh things and give pound +for pound: "Their weight shall be equal" [Ezek 45:11]. Now four +other virtues must be added if the work of justice is to be +perfect. First, compassion: and so he says, ointment, which, +because it is soothing, represents mercy: "For judgment is without +mercy to one who has shown no mercy" (James 2:12). Secondly, +humility is needed: so he says, nard, which, since it is a +small herb, signifies humility: "The greater you are, the more you +must humble yourself" (Si 3:18). Thirdly, faith is needed: thus he +says, pure (pisticus), that is believing +(fidelis): "The righteous shall live by his faith" (Hab +2:4). Fourthly, charity must be present: so he says, costly, +for charity alone pays the price for eternal life: "If I give away +all I have…but have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Cor +13:3).
+The works of justice anoint both the feet and head of Jesus. By +his feet we understand the mystery of his humanity; and by his +head, his divinity, according to: "The head of Christ is God" (1 +Cor 11:3). Thus one who venerates the divinity and humanity of +Christ is said to anoint his head and feet.
+Or, we can take the head as indicating the very person of +Christ, according to: "He has made him the head over all things for +the church" (Eph 1:22). Then the feet are Christ's faithful, of +whom we read: "As you did it to one of the least of these my +brethren, you did it to me" (Matt 25:40); "How beautiful upon the +mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who +publishes peace" (Is 52:7). Thus, one who honors Christ himself, +anoints the head of Christ; and one who serves his faithful anoints +our Lord's feet.
+Again, because the hair is produced from what is superfluous in +the body, one dries the Lord's feet with his hair when he takes +what he has in surplus and relieves the needs of his neighbor: +"Give that which remains as alms" [Lk 11:41]. Thus Augustine says: +"If you have a surplus of anything, give it to the poor and you +have dried the feet of the Lord."[6]
+The fact that the house was filled with the fragrance of the +ointment signifies that because of the works of justice, the Church +enjoys and is filled with a good name: "We are the aroma of Christ" +(2 Cor 2:15).
1600 Next (v 40), the Evangelist describes the traitor's -indignation at this. He does two things concerning it: first, he shows his -indignation; secondly, how it was curbed (v 7). Concerning the first he does -three things: first, he describes the traitor; secondly, he mentions what he -said; and thirdly, he states that his intention was evil (v 6). - -
1601 The traitor is portrayed in three ways. First, his -dignity is given when he says, one of his disciples. This teaches us -that no one should presume on himself no matter to what dignity he has been -raised: "His angels he charges with wickedness" [Job 4:18]. Secondly, his name, -Judas Iscariot. The name "Judas" means "professing," to indicate to us -that in addition to a way of professing that is virtuous - "Man professes with -his lips and so is saved" [Rom 10:10] - there is a way of professing that is -blameworthy and mercenary - "He will profess you," [that is, profess your -praises] "when you have done good to him" [Ps 49:18]. Thirdly, his crime is -mentioned, he who was to betray him: "Even my bosom friend in whom I -trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me" (Ps 41:10). - -
1602 Then he gives the traitor's words, from which we see -that he had died spiritually from the aroma of the ointment, according to: "For -we are the aroma of Christ…to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other -a fragrance from life to life" (2 Cor 2:15). Judas was displeased because the -ointment was not sold but poured out as an act of homage to Christ. Thus Judas -says, Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii? But as -we read in 2 Corinthians (11:14), the ministers of Satan disguise themselves as -angels of righteousness. Thus Judas hid his evil under the cloak of piety, -saying, and given to the poor: "His heart will work iniquity to practice -hypocrisy and speak to the Lord deceitfully" [Is 32:6]. - -
1603 The Evangelist unmasks the deceit when he adds, This -he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief. For he -was not interested in helping the poor - "The hearts of the wicked are cruel" -[Prv 12:10] - but because he was a thief, and accustomed to stealing, he -was pained that the use of the ointment had deprived him of an opportunity to -steal, and it was this avarice that led to the betrayal, for we read: "Nothing -is more wicked than the covetous man" [Sir 10:9]; and "The thief comes only to -steal and kill and destroy" (10:10). He had the opportunity to steal for he -had the money box, that is, he was in charge of our Lord's purse, and he -used to take what was put into it, i.e., whatever was donated by the -faithful for Christ's use and for the poor he carried as a duty, but carried -off as a thief. - -
1604 Two things can be noted here. First, that Christ lived -on alms as a poor person: "As for me, I am poor and needy" (Ps 40:17). -Secondly, it is not opposed to perfection to keep alms in a money box. Thus -what we read in Matthew (6:34), "Do not be anxious about tomorrow," does not -forbid one from saving for tomorrow, since our Lord did this very thing, and he -is the supreme model of perfection. - -
1605 One might ask why our Lord, since he knew that Judas -was a thief, entrusted him with the money box? This can be answered in three -ways. First, according to Augustine, Christ did this so that his Church would -be patient when it was robbed; for one is not good if he cannot endure those -who are evil.[7] Thus we read: "As a lily -among brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). Secondly, our Lord -entrusted him with the money box to lessen his danger of final damnation, -because he could then satisfy his greed from the money box. But as it is said: -"He who loves money will not be satisfied with money" (Eccl 5:10). Thirdly, -according to others, he did this in order to teach us that spiritual things -should be entrusted to those who are more worthy, and temporal things should be -entrusted to the less worthy. Thus the Apostles said: "It is not right that we -should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables" (Acts 6:2), and they -entrusted this work to one of the deacons. - -
1606 But why does it say here that only Judas said this when -the ointment was poured out, while Matthew says that the disciples said this? -One reply is that Matthew uses the plural for the singular, as he also did in -"Those who sought the child's life are dead" (2:20). Or, one might answer that -Judas was the first to grumble and that this incited the others to say the -same, although not from the same motive. -
-LECTURE 2 -
- -7 Jesus said, "Let her alone, let her keep it for the day -of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have -me." 9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came, -not only on account of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from -the dead. 10 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus also to death, 11 -because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in -Jesus.
1607 Having narrated the traitor's indignation at the -kindness shown by the woman, the Evangelist now shows how our Lord put a stop -to it. First, our Lord answers the unjust criticism Judas spoke against the -woman; secondly, he rejects the spiritual reason Judas pretended to have (v 8). - -
1608 He says, Let her alone, i.e., do not stop her. -For it is well known that many good works are done which if our advice had been -sought before they were done, we would not have advised that they be done, -because something better could possibly have been done. Yet after they are -begun, so long as they are good, they should not be stopped. Thus, as -Chrysostom says, before the woman had poured out the ointment, Jesus would -perhaps have preferred that it be given to the poor, but now that it was done, -he held back those who were trying to stop her, saying, Let her alone: -"Do not prevent one who is able from doing good. If you are able, you also do -good," as we read in Proverbs [3:27].[8] - -
He adds, let her keep it for the -day of my burial, foretelling both his approaching death and the kindness -this woman was ready to do for him in his tomb if he had not precluded it by -rising so soon, for as we read in Mark's Gospel (16:1): "Mary Magdalene," along -with other women, "bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him." This -is why he said, let her keep it for the day of my burial, not the -identical ointment she used, but ointment of the same kind, in general or -particular, or even a similar service. It is as though he were saying: Do not -stop her from doing for me while I am alive what she will be unable to do for -me when I am dead. For, as I said, she was prevented by the resurrection of -Christ occurring so quickly. This is expressed in a clearer way in Mark (14:8): -"She has anointed my body beforehand for burying." - -
1609 But did she have foreknowledge of Christ's death? Not -at all: for she did not understand what she was doing. Rather, she was moved to -do it by a certain inner urge. It often happens that people are moved to do -things that they do not understand, as in the case of Caiaphas, the high priest, -who said, "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient -for you that one man should die for the people" (11:49). Things of this sort -are called presages, because they take place before the event. - -
1610 Then when he says, the poor you always have with you, -he rejects the spiritual reason which Judas feigned when he said: "Why was this -ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor." Our Lord -answered, the poor you always have with you. Here it might be remarked -that sometimes one should do what is less needful if the opportunity remains -for doing what is more needful. Thus, although it was more needful that this -ointment be given to the poor rather than having it used to anoint the Lord's -feet, nevertheless, because there was still opportunity to do the former, since -we always have the poor with us, our Lord allowed what was less needful. - -
In the statement that the poor -you always have with you, we are led to understand the fellowship the rich -should have toward the poor: "Make yourself companionable to the poor" [Si -4:7]. - +indignation at this. He does two things concerning it: first, he +shows his indignation; secondly, how it was curbed (v 7). +Concerning the first he does three things: first, he describes the +traitor; secondly, he mentions what he said; and thirdly, he states +that his intention was evil (v 6).
+1601 The traitor is portrayed in three ways. First, his dignity +is given when he says, one of his disciples. This teaches us +that no one should presume on himself no matter to what dignity he +has been raised: "His angels he charges with wickedness" [Job +4:18]. Secondly, his name, Judas Iscariot. The name "Judas" +means "professing," to indicate to us that in addition to a way of +professing that is virtuous - "Man professes with his lips and so +is saved" [Rom 10:10] - there is a way of professing that is +blameworthy and mercenary - "He will profess you," [that is, +profess your praises] "when you have done good to him" [Ps 49:18]. +Thirdly, his crime is mentioned, he who was to betray him: +"Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has +lifted his heel against me" (Ps 41:10).
+1602 Then he gives the traitor's words, from which we see that +he had died spiritually from the aroma of the ointment, according +to: "For we are the aroma of Christ…to one a fragrance from +death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life" (2 Cor +2:15). Judas was displeased because the ointment was not sold but +poured out as an act of homage to Christ. Thus Judas says, Why +was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii? But as we +read in 2 Corinthians (11:14), the ministers of Satan disguise +themselves as angels of righteousness. Thus Judas hid his evil +under the cloak of piety, saying, and given to the poor: +"His heart will work iniquity to practice hypocrisy and speak to +the Lord deceitfully" [Is 32:6].
+1603 The Evangelist unmasks the deceit when he adds, This he +said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a +thief. For he was not interested in helping the poor - "The +hearts of the wicked are cruel" [Prv 12:10] - but because he was +a thief, and accustomed to stealing, he was pained that the use +of the ointment had deprived him of an opportunity to steal, and it +was this avarice that led to the betrayal, for we read: "Nothing is +more wicked than the covetous man" [Sir 10:9]; and "The thief comes +only to steal and kill and destroy" (10:10). He had the opportunity +to steal for he had the money box, that is, he was in charge +of our Lord's purse, and he used to take what was put into +it, i.e., whatever was donated by the faithful for Christ's use +and for the poor he carried as a duty, but carried off as a +thief.
+1604 Two things can be noted here. First, that Christ lived on +alms as a poor person: "As for me, I am poor and needy" (Ps 40:17). +Secondly, it is not opposed to perfection to keep alms in a money +box. Thus what we read in Matthew (6:34), "Do not be anxious about +tomorrow," does not forbid one from saving for tomorrow, since our +Lord did this very thing, and he is the supreme model of +perfection.
+1605 One might ask why our Lord, since he knew that Judas was a +thief, entrusted him with the money box? This can be answered in +three ways. First, according to Augustine, Christ did this so that +his Church would be patient when it was robbed; for one is not good +if he cannot endure those who are evil.[7] Thus we read: "As a lily among +brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). Secondly, our +Lord entrusted him with the money box to lessen his danger of final +damnation, because he could then satisfy his greed from the money +box. But as it is said: "He who loves money will not be satisfied +with money" (Eccl 5:10). Thirdly, according to others, he did this +in order to teach us that spiritual things should be entrusted to +those who are more worthy, and temporal things should be entrusted +to the less worthy. Thus the Apostles said: "It is not right that +we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables" (Acts +6:2), and they entrusted this work to one of the deacons.
+1606 But why does it say here that only Judas said this when the +ointment was poured out, while Matthew says that the disciples said +this? One reply is that Matthew uses the plural for the singular, +as he also did in "Those who sought the child's life are dead" +(2:20). Or, one might answer that Judas was the first to grumble +and that this incited the others to say the same, although not from +the same motive.
+
+
+LECTURE 2
+++7 Jesus said, "Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of +my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not +always have me." 9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he +was there, they came, not only on account of Jesus but also to see +Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests +planned to put Lazarus also to death, 11 because on account of him +many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.
+1607 Having narrated the traitor's indignation at the kindness +shown by the woman, the Evangelist now shows how our Lord put a +stop to it. First, our Lord answers the unjust criticism Judas +spoke against the woman; secondly, he rejects the spiritual reason +Judas pretended to have (v 8).
+1608 He says, Let her alone, i.e., do not stop her. For +it is well known that many good works are done which if our advice +had been sought before they were done, we would not have advised +that they be done, because something better could possibly have +been done. Yet after they are begun, so long as they are good, they +should not be stopped. Thus, as Chrysostom says, before the woman +had poured out the ointment, Jesus would perhaps have preferred +that it be given to the poor, but now that it was done, he held +back those who were trying to stop her, saying, Let her +alone: "Do not prevent one who is able from doing good. If you +are able, you also do good," as we read in Proverbs [3:27].[8]
+He adds, let her keep it for the day of my burial, +foretelling both his approaching death and the kindness this woman +was ready to do for him in his tomb if he had not precluded it by +rising so soon, for as we read in Mark's Gospel (16:1): "Mary +Magdalene," along with other women, "bought spices, so that they +might go and anoint him." This is why he said, let her keep it +for the day of my burial, not the identical ointment she used, +but ointment of the same kind, in general or particular, or even a +similar service. It is as though he were saying: Do not stop her +from doing for me while I am alive what she will be unable to do +for me when I am dead. For, as I said, she was prevented by the +resurrection of Christ occurring so quickly. This is expressed in a +clearer way in Mark (14:8): "She has anointed my body beforehand +for burying."
+1609 But did she have foreknowledge of Christ's death? Not at +all: for she did not understand what she was doing. Rather, she was +moved to do it by a certain inner urge. It often happens that +people are moved to do things that they do not understand, as in +the case of Caiaphas, the high priest, who said, "You know nothing +at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one +man should die for the people" (11:49). Things of this sort are +called presages, because they take place before the event.
+1610 Then when he says, the poor you always have with +you, he rejects the spiritual reason which Judas feigned when +he said: "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii +and given to the poor." Our Lord answered, the poor you always +have with you. Here it might be remarked that sometimes one +should do what is less needful if the opportunity remains for doing +what is more needful. Thus, although it was more needful that this +ointment be given to the poor rather than having it used to anoint +the Lord's feet, nevertheless, because there was still opportunity +to do the former, since we always have the poor with us, our Lord +allowed what was less needful.
+In the statement that the poor you always have with you, +we are led to understand the fellowship the rich should have toward +the poor: "Make yourself companionable to the poor" [Si 4:7].
1611 But you do not always have me. Yet we read in -Matthew (28:20): "I am with you always, to the close of the age." Augustine -gives this reply. When our Lord said, but you do not always have me, he -was speaking of his bodily presence, that is, as he appeared and in the form in -which he would ascend into heaven: "Again, I am leaving the world" (16:28).[9] -But he is always with us as present in his divinity; and he is also present -sacramentally in the Church. - -
Another explanation would be this. -When our Lord said this he was thinking of the presence of his divinity. Now -some seem to possess Christ spiritually, either in the sacrament or in -professing the faith; yet they will not always possess him because they belong -to the Church only nominally, and not by merit. These are the servants. But the -children will always possess him because "the son continues for ever" (8:35). -Thus he said to Judas, but you do not always have me, because you have -made yourself unworthy of this. - -
As Chrysostom says, our Lord was -rebuking Judas when he said this: for by being annoyed that this respect was -shown to Christ, he seemed to consider Christ's presence as a burden.[10] -So Christ said, you do not always have me. This was like saying: I am a -burden to you; but wait awhile, and I will be leaving. - -
1612 Next (v 9), the Evangelist shows how Jesus was honored -by many of the Jews; first, by the crowd that went to see him there; secondly, -by the crowd which meet him on his way to Jerusalem (v 12). In regard to the -first he does two things: first, he shows the eagerness of those who came to -see him; secondly, he shows the vehemence of the Pharisees aroused by their -envy (v 10). - +Matthew (28:20): "I am with you always, to the close of the age." +Augustine gives this reply. When our Lord said, but you do not +always have me, he was speaking of his bodily presence, that +is, as he appeared and in the form in which he would ascend into +heaven: "Again, I am leaving the world" (16:28).[9] But he is always with us as +present in his divinity; and he is also present sacramentally in +the Church.
+Another explanation would be this. When our Lord said this he +was thinking of the presence of his divinity. Now some seem to +possess Christ spiritually, either in the sacrament or in +professing the faith; yet they will not always possess him because +they belong to the Church only nominally, and not by merit. These +are the servants. But the children will always possess him because +"the son continues for ever" (8:35). Thus he said to Judas, but +you do not always have me, because you have made yourself +unworthy of this.
+As Chrysostom says, our Lord was rebuking Judas when he said +this: for by being annoyed that this respect was shown to Christ, +he seemed to consider Christ's presence as a burden.[10] So Christ said, +you do not always have me. This was like saying: I am a +burden to you; but wait awhile, and I will be leaving.
+1612 Next (v 9), the Evangelist shows how Jesus was honored by +many of the Jews; first, by the crowd that went to see him there; +secondly, by the crowd which meet him on his way to Jerusalem (v +12). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the +eagerness of those who came to see him; secondly, he shows the +vehemence of the Pharisees aroused by their envy (v 10).
1613 The first part is divided into two parts: first, he states -that a crowd came to him; secondly, he gives the reason why they came. As to -the first, he says, When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was -there, they came, to Bethany. This was in keeping with our Lord's -invitation: "Come to me, all who labor and are heaven laden, and I will give -you rest" (Matt 11:28). And so, when we know where Jesus is, we should go to -him quickly. - -
Now there were two reasons why they -came. The first was to enjoy the sight and teaching of Christ. Secondly, they -came to see Lazarus. And they came to see Lazarus for two reasons. -First, because of the extraordinary miracle accomplished on Lazarus, that is, -his being raised back to the living after four days in the tomb; and the people -desired to see this: "Your works are wonderful, and my soul knows them well," -that is, it attempts to understand them [Ps 138:14]. Secondly, they came -because they hoped they would learn something about the other life from -Lazarus, for man has an inborn desire for knowledge of this kind, in spite of -what the foolish say: "For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, -'Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a man comes to -his end, and no one has been known to return from Hades'" (Wis 2:1). But here -he is! Lazarus, whom he raised from the dead, has resumed from the lower world. - +that a crowd came to him; secondly, he gives the reason why they +came. As to the first, he says, When the great crowd of the Jews +learned that he was there, they came, to Bethany. This was in +keeping with our Lord's invitation: "Come to me, all who labor and +are heaven laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). And so, +when we know where Jesus is, we should go to him quickly.
+Now there were two reasons why they came. The first was to enjoy +the sight and teaching of Christ. Secondly, they came to see +Lazarus. And they came to see Lazarus for two reasons. First, +because of the extraordinary miracle accomplished on Lazarus, that +is, his being raised back to the living after four days in the +tomb; and the people desired to see this: "Your works are +wonderful, and my soul knows them well," that is, it attempts to +understand them [Ps 138:14]. Secondly, they came because they hoped +they would learn something about the other life from Lazarus, for +man has an inborn desire for knowledge of this kind, in spite of +what the foolish say: "For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to +themselves, 'Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no +remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been known to +return from Hades'" (Wis 2:1). But here he is! Lazarus, whom he +raised from the dead, has resumed from the lower world.
1614 Then the Evangelist describes the vehemence of the -Pharisees in their envy, when he says, So the chief priests planned to put -Lazarus also to death. In this they were opposing God: for God had raised -him to life, and they wanted to kill him: "Running stubbornly against him" (Job -15:26). Then the reason for their vehemence is stated, because on account of -him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus. - +Pharisees in their envy, when he says, So the chief priests +planned to put Lazarus also to death. In this they were +opposing God: for God had raised him to life, and they wanted to +kill him: "Running stubbornly against him" (Job 15:26). Then the +reason for their vehemence is stated, because on account of him +many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.
1615 But since Christ had cured many people, such as the -paralytic and the man born blind, why did they want to kill only Lazarus? -Chrysostom gives four reasons.[11] First, because this -miracle was more evident, it was performed before many people, and it was -absolutely astounding to see a man dead for four days walking and speaking. The -second reason was that Lazarus was a well-known person, while the blind man was -unimportant, so much so that they even expelled him from the temple. The third -reason was because this miracle was accomplished near the time of a great -feast, and all the Jewish people who had come for the feast disregarded the -solemnities and went to Bethany. The fourth reason was that in the other -miracles they could accuse Christ of breaking the Sabbath, and in this way alienate -the people from him; but this time that way was closed. And so because they -could find no reason to attack Jesus, they attacked Lazarus as the best way to -conceal the miracle: "Their feet run to evil and they make haste to shed blood" -(Prv 1:16). -
-LECTURE 3 - -
12 The next day a great crowd who had come to the feast -heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm -trees and went out to meet him, crying, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in -the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!" 14 And Jesus found a young ass -and sat upon it; as it is written, 15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your -king is coming, sitting on an ass's colt!" 16 His disciples did not understand -this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had -been written of him and had been done to him. 17 The crowd that had been with -him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead bore -witness. 18 The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had -done this sign. 19 The Pharisees then said to one another, "You see that you -can do nothing; look, the world has gone after him.[12]
+
+
+LECTURE 3
++12 The next day a great crowd who had come to the feast heard +that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of +palm trees and went out to meet him, crying, "Hosanna! Blessed is +he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!" 14 +And Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it; as it is written, 15 +"Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting +on an ass's colt!" 16 His disciples did not understand this at +first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this +had been written of him and had been done to him. 17 The crowd that +had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised +him from the dead bore witness. 18 The reason why the crowd went to +meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. 19 The +Pharisees then said to one another, "You see that you can do +nothing; look, the world has gone after him.[12]
+1616 Here we see the fervor of the crowd which went to meet -Christ. First, they go to meet Christ; secondly, we have the reaction of the -Pharisees (v 19). Concerning the first the Evangelist does three things: first, -he mentions their going out; secondly, he tells of our Lord's entrance (v 14); -and thirdly, he states why the crowd went out to him. - -
1617 He mentions four things concerning the crowd which went -out to the Lord. First, the time they went out, the next day, that is, -the day following the one he meant when he said, "six days before the -Passover"; in other words, the tenth day of the month. This is in keeping with -the figure in Exodus (12:3), where we read that the Paschal lamb which was to -be immolated on the fourteenth day in the evening should be procured on the -tenth day of the month. - -
1618 Secondly, the ones who went out are described, a -great crowd who had come to the feast. They signify the multitudes of the -people who would be converted to Christ: "Let the assembly of the people be -gathered about thee" (Ps 7:7). He says to the feast, because believers -are converted to Christ so that they may come to the feast day of the heavenly -Jerusalem: "Many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, -Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 8:11). - +Christ. First, they go to meet Christ; secondly, we have the +reaction of the Pharisees (v 19). Concerning the first the +Evangelist does three things: first, he mentions their going out; +secondly, he tells of our Lord's entrance (v 14); and thirdly, he +states why the crowd went out to him.
+1617 He mentions four things concerning the crowd which went out +to the Lord. First, the time they went out, the next day, +that is, the day following the one he meant when he said, "six days +before the Passover"; in other words, the tenth day of the month. +This is in keeping with the figure in Exodus (12:3), where we read +that the Paschal lamb which was to be immolated on the fourteenth +day in the evening should be procured on the tenth day of the +month.
+1618 Secondly, the ones who went out are described, a great +crowd who had come to the feast. They signify the multitudes of +the people who would be converted to Christ: "Let the assembly of +the people be gathered about thee" (Ps 7:7). He says to the +feast, because believers are converted to Christ so that they +may come to the feast day of the heavenly Jerusalem: "Many will +come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and +Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 8:11).
1619 Thirdly, the Evangelist mentions their motive for going -out, which was that they heard that Jesus was coming: he says that they heard -that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. For all the faithful are converted to -Christ through what they hear about the faith: "Faith comes from what is heard, -and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom 10:17); "and the -children of Israel heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel; and -the peoples believed," as we read in Exodus [4:31]. - -
1620 Fourthly, he mentions how they conducted themselves. -And first of all, what they did: they took branches of palm trees. Now -the palm, since it retains its freshness, signifies victory. Thus in antiquity -it was conferred upon conquerors as a symbol of their victory. Again, we read -in Revelation (7:9) of the conquering martyrs that they held "palm branches in -their hands." And so the branches of palm trees were given as praise, -signifying victory, because our Lord was to conquer death by dying and to -triumph over Satan, the prince of death, by the victory of the cross. And -went out to meet him: "Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!" (Amos 4:12). - +out, which was that they heard that Jesus was coming: he says that +they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. For all the +faithful are converted to Christ through what they hear about the +faith: "Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by +the preaching of Christ" (Rom 10:17); "and the children of Israel +heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel; and the +peoples believed," as we read in Exodus [4:31].
+1620 Fourthly, he mentions how they conducted themselves. And +first of all, what they did: they took branches of palm +trees. Now the palm, since it retains its freshness, signifies +victory. Thus in antiquity it was conferred upon conquerors as a +symbol of their victory. Again, we read in Revelation (7:9) of the +conquering martyrs that they held "palm branches in their hands." +And so the branches of palm trees were given as praise, signifying +victory, because our Lord was to conquer death by dying and to +triumph over Satan, the prince of death, by the victory of the +cross. And went out to meet him: "Prepare to meet your God, +O Israel!" (Amos 4:12).
1621 Secondly, the Evangelist mentions what they said: they -shouted out Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the King -of Israel! Here they combine both petition and praise. There is petition -when they say, Hosanna, that is "Save us, I implore you." It is like -saying: hosy, which means "save," and anna, which means -"implore." According to Augustine, this is not a word, but rather an -exclamation of one praying.[13] And it is quite proper -that they should ask the Lord Jesus for salvation, because we read in Isaiah -(35:4): "Behold your God…He will come and save you"; "Stir up thy might, and -come to save us!" (Ps 80:2). - -
1622 They praise him for two things: for his coming and for -the power of his reign or kingdom. They praise his coming when they say, Blessed -is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Note that to bless is to speak -good things. Now God blesses us in one way, and we bless God in another way. -For when God blesses us he makes us good, since for God to speak is to do: "For -he commanded [that is, spoke], and they were created" (Ps 148:5). But when we -bless God, we profess his goodness: "We bless you from the house of the Lord" -(Ps 118:26); "Blessed be every one who blesses you!" (Gen 27:29). Therefore, Blessed -is he who comes in the name of the Lord, for Christ worked in the name of -God, because every thing he did he directed to the glory of God. - -
Now because both the Father and the -Son are the Lord, the phrase, in the name of the Lord, can be understood -in two ways. In one way, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, -means blessed is he who comes in his own name, as Lord: "The Lord is our ruler" -(Is 33:22). Moses did not come in the name of the Lord in this way, because he -came as a servant: "Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to -testify to the things that were to be spoken later" (Heb 3:5). According to -Augustine, the better interpretation would be to say that in the name of the -Lord means in the name of the Father.[14] For Christ's words -direct our minds to this: "I have come in my Father's name" (5:45). Further, -there are two ways in which Christ is said to have come in the name of the -Father. First, he came as the Son, which implies the Father; secondly, he came -to manifest the Father: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gave -me" (17:6). - +shouted out Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the +Lord, the King of Israel! Here they combine both petition and +praise. There is petition when they say, Hosanna, that is +"Save us, I implore you." It is like saying: hosy, which +means "save," and anna, which means "implore." According to +Augustine, this is not a word, but rather an exclamation of one +praying.[13] +And it is quite proper that they should ask the Lord Jesus for +salvation, because we read in Isaiah (35:4): "Behold your +God…He will come and save you"; "Stir up thy might, and come +to save us!" (Ps 80:2).
+1622 They praise him for two things: for his coming and for the +power of his reign or kingdom. They praise his coming when they +say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Note +that to bless is to speak good things. Now God blesses us in one +way, and we bless God in another way. For when God blesses us he +makes us good, since for God to speak is to do: "For he commanded +[that is, spoke], and they were created" (Ps 148:5). But when we +bless God, we profess his goodness: "We bless you from the house of +the Lord" (Ps 118:26); "Blessed be every one who blesses you!" (Gen +27:29). Therefore, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the +Lord, for Christ worked in the name of God, because every thing +he did he directed to the glory of God.
+Now because both the Father and the Son are the Lord, the +phrase, in the name of the Lord, can be understood in two +ways. In one way, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the +Lord, means blessed is he who comes in his own name, as Lord: +"The Lord is our ruler" (Is 33:22). Moses did not come in the name +of the Lord in this way, because he came as a servant: "Now Moses +was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the +things that were to be spoken later" (Heb 3:5). According to +Augustine, the better interpretation would be to say that in the +name of the Lord means in the name of the Father.[14] For +Christ's words direct our minds to this: "I have come in my +Father's name" (5:45). Further, there are two ways in which Christ +is said to have come in the name of the Father. First, he came as +the Son, which implies the Father; secondly, he came to manifest +the Father: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gave +me" (17:6).
1623 The people praise the power of his reign when they say, -the King of Israel! Literally, the Jews believed that he had come to -reign over them temporally, and ransom them from subjection to the Romans. That -is why they hailed him as a king: "He shall reign as king and deal wisely" (Jer -23:5); "Behold, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in -justice" (Is 32:1). - -
1624 We should note that the above words can be gathered -from the Psalms. For when the Psalm says, "The stone which the builders -rejected…" (Ps 118:22), it then continues on, "Save us, we beseech thee, O -Lord!…Blessed is he who enters in the name of the Lord!" (v 25-26). And there -Jerome, according to the meaning of the Hebrew, translated hosanna as -"blessed." But what the people added, the King of Israel, is not in the -psalms. Instead, the Psalm says: "The Lord is God, and he has given us light" -(v 27). In saying this, the people, due to their blindness, have lessened his -praise: for the Psalm praises our Lord as God, but they praised him as a -temporal king. - -
1625 When the Evangelist says, and Jesus found a young -ass and sat upon it, he describes our Lord's coming: first, he tells how he -came; secondly, he mentions a prophecy (v 15); and thirdly, he describes the -state of mind of the disciples in regard to this event (v 16). - -
1626 It should be noted in regard to the first point, that -John the Evangelist wrote his Gospel after all the others. And so, after carefully -noting what these had written, he merely summarized what they had already -mentioned, but filled in what they had omitted. Therefore, since the other -Evangelists had already told how the Lord sent two of his disciples to bring -the ass, John contents himself with mentioning briefly that Jesus found a -young ass and sat upon it. - -
Here it should be pointed out that -Christ's actions are in a way midway between the events of the Old Testament -and of the New Testament. Thus the crowds praised him, both the one which went -before him, and the one which followed him, because Christ's actions are the -rule and exemplar of the things that are done in the New Testament, and they -were prefigured by the fathers of the Old Testament. - -
The young ass is an awkward animal, -and signifies the Gentiles. Christ sat upon it to signify that he would redeem -the Gentiles: "I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may -reach to the end of the earth" (Is 49:6); "Happy are you who sow beside all -waters, who let the feet of the ox and the ass range free," that is, thus -uniting the Jews and the Gentiles in one faith. - -
Now Matthew wrote his Gospel for -the Jews, and so he made mention of a she-ass. This she-ass signifies the -synagogue of the Jews, which was like a mother to the Gentiles in spiritual -matters, because "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord -from Jerusalem" (Is 2:3). The other Evangelists, however, wrote their Gospels -for the Gentiles, and so they mention the young colt of the she-ass. - -
1627 When the Evangelist says, as it is written, Fear -not, daughter of Zion! he cites the prophesy which was written in Zechariah -(9:9). First, he reassures them; secondly, he promises a kingly majesty; and -thirdly, he adds the benefit which the king will bring. - -
He reassures them when he says, Fear -not, daughter of Zion. Zion was the fortress in Jerusalem where the king -lived. The daughter of Zion, therefore, would be the people of Jerusalem and of -Judea who were subject to the king of Jerusalem. Thus the Jews are being told, Fear -not, because the Lord is your defender: "Who are you that you are afraid of -man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass?" (Is 51:12); "The Lord -is the defender of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" [Ps 27:1]. Here the Evangelist -is driving out their worldly and servile fear. - -
He promises them a kingly majesty, -saying, behold, your king is coming: "For to us a son is given" (Is -9:6); "Upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom" (9:7). He says, your -king, that means, taking flesh from you, for "It is not with angels that he -is concerned, but with the descendants of Abraham" (Heb 2:16). Again, your -king, that is, for your benefit. Thus he adds, is coming, to you: -"Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they -are hid from your eyes" (Lk 19:42). But when they resisted, they hindered their -own good. - -
The king comes to you, I say, not -to harm you, but to set you free; thus he adds, sitting on an ass's colt! -This signifies the mercy of the king, which is most welcome to his subjects: -"His throne is upheld by mercy" [Prv 20:28]. This is just the opposite to "A -king's wrath is like the growling of a lion" (Prv 19:12). He is saying in -effect: He is not coming as a haughty king - Which would make him hateful - but -with gentleness: "If they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself" -(Sir 32:1). Therefore, have no fear that the king will oppress you. Now the Old -Law was given in fear, because the Law produced slaves. This phrase also -signifies the power of the king, because by coming with humility and in -weakness he attracted the entire world: "The weakness of God is stronger than -men" (1 Cor 1:25). - -
1628 Then when he says, his disciples did not understand -this at first, he describes the state of mind of the disciples regarding -this prophecy. And he admits his own ignorance and that of the disciples, for -as we read: "The just person is the first to accuse himself" [Prv 18:17]. So he -says, his disciples did not understand this, what was predicted, at -first, that is, before the passion. But when Jesus was glorified, -i.e., when he showed the power of his resurrection, then they remembered -that this had been written of him and had been done to him. The reason they -knew only after he had been glorified was because it was then that they -received the power of the Holy Spirit, which made them wiser than all the wise: -"The breath of the Almighty makes a man understand" (Job 32:8). - -
1629 Then he mentions why the crowd went to meet Jesus, -which was to bear witness. This was done by the crowd that had been with him, -at the resurrection of Lazarus, when he called Lazarus out of the tomb… The -reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. -"For Jews demand signs" (1 Cor 1:22). Now this was a clearer and more marvelous -sign than the others; thus Christ made it the last in order to impress it more -forcefully on their memory. - -
1630 Then when the Evangelist says, The Pharisees then -said to one another, he describes the reaction of the Pharisees, who were -enraged because their plans had been frustrated. Thus they say, You see that -you can do nothing. The Pharisees said this out of envy, as if to say: "We -are not having any effect, that is, in our evil intentions; we have failed to -check him. - -
But why were they maddened at the -blind crowd? Because the world has gone after him through whom the world -was made. This was a sign that the whole world would follow him: "We shall live -in his sight. We shall know and we shall follow the Lord" [Hos 6:3]. - -
Chrysostom, however, thinks that -these words were said by the Pharisees who believed, but they were spoken -privately for fear of the Jews.[15] And they said this to -stop the persecution of Christ. It is as though they were saying: No matter -what snares you lay, he will grow in stature and his glory will increase. Why -then not stop your plotting? This is practically the same as the advice of -Gamaliel in the Acts (5:34). -
-LECTURE 4 - -
+- +the King of Israel! Literally, the Jews believed that he had +come to reign over them temporally, and ransom them from subjection +to the Romans. That is why they hailed him as a king: "He shall +reign as king and deal wisely" (Jer 23:5); "Behold, a king will +reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in justice" (Is +32:1).20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast -were some Greeks [Gentiles]. 21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida -in Galilee, and said to him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus." 22 Philip went and -told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered -them, "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I -say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains -alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who loves his life loses it, -and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If -any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be -also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him."[16]
1624 We should note that the above words can be gathered from +the Psalms. For when the Psalm says, "The stone which the builders +rejected…" (Ps 118:22), it then continues on, "Save us, we +beseech thee, O Lord!…Blessed is he who enters in the name +of the Lord!" (v 25-26). And there Jerome, according to the meaning +of the Hebrew, translated hosanna as "blessed." But what the people +added, the King of Israel, is not in the psalms. Instead, +the Psalm says: "The Lord is God, and he has given us light" (v +27). In saying this, the people, due to their blindness, have +lessened his praise: for the Psalm praises our Lord as God, but +they praised him as a temporal king.
+1625 When the Evangelist says, and Jesus found a young ass +and sat upon it, he describes our Lord's coming: first, he +tells how he came; secondly, he mentions a prophecy (v 15); and +thirdly, he describes the state of mind of the disciples in regard +to this event (v 16).
+1626 It should be noted in regard to the first point, that John +the Evangelist wrote his Gospel after all the others. And so, after +carefully noting what these had written, he merely summarized what +they had already mentioned, but filled in what they had omitted. +Therefore, since the other Evangelists had already told how the +Lord sent two of his disciples to bring the ass, John contents +himself with mentioning briefly that Jesus found a young ass and +sat upon it.
+Here it should be pointed out that Christ's actions are in a way +midway between the events of the Old Testament and of the New +Testament. Thus the crowds praised him, both the one which went +before him, and the one which followed him, because Christ's +actions are the rule and exemplar of the things that are done in +the New Testament, and they were prefigured by the fathers of the +Old Testament.
+The young ass is an awkward animal, and signifies the Gentiles. +Christ sat upon it to signify that he would redeem the Gentiles: "I +will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may +reach to the end of the earth" (Is 49:6); "Happy are you who sow +beside all waters, who let the feet of the ox and the ass range +free," that is, thus uniting the Jews and the Gentiles in one +faith.
+Now Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and so he made +mention of a she-ass. This she-ass signifies the synagogue of the +Jews, which was like a mother to the Gentiles in spiritual matters, +because "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the +Lord from Jerusalem" (Is 2:3). The other Evangelists, however, +wrote their Gospels for the Gentiles, and so they mention the young +colt of the she-ass.
+1627 When the Evangelist says, as it is written, Fear not, +daughter of Zion! he cites the prophesy which was written in +Zechariah (9:9). First, he reassures them; secondly, he promises a +kingly majesty; and thirdly, he adds the benefit which the king +will bring.
+He reassures them when he says, Fear not, daughter of +Zion. Zion was the fortress in Jerusalem where the king lived. +The daughter of Zion, therefore, would be the people of Jerusalem +and of Judea who were subject to the king of Jerusalem. Thus the +Jews are being told, Fear not, because the Lord is your +defender: "Who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the +son of man who is made like grass?" (Is 51:12); "The Lord is the +defender of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" [Ps 27:1]. Here +the Evangelist is driving out their worldly and servile fear.
+He promises them a kingly majesty, saying, behold, your king +is coming: "For to us a son is given" (Is 9:6); "Upon the +throne of David, and over his kingdom" (9:7). He says, your +king, that means, taking flesh from you, for "It is not with +angels that he is concerned, but with the descendants of Abraham" +(Heb 2:16). Again, your king, that is, for your benefit. +Thus he adds, is coming, to you: "Would that even today you +knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your +eyes" (Lk 19:42). But when they resisted, they hindered their own +good.
+The king comes to you, I say, not to harm you, but to set you +free; thus he adds, sitting on an ass's colt! This signifies +the mercy of the king, which is most welcome to his subjects: "His +throne is upheld by mercy" [Prv 20:28]. This is just the opposite +to "A king's wrath is like the growling of a lion" (Prv 19:12). He +is saying in effect: He is not coming as a haughty king - Which +would make him hateful - but with gentleness: "If they make you +master of the feast, do not exalt yourself" (Sir 32:1). Therefore, +have no fear that the king will oppress you. Now the Old Law was +given in fear, because the Law produced slaves. This phrase also +signifies the power of the king, because by coming with humility +and in weakness he attracted the entire world: "The weakness of God +is stronger than men" (1 Cor 1:25).
+1628 Then when he says, his disciples did not understand this +at first, he describes the state of mind of the disciples +regarding this prophecy. And he admits his own ignorance and that +of the disciples, for as we read: "The just person is the first to +accuse himself" [Prv 18:17]. So he says, his disciples did not +understand this, what was predicted, at first, that is, +before the passion. But when Jesus was glorified, i.e., when +he showed the power of his resurrection, then they remembered +that this had been written of him and had been done to him. The +reason they knew only after he had been glorified was because it +was then that they received the power of the Holy Spirit, which +made them wiser than all the wise: "The breath of the Almighty +makes a man understand" (Job 32:8).
+1629 Then he mentions why the crowd went to meet Jesus, which +was to bear witness. This was done by the crowd that had been +with him, at the resurrection of Lazarus, when he called +Lazarus out of the tomb… The reason why the crowd went to +meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. "For Jews +demand signs" (1 Cor 1:22). Now this was a clearer and more +marvelous sign than the others; thus Christ made it the last in +order to impress it more forcefully on their memory.
+1630 Then when the Evangelist says, The Pharisees then said +to one another, he describes the reaction of the Pharisees, who +were enraged because their plans had been frustrated. Thus they +say, You see that you can do nothing. The Pharisees said +this out of envy, as if to say: "We are not having any effect, that +is, in our evil intentions; we have failed to check him.
+But why were they maddened at the blind crowd? Because the +world has gone after him through whom the world was made. This +was a sign that the whole world would follow him: "We shall live in +his sight. We shall know and we shall follow the Lord" [Hos +6:3].
+Chrysostom, however, thinks that these words were said by the +Pharisees who believed, but they were spoken privately for fear of +the Jews.[15] +And they said this to stop the persecution of Christ. It is as +though they were saying: No matter what snares you lay, he will +grow in stature and his glory will increase. Why then not stop your +plotting? This is practically the same as the advice of Gamaliel in +the Acts (5:34).
+
+
+LECTURE 4
++20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were +some Greeks [Gentiles]. 21 So these came to Philip, who was from +Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus." +22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they +told Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the +Son of man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a +grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but +if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who loves his life loses it, +and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal +life. 26 If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, +there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father +will honor him."[16]
+1631 Having described the glory Christ received from the -helpfulness of his friends and from the devotion of the crowd, the Evangelist -now describes the glory Christ received from the devotion of the Gentiles. -First, the devotion of the Gentiles is mentioned; secondly, this devotion is -reported (v 22); and thirdly, we see the prediction of Christ's passion (v 23). -Concerning the devotion of the Gentiles, two things are set forth: first, their -devotion to the sacraments of the Old Law; secondly, their devotion to Christ -(v 21). - -
1632 The devotion of the Gentiles to the sacraments of the -Old Testament is shown by the fact that they visited the temple. Thus he says, Now -among those who went up, to Jerusalem, to worship at the feast were some -Gentiles. He is saying in effect: Not just the Jews, but the Gentiles, -also, honored Christ. According to a Gloss, the reason why they went up to -Jerusalem was because they were proselytes, who had been converted to the -Jewish rite by the preaching of those Jews who were scattered throughout the -world, and who strove to convert whomever they could: "You traverse sea and -land to make a single proselyte" (Mt 23:15).[17] And so, in keeping with -the Jewish rite, they went up with the others. - -
But a better reason is given by -Chrysostom, namely, that as we read in Maccabees (3:2), the temple of God in -Jerusalem was held in such esteem by all the people and rulers throughout the -world that they considered it an honor to glorify the temple with the finest -gifts.[18] And so it happened that -on the feast days even many Gentiles would go up to Jerusalem. An example of -this is mentioned in the Acts (8:27), where it tells of a eunuch, a minister to -Queen Candace of Ethiopia, who had come to Jerusalem to worship. Thus Isaiah -says: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (Is 56:7). -The fact that these Gentiles came to the temple out of devotion prefigured the -conversion of the Gentiles to the faith. - -
1633 The devotion of the Gentiles to Christ is shown by -their desire to see him; for the Evangelist says, So these, that is, the -Gentiles, came to Phillip. Here we should note that Christ personally -preached only to the Jews: "For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the -circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given -to the patriarchs" (Rom 15:8); but he preached to the Gentiles through the apostles. -"And I shall send of them that shall be saved to the Gentiles…, and they shall -declare my glory to the Gentiles" [Is 66:19]; "Go therefore and make disciples -of all nations" (Mt 28:19). This was now being indicated beforehand inasmuch as -the Gentiles who wanted to see Christ did not come to him first, but to one of -his disciples, to Philip. And this was fitting, because Philip was the first to -preach to those who were not of the Jewish rite, namely, to the Samaritans, as -we see from the Acts (8:5): "Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and -proclaimed to them the Christ." - -
This was also fitting because of -his name: for "Philip" means the "mouth of the lantern."[19] -Now preachers are the mouth of Christ: "If you utter what is precious, and not -what is worthless, you shall be as your mouth" (Jer 15:19); and Christ too is -the lantern: "I have given you as a light to the nations" (Is 42:6). It was -also appropriate to him because of his home: for Philip was from Bethsaida, -which means "hunting," and preachers hunt for those whom they convert to -Christ: "I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them" (Jer 16:16). -Again, it was appropriate because Bethsaida was in Galilee, which means -"transmigration," and the Gentiles, by the preaching of the apostles, were -transmigrated from the gods of paganism to the state of believers: "Therefore, -son of man, prepare for yourself an exile's baggage, and go into exile by day -in their sight," as we read in Ezekiel (12:3). - -
These Gentiles approached Philip -and expressed their desires, saying, we wish to see Jesus. This -signifies that those Gentiles who had not seen Christ in the flesh but who had -been converted to the faith by the ministry of the apostles, desired to see him -glorified in heaven: "All the earth desired to see the face of Solomon" [1 Kgs -10:24]. - -
1634 Then when he says, Philip went and told Andrew; -Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus, the news of the Gentiles' -devotion is carried to Christ. In this action a definite order is being -followed, because "the things that are from God are set in order" [Rom 13:1]. -Now it belongs to the divine order that lower things be led back to God through -those that are higher, and since Andrew outranked Philip among the apostles, -because he was converted before him, Philip did not wish to bring these -Gentiles to Christ by himself, but through Andrew, perhaps remembering that the -Lord had said: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles" (Mt 10:5). And this is what he -says, Phillip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told -Jesus. This teaches us that all things should be done with the advice of -those in authority. Thus, even Paul went up to Jerusalem and conferred with the -apostles about the Gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2). - -
Furthermore, from their names we can gather two -things which are necessary for preachers if they are to lead others to Christ. -The first is clear, orderly speech; and this is indicated by Philip's name, -which means the "mouth of the lantern." The second is virtue, manifested in -good actions; and this is indicated by Andrew's name, which has the meaning of -"strength." By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their -strength by the breath of his mouth" [Ps 33:6]. - +helpfulness of his friends and from the devotion of the crowd, the +Evangelist now describes the glory Christ received from the +devotion of the Gentiles. First, the devotion of the Gentiles is +mentioned; secondly, this devotion is reported (v 22); and thirdly, +we see the prediction of Christ's passion (v 23). Concerning the +devotion of the Gentiles, two things are set forth: first, their +devotion to the sacraments of the Old Law; secondly, their devotion +to Christ (v 21).
+1632 The devotion of the Gentiles to the sacraments of the Old +Testament is shown by the fact that they visited the temple. Thus +he says, Now among those who went up, to Jerusalem, to +worship at the feast were some Gentiles. He is saying in +effect: Not just the Jews, but the Gentiles, also, honored Christ. +According to a Gloss, the reason why they went up to Jerusalem was +because they were proselytes, who had been converted to the Jewish +rite by the preaching of those Jews who were scattered throughout +the world, and who strove to convert whomever they could: "You +traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte" (Mt +23:15).[17] And so, in keeping with the Jewish rite, they +went up with the others.
+But a better reason is given by Chrysostom, namely, that as we +read in Maccabees (3:2), the temple of God in Jerusalem was held in +such esteem by all the people and rulers throughout the world that +they considered it an honor to glorify the temple with the finest +gifts.[18] +And so it happened that on the feast days even many Gentiles would +go up to Jerusalem. An example of this is mentioned in the Acts +(8:27), where it tells of a eunuch, a minister to Queen Candace of +Ethiopia, who had come to Jerusalem to worship. Thus Isaiah says: +"My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (Is +56:7). The fact that these Gentiles came to the temple out of +devotion prefigured the conversion of the Gentiles to the +faith.
+1633 The devotion of the Gentiles to Christ is shown by their +desire to see him; for the Evangelist says, So these, that +is, the Gentiles, came to Phillip. Here we should note that +Christ personally preached only to the Jews: "For I tell you that +Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's +truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the +patriarchs" (Rom 15:8); but he preached to the Gentiles through the +apostles. "And I shall send of them that shall be saved to the +Gentiles…, and they shall declare my glory to the Gentiles" +[Is 66:19]; "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mt +28:19). This was now being indicated beforehand inasmuch as the +Gentiles who wanted to see Christ did not come to him first, but to +one of his disciples, to Philip. And this was fitting, because +Philip was the first to preach to those who were not of the Jewish +rite, namely, to the Samaritans, as we see from the Acts (8:5): +"Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed to them +the Christ."
+This was also fitting because of his name: for "Philip" means +the "mouth of the lantern."[19] Now preachers are the mouth of Christ: "If you +utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you shall be as +your mouth" (Jer 15:19); and Christ too is the lantern: "I have +given you as a light to the nations" (Is 42:6). It was also +appropriate to him because of his home: for Philip was from +Bethsaida, which means "hunting," and preachers hunt for those +whom they convert to Christ: "I will send for many hunters, and +they shall hunt them" (Jer 16:16). Again, it was appropriate +because Bethsaida was in Galilee, which means +"transmigration," and the Gentiles, by the preaching of the +apostles, were transmigrated from the gods of paganism to the state +of believers: "Therefore, son of man, prepare for yourself an +exile's baggage, and go into exile by day in their sight," as we +read in Ezekiel (12:3).
+These Gentiles approached Philip and expressed their desires, +saying, we wish to see Jesus. This signifies that those +Gentiles who had not seen Christ in the flesh but who had been +converted to the faith by the ministry of the apostles, desired to +see him glorified in heaven: "All the earth desired to see the face +of Solomon" [1 Kgs 10:24].
+1634 Then when he says, Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew +went with Philip and they told Jesus, the news of the Gentiles' +devotion is carried to Christ. In this action a definite order is +being followed, because "the things that are from God are set in +order" [Rom 13:1]. Now it belongs to the divine order that lower +things be led back to God through those that are higher, and since +Andrew outranked Philip among the apostles, because he was +converted before him, Philip did not wish to bring these Gentiles +to Christ by himself, but through Andrew, perhaps remembering that +the Lord had said: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles" (Mt 10:5). And +this is what he says, Phillip went and told Andrew; Andrew went +with Philip and they told Jesus. This teaches us that all +things should be done with the advice of those in authority. Thus, +even Paul went up to Jerusalem and conferred with the apostles +about the Gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles (Gal +2:2).
+Furthermore, from their names we can gather two things which are +necessary for preachers if they are to lead others to Christ. The +first is clear, orderly speech; and this is indicated by Philip's +name, which means the "mouth of the lantern." The second is virtue, +manifested in good actions; and this is indicated by Andrew's name, +which has the meaning of "strength." By the word of the Lord the +heavens were made, and all their strength by the breath of his +mouth" [Ps 33:6].
1635 Then, the passion of Christ is foretold: first, Christ -foretells that the time of his passion is near; secondly, he intimates that his -passion is necessary (v 24); and thirdly, he mentions the necessity for others -to suffer (v 25). - +foretells that the time of his passion is near; secondly, he +intimates that his passion is necessary (v 24); and thirdly, he +mentions the necessity for others to suffer (v 25).
1636 He says, The hour has come for the Son of man to be -glorified. Here it should be noted that our Lord, seeing these Gentiles -hastening to see him, and understanding that in them the conversion of the -Gentiles was somehow beginning, foretold the imminence of his passion, somewhat -like a person who sees a wheat field growing white says that the hour has come -to use the sickle for the harvest" (4:35). This is the way the Lord speaks -here. Since the Gentiles want to see me, he says, The hour has come for the -Son of man to be glorified. - -
1637 Now there were three events where he was glorified. -First, in his passion: "Christ did not exalt [glorify] himself to be made a -high priest," on the altar of the cross, "but was appointed by him who said to -him, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee,'" as we read in Hebrews -(5:5). In reference to this he says, The hour has come for the Son of man to -be glorified, that is, to suffer, because the Gentiles will not be -converted to him before his passion. Indeed, in his passion he was glorified -both with visible signs, such as the sun becoming dark, the rendering of the -temple curtain and so forth, and with invisible signs, such as the victory by -which in himself he overcame the powers of darkness, as stated in Colossians -(2:15). Earlier he had said, "My hour has not yet come" (2:4), because the -devotion of the Gentiles had not been as keen as it was now. - -
Secondly, he was glorified in his -resurrection and ascension. For it was necessary for Christ to first rise and -ascend into heaven, and thus glorified, to send the Holy Spirit upon the -apostles, through whom the Gentiles were to be converted: "For as yet the -Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (7:39); Christ -"ascended to the heights: he captured his spoil" [Ps 69:19]. - -
Thirdly, he was glorified by the conversion -of the Gentiles: in Philippians [2:11] we read, "Every tongue will confess that -the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." - -
1638 Then when he says, I say to you, he intimates -the necessity of his passion: first, he suggests its necessity; secondly the -benefit it brings (v 24b). - +glorified. Here it should be noted that our Lord, seeing these +Gentiles hastening to see him, and understanding that in them the +conversion of the Gentiles was somehow beginning, foretold the +imminence of his passion, somewhat like a person who sees a wheat +field growing white says that the hour has come to use the sickle +for the harvest" (4:35). This is the way the Lord speaks here. +Since the Gentiles want to see me, he says, The hour has come +for the Son of man to be glorified.
+1637 Now there were three events where he was glorified. First, +in his passion: "Christ did not exalt [glorify] himself to be made +a high priest," on the altar of the cross, "but was appointed by +him who said to him, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten +thee,'" as we read in Hebrews (5:5). In reference to this he says, +The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified, that +is, to suffer, because the Gentiles will not be converted to him +before his passion. Indeed, in his passion he was glorified both +with visible signs, such as the sun becoming dark, the rendering of +the temple curtain and so forth, and with invisible signs, such as +the victory by which in himself he overcame the powers of darkness, +as stated in Colossians (2:15). Earlier he had said, "My hour has +not yet come" (2:4), because the devotion of the Gentiles had not +been as keen as it was now.
+Secondly, he was glorified in his resurrection and ascension. +For it was necessary for Christ to first rise and ascend into +heaven, and thus glorified, to send the Holy Spirit upon the +apostles, through whom the Gentiles were to be converted: "For as +yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet +glorified" (7:39); Christ "ascended to the heights: he captured his +spoil" [Ps 69:19].
+Thirdly, he was glorified by the conversion of the Gentiles: in +Philippians [2:11] we read, "Every tongue will confess that the +Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father."
+1638 Then when he says, I say to you, he intimates the +necessity of his passion: first, he suggests its necessity; +secondly the benefit it brings (v 24b).
1639 The necessity for Christ's passion is caused by the -conversion of the Gentiles, which cannot take place unless the Son of man is -glorified through his passion and resurrection. And this is what he asserts, Truly, -truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it -remains alone. In regard to the literal sense of this text, it should be -noted that we use a grain of wheat either for bread or as a seed. In this text, -we should understand that the wheat is taken as a seed, and not as the wheat -used for bread, for in the latter case it would never grow and bear fruit. He -says, dies, not because it loses its strength, but because it is then -changed into something else: "What you sow does not come to life unless it -dies" (1 Cor 15:36). Now just as the word of God, so far as it is clothed in a -sound that can be heard, is a seed planted in a person's soul to produce the -fruit of good works - "The seed is the word of God" (Lk 8:11) - so the Word of -God, clothed in flesh, is a seed sent into the world to bring forth a great -harvest; thus it is also compared to a grain of mustard seed, in Matthew -(13:31). - -
So Christ is saying: I have come as -a seed, to bear fruit; and so I truly say to you, unless a grain of wheat -falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone, that is, unless I die, the -fruit of the conversion of the Gentiles will not follow. He compares himself to -a grain of wheat because the reason he came was to refresh and nourish our spirits, -which is principally done by bread made from wheat: "bread to strengthen man's -heart" (Ps 104:15); "The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is -my flesh" (6:51). - +conversion of the Gentiles, which cannot take place unless the Son +of man is glorified through his passion and resurrection. And this +is what he asserts, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain +of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone. In +regard to the literal sense of this text, it should be noted that +we use a grain of wheat either for bread or as a seed. In this +text, we should understand that the wheat is taken as a seed, and +not as the wheat used for bread, for in the latter case it would +never grow and bear fruit. He says, dies, not because it +loses its strength, but because it is then changed into something +else: "What you sow does not come to life unless it dies" (1 Cor +15:36). Now just as the word of God, so far as it is clothed in a +sound that can be heard, is a seed planted in a person's soul to +produce the fruit of good works - "The seed is the word of God" (Lk +8:11) - so the Word of God, clothed in flesh, is a seed sent into +the world to bring forth a great harvest; thus it is also compared +to a grain of mustard seed, in Matthew (13:31).
+So Christ is saying: I have come as a seed, to bear fruit; and +so I truly say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the +earth and dies, it remains alone, that is, unless I die, the +fruit of the conversion of the Gentiles will not follow. He +compares himself to a grain of wheat because the reason he came was +to refresh and nourish our spirits, which is principally done by +bread made from wheat: "bread to strengthen man's heart" (Ps +104:15); "The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is +my flesh" (6:51).
1640 But were the Gentiles to be converted only through the -death of Christ? Considering God's power, they could have been converted -without it; but according to God's decree they were to be converted through the -death of Christ as the more fitting way: "Without the shedding of blood there -is no forgiveness of sins," as is said in Hebrews (9:22); "if I do not go away, -the Counselor will not come to you" (16:7). - -
1641 The benefit produced by Christ's passion is given when -he says, but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He is saying in effect: -Unless this seed falls into the earth by the humiliation of the passion - "He -humbled himself and became obedient unto death" (Phil 2:8) - there is no -benefit, because it remains alone. But if it dies, that is, is put to -death and slain by the Jews, it bears much fruit. - -
The first of these fruits is the -remission of sin: "This is all the fruit, that sin is taken away" [Is 27:9]. -Truly, this fruit was brought forth by the passion of Christ: "For Christ also -died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might -bring us to God" (1 Pet 3:18). The second of these fruits is the conversion of -the Gentiles to God: "I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and -that your fruit should abide" (15:16). This fruit, too, was brought forth by -the passion of Christ: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw -all men to myself" (12:32). A third fruit is the fruit of glory: "The fruit of -good labors is renowned [i.e., glorious]" (Wis 3:15); "He who reaps receives -wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life" (4:36). And again, the passion of -Christ produced this fruit: "We have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the -blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the -curtain, that is, through his flesh" (Heb 10:19-20). - -
1642 Then he mentions the necessity for others to die, those -who expose themselves to suffering for the love of Christ. First, he states the -necessity for their death; secondly, he encourages us to do this (v 26). -Concerning the first he does two things: first, he states the necessity of -dying for the sake of Christ; secondly, he mentions the benefit this death -brings (v 25). - -
1643 Now every one, as a matter of fact, loves his own life, -but some love it absolutely, without qualification, and others love it -partially, in a qualified way. To love someone is to will good to that person; -so, to love one's own life is to will good to it. Therefore, one who wills what -is good without qualification to his own life, loves it unqualifiedly; while -one who wills his life some partial good loves it in a qualified way. Now the -unqualified goods of life are those which make a life good, namely, the highest -good, which is God. Thus, one who wills the divine and spiritual good to his -life, loves it unqualifiedly; while one who wills it earthly goods, such as -riches, honors and pleasures, and things of that sort, loves it in a qualified -way. "He who loves sin hates his own life" [Ps 10:5]; "If you allow your soul -to take pleasure in base desire, it will make you the laughingstock of your -enemies" (Sir 18:31).[20] - -
1644 This passage, therefore, can be understood in two ways. -In one way, as saying, he who loves his life, unqualifiedly, that is, in -regard to eternal goods, loses it, that is, exposes it to death for -Christ. But this is not the true sense. Accordingly it means, he who loves -his life, in a qualified way, that is, in regard to temporal goods, loses -it, unqualifiedly: "For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole -world and forfeits his life?" (Mt 16:26). That this is the true meaning is -shown from the statement which follows: he who hates his life in this world -will keep it for eternal life. Therefore, he who loves his life, in -this world, that is, as to worldly goods, loses it as to eternal goods: -"Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep," as we read in Luke -(6:25); "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and -Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are -in anguish" (Lk 16:25). - +death of Christ? Considering God's power, they could have been +converted without it; but according to God's decree they were to be +converted through the death of Christ as the more fitting way: +"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins," as +is said in Hebrews (9:22); "if I do not go away, the Counselor will +not come to you" (16:7).
+1641 The benefit produced by Christ's passion is given when he +says, but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He is saying in +effect: Unless this seed falls into the earth by the humiliation of +the passion - "He humbled himself and became obedient unto death" +(Phil 2:8) - there is no benefit, because it remains alone. But +if it dies, that is, is put to death and slain by the Jews, +it bears much fruit.
+The first of these fruits is the remission of sin: "This is all +the fruit, that sin is taken away" [Is 27:9]. Truly, this fruit was +brought forth by the passion of Christ: "For Christ also died for +sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might +bring us to God" (1 Pet 3:18). The second of these fruits is the +conversion of the Gentiles to God: "I appointed you that you should +go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide" (15:16). This +fruit, too, was brought forth by the passion of Christ: "And I, +when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" +(12:32). A third fruit is the fruit of glory: "The fruit of good +labors is renowned [i.e., glorious]" (Wis 3:15); "He who reaps +receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life" (4:36). And +again, the passion of Christ produced this fruit: "We have +confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new +and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, +through his flesh" (Heb 10:19-20).
+1642 Then he mentions the necessity for others to die, those who +expose themselves to suffering for the love of Christ. First, he +states the necessity for their death; secondly, he encourages us to +do this (v 26). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he +states the necessity of dying for the sake of Christ; secondly, he +mentions the benefit this death brings (v 25).
+1643 Now every one, as a matter of fact, loves his own life, but +some love it absolutely, without qualification, and others love it +partially, in a qualified way. To love someone is to will good to +that person; so, to love one's own life is to will good to it. +Therefore, one who wills what is good without qualification to his +own life, loves it unqualifiedly; while one who wills his life some +partial good loves it in a qualified way. Now the unqualified goods +of life are those which make a life good, namely, the highest good, +which is God. Thus, one who wills the divine and spiritual good to +his life, loves it unqualifiedly; while one who wills it earthly +goods, such as riches, honors and pleasures, and things of that +sort, loves it in a qualified way. "He who loves sin hates his own +life" [Ps 10:5]; "If you allow your soul to take pleasure in base +desire, it will make you the laughingstock of your enemies" (Sir +18:31).[20]
+1644 This passage, therefore, can be understood in two ways. In +one way, as saying, he who loves his life, unqualifiedly, +that is, in regard to eternal goods, loses it, that is, +exposes it to death for Christ. But this is not the true sense. +Accordingly it means, he who loves his life, in a qualified +way, that is, in regard to temporal goods, loses it, +unqualifiedly: "For what will it profit a man, if he gains the +whole world and forfeits his life?" (Mt 16:26). That this is the +true meaning is shown from the statement which follows: he who +hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. +Therefore, he who loves his life, in this world, that is, as +to worldly goods, loses it as to eternal goods: "Woe to you +that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep," as we read in Luke +(6:25); "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good +things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is +comforted here, and you are in anguish" (Lk 16:25).
1645 The benefit produced by this death is asserted when he -says, and he who hates his life in this world, that is, he who denies -his own life's present goods, and endures, for God, things that seem evil in -this world, will keep it for eternal life: "Blessed are those who are -persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt -5:10); "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother…yes, -and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple," as we read in Luke (14:26). - -
Note that what was said above about -the grain of wheat is in keeping with this teaching. For just as Christ was -sent into the world as a seed that was to bear fruit, so whatever temporal -goods are given to us in this life by God are not given to us as fruit, but -rather that by their means we may obtain the fruit of an eternal reward. -Indeed, our very life is a temporal gift from God to us. Therefore, anyone who -exposes it for Christ bears much fruit. Such a one, therefore, hates his own -life, that is, he exposes his own life, and sows, for the sake of Christ, to -gain life everlasting: "He that goes forth weeping, bearing seed for sowing, -shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him" (Ps 126:6). -And the same is true of those who risk their wealth and other goods for the -sake of Christ, and share them with others, to obtain life everlasting: "He who -sows bountifully will also reap bountifully" (2 Cor 9:6). - +says, and he who hates his life in this world, that is, he +who denies his own life's present goods, and endures, for God, +things that seem evil in this world, will keep it for eternal +life: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' +sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:10); "If any one +comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother…yes, +and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple," as we read in +Luke (14:26).
+Note that what was said above about the grain of wheat is in +keeping with this teaching. For just as Christ was sent into the +world as a seed that was to bear fruit, so whatever temporal goods +are given to us in this life by God are not given to us as fruit, +but rather that by their means we may obtain the fruit of an +eternal reward. Indeed, our very life is a temporal gift from God +to us. Therefore, anyone who exposes it for Christ bears much +fruit. Such a one, therefore, hates his own life, that is, he +exposes his own life, and sows, for the sake of Christ, to gain +life everlasting: "He that goes forth weeping, bearing seed for +sowing, shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves +with him" (Ps 126:6). And the same is true of those who risk their +wealth and other goods for the sake of Christ, and share them with +others, to obtain life everlasting: "He who sows bountifully will +also reap bountifully" (2 Cor 9:6).
1646 Now because it seems difficult for one to hate his own -life, our Lord encourages us to do this, saying, If any one serves me, he -must follow me. First, his encouragement is given; secondly, the reason for -this encouragement (v 26b). - +life, our Lord encourages us to do this, saying, If any one +serves me, he must follow me. First, his encouragement is +given; secondly, the reason for this encouragement (v 26b).
1647 In regard to the first he does three things. First, he -describes his faithful; secondly, he urges them to imitate him; thirdly, he -indicates the reward of those who imitate him. - -
Observe, in regard to the first, -the dignity of Christ's faithful, for they are the ministers or servants of -Christ: "Are they ministers of Christ? So am I" [2 Cor 11:23]. Thus, those -serve Christ who seek the things of Christ; but those who seek their own -advantage are not servants of Christ, but servants of themselves: "They all -seek after their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ" (Phil 2:21). Priests -are servants inasmuch as they administer the sacraments to the faithful: "This -is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the -mysteries of God" (1 Cor 4:1). Again, every one of the faithful who keeps the -commandments of Christ is his servant: "Let us act in all circumstances as -God's ministers" [2 Cor 6:4]. - -
In regard to the second, observe -the glory and grandeur of the faithful of Christ, for he says, he must -follow me. This is like saying: We follow our masters, whom we serve. -Therefore, If anyone serves me, he must follow me, so that just as I -undergo death so that I might bear much fruit, so also my servant. Now to -follow Christ is a great glory: "It is a great glory to follow the Lord" [Sir -23:38]; "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (10:27). - -
In regard to the third, note the -beatitude of the faithful, for where I am, not only in the place, but -also as regards the sharing of glory, there shall my servant be also: -"Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together" (Mt 24:28); -"He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne" (Rev 3:21). - -
1648 The reason for this encouragement is given when he -says, if any one serves me, the Father will honor him, for the Father -honors anyone who serves Christ. Now above we have read: "that all may honor the -Son, even as they honor the Father" (5:23). Thus, it is the same to honor the -Son and to honor the Father. But the Father says, "Those who honor me, I will -honor" (1 Sam 2:31). Thus, the Father of Jesus will honor one who ministers to -Jesus, not seeking his own, but the things of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not say, -"I will honor him," but the Father will honor him, because these people -did not think at this time that he was equal to the Father. - -
Or, it might be said that Jesus -said this to show how intimately his servants are related to him, inasmuch as -they will be honored by the same one who honors the Son. For the honor the Son -has by his nature, they will have by grace. So Augustine says: "An adopted son -can receive no greater honor than to be where the only Son is."[21] -"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of -his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren" (Rom -8:29). -
-LECTURE 5 - -
- -27 "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? -'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this -hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name." Then a voice came from heaven, "I have -glorified it, and I will glorify it again." 29 The crowd standing by heard it -and said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him." 30 -Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not for mine. 31 Now is the -judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; 32 and -I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." 33 He said -this to show by what death he was to die.[22]
1649 Above, we saw the glory shown to Christ by various -types of people; here the Evangelist considers the glory shown to Christ by -God. First, he mentions that Christ asked for glory; secondly, the promise of -glory is made (v 28b). Concerning the first he does two things. First, the -interior state of Christ is given; secondly, he mentions the request made by -Christ. - -
1650 Note, in regard to the first, that it seems incongruous -for Christ to be saying, Now is my soul troubled, for he had urged his -faithful to hate their own lives in this world; but with his own death near at -hand, we hear the Lord himself saying, Now is my soul troubled. This -leads Augustine to say: "O Lord, You command my soul to follow. But I see your -own soul troubled. What support shall I seek, if the rock crumbles?"[23] -Thus we must first examine this troubled state of Christ, and secondly, why he -willed to undergo it. - -
1651 As to the first, we should note that, properly -speaking, a thing is said to be troubled when it is greatly agitated. Hence -when the sea is very agitated it is said to be troubled. And so whenever a -thing oversteps the bounds of its repose and tranquility, it is said to be -troubled. Now in the human soul there is a sentient area and a rational area. -The sensitive area of the soul is troubled when it becomes strongly affected by -certain movements. For example, when it is contracted by fear, raised up by -hope, dilated by joy, or otherwise affected by one or other of the emotions. -Sometimes this perturbation remains within the bounds of reason, and sometimes -it exceeds the bounds or reason, namely, when the reason itself is troubled. -And although this latter condition quite often occurs in us, it is not found in -Christ, since he is the Wisdom of the Father. Indeed, it is not found in any -wise person; thus the Stoic tenet that one who is wise is not troubled, that -is, in his reason. - -
Accordingly, the meaning of Now -is my soul troubled, is this: My soul is affected by the emotions of fear -and sadness in its sentient part; but these emotions do not trouble my reason, -and it does not abandon its own order. "He began to be greatly distressed and -troubled" (Mk 14:33). - -
Such emotions, however, exist in us -otherwise than in Christ. In us, they arise from necessity, insofar as we are -moved and affected from without, as it were. But in Christ, they are not from -necessity, but from the command of reason, since there was never any emotion in -him except that which he himself aroused. For in Christ the lower powers were -subject to his reason so perfectly that they could not act or undergo anything -except what reason appointed for them. Thus as was said above [11:33]: "he was -deeply moved in spirit and troubled himself"; "You have moved the earth," that -is, human nature, "and troubled it" [Ps 59:4]. And so the soul of Christ was -troubled in such a way that its perturbation was not opposed to reason, but -according to the order of reason. - -
1652 In regard to the second point, note that Christ willed -to be troubled for two reasons. First, to show us a doctrine of the faith, that -is, the truth of his human nature. Accordingly, as his passion was drawing -near, he did everything in a human way. Secondly, he wanted to be an example -for us. For if he had remained unmoved and had felt no emotions in his soul, he -would not have been a satisfactory example of how we should face death. And so -he willed to be troubled in order that when we are troubled at the prospect of -death, we will not refuse to endure it, we will not run away: "For we have not -a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in -every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). - -
1653 The relationship of this with what came before is clear. -He encouraged his disciples to suffer when he said: "He who hates his life in -this world will keep it for eternal life." But some might say to him: "Lord, -you can calmly discuss and philosophize about death because you are above human -sorrows, and death does not trouble you." It was to counter this that he willed -to be troubled. This disturbance in Christ was natural: for just as the soul -naturally loves union with its body, so it naturally shrinks separation from -it, especially since the reason of Christ allowed his soul and its inferior -powers to act in their own proper way. - +describes his faithful; secondly, he urges them to imitate him; +thirdly, he indicates the reward of those who imitate him.
+Observe, in regard to the first, the dignity of Christ's +faithful, for they are the ministers or servants of Christ: "Are +they ministers of Christ? So am I" [2 Cor 11:23]. Thus, those serve +Christ who seek the things of Christ; but those who seek their own +advantage are not servants of Christ, but servants of themselves: +"They all seek after their own interests, not those of Jesus +Christ" (Phil 2:21). Priests are servants inasmuch as they +administer the sacraments to the faithful: "This is how one should +regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of +God" (1 Cor 4:1). Again, every one of the faithful who keeps the +commandments of Christ is his servant: "Let us act in all +circumstances as God's ministers" [2 Cor 6:4].
+In regard to the second, observe the glory and grandeur of the +faithful of Christ, for he says, he must follow me. This is +like saying: We follow our masters, whom we serve. Therefore, If +anyone serves me, he must follow me, so that just as I undergo +death so that I might bear much fruit, so also my servant. Now to +follow Christ is a great glory: "It is a great glory to follow the +Lord" [Sir 23:38]; "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and +they follow me" (10:27).
+In regard to the third, note the beatitude of the faithful, for +where I am, not only in the place, but also as regards the +sharing of glory, there shall my servant be also: "Wherever +the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together" (Mt +24:28); "He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my +throne" (Rev 3:21).
+1648 The reason for this encouragement is given when he says, +if any one serves me, the Father will honor him, for the +Father honors anyone who serves Christ. Now above we have read: +"that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (5:23). +Thus, it is the same to honor the Son and to honor the Father. But +the Father says, "Those who honor me, I will honor" (1 Sam 2:31). +Thus, the Father of Jesus will honor one who ministers to Jesus, +not seeking his own, but the things of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not +say, "I will honor him," but the Father will honor him, +because these people did not think at this time that he was equal +to the Father.
+Or, it might be said that Jesus said this to show how intimately +his servants are related to him, inasmuch as they will be honored +by the same one who honors the Son. For the honor the Son has by +his nature, they will have by grace. So Augustine says: "An adopted +son can receive no greater honor than to be where the only Son +is."[21] "For +those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the +image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among +many brethren" (Rom 8:29).
+
+
+LECTURE 5
+++27 "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, +save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this +hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name." Then a voice came from heaven, +"I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." 29 The crowd +standing by heard it and said that it had thundered. Others said, +"An angel has spoken to him." 30 Jesus answered, "This voice has +come for your sake, not for mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this +world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; 32 and I, +when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." +33 He said this to show by what death he was to die.[22]
+1649 Above, we saw the glory shown to Christ by various types of +people; here the Evangelist considers the glory shown to Christ by +God. First, he mentions that Christ asked for glory; secondly, the +promise of glory is made (v 28b). Concerning the first he does two +things. First, the interior state of Christ is given; secondly, he +mentions the request made by Christ.
+1650 Note, in regard to the first, that it seems incongruous for +Christ to be saying, Now is my soul troubled, for he had +urged his faithful to hate their own lives in this world; but with +his own death near at hand, we hear the Lord himself saying, Now +is my soul troubled. This leads Augustine to say: "O Lord, You +command my soul to follow. But I see your own soul troubled. What +support shall I seek, if the rock crumbles?"[23] Thus we must first examine this +troubled state of Christ, and secondly, why he willed to undergo +it.
+1651 As to the first, we should note that, properly speaking, a +thing is said to be troubled when it is greatly agitated. Hence +when the sea is very agitated it is said to be troubled. And so +whenever a thing oversteps the bounds of its repose and +tranquility, it is said to be troubled. Now in the human soul there +is a sentient area and a rational area. The sensitive area of the +soul is troubled when it becomes strongly affected by certain +movements. For example, when it is contracted by fear, raised up by +hope, dilated by joy, or otherwise affected by one or other of the +emotions. Sometimes this perturbation remains within the bounds of +reason, and sometimes it exceeds the bounds or reason, namely, when +the reason itself is troubled. And although this latter condition +quite often occurs in us, it is not found in Christ, since he is +the Wisdom of the Father. Indeed, it is not found in any wise +person; thus the Stoic tenet that one who is wise is not troubled, +that is, in his reason.
+Accordingly, the meaning of Now is my soul troubled, is +this: My soul is affected by the emotions of fear and sadness in +its sentient part; but these emotions do not trouble my reason, and +it does not abandon its own order. "He began to be greatly +distressed and troubled" (Mk 14:33).
+Such emotions, however, exist in us otherwise than in Christ. In +us, they arise from necessity, insofar as we are moved and affected +from without, as it were. But in Christ, they are not from +necessity, but from the command of reason, since there was never +any emotion in him except that which he himself aroused. For in +Christ the lower powers were subject to his reason so perfectly +that they could not act or undergo anything except what reason +appointed for them. Thus as was said above [11:33]: "he was deeply +moved in spirit and troubled himself"; "You have moved the earth," +that is, human nature, "and troubled it" [Ps 59:4]. And so the soul +of Christ was troubled in such a way that its perturbation was not +opposed to reason, but according to the order of reason.
+1652 In regard to the second point, note that Christ willed to +be troubled for two reasons. First, to show us a doctrine of the +faith, that is, the truth of his human nature. Accordingly, as his +passion was drawing near, he did everything in a human way. +Secondly, he wanted to be an example for us. For if he had remained +unmoved and had felt no emotions in his soul, he would not have +been a satisfactory example of how we should face death. And so he +willed to be troubled in order that when we are troubled at the +prospect of death, we will not refuse to endure it, we will not run +away: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize +with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as +we are, yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15).
+1653 The relationship of this with what came before is clear. He +encouraged his disciples to suffer when he said: "He who hates his +life in this world will keep it for eternal life." But some might +say to him: "Lord, you can calmly discuss and philosophize about +death because you are above human sorrows, and death does not +trouble you." It was to counter this that he willed to be troubled. +This disturbance in Christ was natural: for just as the soul +naturally loves union with its body, so it naturally shrinks +separation from it, especially since the reason of Christ allowed +his soul and its inferior powers to act in their own proper +way.
1654 Again, when he said, Now is my soul troubled, he -refuted the error of Arius and Apollinaris. For they said that Christ did not -have a soul, and in place of his soul they substituted the Word. - +refuted the error of Arius and Apollinaris. For they said that +Christ did not have a soul, and in place of his soul they +substituted the Word.
1655 Then our Lord makes his petition for glory, saying, And -what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour [understood here not as a -question, but as a petition]. Here our Lord takes upon himself the emotions of -one who is troubled. And acting as one troubled, he does four things in his -petition. First, he poses a question, as one does when deliberating about what -is to be done; secondly, he makes a request which arises from a certain -inclination; thirdly, he rejects this inclination for a particular reason; and -fourthly, he makes another request that arises from a different inclination. - -
1656 He poses this question as one does when in doubt, -because it is natural to deliberate about what to do when one is perplexed. So -the Philosopher says in his Rhetoric that fear makes a person take -counsel.[24] Thus, after mentioning -that he is troubled, Christ at once adds, And what shall I say? It is -the same as saying: "What shall I do in my trouble." Something like this is met -in Psalm 55 (v 5): "Fear and trembling came upon me," and then follows, "O that -I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be at rest." For both the -perplexed and the emotionally disturbed are weighed down and look for help to -relieve themselves. - -
1657 He makes his petition, arising from a certain -inclination, because when one is hesitant about what he should do, he ought to -turn to God: "We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon thee" (2 Chron -20:12); "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains from whence help will come -to me" [Ps 120:1]. And so, turning to the Father, he says, Father save me, -that is, from the sufferings which await me at the hour of my passion: "Save -me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck" (Ps 69:1). According to -Augustine, what our Lord says here - Now is my soul troubled and Father, -save me - is the same as what he says in Matthew (26:38): "My soul is very -sorrowful, even to death."[25] - -
1658 Note that this petition is not made as though it arose -from the inclination of reason; rather, reason is speaking as an advocate of -the natural inclination not to die. And so in this petition reason is pointing -out the impulse of a natural inclination. - -
This explanation solves a question -which is frequently raised. For we read: "In all things he was heard for his -reverence" [Heb 5:7]; and yet in this case, Christ was not heard. The answer to -this is that Christ was heard in those matters in which his petition came from -reason itself and which he intended to be granted. But the petition he made -here did not come from reason, nor was it intended to be granted, rather, it -expressed a natural inclination. Thus Chrysostom reads it as a question, that -is, as: And what shall I say? Shall I say, Father, save me from this -hour? It is the same as saying: "No! I will not say this."[26] - +what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour [understood +here not as a question, but as a petition]. Here our Lord takes +upon himself the emotions of one who is troubled. And acting as one +troubled, he does four things in his petition. First, he poses a +question, as one does when deliberating about what is to be done; +secondly, he makes a request which arises from a certain +inclination; thirdly, he rejects this inclination for a particular +reason; and fourthly, he makes another request that arises from a +different inclination.
+1656 He poses this question as one does when in doubt, because +it is natural to deliberate about what to do when one is perplexed. +So the Philosopher says in his Rhetoric that fear makes a +person take counsel.[24] Thus, after mentioning that he is troubled, +Christ at once adds, And what shall I say? It is the same as +saying: "What shall I do in my trouble." Something like this is met +in Psalm 55 (v 5): "Fear and trembling came upon me," and then +follows, "O that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be +at rest." For both the perplexed and the emotionally disturbed are +weighed down and look for help to relieve themselves.
+1657 He makes his petition, arising from a certain inclination, +because when one is hesitant about what he should do, he ought to +turn to God: "We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon +thee" (2 Chron 20:12); "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains +from whence help will come to me" [Ps 120:1]. And so, turning to +the Father, he says, Father save me, that is, from the +sufferings which await me at the hour of my passion: "Save me, O +God! For the waters have come up to my neck" (Ps 69:1). According +to Augustine, what our Lord says here - Now is my soul +troubled and Father, save me - is the same as what he +says in Matthew (26:38): "My soul is very sorrowful, even to +death."[25]
+1658 Note that this petition is not made as though it arose from +the inclination of reason; rather, reason is speaking as an +advocate of the natural inclination not to die. And so in this +petition reason is pointing out the impulse of a natural +inclination.
+This explanation solves a question which is frequently raised. +For we read: "In all things he was heard for his reverence" [Heb +5:7]; and yet in this case, Christ was not heard. The answer to +this is that Christ was heard in those matters in which his +petition came from reason itself and which he intended to be +granted. But the petition he made here did not come from reason, +nor was it intended to be granted, rather, it expressed a natural +inclination. Thus Chrysostom reads it as a question, that is, as: +And what shall I say? Shall I say, Father, save me from +this hour? It is the same as saying: "No! I will not say +this."[26]
1659 Yet Christ rejects this petition, which arose from an -inclination of the natural appetite, when he says, No, for this purpose I -have come to this hour. It is the same as saying: It is not right that I be -freed from this time of suffering, because I came to suffer; and not as -compelled by the necessity of fate or forced by the violence of me, but by -willingly offering myself: "He was offered because it was his own will" [Is -53:7]; "No ones take it," my life, "from me, but I lay it down of my own -accord" (10:18). - -
1660 Now his reason proposes its own petition when he says, Father, -glorify thy name. Thy name can be understood in two ways. First, it can -mean the Son himself. For a name (nomen) - which comes from the word for -knowledge or being known (notitia) - is like a sign (notamen). -Thus a name is what manifests a thing. Now the Son manifests the Father: -"Father…I have manifested thy name" (17:6). We read of this name: "Behold, the -name of the Lord comes from far" (Is 30:27). So the meaning in this: Father, -glorify thy name, that is, your Son: "And now, Father, glorify thou me in -thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was -made" (17:5). Or, the name of the Lord indicates the knowledge which men have -of the Father, then the meaning is, Father, glorify thy name, that is, -do what is for the glory of your name. Yet it comes to the same thing, because -when the Son is glorified the name of the Father is glorified. He says this -because the Son was going to be glorified by his passion: "He became obedient," -to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God has highly -exalted him" (Phil 2:8). - -
He is saying here in effect: By the -desire of nature I ask to be saved, but my reason asks that your name be glorified, -that is, that the Son suffer, because it was by the passion of Christ that men -were to receive their knowledge of God and glorify him. For before the passion -God was known only in Judea, and his name was great in Israel; but after the -passion, God's name was glorified even among the Gentiles. - -
1661 Then when the Evangelist says, Then a voice came -from heaven, the promise of glory is given. First, the voice promising -glory is heard; secondly, the crowd expresses its opinion (v 29); lastly, the -meaning of the voice is explained (v 30). - +inclination of the natural appetite, when he says, No, for this +purpose I have come to this hour. It is the same as saying: It +is not right that I be freed from this time of suffering, because I +came to suffer; and not as compelled by the necessity of fate or +forced by the violence of me, but by willingly offering myself: "He +was offered because it was his own will" [Is 53:7]; "No ones take +it," my life, "from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" +(10:18).
+1660 Now his reason proposes its own petition when he says, +Father, glorify thy name. Thy name can be understood in two +ways. First, it can mean the Son himself. For a name (nomen) +- which comes from the word for knowledge or being known +(notitia) - is like a sign (notamen). Thus a name is +what manifests a thing. Now the Son manifests the Father: +"Father…I have manifested thy name" (17:6). We read of this +name: "Behold, the name of the Lord comes from far" (Is 30:27). So +the meaning in this: Father, glorify thy name, that is, your +Son: "And now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the +glory which I had with thee before the world was made" (17:5). Or, +the name of the Lord indicates the knowledge which men have of the +Father, then the meaning is, Father, glorify thy name, that +is, do what is for the glory of your name. Yet it comes to the same +thing, because when the Son is glorified the name of the Father is +glorified. He says this because the Son was going to be glorified +by his passion: "He became obedient," to the Father, "unto death, +even death on a cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him" (Phil +2:8).
+He is saying here in effect: By the desire of nature I ask to be +saved, but my reason asks that your name be glorified, that is, +that the Son suffer, because it was by the passion of Christ that +men were to receive their knowledge of God and glorify him. For +before the passion God was known only in Judea, and his name was +great in Israel; but after the passion, God's name was glorified +even among the Gentiles.
+1661 Then when the Evangelist says, Then a voice came from +heaven, the promise of glory is given. First, the voice +promising glory is heard; secondly, the crowd expresses its opinion +(v 29); lastly, the meaning of the voice is explained (v 30).
1662 With regard to the first, he says, Then a voice came -from heaven. This is the voice of God the Father. It was the same voice -that was heard when Christ was baptized, "This is my beloved Son" (Mt 3:17), -and at his transfiguration (Mt 17:5). Although every voice of this kind was -formed by the power of the entire Trinity, this was specifically formed to -represent the person of the Father; thus it is referred to as the voice of the -Father. In a similar manner the dove was formed by the entire Trinity to -signify the person of the Holy Spirit. And again, the body of Christ was formed -by the entire Trinity, but specifically assumed by the person of the Word -because it had been formed to be united to him. - -
This voice, then, does two things. -First, it reveals the past, when saying, I have glorified it, that is, I -have begotten you as glorious from all eternity, because the Son is a certain -glory and splendor of the Father: "For she [Wisdom] is a reflection of eternal -light, a spotless mirror of the working of God" (Wis 7:26); "He reflects the -glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Heb 1:3). Or, I have -glorified it at your birth, when the angels sang: "Glory to God in the -highest" (Lk 2:14) and in the miracles the Father performed through him. - -
Secondly, the voice foretells what -is to come: and I will glorify it again, in the passion, in which Christ -triumphed over the devil, and in the resurrection and the ascension, and in the -conversion of all the world: "The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the -God of our fathers, glorified his Son Jesus" [Acts 3:13]. - -
1663 Next we see the opinion of the crowd, which was -wondering about the voice, The crowd standing by heard it and said. In -this crowd, as in every other, some were dull and slow to understand, and -others were more perceptive; yet all of them failed to identify the voice. -Those who were slow and carnal only heard it as a sound; so they said that -it had thundered. Still, they were not entirely mistaken, for the Lord's -voice was thunder, both because it had an extraordinary meaning, and because it -contained very great things: "How small a whisper do we hear of him! But the -thunder of his power who can understand?" (Job 26:14); "The voice of your -thunder" [Ps 76:19]. - -
Those who were keener discerned -that the sound was a voice, pronouncing words and having a meaning; so they -said someone was speaking. But because they thought that Christ was merely -human they erred, attributing these words to an angel. So they said that, An -angel has spoken to him. They were under the same error as the devil, who -thought that Christ needed the help of the angels: thus he said: "He will give -his angels charge of you" (Mt 4:6). But he did not need to be guarded and -helped by angels; rather, he is the one who glorifies and guards the angels. - +from heaven. This is the voice of God the Father. It was the +same voice that was heard when Christ was baptized, "This is my +beloved Son" (Mt 3:17), and at his transfiguration (Mt 17:5). +Although every voice of this kind was formed by the power of the +entire Trinity, this was specifically formed to represent the +person of the Father; thus it is referred to as the voice of the +Father. In a similar manner the dove was formed by the entire +Trinity to signify the person of the Holy Spirit. And again, the +body of Christ was formed by the entire Trinity, but specifically +assumed by the person of the Word because it had been formed to be +united to him.
+This voice, then, does two things. First, it reveals the past, +when saying, I have glorified it, that is, I have begotten +you as glorious from all eternity, because the Son is a certain +glory and splendor of the Father: "For she [Wisdom] is a reflection +of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God" (Wis +7:26); "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of +his nature" (Heb 1:3). Or, I have glorified it at your +birth, when the angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest" (Lk +2:14) and in the miracles the Father performed through him.
+Secondly, the voice foretells what is to come: and I will +glorify it again, in the passion, in which Christ triumphed +over the devil, and in the resurrection and the ascension, and in +the conversion of all the world: "The God of Abraham and of Isaac +and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his Son Jesus" +[Acts 3:13].
+1663 Next we see the opinion of the crowd, which was wondering +about the voice, The crowd standing by heard it and said. In +this crowd, as in every other, some were dull and slow to +understand, and others were more perceptive; yet all of them failed +to identify the voice. Those who were slow and carnal only heard it +as a sound; so they said that it had thundered. Still, they +were not entirely mistaken, for the Lord's voice was thunder, both +because it had an extraordinary meaning, and because it contained +very great things: "How small a whisper do we hear of him! But the +thunder of his power who can understand?" (Job 26:14); "The voice +of your thunder" [Ps 76:19].
+Those who were keener discerned that the sound was a voice, +pronouncing words and having a meaning; so they said someone was +speaking. But because they thought that Christ was merely human +they erred, attributing these words to an angel. So they said that, +An angel has spoken to him. They were under the same error +as the devil, who thought that Christ needed the help of the +angels: thus he said: "He will give his angels charge of you" (Mt +4:6). But he did not need to be guarded and helped by angels; +rather, he is the one who glorifies and guards the angels.
1664 The voice is explained when he says, Jesus answered. -First, he explains the voice; secondly, he mentions the answer given by the -people (v 34); and thirdly, our Lord's answer (v 35). He does two things about -the first: first he mentions the reason for the voice; and secondly, he adds -its meaning (v 31). - +First, he explains the voice; secondly, he mentions the answer +given by the people (v 34); and thirdly, our Lord's answer (v 35). +He does two things about the first: first he mentions the reason +for the voice; and secondly, he adds its meaning (v 31).
1665 It should be noted in regard to the first that they had -said, An angel has spoken to him. Now an angel speaks by revealing -something that will profit the one to whom he speaks, as is clear in Revelation -(ch 1) and in Ezekiel (ch 1). And so to show that he did not need this voice or -any revelation from an angel, our Lord says, This voice has come for your -sake, not for mine, that is, it has not come to instruct me. For this voice -mentioned nothing he did no know before, because "in him are hid all the -treasures of wisdom and of knowledge" (Col 2:2), so that he knew all that the -Father knew. But it has come for your sake, that is, for your instruction. -From this we can understand that many things relating to Christ were, in God's -plan, allowed to take place not because Christ needed them, but for our sakes: -"For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction" (Rom -15:4). - +said, An angel has spoken to him. Now an angel speaks by +revealing something that will profit the one to whom he speaks, as +is clear in Revelation (ch 1) and in Ezekiel (ch 1). And so to show +that he did not need this voice or any revelation from an angel, +our Lord says, This voice has come for your sake, not for +mine, that is, it has not come to instruct me. For this voice +mentioned nothing he did no know before, because "in him are hid +all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge" (Col 2:2), so that he +knew all that the Father knew. But it has come for your +sake, that is, for your instruction. From this we can +understand that many things relating to Christ were, in God's plan, +allowed to take place not because Christ needed them, but for our +sakes: "For whatever was written in former days was written for our +instruction" (Rom 15:4).
1666 He says, Now is the judgment of this world, he -states the meaning of this voice. First, he mentions the judgment by which he -would be glorified; secondly, the effect of this judgment (v 31b); and thirdly, -the way he will be glorified (v 32). - -
1667 He says, Now is the judgment of this world. But -if this is true, why do we expect that our Lord will come again to judge? The -answer is that now he comes to judge with a judgment of distinction or -discernment, by which he discerns his own from those who are not his: "For -judgment I came into this world" (9:39). This is what he is speaking of when he -says, Now is the judgment of this world. But he will come again to judge -with the judgment of condemnation, for which he did not come the first time: -"For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the -world might be saved through him" (3:17). - -
Or, we might say that there are two -kinds of judgment. One is that which condemns the world; and this is not -referred to here. The other is the judgment which will be in favor of the -world, insofar as the world is set free from servitude to the devil. This is -the way the Psalm is understood: "O Lord! Judge those who wrong me; overthrow -those who fight against me" [Ps 34:1]. But this judgment and the judgment of -distinction are the same, because by the very fact that the judgment is in -favor of the world by casting out the devil, the good are distinguished from -the wicked. - +states the meaning of this voice. First, he mentions the judgment +by which he would be glorified; secondly, the effect of this +judgment (v 31b); and thirdly, the way he will be glorified (v +32).
+1667 He says, Now is the judgment of this world. But if +this is true, why do we expect that our Lord will come again to +judge? The answer is that now he comes to judge with a judgment of +distinction or discernment, by which he discerns his own from those +who are not his: "For judgment I came into this world" (9:39). This +is what he is speaking of when he says, Now is the judgment of +this world. But he will come again to judge with the judgment +of condemnation, for which he did not come the first time: "For God +sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the +world might be saved through him" (3:17).
+Or, we might say that there are two kinds of judgment. One is +that which condemns the world; and this is not referred to here. +The other is the judgment which will be in favor of the world, +insofar as the world is set free from servitude to the devil. This +is the way the Psalm is understood: "O Lord! Judge those who wrong +me; overthrow those who fight against me" [Ps 34:1]. But this +judgment and the judgment of distinction are the same, because by +the very fact that the judgment is in favor of the world by casting +out the devil, the good are distinguished from the wicked.
1668 The effect of this judgment is the casting out of the -devil. So he says, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out, by the -power of the passion of Christ. Thus the passion of Christ is his -glorification; and this explains what he had said, I will glorify it, -insofar as the ruler of this world shall be cast out, since Christ has the -victory over the devil by his passion. "The reason the Son of God appeared was -to destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8). - -
1669 A difficulty arises here on three points. First, -because he says that the devil is the ruler or prince of this world. It was -this that led the Manicheans to call him the creator and lord of everything -that was visible. The answer is that the devil is called the ruler of this -world not by a natural right, but by usurpation, insofar as worldly people, -rejecting the true Lord, subject themselves to him: "The god of this world has -blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4). Thus, he is the ruler of -this world insofar as he rules those who are worldly, as St. Augustine says, +devil. So he says, now shall the ruler of this world be cast +out, by the power of the passion of Christ. Thus the passion of +Christ is his glorification; and this explains what he had said, +I will glorify it, insofar as the ruler of this world shall be +cast out, since Christ has the victory over the devil by his +passion. "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the +works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8).
+1669 A difficulty arises here on three points. First, because he +says that the devil is the ruler or prince of this world. It was +this that led the Manicheans to call him the creator and lord of +everything that was visible. The answer is that the devil is called +the ruler of this world not by a natural right, but by usurpation, +insofar as worldly people, rejecting the true Lord, subject +themselves to him: "The god of this world has blinded the minds of +the unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4). Thus, he is the ruler of this world +insofar as he rules those who are worldly, as St. Augustine says, and these are spread throughout the entire world.[27] -For the word "world" is sometimes taken in a pejorative sense to mean those who -love the world: "The world knew him not" (1:10). Yet sometimes it is taken in a -good sense to indicate those who are good and live in the world in such a way -that they are citizens of heaven: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to -himself" (2 Cor 5:19). - -
1670 The second difficulty concerns the fact that the ruler -of this world is said to be cast out. For if he had truly been cast out, he -would not longer tempt us now as he did before; yet he continues to tempt us. -Therefore, he was not cast out. Augustine answers this by saying that although -the devil may tempt those who have ceased to be of the world, he does not tempt -them in the same way as he did before. For before he tempted and ruled them -from within, but now he does so only from without. For as long as men are in -sin, he rules and tempts them from within: "Let not sin therefore reign in your -mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions" (Rom 6:12). And so he was cast -out because the effect of sin in man is not [now] from within but from without. [28] - -
1671 Thirdly, there is a difficulty from the fact that he -says, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out. For it seems to -follow from this that he had not been cast out before the passion of Christ, -and consequently, if he is cast out only when men are set free from sin, it -seems that Abraham, Isaac and the other men of the Old Testament were not set -free from sin. The answer, according to Augustine, is that before the passion -of Christ he had been cast out of individual persons, but not from the world, -as he was to be later.[29] For what formerly took -place in only a few men, but now happens in many Jews and Gentiles who have -converted to Christ, is recognized to have been accomplished by the passion of -Christ. - -
Or, it might be said that the devil -is cast out by the fact that men are set free from sin; but before the passion -of Christ all the just had been set free from sin, although not entirely, -because they were still kept from entering the kingdom. In this respect, -therefore, the devil had some right over them which was entirely taken away by -the passion of Christ, when the fiery sword was removed, when Christ said to -the man: "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (23:43). - -
1672 The form or manner of this passion would be by being -lifted up; thus he says, and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will -draw all men [all things] to myself. In regard to this, Chrysostom has the -following example: If a tyrant, accustomed to oppress and rage against his -subjects and cast them into chains, were in his madness to treat in the same -way some one who was not subject to him and cast him into the same prison, then -he would deserve that even his dominion over the others be taken from him.[30] -This is what Christ did against the devil. For the devil had some right over -men because of the sin of the first parent; and so in some sense he could -justly rage against them. But since he dared to try the same things with -Christ, over whom he had no right, assailing him in whom he had no part, as the -tempter, it was fitting that he be deprived of his dominion by the death of -Christ. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to -myself. First, he describes the manner of his death; secondly, the -Evangelist explains it, saying, he said this to show by what death he was to -die, for he would die by being lifted up on the wood of the cross. - -
1673 Here we should note that there are two reasons why the -Lord willed to die the death of the cross. First, because it is a shameful -death: "Let us condemn him to a shameful death" (Wis 2:20). So Augustine says: -"The Lord willed to die in this way so that not even a shameful death would -keep a person from the perfection of righteousness."[31] - -
Secondly, because such a death -involves a lifting up; so our Lord says, when I am lifted up. Such a -manner of death was in harmony with the fruit, the reason and the symbol of the -passion. It was in harmony with its fruit, because it was by the passion that Christ -was to be lifted up, exalted: "He became obedient unto death, even death on a -cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him" (Phil 2:8). Thus the Psalmist -said: "Be exalted, O Lord, in thy strength!" (Ps 2:8). - -
It harmonized with the reason for -the passion, and in two ways: both with respect to men and with respect to the -devil. With respect to me, because he died for their salvation. For they had -perished, because they were cast down and sunk in earthly things: "they have -set their eyes bowing down to the earth" [Ps 16:11]. Thus he willed to die -raised up in order to lift our hearts up to heavenly things. For in this way he -is our way into heaven. With respect to the devils, it was fitting in the sense -that those who exercised their principality and power in the air were trod -under foot by him while he was raised in the air. - -
Finally, it harmonized with the -symbol, because the Lord commanded that a bronze serpent be fashioned in the -desert, as recorded in Numbers (21:9), and above: "And as Moses lifted up the -serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up" (3:14). And so -thus lifted up I will draw all things to myself, through love "I have -loved you with an everlasting love, therefore have I drawn you, taking pity on -you" [Jer 31:3]. - -
Furthermore, the love of God for -men appears most clearly in the fact that he condescended to die for them: "God -shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us," as -we read in Romans (5:8). By doing this he fulfilled the request of the bride: -"Draw me after you, and we will run to the aroma of your perfume" [Song 1:3]. - +name="_ftnref27" id="_ftnref27">[27] For the word "world" is +sometimes taken in a pejorative sense to mean those who love the +world: "The world knew him not" (1:10). Yet sometimes it is taken +in a good sense to indicate those who are good and live in the +world in such a way that they are citizens of heaven: "God was in +Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).
+1670 The second difficulty concerns the fact that the ruler of +this world is said to be cast out. For if he had truly been cast +out, he would not longer tempt us now as he did before; yet he +continues to tempt us. Therefore, he was not cast out. Augustine +answers this by saying that although the devil may tempt those who +have ceased to be of the world, he does not tempt them in the same +way as he did before. For before he tempted and ruled them from +within, but now he does so only from without. For as long as men +are in sin, he rules and tempts them from within: "Let not sin +therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their +passions" (Rom 6:12). And so he was cast out because the effect of +sin in man is not [now] from within but from without. [28]
+1671 Thirdly, there is a difficulty from the fact that he says, +now shall the ruler of this world be cast out. For it seems +to follow from this that he had not been cast out before the +passion of Christ, and consequently, if he is cast out only when +men are set free from sin, it seems that Abraham, Isaac and the +other men of the Old Testament were not set free from sin. The +answer, according to Augustine, is that before the passion of +Christ he had been cast out of individual persons, but not from the +world, as he was to be later.[29] For what formerly took place in only a few +men, but now happens in many Jews and Gentiles who have converted +to Christ, is recognized to have been accomplished by the passion +of Christ.
+Or, it might be said that the devil is cast out by the fact that +men are set free from sin; but before the passion of Christ all the +just had been set free from sin, although not entirely, because +they were still kept from entering the kingdom. In this respect, +therefore, the devil had some right over them which was entirely +taken away by the passion of Christ, when the fiery sword was +removed, when Christ said to the man: "Today you will be with me in +Paradise" (23:43).
+1672 The form or manner of this passion would be by being lifted +up; thus he says, and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, +will draw all men [all things] to myself. In regard to this, +Chrysostom has the following example: If a tyrant, accustomed to +oppress and rage against his subjects and cast them into chains, +were in his madness to treat in the same way some one who was not +subject to him and cast him into the same prison, then he would +deserve that even his dominion over the others be taken from +him.[30] This +is what Christ did against the devil. For the devil had some right +over men because of the sin of the first parent; and so in some +sense he could justly rage against them. But since he dared to try +the same things with Christ, over whom he had no right, assailing +him in whom he had no part, as the tempter, it was fitting that he +be deprived of his dominion by the death of Christ. And I, when +I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. +First, he describes the manner of his death; secondly, the +Evangelist explains it, saying, he said this to show by what +death he was to die, for he would die by being lifted up on the +wood of the cross.
+1673 Here we should note that there are two reasons why the Lord +willed to die the death of the cross. First, because it is a +shameful death: "Let us condemn him to a shameful death" (Wis +2:20). So Augustine says: "The Lord willed to die in this way so +that not even a shameful death would keep a person from the +perfection of righteousness."[31]
+Secondly, because such a death involves a lifting up; so our +Lord says, when I am lifted up. Such a manner of death was +in harmony with the fruit, the reason and the symbol of the +passion. It was in harmony with its fruit, because it was by the +passion that Christ was to be lifted up, exalted: "He became +obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has +highly exalted him" (Phil 2:8). Thus the Psalmist said: "Be +exalted, O Lord, in thy strength!" (Ps 2:8).
+It harmonized with the reason for the passion, and in two ways: +both with respect to men and with respect to the devil. With +respect to me, because he died for their salvation. For they had +perished, because they were cast down and sunk in earthly things: +"they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth" [Ps 16:11]. +Thus he willed to die raised up in order to lift our hearts up to +heavenly things. For in this way he is our way into heaven. With +respect to the devils, it was fitting in the sense that those who +exercised their principality and power in the air were trod under +foot by him while he was raised in the air.
+Finally, it harmonized with the symbol, because the Lord +commanded that a bronze serpent be fashioned in the desert, as +recorded in Numbers (21:9), and above: "And as Moses lifted up the +serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up" +(3:14). And so thus lifted up I will draw all things to +myself, through love "I have loved you with an everlasting +love, therefore have I drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer +31:3].
+Furthermore, the love of God for men appears most clearly in the +fact that he condescended to die for them: "God shows his love for +us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us," as we +read in Romans (5:8). By doing this he fulfilled the request of the +bride: "Draw me after you, and we will run to the aroma of your +perfume" [Song 1:3].
1674 Here we may note that the Father draws and the Son also -draws: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44). -He says here, I will draw all things, in order to show that the same -action belongs to both of them. And he says, all things, and not "all -men," because not all men are drawn to the Son. I will draw all things, -that is, the body and the soul; or all types of men, such as Gentiles and Jews, -servants and freemen, male and female; or, all who are predestined to -salvation. - -
Finally, we should note that to draw all things to himself -is for Christ to cast out the prince of this world, for Christ has no -fellowship with Belial, nor light with darkness (2 Cor 6:15). -
-LECTURE 6 - -
- -34 The crowd answered him, "We have heard from the law -that the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of man must be -lifted up? Who is this Son of man? 35 Jesus said to them, "The light is with -you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness -overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. 36 -While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of -light. "When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them.[32]
1675 Having mentioned the promised glorification of the Lord -and explaining the voice, the Evangelist now describes the doubt which -prevailed among the crowd. First, they introduce the authority of the Law; and -secondly, they raise a problem based on it (v 34). - -
1676 In regard to the first the Evangelist says, The -crowd answered him, that is, the Lord, who was speaking of his death, We -have heard from the law, and law is taken here for the entire Old -Testament that the Christ remains for ever. This can be gathered from -many passages of the Old Testament, especially from Isaiah (9:7): "Of the -increase of his government and of peace there will be no end"; and in Daniel -(7:14): "His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, -and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." - +draws: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws +him" (6:44). He says here, I will draw all things, in order +to show that the same action belongs to both of them. And he says, +all things, and not "all men," because not all men are drawn +to the Son. I will draw all things, that is, the body and +the soul; or all types of men, such as Gentiles and Jews, servants +and freemen, male and female; or, all who are predestined to +salvation.
+Finally, we should note that to draw all things to himself is +for Christ to cast out the prince of this world, for Christ has no +fellowship with Belial, nor light with darkness (2 Cor 6:15).
+
+
+LECTURE 6
+++34 The crowd answered him, "We have heard from the law that +the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of man +must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man? 35 Jesus said to them, +"The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the +light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness +does not know where he goes. 36 While you have the light, believe +in the light, that you may become sons of light. "When Jesus had +said this, he departed and hid himself from them.[32]
+1675 Having mentioned the promised glorification of the Lord and +explaining the voice, the Evangelist now describes the doubt which +prevailed among the crowd. First, they introduce the authority of +the Law; and secondly, they raise a problem based on it (v 34).
+1676 In regard to the first the Evangelist says, The crowd +answered him, that is, the Lord, who was speaking of his death, +We have heard from the law, and law is taken here for the +entire Old Testament that the Christ remains for ever. This +can be gathered from many passages of the Old Testament, especially +from Isaiah (9:7): "Of the increase of his government and of peace +there will be no end"; and in Daniel (7:14): "His dominion is an +everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom +one that shall not be destroyed."
1677 Basing themselves on this authority, they formulate two -doubts: one concerns a fact, and the other the person. As concerns the fact, -they say, How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? But -since Christ did not say that "the Son of man must be lifted up," but "and I, -when I am lifted up," why do the Jews say that "the Son of man" must be lifted -up? The answer to this is that the Jews were now accustomed to our Lord's words; -thus they remembered that he called himself the Son of man. And so when he -said, "And I, when I am lifted up," they took it to mean, "If the Son of man is -lifted up," as Augustine says.[33] Or, one might answer -that although Christ did not here mention the Son of man, yet earlier he had -said: "The Son of man must be lifted up" (3:14). - -
1678 Yet it seems that their statement, The Son of man -must be lifted up, is in no way opposed to the statement that the Christ -remains for ever. The answer is that since our Lord was accustomed to speak -to them in figurative language, they understood much of what was said in that -way. And so they also suspected that when our Lord spoke of being lifted up, he -was referring to death on the cross: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, -then you will know," as we read above (8:28). Or, it could be said that they -understood it in this sense because they had already thought of doing that very -thing. Thus it was not the sharpness of their understanding that gave them this -interpretation of these words, but an awareness of their own wickedness. - -
1679 Note their wickedness, for they do not say: "We have -heard from the law that the Christ does not suffer," because in many places of -the law reference is made to his passion and resurrection: as "Like a lamb that -is led to the slaughter" (Is 53:7); "I have slept and taken my rest: and I have -risen up" [Ps 3:7]. Rather, they say, the Christ remains for ever. The -reason for this is that the former would not have involved any opposition, since -no obstacle to Christ's immortality arises from the mere fact of his suffering. -In other words, as Chrysostom says, they wished to show that he was not the -Christ for the reason that the Christ remains for ever.[34] - -
1680 They raise a question concerning his person when they -say, Who is this Son of man? They ask this because it says in Daniel -(7:13): "And behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of -man, and he came to the Ancient of Days"; and by that Son of man they -understood the Christ. It is as though they were saying: "You say the Son of -man must be lifted up; yet the Son of man, whom we take to be the Christ, -remains forever. So Who is this Son of man? If he does not remain for -ever, neither is he the Christ." In this they deserve to be reprimanded for -their dullness, because even though they had seen and heard so many great -things, they still had doubts about his being the Christ: "He who tells a story -to a fool tells it to a drowsy man" (Sir 22:9). - +doubts: one concerns a fact, and the other the person. As concerns +the fact, they say, How can you say that the Son of man must be +lifted up? But since Christ did not say that "the Son of man +must be lifted up," but "and I, when I am lifted up," why do the +Jews say that "the Son of man" must be lifted up? The answer to +this is that the Jews were now accustomed to our Lord's words; thus +they remembered that he called himself the Son of man. And so when +he said, "And I, when I am lifted up," they took it to mean, "If +the Son of man is lifted up," as Augustine says.[33] Or, one might answer that +although Christ did not here mention the Son of man, yet earlier he +had said: "The Son of man must be lifted up" (3:14).
+1678 Yet it seems that their statement, The Son of man must +be lifted up, is in no way opposed to the statement that the +Christ remains for ever. The answer is that since our Lord was +accustomed to speak to them in figurative language, they understood +much of what was said in that way. And so they also suspected that +when our Lord spoke of being lifted up, he was referring to death +on the cross: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you +will know," as we read above (8:28). Or, it could be said that they +understood it in this sense because they had already thought of +doing that very thing. Thus it was not the sharpness of their +understanding that gave them this interpretation of these words, +but an awareness of their own wickedness.
+1679 Note their wickedness, for they do not say: "We have heard +from the law that the Christ does not suffer," because in many +places of the law reference is made to his passion and +resurrection: as "Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter" (Is +53:7); "I have slept and taken my rest: and I have risen up" [Ps +3:7]. Rather, they say, the Christ remains for ever. The +reason for this is that the former would not have involved any +opposition, since no obstacle to Christ's immortality arises from +the mere fact of his suffering. In other words, as Chrysostom says, +they wished to show that he was not the Christ for the reason that +the Christ remains for ever.[34]
+1680 They raise a question concerning his person when they say, +Who is this Son of man? They ask this because it says in +Daniel (7:13): "And behold, with the clouds of heaven there came +one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days"; and by +that Son of man they understood the Christ. It is as though they +were saying: "You say the Son of man must be lifted up; yet the Son +of man, whom we take to be the Christ, remains forever. So Who +is this Son of man? If he does not remain for ever, neither is +he the Christ." In this they deserve to be reprimanded for their +dullness, because even though they had seen and heard so many great +things, they still had doubts about his being the Christ: "He who +tells a story to a fool tells it to a drowsy man" (Sir 22:9).
1681 Then when he says, Jesus said to them, our Lord -somewhat settles their doubt. First, he commends the good they had; and -secondly, he encourages them to make progress (35b); thirdly, he explains his -admonition (v 36). - -
1682 Jesus said to them, Adhuc modicum lumen in vobis est. -This can be understood in two ways. In one way, according to Augustine, so that -"little" modifies "light."[35] As if to say: "A little -light is in you," insofar as it sees that the Christ remains for ever. For this -is a truth, and every manifestation of the truth is a light infused by God. Yet -this light which is in you is "little," because even though you recognize the -eternity of the Christ, you do not believe in his death and resurrection. This -shows that you do not have perfect faith. Thus, what was said to Peter applies -also to them: "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Mt 14:31). - -
It is understood in another way by -Chrysostom, as meaning that the light is with you for a little longer -time, that is, I, who am the light.[36] It is the same as -saying: I, the light, am among you for a brief time: "A little while, and you -will see me no more" (16:16). - -
1683 And so he exhorts them to make progress in good. First, -he gives his exhortation; secondly, he shows the danger threatening them unless -they do make progress (v 35b). - -
1684 He says: I say that you have a little light, but while -you have it, walk, that is, move forward and make progress, so that you -may understand that the Christ, in addition to his eternity, will also die and -rise again. This is in keeping with the first explanation given above. Or, Walk -while you have the light, that is, while I am among you, make progress and -be concerned with possessing me in such a way as never to lose me: "Blessed are -the people…O Lord, who walk in the light of thy countenance" (Ps 89:15). - -
And do this lest the darkness -of unbelief, ignorance and eternal damnation overtake you and prevent -you from going any further. For a person is overtaken by darkness when he is -totally sunk in unbelief; and they would be this way if they believed in the -eternity of the Christ in such a way as to deny the humiliation of his death: -"A man whose way is hid" (Job 3:23); "We are wrapped up in darkness" (Job -37:19). - +somewhat settles their doubt. First, he commends the good they had; +and secondly, he encourages them to make progress (35b); thirdly, +he explains his admonition (v 36).
+1682 Jesus said to them, Adhuc modicum lumen in vobis +est. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, according +to Augustine, so that "little" modifies "light."[35] As if to say: "A little +light is in you," insofar as it sees that the Christ remains for +ever. For this is a truth, and every manifestation of the truth is +a light infused by God. Yet this light which is in you is "little," +because even though you recognize the eternity of the Christ, you +do not believe in his death and resurrection. This shows that you +do not have perfect faith. Thus, what was said to Peter applies +also to them: "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Mt +14:31).
+It is understood in another way by Chrysostom, as meaning that +the light is with you for a little longer time, that is, I, +who am the light.[36] It is the same as saying: I, the light, am +among you for a brief time: "A little while, and you will see me no +more" (16:16).
+1683 And so he exhorts them to make progress in good. First, he +gives his exhortation; secondly, he shows the danger threatening +them unless they do make progress (v 35b).
+1684 He says: I say that you have a little light, but while you +have it, walk, that is, move forward and make progress, so +that you may understand that the Christ, in addition to his +eternity, will also die and rise again. This is in keeping with the +first explanation given above. Or, Walk while you have the +light, that is, while I am among you, make progress and be +concerned with possessing me in such a way as never to lose me: +"Blessed are the people…O Lord, who walk in the light of thy +countenance" (Ps 89:15).
+And do this lest the darkness of unbelief, ignorance and +eternal damnation overtake you and prevent you from going +any further. For a person is overtaken by darkness when he is +totally sunk in unbelief; and they would be this way if they +believed in the eternity of the Christ in such a way as to deny the +humiliation of his death: "A man whose way is hid" (Job 3:23); "We +are wrapped up in darkness" (Job 37:19).
1685 The danger threatening them unless they do progress is -mentioned when he says, he who walks in the darkness does not know where he -goes. For light, whether exterior or interior, directs man. Exterior light -directs him as to external bodily acts, while the interior light directs his -will. One, therefore, who does not walk in the light, not perfectly believing -in Christ, but walks in the darkness, does not know where he goes, that -is, to what goal he is being led. As we read in the Psalm (82:5): "They have -neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness." This is what -happened to the Jews because they did not know what they were doing, but as -people who were walking in the darkness they thought they were on the right -road. And so they displeased God in the very things in which they believed they -were pleasing him. Similarly, in the very things in which erring heretics -believe they merit the light of truth and grace is the source of their being -deprived of it: "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the -way to death" (Prv 14:12). - -
1686 Then when he says, While you have the light, believe -in the light, he explains what he said, namely, what it means to walk. This -is explained in two ways, according to the two explanations given above. -According to the first explanation: While you have the light, that is, -while you have some knowledge and light of the truth, believe in the light, -that is, in the complete truth, that you may become sons of light, that -is, that you may be reborn in the truth: "We are not of the night or of -darkness. So then let us not sleep" (1 Thess 5:6). - -
Or, according to the other -explanation: While you have the light, that is, me who am the light - -"He was the true light which enlightens every man who comes into the world" -[1:9] - believe in the light, that is, in me. In other words, make progress -in the knowledge of me, that you may become sons of light, because from -the fact that you believe in me you will be the children of God: "But to all -who receive him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of -God" (1:2). - -
1687 When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid -himself from them. Here the Evangelist tells what Jesus did, that he hid -himself. When we read above (8:59) that Christ did this very thing, the reason -was obvious, for they were taking stones to cast at him. But here there is no -reason for his hiding given, such as that they took up stones or that they -blasphemed him. Why then did he hide? The answer is that our Lord, seeing into -their hearts, knew their rage and the evil they had planned, i.e., to kill him. -And so in his desire to stop them he did not wait for them to act, but hid -himself so their anger and envy would abate. In doing this he is an example to -us that when the evil purposes of others are clear to us, we should flee before -they can accomplish them. In addition, our Lord was showing by his actions what -he had said by his words. For he just said, Walk while you have the light, -lest the darkness overtake you. And by hiding himself he indicated what -sort of darkness he means: "I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face -from the house of Jacob" (Is 8:17). -
-LECTURE 7 - -
- -37 Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they -did not believe in him; 38 it was that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah -might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm -of the Lord been revealed?" 39 Therefore they could not believe. For Isaiah -again said, 40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they -should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to -heal them." 41 Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
1688 Above, the Evangelist gave many examples of Christ's -glory, because of which the Jews sought to kill him out of envy. Now he deals -with another of the occasions surrounding his passion, that is, the unbelief of -the Jews. First, their unbelief is discussed; in the second place, it is -reproved by our Lord (v 44). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he -reproves the unbelief of those who believed, but in secret (v 42). As to the -first, two things are done: first, he mentions the strange hardness of their -unbelief; secondly, to show that it came about not without reason or by chance, -he mentions a prophecy (v 38). - +mentioned when he says, he who walks in the darkness does not +know where he goes. For light, whether exterior or interior, +directs man. Exterior light directs him as to external bodily acts, +while the interior light directs his will. One, therefore, who does +not walk in the light, not perfectly believing in Christ, but +walks in the darkness, does not know where he goes, that is, to +what goal he is being led. As we read in the Psalm (82:5): "They +have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in +darkness." This is what happened to the Jews because they did not +know what they were doing, but as people who were walking in the +darkness they thought they were on the right road. And so they +displeased God in the very things in which they believed they were +pleasing him. Similarly, in the very things in which erring +heretics believe they merit the light of truth and grace is the +source of their being deprived of it: "There is a way which seems +right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Prv 14:12).
+1686 Then when he says, While you have the light, believe in +the light, he explains what he said, namely, what it means to +walk. This is explained in two ways, according to the two +explanations given above. According to the first explanation: +While you have the light, that is, while you have some +knowledge and light of the truth, believe in the light, that +is, in the complete truth, that you may become sons of +light, that is, that you may be reborn in the truth: "We are +not of the night or of darkness. So then let us not sleep" (1 Thess +5:6).
+Or, according to the other explanation: While you have the +light, that is, me who am the light - "He was the true light +which enlightens every man who comes into the world" [1:9] - +believe in the light, that is, in me. In other words, make +progress in the knowledge of me, that you may become sons of +light, because from the fact that you believe in me you will be +the children of God: "But to all who receive him, who believed in +his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:2).
+1687 When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself +from them. Here the Evangelist tells what Jesus did, that he +hid himself. When we read above (8:59) that Christ did this very +thing, the reason was obvious, for they were taking stones to cast +at him. But here there is no reason for his hiding given, such as +that they took up stones or that they blasphemed him. Why then did +he hide? The answer is that our Lord, seeing into their hearts, +knew their rage and the evil they had planned, i.e., to kill him. +And so in his desire to stop them he did not wait for them to act, +but hid himself so their anger and envy would abate. In doing this +he is an example to us that when the evil purposes of others are +clear to us, we should flee before they can accomplish them. In +addition, our Lord was showing by his actions what he had said by +his words. For he just said, Walk while you have the light, lest +the darkness overtake you. And by hiding himself he indicated +what sort of darkness he means: "I will wait for the Lord, who is +hiding his face from the house of Jacob" (Is 8:17).
+
+
+LECTURE 7
+++37 Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did +not believe in him; 38 it was that the word spoken by the prophet +Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed our report, and +to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" 39 Therefore they +could not believe. For Isaiah again said, 40 "He has blinded their +eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes +and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them." 41 +Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
+1688 Above, the Evangelist gave many examples of Christ's glory, +because of which the Jews sought to kill him out of envy. Now he +deals with another of the occasions surrounding his passion, that +is, the unbelief of the Jews. First, their unbelief is discussed; +in the second place, it is reproved by our Lord (v 44). Concerning +the first he does two things: first, he reproves the unbelief of +those who believed, but in secret (v 42). As to the first, two +things are done: first, he mentions the strange hardness of their +unbelief; secondly, to show that it came about not without reason +or by chance, he mentions a prophecy (v 38).
1689 The Evangelist, as though at a loss to explain it, says -that our Lord had done many miracles: such as changing water into wine, curing -a paralytic, giving sight to a blind man, and raising a dead man to life: -nevertheless, though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not -believe in him. They usually said: "What sign do you do, that we may see, -and believe you?" (6:30). But now! The Evangelist says: though he had done -so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him. "If I had not -done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" -(15:24). And so they could not say: "We do not see our signs" (Ps 74:9). - -
1690 Then (v 38), the testimony of the prophet on this point -is cited. First, the prophecies are mentioned; secondly, it is shown that they -refer to Christ (v 41). He does two things about the first: he cites the -prophecy foretelling their unbelief; secondly, he adds the prophecy foretelling -the reason for their unbelief (v 39). - -
1691 He says: I say that they did not believe in him that -the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled. Here we should -note that in Sacred Scripture the word "that" sometimes indicates a cause, as -in "I came that they may have light" (10:10). But at other times it just -indicates a sequence of events, and signifies a future event; and that is how -it is used here. These people did not believe, but it was not because Isaiah -predicted this. Rather, Isaiah predicted this because they were not going to -believe. And so this saying of Isaiah is fulfilled from the fact that they did -not believe. "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets -and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota, not a dot, will -pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:18). - +that our Lord had done many miracles: such as changing water into +wine, curing a paralytic, giving sight to a blind man, and raising +a dead man to life: nevertheless, though he had done so many +signs before them, yet they did not believe in him. They +usually said: "What sign do you do, that we may see, and believe +you?" (6:30). But now! The Evangelist says: though he had done +so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him. "If +I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they +would not have sin" (15:24). And so they could not say: "We do not +see our signs" (Ps 74:9).
+1690 Then (v 38), the testimony of the prophet on this point is +cited. First, the prophecies are mentioned; secondly, it is shown +that they refer to Christ (v 41). He does two things about the +first: he cites the prophecy foretelling their unbelief; secondly, +he adds the prophecy foretelling the reason for their unbelief (v +39).
+1691 He says: I say that they did not believe in him that the +word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled. Here we +should note that in Sacred Scripture the word "that" sometimes +indicates a cause, as in "I came that they may have light" (10:10). +But at other times it just indicates a sequence of events, and +signifies a future event; and that is how it is used here. These +people did not believe, but it was not because Isaiah predicted +this. Rather, Isaiah predicted this because they were not going to +believe. And so this saying of Isaiah is fulfilled from the fact +that they did not believe. "Everything written about me in the law +of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk +24:44); "Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all +is accomplished" (Matt 5:18).
1692 But if it was necessary that the saying of Isaiah be -fulfilled, it seems that the Jews should be excused for not believing, for they -could not act contrary to the prophecy. I answer that the prophecy took account -of their freedom. For God, knowing the future beforehand, foretold their unbelief -in the prophecy, but he did not bring it about; for God does not force one to -sin just because he already knows one's future sins. And so our Lord, from whom -nothing is hidden, predicted that the Jews would commit the sin which they did -commit. - +fulfilled, it seems that the Jews should be excused for not +believing, for they could not act contrary to the prophecy. I +answer that the prophecy took account of their freedom. For God, +knowing the future beforehand, foretold their unbelief in the +prophecy, but he did not bring it about; for God does not force one +to sin just because he already knows one's future sins. And so our +Lord, from whom nothing is hidden, predicted that the Jews would +commit the sin which they did commit.
1693 Now the Evangelist states what the prophet said, Lord, -who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? -Here we should note that belief comes in two ways. Sometimes by instruction -from another; and this is the usual way: "So faith comes from what is heard, -and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Sometimes it -come by a divine revelation; and this is the special way, spoken of by the -Apostle: "For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came -through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12). - -
1694 Isaiah foretold that there would be few believers. -First, as to those who would believe in the usual way, by instruction, he says, -Lord, who has believed our report? This can be understood in two ways. -In one way, the meaning is: who has believed our report? That is, what -you reported to us, what we have heard from you. "We have heard tidings from -the Lord" (Obad 1:1); "Let us hear what the Lord will speak" (Ps 85:8). It is -like they were saying: "Lord, we have heard these things from you. But who will -believe us when we tell what we have heard from you about your birth and -passion?" This entire chapter of Isaiah (ch. 53) is speaking of these things. - -
Prophets are said to hear in order -to suggest the way in which the prophets are instructed. By sight, a person -receives an immediate knowledge of the thing seen, but by hearing he does not -have an immediate knowledge of what he sees, but he gains his knowledge from -certain signs of the thing. And so because the prophets did not immediately see -the divine essence, but only certain signs of divine realties, they are said to -hear. "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in -a vision, I speak with him in a dream," by certain signs (Num 12:6). The Son, -however, eternally sees the divine essence itself: "No one has ever seen God; -the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known," as was -said above (1:18). Who has believed our report? That is, who has -believed in the things we have heard and preached? "What I have heard from the -Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10). - -
The second way of understanding who -has believed our report? is to take it as meaning the things we report to -them, what they have heard from us. "They hear what you say but they will not -do it" as Ezekiel (33:31) says. - -
1695 As to the special way belief comes, by revelation, he -says, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? The "arm" -refers to the Son, through whom the Father does all things, just as we -accomplish things through our arm. And if we accomplished things only through -an interior word, then this word would be called our arm. And so the Son is -called the arm of God not because God the Father has a human shape and a -physical arm, but because "all things were made through him," the Son (1:3). -"Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?" (Job -40:9); "He has shown strength with his arm" (Lk 1:51). - +who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord +been revealed? Here we should note that belief comes in two +ways. Sometimes by instruction from another; and this is the usual +way: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by +the preaching of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Sometimes it come by a divine +revelation; and this is the special way, spoken of by the Apostle: +"For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it +came through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12).
+1694 Isaiah foretold that there would be few believers. First, +as to those who would believe in the usual way, by instruction, he +says, Lord, who has believed our report? This can be +understood in two ways. In one way, the meaning is: who has +believed our report? That is, what you reported to us, what we +have heard from you. "We have heard tidings from the Lord" (Obad +1:1); "Let us hear what the Lord will speak" (Ps 85:8). It is like +they were saying: "Lord, we have heard these things from you. But +who will believe us when we tell what we have heard from you about +your birth and passion?" This entire chapter of Isaiah (ch. 53) is +speaking of these things.
+Prophets are said to hear in order to suggest the way in which +the prophets are instructed. By sight, a person receives an +immediate knowledge of the thing seen, but by hearing he does not +have an immediate knowledge of what he sees, but he gains his +knowledge from certain signs of the thing. And so because the +prophets did not immediately see the divine essence, but only +certain signs of divine realties, they are said to hear. "If there +is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a +vision, I speak with him in a dream," by certain signs (Num 12:6). +The Son, however, eternally sees the divine essence itself: "No one +has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, +he has made him known," as was said above (1:18). Who has +believed our report? That is, who has believed in the things we +have heard and preached? "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, +the God of Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10).
+The second way of understanding who has believed our +report? is to take it as meaning the things we report to them, +what they have heard from us. "They hear what you say but they will +not do it" as Ezekiel (33:31) says.
+1695 As to the special way belief comes, by revelation, he says, +and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? The "arm" +refers to the Son, through whom the Father does all things, just as +we accomplish things through our arm. And if we accomplished things +only through an interior word, then this word would be called our +arm. And so the Son is called the arm of God not because God the +Father has a human shape and a physical arm, but because "all +things were made through him," the Son (1:3). "Have you an arm like +God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?" (Job 40:9); "He +has shown strength with his arm" (Lk 1:51).
1696 Here we should note that Sabellius misunderstood this -passage and said that the Father and the Son are the same person; and Arius -also did when he said that the Son is inferior to the Father. The reasons for -this were that a person and his arm do not form two persons, but only one, and an -arm is not equal to the person. The answer to this is that in expressions of -this kind the similarities are not really adequate, for what we find in -creatures does not perfectly represent what is in God. Thus Dionysius says that -symbolic theology is not argumentative. Thus the Son is not called an arm as -though he is the same person as the Father or inferior to the Father, but -because the Father does all things through him. When he says, and to whom -has the arm of the Lord been revealed? it is like saying, only to a few, -that is, to the apostles: "God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Cor -2:10). - +passage and said that the Father and the Son are the same person; +and Arius also did when he said that the Son is inferior to the +Father. The reasons for this were that a person and his arm do not +form two persons, but only one, and an arm is not equal to the +person. The answer to this is that in expressions of this kind the +similarities are not really adequate, for what we find in creatures +does not perfectly represent what is in God. Thus Dionysius says +that symbolic theology is not argumentative. Thus the Son is not +called an arm as though he is the same person as the Father or +inferior to the Father, but because the Father does all things +through him. When he says, and to whom has the arm of the Lord +been revealed? it is like saying, only to a few, that is, to +the apostles: "God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Cor +2:10).
1697 When the Evangelist says, therefore they could not -believe, he states the prophecy which foretold the reason for their -unbelief. If we examine these words of the Evangelist they seem, if taken at -their surface value, difficult to understand. First, because if it is said that -therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said this, the Jews -seem to be excusable. For is it a sin for a person not to do what he cannot do? -And what is more serious, the fault will be cast back on God, since he blinded -their eyes. This could be accepted if it were said of the devil, as in 2 -Corinthians (4:4): "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the -unbelievers." But here it is said of our Lord, for Isaiah [6:1] says: "I saw -the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne," and follows with "Blind the heart -of this people and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see -with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be -converted and I heal them" [v 10]. - -
1698 To clarify this let us first explain the statement, therefore -they could not believe. Here we should note that something is said to be -impossible or said to be necessary in two ways: absolutely, and granted a -certain presupposition. For example, it is absolutely impossible for a human -being to be an ass; but granting a certain presupposition, it is impossible for -me to be outside my house, presupposing, that is, that I remain within it -sitting down. With this in mind, we may say that a person is excused if he does -not do things that are absolutely impossible for him. But he is not excused if -he does not do things that are impossible for him granting some presupposition. -So, if someone has the evil intention of always stealing, and says that it is -impossible for him not to sin as long as he continues with that intention, he -is not excused: for this impossibility is not absolute, but based on a certain -presupposition, for he can abandon his evil intention. So he says, therefore -they could not believe, that is, because they had a will clouded over by -their wickedness: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? -Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer 13:23); "How can -you do good things when you are evil?" [Mt 12:34]. It is like one saying: "I -can in nowise love him, because I hate him." - -
As to the second point, when we -read that God blinds and hardens, we should not think that God puts malice into -us or forces us to sin; but we should understand it as meaning that God does -not infuse grace. Now he infuses grace because of his mercy, while the cause of -his not infusing grace is due to us, insofar as there is something in us which -opposes divine grace. As far as he is concerned: "He enlightens every man -coming into this world" [1:9]; "He desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). -But because we leave God, he takes his grace from us: "Because you have -rejected knowledge, I reject you" (Hos 4:6), "Your destruction, O Israel, is -from yourself; your help is only in me" [Hos 13:9]. It is like a person who -closes the shutters of his house, and someone says to him: "You cannot see -because you lack the light of the sun." This would not be due to a failure of -the sun, but because he shut out the light of the sun. In the same way we read -here that they could not believe, because God blinded them, that is, they were -the cause why they were deprived of sight as in "Their wickedness blinded them" -(Wis 2:21).[37] - -
1699 With these distinctions in mind, let us consider the -words of this prophecy. It is found in Isaiah (6:10), not in these exact words, -but with the same meaning. Three things are mentioned here: first, the -hardening and blinding of the Jews; secondly, the effect of each of these; -thirdly, their end. - -
1700 In regard to the first, note that our Lord brought -people to the faith in two ways, by his miracles and his teaching. And so he -rebukes them on both points: "If I had not done among them the works which no -one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24); and again in (15:22): "If I had -not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no -excuse for their sin." For they had derided both. - -
Insofar as they did not give due -consideration to Christ's miracles, he says, he has blinded their eyes, -that is, the eyes of their hearts, about which we read: "Having the eyes of -your hearts enlightened" (Eph 1:18). For they should have understood that such -miracles could only be done by divine power: "You see many things, but do not -observe them" (Is 42:20); and again, "Who is blind but my servant? Or deaf, -except he to whom I have sent my messengers?" [Is 42:19]. - -
Because they were not moved by the -teaching of Christ, he adds, and hardened their heart. That is very hard -which is not melted by intense heat nor broken by divine blows. Now the words -of Christ are "like fire…and like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces" -(Jer 23:29). Fire, indeed, because they inflame through love; and like a hammer -because they terrify when they threaten, and break one by the revelation of the -truth. And still the hearts of the Jews paid no attention to the words of -Christ. Thus it is obvious that they were hardened: "His heart is hard as a -stone" (Job 41:24); "He has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the -heart of whomever he wills" (Rom 9:18). - +believe, he states the prophecy which foretold the reason for +their unbelief. If we examine these words of the Evangelist they +seem, if taken at their surface value, difficult to understand. +First, because if it is said that therefore they could not +believe, because Isaiah said this, the Jews seem to be +excusable. For is it a sin for a person not to do what he cannot +do? And what is more serious, the fault will be cast back on God, +since he blinded their eyes. This could be accepted if it were said +of the devil, as in 2 Corinthians (4:4): "The god of this world has +blinded the minds of the unbelievers." But here it is said of our +Lord, for Isaiah [6:1] says: "I saw the Lord seated on a high and +lofty throne," and follows with "Blind the heart of this people and +make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with +their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart +and be converted and I heal them" [v 10].
+1698 To clarify this let us first explain the statement, +therefore they could not believe. Here we should note that +something is said to be impossible or said to be necessary in two +ways: absolutely, and granted a certain presupposition. For +example, it is absolutely impossible for a human being to be an +ass; but granting a certain presupposition, it is impossible for me +to be outside my house, presupposing, that is, that I remain within +it sitting down. With this in mind, we may say that a person is +excused if he does not do things that are absolutely impossible for +him. But he is not excused if he does not do things that are +impossible for him granting some presupposition. So, if someone has +the evil intention of always stealing, and says that it is +impossible for him not to sin as long as he continues with that +intention, he is not excused: for this impossibility is not +absolute, but based on a certain presupposition, for he can abandon +his evil intention. So he says, therefore they could not +believe, that is, because they had a will clouded over by their +wickedness: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his +spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" +(Jer 13:23); "How can you do good things when you are evil?" [Mt +12:34]. It is like one saying: "I can in nowise love him, because I +hate him."
+As to the second point, when we read that God blinds and +hardens, we should not think that God puts malice into us or forces +us to sin; but we should understand it as meaning that God does not +infuse grace. Now he infuses grace because of his mercy, while the +cause of his not infusing grace is due to us, insofar as there is +something in us which opposes divine grace. As far as he is +concerned: "He enlightens every man coming into this world" [1:9]; +"He desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). But because we leave +God, he takes his grace from us: "Because you have rejected +knowledge, I reject you" (Hos 4:6), "Your destruction, O Israel, is +from yourself; your help is only in me" [Hos 13:9]. It is like a +person who closes the shutters of his house, and someone says to +him: "You cannot see because you lack the light of the sun." This +would not be due to a failure of the sun, but because he shut out +the light of the sun. In the same way we read here that they could +not believe, because God blinded them, that is, they were the cause +why they were deprived of sight as in "Their wickedness blinded +them" (Wis 2:21).[37]
+1699 With these distinctions in mind, let us consider the words +of this prophecy. It is found in Isaiah (6:10), not in these exact +words, but with the same meaning. Three things are mentioned here: +first, the hardening and blinding of the Jews; secondly, the effect +of each of these; thirdly, their end.
+1700 In regard to the first, note that our Lord brought people +to the faith in two ways, by his miracles and his teaching. And so +he rebukes them on both points: "If I had not done among them the +works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24); and +again in (15:22): "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would +not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." For they +had derided both.
+Insofar as they did not give due consideration to Christ's +miracles, he says, he has blinded their eyes, that is, the +eyes of their hearts, about which we read: "Having the eyes of your +hearts enlightened" (Eph 1:18). For they should have understood +that such miracles could only be done by divine power: "You see +many things, but do not observe them" (Is 42:20); and again, "Who +is blind but my servant? Or deaf, except he to whom I have sent my +messengers?" [Is 42:19].
+Because they were not moved by the teaching of Christ, he adds, +and hardened their heart. That is very hard which is not +melted by intense heat nor broken by divine blows. Now the words of +Christ are "like fire…and like a hammer which breaks the +rock in pieces" (Jer 23:29). Fire, indeed, because they inflame +through love; and like a hammer because they terrify when they +threaten, and break one by the revelation of the truth. And still +the hearts of the Jews paid no attention to the words of Christ. +Thus it is obvious that they were hardened: "His heart is hard as a +stone" (Job 41:24); "He has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he +hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Rom 9:18).
1701 The effect of their becoming blind is mentioned when he -says, lest they should see with their eyes, that is, their spiritual -eyes, and perceive the divinity of Christ: "They have eyes, but do not see" (Ps -115:5). In contrast, Luke says: "Blessed are the eyes which see what you see!" -(Lk 10:23). The effect of their becoming hard of heart is mentioned when he -says, lest they should perceive, understand, with their heart: -"Because no one understands, they will perish forever" [Job 4:20]; "He would -not understand so that he might act well" [Ps 35:4]. Here it should be noted -that when he says, "lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with -their heart," that is, "that they should not see with their eyes and perceive -with their heart," the "that" does not indicate a cause, but merely the -sequence of events. - -
1702 The end of their becoming blind and hard in heart is -given when he says, and turn for me to heal them. This can be understood -in two ways, as Augustine says in his work, On Gospel Questions.[38] -In one way, so that both parts are negative, and then the meaning would be: -"and they do not turn to me and I do not heal them." For the way of salvation -from sin is to turn to God: "Restore us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be -restored! Renew our days of old!" (Lam 5:21). But to those who prove themselves -unworthy to have their sins forgiven, God does not offer the gifts by which -they might turn to him and be healed, as is obvious in the case of the -non-chosen. - -
The other interpretation is to -regard only the first part as negative and then the meaning would be: they were -blinded and hardened so they should not see or understand for a time, and so -not seeing or understanding, that is, not believing in Christ, they would put -him to death, but afterwards they would repent and turn to God and be healed. -For now and then God permits us to fall into sin so that being humbled we may -arise firmer in holiness. - -
Each of these interpretations is verified in the -case of some of the Jews: the first one in those who persisted to the end in -their unbelief, and the second one in those who turned to Christ after his -passion, namely, those with remorse in their hearts at the words of Peter, and -who said to the apostles: "Brethren, what shall we do?" as we read in the Acts -(2:37). - +says, lest they should see with their eyes, that is, their +spiritual eyes, and perceive the divinity of Christ: "They have +eyes, but do not see" (Ps 115:5). In contrast, Luke says: "Blessed +are the eyes which see what you see!" (Lk 10:23). The effect of +their becoming hard of heart is mentioned when he says, lest +they should perceive, understand, with their heart: +"Because no one understands, they will perish forever" [Job 4:20]; +"He would not understand so that he might act well" [Ps 35:4]. Here +it should be noted that when he says, "lest they should see with +their eyes and perceive with their heart," that is, "that they +should not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart," the +"that" does not indicate a cause, but merely the sequence of +events.
+1702 The end of their becoming blind and hard in heart is given +when he says, and turn for me to heal them. This can be +understood in two ways, as Augustine says in his work, On Gospel +Questions.[38] In one way, so that both parts are negative, +and then the meaning would be: "and they do not turn to me and I do +not heal them." For the way of salvation from sin is to turn to +God: "Restore us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be restored! Renew +our days of old!" (Lam 5:21). But to those who prove themselves +unworthy to have their sins forgiven, God does not offer the gifts +by which they might turn to him and be healed, as is obvious in the +case of the non-chosen.
+The other interpretation is to regard only the first part as +negative and then the meaning would be: they were blinded and +hardened so they should not see or understand for a time, and so +not seeing or understanding, that is, not believing in Christ, they +would put him to death, but afterwards they would repent and turn +to God and be healed. For now and then God permits us to fall into +sin so that being humbled we may arise firmer in holiness.
+Each of these interpretations is verified in the case of some of +the Jews: the first one in those who persisted to the end in their +unbelief, and the second one in those who turned to Christ after +his passion, namely, those with remorse in their hearts at the +words of Peter, and who said to the apostles: "Brethren, what shall +we do?" as we read in the Acts (2:37).
1703 Then (v 41), the Evangelist shows that these words of -Isaiah apply here. He says, Isaiah said this because he saw his glory, -the glory of God. For when he saw the glory of God he saw at the same time that -the Jews would be blinded, as is clear from, "I saw the Lord seated on a high -and lofty throne" [Is 6:1], followed by, "Blind the heart of his people and -make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and -hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I -heal them" [v 10]. And because it is fitting that one should testify about what -he has seen - as we read in 1 John (1:1) - he adds, and spoke of him, -that is, of Christ, whose glory he saw: "To him all the prophet bear witness" -(Acts 10:43); "Which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy -Scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Rom 1:2). - -
1704 We read that Isaiah saw and said these things. As to -the first, we should avoid the error of the Arians, who say that the Father -alone is invisible to every creature, but that the Son was seen in the visions -of the Old Testament. But since it is stated that "He who has seen me has seen -the Father" (14:9), it is obvious that the Father and the Son are visible in -one and the same way. And so Isaiah, seeing the glory of the Son, also saw the -glory of the Father, and indeed of the entire Trinity, which is one God, seated -upon a high throne before whom the seraphim cry out: Holy, Holy, Holy! This -does not mean that Isaiah saw the essence of the Trinity; rather in an -imaginary vision, with understanding, he expressed certain signs of this -majesty, according to the saying in Numbers (12:6): "If there is a prophet -among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in -a dream." - +Isaiah apply here. He says, Isaiah said this because he saw his +glory, the glory of God. For when he saw the glory of God he +saw at the same time that the Jews would be blinded, as is clear +from, "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne" [Is 6:1], +followed by, "Blind the heart of his people and make their ears +heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear +with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, +and I heal them" [v 10]. And because it is fitting that one should +testify about what he has seen - as we read in 1 John (1:1) - he +adds, and spoke of him, that is, of Christ, whose glory he +saw: "To him all the prophet bear witness" (Acts 10:43); "Which he +promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, +the gospel concerning his Son" (Rom 1:2).
+1704 We read that Isaiah saw and said these things. As to the +first, we should avoid the error of the Arians, who say that the +Father alone is invisible to every creature, but that the Son was +seen in the visions of the Old Testament. But since it is stated +that "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (14:9), it is obvious +that the Father and the Son are visible in one and the same way. +And so Isaiah, seeing the glory of the Son, also saw the glory of +the Father, and indeed of the entire Trinity, which is one God, +seated upon a high throne before whom the seraphim cry out: Holy, +Holy, Holy! This does not mean that Isaiah saw the essence of the +Trinity; rather in an imaginary vision, with understanding, he +expressed certain signs of this majesty, according to the saying in +Numbers (12:6): "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make +myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream."
1705 As to the second thing, that Isaiah spoke of him: -this excludes the error of the Manicheans, who said that there were no -prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament, as Augustine reports to us in his -book Against Faustus; and it excludes the error of Theodore of -Mopsuestia, who said that all the prophecies of the Old Testament bore on some -current event, but the apostles and evangelists appropriated them to the life -of Christ, like things said about one event can be appropriated to another -event.[39] But all this is excluded -by the statement, and spoke of him, just as Christ said of Moses that -"he wrote of me" (5:46). -
-LECTURE 8 -
- -42 Nevertheless many even of the authorities believed in -him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be -put out of the synagogue: 43 for they loved the praise [glory] of men more than -the praise [glory] of God. 44 And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in -me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. 45 And he who sees me sees him -who sent me. 46 I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in -me may not remain in darkness. 47 If any one hears my sayings and does not keep -them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the -world. 48 He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the -word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. 49 For I have not -spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me -commandment what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment -is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden [said -to] me."[40]
1706 Above, the Evangelist described the failing of those -who did not believe at all; here he explains the failing of those who believed -in secret, because they were timid, faint-hearted. First, he mentions their -dignity; secondly, their failing (v 42); and thirdly, he suggests the root of -this failing (v 43). - -
1707 The dignity of those who believed in secret was great, -for they were the authorities, and on this point he says, many even of the -authorities believed in him. He is saying in effect: I said that although -Jesus had done so many signs, still they did not believe in him; and although -this was true for the majority, yet there were some who did believe in him, -because many even of the authorities, of the people, believed in him. -One of these was Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, as was said (c 3). Thus -the words of the Psalm (47:9) were fulfilled: "The princes of the peoples -gather as their people of the God of Abraham"; and the statement of the -Pharisees is proved false: "Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees -believed in him?" (7:48). - +this excludes the error of the Manicheans, who said that there were +no prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament, as Augustine +reports to us in his book Against Faustus; and it excludes +the error of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that all the +prophecies of the Old Testament bore on some current event, but the +apostles and evangelists appropriated them to the life of Christ, +like things said about one event can be appropriated to another +event.[39] +But all this is excluded by the statement, and spoke of him, +just as Christ said of Moses that "he wrote of me" (5:46).
+
+
+LECTURE 8
+++42 Nevertheless many even of the authorities believed in him, +but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they +should be put out of the synagogue: 43 for they loved the praise +[glory] of men more than the praise [glory] of God. 44 And Jesus +cried out and said, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but +in him who sent me. 45 And he who sees me sees him who sent me. 46 +I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me +may not remain in darkness. 47 If any one hears my sayings and does +not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the +world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects me and does not +receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be +his judge on the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on my own +authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment +what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment +is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has +bidden [said to] me."[40]
+1706 Above, the Evangelist described the failing of those who +did not believe at all; here he explains the failing of those who +believed in secret, because they were timid, faint-hearted. First, +he mentions their dignity; secondly, their failing (v 42); and +thirdly, he suggests the root of this failing (v 43).
+1707 The dignity of those who believed in secret was great, for +they were the authorities, and on this point he says, many even +of the authorities believed in him. He is saying in effect: I +said that although Jesus had done so many signs, still they did not +believe in him; and although this was true for the majority, yet +there were some who did believe in him, because many even of the +authorities, of the people, believed in him. One of +these was Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, as was said (c 3). +Thus the words of the Psalm (47:9) were fulfilled: "The princes of +the peoples gather as their people of the God of Abraham"; and the +statement of the Pharisees is proved false: "Have any of the +authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?" (7:48).
1708 The failing of these authorities is timidity, -faint-heartedness; thus he says, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not -confess it. For as stated above, the Pharisees "agreed that if any one -should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue" (9:22). -So, although they believed with their hearts, they did not profess him with -their lips. Their faith, therefore, was insufficient, for as is said in Romans -(10:10): "For a man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses -with his lips and so is saved." "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him -will the Son of man be ashamed" (Lk 9:26). - -
1709 The root of their failing is vanity, vainglory; so he -says, for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. By -confessing Christ publicly they would have lost the glory of men, but won the -glory of God. But they chose rather to be deprived of the glory of God than the -glory of men: "How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do -not seek the glory that comes from the only God?" (5:44). "If I were still -pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ" (Gal 1:10). - +faint-heartedness; thus he says, but for fear of the Pharisees +they did not confess it. For as stated above, the Pharisees +"agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to +be put out of the synagogue" (9:22). So, although they believed +with their hearts, they did not profess him with their lips. Their +faith, therefore, was insufficient, for as is said in Romans +(10:10): "For a man believes with his heart and so is justified, +and he confesses with his lips and so is saved." "Whoever is +ashamed of me and my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed" +(Lk 9:26).
+1709 The root of their failing is vanity, vainglory; so he says, +for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. +By confessing Christ publicly they would have lost the glory of +men, but won the glory of God. But they chose rather to be deprived +of the glory of God than the glory of men: "How can you believe, +who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that +comes from the only God?" (5:44). "If I were still pleasing men, I +should not be a servant of Christ" (Gal 1:10).
1710 Now he shows how Christ rebuked the Jews for their -unbelief: first, he shows their duty to believe; secondly, he mentions the -fruit of faith (v 46); thirdly, he warns the unbelievers about punishment (v -47). But because vision comes after faith, with regard to the first, he treats -of faith; and secondly, of vision (v 45). - -
1711 As to the first he says, And Jesus cried out, -both because of the importance of what he intended to say and because of their -free will, to charge them with their sins: "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your -voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression" (Is 58:1), and -said, He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. -This seems to contain a contradiction, for he says, he who believes in me -believes not in me. To understand this we should note first, according to -Augustine, that our Lord said this to distinguish his divine and human nature.[41] -For since the proper object of faith is God, we can indeed believe that a -creature exists, but we should not believe in a creature (in creaturam) -but in God alone (in Deum) [See Part I, commentary on 6:29]. Now in -Christ there is a created nature and the uncreated nature. Therefore, the truth -of faith requires that our faith be in Christ as having an uncreated nature. -And so he says, he who believes in me, that is, in my person, believes -not in me, as a human being, but in him who sent me, that is, he -believes in me as sent from the Father: "My teaching is not mine, but his who -sent me" (7:16). - -
According to Chrysostom, however, -our Lord says this to suggest his origin.[42] It is a way of speaking -similar to a person drawing water from a stream and saying that this water is -not from the stream but from the spring: for it does not originate from the -stream. So our Lord says, he who believes in me, believes not in me but in -him who sent me, as though to say: I am not the source of myself, but my -divinity is from another, that is, from my Father. So, he who believes in -me, believes not in me, except insofar as I am from the Father. - -
1712 Then when he says, and he who sees me sees him who -sent me, he treats of vision. In regard to this we should note that just as -the Father sent the Son to convert the Jews, so Christ also sent his disciples: -"As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (20:21). But no one of the -disciples dared to say, nor should he, that one should believe in him [the -disciple], although he could say that one should believe him (crederetur ei). -For this could not take place without detracting from the One who sent him, -because if someone believed in the disciple, they would cease to believe in the -master. So the Jews could say on the same basis that since you have been sent -from the Father, anyone who believes in you ceases to believing in the Father. -Therefore, our Lord shows against this that one who does not believe in him, -does not believe in the Father. This is his meaning when he says, he who -sees me sees him who sent me. - -
The seeing which is referred to -here is not a physical vision, but a consideration of the truth by the mind. -And the reason why one who sees the Son also sees the Father is that the Father -is in the Son by a unity of essence. For one thing is said to be seen in -another either because they are the same, or they are entirely conformed. But -the Father and the Son are the same in nature and entirely conformed: because -the Son is the image of the Father and unlike in nothing, for "He is the image -of the invisible God" (Col 1:15); "He reflects the glory of God and bears the -very stamp of his nature" (Heb 1:3). And so, just as one believes in the -Father, so also he believes in me: "He who has seen me has seen the Father…Do -you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?" (14:9). It is as -though he said: The reason why one who sees me sees the Father also, is that -the Father is in me and I in the Father. Thus it is clear what faith should be: -faith should be in Christ, as God, just as it is in the Father. - -
1713 Next he shows the fruit of faith. First, he shows his -own worth and power when he says, I have come as light into the world. -It has already been explained how Christ is a light: "He was the true light, which -enlightens every man coming into this world" [1:9], and "I am the light of the -world" (8:12). He also shows by this that he has the divine nature. For to be -light is proper to God; others may give off light, that is participate in -light, but God is light by essence: "God is light and in him is no darkness at -all" (1 Jn 1:5). But because he "dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man -has ever seen" (1 Tim 6:16), we were unable to approach him. And so it was -necessary that he come to us. This is what he says, I have come as light -into the world, that is, I am the unapproachable light which rescues from -error and disperses intellectual darkness: "I came from the Father and have -come into the world" (16:28); "He came to his own" [1:11]. And although the apostles -are called light - "You are the light of the world" (Mt 5:14) - they are not -light in the same way as Christ. For they are a light whose light has been -given to them, even though in some way they also give light, that is, in their -ministry. Furthermore, none of the apostles could truly say, I have come as -light into the world, because when they came into the world they were still -darkness and not light, for in Job [37:19] it says: "We are wrapped in -darkness." - -
1714 Secondly, he continues, that whoever believes in me -may not remain in darkness. To become enlightened, therefore, is an effect -of faith: "He who follows me will not walk in darkness" (8:12). May not -remain in darkness: that is, the darkness of ignorance, of unbelief and -eternal damnation. This shows that all are born in the darkness of sin: "For -once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord," as we read in -Ephesians (5:8). And in the darkness of ignorance: "A man whose way is hidden -and God has surrounded him with darkness" [Job 3:23]. And in the end, unless -they turn to Christ, they will be brought to the darkness of eternal damnation. -And so, he who does not believe in me remains in darkness: "Whoever is -unbelieving in the Son will not see life; rather, the anger of God rests on -him" [3:36]. - -
1715 Then he discloses the punishment of unbelievers, which -they will incur through their condemnation at the judgment. First, he states -that the judgment will be delayed; secondly, that there will be a judgment in -the future (v 48); and thirdly, he shows the cause of the judgment (v 48b). - -
1716 As to the first he says, If any one hears my sayings -and does not keep them, I do not judge him. Note that the ones to be made -happy, beatified, are those who hear the word of God and keep it, believing it -within in their hearts, and doing it without in their actions. But they who -hear it but take no care to keep it, become more guilty: "For it is not the -hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will -be justified" (Rom 2:13); "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only" (Jas -1:22). And so, If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not -judge him. - -
But this seems to conflict with -what was said above (5:22): "The Father…has given all judgment to the Son." -Therefore, we should understand it as, I do not judge him at this time. -It could be considered a weakness in him if he overlooked those who despised -him. And so he says that such persons will be judged, although not now; for we -read that "God will bring every deed into judgment" (Eccl 12:14), and "Flee -from the face of iniquity, for the sword is the avenger of iniquity: and know -that there is a judgment" [Job 19:29]. - +unbelief: first, he shows their duty to believe; secondly, he +mentions the fruit of faith (v 46); thirdly, he warns the +unbelievers about punishment (v 47). But because vision comes after +faith, with regard to the first, he treats of faith; and secondly, +of vision (v 45).
+1711 As to the first he says, And Jesus cried out, both +because of the importance of what he intended to say and because of +their free will, to charge them with their sins: "Cry aloud, spare +not, lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their +transgression" (Is 58:1), and said, He who believes in me, +believes not in me but in him who sent me. This seems to +contain a contradiction, for he says, he who believes in me +believes not in me. To understand this we should note first, +according to Augustine, that our Lord said this to distinguish his +divine and human nature.[41] For since the proper object of faith is God, +we can indeed believe that a creature exists, but we should not +believe in a creature (in creaturam) but in God alone (in +Deum) [See Part I, commentary on 6:29]. Now in Christ there is +a created nature and the uncreated nature. Therefore, the truth of +faith requires that our faith be in Christ as having an uncreated +nature. And so he says, he who believes in me, that is, in +my person, believes not in me, as a human being, but in +him who sent me, that is, he believes in me as sent from the +Father: "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me" (7:16).
+According to Chrysostom, however, our Lord says this to suggest +his origin.[42] It is a way of speaking similar to a person +drawing water from a stream and saying that this water is not from +the stream but from the spring: for it does not originate from the +stream. So our Lord says, he who believes in me, believes not in +me but in him who sent me, as though to say: I am not the +source of myself, but my divinity is from another, that is, from my +Father. So, he who believes in me, believes not in me, +except insofar as I am from the Father.
+1712 Then when he says, and he who sees me sees him who sent +me, he treats of vision. In regard to this we should note that +just as the Father sent the Son to convert the Jews, so Christ also +sent his disciples: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" +(20:21). But no one of the disciples dared to say, nor should he, +that one should believe in him [the disciple], although he could +say that one should believe him (crederetur ei). For this +could not take place without detracting from the One who sent him, +because if someone believed in the disciple, they would cease to +believe in the master. So the Jews could say on the same basis that +since you have been sent from the Father, anyone who believes in +you ceases to believing in the Father. Therefore, our Lord shows +against this that one who does not believe in him, does not believe +in the Father. This is his meaning when he says, he who sees me +sees him who sent me.
+The seeing which is referred to here is not a physical vision, +but a consideration of the truth by the mind. And the reason why +one who sees the Son also sees the Father is that the Father is in +the Son by a unity of essence. For one thing is said to be seen in +another either because they are the same, or they are entirely +conformed. But the Father and the Son are the same in nature and +entirely conformed: because the Son is the image of the Father and +unlike in nothing, for "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col +1:15); "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of +his nature" (Heb 1:3). And so, just as one believes in the Father, +so also he believes in me: "He who has seen me has seen the +Father…Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the +Father in me?" (14:9). It is as though he said: The reason why one +who sees me sees the Father also, is that the Father is in me and I +in the Father. Thus it is clear what faith should be: faith should +be in Christ, as God, just as it is in the Father.
+1713 Next he shows the fruit of faith. First, he shows his own +worth and power when he says, I have come as light into the +world. It has already been explained how Christ is a light: "He +was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this +world" [1:9], and "I am the light of the world" (8:12). He also +shows by this that he has the divine nature. For to be light is +proper to God; others may give off light, that is participate in +light, but God is light by essence: "God is light and in him is no +darkness at all" (1 Jn 1:5). But because he "dwells in +unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen" (1 Tim 6:16), we +were unable to approach him. And so it was necessary that he come +to us. This is what he says, I have come as light into the +world, that is, I am the unapproachable light which rescues +from error and disperses intellectual darkness: "I came from the +Father and have come into the world" (16:28); "He came to his own" +[1:11]. And although the apostles are called light - "You are the +light of the world" (Mt 5:14) - they are not light in the same way +as Christ. For they are a light whose light has been given to them, +even though in some way they also give light, that is, in their +ministry. Furthermore, none of the apostles could truly say, I +have come as light into the world, because when they came into +the world they were still darkness and not light, for in Job +[37:19] it says: "We are wrapped in darkness."
+1714 Secondly, he continues, that whoever believes in me may +not remain in darkness. To become enlightened, therefore, is an +effect of faith: "He who follows me will not walk in darkness" +(8:12). May not remain in darkness: that is, the darkness of +ignorance, of unbelief and eternal damnation. This shows that all +are born in the darkness of sin: "For once you were darkness, but +now you are light in the Lord," as we read in Ephesians (5:8). And +in the darkness of ignorance: "A man whose way is hidden and God +has surrounded him with darkness" [Job 3:23]. And in the end, +unless they turn to Christ, they will be brought to the darkness of +eternal damnation. And so, he who does not believe in me remains in +darkness: "Whoever is unbelieving in the Son will not see life; +rather, the anger of God rests on him" [3:36].
+1715 Then he discloses the punishment of unbelievers, which they +will incur through their condemnation at the judgment. First, he +states that the judgment will be delayed; secondly, that there will +be a judgment in the future (v 48); and thirdly, he shows the cause +of the judgment (v 48b).
+1716 As to the first he says, If any one hears my sayings and +does not keep them, I do not judge him. Note that the ones to +be made happy, beatified, are those who hear the word of God and +keep it, believing it within in their hearts, and doing it without +in their actions. But they who hear it but take no care to keep it, +become more guilty: "For it is not the hearers of the law who are +righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified" +(Rom 2:13); "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only" (Jas +1:22). And so, If any one hears my sayings and does not keep +them, I do not judge him.
+But this seems to conflict with what was said above (5:22): "The +Father…has given all judgment to the Son." Therefore, we +should understand it as, I do not judge him at this time. It +could be considered a weakness in him if he overlooked those who +despised him. And so he says that such persons will be judged, +although not now; for we read that "God will bring every deed into +judgment" (Eccl 12:14), and "Flee from the face of iniquity, for +the sword is the avenger of iniquity: and know that there is a +judgment" [Job 19:29].
1717 He continues with the reason for the delay, saying for I -did not come to judge the world but to save the world. Now the Son of God -comes two times: one time he comes as Savior, and the next as judge. But since -all were in sin, if he had come the first time as judge, he would have saved no -one, because all were the children of wrath. And so it was fitting that he come -first to save believers, and later to judge both believers and sinners. This is -what he is saying: I do not judge now, for I did not come at this come to -judge the world but to save the world. "God did not send his Son into the -world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" -[3:17]. - +did not come to judge the world but to save the world. Now the +Son of God comes two times: one time he comes as Savior, and the +next as judge. But since all were in sin, if he had come the first +time as judge, he would have saved no one, because all were the +children of wrath. And so it was fitting that he come first to save +believers, and later to judge both believers and sinners. This is +what he is saying: I do not judge now, for I did not come at +this come to judge the world but to save the world. "God did +not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the +world might be saved through him" [3:17].
1718 Then when he says, he who rejects me and does not -receive my sayings has a judge, he foretells the judgment to come. It is -like saying: Although those who do not keep my word are not judged now, they -will not go unpunished, whoever they are, because, he who rejects me and -does not receive my sayings by believing them and acting according to them, -has a judge. The reason for this is that if one does not receive the -word of Christ, he scorns the word of God, whose Word is Christ, just like the -one who does not obey the command of his master. "Flee from the face of -iniquity; and know that there is a judgment" [Job 19:29]; "For God will bring -every deed into judgment" (Eccl 12:14); "Woe to you who scorn. Will not you -yourselves also be scorned?" [Is 33:1]; "They who despise me will be despised" -[1 Sam 2:30]. - -
1719 Then when he says, the word that I have spoken will -be his judge on the last day, he assigns the cause of the judgment. And -first, he mentions the cause of the judgment; secondly, the adequacy of this -cause (v 49). - -
1720 He says: I say that such a person has one that judges -him. But who will that judge be? He says, the word that I have spoken will -be his judge on the last day. According to Augustine, this is the same as -saying: I will judge him on the last day.[43] For Christ revealed -himself in his sayings, he announced himself. He, therefore, is the word that -he spoke, for he spoke about himself: "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my -testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going" -(8:14). It is like saying: What I have said to them and they have despised will -judge them: "He is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the -dead. To him all the prophets bear witness" (Acts 10:42). - +receive my sayings has a judge, he foretells the judgment to +come. It is like saying: Although those who do not keep my word are +not judged now, they will not go unpunished, whoever they are, +because, he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings +by believing them and acting according to them, has a judge. +The reason for this is that if one does not receive the word of +Christ, he scorns the word of God, whose Word is Christ, just like +the one who does not obey the command of his master. "Flee from the +face of iniquity; and know that there is a judgment" [Job 19:29]; +"For God will bring every deed into judgment" (Eccl 12:14); "Woe to +you who scorn. Will not you yourselves also be scorned?" [Is 33:1]; +"They who despise me will be despised" [1 Sam 2:30].
+1719 Then when he says, the word that I have spoken will be +his judge on the last day, he assigns the cause of the +judgment. And first, he mentions the cause of the judgment; +secondly, the adequacy of this cause (v 49).
+1720 He says: I say that such a person has one that judges him. +But who will that judge be? He says, the word that I have spoken +will be his judge on the last day. According to Augustine, this +is the same as saying: I will judge him on the last day.[43] For +Christ revealed himself in his sayings, he announced himself. He, +therefore, is the word that he spoke, for he spoke about himself: +"Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I +know whence I have come and whither I am going" (8:14). It is like +saying: What I have said to them and they have despised will judge +them: "He is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and +the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness" (Acts 10:42).
1721 Then he shows the sufficiency of this cause, saying, for -I have not spoken on my own authority [of myself, ex meipso]. -So first he shows this from the origin of his sayings; secondly, from their -dignity or value (v 50). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he -excludes a false notion: secondly, he states the truth. - +I have not spoken on my own authority [of myself, ex +meipso]. So first he shows this from the origin of his sayings; +secondly, from their dignity or value (v 50). Concerning the first +he does two things: first, he excludes a false notion: secondly, he +states the truth.
1722 The false notion, of course, is that the Son works, or -says, or is, merely of himself, and not from another: for this would be to say -that the Son is not from the Father, which is what he does say: I say that the -word which I have spoken will judge them, for I have not spoken of myself: -"The Son cannot do anything of himself" [5:19]; "I do not speak of myself" -[14:10]. Indeed, I have not spoken of myself, is the same as "I was not -born of myself but from the Father." He is saying in effect, I will judge him -on the last day (appearing in the form of a servant): "He gave him the power to -pass judgment, because he is the Son of man" [5:27]. Yet I will not judge from -human authority, that is, because I am the Son of man, but from divine -authority, because I am the Son of God. Therefore, I will not judge of myself, -but from the Father from whom I have the authority to judge. - -
1723 He establishes the truth when he says, the Father -who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. -Unless this is appropriately understood, it can be the source of two errors. -The first is that since the one commanding is greater than the one commanded, -the Father is greater than the Son. Secondly, since what is given to someone -was not possessed by him before it was given, and so was not known by him, it -seems that if the Father gave a commandment to the Son it follows that the Son -at some time did not have it, and so did not know it. As a result, something -has been added to the Son, and so the Son is not truly God. - -
In answer to this we should note -that all the divine commands are in the mind of the Father, since these -commands are nothing other than the plans or patterns of things to be done. And -so just as the patterns of all creatures produced by God are in the mind of the -Father, and are called ideas, so the patterns of all things to be done by us -are in his mind. And just as the patterns of all things pass from the Father to -the Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father, so also the patterns of all things to -be done. Therefore, the Son says, the Father who sent me has himself given -me, as God, commandment, that is, by an eternal generation he has -communicated to me what to say within and what to speak without, -just as what we say (if we speak the truth) makes known what is in our minds.[44] - +says, or is, merely of himself, and not from another: for this +would be to say that the Son is not from the Father, which is what +he does say: I say that the word which I have spoken will judge +them, for I have not spoken of myself: "The Son cannot do +anything of himself" [5:19]; "I do not speak of myself" [14:10]. +Indeed, I have not spoken of myself, is the same as "I was +not born of myself but from the Father." He is saying in effect, I +will judge him on the last day (appearing in the form of a +servant): "He gave him the power to pass judgment, because he is +the Son of man" [5:27]. Yet I will not judge from human authority, +that is, because I am the Son of man, but from divine authority, +because I am the Son of God. Therefore, I will not judge of myself, +but from the Father from whom I have the authority to judge.
+1723 He establishes the truth when he says, the Father who +sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to +speak. Unless this is appropriately understood, it can be the +source of two errors. The first is that since the one commanding is +greater than the one commanded, the Father is greater than the Son. +Secondly, since what is given to someone was not possessed by him +before it was given, and so was not known by him, it seems that if +the Father gave a commandment to the Son it follows that the Son at +some time did not have it, and so did not know it. As a result, +something has been added to the Son, and so the Son is not truly +God.
+In answer to this we should note that all the divine commands +are in the mind of the Father, since these commands are nothing +other than the plans or patterns of things to be done. And so just +as the patterns of all creatures produced by God are in the mind of +the Father, and are called ideas, so the patterns of all things to +be done by us are in his mind. And just as the patterns of all +things pass from the Father to the Son, who is the Wisdom of the +Father, so also the patterns of all things to be done. Therefore, +the Son says, the Father who sent me has himself given me, +as God, commandment, that is, by an eternal generation he +has communicated to me what to say within and what to +speak without, just as what we say (if we speak the truth) +makes known what is in our minds.[44]
1724 Chrysostom explains all this differently, and more -clearly.[45] First of all (v 47): If -any one hear my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him. Now one -is said to be condemned in two ways: either by a judge or by the reason for the -condemnation. For a murderer is condemned to be hanged both by the judge who -passes sentence and by the murder he committed, which is the reason for his -condemnation. He says, I do not judge him, that is, I am not the reason -for his condemnation, but he himself is: "Your destruction, O Israel is from -yourself; your help is only in me" [Hos 13:9]. And the reason is: for I did -not come to judge the world, that is, I was not sent to condemn but to -save. - -
But will not such a person be -judged? He certainly will, because he who rejects me and does not receive my -sayings has a judge. He shows what that judge is when he says, the word -that I have spoken, and you have heard, will be his accuser and will be -his judge on the last day. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they -would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" (15:22). He -shows that the word that he spoke will judge them by saying, for I have not -spoken of myself. This is not said causally, but in a material sense, so -that the meaning is: You say that your word will judge. But what is that word? -It is the word that I have spoken, for I have not spoken of myself; that -is, it is the word from the Father that I have spoken, and what he gave me to -say and speak. Otherwise, if I had spoken something in opposition to the -Father, or something I had not received from the Father, and they had believed -me, they would have an excuse. But because I have spoken as I have, it is -certain that they have rejected not only me, but also my Father. - -
1725 According to this explanation, the statement, the -Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to -speak, shows the sufficiency of the basis of the judgment because of the -dignity or value of the word. First, its dignity is given; secondly, the fact -that the word was spoken. Its dignity is stated when he says, I know that -his commandment is eternal life. "This is the true God and eternal life" (1 -Jn 5:20). For the Son himself is the commandment of the Father, or, he is -eternal life. "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). - -
Therefore, because the Father has -given me commandment, and this commandment is eternal life, and since I have -come to lead men to eternal life, I accomplish the commandment of the Father in -all that I do. This is what he is saying, What I say, therefore, I say as -the Father has said to me. According to Chrysostom, whose explanation is -clear, the meaning is: what I say, therefore, when preaching in public, I -say as the Father has said to me, that is, insofar as I have received -knowledge from him - understanding this was received by Christ as man. - +clearly.[45] +First of all (v 47): If any one hear my sayings and does not +keep them, I do not judge him. Now one is said to be condemned +in two ways: either by a judge or by the reason for the +condemnation. For a murderer is condemned to be hanged both by the +judge who passes sentence and by the murder he committed, which is +the reason for his condemnation. He says, I do not judge +him, that is, I am not the reason for his condemnation, but he +himself is: "Your destruction, O Israel is from yourself; your help +is only in me" [Hos 13:9]. And the reason is: for I did not come +to judge the world, that is, I was not sent to condemn but to +save.
+But will not such a person be judged? He certainly will, because +he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a +judge. He shows what that judge is when he says, the word +that I have spoken, and you have heard, will be his accuser and +will be his judge on the last day. "If I had not come and +spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no +excuse for their sin" (15:22). He shows that the word that he spoke +will judge them by saying, for I have not spoken of myself. +This is not said causally, but in a material sense, so that the +meaning is: You say that your word will judge. But what is that +word? It is the word that I have spoken, for I have not spoken +of myself; that is, it is the word from the Father that I have +spoken, and what he gave me to say and speak. Otherwise, if I had +spoken something in opposition to the Father, or something I had +not received from the Father, and they had believed me, they would +have an excuse. But because I have spoken as I have, it is certain +that they have rejected not only me, but also my Father.
+1725 According to this explanation, the statement, the Father +who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what +to speak, shows the sufficiency of the basis of the judgment +because of the dignity or value of the word. First, its dignity is +given; secondly, the fact that the word was spoken. Its dignity is +stated when he says, I know that his commandment is eternal +life. "This is the true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20). For +the Son himself is the commandment of the Father, or, he is eternal +life. "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt +19:17).
+Therefore, because the Father has given me commandment, and this +commandment is eternal life, and since I have come to lead men to +eternal life, I accomplish the commandment of the Father in all +that I do. This is what he is saying, What I say, therefore, I +say as the Father has said to me. According to Chrysostom, +whose explanation is clear, the meaning is: what I say, +therefore, when preaching in public, I say as the Father has +said to me, that is, insofar as I have received knowledge from +him - understanding this was received by Christ as man.
1726 But if, with Augustine, we understand this to apply to -Christ as God, how can the Father say something to him, since Christ is his -Word? The answer is that the Father did not say anything to him as though he -spoke by words to his only Word. Rather, the Father spoke to the Son by -generating him, and giving him life in himself: "He [the Lord] said to me, 'You -are my son'" (Ps 2:7).[46] - +Christ as God, how can the Father say something to him, since +Christ is his Word? The answer is that the Father did not say +anything to him as though he spoke by words to his only Word. +Rather, the Father spoke to the Son by generating him, and giving +him life in himself: "He [the Lord] said to me, 'You are my son'" +(Ps 2:7).[46]
+
+
++- -[1] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 12:6 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 55, a. +7, obj. 3; q. 188, a. 7.
- -
- -- -[1] St. Thomas refers to Jn 12:6 in the Summa Theologiae: -II-II, q. 55, a. 7, obj. 3; q. 188, a. 7. - +
+- -[2] Tract. in +Io., 50, ch. 6, col. 1760; cf. Catena Aurea, +12:1-11.
- -[2] Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 6, col. 1760; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11. - +
+- -[3] Chrysostom, +In Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 342; cf. Catena +Aurea, 11:1-5; Jerome, Evang. Ioan.; PL 29, col. +670.
- -[3] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 1; PG 59, col. -342; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:1-5; Jerome, Evang. Ioan.; PL 29, col. 670. - +
+- -[4] Origen.
- -[4] Origen. - +
+- -[5] Augustine, +De consensus evangelistarum, 2, ch. 79, 78; PL 34; cf. +Catena Aurea, 12:1-11.
+Gregory, Epistola V ad Theoctistam; PL 77; col. 449C.
- -[5] Augustine, De consensus -evangelistarum, 2, ch. 79, 78; PL 34; cf. Catena -Aurea, 12:1-11. - -
Gregory, Epistola V ad -Theoctistam; PL 77; col. 449C. - +
+- -[6] Tract. in +Io., 50, ch. 6, col. 1760; cf. Catena Aurea, +12:1-11.
- -[6] Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 6, col. 1760; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11. - +
+- -[7] Tract. in +Io., 50, ch. 10, col. 1762; cf. Catena Aurea, +12:1-11.
- -[7] Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 10, col. 1762; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11. - +
+- -[8] +Chrysostom.
- -[8] Chrysostom. - +
+- -[9] Tract. in +Io., 50, ch. 13, col. 1763; cf. Catena Aurea, +12:1-11.
- -[9] Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 13, col. 1763; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11. - +
+- -11.0pt;color:red'>[10] Chrysostom, In Ioannem +hom., 65, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 363; cf. Catena Aurea, +12:1-11.
- -11.0pt;color:red'>[10] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., -65, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 363; cf. Catena Aurea, -12:1-11. - +
+- -11.0pt;color:red'>[11] In Ioannem +hom., 66, ch. 1; PG 59, col 365, 366; cf. Catena Aurea, +12:1-11.
- -11.0pt;color:red'>[11] -In Ioannem hom., -66, ch. 1; PG 59, col 365, 366; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11. - +
+- -[12] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 12:13 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. +1, a. 9, s. c.
- -[12] St. -Thomas refers to Jn 12:13 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 1, a. 9, s. -c. - +
+- -[13] +Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 2, col. 1764; cf. Catena +Aurea, 12:12-19.
- -[13] Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 2, col. 1764; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:12-19. - +
+- -[14] +Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 3, col. 1763.
- -[14] Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 3, col. 1763. - +
+- -[15] +Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 66, ch. 2; PG 59, col 367; cf. +Catena Aurea, 12-19.
- -[15] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 66, ch. 2; PG 59, col 367; cf. -Catena Aurea, 12-19. - +
+- -[16] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 12:24 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. +74, a. 3, s. c.; Jn 12:24, 25: ST III, q. 46, a. 2, obj. +1.
- -[16] St. -Thomas refers to Jn 12:24 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 74, a. 3, s. -c.; Jn 12:24, 25: ST III, q. 46, a. 2, obj. 1. - +
+- -[17] Gloss +(not Alcuin or Bede Alcuin)
- -[17] Gloss (not Alcuin or Bede Alcuin) - +
+- -[18] +Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 66, ch. 2; PG 59, col 367.
- -[18] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 66, ch. 2; PG 59, col -367. - +
++[19] The most +commonly accepted derivation of Philip is from the Greek +phil--hippos meaning "lover of horses."
++- -[20] +Summa-man can love himself partially or absolutely by willing +temporal or eternal goods. To himself.
- -[19] The -most commonly accepted derivation of Philip is from the Greek phil--hippos -meaning "lover of horses." - +
+- -[21] +Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 11, col. 1767.
- -- -[20] Summa-man can love himself partially or absolutely by -willing temporal or eternal goods. To himself. - -
- -[21] Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 11, col. 1767. - +
+- -[22] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 12:31 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. +44, a. 1; q. 49, a. 2, s. c.; Jn 12:31: ST III, q. 46, a. 4; +q. 49, a. 2, s. c.
- -[22] St. -Thomas refers to Jn 12:31 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 44, a. 1; q. -49, a. 2, s. c.; Jn 12:31: ST III, q. 46, a. 4; q. 49, a. 2, s. c. - +
+- -[23] +Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 2, col. 1769; cf. Catena +Aurea, 12:27-33.
- -[23] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 2, col. 1769; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33. - +
++[24] +Aristotle, Rhetoric.
++- -[25] +Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 3, col. 1770; cf. Catena +Aurea, 7:9-13..
- -- -[24] Aristotle, Rhetoric. - -
- -[25] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 3, col. 1770; cf. Catena Aurea, 7:9-13.. - +
+- -[26] In +Ioannem hom., 67, ch. 1; PG 59, col 371; cf. Catena +Aurea, 12:27-33.
- -[26] In Ioannem hom., 67, ch. 1; PG 59, col 371; cf. -Catena Aurea, 12:27-33. - +
+- -[27] +Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 6, col. 1771; cf. Catena +Aurea, 12:27-33.
- -[27] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 6, col. 1771; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33. - +
+- -[28] Ibid.; +cf. Catena Aurea,12:27-33.
- -[28] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, -12:27-33. - +
+- -[29] Ibid.; +cf. Catena Aurea,12:27-33.
- -[29] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, -12:27-33. - +
+- -[30]Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 67, ch. 3; PG +59, col. 373; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33.
- -[30]Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 67, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 373; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33. - +
+- -[31] See +Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 13, col. 1774.
- -[31] See Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 13, col. 1774. - +
+- -[32] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 12:36 in the Summa Theologiae: I-II, q. +108, a. 1, s. c.
- -[32] St. -Thomas refers to Jn 12:36 in the Summa Theologiae: I-II, q. 108, a. 1, -s. c. - +
+- -[33] +Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 12, col. 1773; cf. Catena +Aurea, 12:34-36.
- -[33] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 12, col. 1773; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:34-36. - +
+- -[34]Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 1; PG +59, col. 374; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:34-36.
- -[34]Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 374; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:34-36. - +
+- -[35] +Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 13, col. 1774.
- -[35] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 13, col. 1774. - +
+- -[36]Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 1; PG +59, col. 374; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:34-36.
- -[36]Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 374; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:34-36. - +
+- -[37] +Summa-the way in which God is said to blind the eyes and hearts of +those who do not believe.
- -[37] Summa-the way in which God is said to blind the eyes and -hearts of those who do not believe. - +
+- -[38] +Augustine, Quaest. Evang.
- -[38] Augustine, Quaest. Evang. - +
+- -[39] +Augustine, Contra Faustum, lib. 4, ch. 1; PL 42, col. +217.
- -[39] Augustine, Contra Faustum, lib. 4, ch. 1; PL 42, col. -217. - +
+- -[40] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 12:43 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. +132, a. 3; Jn 12:48: ST III, q. 59, a. 5, s. c.
- -[40] St. -Thomas refers to Jn 12:43 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 132, a. 3; -Jn 12:48: ST III, q. 59, a. 5, s. c. - +
+- -[41] +Tract. in Io., 54, ch. 2, col. 1780-1; cf. Catena +Aurea, 12:44-50.
- -[41] Tract. in Io., 54, ch. 2, col. 1780-1; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50. - +
+- -[42] +Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 69, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 377; cf. +Catena Aurea, 12:44-50.
- -[42] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 69, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 377; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50. - +
+- -[43] +Tract. in Io., 54, ch. 6, col. 1782-3; cf. Catena +Aurea, 12:44-50.
- -[43] Tract. in Io., 54, ch. 6, col. 1782-3; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50. - +
++[44] +Summa-patterns of all things existing in the mind of the Father and +communicated to the Son.
++- -[45] +Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 379; cf. +Catena Aurea, 12:44-50.
- -[44] Summa-patterns of all things existing in the mind of the -Father and communicated to the Son. - +
+- -[46] +Tract. in Io., 54, ch. 8, col. 1784; cf. Catena +Aurea, 12:44-50.
- -- -[45] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 379; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50. -
- -- -[46] Tract. in Io., 54, ch. 8, col. 1784; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50. - + + + diff -r 2bc1f3a24bc0 -r 178aed5d2c3c john/english/John13.html --- a/john/english/John13.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John13.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,2418 +1,2370 @@ - + +
+ +- -- + +13 -
LECTURE I -
1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew -that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved -his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 And during supper, -when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's -son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into -his hand, and that he had come from God and was going to God…[1]
+- +already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to +betray him, he depicts the time by emphasizing the sin of the +traitor. He mentions his sin for two reasons. First, the better to +bring out the evil of Judas, who in spite of so many tokens of love +and humble service, considered committing such a great sin: the +Psalm (41:9) says: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate +of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." And secondly, the +better to show the wonderful love of Christ who, although knowing +this, treated him with love and humility by washing his feet: "With +those who hated peace I was peaceable" [Ps 120:7]. +13
+LECTURE I
++1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that +his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having +loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 +And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart +of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that +the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he had come +from God and was going to God…[1]
+1727 Above, the Evangelist set forth some of the events leading -to Christ's passion and death; in this part he shows how Christ prepared his -disciples before his passion. First, we see how he formed them by his example; -secondly, how he comforted them with his words (c 14); thirdly, how he -strengthened them by the help of his prayers (c 17). Concerning the first he -does two things: first, he presents the example Christ gave for his disciples -to imitate; and secondly we see the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet -ready to follow him (v 21). Concerning the first he does three things: first, -he sets forth the example; secondly, he shows that the example was useful (v -6); thirdly, we see Jesus asking them to imitate it (v 12). Concerning the -first he does two things: first, he describes the love of Christ, who is giving -the example; secondly, the action in which he gave the example (v 2). -Concerning the first he mentions three things: first, the feast about to be -celebrated; secondly, the approaching death of Christ; thirdly, Christ's -burning love. - +to Christ's passion and death; in this part he shows how Christ +prepared his disciples before his passion. First, we see how he +formed them by his example; secondly, how he comforted them with +his words (c 14); thirdly, how he strengthened them by the help of +his prayers (c 17). Concerning the first he does two things: first, +he presents the example Christ gave for his disciples to imitate; +and secondly we see the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet +ready to follow him (v 21). Concerning the first he does three +things: first, he sets forth the example; secondly, he shows that +the example was useful (v 6); thirdly, we see Jesus asking them to +imitate it (v 12). Concerning the first he does two things: first, +he describes the love of Christ, who is giving the example; +secondly, the action in which he gave the example (v 2). Concerning +the first he mentions three things: first, the feast about to be +celebrated; secondly, the approaching death of Christ; thirdly, +Christ's burning love.
1728 The feast at hand was the Passover; so he says, Now -before the feast of the Passover. Here we should note that some say the -[Latin] word pascha comes from the Greek word for "passion," and that -this feast is called the Pascha because it is then that we celebrate the -passion of our Lord. As a matter of fact, the word pascha in Greek does -mean "to suffer." Yet the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word, pesah, -which means a "passage," as in Exodus [12:11]: "It is the pesah," -passage, or a passing over, "of the Lord." This is the meaning the Evangelist -gives it here because of two passings. The first was the passing of the angel -striking down the first-born of the Egyptians and sparing the first-born of the -Hebrews (Ex 12:12); and the other was the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea. So it was reasonable to call this feast the Pascha, [translated -into English as Passover]. - -
We can say that our Passover takes -its meaning from both languages, Greek and Hebrew. For the passage of Christ -from this world to the Father took place through his passion. "He passed about -doing good and healing all" [Acts 10:38]. Again, all of us who follow Christ -have our own passage: either by reform and martyrdom, according to the saying, -"We have passed through fire and water and you have brought us to a place of -refreshment" [Ps 66:12]; or by the desire of our mind aspiring to heavenly -things: "Pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my fruits" -[Sir 24:19]. - +before the feast of the Passover. Here we should note that some +say the [Latin] word pascha comes from the Greek word for +"passion," and that this feast is called the Pascha because +it is then that we celebrate the passion of our Lord. As a matter +of fact, the word pascha in Greek does mean "to suffer." Yet +the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word, +pesah, which means a "passage," as in Exodus [12:11]: "It is +the pesah," passage, or a passing over, "of the Lord." This +is the meaning the Evangelist gives it here because of two +passings. The first was the passing of the angel striking down the +first-born of the Egyptians and sparing the first-born of the +Hebrews (Ex 12:12); and the other was the passage of the children +of Israel through the Red Sea. So it was reasonable to call this +feast the Pascha, [translated into English as Passover].
+We can say that our Passover takes its meaning from both +languages, Greek and Hebrew. For the passage of Christ from this +world to the Father took place through his passion. "He passed +about doing good and healing all" [Acts 10:38]. Again, all of us +who follow Christ have our own passage: either by reform and +martyrdom, according to the saying, "We have passed through fire +and water and you have brought us to a place of refreshment" [Ps +66:12]; or by the desire of our mind aspiring to heavenly things: +"Pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my +fruits" [Sir 24:19].
1729 As we read in Exodus (23:14), the Jews had three great -feasts, when they gathered together in a place chosen by the Lord: The Pesah, -when the lamb was sacrificed, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is, -the Skenopegia. But the greatest feast was that of the Passover. - -
A problem arises as to why he says -here, before the feast of the Passover, for the feast of the Passover is -when the lamb was sacrificed, that is, on the 14th day of the month. So since -he says, before the feast of the Passover, it seems that this was taking -place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. And indeed, the Greeks accept -this, and say that our Lord suffered on the 14th, when the Jews were supposed -to celebrate the Passover, and that our Lord, knowing that his passion was -near, anticipated the celebration of the Passover and celebrated his own -Passover on the day before the Passover feast of the Jews. And because it is -commanded in Exodus (12:18) that from the evening of the 14th day to the 21st -day the Hebrews should not have any leavened bread, they further say that the -Lord celebrated not with unleavened bread, but with leavened bread, because -Hebrews did have leavened bread on the 13th day, that is, before the Passover. - -
But the other three Evangelists do -not agree with this, for they say the time was the first day of Unleavened -Bread, when the lamb was to be sacrificed (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7). It -follows from this that our Lord's supper took place on the very day that the -Jews sacrificed the lamb. - -
1730 The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists -did not report this truly; and so John, who wrote the last of the Gospels, -corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is anything false not only -in the Gospels but anywhere in the canonical scriptures. Consequently, we have -to say that all the Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree. - -
To elucidate this it should be -noted that, as is stated in Leviticus (23:5), the feasts of the Jews began on -the evening of the preceding day. The reason for this was that they reckoned -their days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening; so, they -counted their days from one sunset to the next. Thus for them, the Passover -began on the evening of the preceding day and ended on the evening of the day -of the Passover. We celebrate feasts in the same way; so something that takes -place with us on the vigil of Christmas is said to have happened on Christmas. -And so the other Evangelists, using this way of speaking, said that the supper -took place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, meaning it took place on the -evening before the first full day of the feast of Unleavened Bread. But here, -John the Evangelist regards the Passover as that entire daytime which was -celebrated, but not as the evening before, which was also celebrated. Thus he says, -before the feast of the Passover. Consequently, it is clear that our -Lord's supper took place on the 14th day in the evening [the beginning of the -14th day, the day beginning in the evening]. - +feasts, when they gathered together in a place chosen by the Lord: +The Pesah, when the lamb was sacrificed, Pentecost, and the Feast +of Tabernacles, that is, the Skenopegia. But the greatest +feast was that of the Passover.
+A problem arises as to why he says here, before the feast of +the Passover, for the feast of the Passover is when the lamb +was sacrificed, that is, on the 14th day of the month. So since he +says, before the feast of the Passover, it seems that this +was taking place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. And +indeed, the Greeks accept this, and say that our Lord suffered on +the 14th, when the Jews were supposed to celebrate the Passover, +and that our Lord, knowing that his passion was near, anticipated +the celebration of the Passover and celebrated his own Passover on +the day before the Passover feast of the Jews. And because it is +commanded in Exodus (12:18) that from the evening of the 14th day +to the 21st day the Hebrews should not have any leavened bread, +they further say that the Lord celebrated not with unleavened +bread, but with leavened bread, because Hebrews did have leavened +bread on the 13th day, that is, before the Passover.
+But the other three Evangelists do not agree with this, for they +say the time was the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the lamb +was to be sacrificed (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7). It follows from +this that our Lord's supper took place on the very day that the +Jews sacrificed the lamb.
+1730 The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists did +not report this truly; and so John, who wrote the last of the +Gospels, corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is +anything false not only in the Gospels but anywhere in the +canonical scriptures. Consequently, we have to say that all the +Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree.
+To elucidate this it should be noted that, as is stated in +Leviticus (23:5), the feasts of the Jews began on the evening of +the preceding day. The reason for this was that they reckoned their +days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening; so, +they counted their days from one sunset to the next. Thus for them, +the Passover began on the evening of the preceding day and ended on +the evening of the day of the Passover. We celebrate feasts in the +same way; so something that takes place with us on the vigil of +Christmas is said to have happened on Christmas. And so the other +Evangelists, using this way of speaking, said that the supper took +place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, meaning it took place +on the evening before the first full day of the feast of Unleavened +Bread. But here, John the Evangelist regards the Passover as that +entire daytime which was celebrated, but not as the evening before, +which was also celebrated. Thus he says, before the feast of the +Passover. Consequently, it is clear that our Lord's supper took +place on the 14th day in the evening [the beginning of the 14th +day, the day beginning in the evening].
1731 The death of Christ, which was approaching, was his passage -from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, Jesus knew that his -hour had come: for this feast was a symbol of the passion of Christ, "All -these things happened to them as symbols" [1 Cor 10:11]. So he at once mentions -the reality, that is, the passion of Christ. And as a way of showing that the -word pascha came from pesah, meaning a passage, he mentions his -passage, to depart, pass, out of this world to the Father. - -
1732 Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the -passion of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; secondly, that it was fitting; -thirdly, it was a source of benefits and exaltation. - -
It was foreseen and not fortuitous; -so he says, Jesus knew. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly -and willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. "Jesus, knowing all that was -to befall him" (18:4). The opposite is said of us: "There is great affliction -for man because he is ignorant of things past, and things to come he cannot -know in any way" [Eccl 8:7]. - -
1733 The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its -time; and as to this he says, that his hour had come, which was the time -of the Passover, when his passage would be by the cross: "There is a time and -opportunity for every business" [Eccl 8:6]. This is the hour of which he said, -"My hour has not yet come" (2:4). Yet this hour was not a matter of fate, as -though governed by the course and arrangement of the stars; it was determined -by the disposition and providence of God. I say, therefore, it was determined -for the Jewish Passover because it was fitting to this Jewish feast that the -reality follow the symbol, that is, that when the lamb, which was a symbol of -Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who was truly the Lamb of God, should be -immolated. "You know that you were ransomed…not with perishable things such as -silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb -without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18-19). - -
It was also fitting to the -situation, for Christ was now glorified: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in -him God is glorified" (13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the world: -"I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world" -(17:6). What remained, therefore, was to accomplish his passion and the work of -human redemption, about which we read: "It is finished," followed by, "and he -bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (19:30). - -
1734 The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and -glory, not of defeat, because it was in order that he could depart out of -this world to the Father, by making his human nature a partaker in the -glory of the Father: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God -and your God" (20:17). This does not mean that he would pass from one place to -another, since God the Father is not contained by any place: "Do I not fill -heaven and earth? (Jer 23:24). Rather, just as Christ is said to have come from -the Father, not by leaving him, but by assuming an inferior nature like our -own, so he is said to have returned to the Father insofar as, even in his human -nature, he became a sharer in the Father's glory. "The life he lives he lives -to God" (Rom 6:10); "Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is -in the glory of God the Father" [Phil 2:11]. - -
1735 Then when he says, having loved his own who were in -the world, he loved them to the end, he commends the intense love of -Christ; and this on four points. - -
First, because his love was first, -according to "Not that we have loved God, but that he has first loved us" [1 Jn -4:10]. And as to this he says, having loved his own, trying to suggest -that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he created us: -"For thou lovest all things that exist, and have loathing for none of the -things which thou hast made" (Wis 11:24). He loved us before he called us: "I -have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking -pity on you" [Jer 31:3]. And he loved us before he redeemed us: "Greater love -has not man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). - +from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, Jesus +knew that his hour had come: for this feast was a symbol of the +passion of Christ, "All these things happened to them as symbols" +[1 Cor 10:11]. So he at once mentions the reality, that is, the +passion of Christ. And as a way of showing that the word +pascha came from pesah, meaning a passage, he +mentions his passage, to depart, pass, out of this world +to the Father.
+1732 Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the passion +of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; secondly, that it was +fitting; thirdly, it was a source of benefits and exaltation.
+It was foreseen and not fortuitous; so he says, Jesus +knew. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly and +willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. "Jesus, knowing all +that was to befall him" (18:4). The opposite is said of us: "There +is great affliction for man because he is ignorant of things past, +and things to come he cannot know in any way" [Eccl 8:7].
+1733 The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its time; +and as to this he says, that his hour had come, which was +the time of the Passover, when his passage would be by the cross: +"There is a time and opportunity for every business" [Eccl 8:6]. +This is the hour of which he said, "My hour has not yet come" +(2:4). Yet this hour was not a matter of fate, as though governed +by the course and arrangement of the stars; it was determined by +the disposition and providence of God. I say, therefore, it was +determined for the Jewish Passover because it was fitting to this +Jewish feast that the reality follow the symbol, that is, that when +the lamb, which was a symbol of Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who +was truly the Lamb of God, should be immolated. "You know that you +were ransomed…not with perishable things such as silver or +gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb +without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18-19).
+It was also fitting to the situation, for Christ was now +glorified: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is +glorified" (13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the +world: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me +out of the world" (17:6). What remained, therefore, was to +accomplish his passion and the work of human redemption, about +which we read: "It is finished," followed by, "and he bowed his +head and gave up his spirit" (19:30).
+1734 The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and glory, +not of defeat, because it was in order that he could depart out +of this world to the Father, by making his human nature a +partaker in the glory of the Father: "I am ascending to my Father +and your Father, to my God and your God" (20:17). This does not +mean that he would pass from one place to another, since God the +Father is not contained by any place: "Do I not fill heaven and +earth? (Jer 23:24). Rather, just as Christ is said to have come +from the Father, not by leaving him, but by assuming an inferior +nature like our own, so he is said to have returned to the Father +insofar as, even in his human nature, he became a sharer in the +Father's glory. "The life he lives he lives to God" (Rom 6:10); +"Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the +glory of God the Father" [Phil 2:11].
+1735 Then when he says, having loved his own who were in the +world, he loved them to the end, he commends the intense love +of Christ; and this on four points.
+First, because his love was first, according to "Not that we +have loved God, but that he has first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. And as +to this he says, having loved his own, trying to suggest +that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he +created us: "For thou lovest all things that exist, and have +loathing for none of the things which thou hast made" (Wis 11:24). +He loved us before he called us: "I have loved you with an +everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you" +[Jer 31:3]. And he loved us before he redeemed us: "Greater love +has not man than this, that a man lay down his life for his +friends" (15:13).
1736 Secondly, his love is commended as fitting, because he -loved his own. Here we should note that God loves persons in various -ways, depending on the various ways they are Christ's. Now, one can be his in -three ways. First, by creation; and God loves these by conserving their goods -of nature: "He came to his own home, and his own people," by creation, -"received him not" (1:11). Others are his by donation, that is, those given to -him by God the Father through faith: "Thine they were, and thou gave them to me, -and they have kept thy word" (17:6); and he loves these by preserving their -goods of grace. Finally, some are his by a special devotion: "Behold, we are -your bone and flesh" (1 Chron 11:1); he loves these by consoling them in a -special way.[2] - -
1737 Thirdly, Christ's love is commended because it was -needed, since he loved his own who were in the world. Those who were -already in the glory of the Father are his, because even our fathers of long -time past were his insofar as they hoped to be set free by him: "All his holy -ones are in his hand" [Deut 33:3]. But these do not need such love as this as -much as those who were in the world; so he says, who were in the world, -that is, in body, but not in mind. - -
1738 Fourthly, his love is commended because it was perfect, -so he says, he loved them to the end. Now there are two kind of ends: -the end in the intention, and the end in execution. The end in intention is -that to which our intention is directed; and this end ought to be eternal life, -according to, "The return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life" -(Rom 6:22). Again this end should be Christ: "For Christ is the end of the law, -that every one who has faith may be justified" (Rom 10:4). But these two are -really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying Christ in -his divinity: "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, -and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (17:3). From this point of view he says, he -loved them to the end, in order to lead them to himself, the end; or, to -lead them to eternal life, which is the same thing. "I have loved you with an -everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer 31:3]. - -
The end in execution is the -terminus or outcome of a thing; so in this sense, death can be called an end. -Thus he could say, he loved them to the end, that is, up to death. Used -in this way, it can have three meanings. The first, mentioned by Augustine, is -a very human way, and means that Christ loved his own until he died, but then -no longer.[3] -This meaning is false: for Christ, who was not ended by death, by no means ends -his love at death. Another meaning would take the word "to" as indicating a -cause; and then it would mean, he loved them to the end, that is, his -love for them led him to death: "He loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal -2:20). A third meaning would be this: although Christ had already shown them -many signs of his love, yet to the end, that is, at the time of his -death, he showed them signs of a greater love: "I did not say these things to -you from the beginning, because I was with you" (16:4). He would be saying in -effect: it was not necessary then to show you how much I loved you, but now -that I am leaving it is, so that my love and the memory of me might be -impressed more deeply into your hearts. - -
1739 Then when he says, during supper, he describes -the act by which Christ gave his example. First, he mentions the time of the -action; secondly, the dignity of the one acting (v 3); thirdly, his humility (v -4). He describes the time in two ways: in one way, as the time of Christ's -love; in another way, by emphasizing the sin of Judas. - -
1740 In regard to the first, he says, literally, "when -supper was done." Here we should note that both things that are permanent and -things that are successive are said to be done or made. A permanent thing is -said to be done or made when it has come to the perfection of its proper -species and form; thus a house is said to be done or made when it has proper -form. But in something which is successive, it is said to be made or done when -it is over or is finished; thus the world is said to have been made when it was -completed. But even things like this can be said to be made or done when they -receive their appropriate species. So when he says here, literally, "when -supper was done," he does not mean it was finished and over with: for after -Christ washed the feet of the disciples, he returned to his place and gave the -morsel to Judas. "When supper was done" rather means that it was prepared and -now brought to his own species: for the group had already begun to eat, and -then Christ got up. Thus Christ washed the feet of the disciples during -supper. - -
We read about such a supper in Luke -[14:16], "A man once gave a great supper." A breakfast and supper are different. -What is given at the beginning of the day is called a breakfast, while what is -given at its end is called supper. Likewise, that spiritual nourishment -suitable for those beginning is called breakfast, while that nourishment -appropriate for the advanced is more like a supper. - +loved his own. Here we should note that God loves persons in +various ways, depending on the various ways they are Christ's. Now, +one can be his in three ways. First, by creation; and God loves +these by conserving their goods of nature: "He came to his own +home, and his own people," by creation, "received him not" (1:11). +Others are his by donation, that is, those given to him by God the +Father through faith: "Thine they were, and thou gave them to me, +and they have kept thy word" (17:6); and he loves these by +preserving their goods of grace. Finally, some are his by a special +devotion: "Behold, we are your bone and flesh" (1 Chron 11:1); he +loves these by consoling them in a special way.[2]
+1737 Thirdly, Christ's love is commended because it was needed, +since he loved his own who were in the world. Those who were +already in the glory of the Father are his, because even our +fathers of long time past were his insofar as they hoped to be set +free by him: "All his holy ones are in his hand" [Deut 33:3]. But +these do not need such love as this as much as those who were in +the world; so he says, who were in the world, that is, in +body, but not in mind.
+1738 Fourthly, his love is commended because it was perfect, so +he says, he loved them to the end. Now there are two kind of +ends: the end in the intention, and the end in execution. The end +in intention is that to which our intention is directed; and this +end ought to be eternal life, according to, "The return you get is +sanctification and its end, eternal life" (Rom 6:22). Again this +end should be Christ: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every +one who has faith may be justified" (Rom 10:4). But these two are +really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying +Christ in his divinity: "And this is eternal life, that they know +thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" +(17:3). From this point of view he says, he loved them to the +end, in order to lead them to himself, the end; or, to lead +them to eternal life, which is the same thing. "I have loved you +with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity +on you" [Jer 31:3].
+The end in execution is the terminus or outcome of a thing; so +in this sense, death can be called an end. Thus he could say, he +loved them to the end, that is, up to death. Used in this way, +it can have three meanings. The first, mentioned by Augustine, is a +very human way, and means that Christ loved his own until he died, +but then no longer.[3] This meaning is false: for Christ, who was not +ended by death, by no means ends his love at death. Another meaning +would take the word "to" as indicating a cause; and then it would +mean, he loved them to the end, that is, his love for them +led him to death: "He loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20). +A third meaning would be this: although Christ had already shown +them many signs of his love, yet to the end, that is, at the +time of his death, he showed them signs of a greater love: "I did +not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with +you" (16:4). He would be saying in effect: it was not necessary +then to show you how much I loved you, but now that I am leaving it +is, so that my love and the memory of me might be impressed more +deeply into your hearts.
+1739 Then when he says, during supper, he describes the +act by which Christ gave his example. First, he mentions the time +of the action; secondly, the dignity of the one acting (v 3); +thirdly, his humility (v 4). He describes the time in two ways: in +one way, as the time of Christ's love; in another way, by +emphasizing the sin of Judas.
+1740 In regard to the first, he says, literally, "when supper +was done." Here we should note that both things that are permanent +and things that are successive are said to be done or made. A +permanent thing is said to be done or made when it has come to the +perfection of its proper species and form; thus a house is said to +be done or made when it has proper form. But in something which is +successive, it is said to be made or done when it is over or is +finished; thus the world is said to have been made when it was +completed. But even things like this can be said to be made or done +when they receive their appropriate species. So when he says here, +literally, "when supper was done," he does not mean it was finished +and over with: for after Christ washed the feet of the disciples, +he returned to his place and gave the morsel to Judas. "When supper +was done" rather means that it was prepared and now brought to his +own species: for the group had already begun to eat, and then +Christ got up. Thus Christ washed the feet of the disciples +during supper.
+We read about such a supper in Luke [14:16], "A man once gave a +great supper." A breakfast and supper are different. What is given +at the beginning of the day is called a breakfast, while what is +given at its end is called supper. Likewise, that spiritual +nourishment suitable for those beginning is called breakfast, while +that nourishment appropriate for the advanced is more like a +supper.
1741 Then when the Evangelist says, when the devil had -already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, -he depicts the time by emphasizing the sin of the traitor. He mentions his sin -for two reasons. First, the better to bring out the evil of Judas, who in spite -of so many tokens of love and humble service, considered committing such a -great sin: the Psalm (41:9) says: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who -ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." And secondly, the better to -show the wonderful love of Christ who, although knowing this, treated him with -love and humility by washing his feet: "With those who hated peace I was -peaceable" [Ps 120:7]. - -
1742 But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It -seems he can, for a Psalm speaks of things "sent by evil angels" [Ps 77:49]. To -explain this, we should note that what is in a person's thought and will is -said to be in his heart. So the statement, when the devil had already put it -into the heart of Judas, should be understood to refer to his will. - -
Understanding it the above way, -there are two ways something can be put into our heart. First, directly; and in -this way only one who has the power to move our will from within can put -something into our heart. Only God can do this; consequently, he alone can -directly move our will: "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand," in -the power, "of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" (Prv 21:10). But because -the will is also moved by an external object, something apprehended as a good, -it follows that anyone who brings to mind, or suggests that something is good -is said to put something into our heart indirectly, by making us apprehend -something as good, which in turn moves our will. This happens in two ways. By -an external suggestion, and then one person can put something into another's -heart; or by an interior suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something -into our heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical reality, is subject -to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether we be awake or -asleep, he forms in it certain images which, when apprehended, move our will to -desire something. And so the devil puts something into our heart, not directly -by moving our heart, but indirectly, by suggestion.[4] - -
1743 Then (v 3) he considers the dignity of the one acting, -for "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18). So the -Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, treats first of his very great -dignity because of his knowledge, saying, Jesus, knowing that the Father had -given all things into his hands. For spiritual gifts are such that they are -not unrecognized when given: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, -but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed -on us by God" (1 Cor 2:12). Thus, Christ knew what had been given to him by -God; and the Evangelist mentions this so Christ's humility would be more -admirable. For sometimes it happens that a person is of great dignity, yet -because of his simplicity he does not realize it. If such a person were to do -something humble, it would not be regarded as worthy of great praise: "If you -do not know yourself, O fairest among women…" [Song 1:8]. But if someone does know -his own dignity, and still his affections are inclined to what is humble, his -humility should be praised. And this is why the Evangelist says, Jesus, -knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands; and he still -did not neglect to do what was humble. - -
Secondly, we see his dignity as to -his power, because the Father had given all things into his hands, that -is, into his power. God gave, in time, to Christ as man, what was in the power -of the Son from eternity: "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to -me" (Mt 28:18). He says, the Father had given all things into his hands, -for two reasons. First, to show that Christ did not suffer against his will. -For if all things were in his hands, that is, in his power, it is clear -that his enemies could do nothing to him against his will. Secondly, because -when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes proud; nor -does he do anything humble, lest it seem to lessen his dignity. But when one of -great dignity is honored, he does not neglect the humble things. And so -Christ's dignity is mentioned here. - -
Thirdly, we see his dignity because -of his nobility, when he says, that he had come from God and was going to -God: "living with God" as Wisdom (8:3) says. Fourthly, his dignity because of -his holiness, because he was going to God, for our holiness lies in our -going to God. He mentions this because since Christ is going to God, it is -special to him to lead others to God. This is done especially by humility and -love; and so he offers them an example of humility and love. -
-LECTURE 2 -
4 [He] rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and -girded himself with a towel. 5 Then he poured water into a basin, and began to -wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. -6 He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" 7 -Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you -will understand." 8 Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus -answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have not part in me." 9 Simon Peter -said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" 10 Jesus -said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but -he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not all of you." 11 For he knew -who was to betray him; that was why he said, "You are not all clean."[5]
1742 But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It seems he +can, for a Psalm speaks of things "sent by evil angels" [Ps 77:49]. +To explain this, we should note that what is in a person's thought +and will is said to be in his heart. So the statement, when the +devil had already put it into the heart of Judas, should be +understood to refer to his will.
+Understanding it the above way, there are two ways something can +be put into our heart. First, directly; and in this way only one +who has the power to move our will from within can put something +into our heart. Only God can do this; consequently, he alone can +directly move our will: "The king's heart is a stream of water in +the hand," in the power, "of the Lord; he turns it wherever he +will" (Prv 21:10). But because the will is also moved by an +external object, something apprehended as a good, it follows that +anyone who brings to mind, or suggests that something is good is +said to put something into our heart indirectly, by making us +apprehend something as good, which in turn moves our will. This +happens in two ways. By an external suggestion, and then one person +can put something into another's heart; or by an interior +suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something into our +heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical reality, is +subject to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether +we be awake or asleep, he forms in it certain images which, when +apprehended, move our will to desire something. And so the devil +puts something into our heart, not directly by moving our heart, +but indirectly, by suggestion.[4]
+1743 Then (v 3) he considers the dignity of the one acting, for +"The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir +3:18). So the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, +treats first of his very great dignity because of his knowledge, +saying, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into +his hands. For spiritual gifts are such that they are not +unrecognized when given: "Now we have received not the spirit of +the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might +understand the gifts bestowed on us by God" (1 Cor 2:12). Thus, +Christ knew what had been given to him by God; and the Evangelist +mentions this so Christ's humility would be more admirable. For +sometimes it happens that a person is of great dignity, yet because +of his simplicity he does not realize it. If such a person were to +do something humble, it would not be regarded as worthy of great +praise: "If you do not know yourself, O fairest among +women…" [Song 1:8]. But if someone does know his own +dignity, and still his affections are inclined to what is humble, +his humility should be praised. And this is why the Evangelist +says, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into +his hands; and he still did not neglect to do what was +humble.
+Secondly, we see his dignity as to his power, because the +Father had given all things into his hands, that is, into his +power. God gave, in time, to Christ as man, what was in the power +of the Son from eternity: "All authority in heaven and earth has +been given to me" (Mt 28:18). He says, the Father had given all +things into his hands, for two reasons. First, to show that +Christ did not suffer against his will. For if all things were in +his hands, that is, in his power, it is clear that his +enemies could do nothing to him against his will. Secondly, because +when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes +proud; nor does he do anything humble, lest it seem to lessen his +dignity. But when one of great dignity is honored, he does not +neglect the humble things. And so Christ's dignity is mentioned +here.
+Thirdly, we see his dignity because of his nobility, when he +says, that he had come from God and was going to God: +"living with God" as Wisdom (8:3) says. Fourthly, his dignity +because of his holiness, because he was going to God, for +our holiness lies in our going to God. He mentions this because +since Christ is going to God, it is special to him to lead others +to God. This is done especially by humility and love; and so he +offers them an example of humility and love.
+
+
+LECTURE 2
++4 [He] rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded +himself with a towel. 5 Then he poured water into a basin, and +began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel +with which he was girded. 6 He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said +to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" 7 Jesus answered him, "What I +am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand." 8 +Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered +him, "If I do not wash you, you have not part in me." 9 Simon Peter +said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my +head!" 10 Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to +wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are +clean, but not all of you." 11 For he knew who was to betray him; +that was why he said, "You are not all clean."[5]
+1744 After showing the dignity of Christ, the Evangelist now -commends his humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of the -disciples. First, the Evangelist mentions Christ's preparation for this humble -task; secondly, the service itself (v 5). - -
1745 In regard to the first, we should note that in -performing this humble task, Christ shows himself a servant: "The Son of man -came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" -(Mt 20:28). Now three things are necessary for a good servant. First, he should -be careful to notice anything that might be lacking in his service; and this -would be hampered if he were sitting or lying down. Thus servants stand. So he -says, Christ rose from supper: "For which is the greater, one who sits -at table, or one who serves" (Lk 22:27). Secondly, a servant should not be -encumbered, so he can do everything necessary to his service. And since too -much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord laid aside his garments. -Thirdly, a good servant is prepared, having at hand everything which he needs. -In Luke (10:40) we read that Martha "was distracted with much serving." So our -Lord girded himself with a towel, so he would be ready not just to wash -their feet, but to dry them as well. And since he who had come from God and was -going to God is now washing the feet of others, he is treading under foot the -universal tendency to pride. - -
1746 As to its mystical meaning, this action can be referred -to two things: the incarnation of Christ and his passion. If it is referred to -his incarnation, it tells us three things about Christ. First, he was willing -to help the human race, indicated by the fact that he rose from supper. -For God seems to be sitting down as long as he allows us to be troubled; but -when he rescues us from it, he seems to rise, as the Psalm (43:26) says: "Rise -up, come to our help." Secondly, it indicates that he emptied himself: not that -he abandoned his great dignity, but he hid it by taking on our smallness: -"Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself" (Is 45:15). This is shown by the -fact that he laid aside his garments: "He emptied himself, taking the -form of a servant" (Phil 2:7). Thirdly, the fact that he girded himself with -a towel indicates that he took on our mortality: "taking the form of a -servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7). - -
If this event is referred to the -passion of Christ, then he literally set aside his garments when the soldiers -stripped him: "for my clothing they cast lots" (19:23). And he was girded with -a towel in the tomb. And also in his passion he laid aside the garments of our -mortality and put on a towel, that is, the splendor of immortality: "Christ being -raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over -him" (Rom 6:9). - -
1747 Then when the Evangelist says, Then he poured water -into a basin…, he describes Christ's service, and shows his admirable -humility in three ways. First, as to what kind of service it was, for it was -very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped down to wash the feet of his -servants. Secondly, as to the number of things he did, for he put water into -the basin, washed their feet, and then dried them. Thirdly, as to the way it -was done: for Christ did not do it through others or with their help, but by -himself. "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18). - -
1748 As for the mystical meaning, three things can be -gathered from these events. First, the pouring out of Christ's blood on the -earth is indicated by his pouring water into the basin. For the blood of Jesus -can be called water because it has the power to cleanse: "He washed us from our -sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:4). And so blood and water came out of his side -at the same time to show us that his blood washes away sins. Or, water can -indicate the passion of Christ, for in Scripture water signifies tribulations: -"Save me O God! For the waters," that is, tribulations, "have come up to my -soul" [Ps 69:1]. Therefore, he poured water into a basin, that is, he -impressed the memory of his passion on the minds of the faithful by their faith -and devotion: "Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the -gall!" (Lam 3:19). - +commends his humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of +the disciples. First, the Evangelist mentions Christ's preparation +for this humble task; secondly, the service itself (v 5).
+1745 In regard to the first, we should note that in performing +this humble task, Christ shows himself a servant: "The Son of man +came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a +ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). Now three things are necessary for a +good servant. First, he should be careful to notice anything that +might be lacking in his service; and this would be hampered if he +were sitting or lying down. Thus servants stand. So he says, Christ +rose from supper: "For which is the greater, one who sits at +table, or one who serves" (Lk 22:27). Secondly, a servant should +not be encumbered, so he can do everything necessary to his +service. And since too much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord +laid aside his garments. Thirdly, a good servant is +prepared, having at hand everything which he needs. In Luke (10:40) +we read that Martha "was distracted with much serving." So our Lord +girded himself with a towel, so he would be ready not just +to wash their feet, but to dry them as well. And since he who had +come from God and was going to God is now washing the feet of +others, he is treading under foot the universal tendency to +pride.
+1746 As to its mystical meaning, this action can be referred to +two things: the incarnation of Christ and his passion. If it is +referred to his incarnation, it tells us three things about Christ. +First, he was willing to help the human race, indicated by the fact +that he rose from supper. For God seems to be sitting down +as long as he allows us to be troubled; but when he rescues us from +it, he seems to rise, as the Psalm (43:26) says: "Rise up, come to +our help." Secondly, it indicates that he emptied himself: not that +he abandoned his great dignity, but he hid it by taking on our +smallness: "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself" (Is 45:15). +This is shown by the fact that he laid aside his garments: +"He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7). +Thirdly, the fact that he girded himself with a towel +indicates that he took on our mortality: "taking the form of a +servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7).
+If this event is referred to the passion of Christ, then he +literally set aside his garments when the soldiers stripped him: +"for my clothing they cast lots" (19:23). And he was girded with a +towel in the tomb. And also in his passion he laid aside the +garments of our mortality and put on a towel, that is, the splendor +of immortality: "Christ being raised from the dead will never die +again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9).
+1747 Then when the Evangelist says, Then he poured water into +a basin…, he describes Christ's service, and shows his +admirable humility in three ways. First, as to what kind of service +it was, for it was very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped +down to wash the feet of his servants. Secondly, as to the number +of things he did, for he put water into the basin, washed their +feet, and then dried them. Thirdly, as to the way it was done: for +Christ did not do it through others or with their help, but by +himself. "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" +(Sir 3:18).
+1748 As for the mystical meaning, three things can be gathered +from these events. First, the pouring out of Christ's blood on the +earth is indicated by his pouring water into the basin. For the +blood of Jesus can be called water because it has the power to +cleanse: "He washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:4). +And so blood and water came out of his side at the same time to +show us that his blood washes away sins. Or, water can indicate the +passion of Christ, for in Scripture water signifies tribulations: +"Save me O God! For the waters," that is, tribulations, "have come +up to my soul" [Ps 69:1]. Therefore, he poured water into a +basin, that is, he impressed the memory of his passion on the +minds of the faithful by their faith and devotion: "Remember my +affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall!" (Lam +3:19).
1749 Secondly, when he says, and began to wash, it -indicates our human imperfection. For after Christ, the apostles were more -perfect than others, and yet even they needed to be washed, since they were -unclean to some degree. We can understand by this that no matter how perfect a -person may be, he acquires some uncleanness, and still needs to become more -perfect: "Who can say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin'?" -(Prv 20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. But others are -not only unclean in their feet, they are stained all over. For those who lie -down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all over; thus, those who cling -entirely to the love of earthly things, both in their affections and their -senses, are entirely unclean. But those who stand, that is, tend to heavenly -things in mind and desire, become unclean only on their feet. For just as a -person who is standing must at least touch the earth with his feet, so we, as -long as we live this mortal life which needs earthly things to sustain the -body, acquire some uncleanness, at least because of our sensuality. Thus our -Lord told the disciples to shake the dust from their feet (Lk 9:5). The -Evangelist says that Christ began to wash, because the cleansing of our -earthly affections begins here and is completed in the future. Then the words -of Isaiah (35:8) will be fulfilled: "It shall be called the Holy Way." - -
Note that, according to Origen, our -Lord began to wash the feet of his disciples right before his passion, for if -he had washed them a long time before, they would have become dirty again.[6] -So he began to wash them a short time before he would wash the apostles with -the water of the Holy Spirit, after his passion: "Before many days you shall be -baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Act 1:5). In short, when our Lord put water -into the basin, this indicated the pouring out of his blood; and when he began -to wash the feet of his apostles, this indicated the cleansing of our sins. - +indicates our human imperfection. For after Christ, the apostles +were more perfect than others, and yet even they needed to be +washed, since they were unclean to some degree. We can understand +by this that no matter how perfect a person may be, he acquires +some uncleanness, and still needs to become more perfect: "Who can +say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin'?" (Prv +20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. But +others are not only unclean in their feet, they are stained all +over. For those who lie down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all +over; thus, those who cling entirely to the love of earthly things, +both in their affections and their senses, are entirely unclean. +But those who stand, that is, tend to heavenly things in mind and +desire, become unclean only on their feet. For just as a person who +is standing must at least touch the earth with his feet, so we, as +long as we live this mortal life which needs earthly things to +sustain the body, acquire some uncleanness, at least because of our +sensuality. Thus our Lord told the disciples to shake the dust from +their feet (Lk 9:5). The Evangelist says that Christ began to +wash, because the cleansing of our earthly affections begins +here and is completed in the future. Then the words of Isaiah +(35:8) will be fulfilled: "It shall be called the Holy Way."
+Note that, according to Origen, our Lord began to wash the feet +of his disciples right before his passion, for if he had washed +them a long time before, they would have become dirty +again.[6] So he +began to wash them a short time before he would wash the apostles +with the water of the Holy Spirit, after his passion: "Before many +days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Act 1:5). In +short, when our Lord put water into the basin, this indicated the +pouring out of his blood; and when he began to wash the feet of his +apostles, this indicated the cleansing of our sins.
1750 Thirdly, we have indicated the fact that Christ took upon -himself our punishments; for he not only cleansed us from our stains, but took -upon himself the punishments they deserved. For our own punishments and penance -would not be enough unless they were founded on the merits and power of -Christ's passion. This is shown by the fact that he wiped the feet of his -disciples with his towel, that is, his body (1 Pet 2:21). - +himself our punishments; for he not only cleansed us from our +stains, but took upon himself the punishments they deserved. For +our own punishments and penance would not be enough unless they +were founded on the merits and power of Christ's passion. This is +shown by the fact that he wiped the feet of his disciples with his +towel, that is, his body (1 Pet 2:21).
1751 Then when the Evangelist says, he came to Simon -Peter, he shows the example was beneficial by means of an encounter between -the Teacher and the disciple. In this encounter our Lord shows that this -example is both a mystery and necessary (v 8); and secondly, that it is -appropriate (v 9). As to the first, the Evangelist does two things. First, he -mentions the circumstances for Christ's speaking; secondly, what Christ said (v -7). - -
1752 The occasion for Christ's words was the refusal of -Peter to allow this example of humility; he says, he came to Simon Peter, -and Peter said to him, Lord, do you wash my feet? There are three -explanations for this. - -
According to Origen, our Lord began -to wash their feet by beginning with the last.[7] -The reason for this was that just as a doctor who must care for a number of -sick begins with those who need it more, so too Christ, when he washed the -grimy feet of his disciples, began with the dirtiest, and then came to Peter, -who needed it less than the others: "beginning with the last, up to the first" -(Mt 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this: for Christ began to wash -the disciples' feet, and then he follows this with, he came to Simon -Peter. It seems from this that Jesus washed the feet of the others first. - +Peter, he shows the example was beneficial by means of an +encounter between the Teacher and the disciple. In this encounter +our Lord shows that this example is both a mystery and necessary (v +8); and secondly, that it is appropriate (v 9). As to the first, +the Evangelist does two things. First, he mentions the +circumstances for Christ's speaking; secondly, what Christ said (v +7).
+1752 The occasion for Christ's words was the refusal of Peter to +allow this example of humility; he says, he came to Simon Peter, +and Peter said to him, Lord, do you wash my feet? There are +three explanations for this.
+According to Origen, our Lord began to wash their feet by +beginning with the last.[7] The reason for this was that just as a doctor +who must care for a number of sick begins with those who need it +more, so too Christ, when he washed the grimy feet of his +disciples, began with the dirtiest, and then came to Peter, who +needed it less than the others: "beginning with the last, up to the +first" (Mt 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this: for Christ +began to wash the disciples' feet, and then he follows this +with, he came to Simon Peter. It seems from this that Jesus +washed the feet of the others first.
1753 If you ask why Peter was the first to object, Origen -replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for Christ.[8] -The other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, and so -complied without question to everything he did. But Peter, more aflame with -love - "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?…Yes Lord; you know -that I love you" (21:15) - and taking confidence from this love, refuses to -comply and asks to know why: "A true friend will act as your equal and assume -authority in your household" [Sir 6:11]. This is why in Scripture Peter often -asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what he thinks is best. - +replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for +Christ.[8] The +other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, +and so complied without question to everything he did. But Peter, +more aflame with love - "Simon, son of John, do you love me more +than these?…Yes Lord; you know that I love you" (21:15) - +and taking confidence from this love, refuses to comply and asks to +know why: "A true friend will act as your equal and assume +authority in your household" [Sir 6:11]. This is why in Scripture +Peter often asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what +he thinks is best.
1754 The second explanation is by Chrysostom.[9] -He says that Christ was ready to start with the first of the apostles, but -Judas, the betrayer, in his foolishness and pride, pushed ahead of Peter. None -of the others would have dared to go ahead of Peter. Thus the Evangelist is -speaking of Judas when he says, he began to wash the disciples' feet, -that is, the feet of Judas, who, as proud and foolish, would make no objection -or refuse to allow what our Lord did. But when he came to Peter, who revered -and loved his Teacher, Peter refused with awe and asked for an explanation. And -any of the others would have done the same. - +name="_ftnref9" id="_ftnref9">[9] He says that Christ was ready +to start with the first of the apostles, but Judas, the betrayer, +in his foolishness and pride, pushed ahead of Peter. None of the +others would have dared to go ahead of Peter. Thus the Evangelist +is speaking of Judas when he says, he began to wash the +disciples' feet, that is, the feet of Judas, who, as proud and +foolish, would make no objection or refuse to allow what our Lord +did. But when he came to Peter, who revered and loved his Teacher, +Peter refused with awe and asked for an explanation. And any of the +others would have done the same.
1755 The third explanation is by Augustine.[10] -He says the words of the Evangelist do not show that our Lord first washed the -feet of the other disciples and then came to Peter. Rather, according to his -custom, the Evangelist first mentions the incident and after that gives the -order of events within in, just as he did in Chapter 6. So he first mentions -the entire incident, that is, Christ washed the feet of his disciples; and -then, if we should ask how this was done, he says that he came first to Simon -Peter. And so he was the first to refuse, saying, Lord, do you wash my feet? - -
These words have great depth. He -says, Lord, do you, who are the Son of the living God, wash my feet, -who am Simon, the son of Jonah? Lord, do you, the Lamb without spot, the -mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, do you wash my -feet, who am a sinner? "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Lk -5:8). Lord, do you, who are the Creator, wash my feet, I who am a -creature and of little faith? Peter said these things struck by awe at the -realization of the dignity of Christ, as in "I have considered your works, and -have feared" [Hab 1:3]. - +name="_ftnref10" id="_ftnref10">[10] He says the words of the +Evangelist do not show that our Lord first washed the feet of the +other disciples and then came to Peter. Rather, according to his +custom, the Evangelist first mentions the incident and after that +gives the order of events within in, just as he did in Chapter 6. +So he first mentions the entire incident, that is, Christ washed +the feet of his disciples; and then, if we should ask how this was +done, he says that he came first to Simon Peter. And so he was the +first to refuse, saying, Lord, do you wash my feet?
+These words have great depth. He says, Lord, do you, who +are the Son of the living God, wash my feet, who am Simon, +the son of Jonah? Lord, do you, the Lamb without spot, the +mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, do +you wash my feet, who am a sinner? "Depart from me, for I am a +sinful man, O Lord" (Lk 5:8). Lord, do you, who are the +Creator, wash my feet, I who am a creature and of little +faith? Peter said these things struck by awe at the realization of +the dignity of Christ, as in "I have considered your works, and +have feared" [Hab 1:3].
1756 Then (v 7), we see the words of Christ, which show that -this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: What I am doing you do not -know now, but afterward you will understand. This action is both an example -and a mystery. It is an example of humility to be practiced: "For I have given -you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you" (v 15) And it is -a mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: "He who has bathed does -not need to wash, except for his feet" (v 10). - -
So what Christ said can be understood -in two ways. In one way, What I am doing you do not know now, that is, -you do not now understand that what I am doing is an example; but afterward -you will understand, when he explained it to them saying: "Do you know what -I have done to you?" (v 12). In another way, What I am doing you do not know -now; that is to say, this is a mystery and something hidden, and it -signifies an interior cleansing which only I can accomplish, and which you do -not understand now, but afterward you will understand, when you receive -the Holy Spirit: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear -them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" -(16:12). - -
1757 Next, he shows that this action is necessary. First, -the Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ's answer; -secondly, we see what Christ said. - +this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: What I am doing +you do not know now, but afterward you will understand. This +action is both an example and a mystery. It is an example of +humility to be practiced: "For I have given you an example, that +you also should do as I have done to you" (v 15) And it is a +mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: "He who has +bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet" (v 10).
+So what Christ said can be understood in two ways. In one way, +What I am doing you do not know now, that is, you do not now +understand that what I am doing is an example; but afterward you +will understand, when he explained it to them saying: "Do you +know what I have done to you?" (v 12). In another way, What I am +doing you do not know now; that is to say, this is a mystery +and something hidden, and it signifies an interior cleansing which +only I can accomplish, and which you do not understand now, but +afterward you will understand, when you receive the Holy +Spirit: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear +them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into +all the truth" (16:12).
+1757 Next, he shows that this action is necessary. First, the +Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ's answer; +secondly, we see what Christ said.
1758 Peter says, You shall never wash my feet. He is -saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord -and my God. And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and -disordered zeal: "They have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened" (Rom -10:2). His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was -beneficial and necessary; for as we read: "We do not know how to pray as we -ought" (Rom 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what God gives us, even if -it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to be freed from his thorn (2 Cor -12:8), yet it was for his benefit. Again, it seemed to indicate a certain -disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to -disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to -Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, You shall never -wash my feet.[11] - - -
1759 Our Lord reproved him, saying, If I do not wash you, -you have not part in me. This statement can refer to two things: to the -action that Christ was performing, or to what the action signified. - -
If we refer it to what the action -signified, the meaning is clear. For no one can share in the eternal -inheritance and be a joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for -we read: "But nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev 21:27). And in the Psalm -(15:1) it says: "O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?" And the answer is -given: "He who walks blamelessly." Therefore, it is like he was saying: If I -do not wash you, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, you -have no part in me. - -
But if we refer this statement to -the action itself, then it can be asked if this washing was necessary for -salvation. We can say to this that just as some things are forbidden because -they are evil, and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some -things are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are necessary -because they are commanded. And so this washing, about which our Lord said, If -I do not wash you, you have no part in me, if considered in itself, was not -necessary for salvation. But on the supposition that it was commanded by -Christ, then it was necessary: "To obey is better than sacrifice," and so -"stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry" (1 Sam 15:22-23). - +saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my +Teacher, my Lord and my God. And although Peter said this out of +zeal, it was an imprudent and disordered zeal: "They have a zeal +for God, but it is not enlightened" (Rom 10:2). His zeal was +disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was +beneficial and necessary; for as we read: "We do not know how to +pray as we ought" (Rom 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what +God gives us, even if it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to +be freed from his thorn (2 Cor 12:8), yet it was for his benefit. +Again, it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by +wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to disparage +his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to +Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, You +shall never wash my feet.[11]
+1759 Our Lord reproved him, saying, If I do not wash you, you +have not part in me. This statement can refer to two things: to +the action that Christ was performing, or to what the action +signified.
+If we refer it to what the action signified, the meaning is +clear. For no one can share in the eternal inheritance and be a +joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for we read: +"But nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev 21:27). And in the Psalm +(15:1) it says: "O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?" And the +answer is given: "He who walks blamelessly." Therefore, it is like +he was saying: If I do not wash you, you will not be clean; +and if you are not clean, you have no part in me.
+But if we refer this statement to the action itself, then it can +be asked if this washing was necessary for salvation. We can say to +this that just as some things are forbidden because they are evil, +and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some things +are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are +necessary because they are commanded. And so this washing, about +which our Lord said, If I do not wash you, you have no part in +me, if considered in itself, was not necessary for salvation. +But on the supposition that it was commanded by Christ, then it was +necessary: "To obey is better than sacrifice," and so "stubbornness +is as iniquity and idolatry" (1 Sam 15:22-23).
1760 Then the Evangelist shows the action was appropriate. -First, the words of Peter are given; and then Christ's answer. - -
1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ. -Before, when our Lord said to him, What I am doing you do not know now, -he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid no attention to this, -and could not be persuaded to have his feet washed. But when our Lord warned -him it would mean they would no longer be together, saying, you have no part -in me, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord, not my feet -only, but also my hands and my head! For Peter was frightened by this -answer, and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself for washing. -Clement tells us in his Itinerary that Peter was so touched by the -physical presence of Christ, whom he had loved so intensely, that after the -ascension, when he recalled the sweetness of Christ's presence, and his holy -manner, he wept so much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed.[12] - -
1762 We may note that there are three things in a person: -the head at the top, the feet at the bottom, and the hands in the middle. The -same is true for the inner person, that is, for the soul. There is the head, -which is the higher reason, by which the soul adheres to God. "The head of a -woman is her husband" (1 Cor 4:4), that is, the higher reason. The hands are -the lower reason, which is concerned with the works of the active life. Finally, -the feet are the sensuality. Now our Lord knew that his disciples were clean -as to their head, because they had been united to God by faith and charity; and -their hands were clean because their works were holy. But as to their feet, -they still retained some affection for earthly things in their sensuality. And -so Peter, anxious because of our Lord's warning, agrees not only to have his -feet washed, but also his hands and head, saying, Lord, not my feet only but -also my hands and my head. It was like saying: I do not know if my hands -and feet need washing - "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am -not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4) - and so I am ready to wash not my feet -only, that is, my lower affections - "I had bathed my feet, how could I -soil them?" (Song 5:3) - but also my hands, that is, my works - "I will -wash my hands among the innocent" [26:6] - and my head, that is, my -higher reason - "Wash your face" (Mt 6:17). - -
1763 Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives our Lord's answer. -First, our Lord states a general principle; secondly, he applies it to this -situation; and thirdly, the Evangelist explains these words of Christ. - +First, the words of Peter are given; and then Christ's answer.
+1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ. Before, +when our Lord said to him, What I am doing you do not know +now, he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid +no attention to this, and could not be persuaded to have his feet +washed. But when our Lord warned him it would mean they would no +longer be together, saying, you have no part in me, Peter +offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord, not my feet only, +but also my hands and my head! For Peter was frightened by this +answer, and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself +for washing. Clement tells us in his Itinerary that Peter +was so touched by the physical presence of Christ, whom he had +loved so intensely, that after the ascension, when he recalled the +sweetness of Christ's presence, and his holy manner, he wept so +much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed.[12]
+1762 We may note that there are three things in a person: the +head at the top, the feet at the bottom, and the hands in the +middle. The same is true for the inner person, that is, for the +soul. There is the head, which is the higher reason, by which the +soul adheres to God. "The head of a woman is her husband" (1 Cor +4:4), that is, the higher reason. The hands are the lower reason, +which is concerned with the works of the active life. Finally, the +feet are the sensuality. Now our Lord knew that his disciples were +clean as to their head, because they had been united to God by +faith and charity; and their hands were clean because their works +were holy. But as to their feet, they still retained some affection +for earthly things in their sensuality. And so Peter, anxious +because of our Lord's warning, agrees not only to have his feet +washed, but also his hands and head, saying, Lord, not my feet +only but also my hands and my head. It was like saying: I do +not know if my hands and feet need washing - "I am not aware of +anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor +4:4) - and so I am ready to wash not my feet only, that is, +my lower affections - "I had bathed my feet, how could I soil +them?" (Song 5:3) - but also my hands, that is, my works - +"I will wash my hands among the innocent" [26:6] - and my +head, that is, my higher reason - "Wash your face" (Mt +6:17).
+1763 Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives our Lord's answer. First, +our Lord states a general principle; secondly, he applies it to +this situation; and thirdly, the Evangelist explains these words of +Christ.
1764 He says at first, he who has bathed does not need to -wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over, except for his feet, -which touch the earth. We understand from this that the apostles had already -been baptized. For he says, he who has bathed, and then adds, and you -are clean, that is, because they had been baptized. - -
1765 Some say they had been baptized only with the baptism -of John. But this does not seem to be true, because then they would not have -bathed, because the baptism of John did not cleanse within from guilt. And so -it should be said, according to Augustine, that they had been baptized with the -baptism of Christ.[13] -If you object that Christ did not baptize but only his disciples, as was stated -above (4:2), I say that he did not baptize the crowds, but only his disciples -and those he knew well. - -
But since baptism cleanses even the -stains from the feet, it seems that one who has bathed, that is, is baptized, -does not need to wash his feet. I answer that if they had left this world -immediately after their baptism, they would have had no need for this washing, -for since they would be entirely clean, they would go to God at once. But those -who live in this world after their baptism cannot reach such perfection that -disordered movement of the sensuality in regard to earthly affections never -arise. And so it is necessary that they wash their feet either by martyrdom, -which is a baptism of blood, or by repentance, which is a baptism of fire, so -that they can return to God. - -
1766 Then when he says, you are clean, but not all of you, -our Lord applies this general principle to the situation. But if they were -clean, why did our Lord wash them again? Augustine says their hands and heads -were clean, but that their feet needed washing.[14] -Chrysostom says that they were not absolutely clean, because they had not yet -been cleansed from original sin: for since Christ had not yet suffered, the -price of our redemption had not yet been paid - but they were clean in a -limited sense, that is, from the errors of the Jews.[15] -Origen says that they were clean, but that a further cleansing was needed, for -reason should always aspire to better gifts, always strive for the heights of -virtue, and glow with the brightness of righteousness: "He who is holy, let him -be sanctified further" [Rev 22:11]. But not all of you, because one of -them was dirty both in hands and head.[16] - -
1767 This is why the Evangelist says, for he knew who was -to betray him. He is saying that Christ said, but not all of you, -because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. In general, there are -two things which cleans a person: alms and compassion for the poor - "Give alms -and then all things are clean for you" [Lk 11:41] - and love for God - "her -sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47); "love covers -all offenses" (Prv 10:12). But Judas lacks these two things. He lacked -compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money, he stole the alms of -the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the devil had already put it -into this heart to betray Christ to the chief priests to be crucified. -
-LECTURE 3 -
+- +wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over, except for +his feet, which touch the earth. We understand from this that the +apostles had already been baptized. For he says, he who has +bathed, and then adds, and you are clean, that is, +because they had been baptized.12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, -and resumed his place [again], he said to them, "Do you know what I have done -to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If -I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash -one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do -as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater -than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you -know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 18 I am not speaking of you -all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He -who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' 19 I tell you this now, -before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am -he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives -me; and he who receives me receives he who sent me."[17]
1765 Some say they had been baptized only with the baptism of +John. But this does not seem to be true, because then they would +not have bathed, because the baptism of John did not cleanse within +from guilt. And so it should be said, according to Augustine, that +they had been baptized with the baptism of Christ.[13] If you object that Christ +did not baptize but only his disciples, as was stated above (4:2), +I say that he did not baptize the crowds, but only his disciples +and those he knew well.
+But since baptism cleanses even the stains from the feet, it +seems that one who has bathed, that is, is baptized, does not need +to wash his feet. I answer that if they had left this world +immediately after their baptism, they would have had no need for +this washing, for since they would be entirely clean, they would go +to God at once. But those who live in this world after their +baptism cannot reach such perfection that disordered movement of +the sensuality in regard to earthly affections never arise. And so +it is necessary that they wash their feet either by martyrdom, +which is a baptism of blood, or by repentance, which is a baptism +of fire, so that they can return to God.
+1766 Then when he says, you are clean, but not all of +you, our Lord applies this general principle to the situation. +But if they were clean, why did our Lord wash them again? Augustine +says their hands and heads were clean, but that their feet needed +washing.[14] +Chrysostom says that they were not absolutely clean, because they +had not yet been cleansed from original sin: for since Christ had +not yet suffered, the price of our redemption had not yet been paid +- but they were clean in a limited sense, that is, from the errors +of the Jews.[15] Origen says that they were clean, but that a +further cleansing was needed, for reason should always aspire to +better gifts, always strive for the heights of virtue, and glow +with the brightness of righteousness: "He who is holy, let him be +sanctified further" [Rev 22:11]. But not all of you, because +one of them was dirty both in hands and head.[16]
+1767 This is why the Evangelist says, for he knew who was to +betray him. He is saying that Christ said, but not all of +you, because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. In +general, there are two things which cleans a person: alms and +compassion for the poor - "Give alms and then all things are clean +for you" [Lk 11:41] - and love for God - "her sins, which are many, +are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47); "love covers all +offenses" (Prv 10:12). But Judas lacks these two things. He lacked +compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money, he stole +the alms of the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the +devil had already put it into this heart to betray Christ to the +chief priests to be crucified.
+
+
+LECTURE 3
++12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and +resumed his place [again], he said to them, "Do you know what I +have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are +right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have +washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. 15 For +I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done +to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater +than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent +him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. +18 I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is +that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has +lifted his heel against me.' 19 I tell you this now, before it +takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am +he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I +send receives me; and he who receives me receives he who sent +me."[17]
+1768 After our Lord showed that his humble service was -necessary, he then urges that it be imitated. First, the Evangelist describes -the circumstances of this exhortation; secondly, he mentions the exhortation -itself (v 12b). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he mentions the -sequence in this exhortation; secondly, he describes the one giving the -exhortation (v 12a). - -
1769 The sequence found in this exhortation is that Christ -later taught in words what he had first done by his actions. In regard to this -he says, When he had washed their feet: "Jesus began to do and teach" -(Acts 1:1): "He who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the -kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:19). - -
1770 He describes the one giving the exhortation by his -clothing and posture. As to his clothing, different clothing is suitable to -different people depending on the different activities appropriate to each: "A -man's attire…shows what he is" (Sir 19:30). One sort of attire is suitable for -a servant, and another for a teacher. Now because a servant must be ready to -serve, he does not have any superfluous clothing; and so Christ, when he wished -to serve, "rose from supper, laid aside his garments." And a teacher, who -should be serious and of great authority, ought also to be suitably dressed. -Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had taken his garments. - -
As to his posture: when Christ -began to serve he rose; he says that Christ "rose from supper." But now, about -to teach, he reclines; he says, he resumed his place again, he said to them. -The reason for this is that teaching should be done in an atmosphere or -serenity, and it is by sitting and being quiet that the soul becomes wise and -discerning. - +necessary, he then urges that it be imitated. First, the Evangelist +describes the circumstances of this exhortation; secondly, he +mentions the exhortation itself (v 12b). Concerning the first he +does two things: first, he mentions the sequence in this +exhortation; secondly, he describes the one giving the exhortation +(v 12a).
+1769 The sequence found in this exhortation is that Christ later +taught in words what he had first done by his actions. In regard to +this he says, When he had washed their feet: "Jesus began to +do and teach" (Acts 1:1): "He who does them and teaches them shall +be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:19).
+1770 He describes the one giving the exhortation by his clothing +and posture. As to his clothing, different clothing is suitable to +different people depending on the different activities appropriate +to each: "A man's attire…shows what he is" (Sir 19:30). One +sort of attire is suitable for a servant, and another for a +teacher. Now because a servant must be ready to serve, he does not +have any superfluous clothing; and so Christ, when he wished to +serve, "rose from supper, laid aside his garments." And a teacher, +who should be serious and of great authority, ought also to be +suitably dressed. Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had +taken his garments.
+As to his posture: when Christ began to serve he rose; he says +that Christ "rose from supper." But now, about to teach, he +reclines; he says, he resumed his place again, he said to +them. The reason for this is that teaching should be done in an +atmosphere or serenity, and it is by sitting and being quiet that +the soul becomes wise and discerning.
1771 Three events here are able to indicate mysteries. When -Christ sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples he will be giving them complete -teaching: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my -name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I -have said to you" (14:26). But three things are to take place before the Spirit -is sent. First, their sins are to be washed away by his passion: "He washed us -from our sins in his own blood" [Rev 1:5]. In reference to this he says, when -he had washed their feet, that is, completely cleansed them by his blood. -Secondly, there is the resurrection of Christ. Christ had a mortal body before -his passion, but he was not mortal because he was, as a person, the Son or God; -his mortality was due to the human nature he assumed. But after he rose from -the dead by the power of his divinity, he took on bodily immortality. And in -reference to this he says, he had taken his garments, that is, he arose -immortal. He says his garments because he did this by his own power: -"The life he lives he lives to God," that is, by the power of God (Rom 6:10). -We read of these garments: "He who conquers shall be clad thus in white -garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5). -Also, before the Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated [next to the Father] -after his ascension: "If I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you" -(16:7). And referring to this he says, and resumed his place again, that -is, remaining and sitting at the right hand of the Father: "The Lord Jesus, -after he had spoken to them, was taken up into the heaven, and sat down at the -right hand of God" (Mk 16:19). He says, again, not because as the Son of -God he had ever ceased to sit with the Father, for he is in the bosom of the -Father from all eternity, but because as man he was raised to the greater goods -of the Father: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the -name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). - -
And so, before sending into them -the Holy Spirit, who would perfectly teach them, Christ would wash them with -the blood he shed; take up his garments by rising; and resume his place by -ascending in glory. - -
1772 Next (v 12b), he gives his exhortation. First, he asks -a question; secondly, he accepts their acknowledgement; thirdly, he draws a -conclusion from this; fourthly, he confirms this conclusion. - -
1773 Christ questions them when he says, Do you know what -I have done to you? This means: You have seen what I have done, but you do -not know why I did it. And he asks them in this way in order to show the -greatness of his action and to prompt them to reflect on it. For we should -meditate on the works of God because they are profound: "How great are thy -works, O Lord! Thy thoughts are very deep" (Ps 92:5). We can barely know the -works of God: "Then I saw all the works of God, that man cannot find out the -work that is done under the sun" (Eccl 8:17). Yet it is still a delight to -think about them: "For thou O Lord, hast made me glad by thy work; at the work -of thy hands I sing for joy" (Ps 92:4). Further, these works are helpful, -because they lead us to a knowledge of their author: "For from the greatness -and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator" -(Wis 13:5); "These very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:36). - -
According to Origen, this statement -can be rendered as, Know what I have done to you.[18] -In this way, it has an imperative sense, as if Christ were saying: You ought to -understand what I have done to you. In this interpretation our Lord said this -to rouse their understanding. - +Christ sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples he will be giving +them complete teaching: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom +the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and +bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (14:26). But +three things are to take place before the Spirit is sent. First, +their sins are to be washed away by his passion: "He washed us from +our sins in his own blood" [Rev 1:5]. In reference to this he says, +when he had washed their feet, that is, completely cleansed +them by his blood. Secondly, there is the resurrection of Christ. +Christ had a mortal body before his passion, but he was not mortal +because he was, as a person, the Son or God; his mortality was due +to the human nature he assumed. But after he rose from the dead by +the power of his divinity, he took on bodily immortality. And in +reference to this he says, he had taken his garments, that +is, he arose immortal. He says his garments because he did +this by his own power: "The life he lives he lives to God," that +is, by the power of God (Rom 6:10). We read of these garments: "He +who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not +blot his name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5). Also, before the +Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated [next to the Father] after +his ascension: "If I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to +you" (16:7). And referring to this he says, and resumed his +place again, that is, remaining and sitting at the right hand +of the Father: "The Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was +taken up into the heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God" +(Mk 16:19). He says, again, not because as the Son of God he +had ever ceased to sit with the Father, for he is in the bosom of +the Father from all eternity, but because as man he was raised to +the greater goods of the Father: "Therefore God has highly exalted +him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil +2:9).
+And so, before sending into them the Holy Spirit, who would +perfectly teach them, Christ would wash them with the blood he +shed; take up his garments by rising; and resume his place by +ascending in glory.
+1772 Next (v 12b), he gives his exhortation. First, he asks a +question; secondly, he accepts their acknowledgement; thirdly, he +draws a conclusion from this; fourthly, he confirms this +conclusion.
+1773 Christ questions them when he says, Do you know what I +have done to you? This means: You have seen what I have done, +but you do not know why I did it. And he asks them in this way in +order to show the greatness of his action and to prompt them to +reflect on it. For we should meditate on the works of God because +they are profound: "How great are thy works, O Lord! Thy thoughts +are very deep" (Ps 92:5). We can barely know the works of God: +"Then I saw all the works of God, that man cannot find out the work +that is done under the sun" (Eccl 8:17). Yet it is still a delight +to think about them: "For thou O Lord, hast made me glad by thy +work; at the work of thy hands I sing for joy" (Ps 92:4). Further, +these works are helpful, because they lead us to a knowledge of +their author: "For from the greatness and beauty of created things +comes a corresponding perception of their Creator" (Wis 13:5); +"These very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:36).
+According to Origen, this statement can be rendered as, Know +what I have done to you.[18] In this way, it has an imperative sense, as if +Christ were saying: You ought to understand what I have done to +you. In this interpretation our Lord said this to rouse their +understanding.
1774 Our Lord accepts their acknowledgment, You call me -Teacher and Lord. He mentions what they acknowledge; and than he approves -of it. - +Teacher and Lord. He mentions what they acknowledge; and than +he approves of it.
1775 As to the first, we should note that in 1 Corinthians -(1:24), the Apostle says two things about Christ: he is the power of God and -the wisdom of God. As the power of God, he rules all things, for as Ambrose -says, the word "Lord" is a name of power.[19] -As the wisdom of God he teaches everyone. Thus the disciples called him Lord -- "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (6:68) - and Teacher - "Rabbi, eat" -(4:31). And with good reason. For he is the Lord, who alone creates and -restores: "Know that the Lord is God!" (Ps 100:3). And he is the only Teacher -who teaches from within: "You have one master, the Christ" (Mt 23:10). - -
1776 When he says, and you are right, he approves -their acknowledgement. Here we should note that something which is spoken can -be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is in harmony with -the thing about which it is said; and this happens if what is said is true, for -if it is false, it does not harmonize with the thing. So it is well said: -"Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth" (Eph 4:25). -For lies must be avoided to such an extent that even if it seems that they lead -to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to this point he -says, and you are right; because what you say is true, for it applies to -me, for so I am, Teacher and Lord. I am the Teacher because of the -wisdom I teach by my words; I am the Lord because of the power I show in my -miracles. - -
Secondly, what is spoken can be commendable -because it is in harmony with the person speaking. There are some who call -Christ Teacher and Lord, but it is not in harmony with themselves, for they do -not defer to the teaching and commands of God; and such people do not speak -rightly. So to those who say, "Lord, Lord, open to us," the answer is given, -"Truly, I say to you, I do not know you" (Mt 25:11), because they are not -speaking from their hearts, but only with their lips. But the apostles spoke -rightly, because it was in agreement with themselves. And so Christ replied, and -you are right, that is, you are speaking the truth, for so I am, -that is, for you I am the Teacher and the Lord, for you listen to me as Teacher -- "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (6:6) - and you -follow me as Lord - "Lo, we have left everything and followed you" (Mt 19:27). - +(1:24), the Apostle says two things about Christ: he is the power +of God and the wisdom of God. As the power of God, he rules all +things, for as Ambrose says, the word "Lord" is a name of +power.[19] As the wisdom of God he teaches everyone. Thus +the disciples called him Lord - "Lord, to whom shall we go?" +(6:68) - and Teacher - "Rabbi, eat" (4:31). And with good +reason. For he is the Lord, who alone creates and restores: "Know +that the Lord is God!" (Ps 100:3). And he is the only Teacher who +teaches from within: "You have one master, the Christ" (Mt +23:10).
+1776 When he says, and you are right, he approves their +acknowledgement. Here we should note that something which is spoken +can be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is +in harmony with the thing about which it is said; and this happens +if what is said is true, for if it is false, it does not harmonize +with the thing. So it is well said: "Therefore, putting away +falsehood, let every one speak the truth" (Eph 4:25). For lies must +be avoided to such an extent that even if it seems that they lead +to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to +this point he says, and you are right; because what you say +is true, for it applies to me, for so I am, Teacher and +Lord. I am the Teacher because of the wisdom I teach by my words; I +am the Lord because of the power I show in my miracles.
+Secondly, what is spoken can be commendable because it is in +harmony with the person speaking. There are some who call Christ +Teacher and Lord, but it is not in harmony with themselves, for +they do not defer to the teaching and commands of God; and such +people do not speak rightly. So to those who say, "Lord, Lord, open +to us," the answer is given, "Truly, I say to you, I do not know +you" (Mt 25:11), because they are not speaking from their hearts, +but only with their lips. But the apostles spoke rightly, because +it was in agreement with themselves. And so Christ replied, and +you are right, that is, you are speaking the truth, for so I +am, that is, for you I am the Teacher and the Lord, for you +listen to me as Teacher - "To whom shall we go? You have the words +of eternal life" (6:6) - and you follow me as Lord - "Lo, we have +left everything and followed you" (Mt 19:27).
1777 This seems to conflict with the statement in Proverbs -(27:2): "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth." It seems, therefore, -that it was not right for our Lord to praise himself. Augustine answers this in -two ways.[20] -First, it is wrong for a person to commend himself because of the danger of -becoming proud: because if one is inclined to pride, it is dangerous for him to -be pleased with himself. When there is no danger of pride, self-praise is not -wrong. This danger was not to be feared in Christ, for if one is above -everything, then no matter how much he praises himself, he does not commend -himself too much. - -
Augustine also says that sometimes -it is good that a person commends himself, as when this is beneficial to -others.[21] -The Apostle commended himself this way to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11). Now for -us to know God is very beneficial and necessary in every way, for our entire -perfection lies in this. Thus it was a benefit for us that he reveal his -greatness to us, for how could we know it if it were not shown to us by the one -who knows. Thus it was necessary that Christ commend himself to us, for as -Augustine says, if he did not praise himself in order to avoid seeming -arrogant, he would be depriving us of wisdom: "Wisdom will praise herself" (Sir -24:1). - -
1778 He draws the conclusion when he says, If I then, -your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one -another's feet. He is arguing here from what is less [expected] to what is -more [expected]. For it seems less [expected] that one who is greater humble -himself than one who is not as great. And with this in mind he concludes, If -I then, who am greater, because I am your Lord and Teacher, have washed -your feet, then you who are not as great, because you are disciples -and servants, ought, far more than I, to wash one another's feet: -"Whoever would be great among you must be your servant…even as the Son of man -came not to be served but to serve" (Mt 20:26). - +(27:2): "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth." It seems, +therefore, that it was not right for our Lord to praise himself. +Augustine answers this in two ways.[20] First, it is wrong for a person +to commend himself because of the danger of becoming proud: because +if one is inclined to pride, it is dangerous for him to be pleased +with himself. When there is no danger of pride, self-praise is not +wrong. This danger was not to be feared in Christ, for if one is +above everything, then no matter how much he praises himself, he +does not commend himself too much.
+Augustine also says that sometimes it is good that a person +commends himself, as when this is beneficial to others.[21] The Apostle +commended himself this way to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11). Now for +us to know God is very beneficial and necessary in every way, for +our entire perfection lies in this. Thus it was a benefit for us +that he reveal his greatness to us, for how could we know it if it +were not shown to us by the one who knows. Thus it was necessary +that Christ commend himself to us, for as Augustine says, if he did +not praise himself in order to avoid seeming arrogant, he would be +depriving us of wisdom: "Wisdom will praise herself" (Sir +24:1).
+1778 He draws the conclusion when he says, If I then, your +Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one +another's feet. He is arguing here from what is less [expected] +to what is more [expected]. For it seems less [expected] that one +who is greater humble himself than one who is not as great. And +with this in mind he concludes, If I then, who am greater, +because I am your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, +then you who are not as great, because you are disciples and +servants, ought, far more than I, to wash one another's +feet: "Whoever would be great among you must be your +servant…even as the Son of man came not to be served but to +serve" (Mt 20:26).
1779 It seems that the statement, you ought to wash one -another's feet, is a precept. And one who neglects a precept sins in a -serious way. Therefore, [it is a serious sin not to wash the feet of others]. I -reply, according to Augustine, that every one should wash the feet of others, -either in a physical or spiritual way.[22] -And it is much better, and true beyond argument, that one should do this in a -physical way, so that a Christian will not consider it beneath him to do what -Christ did. For when a person stoops down to the feet of his neighbor, humility -is awakened in his heart, or if already there it is made stronger. - -
If one cannot do this in a physical -way, it should at least be done in one's heart. When feet are washed, their -stains are washed away. So we wash the feet of our neighbors in a spiritual way -when, as far as we can, we wash away their moral stains. This is done in three -ways. The first way is by forgiving their offenses, as in "And if one has a -complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, -so you also must forgive" (Col 3:13). Another way is by praying because of -their sins, according to "Pray for one another, that you may be healed" (Jas -5:16). These two kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful. The third -way belongs to prelates, who ought to wash by forgiving sins by the power of -the keys: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are -forgiven" (20:22). - -
We can also say that by this action -our Lord pointed out all the works of mercy. For one who gives bread to the -hungry washes his feet, as does one who practices hospitality, or gives food to -one in need; and so on for the other works. "Contribute to the needs of the -saints" (Rom 12:13). - +another's feet, is a precept. And one who neglects a precept +sins in a serious way. Therefore, [it is a serious sin not to wash +the feet of others]. I reply, according to Augustine, that every +one should wash the feet of others, either in a physical or +spiritual way.[22] And it is much better, and true beyond +argument, that one should do this in a physical way, so that a +Christian will not consider it beneath him to do what Christ did. +For when a person stoops down to the feet of his neighbor, humility +is awakened in his heart, or if already there it is made +stronger.
+If one cannot do this in a physical way, it should at least be +done in one's heart. When feet are washed, their stains are washed +away. So we wash the feet of our neighbors in a spiritual way when, +as far as we can, we wash away their moral stains. This is done in +three ways. The first way is by forgiving their offenses, as in +"And if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; +as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive" (Col 3:13). +Another way is by praying because of their sins, according to "Pray +for one another, that you may be healed" (Jas 5:16). These two +kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful. The third way +belongs to prelates, who ought to wash by forgiving sins by the +power of the keys: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the +sins of any, they are forgiven" (20:22).
+We can also say that by this action our Lord pointed out all the +works of mercy. For one who gives bread to the hungry washes his +feet, as does one who practices hospitality, or gives food to one +in need; and so on for the other works. "Contribute to the needs of +the saints" (Rom 12:13).
1780 He supports his conclusion in four ways: first, by his -intention; secondly, by his authority (v 16); thirdly, by the reward due this -action (v 17); and fourthly, by the dignity of those whose feet he washed (v -20). - -
1781 He said the reason I did this was to give you an -example; so you also ought to wash one another's feet, because that was -what I intended by this action. For when we are dealing with the conduct of -people, example has more influence than words. A person chooses and does what -seems good to him, and so what one chooses is a better indication of what is -good than what one teaches should be chosen. This is why when someone says one -thing and does another, what he does has more influence on others than what he -has taught. Thus it is especially necessary to give example by one's actions. - -
Now the example of a mere human -being would not be adequate for the entire human race to imitate, both because -human reason cannot take everything into account, and it does err in what it -does take into account. And so there was given to us the example of the Son of -God, which cannot be in error and is adequate for all situations. Thus -Augustine says: "Pride is not healed if it is not healed by the divine -humility" 11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>[23]; and the same is true of avarice and the -other vices. - -
Note that the Son of God is a -fitting and sufficient example for us. For he is the art of the Father, and -just as he was the model or pattern for every thing created, so he was the -model for our justification: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an -example that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21); "My foot has held -fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned aside," as we read -in Job (23:11). - -
1782 Then when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, a -servant is not greater than his master, he strengthens his conclusion by -his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples; secondly, the -work they do. - -
Then the status of the disciples is -that they are servants: "so you also, when you have done all that is commanded -you, say, 'We are unworthy servants'" (Lk 17:10). The work they have to do is -to be apostles - and an apostle is one who is sent: "He…chose from them twelve, -whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13). So he says: I say that "you also ought to -wash one another's feet" as I have washed yours, because a servant is not -greater than his master, and this refers to their status, nor is he who -is sent grater than he who sent him. Although the Son of God was sent to -us, as we see in Hebrews (3:1), and he is equal to the one who sent him, that -is, the Father, yet it is true of all others that he who is sent is not greater -than the one who sent him. - +intention; secondly, by his authority (v 16); thirdly, by the +reward due this action (v 17); and fourthly, by the dignity of +those whose feet he washed (v 20).
+1781 He said the reason I did this was to give you an example; +so you also ought to wash one another's feet, because that +was what I intended by this action. For when we are dealing with +the conduct of people, example has more influence than words. A +person chooses and does what seems good to him, and so what one +chooses is a better indication of what is good than what one +teaches should be chosen. This is why when someone says one thing +and does another, what he does has more influence on others than +what he has taught. Thus it is especially necessary to give example +by one's actions.
+Now the example of a mere human being would not be adequate for +the entire human race to imitate, both because human reason cannot +take everything into account, and it does err in what it does take +into account. And so there was given to us the example of the Son +of God, which cannot be in error and is adequate for all +situations. Thus Augustine says: "Pride is not healed if it is not +healed by the divine humility" 11.0pt;font-family:"Times New +Roman"'>[23]; and the same is true of avarice and the other +vices.
+Note that the Son of God is a fitting and sufficient example for +us. For he is the art of the Father, and just as he was the model +or pattern for every thing created, so he was the model for our +justification: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an +example that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21); "My foot +has held fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned +aside," as we read in Job (23:11).
+1782 Then when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant +is not greater than his master, he strengthens his conclusion +by his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples; +secondly, the work they do.
+Then the status of the disciples is that they are servants: "so +you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, 'We +are unworthy servants'" (Lk 17:10). The work they have to do is to +be apostles - and an apostle is one who is sent: "He…chose +from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13). So he says: I +say that "you also ought to wash one another's feet" as I have +washed yours, because a servant is not greater than his +master, and this refers to their status, nor is he who is +sent grater than he who sent him. Although the Son of God was +sent to us, as we see in Hebrews (3:1), and he is equal to the one +who sent him, that is, the Father, yet it is true of all others +that he who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him.
1783 This seems to contradict what our Lord said to his -disciples below (15:15): "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant -does not know what his master is doing." I answer that there are two ways of -being a servant. One way is based on reverence and respect, "filial fear," and -this produces a good servant: "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mt -25:23). This is the kind of servant our Lord is talking about here in John -(13:16). The other way of being a servant is based on the fear of punishment, -"servile fear." This kind of servant is mentioned in "You wicked servant! I -forgave you all that debt because you besought me" (Mt 18:33). This is the kind -of servant our Lord refers to when he says: "No longer do I call you servants" -(15:15). - -
1784 When he says, If you know these things, blessed are -you if you do them, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward. First, he -mentions the reward; secondly, he excludes someone from it (v 18). - -
- -
1785 If you know these things, which many do know, blessed -are you if you do them, which is true of few. He says, "know" and "do" -because we read: "Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it" (Lk -11:28); and "A good understanding have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). -On the other hand, "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for -him it is sin" (Jas 4:17). - -
1786 He excludes someone when he says, I am not speaking -of you all. First, he says there is an exception; secondly, he gives the -reason for the exception (v 18). Thirdly, he tells why he said there was an -exception (v 19). He does two things about the first: he mentions there is an -exception; he answers an unspoken question. - +disciples below (15:15): "No longer do I call you servants, for the +servant does not know what his master is doing." I answer that +there are two ways of being a servant. One way is based on +reverence and respect, "filial fear," and this produces a good +servant: "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mt 25:23). This is +the kind of servant our Lord is talking about here in John (13:16). +The other way of being a servant is based on the fear of +punishment, "servile fear." This kind of servant is mentioned in +"You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you +besought me" (Mt 18:33). This is the kind of servant our Lord +refers to when he says: "No longer do I call you servants" +(15:15).
+1784 When he says, If you know these things, blessed are you +if you do them, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward. +First, he mentions the reward; secondly, he excludes someone from +it (v 18).
++
1785 If you know these things, which many do know, +blessed are you if you do them, which is true of few. He +says, "know" and "do" because we read: "Blessed are those who hear +the word of God and keep it" (Lk 11:28); and "A good understanding +have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). On the other hand, +"Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it +is sin" (Jas 4:17).
+1786 He excludes someone when he says, I am not speaking of +you all. First, he says there is an exception; secondly, he +gives the reason for the exception (v 18). Thirdly, he tells why he +said there was an exception (v 19). He does two things about the +first: he mentions there is an exception; he answers an unspoken +question.
1787 He says there is an exception when he says, I am not -speaking of you all. He is saying in effect: You will be blessed, but not -all of you, because I am not speaking of you all when I say you will be -blessed: "All the runners compete, but only one receives the prize" (1 Cor -9:24). For there is one of you, that is, Judas, who will not be blessed, and he -will not do these things. - -
According to Origen, our Lord did -not say blessed are you, without qualification; but he added a -condition, if you do them.[24] -And this is true for all of them, even Judas; for if Judas had done these -things, he would have been blessed. So for Origen, Jesus is excluding Judas -from his servants, "a servant is not greater than his master" (v 16). It was -like saying: I say you are servants and apostles, but I am not speaking of -you all: for Judas, since he was a servant of sin, was not a servant of the -Divine Word, nor was he an apostle once the devil had entered into his heart. - -
1788 Someone could say: Since Christ does not say that all -are blessed or his apostles, then some member of his group might perish -unexpectedly. Our Lord answers this saying, I know whom I have chosen. -This was like saying: Those who have been chosen will not perish; but not all -have been chosen. So, the one who will perish will be the one who has not been -chosen, that is, Judas: "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (15:16). - -
1789 This seems to conflict with his earlier statement: "Did -I not choose you, the twelve?" (6:71). Therefore, since Judas was one of the -twelve, it seems that he was chosen. I answer that one can be chosen in two -ways. One is for a present righteousness; and Judas was chosen for this. The -other is for final glory; and Judas was not chosen for this. - -
1790 The reason there was an exception was so that the scripture -may be fulfilled - not that scripture forced the event, but it did mention -an event that would happen: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses -and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota, -nor a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5:18). This -scripture says: He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me. This -is another translation of what we have in the Psalm [41:9] as: "The man of my -peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has greatly deceived me." The -intimacy Judas had with Christ is shown when we read, he who ate my bread: -for Judas, along with the other disciples, ate bread with Christ, even -consecrated bread. Further, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when -it says, has lifted his heel against me; that is, he will try to crush -me. And we do crush our enemies under our heel: "She shall crush your head, and -you will lie in wait for her heel" [Gen 3:15]. And so one is said to raise his -heel against another when he tries to crush him. But Judas will not be able to -do this, because I will be exalted by the very thing with which he wants to -crush me: "And I, when am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to -myself" [12:32]. - -
1791 We have an example in this for ourselves: let us not be -set back if we happen to suffer evil from those close to us or from the -malicious, since we can remember the conduct of Judas who, in spite of having -received unlimited goods, returned the contrary to his benefactor. Our Lord chose -Judas, whom he knew would become an evil person, so that we could realize that -there would be no human society which does not have some evil members: "As a -lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). And in one of his -letters Augustine says: "I don't care to assume that my household is better -than the group of the apostles."[25] -We can also understand from this that if a prelate receives someone into the -Church, and this person becomes bad, the prelate should not be blamed. Look at -Judas! Even though he was chosen by Christ he turned out to be a traitor. The -same thing happened to Philip when he received Simon the magician: "Shall they -repay good with evil, by making a snare to take my life?" [Jer 18:20]; "A man's -foes will be those of his own household" (Mt 10:36). - -
1792 Then when he says, I tell you this now, he gives -the reason why he mentioned there was an exception. As if to say: I have been -silent about his malice for a long time, but because the time is near when it -will appear publicly, therefore, I tell you this now, before it takes place, -that when it does take place you may believe that I am he who predicts the -future and reveals the secrets of the heart: things which are characteristic of -God. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can -understand it? 'I the Lord search the mind and try the heart'" (Jer 17:9); -"Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods" (Is -41:23). Or, "I am who am" [Ex 3:14]. - -
1793 Next (v 20), he confirms his conclusion from the -dignity of those whose feet he washed. For their dignity was so great that -services performed for them seemed in a way to rebound to God, although -according to a certain progression: because things done for the faithful -through Christ rebound to God the Father. - -
First, he shows how those things -done for the disciples of Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this -he says, Truly, truly, I say to you. He is saying in effect: Truly, you -ought to wash their feet, because he who receives any one whom I send -receives me, that is, I regard as done to me the service given to those -whom I send: "He who receives you receives me" (Mt 10:41). Secondly, he shows -how a service given to Christ rebounds to the Father, saying, he who receives -me receives him who sent me: "That all may honor the Son, even as they -honor the Father" (5:23). - -
However, according to Origen, this verse can be -understood in two ways.[26] -In one way by compressing the two parts into one, and then the sense is: he who -receives those sent by me also receives the Father. The second way keeps the -parts distinct, and then the meaning is: he who receives, that is, in a -physical way, those sent by me, receives me; and those who receive me, that is, -coming into their souls in a spiritual way - as in "that Christ may dwell in -your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17) - receives him who sent me, the Father. -Not only will I dwell in him, but the Father will also: "We will come to him -and make our home with him" (14:23). - -
1794 Arius used this text in the following way to help -support his own error: the Lord says that he who receives him receives the -Father; and so the relationship between the Father who sends and the Son is the -same as that of the Son who sends and the disciples. But Christ who sends is -greater than the disciples who are sent; thus, the Father is greater than the -Son. - -
We should answer this, according to -Augustine, by saying that there were two natures in Christ, a human and a -divine nature.[27] -In the first part he is speaking with reference to his human nature, saying, he -who receives any one whom I send receives me, as human, for I share with -them in one [human] nature. In the second part he speaks in reference to his -divinity: he who receives me, who am God, receives him who sent me, -for I have the same [divine] nature as him. - -
Or, we could understand it to mean: -he who receives one whom I send, receives me, for my authority is in him; and -he who receives me receives the Father, whose authority is in me. In this way, -these words show that Christ is the bridge between God and humankind, as in -"There is one mediator between God and the men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim -2:5). -
-LECTURE 4 - -
- -21 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, -and testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." 22 The -disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. 23 One of his -disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast [lap] of Jesus; 24 -so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." -25 So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is -it?" 26 Jesus answered, "It is he whom I shall give this morsel [bread] when I -have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel [bread], he gave it to Judas, -the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him.[28]
1795 Above, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave -to his disciples to imitate. Here he shows the failure of the disciples who -were not yet ready to follow him; a failure which Christ predicted. First, we -see the failure of the disciple who betrayed him; secondly, of the disciple who -denied him (v 36). Two things are done with the first: one of the disciples is -said to be a betrayer; secondly, we see him leave the supper. Two things are -done concerning the first: the betrayal is predicted; then we see it beginning -to be executed (v 27a). Two things are done about the first: the crime of the -traitor is foretold; secondly, the traitor is identified (v 22). - -
1796 Two things are done about the first: the emotions of -the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; secondly, the event predicted -is mentioned. - -
The one foretelling the betrayal is -Christ, and he is troubled. As to this the Evangelist says, When Jesus had -thus spoken, inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the -disciple who was to betray him and he was troubled in spirit. Here we -should note that to be troubled is to be disturbed. This is shown by an event -mentioned before: "From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down -into the pool and the water was disturbed…the sick man said, 'Sir, I have no -one to plunge me into the pool once the water is troubled'" (5:4). Here it is -the same thing for water to be disturbed or troubled. We also say the sea is -troubled when it is disturbed. And so to say that a soul is troubled is to say -that it is disturbed. Now there are some acts of the soul which do not involve -a disturbance in the body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. -But the acts of the sensory appetite do involve a disturbance in the body; -these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of the sensory -appetite do involve some bodily disturbance; and so the affections of the -sensory appetite are called passions. Now among all the affections or passions -of the sensory appetite, sadness involves the most disturbance. While pleasure, -since it implies a rest in a good which is possessed, has more the character of -rest than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with an evil to come -in the future, has less disturbance than sadness, which involves an evil which -is present. This is why one who is afflicted with sadness is especially said to -be troubled. So Christ was troubled, that is, he was sad. - -
1797 We can recall here that there have been philosophers, -the Stoics, who said that those who are wise are not troubled this way or by -such passions. For although they admit that one who is wise may have fear, or -joy or desire, such a one is never sad. It is clear that this is false because -Jesus, who is the highest wisdom, was troubled. - -
Note that one can be troubled in -two ways. Sometimes it comes from the flesh, which means that one is troubled -because of some apprehension by the senses, but independently of the judgment -of reason. Yet sometimes this can remain within the limits of reason and not -cloud one's reason; in this case, Jerome would call it a propassion.[29] -This can happen in one who is wise. At other times, this can go beyond the -limits of reason and trouble reason. This is not found in the wise. - -
The second way of being troubled is -to have it come from one's reason, that is, when one is troubled in the sensory -appetite because of a judgment of reason and from deliberation. This was the -way Christ was troubled. And so the Evangelist is careful to say that he was -troubled in spirit, that is, the sensory appetite of Christ was troubled -because of a judgment of his reason. Thus he said above (11:33) that Jesus -"troubled himself." For in Christ all things arose from the deliberation of -reason, even in his sensory appetite; and so there were in him no sudden -disturbances of his sensuality. - -
1798 Jesus willed to be troubled at this time for two -reasons. First, in order to instruct us in the faith. For suffering and death, -which human nature naturally shuns, were drawing near to him; and when he -realized this, he became sad because they were harmful and evil for him. And so -he willed, by a judgment of reason, to be troubled even in his soul, to show us -that he had a real human nature. This excludes the error of Apollinaris who -said that Christ did not have a soul, but the Word took its place. - -
Secondly, he did this to aid our -own progress. According to Augustine, he saw that the traitor was about to -leave and return with the Jews who wanted to capture him.[30] -By this action, Judas was severed from the society of the saints and drew down -a sentence of death upon himself. And because Jesus loved him, this made him -sad. This gives an example to superiors that if now and then they have to pass -a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with a sad heart, -according to "Let a good man strike or rebuke me in kindness" (Ps 141:5). For -when Jesus decided to reveal the treachery of Judas to the others, he was -troubled in spirit and testified, to show he was not ignorant of his -betrayal, and said, Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me. - - -
1799 He is careful to say, one of you, i.e., one of -those chosen for this holy society, so that we might understand that there would -never be a society so holy that it would be without sinners and those who are -evil: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves -before the Lord, and Satan also came among them" (Job 1:6). - -
He said one of them, not two or -several, so it would not seem that he was reproving the whole group rather than -the traitor in the group. For we should not think a group bad because one -member is bad; although if several are bad, the group could be considered bad. -He said, one of you, that is, one of your number, not one of you in -merit or one in spirit: "They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if -they had been of us, they would have continued with us" (1 Jn 2:19). One of -you will betray me. Me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior. - -
1800 Next (v 22), the traitor is privately identified. -First, the occasions for this are mentioned; secondly, the traitor is -identified (v 26); thirdly, we see the effect of his identification (v 27). -There were two occasions for his identification: one was the uncertainty of the -disciples, and the other was a question asked by one of the disciples. First, -John mentions their uncertainty; and then the disciple's question. - -
1801 With regard to the first, note that the good disciples -had very great love for Christ and their faith was very strong. Because of -their love each one assumed that he would not be the one to deny Christ; yet -because their faith was so strong they were most certain that what Christ said -could not be false. And so, although none of them was conscious of any evil, -they nevertheless thought the prediction of Christ was truer and more -believable than their own opinion. Accordingly, considering that they were -human and that their affections could change so much that they could will the -opposite of what they willed before, they were more uncertain of themselves -than of the truth spoken by Christ. So, the disciples looked at one another, -uncertain of whom he spoke: "Therefore let any one who thinks that he -stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12); "If I wash myself with snow, and -cleanse my hands with lye, yet thou will plunge me into a pit" (Job 9:30). - -
1802 Next (v 23), the disciple's question is stated. First -we see the intimacy he had with Christ; secondly, what led him to ask (v 24); -thirdly, his question (v 25). - -
1803 The disciple's intimacy with Christ is shown by the -fact that he was lying close to him. He says, one of the disciples was lying -close to the lap of Jesus. This was John the Evangelist who wrote his -Gospel. He wrote of himself in the third person to avoid boasting. In this he -followed the custom of others who wrote Sacred Scripture. Moses wrote of -himself this way, as though he were someone else: "and the Lord said to Moses" -(Lev 11:1). And so did Matthew: "He saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax -office" as we see from Matthew (Mt 9:9). And further on Paul did the same: "I -know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven" -(2 Cor 12:2). - -
1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First, -the love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he was lying, -that is resting: "Then you will delight yourself in the Almighty, and lift up -your face to God" (Job 22:26); "He leads me beside the waters of rest" (Ps -23:2). Secondly, he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known -to him by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says he was -lying close to the lap of Jesus, for the lap signifies things that are -hidden: "The only Son, who is in the lap of the Father, he has made him known" -[1:18]. Thirdly, he mentions the special love Christ had for him, saying, whom -Jesus loved, not exclusively, but in a way above others. Exactly how Christ -loved him more than others will be stated more clearly at the end of this book. - - -
For the present, it is enough to -say that John was more loved by Christ for three reasons. First, because of the -cleanliness of his purity: for he was a virgin when chosen by the Lord, and -always remained so: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is -gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Secondly, because of -the depth of his wisdom, for he saw further into the secrets of God than -others; and so he is compared to an eagle, "A wise servant has the king's -favor" [Prv 14:35]. Thirdly, because of the great intensity of his love for -Christ: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17). - +speaking of you all. He is saying in effect: You will be +blessed, but not all of you, because I am not speaking of you +all when I say you will be blessed: "All the runners compete, +but only one receives the prize" (1 Cor 9:24). For there is one of +you, that is, Judas, who will not be blessed, and he will not do +these things.
+According to Origen, our Lord did not say blessed are +you, without qualification; but he added a condition, if you +do them.[24] And this is true for all of them, even Judas; +for if Judas had done these things, he would have been blessed. So +for Origen, Jesus is excluding Judas from his servants, "a servant +is not greater than his master" (v 16). It was like saying: I say +you are servants and apostles, but I am not speaking of you +all: for Judas, since he was a servant of sin, was not a +servant of the Divine Word, nor was he an apostle once the devil +had entered into his heart.
+1788 Someone could say: Since Christ does not say that all are +blessed or his apostles, then some member of his group might perish +unexpectedly. Our Lord answers this saying, I know whom I have +chosen. This was like saying: Those who have been chosen will +not perish; but not all have been chosen. So, the one who will +perish will be the one who has not been chosen, that is, Judas: +"You did not choose me, but I chose you" (15:16).
+1789 This seems to conflict with his earlier statement: "Did I +not choose you, the twelve?" (6:71). Therefore, since Judas was one +of the twelve, it seems that he was chosen. I answer that one can +be chosen in two ways. One is for a present righteousness; and +Judas was chosen for this. The other is for final glory; and Judas +was not chosen for this.
+1790 The reason there was an exception was so that the +scripture may be fulfilled - not that scripture forced the +event, but it did mention an event that would happen: "Everything +written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the +psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota, nor a dot, will +pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5:18). This +scripture says: He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against +me. This is another translation of what we have in the Psalm +[41:9] as: "The man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my +bread, has greatly deceived me." The intimacy Judas had with Christ +is shown when we read, he who ate my bread: for Judas, along +with the other disciples, ate bread with Christ, even consecrated +bread. Further, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when +it says, has lifted his heel against me; that is, he will +try to crush me. And we do crush our enemies under our heel: "She +shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel" [Gen +3:15]. And so one is said to raise his heel against another when he +tries to crush him. But Judas will not be able to do this, because +I will be exalted by the very thing with which he wants to crush +me: "And I, when am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things +to myself" [12:32].
+1791 We have an example in this for ourselves: let us not be set +back if we happen to suffer evil from those close to us or from the +malicious, since we can remember the conduct of Judas who, in spite +of having received unlimited goods, returned the contrary to his +benefactor. Our Lord chose Judas, whom he knew would become an evil +person, so that we could realize that there would be no human +society which does not have some evil members: "As a lily among +brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). And in one of +his letters Augustine says: "I don't care to assume that my +household is better than the group of the apostles."[25] We can also +understand from this that if a prelate receives someone into the +Church, and this person becomes bad, the prelate should not be +blamed. Look at Judas! Even though he was chosen by Christ he +turned out to be a traitor. The same thing happened to Philip when +he received Simon the magician: "Shall they repay good with evil, +by making a snare to take my life?" [Jer 18:20]; "A man's foes will +be those of his own household" (Mt 10:36).
+1792 Then when he says, I tell you this now, he gives the +reason why he mentioned there was an exception. As if to say: I +have been silent about his malice for a long time, but because the +time is near when it will appear publicly, therefore, I tell you +this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you +may believe that I am he who predicts the future and reveals +the secrets of the heart: things which are characteristic of God. +"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; +who can understand it? 'I the Lord search the mind and try the +heart'" (Jer 17:9); "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may +know that you are gods" (Is 41:23). Or, "I am who am" [Ex +3:14].
+1793 Next (v 20), he confirms his conclusion from the dignity of +those whose feet he washed. For their dignity was so great that +services performed for them seemed in a way to rebound to God, +although according to a certain progression: because things done +for the faithful through Christ rebound to God the Father.
+First, he shows how those things done for the disciples of +Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this he says, +Truly, truly, I say to you. He is saying in effect: Truly, +you ought to wash their feet, because he who receives any one +whom I send receives me, that is, I regard as done to me the +service given to those whom I send: "He who receives you receives +me" (Mt 10:41). Secondly, he shows how a service given to Christ +rebounds to the Father, saying, he who receives me receives him +who sent me: "That all may honor the Son, even as they honor +the Father" (5:23).
+However, according to Origen, this verse can be understood in +two ways.[26] +In one way by compressing the two parts into one, and then the +sense is: he who receives those sent by me also receives the +Father. The second way keeps the parts distinct, and then the +meaning is: he who receives, that is, in a physical way, those sent +by me, receives me; and those who receive me, that is, coming into +their souls in a spiritual way - as in "that Christ may dwell in +your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17) - receives him who sent me, +the Father. Not only will I dwell in him, but the Father will also: +"We will come to him and make our home with him" (14:23).
+1794 Arius used this text in the following way to help support +his own error: the Lord says that he who receives him receives the +Father; and so the relationship between the Father who sends and +the Son is the same as that of the Son who sends and the disciples. +But Christ who sends is greater than the disciples who are sent; +thus, the Father is greater than the Son.
+We should answer this, according to Augustine, by saying that +there were two natures in Christ, a human and a divine +nature.[27] +In the first part he is speaking with reference to his human +nature, saying, he who receives any one whom I send receives +me, as human, for I share with them in one [human] nature. In +the second part he speaks in reference to his divinity: he who +receives me, who am God, receives him who sent me, for I +have the same [divine] nature as him.
+Or, we could understand it to mean: he who receives one whom I +send, receives me, for my authority is in him; and he who receives +me receives the Father, whose authority is in me. In this way, +these words show that Christ is the bridge between God and +humankind, as in "There is one mediator between God and the men, +the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).
+
+
+LECTURE 4
+++21 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and +testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." +22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. +23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the +breast [lap] of Jesus; 24 so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, +"Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." 25 So lying thus, close to +the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?" 26 Jesus +answered, "It is he whom I shall give this morsel [bread] when I +have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel [bread], he gave +it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel, +Satan entered into him.[28]
+1795 Above, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave to +his disciples to imitate. Here he shows the failure of the +disciples who were not yet ready to follow him; a failure which +Christ predicted. First, we see the failure of the disciple who +betrayed him; secondly, of the disciple who denied him (v 36). Two +things are done with the first: one of the disciples is said to be +a betrayer; secondly, we see him leave the supper. Two things are +done concerning the first: the betrayal is predicted; then we see +it beginning to be executed (v 27a). Two things are done about the +first: the crime of the traitor is foretold; secondly, the traitor +is identified (v 22).
+1796 Two things are done about the first: the emotions of the +one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; secondly, the event +predicted is mentioned.
+The one foretelling the betrayal is Christ, and he is troubled. +As to this the Evangelist says, When Jesus had thus spoken, +inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the +disciple who was to betray him and he was troubled in +spirit. Here we should note that to be troubled is to be +disturbed. This is shown by an event mentioned before: "From time +to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool and +the water was disturbed…the sick man said, 'Sir, I have no +one to plunge me into the pool once the water is troubled'" (5:4). +Here it is the same thing for water to be disturbed or troubled. We +also say the sea is troubled when it is disturbed. And so to say +that a soul is troubled is to say that it is disturbed. Now there +are some acts of the soul which do not involve a disturbance in the +body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the +acts of the sensory appetite do involve a disturbance in the body; +these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of +the sensory appetite do involve some bodily disturbance; and so the +affections of the sensory appetite are called passions. Now among +all the affections or passions of the sensory appetite, sadness +involves the most disturbance. While pleasure, since it implies a +rest in a good which is possessed, has more the character of rest +than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with an evil +to come in the future, has less disturbance than sadness, which +involves an evil which is present. This is why one who is afflicted +with sadness is especially said to be troubled. So Christ was +troubled, that is, he was sad.
+1797 We can recall here that there have been philosophers, the +Stoics, who said that those who are wise are not troubled this way +or by such passions. For although they admit that one who is wise +may have fear, or joy or desire, such a one is never sad. It is +clear that this is false because Jesus, who is the highest wisdom, +was troubled.
+Note that one can be troubled in two ways. Sometimes it comes +from the flesh, which means that one is troubled because of some +apprehension by the senses, but independently of the judgment of +reason. Yet sometimes this can remain within the limits of reason +and not cloud one's reason; in this case, Jerome would call it a +propassion.[29] This can happen in one who is wise. At other +times, this can go beyond the limits of reason and trouble reason. +This is not found in the wise.
+The second way of being troubled is to have it come from one's +reason, that is, when one is troubled in the sensory appetite +because of a judgment of reason and from deliberation. This was the +way Christ was troubled. And so the Evangelist is careful to say +that he was troubled in spirit, that is, the sensory +appetite of Christ was troubled because of a judgment of his +reason. Thus he said above (11:33) that Jesus "troubled himself." +For in Christ all things arose from the deliberation of reason, +even in his sensory appetite; and so there were in him no sudden +disturbances of his sensuality.
+1798 Jesus willed to be troubled at this time for two reasons. +First, in order to instruct us in the faith. For suffering and +death, which human nature naturally shuns, were drawing near to +him; and when he realized this, he became sad because they were +harmful and evil for him. And so he willed, by a judgment of +reason, to be troubled even in his soul, to show us that he had a +real human nature. This excludes the error of Apollinaris who said +that Christ did not have a soul, but the Word took its place.
+Secondly, he did this to aid our own progress. According to +Augustine, he saw that the traitor was about to leave and return +with the Jews who wanted to capture him.[30] By this action, Judas was +severed from the society of the saints and drew down a sentence of +death upon himself. And because Jesus loved him, this made him sad. +This gives an example to superiors that if now and then they have +to pass a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with +a sad heart, according to "Let a good man strike or rebuke me in +kindness" (Ps 141:5). For when Jesus decided to reveal the +treachery of Judas to the others, he was troubled in spirit and +testified, to show he was not ignorant of his betrayal, and +said, Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray +me.
+1799 He is careful to say, one of you, i.e., one of those +chosen for this holy society, so that we might understand that +there would never be a society so holy that it would be without +sinners and those who are evil: "Now there was a day when the sons +of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also +came among them" (Job 1:6).
+He said one of them, not two or several, so it would not seem +that he was reproving the whole group rather than the traitor in +the group. For we should not think a group bad because one member +is bad; although if several are bad, the group could be considered +bad. He said, one of you, that is, one of your number, not +one of you in merit or one in spirit: "They went out from us, but +they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have +continued with us" (1 Jn 2:19). One of you will betray me. +Me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.
+1800 Next (v 22), the traitor is privately identified. First, +the occasions for this are mentioned; secondly, the traitor is +identified (v 26); thirdly, we see the effect of his identification +(v 27). There were two occasions for his identification: one was +the uncertainty of the disciples, and the other was a question +asked by one of the disciples. First, John mentions their +uncertainty; and then the disciple's question.
+1801 With regard to the first, note that the good disciples had +very great love for Christ and their faith was very strong. Because +of their love each one assumed that he would not be the one to deny +Christ; yet because their faith was so strong they were most +certain that what Christ said could not be false. And so, although +none of them was conscious of any evil, they nevertheless thought +the prediction of Christ was truer and more believable than their +own opinion. Accordingly, considering that they were human and that +their affections could change so much that they could will the +opposite of what they willed before, they were more uncertain of +themselves than of the truth spoken by Christ. So, the disciples +looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke: "Therefore +let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 +Cor 10:12); "If I wash myself with snow, and cleanse my hands with +lye, yet thou will plunge me into a pit" (Job 9:30).
+1802 Next (v 23), the disciple's question is stated. First we +see the intimacy he had with Christ; secondly, what led him to ask +(v 24); thirdly, his question (v 25).
+1803 The disciple's intimacy with Christ is shown by the fact +that he was lying close to him. He says, one of the disciples +was lying close to the lap of Jesus. This was John the +Evangelist who wrote his Gospel. He wrote of himself in the third +person to avoid boasting. In this he followed the custom of others +who wrote Sacred Scripture. Moses wrote of himself this way, as +though he were someone else: "and the Lord said to Moses" (Lev +11:1). And so did Matthew: "He saw a man called Matthew sitting at +the tax office" as we see from Matthew (Mt 9:9). And further on +Paul did the same: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago +was caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2).
+1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First, the +love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he +was lying, that is resting: "Then you will delight yourself +in the Almighty, and lift up your face to God" (Job 22:26); "He +leads me beside the waters of rest" (Ps 23:2). Secondly, he +intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him +by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says +he was lying close to the lap of Jesus, for the lap +signifies things that are hidden: "The only Son, who is in the lap +of the Father, he has made him known" [1:18]. Thirdly, he mentions +the special love Christ had for him, saying, whom Jesus +loved, not exclusively, but in a way above others. Exactly how +Christ loved him more than others will be stated more clearly at +the end of this book.
+For the present, it is enough to say that John was more loved by +Christ for three reasons. First, because of the cleanliness of his +purity: for he was a virgin when chosen by the Lord, and always +remained so: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is +gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Secondly, +because of the depth of his wisdom, for he saw further into the +secrets of God than others; and so he is compared to an eagle, "A +wise servant has the king's favor" [Prv 14:35]. Thirdly, because of +the great intensity of his love for Christ: "I love those who love +me" (Prv 8:17).
1805 Then when he says, so Simon Peter beckoned to him, -John mentions what led him to question Christ. But since to beckon is to -suggest something without speaking any words, why does he say that Peter both beckoned…and -said? I answer that the [Latin] word beckon can also mean just to think -something within ourselves, as "The fool says in his heart…" (Ps 53:1). And, -even more so, we can say that someone said something when he indicates by some -external sign or gesture what he has conceived in his heart. This is the -meaning of his saying that Peter beckoned…and said, that is, thinking of -something within himself, he indicated it by some kind of gesture. Or, one -could say that he first gave some gesture, and then said in words: Who is it -of whom he speaks? that is, who will betray him. - -
1806 Since everywhere in the Gospels Peter is always -presented as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love, -why is he now keeping silent? Chrysostom gives three reasons for this.[31] -One is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not allowing him to -wash his feet, and had heard, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me." -As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now. Another reason is -that Peter did not want our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could -hear it. And so because Peter was a few feet away from Christ and would not be -the only one to hear his answer, he urged John, who was next to Jesus, to ask -him. - -
The third reason is mystical. John -signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Now Peter is -instructed by Christ by means of John because the active life learns about -divine things by means of the contemplative life: "Mary sat at the Lord's feet -and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving" (Lk -10:39). - -
1807 Then when he says, So lying thus, close to the -breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it? he mentions the question. -Note that when Peter was beckoning to John to get him to question our Lord, -John was leaning near the lap of Jesus. But now when John asks he is near the -breast of Jesus, for the breast is closer to the mouth than the lap is. And so -John moved from the lap of Christ to his breast so he could hear his answer -more quietly and privately. - -
As for the mystical interpretation, -we can see from this that the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of -divine wisdom, the more he should try to get closer to Christ, according to: -"Come to him and be enlightened" [Ps 34:5]. For the secrets of divine wisdom -are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: "He shows his -friend that it is his possession" [Job 36:33]; "His friend comes and searches -into him" [Prv 18:17]. - -
1808 Then when he says, Jesus answered, he identifies -the betrayer: first by words, then by an action. He identifies by words when he -says, It is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it. -This can signify two things, depending on how bread is understood. If it is -understood to indicate something evil, it signifies the hypocrisy of Judas. For -just as dipped bread is stained and has changed in appearance so also a -pretender, for he thinks one thing in his heart while he simulates something -else with his words. And Judas was like this, for on the outside he pretended -to love the Teacher, but in his heart he planned to betray him: The wicked -"speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3). - -
If bread is taken to signify -something good, then this action stresses the malice of Judas. When bread is -dipped it tastes better. So Christ gave Judas dipped bread to show that -although Judas had received many good things from Christ, in spite of these he -betrayed him: "But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We -used to hold sweet converse together" (Ps 55:13). - -
1809 He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says, -so when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. -Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to -Augustine, this is not so.[32] -For it is clear from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the -disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas received -the body of Christ at the same time as the other disciples, that is, during the -supper. During the course of this meal Jesus rose and washed the feet of the -disciples and returned to his place. And it was only after this that he gave the -bread to Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ. - +John mentions what led him to question Christ. But since to beckon +is to suggest something without speaking any words, why does he say +that Peter both beckoned…and said? I answer that the +[Latin] word beckon can also mean just to think something within +ourselves, as "The fool says in his heart…" (Ps 53:1). And, +even more so, we can say that someone said something when he +indicates by some external sign or gesture what he has conceived in +his heart. This is the meaning of his saying that Peter +beckoned…and said, that is, thinking of something +within himself, he indicated it by some kind of gesture. Or, one +could say that he first gave some gesture, and then said in words: +Who is it of whom he speaks? that is, who will betray +him.
+1806 Since everywhere in the Gospels Peter is always presented +as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love, +why is he now keeping silent? Chrysostom gives three reasons for +this.[31] One +is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not +allowing him to wash his feet, and had heard, "If I do not wash +you, you have no part in me." As a result, he preferred not to +bother our Lord just now. Another reason is that Peter did not want +our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could hear it. And so +because Peter was a few feet away from Christ and would not be the +only one to hear his answer, he urged John, who was next to Jesus, +to ask him.
+The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative +life, and Peter the active life. Now Peter is instructed by Christ +by means of John because the active life learns about divine things +by means of the contemplative life: "Mary sat at the Lord's feet +and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much +serving" (Lk 10:39).
+1807 Then when he says, So lying thus, close to the breast of +Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it? he mentions the +question. Note that when Peter was beckoning to John to get him to +question our Lord, John was leaning near the lap of Jesus. But now +when John asks he is near the breast of Jesus, for the breast is +closer to the mouth than the lap is. And so John moved from the lap +of Christ to his breast so he could hear his answer more quietly +and privately.
+As for the mystical interpretation, we can see from this that +the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of divine wisdom, the +more he should try to get closer to Christ, according to: "Come to +him and be enlightened" [Ps 34:5]. For the secrets of divine wisdom +are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: "He +shows his friend that it is his possession" [Job 36:33]; "His +friend comes and searches into him" [Prv 18:17].
+1808 Then when he says, Jesus answered, he identifies the +betrayer: first by words, then by an action. He identifies by words +when he says, It is he to whom I shall give this bread when I +have dipped it. This can signify two things, depending on how +bread is understood. If it is understood to indicate something +evil, it signifies the hypocrisy of Judas. For just as dipped bread +is stained and has changed in appearance so also a pretender, for +he thinks one thing in his heart while he simulates something else +with his words. And Judas was like this, for on the outside he +pretended to love the Teacher, but in his heart he planned to +betray him: The wicked "speak peace with their neighbors, while +mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3).
+If bread is taken to signify something good, then this action +stresses the malice of Judas. When bread is dipped it tastes +better. So Christ gave Judas dipped bread to show that although +Judas had received many good things from Christ, in spite of these +he betrayed him: "But it is you, my equal, my companion, my +familiar friend. We used to hold sweet converse together" (Ps +55:13).
+1809 He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says,so +when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon +Iscariot. Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of +Christ. But, according to Augustine, this is not so.[32] For it is clear +from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the +disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas +received the body of Christ at the same time as the other +disciples, that is, during the supper. During the course of this +meal Jesus rose and washed the feet of the disciples and returned +to his place. And it was only after this that he gave the bread to +Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.
1810 He continues with the effect of this identification, -saying, then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Here we might ask -how Satan enters into a person. I answer that there are two ways of -understanding Satan's entering into a person. He could enter into a person's -body, as in the case of those who are physically molested by a devil. In this -way the devil can essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean -that the devil enters into a person's mind, so that the devil would essentially -penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter into a person in this -way. Now the rational soul does not have quantitative dimensions so that -something could be in it except what gives it existence, which is there by its -own power. Now where the power of God is, there also is his essence: for in God -essence and power are the same. So it is clear that God is in the soul -essentially. Yet the devil can enter into the human mind in the sense that a -person who has been seduced by him follows him in doing evil; this is an effect -of the devil's malice, which someone has loved.[33] - -
1811 It was said above: "And during supper, when the devil -had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray -him…". But now he says, Satan entered into him. So there seems to be a -difference between "put into" and "enter into." I say that this was not said to -indicate a difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to put -something evil into a person's heart when the person yields to him and assents -to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought to do this or not. But -he enters into a person's heart when one totally gives himself to following his -suggestions and offers no resistance at all. Thus Satan first put the plan to -deceive Christ into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more -completely and to lead him to accomplish the evil. - -
1812 One might ask why Luke (22:3) says that Satan entered -into Judas even before he received the morsel. This seems to conflict with what -John says here, that after the morsel, Satan entered into him. I answer -that in the first cast Satan entered into him to plan the betrayal, but now he -entered into him to accomplish and complete it. - +saying, then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Here +we might ask how Satan enters into a person. I answer that there +are two ways of understanding Satan's entering into a person. He +could enter into a person's body, as in the case of those who are +physically molested by a devil. In this way the devil can +essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean that +the devil enters into a person's mind, so that the devil would +essentially penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter +into a person in this way. Now the rational soul does not have +quantitative dimensions so that something could be in it except +what gives it existence, which is there by its own power. Now where +the power of God is, there also is his essence: for in God essence +and power are the same. So it is clear that God is in the soul +essentially. Yet the devil can enter into the human mind in the +sense that a person who has been seduced by him follows him in +doing evil; this is an effect of the devil's malice, which someone +has loved.[33]
+1811 It was said above: "And during supper, when the devil had +already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to +betray him…". But now he says, Satan entered into +him. So there seems to be a difference between "put into" and +"enter into." I say that this was not said to indicate a +difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to put +something evil into a person's heart when the person yields to him +and assents to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought +to do this or not. But he enters into a person's heart when one +totally gives himself to following his suggestions and offers no +resistance at all. Thus Satan first put the plan to deceive Christ +into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more completely +and to lead him to accomplish the evil.
+1812 One might ask why Luke (22:3) says that Satan entered into +Judas even before he received the morsel. This seems to conflict +with what John says here, that after the morsel, Satan entered +into him. I answer that in the first cast Satan entered into +him to plan the betrayal, but now he entered into him to accomplish +and complete it.
1813 Was it wrong to give Judas this morsel, for after that -Satan would enter into him? I say, no. Judas himself was evil, and used a good -thing in an evil way. In a similar way, when someone unworthily receives the -Eucharist, which is good and even the best of things, he receives it in an evil -way and it turns out to be evil for him, because he "eats and drinks judgment -upon himself" (1 Cor 11:29). -
-LECTURE 5 - -
+- +Satan would enter into him? I say, no. Judas himself was evil, and +used a good thing in an evil way. In a similar way, when someone +unworthily receives the Eucharist, which is good and even the best +of things, he receives it in an evil way and it turns out to be +evil for him, because he "eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 +Cor 11:29).27b Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do -quickly." 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some -thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what -we need for the feast"; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 So, -after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.[34]
+
+LECTURE 5
++27b Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do +quickly." 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. +29 Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was +telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast"; or, that he should +give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the morsel, he +immediately went out; and it was night.[34]
+1814 We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted. -First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and secondly, -how it was done (v 30). John does three things with the first: first, he gives -the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act; secondly, he mentions that the -meaning of these words was not clear; and thirdly, he states how the Apostles -understood them. - +First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and +secondly, how it was done (v 30). John does three things with the +first: first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to +act; secondly, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not +clear; and thirdly, he states how the Apostles understood them.
1815 Our Lord's words were: What you are going to do, do -quickly. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot be commanded -or counseled, because "The command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" -(Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it -into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements -with the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ himself -gave permission, because "No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down -of my own accord" (10:18); "He was offered because it was his own will" [Is -53:7]. - -
These words also reprimand the evil -act of betrayal, and imply that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, -Judas was planning his death: "But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before -you" (Ps 50:21). As Augustine says, they are also the words of one who eagerly -desires to carry out the work of our redemption.[35] -Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, but predicting it. He was not so -much seeking the ruin of the one who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become -the salvation of believers: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am -constrained until it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50). - +quickly. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot +be commanded or counseled, because "The command of the Lord is +pure, enlightening the eyes" (Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a +permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it into the heart of +Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements with +the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ +himself gave permission, because "No one takes it [my life] from +me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "He was offered +because it was his own will" [Is 53:7].
+These words also reprimand the evil act of betrayal, and imply +that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, Judas was +planning his death: "But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge +before you" (Ps 50:21). As Augustine says, they are also the words +of one who eagerly desires to carry out the work of our +redemption.[35] Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, +but predicting it. He was not so much seeking the ruin of the one +who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become the salvation of +believers: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am +constrained until it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50).
1816 What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John -says, Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. We can -understand from this that the words of Christ are so profound and so above -human understanding that we can understand no more of them than what he -reveals: "It is the glory of God to conceal the word" [Prv 25:2]. - +says, Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. +We can understand from this that the words of Christ are so +profound and so above human understanding that we can understand no +more of them than what he reveals: "It is the glory of God to +conceal the word" [Prv 25:2].
1817 A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to -John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I shall give this bread -when I have dipped it, and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to -have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said. I -answer that our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the -betrayer. The reason for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that -had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly -killed him. - -
1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why -did he say, no one at the table knew why he said this to him? I answer -that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others -also are without evil. Now John was extremely good and would never consider -becoming a betrayer. Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit -such a great crime. - -
1819 Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, -ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the -disciples thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling -him… Here we should note that the Lord God of Heaven, who feeds all living -things, had a purse, not to own the things of earth, but to save the offerings -of believers and so provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. -This purse was in the care of Judas. As Augustine says, this teaches us that -the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs.[36] -It also teaches us that the Church's money should be used for only two things. -First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, Buy what we need -for the feast, that is, what we can use to worship God on the festival day: -"Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house" -(Mal 3:10). Secondly, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that -he should give something to the poor. - -
1820 One might argue against this that Matthew (6:34) says, -"do not be anxious about tomorrow." Augustine answered this and said that or -Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or other goods of one day -for the next.[37] -Rather, he said, "Do not be anxious about tomorrow." This means that we should -not be preaching or doing other religious services in order to provide a future -for ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of fear of -the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said "Do not be anxious about -tomorrow," he was forbidding two things. First, we are not to do good to secure -our future; secondly, we are not to omit doing good because we fear a future -poverty. - -
Chrysostom explains this clearly -when he says: "Do not be anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate -today the cares of the next day; the troubles of today are enough."[38] - -
1821 Some might also wonder why our Lord had a purse, since -he told his disciples, "Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals" (Lk 10:4). -According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a purse to provide for those in -need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified to the world we may -be, we should be concerned for the poor, according to "He has distributed -freely, he has given to the poor" (Ps 112:9).[39] -Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on their way, he was -referring to individual preachers and Apostles, who should carry nothing when -they went to preach. But it did not refer to the entire group which would need -something for themselves and for the poor. - -
1822 Next (v 30), John shows that what was predicted came -about. First, he mentions the action which was done; secondly, the time when it -was done. - -
1823 What was done was done quickly, because after -receiving the morsel, he immediately went out. Note that, as Origen says, -the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it.[40] -This can be understood in two ways. First, it could be that Judas was so troubled -about obeying the Teacher that when he received the morsel, he did not eat it, -but perhaps left it on the table and without delay went out to complete his -betrayal. The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to -eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the heart of Judas, -feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would have to leave, since he -could not be in the same place as Jesus: "What accord has Christ with Belial?" -(2 Cor 6:15); "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 -Cor 10:21). - -
Taken the other way, we could think -that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, after receiving -the morsel, not only in his hand, but even eating it, he immediately -went out. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is exactly -what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks from his -chalice: he eats and drinks to his own damage and adds to his sin. So the bread -Jesus gave to Judas became a source of harm: for after the bread entered into -him so did Satan. - +John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I shall give +this bread when I have dipped it, and then he gave it to Judas, +the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have +understood what he had just said. I answer that our Lord said this +privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason +for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been +certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly +killed him.
+1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did +he say, no one at the table knew why he said this to him? I +answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to +believe that others also are without evil. Now John was extremely +good and would never consider becoming a betrayer. Thus he never +suspected that another disciple would commit such a great +crime.
+1819 Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of +the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the +disciples thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus +was telling him… Here we should note that the Lord God +of Heaven, who feeds all living things, had a purse, not to own the +things of earth, but to save the offerings of believers and so +provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. This purse +was in the care of Judas. As Augustine says, this teaches us that +the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate +needs.[36] It +also teaches us that the Church's money should be used for only two +things. First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, +Buy what we need for the feast, that is, what we can use to +worship God on the festival day: "Bring the full tithes into the +storehouse, that there may be food in my house" (Mal 3:10). +Secondly, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or +that he should give something to the poor.
+1820 One might argue against this that Matthew (6:34) says, "do +not be anxious about tomorrow." Augustine answered this and said +that or Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or +other goods of one day for the next.[37] Rather, he said, "Do not be +anxious about tomorrow." This means that we should not be preaching +or doing other religious services in order to provide a future for +ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of +fear of the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said "Do +not be anxious about tomorrow," he was forbidding two things. +First, we are not to do good to secure our future; secondly, we are +not to omit doing good because we fear a future poverty.
+Chrysostom explains this clearly when he says: "Do not be +anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate today the cares +of the next day; the troubles of today are enough."[38]
+1821 Some might also wonder why our Lord had a purse, since he +told his disciples, "Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals" (Lk 10:4). +According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a purse to provide for +those in need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified +to the world we may be, we should be concerned for the poor, +according to "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor" +(Ps 112:9).[39] Or, we could say that when he told them to +take nothing on their way, he was referring to individual preachers +and Apostles, who should carry nothing when they went to preach. +But it did not refer to the entire group which would need something +for themselves and for the poor.
+1822 Next (v 30), John shows that what was predicted came about. +First, he mentions the action which was done; secondly, the time +when it was done.
+1823 What was done was done quickly, because after receiving +the morsel, he immediately went out. Note that, as Origen says, +the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he +received it.[40] This can be understood in two ways. First, it +could be that Judas was so troubled about obeying the Teacher that +when he received the morsel, he did not eat it, but perhaps left it +on the table and without delay went out to complete his betrayal. +The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to +eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the +heart of Judas, feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would +have to leave, since he could not be in the same place as Jesus: +"What accord has Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor 6:15); "You cannot +drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21).
+Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he +received. Then the meaning is, after receiving the morsel, +not only in his hand, but even eating it, he immediately went +out. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is +exactly what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the +Lord, or drinks from his chalice: he eats and drinks to his own +damage and adds to his sin. So the bread Jesus gave to Judas became +a source of harm: for after the bread entered into him so did +Satan.
1824 The time is described as one of darkness: and it was -night. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize the malice of -Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree that even the inconvenience -of the hour did not cause him to wait till the morning: "The murderer rises in -the dark…and in the night he is as a thief" (Job 24:14). - -
In the second place, he wants to -show his state of mind. It was night, because the mind of Judas the -traitor was dark, without divine light. "If any one walks in the day, he does -not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one walks in -the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him" (11:9-10). -
-LECTURE 6 - -
+- +night. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize +the malice of Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree +that even the inconvenience of the hour did not cause him to wait +till the morning: "The murderer rises in the dark…and in the +night he is as a thief" (Job 24:14).31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of -man glorified and in him God is glorified; 32 if God is glorified in him, God -will also glorify him in himself, and [will] glorify him at once. - -
1825 After Judas left to bring about our Lord's death, Jesus -mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory. First, to console them, he -mentions the glory to which he is going; secondly, he foretells his leaving (v -33).
In the second place, he wants to show his state of mind. It +was night, because the mind of Judas the traitor was dark, +without divine light. "If any one walks in the day, he does not +stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one +walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him" +(11:9-10).
+
+
+LECTURE 6
++31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of man +glorified and in him God is glorified; 32 if God is glorified in +him, God will also glorify him in himself, and [will] glorify him +at once.
+1825 After Judas left to bring about our Lord's death, Jesus +mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory. First, to +console them, he mentions the glory to which he is going; secondly, +he foretells his leaving (v 33).
+1826 The glory to which he is going is the glorification and -exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. When he had gone out, -that is Judas, Jesus said, to his disciples, Now is the Son of man -glorified, and in him God is glorified. The [Latin] word used was actually -"clarified" and not "glorified." But both words mean the same thing. To be -clarified, (to be made bright or splendorous, to be displayed and made known) -is the same as to be glorified, for glory is a kind of splendor. According to -Ambrose, someone has glory when he is known with clarity and praised.[41] -And so exegetes translate the Greek word "clarify" as "glorify," and vice -versa. - -
We can understand this statement in -four ways, by referring it to the four kinds of glory which Christ had: the -glory of the cross; the glory of his judicial power; the glory of his -resurrection; and the glory of being known by the faith of the people. -Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ. - -
1827 First, then, Christ was glorified by being lifted up on -the cross. Even Paul said that his own glory was in the cross: "But far be it -from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14). This -is the glory Chrysostom has in mind in his explanation of the text.[42] -In this explanation our Lord mentions four things about the glory of the cross: -the glory itself; the fruit of this glory; the author of the glory; and the -time of the glory. - -
As to the first [the very glory of -the cross] he says, Now is the Son of man glorified. Note that when -something is beginning, it seems in a way to already exist. Now when Judas went -out to bring back the soldiers, this seems to be the beginning of Christ's -passion, the passion by which he was to be glorified. This is why he says, now -is the Son of man glorified, that is, the passion by which he will be -glorified is now beginning. Indeed, Christ was glorified by the passion of the -cross because by it he conquered the enemies of death and the devil: "that -through death he might destroy him who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14). -Again, he acquired glory because by his cross he joined heaven and earth: "to -reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by -the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20). Further, he was glorified by his cross -because by it he acquired all kingship. One version of Psalm 95 (v 9) says: -"Say to the nations that the Lord has reigned from his cross." Again, Christ -was glorified by the cross because he accomplished many miracles on it: the -curtain of the temple was split, an earthquake occurred, rocks were split and -the sun was darkened, and many saints arose, as Matthew (27:51) states. So with -his passion drawing near, these are the reasons why our Lord said, now is -the Son of man glorified. It is like saying: now my passion is beginning, -the passion which is my glory. - -
The fruit of this glory is that God -is glorified by it. So he says, and in him God is glorified, that is, in -the glorified Son of man. For the glory of the passion leads to the glory of -God. If God was glorified by the death of Peter - "This he said to show by what -death he was to glorify God" (21:19) - he was much more glorified by the death -of Christ. - -
The author of this glory is not an -angel or a human being, but God himself. He says, if God is glorified in him, -that is, if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not need -to be glorified by another. But God will also glorify him in himself, -that is, through himself: "Father, glorify me"[43] -(17:5). - -
The time for this glory is fast -approaching, because God will glorify him at once, that is, he will give -him the glory of the cross. "For the cross, although it is foolish to the -Gentiles and to those who are lost, yet to us who believe, it is the very great -wisdom of God and the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). - +exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. When he +had gone out, that is Judas, Jesus said, to his +disciples, Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is +glorified. The [Latin] word used was actually "clarified" and +not "glorified." But both words mean the same thing. To be +clarified, (to be made bright or splendorous, to be displayed and +made known) is the same as to be glorified, for glory is a kind of +splendor. According to Ambrose, someone has glory when he is known +with clarity and praised.[41] And so exegetes translate the Greek word +"clarify" as "glorify," and vice versa.
+We can understand this statement in four ways, by referring it +to the four kinds of glory which Christ had: the glory of the +cross; the glory of his judicial power; the glory of his +resurrection; and the glory of being known by the faith of the +people. Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.
+1827 First, then, Christ was glorified by being lifted up on the +cross. Even Paul said that his own glory was in the cross: "But far +be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus +Christ" (Gal 6:14). This is the glory Chrysostom has in mind in his +explanation of the text.[42] In this explanation our Lord mentions four +things about the glory of the cross: the glory itself; the fruit of +this glory; the author of the glory; and the time of the glory.
+As to the first [the very glory of the cross] he says, Now is +the Son of man glorified. Note that when something is +beginning, it seems in a way to already exist. Now when Judas went +out to bring back the soldiers, this seems to be the beginning of +Christ's passion, the passion by which he was to be glorified. This +is why he says, now is the Son of man glorified, that is, +the passion by which he will be glorified is now beginning. Indeed, +Christ was glorified by the passion of the cross because by it he +conquered the enemies of death and the devil: "that through death +he might destroy him who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14). Again, +he acquired glory because by his cross he joined heaven and earth: +"to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, +making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20). Further, he was +glorified by his cross because by it he acquired all kingship. One +version of Psalm 95 (v 9) says: "Say to the nations that the Lord +has reigned from his cross." Again, Christ was glorified by the +cross because he accomplished many miracles on it: the curtain of +the temple was split, an earthquake occurred, rocks were split and +the sun was darkened, and many saints arose, as Matthew (27:51) +states. So with his passion drawing near, these are the reasons why +our Lord said, now is the Son of man glorified. It is like +saying: now my passion is beginning, the passion which is my +glory.
+The fruit of this glory is that God is glorified by it. So he +says, and in him God is glorified, that is, in the glorified +Son of man. For the glory of the passion leads to the glory of God. +If God was glorified by the death of Peter - "This he said to show +by what death he was to glorify God" (21:19) - he was much more +glorified by the death of Christ.
+The author of this glory is not an angel or a human being, but +God himself. He says, if God is glorified in him, that is, +if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not +need to be glorified by another. But God will also glorify him +in himself, that is, through himself: "Father, glorify +me"[43] (17:5).
+The time for this glory is fast approaching, because God will +glorify him at once, that is, he will give him the glory of the +cross. "For the cross, although it is foolish to the Gentiles and +to those who are lost, yet to us who believe, it is the very great +wisdom of God and the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18).
1828 The second glory of Christ is the glory of his judicial -power: "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power -and glory" (Mk 13:26). This is the glory about which Augustine speaks, as the -gloss says.[44] -In reference to this, he does four things here: first, he mentions the glory of -the judicial power of Christ; secondly, he shows the merit from which he -acquired it; thirdly, he expounds on this; fourthly, he shows the source of -Christ's glory. As to the first, he says, Now is the Son of man glorified. -We should note that in Sacred Scripture, one thing is not explicitly said to -signify another, and the word for the signifying thing is also used for the -thing signified. For example, we do not read that "The rock signified Christ"; -rather, it says, "And the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). In the departure of -Judas away from the apostles we have a kind of image of the future judgment, -when the wicked will be separated from the good, and Christ will put the sheep -on his right and the goats on his left (Mt 25:33). Since this departure of -Judas signified the future judgment, right after this our Lord began to speak -of the glory of his judicial power, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified; -that is, this departure or separation represents the glory which the Son of man -will have in the judgment, where none of the good will perish and none of the -evil will be with them. He does not say: "Now is the glorification of the Son -of man signified," but rather, Now is the Son of man glorified, in -keeping with the above-mentioned custom of Scripture. - -
Now the merit of this glorification -is that God would be glorified in him. For God is glorified by those who seek -to do his will, and not their own. Christ was like this: "For I have come down -from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" (6:38). And -this is why in him God is glorified. He amplifies on this when he says, if -God is glorified in him, that is, if, by doing the will of God, he -glorifies God, then rightly God will also glorify him in himself, so -that the human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal -glory. Thus, in himself, that is, in his own glory: "Therefore God has -highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" -(Phil 2:9). Therefore the glorification by which God is glorified in Christ is -the merit in virtue of which Christ as man is glorified in himself, that -is, in the glory of God. This will occur when his human nature, its weakness -having been laid down by the death of the cross, receives the glory of -immortality at the resurrection. So the resurrection itself was the source from -which this glory began. Accordingly he says, and will glorify him at once, -at the resurrection, which will quickly come: "I will arise in the morning -early" [Ps 108:2]: and also, "You will not let your Holy One see corruption" -[Ps 16:10]. - -
1829 The third glory of Christ is the glory of his -resurrection, about which we read, "We were buried therefore with him by -baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of -the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). It is in terms of -this glory that Hilary explains this passage, and Augustine also in part.[45] - -
From this aspect, Christ first -foretells this glory of his, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified. -Here he is speaking of the future as if it has already happened, because what -we think will quickly happen we regard as good as done. Now the glory of the -resurrection was very near, and so he says, Now is the Son of man glorified, -as if his body, by its union with the divine nature, had in a way acquired the -glory of the divinity. - -
Secondly, he mentions the cause of -this glory quite subtly. As he said, in the resurrection the humanity of Christ -was glorified because of its union with the divine nature; and there was one -person, that of the Word. For we read: "You will not leave my soul in Sheol; -you will not let your holy one," who is the holiest of all, "see corruption" -[Ps 16:10]. Such glory is also due to this human being, Christ, in so far as he -is God. We too will have the glory of the resurrection to the extent that we -share in the divinity: "He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life -to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you" (Rom 8:11). -So he says that the Son of man, that is, Christ considered in his human -nature, is glorified, by his resurrection. And who will glorify him? He -says, God will also glorify him in himself, so that this human being, -Christ, who reigns in the glory which is from the glory of God, may himself -pass into the glory of God, that is, might entirely abide in God, as though -deified by the way his human nature is possessed. It is like saying: A lamp is -bright because a fire is burning brightly within it. That which sends the rays -of brightness into the human nature of Christ is God; and thus the human nature -of Christ is glorified by the glory of his divinity, and the human nature of -Christ is brought into the glory of his divinity, not by having its nature -changed, but by a sharing of glory in so far as this human being, Christ, is -adored as God: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the -name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should -bow" (Phil 2:9). So he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if it -is true that the glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity, -subsequently God will also glorify him in himself, give him a share of -his own glory by assuming him into that glory: "Every tongue should confess -that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the Father" [Phil 2:11]. - -
Thus, Christ has a twofold glory. -One is in his human nature, but is derived from his divinity. The other is the -glory of his divinity, into which his human nature is in a way taken up. But -each glory is different. The first-mentioned glory had a beginning in time. For -this reason he speaks of it as past, saying, and in him God is, or has -been, glorified, on the day of the resurrection. The other glory is -eternal, because from eternity the Word of God is God. And the human nature of -Christ, assumed into this glory, will be glorified forever. And so he speaks of -this as in the future: and will glorify him at once, that is, he will -always establish him in that glory forever. - -
1830 The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of being known -by the faith of the people. Origen has this kind of glory in mind in his -exposition.[46] -According to him, glory means one thing in ordinary speech, and another thing -in Scripture. In ordinary speech, glory is the praise given by a number of -people, or the clear knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, as Ambrose -says.[47] -While in Scripture, glory indicates that a divine sign or mark is upon one. We -read in Exodus [40:34] that "The glory of the Lord appeared over the -tabernacle," that is, a divine sign rested over it. The same happened to the -face of Moses, when it was glorified. Just as glory, in the physical sense, -indicates that a divine sign rests upon one, so, in the spiritual sense, that -intellect is said to be glorified when it is so deified and so transcends all -material things that it is raised to a knowledge of God. It is by this that we -are made sharers of glory: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory -of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to -another" (2 Cor 3:18). Therefore, if anyone who knows God is glorified and made -a sharer of glory, it is clear that Christ, who knows God most perfectly, since -he is the brightness of the entire divine glory (Heb 1:30), and able to receive -the splendor of the entire divine glory, if, I say, this is so, then Christ is -most perfectly glorified. And all who know God owe this to Christ. - -
But men did not yet realize that -Christ was so glorified by this most perfect knowledge and participation in the -divinity. And so, although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified -in the knowledge of men. He began to have his glory at his passion and -resurrection, when men began to recognize his power and divinity. Our Lord, -speaking here of this glory, says, Now is the Son of man glorified, that -is, now, in his human nature, he is receiving glory in the knowledge of men -because of his approaching passion. And in him God, the Father, is -glorified. For the Son not only reveals himself, but the Father as well: -"[Father] I have manifested thy name" (17:6). Consequently, not only is the Son -glorified, but the Father also: "No one knows the Father except the Son and any -one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). He says, in him, -because one who sees the Son also sees the Father (14:9). - -
It is characteristic of one who is -greater to return what is greater. And thus he adds, if God is glorified in -him, that is, if the glory of God the Father somehow increases because of -the glory of the Son of man, because the Father becomes better known, God -will also glorify him in himself, that is, make it known that Christ Jesus -is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he will glorify him at once. -
-LECTURE 7 - -
- -33 "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You -will seek me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, 'Where I am going -you cannot come.' 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one -another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this -all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
1831 Above, our Lord spoke of the glory he would acquire by -his leaving. Here, he is telling them that he will leave them. First, he -foretells his leaving; secondly, he shows that his disciples were not yet fit -to follow him (v 33b); thirdly, he shows how they can become fit, A new -commandment I give to you. - -
1832 He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying, Little -children, yet a little while I am with you. He uses the words of a parent -to his children the more to inflame their love; for it is when friends are about -to leave each other that they especially glow with love: "Having loved his own -who were in the world, he loved them to the end" (13:1). He says, little -children, to show their imperfection, for they were not yet perfectly -children, because they did not yet perfectly love. They were not yet perfect in -charity: "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be -informed in you" (Gal 4:19). Still, they had grown somewhat in perfection, -because from slaves they became little children, as he calls them here, and -brethren, "Go to my brethren and say to them" (20:17). - +power: "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with +great power and glory" (Mk 13:26). This is the glory about which +Augustine speaks, as the gloss says.[44] In reference to this, he does +four things here: first, he mentions the glory of the judicial +power of Christ; secondly, he shows the merit from which he +acquired it; thirdly, he expounds on this; fourthly, he shows the +source of Christ's glory. As to the first, he says, Now is the +Son of man glorified. We should note that in Sacred Scripture, +one thing is not explicitly said to signify another, and the word +for the signifying thing is also used for the thing signified. For +example, we do not read that "The rock signified Christ"; rather, +it says, "And the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). In the departure +of Judas away from the apostles we have a kind of image of the +future judgment, when the wicked will be separated from the good, +and Christ will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his +left (Mt 25:33). Since this departure of Judas signified the future +judgment, right after this our Lord began to speak of the glory of +his judicial power, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified; +that is, this departure or separation represents the glory which +the Son of man will have in the judgment, where none of the good +will perish and none of the evil will be with them. He does not +say: "Now is the glorification of the Son of man signified," but +rather, Now is the Son of man glorified, in keeping with the +above-mentioned custom of Scripture.
+Now the merit of this glorification is that God would be +glorified in him. For God is glorified by those who seek to do his +will, and not their own. Christ was like this: "For I have come +down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who +sent me" (6:38). And this is why in him God is glorified. He +amplifies on this when he says, if God is glorified in him, +that is, if, by doing the will of God, he glorifies God, then +rightly God will also glorify him in himself, so that the +human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal +glory. Thus, in himself, that is, in his own glory: +"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name +which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). Therefore the glorification +by which God is glorified in Christ is the merit in virtue of which +Christ as man is glorified in himself, that is, in the glory +of God. This will occur when his human nature, its weakness having +been laid down by the death of the cross, receives the glory of +immortality at the resurrection. So the resurrection itself was the +source from which this glory began. Accordingly he says, and +will glorify him at once, at the resurrection, which will +quickly come: "I will arise in the morning early" [Ps 108:2]: and +also, "You will not let your Holy One see corruption" [Ps +16:10].
+1829 The third glory of Christ is the glory of his resurrection, +about which we read, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism +into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory +of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). It +is in terms of this glory that Hilary explains this passage, and +Augustine also in part.[45]
+From this aspect, Christ first foretells this glory of his, +saying, Now is the Son of man glorified. Here he is speaking +of the future as if it has already happened, because what we think +will quickly happen we regard as good as done. Now the glory of the +resurrection was very near, and so he says, Now is the Son of +man glorified, as if his body, by its union with the divine +nature, had in a way acquired the glory of the divinity.
+Secondly, he mentions the cause of this glory quite subtly. As +he said, in the resurrection the humanity of Christ was glorified +because of its union with the divine nature; and there was one +person, that of the Word. For we read: "You will not leave my soul +in Sheol; you will not let your holy one," who is the holiest of +all, "see corruption" [Ps 16:10]. Such glory is also due to this +human being, Christ, in so far as he is God. We too will have the +glory of the resurrection to the extent that we share in the +divinity: "He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life +to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you" +(Rom 8:11). So he says that the Son of man, that is, Christ +considered in his human nature, is glorified, by his +resurrection. And who will glorify him? He says, God will also +glorify him in himself, so that this human being, Christ, who +reigns in the glory which is from the glory of God, may himself +pass into the glory of God, that is, might entirely abide in God, +as though deified by the way his human nature is possessed. It is +like saying: A lamp is bright because a fire is burning brightly +within it. That which sends the rays of brightness into the human +nature of Christ is God; and thus the human nature of Christ is +glorified by the glory of his divinity, and the human nature of +Christ is brought into the glory of his divinity, not by having its +nature changed, but by a sharing of glory in so far as this human +being, Christ, is adored as God: "Therefore God has highly exalted +him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at +the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil 2:9). So he says, +if God is glorified in him, that is, if it is true that the +glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity, +subsequently God will also glorify him in himself, give him +a share of his own glory by assuming him into that glory: "Every +tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the +Father" [Phil 2:11].
+Thus, Christ has a twofold glory. One is in his human nature, +but is derived from his divinity. The other is the glory of his +divinity, into which his human nature is in a way taken up. But +each glory is different. The first-mentioned glory had a beginning +in time. For this reason he speaks of it as past, saying, and in +him God is, or has been, glorified, on the day of the +resurrection. The other glory is eternal, because from eternity the +Word of God is God. And the human nature of Christ, assumed into +this glory, will be glorified forever. And so he speaks of this as +in the future: and will glorify him at once, that is, he +will always establish him in that glory forever.
+1830 The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of being known by +the faith of the people. Origen has this kind of glory in mind in +his exposition.[46] According to him, glory means one thing in +ordinary speech, and another thing in Scripture. In ordinary +speech, glory is the praise given by a number of people, or the +clear knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, as Ambrose +says.[47] +While in Scripture, glory indicates that a divine sign or mark is +upon one. We read in Exodus [40:34] that "The glory of the Lord +appeared over the tabernacle," that is, a divine sign rested over +it. The same happened to the face of Moses, when it was glorified. +Just as glory, in the physical sense, indicates that a divine sign +rests upon one, so, in the spiritual sense, that intellect is said +to be glorified when it is so deified and so transcends all +material things that it is raised to a knowledge of God. It is by +this that we are made sharers of glory: "And we all, with unveiled +face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his +likeness from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18). +Therefore, if anyone who knows God is glorified and made a sharer +of glory, it is clear that Christ, who knows God most perfectly, +since he is the brightness of the entire divine glory (Heb 1:30), +and able to receive the splendor of the entire divine glory, if, I +say, this is so, then Christ is most perfectly glorified. And all +who know God owe this to Christ.
+But men did not yet realize that Christ was so glorified by this +most perfect knowledge and participation in the divinity. And so, +although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified in +the knowledge of men. He began to have his glory at his passion and +resurrection, when men began to recognize his power and divinity. +Our Lord, speaking here of this glory, says, Now is the Son of +man glorified, that is, now, in his human nature, he is +receiving glory in the knowledge of men because of his approaching +passion. And in him God, the Father, is glorified. +For the Son not only reveals himself, but the Father as well: +"[Father] I have manifested thy name" (17:6). Consequently, not +only is the Son glorified, but the Father also: "No one knows the +Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal +him" (Mt 11:27). He says, in him, because one who sees the +Son also sees the Father (14:9).
+It is characteristic of one who is greater to return what is +greater. And thus he adds, if God is glorified in him, that +is, if the glory of God the Father somehow increases because of the +glory of the Son of man, because the Father becomes better known, +God will also glorify him in himself, that is, make it known +that Christ Jesus is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he +will glorify him at once.
+
+
+LECTURE 7
+++33 "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You +will seek me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, 'Where +I am going you cannot come.' 34 A new commandment I give to you, +that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also +love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my +disciples, if you have love for one another."
+1831 Above, our Lord spoke of the glory he would acquire by his +leaving. Here, he is telling them that he will leave them. First, +he foretells his leaving; secondly, he shows that his disciples +were not yet fit to follow him (v 33b); thirdly, he shows how they +can become fit, A new commandment I give to you.
+1832 He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying, +Little children, yet a little while I am with you. He uses +the words of a parent to his children the more to inflame their +love; for it is when friends are about to leave each other that +they especially glow with love: "Having loved his own who were in +the world, he loved them to the end" (13:1). He says, little +children, to show their imperfection, for they were not yet +perfectly children, because they did not yet perfectly love. They +were not yet perfect in charity: "My little children, with whom I +am again in travail until Christ be informed in you" (Gal 4:19). +Still, they had grown somewhat in perfection, because from slaves +they became little children, as he calls them here, and brethren, +"Go to my brethren and say to them" (20:17).
1833 We should note that the expression, yet a little -while, can be explained in three ways, according to the three ways Christ -is present to his disciples. Christ was present to his disciples in body. But -his body can be considered in two ways. First, we can view it as having the -characteristics that belong to human nature, for Christ had a mortal body, just -as others. So, a little while, is understood as the time between these -words and his death. So the sense is: yet a little while I am with you, -that is, a little time remains until I am taken and die, and then I will rise -and be immortal, even in body: "Christ being raised from the dead will never -die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9). So Luke (24:44) -says: "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you." - -
Secondly, he was with them in body, -but a body that was already glorified. Then, a little while, indicates -the time that intervened until his ascension: "A little while, and you will see -me no more; again a little while, and you will see me, because I go to the -Father" [16:16]; "Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and -the earth and the sea and the dry land" (Hag 2:6). - -
Thirdly, it can be explained as -applying to the spiritual presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and -in the sacraments. Then, a little while, is taken to mean the time which -would intervene until the end of the world. This is a little while in -comparison with eternity: "Children it is the last hour" (1 Jn 2:18). Then the -meaning is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, although I will -leave you in body, I am still spiritually with you for a little while -which remains before the end of the world: "I am with you always, to the close -of the age" (Mt 28:20). - -
Yet this explanation is not -appropriate to the presence of Christ in his divinity, for he will be with them -not only to the end of the world, but for all eternity. For this reason Origen -explains it another way.[48] -He says that Christ is always with the perfect, who do not sin in a serious -way. But he is not always present to the imperfect, because when they sin he -withdraws from them. Now in a little while the disciples would leave Christ, -fall away and abandon him: "You will all fall away because of me this night" -(Mt 26:31). And so Christ spiritually withdrew from them. In reference to this -he says, yet a little while I am with you, that is, in a little while -you will leave and abandon me, and then I will not be with you. - -
1834 Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First, -he notes their effort, you will seek me, whom you have spiritually -abandoned by your flight and denials. You will seek me, I say, by your -repentance, as Peter did, who wept bitterly: "Seek the Lord while he may be -found" (Is 55:6); "In their distress they seek me" (Hos 5:15). Or, you will -seek me, that is, you will want me to be present in body: "The days are -coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you -will not see it" (Lk 17:22). - -
Secondly, he shows their weakness, -saying, as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, Where I am going you -cannot come. Yet this was said differently to the two. Some of the Jews -would never be converted. It was to these that it was said absolutely that they -could not go where Christ was going. But now that Judas has gone, none of the -remaining disciples would be separated from Christ. And to them he did not say -absolutely, you cannot come, but added, now I say to you. It is -like saying: I said to the Jews, that is, to the obstinate among them, -that they could never come. But I say to you, that for now, you -cannot follow me, because you are not perfect enough in charity to want to die -for me. For I will leave you by dying. - -
Again, I am going to the glory of -my Father, to which no one can come unless he is perfect in charity. Also, I -will be glorified now, for as we read, "Now is the Son of man glorified." But -it is not yet the time for your bodies to be glorified; so, where I am going -you cannot come. - +while, can be explained in three ways, according to the three +ways Christ is present to his disciples. Christ was present to his +disciples in body. But his body can be considered in two ways. +First, we can view it as having the characteristics that belong to +human nature, for Christ had a mortal body, just as others. So, +a little while, is understood as the time between these +words and his death. So the sense is: yet a little while I am +with you, that is, a little time remains until I am taken and +die, and then I will rise and be immortal, even in body: "Christ +being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer +has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9). So Luke (24:44) says: "These are +my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you."
+Secondly, he was with them in body, but a body that was already +glorified. Then, a little while, indicates the time that +intervened until his ascension: "A little while, and you will see +me no more; again a little while, and you will see me, because I go +to the Father" [16:16]; "Once again, in a little while, I will +shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land" (Hag +2:6).
+Thirdly, it can be explained as applying to the spiritual +presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and in the +sacraments. Then, a little while, is taken to mean the time +which would intervene until the end of the world. This is a little +while in comparison with eternity: "Children it is the last hour" +(1 Jn 2:18). Then the meaning is: yet a little while I am with +you, that is, although I will leave you in body, I am still +spiritually with you for a little while which remains before +the end of the world: "I am with you always, to the close of the +age" (Mt 28:20).
+Yet this explanation is not appropriate to the presence of +Christ in his divinity, for he will be with them not only to the +end of the world, but for all eternity. For this reason Origen +explains it another way.[48] He says that Christ is always with the +perfect, who do not sin in a serious way. But he is not always +present to the imperfect, because when they sin he withdraws from +them. Now in a little while the disciples would leave Christ, fall +away and abandon him: "You will all fall away because of me this +night" (Mt 26:31). And so Christ spiritually withdrew from them. In +reference to this he says, yet a little while I am with you, +that is, in a little while you will leave and abandon me, and then +I will not be with you.
+1834 Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First, he +notes their effort, you will seek me, whom you have +spiritually abandoned by your flight and denials. You will seek +me, I say, by your repentance, as Peter did, who wept bitterly: +"Seek the Lord while he may be found" (Is 55:6); "In their distress +they seek me" (Hos 5:15). Or, you will seek me, that is, you +will want me to be present in body: "The days are coming when you +will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will +not see it" (Lk 17:22).
+Secondly, he shows their weakness, saying, as I said to the +Jews so now I say to you, Where I am going you cannot come. Yet +this was said differently to the two. Some of the Jews would never +be converted. It was to these that it was said absolutely that they +could not go where Christ was going. But now that Judas has gone, +none of the remaining disciples would be separated from Christ. And +to them he did not say absolutely, you cannot come, but +added, now I say to you. It is like saying: I said to the +Jews, that is, to the obstinate among them, that they could +never come. But I say to you, that for now, you +cannot follow me, because you are not perfect enough in charity to +want to die for me. For I will leave you by dying.
+Again, I am going to the glory of my Father, to which no one can +come unless he is perfect in charity. Also, I will be glorified +now, for as we read, "Now is the Son of man glorified." But it is +not yet the time for your bodies to be glorified; so, where I am +going you cannot come.
1835 Then, he teaches them how they can become fit to follow -him: a new commandment I give to you. First, he mentions the special -character of this commandment; secondly, he shows why they should live up to it -(v 35). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions a feature of -this commandment, secondly, its meaning; and thirdly, its standard. - +him: a new commandment I give to you. First, he mentions the +special character of this commandment; secondly, he shows why they +should live up to it (v 35). As to the first he does three things: +first, he mentions a feature of this commandment, secondly, its +meaning; and thirdly, its standard.
1836 The feature of this commandment he emphasizes is its -newness. Thus he says, a new commandment. But did not the Old Testament -or Law have a commandment about the love of one's neighbor? It did, because -when Christ was asked by a lawyer which was the greatest commandment, he -replied: "You shall love the Lord your God," and continued, "You shall love -your neighbor as yourself" (Mt 22:37). This is found in Leviticus: "You shall -love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). - -
Nevertheless, there are three -special reasons why this commandment is said to be new. First, because of the -newness, the renewal, it produces: "You have put off the old nature with its -practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge -after the image of its creator" (Col 3:9). This newness is from charity, the -charity to which Christ urges us. Secondly, this commandment is said to be new -because of the cause which produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit. -There are two spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of -slavery; the new is the spirit of love. The first produces slaves; the second, -children by adoption: "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall -back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15); "A new -heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you" (Ez 36:26). The -spirit sets us on fire with love because "God's love has been poured into our -hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5). Thirdly, it is a new commandment -because of the effect it established, that is, a New Covenant. The difference -between the New and the Old Covenant is that between love and fear: as we read -in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel." -Under the Old Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the -New Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in the Old -Law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for the New Law. - -
1837 The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he -says: that you love one another. It is of the very nature of friendship -that is not imperceptible; otherwise, it would not be friendship, but merely -good-will. For a true and firm friendship the friends need a mutual love for -each other; for this duplication makes it true and firm. Our Lord, wanting -there to be perfect friendship among his faithful and disciples, gave them this -command of mutual love: "Whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship aright" -(Sir 6:17). - -
1838 The standard for this mutual love is given when he -says, as I have loved you. Now Christ loved us three ways: gratuitously, -effectively and rightly. - -
He loved us gratuitously because he -began to love us and did not wait for us to begin to love him: "Not that we -loved God, but because he first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. In the same way we -should first love our neighbors and not wait to be loved by them or for them to -do us a favor. - -
Christ loved us effectively, which -is obvious from what he did; for love is proven to exist from what one does. -The greatest thing a person can do for a friend is to give himself for that -friend. This is what Christ did: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" -(Eph 5:2). So we read: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down -his life for his friends" (15:13). We also should be led by this example and -love one another effectively and fruitfully: "Let us not love in word or in -speech but in deed and in truth" (1 Jn 3:18). - -
Christ also loved us rightly. Since -all friendship is based on some kind of sharing (for similarity is a cause of -love), that friendship is right which is based on a similarity or a sharing in -some good. Now Christ loved us as similar to himself by the grace of adoption, -loving us in the light of this similarity in order to draw us to God. "I have -loved you with an everlasting love; and so taking pity on you, I have drawn -you" [Jer 31:3]. We also, in the one we love, should love what pertains to God -and not so much the pleasure or benefits the loved one gives to us. In this -kind of love for our neighbor, even the love of God is included. - -
1839 Then when he says, By this all men will know that -you are my disciples, he gives the reason for following this command. Here -we should note that one who is in the army of a king should wear this emblem. -The emblem of Christ is the emblem of charity. So anyone who wants to be in the -army of Christ should be stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what he is -saying here: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you -have love for one another. I mean a holy love: "I am the mother of -beautiful love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope" [Sir 24:24]. - -
Although the apostles received many -gifts from Christ, such as life, intelligence and good health, as well as -spiritual goods, such as the ability to perform miracles - "I will give you a -mouth and wisdom" (Lk 21:15) - none of these are the emblem of a disciple of -Christ, since they can be possessed both by the good and the bad. Rather, the -special sign of a disciple of Christ is charity and mutual love; "He has put -his seal upon us and given us his Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22). -
-LECTURE 8 - -
+- +newness. Thus he says, a new commandment. But did not the +Old Testament or Law have a commandment about the love of one's +neighbor? It did, because when Christ was asked by a lawyer which +was the greatest commandment, he replied: "You shall love the Lord +your God," and continued, "You shall love your neighbor as +yourself" (Mt 22:37). This is found in Leviticus: "You shall love +your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" -Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall -follow afterward." 37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I -will lay down my life for you." 38 Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life -for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have -denied me three times."
Nevertheless, there are three special reasons why this +commandment is said to be new. First, because of the newness, the +renewal, it produces: "You have put off the old nature with its +practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in +knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col 3:9). This newness +is from charity, the charity to which Christ urges us. Secondly, +this commandment is said to be new because of the cause which +produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit. There are two +spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of +slavery; the new is the spirit of love. The first produces slaves; +the second, children by adoption: "For you did not receive the +spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the +spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15); "A new heart I will give you, and a +new spirit I will put within you" (Ez 36:26). The spirit sets us on +fire with love because "God's love has been poured into our hearts +through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5). Thirdly, it is a new +commandment because of the effect it established, that is, a New +Covenant. The difference between the New and the Old Covenant is +that between love and fear: as we read in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will +make a new covenant with the house of Israel." Under the Old +Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the New +Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in +the Old Law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for +the New Law.
+1837 The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he says: +that you love one another. It is of the very nature of +friendship that is not imperceptible; otherwise, it would not be +friendship, but merely good-will. For a true and firm friendship +the friends need a mutual love for each other; for this duplication +makes it true and firm. Our Lord, wanting there to be perfect +friendship among his faithful and disciples, gave them this command +of mutual love: "Whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship +aright" (Sir 6:17).
+1838 The standard for this mutual love is given when he says, +as I have loved you. Now Christ loved us three ways: +gratuitously, effectively and rightly.
+He loved us gratuitously because he began to love us and did not +wait for us to begin to love him: "Not that we loved God, but +because he first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. In the same way we should +first love our neighbors and not wait to be loved by them or for +them to do us a favor.
+Christ loved us effectively, which is obvious from what he did; +for love is proven to exist from what one does. The greatest thing +a person can do for a friend is to give himself for that friend. +This is what Christ did: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for +us" (Eph 5:2). So we read: "Greater love has no man than this, that +a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). We also should be +led by this example and love one another effectively and +fruitfully: "Let us not love in word or in speech but in deed and +in truth" (1 Jn 3:18).
+Christ also loved us rightly. Since all friendship is based on +some kind of sharing (for similarity is a cause of love), that +friendship is right which is based on a similarity or a sharing in +some good. Now Christ loved us as similar to himself by the grace +of adoption, loving us in the light of this similarity in order to +draw us to God. "I have loved you with an everlasting love; and so +taking pity on you, I have drawn you" [Jer 31:3]. We also, in the +one we love, should love what pertains to God and not so much the +pleasure or benefits the loved one gives to us. In this kind of +love for our neighbor, even the love of God is included.
+1839 Then when he says, By this all men will know that you +are my disciples, he gives the reason for following this +command. Here we should note that one who is in the army of a king +should wear this emblem. The emblem of Christ is the emblem of +charity. So anyone who wants to be in the army of Christ should be +stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what he is saying here: +By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have +love for one another. I mean a holy love: "I am the mother of +beautiful love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope" [Sir +24:24].
+Although the apostles received many gifts from Christ, such as +life, intelligence and good health, as well as spiritual goods, +such as the ability to perform miracles - "I will give you a mouth +and wisdom" (Lk 21:15) - none of these are the emblem of a disciple +of Christ, since they can be possessed both by the good and the +bad. Rather, the special sign of a disciple of Christ is charity +and mutual love; "He has put his seal upon us and given us his +Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22).
+
+
+LECTURE 8
++36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" +Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you +shall follow afterward." 37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I +follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." 38 Jesus +answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say +to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three +times."
+1840 Above, John mentioned the defection of one of the -disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of another, Peter, -who denied Christ. First we see the occasion of Christ's prediction; secondly, -the prediction of Peter's denial. He does two things about the first: he -mentions Peter's desire; secondly, his confidence, Why cannot I follow you -now? He does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his -desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, you cannot -follow me now. - +disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of +another, Peter, who denied Christ. First we see the occasion of +Christ's prediction; secondly, the prediction of Peter's denial. He +does two things about the first: he mentions Peter's desire; +secondly, his confidence, Why cannot I follow you now? He +does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his +desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, +you cannot follow me now.
1841 Peter's desire is shown by the quick way he questioned -Christ: Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going? Peter had -heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a little while, and he -became anxious about Christ's leaving them. So he asks, Where are you going? -Chrysostom says about this: "Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious -than a fire that nothing could stop."[49] -This is why even after Christ had said, "Where I am going you cannot follow," -Peter still wanted to follow him. So he asked where he was going, just like we -read in the Song of Songs: "Whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among -women? Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?" (6:1). - +Christ: Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going? +Peter had heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a +little while, and he became anxious about Christ's leaving them. So +he asks, Where are you going? Chrysostom says about this: +"Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious than a fire that +nothing could stop."[49] This is why even after Christ had said, "Where +I am going you cannot follow," Peter still wanted to follow him. So +he asked where he was going, just like we read in the Song of +Songs: "Whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among women? +Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?" +(6:1).
1842 Yet he cannot now have what he desires, since for the -present he is prevented from following Christ. Where I am going you cannot -follow me now; but you shall follow afterward. This is like saying: You are -still imperfect, and thus not able to follow me now; but later, when you are -perfect, you will follow me. This is similar to what we will read further on: -"Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young," that is, imperfect, "you -girded yourself…but when you are old," and have climbed the mountain of -perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you" -(21:18). - +present he is prevented from following Christ. Where I am going +you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward. This +is like saying: You are still imperfect, and thus not able to +follow me now; but later, when you are perfect, you will follow me. +This is similar to what we will read further on: "Truly, truly, I +say to you, when you were young," that is, imperfect, "you girded +yourself…but when you are old," and have climbed the +mountain of perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and +another will gird you" (21:18).
1843 When John says, Peter said to him, he indicates -Peter's confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just said as -expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter's love. Love is perfect -when one exposes oneself to death for a friend: "Greater love has no man than -this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). And so because Peter -was ready to die for Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he -said, I will lay down my life for you, that is, I am ready to die for -you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not know the -strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to be overcome: "I am not -aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4). - +Peter's confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just +said as expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter's love. +Love is perfect when one exposes oneself to death for a friend: +"Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life +for his friends" (15:13). And so because Peter was ready to die for +Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he said, I +will lay down my life for you, that is, I am ready to die for +you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not +know the strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to +be overcome: "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am +not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4).
1844 Next, John shows Jesus predicting the denial of Peter. -First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his denial. - -
1845 As to the first we should note that after Christ said you -cannot follow me now, Peter was confident of his own strength and said that -he could follow Christ and die for him. Our Lord checked him by saying, Will -you lay down your life for me? It is like saying: Think what you are -saying. I know you better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong -your own love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. "So do not -become proud, but stand in awe" (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is found in -Matthew (26:41): "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." - -
Our Lord allowed Peter to be -tempted and to fall so that when he became head of the Church he would have an -unpretentious opinion of himself and have compassion for his subjects when they -sinned: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our -weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without -sinning" (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew into sins. But Christ was -tempted as we are, not because he committed sin, but because the temptations -were penal in character. - +First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his +denial.
+1845 As to the first we should note that after Christ said +you cannot follow me now, Peter was confident of his own +strength and said that he could follow Christ and die for him. Our +Lord checked him by saying, Will you lay down your life for +me? It is like saying: Think what you are saying. I know you +better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong your own +love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. "So do not +become proud, but stand in awe" (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is +found in Matthew (26:41): "The spirit indeed is willing, but the +flesh is weak."
+Our Lord allowed Peter to be tempted and to fall so that when he +became head of the Church he would have an unpretentious opinion of +himself and have compassion for his subjects when they sinned: "For +we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our +weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, +yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew +into sins. But Christ was tempted as we are, not because he +committed sin, but because the temptations were penal in +character.
1846 Christ predicts Peter's denial when he says, Truly, -truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three -times. This causes a problem as it seems to be false: for in [some versions -of] Mark (14:68) we read that the cock crowed immediately after his first -denial. Augustine answers this in two ways.[50] -In the first way he says that our Lord was expressing Peter's state of mind -rather than his actions: for such fear had overcome Peter's soul that he was -ready, by the time the cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three -times. So the meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the -cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction refers to the -very beginning of Peter's denial. Something is said to happen before something -else even it if only begins to happen. Now our Lord predicted three denials; -they began before the first cock-crow, although the entire series was not -completed before it. Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before -the cock crows. - +truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied +me three times. This causes a problem as it seems to be false: +for in [some versions of] Mark (14:68) we read that the cock crowed +immediately after his first denial. Augustine answers this in two +ways.[50] In the first way he says that our Lord was +expressing Peter's state of mind rather than his actions: for such +fear had overcome Peter's soul that he was ready, by the time the +cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three times. So the +meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the +cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction +refers to the very beginning of Peter's denial. Something is said +to happen before something else even it if only begins to happen. +Now our Lord predicted three denials; they began before the first +cock-crow, although the entire series was not completed before it. +Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before the cock +crows.
1847 There is also a question about where these words were -spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after they had -left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in the upper room. It -is after the farewell discourses that John has Jesus saying, "Rise, let us go -hence" (below 14:31). In answer to this we should say that it is true that our -Lord said this in the upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of -history, but of memory. - -
One could also say, with Augustine, -that our Lord said this three times.[51] -A close inspection of our Lord's words which led to his predicting the denial -of Peter shows that three different things were said. In Matthew we read that -our Lord said: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31); -and Mark says the same (Mk 14:27). Peter answered: "Though they all fall away -because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). Then Jesus said: "This very -night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times" (Mt 26:34). In -Luke, however, we read that Jesus said: "Satan demanded to have you, that he -might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" -(Lk 22:31). Peter then said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to -death" (Lk 22:33). Our Lord answered this: "I tell you, Peter, the cock will -not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me" (Lk 22:34). But -here, in John, when Peter asked our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied: -"the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times." We can conclude -from this that our Lord predicted Peter's denial several times. - -
- -
- -- -- -[1] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:1 in the Summa Theologiae: -III, q. 46, a. 9, s. c. and ad 1; q. 74, a. 4, obj. 1. - -
- -[2] -Summa- - +spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after +they had left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in +the upper room. It is after the farewell discourses that John has +Jesus saying, "Rise, let us go hence" (below 14:31). In answer to +this we should say that it is true that our Lord said this in the +upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of history, +but of memory.
+One could also say, with Augustine, that our Lord said this +three times.[51] A close inspection of our Lord's words which +led to his predicting the denial of Peter shows that three +different things were said. In Matthew we read that our Lord said: +"You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31); and +Mark says the same (Mk 14:27). Peter answered: "Though they all +fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). Then +Jesus said: "This very night, before the cock crows, you will deny +me three times" (Mt 26:34). In Luke, however, we read that Jesus +said: "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like +wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk +22:31). Peter then said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison +and to death" (Lk 22:33). Our Lord answered this: "I tell you, +Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny +that you know me" (Lk 22:34). But here, in John, when Peter asked +our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied: "the cock will not +crow, till you have denied me three times." We can conclude from +this that our Lord predicted Peter's denial several times.
+
+
++- -[1] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 13:1 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 46, a. 9, +s. c. and ad 1; q. 74, a. 4, obj. 1.
- -[3] Tract. -in Io., 55, ch. 2, col 1785; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:1-5. - +
+- -[2] Summa-
- -[4] -Summa-will can be moved by God, by internal suggestion and external suggestion - +
+- -[3] Tract. in +Io., 55, ch. 2, col 1785; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:1-5.
- -[5] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:4 in the Summa -Theologiae: III, q, 74, a. 4, obj. 1; Jn 13:5: ST III, q. 46, a. 9, -ad 1; Jn 13:10: ST III, q. 72, a. 6, ad 2; q. 83, a. 5, ad 1. - +
+- -[4] Summa-will +can be moved by God, by internal suggestion and external +suggestion
- -- -[6] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. -2; PG 14, col. 405; cf. Catena Aurea, -13:1-5. - -
- -[7] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 4; PG 14, col. 411; cf. Catena Aurea, -13:6-11. - +
+- -[5] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 13:4 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q, 74, a. 4, +obj. 1; Jn 13:5: ST III, q. 46, a. 9, ad 1; Jn 13:10: +ST III, q. 72, a. 6, ad 2; q. 83, a. 5, ad 1.
- -[8] Origen, In -Ioan., XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. -Catena Aurea, 13:6-11. - +
+- -[6] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 2; PG 14, col. 405; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:1-5.
- -[9] In Ioannem hom., 70, ch. -2; PG 59, col. 383; cf. Catena Aurea, -13:6-11. - +
++[7] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 4; PG 14, col. 411; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:6-11.
++- -[8] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:6-11.
- -[10] Tract. -in Io., 56, ch. 1, col. 1788; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:6-11. - +
+- -[9] In +Ioannem hom., 70, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 383; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:6-11.
- -[11] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. -5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11. - +
+- -[10] +Tract. in Io., 56, ch. 1, col. 1788; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:6-11.
- -[12] Clement, Itinerary. - +
+- -[11] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:6-11.
- -[13]Epistola -64, ch. 5, no. 10; PL 33, col. 178; cf. Catena Aurea, -13:6-11. - +
++[12] Clement, +Itinerary.
++- -[13]Epistola 64, ch. 5, no. 10; PL 33, col. +178; cf. Catena Aurea,13:6-11.
- -[14] Tract. -in Io., 56, ch. 3, col. 1788; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:6-11. - +
+- -[14] +Tract. in Io., 56, ch. 3, col. 1788; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:6-11.
- -- -[15] In Ioannem hom., 70, ch. -2; PG 59, col. 384; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11. - -
- -[16] Origen, In Ioan., -XXXII, ch. 6; PG 14, col. 416; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11. - +
+- -[15] In +Ioannem hom., 70, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 384; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:6-11.
- -[17] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:13 in the Summa -Theologiae: II-II, q. 132, a. 1, ad 1; Jn 13:15: ST III, q. 37 a. 1, -obj. 2; Jn 13:17: ST I-II, q. 4, a. 6, s. c.; q. 5, a. 7, s. c.; q. 7, -a. 2, ad 3; Jn 13:18: ST III, q. 36, a. 3, s. c. - +
+- -[16] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 6; PG 14, col. 416; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:6-11.
- -[18] Origen, -In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 57 PG 14, col. 430; cf. -Catena Aurea, 13:12-20. - +
+- -[17] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 13:13 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. +132, a. 1, ad 1; Jn 13:15: ST III, q. 37 a. 1, obj. 2; Jn +13:17: ST I-II, q. 4, a. 6, s. c.; q. 5, a. 7, s. c.; q. 7, +a. 2, ad 3; Jn 13:18: ST III, q. 36, a. 3, s. c.
- -[19] Ambrose, Expos sec. Lucam, X, ch .3 ; PL 15, col. -1804-5. - +
+- -[18] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 57 PG 14, col. 430; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:12-20.
- -[20] Tract. -in Io., 58, ch. 3, col. 1793; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:12-20. - +
+- -[19] Ambrose, +Expos sec. Lucam, X, ch .3 ; PL 15, col. 1804-5.
- -[21] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20. - +
+- -[20] +Tract. in Io., 58, ch. 3, col. 1793; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:12-20.
- -[22] Tract. -in Io., 58, ch. 4, col. 1794; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:12-20. - +
+- -[21] Ibid.; +cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20.
- -[23] -Augustine, De Agone Christiano, ch. XI, 12; PL 40, col. 297. - +
+- -[22] +Tract. in Io., 58, ch. 4, col. 1794; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:12-20.
- -[24] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. -8; PG 14, col. 424; cf. Catena Aurea, -13:12-20. - +
+- -[23] +Augustine, De Agone Christiano, ch. XI, 12; PL 40, col. +297.
- -[25] -Augustine, Epistola 78, ch. 8; PL 33, col. 272. - +
+- -[24] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 8; PG 14, col. 424; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:12-20.
- -[26] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. -10; PG 14, col. 431 cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20. - +
+- -[25] +Augustine, Epistola 78, ch. 8; PL 33, col. 272.
- -[27] Tract. -in Io., 59. ch. 2, col. 1796; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:12-20. - +
+- -[26] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 10; PG 14, col. 431 cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:12-20.
- -[28] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:26, 27 in the Summa -Theologiae: III, q. 81, a. 2, obj. 3. - +
+- -[27] +Tract. in Io., 59. ch. 2, col. 1796; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:12-20.
- -[29] Comm. -in Matt., I; PL 26, col. 38C. - +
++[28] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 13:26, 27 in the Summa Theologiae: III, +q. 81, a. 2, obj. 3.
++- -[29] Comm. in +Matt., I; PL 26, col. 38C.
- -[30] Tract. -in Io., 60, ch. 1, col. 1797; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:21-30. - +
+- -[30] +Tract. in Io., 60, ch. 1, col. 1797; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:21-30.
- -[31] In Ioannem hom., 72, ch. -1; PG 59, col. 389, 390; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30. - +
+- -[31] In +Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 389, 390; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:21-30.
- -[32] Tract. -in Io., 62, ch. 3, col. 1802; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:21-30. - +
+- -[32] +Tract. in Io., 62, ch. 3, col. 1802; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:21-30.
- -[33] -Summa-God is in the soul essentially, but the devil cannot be. - +
+- -[33] +Summa-God is in the soul essentially, but the devil cannot be.
- -[34] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:29 in the Summa -Theologiae: II-II, q. 188, a. 7. - +
+- -[34] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 13:29 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. +188, a. 7.
- -[35] Tract. -in Io., 62, ch. 4, col. 1802-3; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:21-30. - +
+- -[35] +Tract. in Io., 62, ch. 4, col. 1802-3; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:21-30.
- -[36] Ibid., -5, col. 1803; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30. - +
++[36] Ibid., +5, col. 1803; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30.
++- -[37] Ibid.; +cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30
- -[37] Ibid.; -cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30 - +
+- -[38] In +Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392.
- -[38] In -Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392. - +
+- -[39] In +Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 391, 392; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:21-30.
- -[39] In Ioannem hom., 72, ch. -2; PG 59, col. 391, 392; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30. - +
+- -[40] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 16; PG 14, col. 443; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:21-30.
- -- -[40] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 16; PG 14, col. 443; cf. Catena Aurea, -13:21-30. - -
- -[41]Ambrose, -Hexaemeron, III, ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B, see also Sermo III De -Caritate, 11; PL 18, col. 142A. - +
+- -[41]Ambrose, +Hexaemeron, III, ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B, see also Sermo +III De Caritate, 11; PL 18, col. 142A.
- -[42]Chrysostom, -In Ioannem hom., -72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392; cf. Catena -Aurea, 13:31-32. - +
+- -[42]Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 2; PG +59, col. 392; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:31-32.
- -[43] -Summa-1827-1830, the glory of Christ. - +
++[43] +Summa-1827-1830, the glory of Christ.
++- -[44] +Gloss.
- -[44] Gloss. - +
+- -[45] +Augustine, Tract. in Io., 63, ch. 3, col. 1805; Hilary, +De Trin., 11, ch. 42; PL 10; Cf. Catena Aurea, +13:31-32.
- -[45] -Augustine, Tract. in Io., 63, ch. 3, col. 1805; -Hilary, De -Trin., 11, ch. 42; PL 10; Cf. Catena Aurea, 13:31-32. - +
+- -[46] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 17, 18; PG 14, col. 445-451; cf. +Catena Aurea, 13:31-32.
- -[46] Origen, -In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 17, 18; PG 14, col. 445-451; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:31-32. - +
+- -[47] Ambrose, +Hexaemeron, III, ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B.
- -[47] -Ambrose, Hexaemeron, III, ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B. - +
+- -[48] Origen, +In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 19; PG 14, col. 453 ; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:33-35.
- -[48] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. -19; PG 14, col. 453 ; cf. Catena Aurea, -13:33-35. - +
++[49] In +Ioannem hom., 63, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 31; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:36-38.
++- -[50] +Tract. in Io., 66, ch. 2, col. 1880-1; cf. Catena +Aurea, 7:9-13.
- -[49] In -Ioannem hom., 63, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 31; -cf. Catena Aurea, 13:36-38. - +
+- -[51] De +consensus evangelistarum, 3, ch. 11; PL 34; cf. Catena +Aurea, 13:36-38.
- -- -[50] Tract. -in Io., 66, ch. 2, col. 1880-1; cf. Catena -Aurea, 7:9-13. -
- -- -[51] De consensus evangelistarum, 3, ch. 11; PL 34; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:36-38. - + + + diff -r 2bc1f3a24bc0 -r 178aed5d2c3c john/english/John14.html --- a/john/english/John14.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John14.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,2547 +1,2489 @@ - + +
+ +- -- -14 -
LECTURE I -
1 "Let not your hearts be troubled; you believe in God, -believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, -would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? [If it were not so -I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you.] 3 And when -[if] I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to -myself, that where I am you may be also."[1]
1848 Above (ch 13), our Lord taught his disciples by -example, here he consoles them by his words. First, they are encouraged in many -ways by what he says; secondly, what he has said is explained (ch 16). -Concerning the first, we should note that there were two things which could -trouble the disciples. One was near, that Christ would soon be leaving them; -the second was in the future, and was the hardships they would undergo. First, -Christ consoles them over his leaving; secondly, over their future hardships -(ch 15). - -
He does two things concerning the first: first, he -consoles them from their own point of view, as those who will be left; -secondly, from his own point of view, as the one leaving (v 27). He does three -things about the first: first, he says that he is going to the Father; -secondly, he promises them the gift of the Holy Spirit (v 15); thirdly, he -promises that he will also be with them (v 18). He does two things about the -first: first, he mentions that he is going to the Father; secondly, he brings -in the way he would go (v 4). He does three things about the first: first, he -expels their anxieties; secondly, he refers to his power (v 1b); thirdly, he -adds a promise (v 2a). - -
1849 In regard to the first, note that the disciples could -have been disturbed by what our Lord said about the betrayal of Judas, Peter's -denial, and his own going away. Indeed, each of these did trouble them and make -them sad: "Thou hast made the land to quake," that is, the hearts of the -disciples, "thou hast rent it open" (Ps 60:2). Therefore our Lord, wishing to -soothe their sorrow, said: Let not your hearts be troubled. - -
1850 In Acts (1:1) we read: "Jesus began to do and teach." -Yet above (13:21) it says that Jesus "was troubled in spirit." How can he tell -his disciples not to be troubled when he himself was troubled? I answer that he -did not teach the opposite of what he did. It was stated above that he was -troubled in spirit, not that his spirit was troubled. Here he is not -forbidding them to be troubled in spirit, but he is forbidding that their -hearts, that is, their spirits, be troubled. For there is a troubled state -which arises from reason; this is to be praised and is not forbidden: "For -godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation" (2 Cor 7:10). Yet -there is a different grief or troubled state of the reason itself; this is not -laudable because it draws the reason from its proper course; this is forbidden: -"The just person will not be troubled for the Lord puts his hand under him" [Ps -37:24]. For one who always possesses God cannot be disturbed. - -
1851 Accordingly, our Lord refers to the power of his -divinity, saying, you believe in God, believe also in me. Here he -presupposes one thing and commands another. He presupposes their faith in God, -saying, you believe in God: he had already taught them about this: "For -whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists" (Heb 11:6). What he -commands is that they believe in him, saying, believe also in me. For if -you believe in God, and since I am God, then you should believe in me. And this -follows whether the word God stands for the divine essence, since the Son is -God, or whether it stands for the person of the Father. For no one can believe -in the Father unless he believes in the Son: "He who does not honor the Son -does not honor the Father" (5:23). - -
The fact that he says, believe -also in me, indicates that he is truly God; for although we are allowed to -believe a human being (homini) or a creature, we ought to believe in God -alone (in Deum). Therefore, we must believe in Christ as we believe in -God. "We are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God -and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20); "This is the work of God, that you believe in -him whom he has sent" (6:29). [See the Commentary on 6:28, no. 901.] - +
++- +that every laborer received one denarius. This denarius is nothing +but a room in the house of the Father. Therefore, there are not +many rooms. I answer that the reward of eternal life is both one +and many. It is many based on the various capacities of those who +share in it, and from this point of view there are different rooms +in the Father's house. +14
+LECTURE I
+++1 "Let not your hearts be troubled; you believe in God, +believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it +were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for +you? [If it were not so I would have told you that I am going to +prepare a place for you.] 3 And when [if] I go and prepare a place +for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where +I am you may be also."[1]
+1848 Above (ch 13), our Lord taught his disciples by example, +here he consoles them by his words. First, they are encouraged in +many ways by what he says; secondly, what he has said is explained +(ch 16). Concerning the first, we should note that there were two +things which could trouble the disciples. One was near, that Christ +would soon be leaving them; the second was in the future, and was +the hardships they would undergo. First, Christ consoles them over +his leaving; secondly, over their future hardships (ch 15).
+He does two things concerning the first: first, he consoles them +from their own point of view, as those who will be left; secondly, +from his own point of view, as the one leaving (v 27). He does +three things about the first: first, he says that he is going to +the Father; secondly, he promises them the gift of the Holy Spirit +(v 15); thirdly, he promises that he will also be with them (v 18). +He does two things about the first: first, he mentions that he is +going to the Father; secondly, he brings in the way he would go (v +4). He does three things about the first: first, he expels their +anxieties; secondly, he refers to his power (v 1b); thirdly, he +adds a promise (v 2a).
+1849 In regard to the first, note that the disciples could have +been disturbed by what our Lord said about the betrayal of Judas, +Peter's denial, and his own going away. Indeed, each of these did +trouble them and make them sad: "Thou hast made the land to quake," +that is, the hearts of the disciples, "thou hast rent it open" (Ps +60:2). Therefore our Lord, wishing to soothe their sorrow, said: +Let not your hearts be troubled.
+1850 In Acts (1:1) we read: "Jesus began to do and teach." Yet +above (13:21) it says that Jesus "was troubled in spirit." How can +he tell his disciples not to be troubled when he himself was +troubled? I answer that he did not teach the opposite of what he +did. It was stated above that he was troubled in spirit, not +that his spirit was troubled. Here he is not forbidding them to be +troubled in spirit, but he is forbidding that their hearts, that +is, their spirits, be troubled. For there is a troubled state which +arises from reason; this is to be praised and is not forbidden: +"For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation" (2 +Cor 7:10). Yet there is a different grief or troubled state of the +reason itself; this is not laudable because it draws the reason +from its proper course; this is forbidden: "The just person will +not be troubled for the Lord puts his hand under him" [Ps 37:24]. +For one who always possesses God cannot be disturbed.
+1851 Accordingly, our Lord refers to the power of his divinity, +saying, you believe in God, believe also in me. Here he +presupposes one thing and commands another. He presupposes their +faith in God, saying, you believe in God: he had already +taught them about this: "For whoever would draw near to God must +believe that he exists" (Heb 11:6). What he commands is that they +believe in him, saying, believe also in me. For if you +believe in God, and since I am God, then you should believe in me. +And this follows whether the word God stands for the divine +essence, since the Son is God, or whether it stands for the person +of the Father. For no one can believe in the Father unless he +believes in the Son: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor +the Father" (5:23).
+The fact that he says, believe also in me, indicates that +he is truly God; for although we are allowed to believe a human +being (homini) or a creature, we ought to believe in +God alone (in Deum). Therefore, we must believe in Christ as +we believe in God. "We are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus +Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20); "This +is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" +(6:29). [See the Commentary on 6:28, no. 901.]
1852 Then when he says, in my Father's house are many -rooms, he adds the promise that it is through Christ that they will -approach and be brought to the Father. Now a promise to others that they will -gain entrance to some place involves two things: first, the place must be -prepared; next, they have to be brought there. Our Lord makes these two -promises here: one concerns the preparation of the place, and the other is -about their being brought there. Yet the first is not necessary, for the place -has already been prepared; but the second is necessary. Thus he does two -things: he says the first promise is not necessary; and then he makes his -second promise (v 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he -indicates that it is not necessary to prepare the place; secondly he shows that -he could prepare it if it were necessary (v 2b). - -
1853 He says, in my Father's house are many rooms. -The house of any one is where he dwells, and so the house of God is where God -dwells. Now God dwells in his saints: "Yet thou, O Lord, art in the midst of -us" (Jer 14:9). In some of them he dwells by faith: "I will live in them and -move among them" (2 Cor 6:16); while in others he dwells by perfect happiness: -"that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor 15:28). Accordingly, God has -two houses. One is the Church militant, that is, the society of those who -believe: "that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, -which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim 3:15). God dwells in this house -by faith. "The dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them" (Rev -21:3). The other is the Church triumphant, that is, the society of the saints -in the glory of the Father: "We shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy -house, thy holy temple" (Ps 65:4). - -
Yet the house of the Father is not -only where he dwells, but he himself is the house, for he exists in himself. It -is into this house that he gathers us. We see from 2 Corinthians (5:1) that God -himself is the house: "We have a building from God, a house not made with -hands, eternal in the heavens." This house is the house of glory, which is God -himself: "A glorious throne set on high from the beginning is the place of our -sanctification" [Jer 17:12]. We remain in this place, in God, with our will and -affections by the joys of love: "He who abides in love abides in God, and God -abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). And we remain here with our minds by our knowledge -of the truth: "Sanctify them in the truth" (17:17). - -
In this house, then, that is, in -glory, which is God, are many rooms, that is, various participations in -happiness. This is because one who knows more will have a greater place. -Therefore, the different rooms are the various participations in the knowledge -and enjoyment of God. - -
1854 The question arises here whether one person can be -happier than another. It seems not. For happiness is the end; and what is -perfect, complete, does not have degrees; therefore, there cannot be different -degrees of happiness. - -
I answer that a thing can be -perfect in two ways: absolutely and in a qualified sense. The absolute -perfection of happiness is found only in God, for only he knows and loves -himself to the extent that he is knowable and lovable (since he knows and loves -infinitely his own infinite truth and goodness). From this point of view, the -supreme good itself, which is the object and cause of happiness, can not be -greater or less. This is because there is only one supreme good, which is God. - -
But in a qualified sense, that is, -considering certain conditions of time, of nature and of grace, one person can -be happier than another depending on the possession of this good and the -capacity of each. The greater the capacity a person has for this good, the more -he shares in it, I mean he participates in it more the better disposed and -prepared he is to enjoy it. Now one is disposed for this good in two ways. -Happiness consists in two things. The first is the vision of God; and one is -disposed for this by purity. And so the more one has a heart which is raised -above earthly matters, the more he will see God, and the more perfectly. -Secondly, happiness consists in the delight of enjoying [God], and one is -disposed for this by love. Thus, one who has a more burning love for God will -find more delight in the enjoyment of God. We read about the first in Matthew -(5:8): "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see."[2] - +rooms, he adds the promise that it is through Christ that they +will approach and be brought to the Father. Now a promise to others +that they will gain entrance to some place involves two things: +first, the place must be prepared; next, they have to be brought +there. Our Lord makes these two promises here: one concerns the +preparation of the place, and the other is about their being +brought there. Yet the first is not necessary, for the place has +already been prepared; but the second is necessary. Thus he does +two things: he says the first promise is not necessary; and then he +makes his second promise (v 3). In regard to the first he does two +things: first, he indicates that it is not necessary to prepare the +place; secondly he shows that he could prepare it if it were +necessary (v 2b).
+1853 He says, in my Father's house are many rooms. The +house of any one is where he dwells, and so the house of God is +where God dwells. Now God dwells in his saints: "Yet thou, O Lord, +art in the midst of us" (Jer 14:9). In some of them he dwells by +faith: "I will live in them and move among them" (2 Cor 6:16); +while in others he dwells by perfect happiness: "that God may be +everything to every one" (1 Cor 15:28). Accordingly, God has two +houses. One is the Church militant, that is, the society of those +who believe: "that you may know how one ought to behave in the +household of God, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim +3:15). God dwells in this house by faith. "The dwelling of God is +with men. He will dwell with them" (Rev 21:3). The other is the +Church triumphant, that is, the society of the saints in the glory +of the Father: "We shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy +house, thy holy temple" (Ps 65:4).
+Yet the house of the Father is not only where he dwells, but he +himself is the house, for he exists in himself. It is into this +house that he gathers us. We see from 2 Corinthians (5:1) that God +himself is the house: "We have a building from God, a house not +made with hands, eternal in the heavens." This house is the house +of glory, which is God himself: "A glorious throne set on high from +the beginning is the place of our sanctification" [Jer 17:12]. We +remain in this place, in God, with our will and affections by the +joys of love: "He who abides in love abides in God, and God abides +in him" (1 Jn 4:16). And we remain here with our minds by our +knowledge of the truth: "Sanctify them in the truth" (17:17).
+In this house, then, that is, in glory, which is God, are many +rooms, that is, various participations in happiness. This is +because one who knows more will have a greater place. Therefore, +the different rooms are the various participations in the knowledge +and enjoyment of God.
+1854 The question arises here whether one person can be happier +than another. It seems not. For happiness is the end; and what is +perfect, complete, does not have degrees; therefore, there cannot +be different degrees of happiness.
+I answer that a thing can be perfect in two ways: absolutely and +in a qualified sense. The absolute perfection of happiness is found +only in God, for only he knows and loves himself to the extent that +he is knowable and lovable (since he knows and loves infinitely his +own infinite truth and goodness). From this point of view, the +supreme good itself, which is the object and cause of happiness, +can not be greater or less. This is because there is only one +supreme good, which is God.
+But in a qualified sense, that is, considering certain +conditions of time, of nature and of grace, one person can be +happier than another depending on the possession of this good and +the capacity of each. The greater the capacity a person has for +this good, the more he shares in it, I mean he participates in it +more the better disposed and prepared he is to enjoy it. Now one is +disposed for this good in two ways. Happiness consists in two +things. The first is the vision of God; and one is disposed for +this by purity. And so the more one has a heart which is raised +above earthly matters, the more he will see God, and the more +perfectly. Secondly, happiness consists in the delight of enjoying +[God], and one is disposed for this by love. Thus, one who has a +more burning love for God will find more delight in the enjoyment +of God. We read about the first in Matthew (5:8): "Blessed are the +pure in heart, for they shall see."[2]
1855 Another question arises from what Matthew (20:10) says, -that every laborer received one denarius. This denarius is nothing but a room -in the house of the Father. Therefore, there are not many rooms. I answer that -the reward of eternal life is both one and many. It is many based on the -various capacities of those who share in it, and from this point of view there -are different rooms in the Father's house. - -
Yet this reward is one, and this -for three reasons. First, because there is one object; for it is the same -object which all the blessed see and enjoy. Thus, there is one denarius. But it -is seen and loved in various degrees: "Then you will delight yourself in the -Almighty" (Job 22:26); "In that day the Lord of hosts will be a crown of glory, -and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his people" (Is 28:5). It is like a -spring of water, available to all to take as much as they wish. Then, one who -has a larger cup will receive more, and one who has a smaller cup will receive -less. Therefore, there is one fountain, considering it in itself, but every one -does not receive the same portion. This is the opinion of Gregory, in his Morals -XXII.[3] -Secondly, this reward is one, according to Augustine, because it is an eternal -portion: each one will have an eternal happiness, for the just will go into -eternal life; but there are differences in capacity.[4] -Thirdly, this reward is one because of charity, which unites everything, and -makes the joy of each the joy of the rest, and conversely: "Rejoice with those -who rejoice" (Rom 12:15). - -
1856 The Pelagians erred by misunderstanding this passage. -They said that children who die without baptism will be saved in the house of -God, but not in the kingdom of God, for we read "Unless one is born of water -and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (3:5). Augustine answers -this by saying that our Lord said that these rooms are in God's house.[5] -Now in a kingdom there are nothing but houses: for a kingdom is made up of -cities, and cities of neighborhoods, and neighborhoods of houses. Thus, if -rooms are in a house, it is evident that they are in the kingdom. - -
1857 Then when he says, if it were not so I would have -told you that I am going to prepare a place for you, he shows he has the -ability to prepare a place for them if necessary. For one could say: it is true -that in his Father's house many rooms have been prepared, but if not, he could -not prepare them. Our Lord excludes this by saying, if it were not so, -that is, if the rooms were not prepared, I would have told you that I am -going to prepare a place for you. - -
Here we should consider what is -meant by the phrase, to prepare a place for you. A place is prepared in -two ways. In one way, when something is done to the place itself, as when it is -cleaned or enlarged: "Enlarge the place of your tent" (Is 54:2). In another -way, when someone is given the means to enter it; and so the Psalmist prays: -"Be thou to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me" (Ps 71:3), which -is like saying: May I always have the means to enter here. With this in mind, -the text can be understood in two ways. If this place had some defect or was -something created, it would be subject to my power to perfect it, for every -creature is subject to the power of the Word: "All things were made through -him" (1:3). So, if it had some defect, I would have told you that I am going -to prepare a place for you. But this place, in itself, is prepared; for -this place is God himself, as was said, in whom is the abundance of all -perfections. But perhaps you do not have the means to enter it; and so, if -it were not so, that is, if it were not so that you had the means to enter -here and were not predestined to this place, I would have told you that I am -going to prepare a place for you, for it is in my power to predestine you -to this place. For he, with the Father and the Holy Spirit has predestined them -to eternal life: "He chose us in him" (Eph 1:4). - -
1858 Our Lord said above: "Where I am going you cannot -follow me now" (13:36). And then here, to keep them from believing that they -would be absolutely separated from him he adds, and if I go and prepare a -place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself. This is the -second promise, that they will be brought into the kingdom. - -
This seems to conflict with his -earlier statement, for he had said: if it were not so, [if places were -not already prepared] I would have told you that I am going to prepare a -place for you. This implies that he is not going to prepare a place for -them. Yet here we read: if I go and prepare a place for you, which -suggests that he is going to prepare a place for them. - -
One reply would be that these two -sentences can be understood as connected together. Then the meaning would be -this: "if it were not so," that is, if places were not prepared [that is, by -predestination] and I had to go to prepare them, "I would have told you that I -am going to prepare [such] a place for you." And then again, "if it were not -so," [in the sense of the execution of predestination, see below] "I go and prepare -a place for you." - -
According to Augustine, however, -these are distinct sentences and are not read together.[6] -Our Lord prepared places both by eternal predestination, and by carrying out -this predestination. He also prepared these places by his departure. Thus, what -our Lord said first, that rooms were prepared, is understood as referring to -the first preparation from all eternity. Then when he says, if I go and -prepare a place for you, this is understood as referring to the carrying -out of the eternal predestination. - -
1859 Our Lord prepared a place for us by his departure in -five ways. First he made room for faith: for since faith concerns things not -seen, when the disciples saw Christ in person, they did not need faith for -this. Thus he left them, so that the one they had possessed by his bodily -presence and saw with their bodily eyes, they could still possess in his -spiritual presence and see with the eyes of their mind. This is to possess him -by faith. Secondly, his leaving prepared a place by showing them the way to go -to that place: "He who opens the breach will go before them" (Mic 2:13). -Thirdly, by his prayers for them: "He is able for all time to save those who -draw near to God through him" (Heb 7:25); "He rides through the heavens to your -help" (Deut 33:26). Fourthly, by attracting them to what is above: "Draw me -after you" (Song 1:4); "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the -things that are above" (Col 3:1). Fifthly, by sending them the Holy Spirit: "As -yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (7:39). - -
1860 The glorification of Christ was completed by his -ascension. And so as soon as he ascended, he sent the Holy Spirit to his -disciples. He told them ahead of time that he would physically leave them, -saying, if I go and prepare a place for you. And then he promised them a -spiritual return, saying, I will come again. I will come at the end of -the world: "Then Jesus ... will come in the same way as you saw him go into -heaven" (Acts 1:2). And will take you, glorified in soul and body, to -myself: "We shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the -Lord in the air" (1 Thess 4:17). - -
1861 Will Christ wait until the end of the world before he -takes the spirits of the apostles? It is the opinion of the Greeks that the -saints will not go to paradise until the day of judgment. But if this were -true, the desire of the Apostle (Phil 1:23) to be with Christ would be futile. -Therefore, one should say that immediately after the house where we dwell here -is overthrown, our souls are with Christ. And so the statement, I will come -again and will take you to myself, can be understood as that spiritual -coming with which Christ always visits the Church of the faithful and vivifies -each of the faithful at death. Then the meaning is: I will come again, -to the Church, spiritually and continuously, and will take you to myself, -that is, I will strengthen you in faith and love for me: "My beloved has gone -down to his garden, to the beds of spices," that is, to the community of the -saints, "to feed in the garden," that is, to delight in their virtues, "and to -gather lilies," to draw pure souls to himself when he gives life to the saints -at death [Song 6:1].[7] - -
1862 Then he mentions the fruit of this, saying, that -where I am you may be also, that is, so that the members may be with their -head; so the disciples may be with their Teacher: "Wherever the body is, there -the eagles will be gathered together" (Mt 24:28); "Where I am, there shall my -servant be also" (12:26). -
-LECTURE 2 - -
4 "Where I am going you know, and the way you know." 5 -Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know -the way?" 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no -one comes to the Father, but by me. 7 If you had known me, you would [without -doubt] have known my Father also; henceforth you [shall] know him and have seen -him."[8]
Yet this reward is one, and this for three reasons. First, +because there is one object; for it is the same object which all +the blessed see and enjoy. Thus, there is one denarius. But it is +seen and loved in various degrees: "Then you will delight yourself +in the Almighty" (Job 22:26); "In that day the Lord of hosts will +be a crown of glory, and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his +people" (Is 28:5). It is like a spring of water, available to all +to take as much as they wish. Then, one who has a larger cup will +receive more, and one who has a smaller cup will receive less. +Therefore, there is one fountain, considering it in itself, but +every one does not receive the same portion. This is the opinion of +Gregory, in his Morals XXII.[3] Secondly, this reward is one, according to +Augustine, because it is an eternal portion: each one will have an +eternal happiness, for the just will go into eternal life; but +there are differences in capacity.[4] Thirdly, this reward is one because of +charity, which unites everything, and makes the joy of each the joy +of the rest, and conversely: "Rejoice with those who rejoice" (Rom +12:15).
+1856 The Pelagians erred by misunderstanding this passage. They +said that children who die without baptism will be saved in the +house of God, but not in the kingdom of God, for we read "Unless +one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of +God" (3:5). Augustine answers this by saying that our Lord said +that these rooms are in God's house.[5] Now in a kingdom there are nothing +but houses: for a kingdom is made up of cities, and cities of +neighborhoods, and neighborhoods of houses. Thus, if rooms are in a +house, it is evident that they are in the kingdom.
+1857 Then when he says, if it were not so I would have told +you that I am going to prepare a place for you, he shows he has +the ability to prepare a place for them if necessary. For one could +say: it is true that in his Father's house many rooms have been +prepared, but if not, he could not prepare them. Our Lord excludes +this by saying, if it were not so, that is, if the rooms +were not prepared, I would have told you that I am going to +prepare a place for you.
+Here we should consider what is meant by the phrase, to +prepare a place for you. A place is prepared in two ways. In +one way, when something is done to the place itself, as when it is +cleaned or enlarged: "Enlarge the place of your tent" (Is 54:2). In +another way, when someone is given the means to enter it; and so +the Psalmist prays: "Be thou to me a rock of refuge, a strong +fortress to save me" (Ps 71:3), which is like saying: May I always +have the means to enter here. With this in mind, the text can be +understood in two ways. If this place had some defect or was +something created, it would be subject to my power to perfect it, +for every creature is subject to the power of the Word: "All things +were made through him" (1:3). So, if it had some defect, I would +have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you. But +this place, in itself, is prepared; for this place is God himself, +as was said, in whom is the abundance of all perfections. But +perhaps you do not have the means to enter it; and so, if it +were not so, that is, if it were not so that you had the means +to enter here and were not predestined to this place, I would +have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you, for +it is in my power to predestine you to this place. For he, with the +Father and the Holy Spirit has predestined them to eternal life: +"He chose us in him" (Eph 1:4).
+1858 Our Lord said above: "Where I am going you cannot follow me +now" (13:36). And then here, to keep them from believing that they +would be absolutely separated from him he adds, and if I go and +prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to +myself. This is the second promise, that they will be brought +into the kingdom.
+This seems to conflict with his earlier statement, for he had +said: if it were not so, [if places were not already +prepared] I would have told you that I am going to prepare a +place for you. This implies that he is not going to prepare a +place for them. Yet here we read: if I go and prepare a place +for you, which suggests that he is going to prepare a place for +them.
+One reply would be that these two sentences can be understood as +connected together. Then the meaning would be this: "if it were not +so," that is, if places were not prepared [that is, by +predestination] and I had to go to prepare them, "I would have told +you that I am going to prepare [such] a place for you." And then +again, "if it were not so," [in the sense of the execution of +predestination, see below] "I go and prepare a place for you."
+According to Augustine, however, these are distinct sentences +and are not read together.[6] Our Lord prepared places both by eternal +predestination, and by carrying out this predestination. He also +prepared these places by his departure. Thus, what our Lord said +first, that rooms were prepared, is understood as referring to the +first preparation from all eternity. Then when he says, if I go +and prepare a place for you, this is understood as referring to +the carrying out of the eternal predestination.
+1859 Our Lord prepared a place for us by his departure in five +ways. First he made room for faith: for since faith concerns things +not seen, when the disciples saw Christ in person, they did not +need faith for this. Thus he left them, so that the one they had +possessed by his bodily presence and saw with their bodily eyes, +they could still possess in his spiritual presence and see with the +eyes of their mind. This is to possess him by faith. Secondly, his +leaving prepared a place by showing them the way to go to that +place: "He who opens the breach will go before them" (Mic 2:13). +Thirdly, by his prayers for them: "He is able for all time to save +those who draw near to God through him" (Heb 7:25); "He rides +through the heavens to your help" (Deut 33:26). Fourthly, by +attracting them to what is above: "Draw me after you" (Song 1:4); +"If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are +above" (Col 3:1). Fifthly, by sending them the Holy Spirit: "As yet +the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" +(7:39).
+1860 The glorification of Christ was completed by his ascension. +And so as soon as he ascended, he sent the Holy Spirit to his +disciples. He told them ahead of time that he would physically +leave them, saying, if I go and prepare a place for you. And +then he promised them a spiritual return, saying, I will come +again. I will come at the end of the world: "Then Jesus ... +will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts +1:2). And will take you, glorified in soul and body, to +myself: "We shall be caught up together with them in the clouds +to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess 4:17).
+1861 Will Christ wait until the end of the world before he takes +the spirits of the apostles? It is the opinion of the Greeks that +the saints will not go to paradise until the day of judgment. But +if this were true, the desire of the Apostle (Phil 1:23) to be with +Christ would be futile. Therefore, one should say that immediately +after the house where we dwell here is overthrown, our souls are +with Christ. And so the statement, I will come again and will +take you to myself, can be understood as that spiritual coming +with which Christ always visits the Church of the faithful and +vivifies each of the faithful at death. Then the meaning is: I +will come again, to the Church, spiritually and continuously, +and will take you to myself, that is, I will strengthen you +in faith and love for me: "My beloved has gone down to his garden, +to the beds of spices," that is, to the community of the saints, +"to feed in the garden," that is, to delight in their virtues, "and +to gather lilies," to draw pure souls to himself when he gives life +to the saints at death [Song 6:1].[7]
+1862 Then he mentions the fruit of this, saying, that where I +am you may be also, that is, so that the members may be with +their head; so the disciples may be with their Teacher: "Wherever +the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together" (Mt +24:28); "Where I am, there shall my servant be also" (12:26).
+
+
+LECTURE 2
++4 "Where I am going you know, and the way you know." 5 Thomas +said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we +know the way?" 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, +and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. 7 If you had +known me, you would [without doubt] have known my Father also; +henceforth you [shall] know him and have seen him."[8]
+1863 Above our Lord consoled his disciples because he was -leaving, promising them that they could come to the Father. Now he mentions the -way by which they are to approach the Father. But one does not know a way -unless he also knows his destination; and so he also considers the destination. -First, he mentions the way and its destination as known to them; secondly, he -explains this (v 5). - -
1864 In regard to the first, note that our Lord had said: -"If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again." The disciples could -have asked him where he was going, just like Peter did before: "Lord, where are -you going?" (13:36). Our Lord knew this and so said to them, Where I am -going you know, and the way you know. For I am going to the Father, whom -you know, since I have manifested him to you: "I have manifested thy name to -the men whom thou gave me" (17:9). And I myself am the way through which I go, -and you know me: "We have beheld his glory" (1:14). He spoke truly, therefore, -when he said, where I am going you know, and the way you know: because -they knew the Father through Christ, and they knew Christ by living with him. - -
1865 Next (v 5), our Lord explains what he has just said: -first, we see the occasion for this explanation; secondly, the explanation -itself (v 6). - +leaving, promising them that they could come to the Father. Now he +mentions the way by which they are to approach the Father. But one +does not know a way unless he also knows his destination; and so he +also considers the destination. First, he mentions the way and its +destination as known to them; secondly, he explains this (v 5).
+1864 In regard to the first, note that our Lord had said: "If I +go and prepare a place for you, I will come again." The disciples +could have asked him where he was going, just like Peter did +before: "Lord, where are you going?" (13:36). Our Lord knew this +and so said to them, Where I am going you know, and the way you +know. For I am going to the Father, whom you know, since I have +manifested him to you: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom +thou gave me" (17:9). And I myself am the way through which I go, +and you know me: "We have beheld his glory" (1:14). He spoke truly, +therefore, when he said, where I am going you know, and the way +you know: because they knew the Father through Christ, and they +knew Christ by living with him.
+1865 Next (v 5), our Lord explains what he has just said: first, +we see the occasion for this explanation; secondly, the explanation +itself (v 6).
1866 The occasion for this explanation was the hesitation -expressed in the question of Thomas. Lord, we do not know where you are -going; how can we know the way? Here Thomas denies the two things that our -Lord affirmed. For our Lord said that they knew both the way and its -destination; but Thomas denied that he knew the way and its destination. Yet -both statements are true: for it is true that they knew, yet they did not know -that they knew. For they knew many things about the Father and the Son which -they had learned from Christ; yet they did not know that it was the Father to -whom Christ was going, and that the Son was the way by which he was going. For -it is difficult to go to the Father. It is not surprising that they did not -know this because although they clearly knew that Christ was a human being, -they only imperfectly recognized his divinity: "That path no bird of prey knows" -(Job 28:7). - -
Thomas says, how can we know the -way? Knowledge of the way depends on knowledge of the destination. And so -because we do not know the destination ‑ "He dwells in unapproachable -light, whom no man has ever seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16) ‑ we can not -discover the way: "How inscrutable his ways!" (Rom 11:33). - -
1867 Then when he says, Jesus said to him, I am the way, -and the truth, and the life, the question is answered. Our Lord was to -answer about two things: first, about the way and its destination; secondly, -about their knowledge of both (v 7). He does two things about the first: first, -he states what the way is; secondly, he gives its destination (v 6b). - -
1868 The way, as has been said, is Christ himself; so he -says, I am the way. This is indeed true, for it is through him that we -have access to the Father, as stated in Romans (5:2). This answer could also -settle the uncertainty of the faltering disciple. - -
Because this way is not separated -from its destination but united to it, he adds, and the truth, and the life. -So Christ is at once both the way and the destination. He is the way by reason -of his human nature, and the destination because of his divinity. Therefore, as -human, he says, I am the way; as God, he adds, and the truth, and the -life. These last two appropriately indicate the destination of the way. For -the destination of this way is the end of human desire. Now human beings -especially desire two things: first, a knowledge of the truth, and this is -characteristic of them; secondly, that they continue to exist, and this is -common to all things. In fact, Christ is the way to arrive at the knowledge of -the truth, while still being the truth itself: "Teach me thy way O Lord, that I -may walk in thy truth" (Ps 85:11). Christ is also the way to arrive at life, -while still being life itself: "Thou couldst show me the path of life" (Ps -16:11). And so he indicated the destination or end of this way as truth and -life. These two were already applied to Christ: first, he is life: "In him was -life" (1:4); then, he is truth, because "the life is the light of men" (1:45), -and light is truth. - +expressed in the question of Thomas. Lord, we do not know where +you are going; how can we know the way? Here Thomas denies the +two things that our Lord affirmed. For our Lord said that they knew +both the way and its destination; but Thomas denied that he knew +the way and its destination. Yet both statements are true: for it +is true that they knew, yet they did not know that they knew. For +they knew many things about the Father and the Son which they had +learned from Christ; yet they did not know that it was the Father +to whom Christ was going, and that the Son was the way by which he +was going. For it is difficult to go to the Father. It is not +surprising that they did not know this because although they +clearly knew that Christ was a human being, they only imperfectly +recognized his divinity: "That path no bird of prey knows" (Job +28:7).
+Thomas says, how can we know the way? Knowledge of the +way depends on knowledge of the destination. And so because we do +not know the destination ‑ "He dwells in unapproachable +light, whom no man has ever seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16) ‑ +we can not discover the way: "How inscrutable his ways!" (Rom +11:33).
+1867 Then when he says, Jesus said to him, I am the way, and +the truth, and the life, the question is answered. Our Lord was +to answer about two things: first, about the way and its +destination; secondly, about their knowledge of both (v 7). He does +two things about the first: first, he states what the way is; +secondly, he gives its destination (v 6b).
+1868 The way, as has been said, is Christ himself; so he says, +I am the way. This is indeed true, for it is through him +that we have access to the Father, as stated in Romans (5:2). This +answer could also settle the uncertainty of the faltering +disciple.
+Because this way is not separated from its destination but +united to it, he adds, and the truth, and the life. So +Christ is at once both the way and the destination. He is the way +by reason of his human nature, and the destination because of his +divinity. Therefore, as human, he says, I am the way; as +God, he adds, and the truth, and the life. These last two +appropriately indicate the destination of the way. For the +destination of this way is the end of human desire. Now human +beings especially desire two things: first, a knowledge of the +truth, and this is characteristic of them; secondly, that they +continue to exist, and this is common to all things. In fact, +Christ is the way to arrive at the knowledge of the truth, while +still being the truth itself: "Teach me thy way O Lord, that I may +walk in thy truth" (Ps 85:11). Christ is also the way to arrive at +life, while still being life itself: "Thou couldst show me the path +of life" (Ps 16:11). And so he indicated the destination or end of +this way as truth and life. These two were already applied to +Christ: first, he is life: "In him was life" (1:4); then, he is +truth, because "the life is the light of men" (1:45), and light is +truth.
1869 Note that both truth and life belong properly and -essentially (per se) to Christ. Truth belongs essentially to him because -he is the Word. Now truth is the conformity of a thing to the intellect, and -this results when the intellect conceives the thing as it is. Therefore, the -truth of our intellect belongs to our word, which is its conception. Yet -although our word is true, it is not truth itself, since it is not true of -itself but because it is conformed to the thing conceived. And so the truth of -the divine intellect belongs to the Word of God. But because the Word of God is -true of itself (since it is not measured by things, but things are true in the -measure that they are similar to the Word) the Word of God is truth itself. And -because no one can know the truth unless he adheres to the truth, it is -necessary that anyone who desires to know the truth adhere to this Word. - -
Life also belongs properly to -Christ: for everything which has some activity from itself is said to be -living, while non‑living things do not have motion from themselves. Among -the activities of life the chief are the intellectual activities. Thus, the -intellect itself is said to be living, and its activities are a certain kind of -life. Now in God the activity of understanding and the intellect itself are the -same. Thus it is clear that the Son, who is the Word of the intellect of the -Father, is his own life.[9] - -
This is the reason why Christ -referred to himself as the way, united to its destination: because he is the -destination, containing in himself whatever can be desired, that is, existing -truth and life. - -
1870 If then, you ask which way to go, accept Christ, for he -is the way: "This is the way, walk in it" (Is 30:21). And Augustine says: "Walk -like this human being and you will come to God. It is better to limp along on -the way than to walk briskly off the way."[10] -For one who limps on the way, even though he makes just a little progress, is -approaching his destination; but if one walks off the way, the faster he goes -the further he gets from his destination. - -
If you ask where to go, cling to -Christ, for he is the truth which we desire to reach: "My mouth will utter -truth" (Prv 8:7). If you ask where to remain, remain in Christ because he is -the life: "He who finds me finds life and shall have salvation from the Lord" -[Prv 8:35]. Therefore, cling to Christ if you wish to be secure, for you cannot -get off the road because he is the way. And so those who hold on to him are not -walking off the road but on the right road: "I have taught you the way of -wisdom" (Prv 4:11). But some are just the opposite: "They did not find the way -of truth to dwell in" [Ps 107:4]. - -
Again, those who hold on to Christ -cannot be deceived, because he is the truth and teaches all truth: "For this I -was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the -truth" (18:37). Further, they cannot be troubled, because he is the life and -the giver of life: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" -(10:10). - -
Augustine says that when our Lord -said I am the way, and the truth, and the life, he was saying in effect: -How do you want to go? I am the way. Where do you want to go? I am -the truth. Where do you want to remain? I am the life.[11] -As Hilary says: he who is the way does not lead us off the right path; he who -is the truth does not deceive us with falsehoods; and he who is the life does -not abandon us to death.[12] - -
1871 Here is another interpretation. In human beings, -holiness involves three things: action, contemplation, and one's intention. -These are brought to perfection by Christ. Christ is the way for those in the -active life; he is the truth for those who stand firm in the contemplative -life. And he directs the intention of both those in the active and -contemplative life to life, eternal life. For he teaches us to go and preach -for the sake of the age to come. So, the Lord is our way by which we go to him, -and through him to the Father. - -
1872 But when he, who is the way, goes to the Father, is he -the way for himself? As Augustine says, he is the way, and the one who goes by -the way, and the destination of the way.[13] -Thus he goes to himself through himself. He, as having human nature, is the -way. Thus, he came through his flesh, yet remained where he was; and he went -through his flesh, without leaving where he had come from. - -
Also, through the flesh he returned -to himself, the truth and the life. For God had come, through his flesh, to us, -the truth to liars, the life to mortals: "God is truthful, and every human is a -liar" [Rom 3:4]. And when he left us, and took his flesh up to that place where -there are no liars, this very Word who was made flesh returned, through his -flesh, to the truth, which is himself. For example: when I speak to others, my -mind goes out to them, yet it does not leave me; and when I am silent, in a -certain sense I return to myself, yet still remain with those to whom I spoke -[if they remember what I said]. And so Christ, who is our way, became the way -even for himself, this is, for his flesh, to go to the truth and the life. - -
1873 Then when he says, no one comes to the Father, but -by me, he answers what was asked about the destination of the way. The way, -which is Christ, leads to the Father. Yet, because the Father and the Son are -one, this way leads also to himself. And so Christ says that he is the terminus -of the way. - -
1874 Note that the Apostle says: "For what person knows a -man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (1 Cor 2:11), -that is, provided one does not choose to reveal his own thoughts. A person -reveals what is hidden within by his words, and it is only by the words of a -person that we can know what is hidden within. Now "no one comprehends the -thoughts of God except the spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11), therefore, no one can -acquire a knowledge of the Father except by his Word, which is his Son: "No one -knows the Father except the Son" (Mt 11:27). And just like one of us who wants -to be known by others by revealing to them the words in his heart, clothes -these words with letters or sounds, so God, wanting to be known by us, takes -his Word, conceived from eternity, and clothes it with flesh in time. And so no -one can arrive at a knowledge of the Father except through the Son. Thus he -says: "I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved" (10:9). - -
1875 Note, with Chrysostom, that our Lord had said: "No one -can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44).[14] -But here he says: no one comes to the Father, but by me. This indicates that -the Son is equal to the Father. - -
It is now clear what the way is, it -is Christ; what the destination is, it is the Father. - +essentially (per se) to Christ. Truth belongs essentially to +him because he is the Word. Now truth is the conformity of a thing +to the intellect, and this results when the intellect conceives the +thing as it is. Therefore, the truth of our intellect belongs to +our word, which is its conception. Yet although our word is true, +it is not truth itself, since it is not true of itself but because +it is conformed to the thing conceived. And so the truth of the +divine intellect belongs to the Word of God. But because the Word +of God is true of itself (since it is not measured by things, but +things are true in the measure that they are similar to the Word) +the Word of God is truth itself. And because no one can know the +truth unless he adheres to the truth, it is necessary that anyone +who desires to know the truth adhere to this Word.
+Life also belongs properly to Christ: for everything which has +some activity from itself is said to be living, while +non‑living things do not have motion from themselves. Among +the activities of life the chief are the intellectual activities. +Thus, the intellect itself is said to be living, and its activities +are a certain kind of life. Now in God the activity of +understanding and the intellect itself are the same. Thus it is +clear that the Son, who is the Word of the intellect of the Father, +is his own life.[9]
+This is the reason why Christ referred to himself as the way, +united to its destination: because he is the destination, +containing in himself whatever can be desired, that is, existing +truth and life.
+1870 If then, you ask which way to go, accept Christ, for he is +the way: "This is the way, walk in it" (Is 30:21). And Augustine +says: "Walk like this human being and you will come to God. It is +better to limp along on the way than to walk briskly off the +way."[10] For one who limps on the way, even though he +makes just a little progress, is approaching his destination; but +if one walks off the way, the faster he goes the further he gets +from his destination.
+If you ask where to go, cling to Christ, for he is the truth +which we desire to reach: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prv 8:7). If +you ask where to remain, remain in Christ because he is the life: +"He who finds me finds life and shall have salvation from the Lord" +[Prv 8:35]. Therefore, cling to Christ if you wish to be secure, +for you cannot get off the road because he is the way. And so those +who hold on to him are not walking off the road but on the right +road: "I have taught you the way of wisdom" (Prv 4:11). But some +are just the opposite: "They did not find the way of truth to dwell +in" [Ps 107:4].
+Again, those who hold on to Christ cannot be deceived, because +he is the truth and teaches all truth: "For this I was born, and +for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth" +(18:37). Further, they cannot be troubled, because he is the life +and the giver of life: "I came that they may have life, and have it +abundantly" (10:10).
+Augustine says that when our Lord said I am the way, and the +truth, and the life, he was saying in effect: How do you want +to go? I am the way. Where do you want to go? I am the +truth. Where do you want to remain? I am the +life.[11] +As Hilary says: he who is the way does not lead us off the right +path; he who is the truth does not deceive us with falsehoods; and +he who is the life does not abandon us to death.[12]
+1871 Here is another interpretation. In human beings, holiness +involves three things: action, contemplation, and one's intention. +These are brought to perfection by Christ. Christ is the way for +those in the active life; he is the truth for those who stand firm +in the contemplative life. And he directs the intention of both +those in the active and contemplative life to life, eternal life. +For he teaches us to go and preach for the sake of the age to come. +So, the Lord is our way by which we go to him, and through him to +the Father.
+1872 But when he, who is the way, goes to the Father, is he the +way for himself? As Augustine says, he is the way, and the one who +goes by the way, and the destination of the way.[13] Thus he goes to +himself through himself. He, as having human nature, is the way. +Thus, he came through his flesh, yet remained where he was; and he +went through his flesh, without leaving where he had come from.
+Also, through the flesh he returned to himself, the truth and +the life. For God had come, through his flesh, to us, the truth to +liars, the life to mortals: "God is truthful, and every human is a +liar" [Rom 3:4]. And when he left us, and took his flesh up to that +place where there are no liars, this very Word who was made flesh +returned, through his flesh, to the truth, which is himself. For +example: when I speak to others, my mind goes out to them, yet it +does not leave me; and when I am silent, in a certain sense I +return to myself, yet still remain with those to whom I spoke [if +they remember what I said]. And so Christ, who is our way, +became the way even for himself, this is, for his flesh, to go +to the truth and the life.
+1873 Then when he says, no one comes to the Father, but by +me, he answers what was asked about the destination of the way. +The way, which is Christ, leads to the Father. Yet, because the +Father and the Son are one, this way leads also to himself. And so +Christ says that he is the terminus of the way.
+1874 Note that the Apostle says: "For what person knows a man's +thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (1 Cor +2:11), that is, provided one does not choose to reveal his own +thoughts. A person reveals what is hidden within by his words, and +it is only by the words of a person that we can know what is hidden +within. Now "no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the +spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11), therefore, no one can acquire a +knowledge of the Father except by his Word, which is his Son: "No +one knows the Father except the Son" (Mt 11:27). And just like one +of us who wants to be known by others by revealing to them the +words in his heart, clothes these words with letters or sounds, so +God, wanting to be known by us, takes his Word, conceived from +eternity, and clothes it with flesh in time. And so no one can +arrive at a knowledge of the Father except through the Son. Thus he +says: "I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved" +(10:9).
+1875 Note, with Chrysostom, that our Lord had said: "No one can +come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44).[14] But here he +says: no one comes to the Father, but by me. This indicates that +the Son is equal to the Father.
+It is now clear what the way is, it is Christ; what the +destination is, it is the Father.
1876 Then when he says, If you had known me, you would -without doubt have known my Father also, he shows that the disciples knew -both where he was going and the way. First, he shows this; secondly he resolves -a coming difficulty. He does two things about the first: first, he shows that -knowledge of the Son is also knowledge of the Father; secondly, he states the -disciples' knowledge of the Father (v 7b). - -
1877 He had said: I have said that I am the way, and that -you know the way, that is, me. Therefore, you also know where I am going, -because you cannot know me without knowing the Father. This is what he says: If -you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also. - -
1878 Yet he had said to the Jews before: "If you knew me, -you would perhaps know my Father also" [8:19]. Why does he say here, "without -doubt," while before he said "perhaps"? It seems that before he had some doubts -about what he says here. - -
We should answer that in the first -instance he was speaking to the Jews, whom he was reprimanding. And so he added -"perhaps" not because he had any doubts, but as a rebuke to them. But here he -is speaking to his disciples, whom he is teaching. Thus, he simply states the -truth to them: If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my -Father also. This is like saying: If you knew my grace and dignity, you -would without doubt also know that of the Father. For there is no better way to -know something than through its word or image, and the Son is the Word of the -Father: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" (1:1); "And -the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have -beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14). The Son is -also the image of the Father: "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col -1:15); "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" -(Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Father is known in the Son as in his Word and proper -image. - +without doubt have known my Father also, he shows that the +disciples knew both where he was going and the way. First, he shows +this; secondly he resolves a coming difficulty. He does two things +about the first: first, he shows that knowledge of the Son is also +knowledge of the Father; secondly, he states the disciples' +knowledge of the Father (v 7b).
+1877 He had said: I have said that I am the way, and that you +know the way, that is, me. Therefore, you also know where I am +going, because you cannot know me without knowing the Father. This +is what he says: If you had known me, you would without doubt +have known my Father also.
+1878 Yet he had said to the Jews before: "If you knew me, you +would perhaps know my Father also" [8:19]. Why does he say here, +"without doubt," while before he said "perhaps"? It seems that +before he had some doubts about what he says here.
+We should answer that in the first instance he was speaking to +the Jews, whom he was reprimanding. And so he added "perhaps" not +because he had any doubts, but as a rebuke to them. But here he is +speaking to his disciples, whom he is teaching. Thus, he simply +states the truth to them: If you had known me, you would without +doubt have known my Father also. This is like saying: If you +knew my grace and dignity, you would without doubt also know that +of the Father. For there is no better way to know something than +through its word or image, and the Son is the Word of the Father: +"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" (1:1); +"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and +truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the +Father" (1:14). The Son is also the image of the Father: "He is the +image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15); "He reflects the glory of +God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Heb 1:3). Therefore, +the Father is known in the Son as in his Word and proper image.
1879 Note that to the extent that something approaches to a -likeness of the Word of the Father, to that extent the Father is known in it, -and to that extent it is in the image of the Father. Now since every created -word is some likeness of that Word, and some likeness, though imperfect, of the -divinity is found in every thing, either as an image or a trace, it follows -that what God is cannot be known perfectly through any creature or by any -thought or concept of a created intellect. It is the Word alone, the only‑begotten -Word, which is a perfect word and the perfect image of the Father, that knows -and comprehends the Father. - -
Therefore, according to Hilary, -this statement can be put in another context.[15] -Our Lord said: "no one comes to the Father, but by me." If you ask Arius how -one goes to the Father through the Son, he answers that it is by recalling what -the Son taught, because the Son taught us about the Father: "Father ... I have -manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me" (17:6). But our Lord -rejected this by saying: If you had known me, you would without doubt have -known my Father also. This is like saying: Arius, or anyone else can indeed -speak about the Father, but no human being is such that by knowing him the -Father is known. This is true of the Son alone, who has the same nature as the -Father. - -
1880 Next, our Lord shows the knowledge the disciples had of -the Father. Our Lord had already told the disciples that they knew the Father -when he said, "Where I am going you know." Yet Thomas denied this: "we do not -know where you are going." Thus our Lord shows here that in a certain way they -did know the Father, so that his statement was true; and in another sense they -did not know the Father, so that what Thomas said was true. To do this, he -mentions a twofold knowledge of the Father: one which will be in the future, -and the other which was in the past. - -
He says, henceforth you shall -know him. And he says, henceforth, because knowledge of the Father -is of two kinds. One is perfect, and is by an immediate vision of him, and this -will be in our homeland: "When he appears we shall be like him" (1 Jn 3:2). The -other is imperfect, and is by reflections and is obscure; and we have this by -faith: "For now we see in a mirror dimly" (1 Cor 3:2). Thus, this phrase can be -understood of each kind of knowledge. Henceforth you shall know him, -with perfect knowledge in your homeland: "I shall tell you plainly of the -Father" (16:25). This is like saying: It is true that you do not know him with -perfect knowledge, but from henceforth you shall know him, after the -mystery of my passion has been accomplished. Or, in the other way, henceforth, -after my resurrection and ascension and after I have sent the Holy Spirit, you -shall know him, with the perfect knowledge of faith, for when the Spirit, -the Paraclete, comes, "he will teach you all things, and bring to your -remembrance all that I have said to you" (14:26). So you are speaking the truth -when you say that you do not know him with perfect knowledge. - -
And I am speaking the truth, -because you have seen him: "Afterward he was seen on earth and conversed with -men" [Bar 3:37]. They saw Christ in the flesh he had taken on, in which the -Word existed, and in the Word they saw the Father. Thus they saw the Father in -him: "He who sent me is with me" (8:29). - +likeness of the Word of the Father, to that extent the Father is +known in it, and to that extent it is in the image of the Father. +Now since every created word is some likeness of that Word, and +some likeness, though imperfect, of the divinity is found in every +thing, either as an image or a trace, it follows that what God is +cannot be known perfectly through any creature or by any thought or +concept of a created intellect. It is the Word alone, the +only‑begotten Word, which is a perfect word and the perfect +image of the Father, that knows and comprehends the Father.
+Therefore, according to Hilary, this statement can be put in +another context.[15] Our Lord said: "no one comes to the Father, +but by me." If you ask Arius how one goes to the Father through the +Son, he answers that it is by recalling what the Son taught, +because the Son taught us about the Father: "Father ... I have +manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me" (17:6). But our +Lord rejected this by saying: If you had known me, you would +without doubt have known my Father also. This is like saying: +Arius, or anyone else can indeed speak about the Father, but no +human being is such that by knowing him the Father is known. This +is true of the Son alone, who has the same nature as the +Father.
+1880 Next, our Lord shows the knowledge the disciples had of the +Father. Our Lord had already told the disciples that they knew the +Father when he said, "Where I am going you know." Yet Thomas denied +this: "we do not know where you are going." Thus our Lord shows +here that in a certain way they did know the Father, so that his +statement was true; and in another sense they did not know the +Father, so that what Thomas said was true. To do this, he mentions +a twofold knowledge of the Father: one which will be in the future, +and the other which was in the past.
+He says, henceforth you shall know him. And he says, +henceforth, because knowledge of the Father is of two kinds. +One is perfect, and is by an immediate vision of him, and this will +be in our homeland: "When he appears we shall be like him" (1 Jn +3:2). The other is imperfect, and is by reflections and is obscure; +and we have this by faith: "For now we see in a mirror dimly" (1 +Cor 3:2). Thus, this phrase can be understood of each kind of +knowledge. Henceforth you shall know him, with perfect +knowledge in your homeland: "I shall tell you plainly of the +Father" (16:25). This is like saying: It is true that you do not +know him with perfect knowledge, but from henceforth you shall +know him, after the mystery of my passion has been +accomplished. Or, in the other way, henceforth, after my +resurrection and ascension and after I have sent the Holy Spirit, +you shall know him, with the perfect knowledge of faith, for +when the Spirit, the Paraclete, comes, "he will teach you all +things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" +(14:26). So you are speaking the truth when you say that you do not +know him with perfect knowledge.
+And I am speaking the truth, because you have seen him: +"Afterward he was seen on earth and conversed with men" [Bar 3:37]. +They saw Christ in the flesh he had taken on, in which the Word +existed, and in the Word they saw the Father. Thus they saw the +Father in him: "He who sent me is with me" (8:29).
1881 Note that the Father was not in the flesh in such a way -that it was joined to him to constitute one person, but he was in the incarnate -Word because they had one and the same nature, and the Father was seen in the -incarnate Christ: "We have be held his glory, glory as of the only Son from the -Father" (1:14). -
-LECTURE 3 - -
+- +that it was joined to him to constitute one person, but he was in +the incarnate Word because they had one and the same nature, and +the Father was seen in the incarnate Christ: "We have be held his +glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14).8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we -shall be satisfied." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and -yet you do not know me, Philip? [Philip], he who has seen me has seen the -Father [also]; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe -that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do -not speak on my own authority [of myself]; but the Father who dwells in me does -his [the] works. 11 Believe me [Do you not believe] that I am in the Father and -the Father in me [?]. Or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. -12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works -that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. -13 Whatever you ask [the Father] in my name, I will do it, that the Father may -be glorified in the Son; 14 if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."[16]
+
+LECTURE 3
++8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall +be satisfied." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, +and yet you do not know me, Philip? [Philip], he who has seen me +has seen the Father [also]; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? +10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? +The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority [of +myself]; but the Father who dwells in me does his [the] works. 11 +Believe me [Do you not believe] that I am in the Father and the +Father in me [?]. Or else believe me for the sake of the works +themselves. 12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me +will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will +he do, because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask [the Father] +in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the +Son; 14 if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."[16]
+1882 Here our Lord clears up a confusion in one of the -disciples: first, we see what the confusion was; secondly, it is resolved (v -9). - +disciples: first, we see what the confusion was; secondly, it is +resolved (v 9).
1883 In regard to the first, recall that above our Lord -mentioned two things. He promised something for the future, namely, a perfect -knowledge of God, when he said: "henceforth you shall know him"; and he -mentioned something about the past, namely, that they had seen him (v 7). When -Philip heard this he believed that he had seen the Father. But now he asks to -know him, saying, Lord, show us the Father (not asking for a vision but -for knowledge) and we shall be satisfied. This is not surprising since -that vision of the Father [a knowledge] is the end of all our desires and -actions, and nothing else is necessary: "You will fill me with joy by your -face," that is, by the vision of your face [Ps 16:11]; "He satisfies your -desire with good things" [Ps 103:5]. - -
1884 Now the confusion is cleared up. First, we see it -resolved; secondly, this is explained further (v 10). As to the first, our Lord -chides Philip for his slowness; secondly, he states the truth, Philip, he -who has seen me has seen the Father also; thirdly, Christ objects to the -very request, how can you say, Show us the Father. - -
1885 He says, Have I been with you so long, and yet you -do not know me, Philip? He is saying in effect: you should know me, -considering how long I have been living with you and talking with you. And if -you had known me, you would without doubt have known the Father also. -Therefore, since you do not know the Father, you indicate that you do not know -me. And you can be chided for your slowness: "Are you also still without -understanding?" (Mt 15:16); "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, -you need some one to teach you again" (Heb 5:12) - -
1886 This gives rise to a question, for before, our Lord -told the disciples that they knew him, when he said, "and the way you know" (v -4), while here he seems to say the opposite, "If you had known me, you would -without doubt have known my Father also" (v 7). - -
Augustine answers this by saying -that among the disciples there were some who knew Christ as the Word of God.[17] -One of these was Peter, when he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the -living God" (Mt 16:16). There were others who did not truly know him, and -Philip was one of these. It is to the first group that our Lord says, "Where I -am going you know, and the way you know" (v 4); it is to the second group that -he says, "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known the Father -also." - -
Here is another explanation. Christ -could be known in a twofold way. He could be known in his human nature, and -every one knew him this way. With this in mind he says, "Where I am going you -know, and the way you know." He could also be known as being of a divine -nature, but they did not yet perfectly know him in this way. In reference to -this, he says, "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my -Father also." This is clear from the fact that he adds, Philip, he who has -seen me has seen the Father also. He is saying in effect: If you knew me, -you would know the Father; and then you would not be saying, show us the -Father, because you would have already seen him by seeing me: "If you knew -me, you would perhaps know my Father also" [8:19]. - -
1887 Sabellius made this statement the basis of his error. -He asked what could be the meaning of he who has seen me has seen the Father -also, except that the Father and the Son are the same? - -
Hilary answers this by saying if -this were so, our Lord would have said, "he who has seen me has seen the -Father," without adding the "also."[18] -But because he adds the "also," saying, has seen the Father also, he -shows there is a distinction. Augustine says that we use the same way of -speaking when we talk about two people who are alike.[19] -We say that if you saw one you saw the other. Now the most perfect likeness of -the Father is in the Son. Therefore he says, he who has seen me has seen the -Father also. In fact, there is a greater likeness in the Son than there is -among mere human beings, because in them there can never be a likeness based on -the very same numerical form or quality, but only a likeness in species. In the -Son, however, there is the same numerical nature as in the Father. Thus, when -seeing the Son, the Father is better seen than when seeing some mere human -another mere human is seen, no matter how much alike they are.[20] - -
1888 Note that this statement excludes the error of Arius on -two points. First, it rejects his denial of consubstantiality. For it is -impossible to see the uncreated substance by seeing some created substance, -just as by knowing a substance of one genus, one cannot know a substance of -another genus. It is evident, therefore, that the Son is not a created -substance, but is consubstantial with the Father. Otherwise, one who sees the -Son would not see the Father. - -
The other error excluded is their -interpretation of 1 Timothy (1:17), "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, -the only God," as meaning that only the Father is invisible, but the Son was -often seen in his nature. But if this were so, it would follow that the Father -was also frequently seen, because one who sees the Son sees the Father also. So -since the Father is invisible as to his nature, it is impossible that the -Father was seen in his nature. - +mentioned two things. He promised something for the future, namely, +a perfect knowledge of God, when he said: "henceforth you shall +know him"; and he mentioned something about the past, namely, that +they had seen him (v 7). When Philip heard this he believed that he +had seen the Father. But now he asks to know him, saying, Lord, +show us the Father (not asking for a vision but for knowledge) +and we shall be satisfied. This is not surprising since that +vision of the Father [a knowledge] is the end of all our desires +and actions, and nothing else is necessary: "You will fill me with +joy by your face," that is, by the vision of your face [Ps 16:11]; +"He satisfies your desire with good things" [Ps 103:5].
+1884 Now the confusion is cleared up. First, we see it resolved; +secondly, this is explained further (v 10). As to the first, our +Lord chides Philip for his slowness; secondly, he states the truth, +Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father also; +thirdly, Christ objects to the very request, how can you say, +Show us the Father.
+1885 He says, Have I been with you so long, and yet you do +not know me, Philip? He is saying in effect: you should know +me, considering how long I have been living with you and talking +with you. And if you had known me, you would without doubt have +known the Father also. Therefore, since you do not know the Father, +you indicate that you do not know me. And you can be chided for +your slowness: "Are you also still without understanding?" (Mt +15:16); "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need +some one to teach you again" (Heb 5:12)
+1886 This gives rise to a question, for before, our Lord told +the disciples that they knew him, when he said, "and the way you +know" (v 4), while here he seems to say the opposite, "If you had +known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also" (v +7).
+Augustine answers this by saying that among the disciples there +were some who knew Christ as the Word of God.[17] One of these was Peter, +when he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt +16:16). There were others who did not truly know him, and Philip +was one of these. It is to the first group that our Lord says, +"Where I am going you know, and the way you know" (v 4); it is to +the second group that he says, "If you had known me, you would +without doubt have known the Father also."
+Here is another explanation. Christ could be known in a twofold +way. He could be known in his human nature, and every one knew him +this way. With this in mind he says, "Where I am going you know, +and the way you know." He could also be known as being of a divine +nature, but they did not yet perfectly know him in this way. In +reference to this, he says, "If you had known me, you would without +doubt have known my Father also." This is clear from the fact that +he adds, Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father +also. He is saying in effect: If you knew me, you would know +the Father; and then you would not be saying, show us the +Father, because you would have already seen him by seeing me: +"If you knew me, you would perhaps know my Father also" [8:19].
+1887 Sabellius made this statement the basis of his error. He +asked what could be the meaning of he who has seen me has seen +the Father also, except that the Father and the Son are the +same?
+Hilary answers this by saying if this were so, our Lord would +have said, "he who has seen me has seen the Father," without adding +the "also."[18] But because he adds the "also," saying, has +seen the Father also, he shows there is a distinction. +Augustine says that we use the same way of speaking when we talk +about two people who are alike.[19] We say that if you saw one you saw the +other. Now the most perfect likeness of the Father is in the Son. +Therefore he says, he who has seen me has seen the Father +also. In fact, there is a greater likeness in the Son than +there is among mere human beings, because in them there can never +be a likeness based on the very same numerical form or quality, but +only a likeness in species. In the Son, however, there is the same +numerical nature as in the Father. Thus, when seeing the Son, the +Father is better seen than when seeing some mere human another mere +human is seen, no matter how much alike they are.[20]
+1888 Note that this statement excludes the error of Arius on two +points. First, it rejects his denial of consubstantiality. For it +is impossible to see the uncreated substance by seeing some created +substance, just as by knowing a substance of one genus, one cannot +know a substance of another genus. It is evident, therefore, that +the Son is not a created substance, but is consubstantial with the +Father. Otherwise, one who sees the Son would not see the +Father.
+The other error excluded is their interpretation of 1 Timothy +(1:17), "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God," +as meaning that only the Father is invisible, but the Son was often +seen in his nature. But if this were so, it would follow that the +Father was also frequently seen, because one who sees the Son sees +the Father also. So since the Father is invisible as to his nature, +it is impossible that the Father was seen in his nature.
1889 Someone might question why our Lord chided Philip for -asking to see the Father after he had seen the Son, since when one sees a -picture he should not be rebuked for wanting to see the thing pictured. - -
Chrysostom answers this by saying -that after hearing about knowing and seeing the Father, Philip wanted to see -the Father with his bodily eyes, just as he thought he had seen the Son.[21] -This is what our Lord reproved, pointing out to him that he did not even see -the Son in his nature with his bodily eyes. - -
Augustine says that our Lord did -not disapprove of the request, but of the attitude behind it.[22] -Philip said, Show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied. This was -like saying: We know you, but that is not enough. Thus he believed that there -was complete sufficiency in knowing the Father, but not in knowing the Son. He -seemed to think that the Son was inferior to the Father. This is what our Lord -reproved, showing that there is the same sufficiency in knowing the Son as -there is in knowing the Father, saying, he who has seen me has seen the -Father also. - +asking to see the Father after he had seen the Son, since when one +sees a picture he should not be rebuked for wanting to see the +thing pictured.
+Chrysostom answers this by saying that after hearing about +knowing and seeing the Father, Philip wanted to see the Father with +his bodily eyes, just as he thought he had seen the Son.[21] This is what our +Lord reproved, pointing out to him that he did not even see the Son +in his nature with his bodily eyes.
+Augustine says that our Lord did not disapprove of the request, +but of the attitude behind it.[22] Philip said, Show us the Father, and we +shall be satisfied. This was like saying: We know you, but that +is not enough. Thus he believed that there was complete sufficiency +in knowing the Father, but not in knowing the Son. He seemed to +think that the Son was inferior to the Father. This is what our +Lord reproved, showing that there is the same sufficiency in +knowing the Son as there is in knowing the Father, saying, he +who has seen me has seen the Father also.
1890 Then when he says, How can you say, Show us the -Father? he shows his disapproval of the request, and of the basis of the -request. He is displeased with the request because the Father is seen in the -Son. Philip could have said what we read in Job: "I, who have spoken so -unthoughtfully, what can I reply? I will put my hand over my mouth" [39:34]. He -disapproves of the root of the request when he says, Do you not believe that -I am in the Father and the Father in me? This is like saying: You want to -possess the Father, believing that you will have sufficiency in him. But if you -believe that, Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in -me? For if you believed the latter, you would expect to find in me all the -sufficiency which is in the Father. - +Father? he shows his disapproval of the request, and of the +basis of the request. He is displeased with the request because the +Father is seen in the Son. Philip could have said what we read in +Job: "I, who have spoken so unthoughtfully, what can I reply? I +will put my hand over my mouth" [39:34]. He disapproves of the root +of the request when he says, Do you not believe that I am in the +Father and the Father in me? This is like saying: You want to +possess the Father, believing that you will have sufficiency in +him. But if you believe that, Do you not believe that I am in +the Father and the Father in me? For if you believed the +latter, you would expect to find in me all the sufficiency which is +in the Father.
1891 He says, I am in the Father and the Father in me, -because they are one in essence. This was spoken of before: "I and the Father -are one" (10:30). - -
We should note that in the divinity -essence is not related to person as it is in human beings. Among human beings, -the essence of Socrates is not Socrates, because Socrates is a composite. But -in the divinity, essence is the same with the person in reality, and so the -essence of the Father is the Father, and the essence of one Son is the Son. -Therefore, wherever the essence of the Father is, there the Father is; and -wherever the essence of the Son is, there the Son is. Now the essence of the -Father is in the Son, and the essence of the Son is in the Father. Therefore, -the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. This is how Hilary -explains it.[23] - -
1892 Now our Lord clarifies his answer: first by the works -he does himself; secondly, by the works he will do by the disciples (v 12). So -he first mentions the works he does himself; secondly, he infers a tenet of the -faith (v 11). - +because they are one in essence. This was spoken of before: "I and +the Father are one" (10:30).
+We should note that in the divinity essence is not related to +person as it is in human beings. Among human beings, the essence of +Socrates is not Socrates, because Socrates is a composite. But in +the divinity, essence is the same with the person in reality, and +so the essence of the Father is the Father, and the essence of one +Son is the Son. Therefore, wherever the essence of the Father is, +there the Father is; and wherever the essence of the Son is, there +the Son is. Now the essence of the Father is in the Son, and the +essence of the Son is in the Father. Therefore, the Son is in the +Father, and the Father in the Son. This is how Hilary explains +it.[23]
+1892 Now our Lord clarifies his answer: first by the works he +does himself; secondly, by the works he will do by the disciples (v +12). So he first mentions the works he does himself; secondly, he +infers a tenet of the faith (v 11).
1893 The belief that Christ was God could be known from two -things: from his teaching and from his miracles. Our Lord mentions these. "If I -had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have -sin" (15:24). Referring to his teaching he says, "If I had not come and spoken -to them, they would not have sin" (15:22). We also read: "No man ever spoke -like this man!" (7:46). The blind man, referring to his works, said: Never -since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man -born blind" (9:32). Our Lord shows his divinity by these two things. Referring -to his teaching, he says, The words that I say to you, by the instrument -of my human nature, I do not speak of myself, but from him who is in me, -that is, the Father: "I declare to the world what I have heard from him," the -Father (8:26). The Father, therefore, who speaks in me, is in me. Now whatever -a human being says must come from the first Word. And this first Word, the Word -of God, is from the Father. Therefore, all the words we speak must be from God. -So when anyone speaks words he has from the Father, the Father is in him. -Referring to his works, he says, the Father who dwells in me does the works, -because no one could do the works that I do: "The Son can do nothing of -himself" [5:19]. - -
1894 Chrysostom wonders how Christ can start by referring to -his words, and then bring in his works, for Christ says, the words that I -say to you ... but the Father does the works. There are two answers to -this. Chrysostom says that Christ was referring to his teaching the first time, -and then referring to his miracles.[24] -For Augustine, our Lord is referring to his words as his works: "This is the -work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (6:29).[25] -So when the Lord says, the Father does the works, we should understand -that these works are words. - -
1895 Two heresies were based on the above texts. When our -Lord said, I am in the Father, Sabellius understood this to mean that -the Father and the Son are the same. And from the statement, I do not speak -of myself, Arius inferred that the Son is inferior to the Father. Yet these -very texts refute these heresies. For if the Father and Son were the same, as -Sabellius speculated, the Son would not have said, The words that I say to -you I do not speak of myself. And if the Son were inferior to the Father, -as Arius blasphemed, he would not have said, the Father who dwells in me -does the works. - -
1896 Since our belief in the Trinity is shown by the above -two statements, our Lord concludes to this belief, saying, Do you not -believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? It was explained -above how this is to be understood. In Greek, the text reads: Believe, -that is, believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me. Or, -it is surprising that you do not believe that I am in the Father and the -Father in me. Note that before our Lord was speaking only to Philip (v 8‑10a), -but from the point where he says, the words that I say to you [v 10b], -he is speaking to all the apostles together. But if what I say to you is not -enough to show my consubstantiality, then at least believe me for the sake of -the works themselves: "The works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, -these very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:36); "Even though you do -not believe me, believe the works" (10:38). - -
1897 After clarifying what he had said by appealing to the -works he did by himself, our Lord now clarifies these things by the works he -would do through the disciples. First, he mentions the works of the disciples; -secondly, he mentions how they would do them, Whatever you ask the Father in -my name, I will do it. As to the first, he first mentions the works of the -disciples; secondly, he states the reason for what he said, because I go to -the Father. - -
1898 He says, Truly, truly, I say to you, and so -forth. He is saying in effect: The works that I do are so great that they are a -sufficient sign of my divinity; but if these are not enough for you, then look -at the works I will do through others. For the strongest sign of great power is -when a person does extraordinary things not only by himself but also through -others. So he says, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do. -These words not only show the power of the divinity in Christ, but also the -power of faith, and the union of Christ with those who believe. For just as the -Son acts because the Father dwells in him by a unity of nature, so also those -who believe act because Christ dwells in them by faith: "that Christ may dwell -in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17). Now the works which Christ -accomplished and the disciples do by the power of Christ are the miracles: "And -these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out -demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents" (Mk 16:17). - -
1899 What is remarkable is that he adds, and greater -works than these will he do. We could say that in a certain sense our Lord -does more things and greater things through his apostles than by himself. Among -the miracles of Christ the greatest was when a sick person was healed by -touching the fringe of his garment (Mt 9:20). But the sick were healed by the -shadow of Peter, as we read in Acts (5:15). And it is greater to heal by one's -shadow than by the fringe of one's garment. In another way, we could say that -Christ did more by the words of his disciples than by his own. As Augustine -says, our Lord is speaking here of works accomplished by words, when the fruit -of these words was faith.[26] -We see in Matthew that a young man was not persuaded by Christ to sell his -possessions and follow him, for when Christ said to the youth, "Go, sell what -you possess and give to the poor," we read that "he went away sorrowful" (Mt -19:21). Yet we read that at the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, -people sold their possessions and all that they owned and brought the money and -laid it at the feet of the apostles (Acts 4:34). - -
1900 Someone might find fault with this because our Lord did -not say that the apostles would do greater things, but he who believes in me. -Should we say, then, that those who do not do greater things than Christ are -not to be counted among those who believe in Christ? Of course not! That would -be too harsh. - -
We should say, rather, that Christ -works in two ways. In one way, he works without us, as in creating the heavens -and the earth, raising the dead to life, and things like that. In the other -way, he works in us but not without us: the result of this is faith, by which -the impious are brought to life. Our Lord is speaking here of what is found in -all believers: this is the result which Christ produces in us, but not without -us. The reason for this is that whoever believes is producing the same result -since what is produced in me by God is also produced in me by myself, that is, -by my free choice. Thus the Apostle says: "it was not I," that is, I alone, -"but the grace of God which is with me" (1 Cor 15:10). Christ is speaking of -this result or work when he says that believers will also do the works that -I do; and greater works than these will he do, for it is a greater thing to -justify the impious than to create the heavens and the earth. For the -justification of the impious, considered in itself, continues forever: -"Righteousness is immortal" (Wis 1:15). But the heavens and the earth will pass -away, as Luke (21:33) says. Further, effects which are physical are directed to -what is spiritual. Now the heavens and the earth are physical effects, but the -justification of the impious is a spiritual effect. - +things: from his teaching and from his miracles. Our Lord mentions +these. "If I had not done among them the works which no one else +did, they would not have sin" (15:24). Referring to his teaching he +says, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have +sin" (15:22). We also read: "No man ever spoke like this man!" +(7:46). The blind man, referring to his works, said: Never since +the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a +man born blind" (9:32). Our Lord shows his divinity by these two +things. Referring to his teaching, he says, The words that I say +to you, by the instrument of my human nature, I do not speak +of myself, but from him who is in me, that is, the Father: "I +declare to the world what I have heard from him," the Father +(8:26). The Father, therefore, who speaks in me, is in me. Now +whatever a human being says must come from the first Word. And this +first Word, the Word of God, is from the Father. Therefore, all the +words we speak must be from God. So when anyone speaks words he has +from the Father, the Father is in him. Referring to his works, he +says, the Father who dwells in me does the works, because no +one could do the works that I do: "The Son can do nothing of +himself" [5:19].
+1894 Chrysostom wonders how Christ can start by referring to his +words, and then bring in his works, for Christ says, the words +that I say to you ... but the Father does the works. There are +two answers to this. Chrysostom says that Christ was referring to +his teaching the first time, and then referring to his +miracles.[24] +For Augustine, our Lord is referring to his words as his works: +"This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" +(6:29).[25] +So when the Lord says, the Father does the works, we should +understand that these works are words.
+1895 Two heresies were based on the above texts. When our Lord +said, I am in the Father, Sabellius understood this to mean +that the Father and the Son are the same. And from the statement, +I do not speak of myself, Arius inferred that the Son is +inferior to the Father. Yet these very texts refute these heresies. +For if the Father and Son were the same, as Sabellius speculated, +the Son would not have said, The words that I say to you I do +not speak of myself. And if the Son were inferior to the +Father, as Arius blasphemed, he would not have said, the Father +who dwells in me does the works.
+1896 Since our belief in the Trinity is shown by the above two +statements, our Lord concludes to this belief, saying, Do you +not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? It +was explained above how this is to be understood. In Greek, the +text reads: Believe, that is, believe me, that I am in +the Father and the Father in me. Or, it is surprising that you +do not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me. +Note that before our Lord was speaking only to Philip (v +8‑10a), but from the point where he says, the words that I +say to you [v 10b], he is speaking to all the apostles +together. But if what I say to you is not enough to show my +consubstantiality, then at least believe me for the sake of the +works themselves: "The works which the Father has granted me to +accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness" +(5:36); "Even though you do not believe me, believe the works" +(10:38).
+1897 After clarifying what he had said by appealing to the works +he did by himself, our Lord now clarifies these things by the works +he would do through the disciples. First, he mentions the works of +the disciples; secondly, he mentions how they would do them, +Whatever you ask the Father in my name, I will do it. As to +the first, he first mentions the works of the disciples; secondly, +he states the reason for what he said, because I go to the +Father.
+1898 He says, Truly, truly, I say to you, and so forth. +He is saying in effect: The works that I do are so great that they +are a sufficient sign of my divinity; but if these are not enough +for you, then look at the works I will do through others. For the +strongest sign of great power is when a person does extraordinary +things not only by himself but also through others. So he says, +he who believes in me will also do the works that I do. +These words not only show the power of the divinity in Christ, but +also the power of faith, and the union of Christ with those who +believe. For just as the Son acts because the Father dwells in him +by a unity of nature, so also those who believe act because Christ +dwells in them by faith: "that Christ may dwell in your hearts +through faith" (Eph 3:17). Now the works which Christ accomplished +and the disciples do by the power of Christ are the miracles: "And +these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will +cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up +serpents" (Mk 16:17).
+1899 What is remarkable is that he adds, and greater works +than these will he do. We could say that in a certain sense our +Lord does more things and greater things through his apostles than +by himself. Among the miracles of Christ the greatest was when a +sick person was healed by touching the fringe of his garment (Mt +9:20). But the sick were healed by the shadow of Peter, as we read +in Acts (5:15). And it is greater to heal by one's shadow than by +the fringe of one's garment. In another way, we could say that +Christ did more by the words of his disciples than by his own. As +Augustine says, our Lord is speaking here of works accomplished by +words, when the fruit of these words was faith.[26] We see in Matthew that a +young man was not persuaded by Christ to sell his possessions and +follow him, for when Christ said to the youth, "Go, sell what you +possess and give to the poor," we read that "he went away +sorrowful" (Mt 19:21). Yet we read that at the preaching of Peter +and the other apostles, people sold their possessions and all that +they owned and brought the money and laid it at the feet of the +apostles (Acts 4:34).
+1900 Someone might find fault with this because our Lord did not +say that the apostles would do greater things, but he who +believes in me. Should we say, then, that those who do not do +greater things than Christ are not to be counted among those who +believe in Christ? Of course not! That would be too harsh.
+We should say, rather, that Christ works in two ways. In one +way, he works without us, as in creating the heavens and the earth, +raising the dead to life, and things like that. In the other way, +he works in us but not without us: the result of this is faith, by +which the impious are brought to life. Our Lord is speaking here of +what is found in all believers: this is the result which Christ +produces in us, but not without us. The reason for this is that +whoever believes is producing the same result since what is +produced in me by God is also produced in me by myself, that is, by +my free choice. Thus the Apostle says: "it was not I," that is, I +alone, "but the grace of God which is with me" (1 Cor 15:10). +Christ is speaking of this result or work when he says that +believers will also do the works that I do; and greater works +than these will he do, for it is a greater thing to justify the +impious than to create the heavens and the earth. For the +justification of the impious, considered in itself, continues +forever: "Righteousness is immortal" (Wis 1:15). But the heavens +and the earth will pass away, as Luke (21:33) says. Further, +effects which are physical are directed to what is spiritual. Now +the heavens and the earth are physical effects, but the +justification of the impious is a spiritual effect.
1901 This gives rise to a question. The creation of the holy -angels is included in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Is it then a -greater work to cooperate with Christ in one's own justification than to create -an angel? Augustine does not settle this, but he does say: "Let him who can -judge whether it is greater to create the just angels than to justify impious -men. Certainly, if each shows an equal power, the second shows greater mercy."[27] -But if we carefully consider what works our Lord is talking about here, we are -not setting the creation of the angels above the justification of the impious. -When our Lord said, and greater works than these will he do, we need not -understand this to mean all the works of Christ, but perhaps only those which -he was then doing. But then he was working by the word of faith, and it is not -as great to preach words of righteousness [or of faith] which he did without -us, as to justify sinners, which he does in us in such a way that we also do -it. - -
1902 Now he gives the reason why he said they will do -greater things, which is because I go to the Father. This can be -understood in three ways. First, according to Chrysostom: I will work as long -as I am in the world, but when I leave, you will take my place.[28] -And so, the things that I am doing you will do, and even greater things, because -I go to the Father, and after that I will do nothing by myself, that is, by -preaching. The second interpretation is this: The Jews think that if I am -killed faith in me will be eradicated. This is not true. Indeed, it will be -approved even more, and you will do greater things because I go to the Father, -that is, I will not perish, but continue in my own dignity in heaven: "Now is -the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified" (13:31). A third -interpretation: You will do greater things because I go to the Father. -He is saying in effect: Since I will be glorified more, it is appropriate that -I do greater things, and also give you the power to do greater things. Thus, -before Jesus was glorified, the Spirit was not given to the disciples in that -fullness with which it was given after: "As yet the Spirit had not been given, -because Jesus was not yet glorified" (7:39). - -
1903 Now he mentions how these things will be done: first, -the way, whatever you ask; secondly, why they will be done, that the -Father may be glorified. - -
1904 As to the first, since our Lord said, "and greater -works than these will he do," in order that the greatness of the worker might -be known from the greatness of the works, some might suppose that one who -believes in the Son of God would be greater than the Son. Our Lord excludes -this by the way the works are done. For the Son does these works by his own -authority, while one who believes in him does it by asking. So he says, Whatever -you ask the Father in my name, I will do it. - -
This eliminates the equality -between believers and Christ in three ways. First, because as was said, -believers do these works by asking: so he says, Whatever you ask. "Every -one who asks receives" (Mt 7:8). Secondly, because believers work by reason of -the Son; so he says, in my name, that is, by reason of my name: "There -is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts -4:12). For this name is above every name: "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to -thy name give glory" (Ps 115:1). Thirdly, because the Son himself does all these -works in them and through them: thus he says, I will do it. Note that -the Father is asked and the Son does the work, the reason being that the works -of the Father and the Son are inseparable: "Whatever he [the Father] does, that -the Son does likewise" (5:19). For the Father does all things through the Son: -"All things were made through him" (1:3). - +angels is included in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Is +it then a greater work to cooperate with Christ in one's own +justification than to create an angel? Augustine does not settle +this, but he does say: "Let him who can judge whether it is greater +to create the just angels than to justify impious men. Certainly, +if each shows an equal power, the second shows greater +mercy."[27] +But if we carefully consider what works our Lord is talking about +here, we are not setting the creation of the angels above the +justification of the impious. When our Lord said, and greater +works than these will he do, we need not understand this to +mean all the works of Christ, but perhaps only those which he was +then doing. But then he was working by the word of faith, and it is +not as great to preach words of righteousness [or of faith] which +he did without us, as to justify sinners, which he does in us in +such a way that we also do it.
+1902 Now he gives the reason why he said they will do greater +things, which is because I go to the Father. This can be +understood in three ways. First, according to Chrysostom: I will +work as long as I am in the world, but when I leave, you will take +my place.[28] +And so, the things that I am doing you will do, and even greater +things, because I go to the Father, and after that I will do +nothing by myself, that is, by preaching. The second interpretation +is this: The Jews think that if I am killed faith in me will be +eradicated. This is not true. Indeed, it will be approved even +more, and you will do greater things because I go to the +Father, that is, I will not perish, but continue in my own +dignity in heaven: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God +is glorified" (13:31). A third interpretation: You will do greater +things because I go to the Father. He is saying in effect: +Since I will be glorified more, it is appropriate that I do greater +things, and also give you the power to do greater things. Thus, +before Jesus was glorified, the Spirit was not given to the +disciples in that fullness with which it was given after: "As yet +the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" +(7:39).
+1903 Now he mentions how these things will be done: first, the +way, whatever you ask; secondly, why they will be done, +that the Father may be glorified.
+1904 As to the first, since our Lord said, "and greater works +than these will he do," in order that the greatness of the worker +might be known from the greatness of the works, some might suppose +that one who believes in the Son of God would be greater than the +Son. Our Lord excludes this by the way the works are done. For the +Son does these works by his own authority, while one who believes +in him does it by asking. So he says, Whatever you ask the +Father in my name, I will do it.
+This eliminates the equality between believers and Christ in +three ways. First, because as was said, believers do these works by +asking: so he says, Whatever you ask. "Every one who asks +receives" (Mt 7:8). Secondly, because believers work by reason of +the Son; so he says, in my name, that is, by reason of my +name: "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which +we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). For this name is above every name: +"Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to thy name give glory" (Ps +115:1). Thirdly, because the Son himself does all these works in +them and through them: thus he says, I will do it. Note that +the Father is asked and the Son does the work, the reason being +that the works of the Father and the Son are inseparable: "Whatever +he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise" (5:19). For the +Father does all things through the Son: "All things were made +through him" (1:3).
1905 How could he say, Whatever you ask I will do it, -since we see that his faithful ask and do not receive? According to Augustine, -we should consider here that he first says, in my name, and then adds, I -will do it.[29] -The name of Christ is the name of salvation: "You shall call his name Jesus, -for he will save his people from their sins" (Mt 1:21). Therefore, one who asks -for something pertaining to salvation asks in the name of Christ. It does -happen that someone asks for something which does not pertain to salvation. -This happens for two reasons. First, because one has a corrupt affection: as -when one asks for something to which he is attracted, but which if he did have, -would be an obstacle to his salvation. One who asks this way is not heard -because he asks wrongly: "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly" -(Jas 4:3). For when someone, because of his corrupt affection, would badly use -what he wants to receive, he does not receive it because of our Lord's -compassion. The reason being that our Lord does not just look at one's desire, -but rather the helpfulness of what is desired. For the good Lord often denies -what we ask in order to give us what we should prefer. - -
The second reason we may ask for -something which does not pertain to our salvation is our ignorance. We -sometimes ask for what we think is helpful, but really is not. But God takes -care of us, and does not do what we ask. Thus Paul, who labored more than all -others, asked our Lord three times to take away a thorn in his flesh, but he -did not receive what he asked because it was not useful for him (2 Cor 12:8). -"We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for -us with sighs too deep for words" (Rom 8:26). "You do not know what you are -asking" (Mt 20:22). Thus it is clear that when we truly ask in his name, in the -name of Jesus Christ, he will do it. - -
He says, I will do it, using -the future tense, not the present tense, because he sometimes postpones doing -what we ask so that our desire for it will increase and so that he can grant it -at the right time: "Rain will fall on you when it should fall" [Lev 26:4]; "In -a day of salvation I have helped you" (Is 49:8). Again, it sometimes happens -that we pray for people and are perhaps not heard, and this is because they put -obstacles in the way. "Do not pray for this people ... for I do not hear you" -(Jer 7:16); "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn -toward this people" (Jer 15:1). - -
1906 Then when he says, that the Father may be glorified -in the Son, he gives the reason. Augustine punctuates this passage in the -following way. "Whatever you ask the Father in my name, I will do it." Then a -new sentence begins: "That the Father may be glorified in the Son, if you ask -me anything in my name, I will do it." This is like saying: I will do what you -ask in my name so that the Father may be glorified in the Son, and -everything that the Son does is directed to the glory of the Father: "I do not -seek my own glory" (8:50). We also should direct all our works to the glory of -God: "Do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). -
-LECTURE 4 - -
- -15 "If you love me, [keep my commandments] you will keep -my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another -[Paraclete] Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, -whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you -[will] know him, for he [will dwell] dwells with you, and will be in you."[30]
1907 Above, our Lord consoled his disciples over his leaving -by promising that they would be able to approach the Father. But because it -might seem that this was in the distant future, and in the meantime they would -still be in sorrow without their Teacher, he here soothes their sorrow by -promising them the Holy Spirit. First, we see the preparation needed to receive -the Holy Spirit; secondly, the Holy Spirit is promised, he will give you -another Paraclete. Thirdly, this promise is clarified, to be with you -forever. Preparation for receiving the Holy Spirit was necessary both for -the disciples and for Christ. - -
1908 The disciples needed a twofold preparation: love in -their hearts and obedience in their work. Our Lord assumes they have one of -these, for he says, If you love me. And it is clear that you do because -you are sad over my leaving: "You also are witnesses, because you have been -with me from the beginning" (15:27). The other he commands for the future, keep -my commandments. This is like saying: You don't express your love for me by -tears but by obedience to my commands, for this is a clear sign of love: "If a -man love me, he will keep my word" (14:23). Thus, two things prepare one to -receive the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is love, he is given only to -those who love: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17). Likewise, he is given to -the obedient: "To this we are witnesses" (Acts 3:15); "I have put my Spirit -upon him" (Is 42:1). - -
1909 Yet is it true that it is the obedience of the -disciples and their love for Christ that prepare them for the Holy Spirit? It -seems not, because the love by which we love God is from the Holy Spirit: -"God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has -been given to us" (Rom 5:5). Further, our obedience is from the Holy Spirit: -"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14); "I have -run in the way of your commandments when you enlarged my heart" [Ps 119:32]. -One might answer that it is by loving the Son that we deserve to receive the -Holy Spirit, and having him, we love the Father. But this is false because our -love for the Father and the Son is the same love. - -
Accordingly, we should say that it -is characteristic of the gifts of God that if one makes good use of a gift -granted to him, he deserves to receive a greater gift and grace. And one who -badly uses a gift, has it taken from him. For we read in Matthew (25:24) that -the talent which the lazy servant received from his master was taken from him because -he did not use it well, and it was given to the one who had received five -talents. It is like this with the gift of the Holy Spirit. No one can love God -unless he has the Holy Spirit: because we do not act before we receive God's -grace, rather, the grace comes first: "He loved us first" [1 Jn 4:10]. We -should say, therefore, that the apostles first received the Holy Spirit so that -they could love God and obey his commands. But it was necessary that they make -good use, by their love and obedience, of this first gift of the Holy Spirit in -order to receive the Spirit more fully. And so the meaning is, If you love -me, by means of the Holy Spirit, whom you have, and obey my commandments, -you will receive the Holy Spirit with greater fullness. - -
1910 Another preparation was needed for Christ, and as to -this he says, And I will pray the Father, and so forth. Note that our -Lord Jesus Christ, as a human being, is the mediator between God and humankind, -as we see from 1 Timothy (2:5). And so as a human being he approaches God and -asks heavenly gifts for us, and coming to us he lifts us up and leads us to -God. And so, because he had already come to us, and by giving us the -commandments of God had led believers to God, he still had to return to the -Father and ask for spiritual gifts: "Approaching God by himself he is able to -save forever" [Heb 7:25]. He does this by asking the Father; and he says this, I -will pray the Father: "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives -and he gave gifts to men" (Eph 4:8). - -
Note that it is the same person who -asks that the Paraclete be given and who gives the Paraclete. He asks as a -human being, he gives as God. And he says I will pray in order to banish -their sorrow over his leaving them, because his very leaving is the reason they -can now receive the Holy Spirit. - +since we see that his faithful ask and do not receive? According to +Augustine, we should consider here that he first says, in my +name, and then adds, I will do it.[29] The name of Christ is the +name of salvation: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save +his people from their sins" (Mt 1:21). Therefore, one who asks for +something pertaining to salvation asks in the name of Christ. It +does happen that someone asks for something which does not pertain +to salvation. This happens for two reasons. First, because one has +a corrupt affection: as when one asks for something to which he is +attracted, but which if he did have, would be an obstacle to his +salvation. One who asks this way is not heard because he asks +wrongly: "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly" (Jas +4:3). For when someone, because of his corrupt affection, would +badly use what he wants to receive, he does not receive it because +of our Lord's compassion. The reason being that our Lord does not +just look at one's desire, but rather the helpfulness of what is +desired. For the good Lord often denies what we ask in order to +give us what we should prefer.
+The second reason we may ask for something which does not +pertain to our salvation is our ignorance. We sometimes ask for +what we think is helpful, but really is not. But God takes care of +us, and does not do what we ask. Thus Paul, who labored more than +all others, asked our Lord three times to take away a thorn in his +flesh, but he did not receive what he asked because it was not +useful for him (2 Cor 12:8). "We do not know how to pray as we +ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep +for words" (Rom 8:26). "You do not know what you are asking" (Mt +20:22). Thus it is clear that when we truly ask in his name, in the +name of Jesus Christ, he will do it.
+He says, I will do it, using the future tense, not the +present tense, because he sometimes postpones doing what we ask so +that our desire for it will increase and so that he can grant it at +the right time: "Rain will fall on you when it should fall" [Lev +26:4]; "In a day of salvation I have helped you" (Is 49:8). Again, +it sometimes happens that we pray for people and are perhaps not +heard, and this is because they put obstacles in the way. "Do not +pray for this people ... for I do not hear you" (Jer 7:16); "Though +Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn +toward this people" (Jer 15:1).
+1906 Then when he says, that the Father may be glorified in +the Son, he gives the reason. Augustine punctuates this passage +in the following way. "Whatever you ask the Father in my name, I +will do it." Then a new sentence begins: "That the Father may be +glorified in the Son, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do +it." This is like saying: I will do what you ask in my name so +that the Father may be glorified in the Son, and everything +that the Son does is directed to the glory of the Father: "I do not +seek my own glory" (8:50). We also should direct all our works to +the glory of God: "Do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).
+
+
+LECTURE 4
+++15 "If you love me, [keep my commandments] you will keep my +commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you +another [Paraclete] Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the +Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither +sees him nor knows him; you [will] know him, for he [will dwell] +dwells with you, and will be in you."[30]
+1907 Above, our Lord consoled his disciples over his leaving by +promising that they would be able to approach the Father. But +because it might seem that this was in the distant future, and in +the meantime they would still be in sorrow without their Teacher, +he here soothes their sorrow by promising them the Holy Spirit. +First, we see the preparation needed to receive the Holy Spirit; +secondly, the Holy Spirit is promised, he will give you another +Paraclete. Thirdly, this promise is clarified, to be with +you forever. Preparation for receiving the Holy Spirit was +necessary both for the disciples and for Christ.
+1908 The disciples needed a twofold preparation: love in their +hearts and obedience in their work. Our Lord assumes they have one +of these, for he says, If you love me. And it is clear that +you do because you are sad over my leaving: "You also are +witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning" +(15:27). The other he commands for the future, keep my +commandments. This is like saying: You don't express your love +for me by tears but by obedience to my commands, for this is a +clear sign of love: "If a man love me, he will keep my word" +(14:23). Thus, two things prepare one to receive the Holy Spirit. +Since the Holy Spirit is love, he is given only to those who love: +"I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17). Likewise, he is given to the +obedient: "To this we are witnesses" (Acts 3:15); "I have put my +Spirit upon him" (Is 42:1).
+1909 Yet is it true that it is the obedience of the disciples +and their love for Christ that prepare them for the Holy Spirit? It +seems not, because the love by which we love God is from the Holy +Spirit: "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the +Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5). Further, our +obedience is from the Holy Spirit: "For all who are led by the +Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14); "I have run in the way +of your commandments when you enlarged my heart" [Ps 119:32]. One +might answer that it is by loving the Son that we deserve to +receive the Holy Spirit, and having him, we love the Father. But +this is false because our love for the Father and the Son is the +same love.
+Accordingly, we should say that it is characteristic of the +gifts of God that if one makes good use of a gift granted to him, +he deserves to receive a greater gift and grace. And one who badly +uses a gift, has it taken from him. For we read in Matthew (25:24) +that the talent which the lazy servant received from his master was +taken from him because he did not use it well, and it was given to +the one who had received five talents. It is like this with the +gift of the Holy Spirit. No one can love God unless he has the Holy +Spirit: because we do not act before we receive God's grace, +rather, the grace comes first: "He loved us first" [1 Jn 4:10]. We +should say, therefore, that the apostles first received the Holy +Spirit so that they could love God and obey his commands. But it +was necessary that they make good use, by their love and obedience, +of this first gift of the Holy Spirit in order to receive the +Spirit more fully. And so the meaning is, If you love me, by +means of the Holy Spirit, whom you have, and obey my commandments, +you will receive the Holy Spirit with greater fullness.
+1910 Another preparation was needed for Christ, and as to this +he says, And I will pray the Father, and so forth. Note that +our Lord Jesus Christ, as a human being, is the mediator between +God and humankind, as we see from 1 Timothy (2:5). And so as a +human being he approaches God and asks heavenly gifts for us, and +coming to us he lifts us up and leads us to God. And so, because he +had already come to us, and by giving us the commandments of God +had led believers to God, he still had to return to the Father and +ask for spiritual gifts: "Approaching God by himself he is able to +save forever" [Heb 7:25]. He does this by asking the Father; and he +says this, I will pray the Father: "When he ascended on high +he led a host of captives and he gave gifts to men" (Eph 4:8).
+Note that it is the same person who asks that the Paraclete be +given and who gives the Paraclete. He asks as a human being, he +gives as God. And he says I will pray in order to banish +their sorrow over his leaving them, because his very leaving is the +reason they can now receive the Holy Spirit.
1911 Now we see the promise of the Holy Spirit. The word -Paraclete is Greek, and means "Consoler." He says, he will give you another -Paraclete, that is, the Father, although not without the Son, will give the -Holy Spirit, who is the Consoler, since he is the spirit of love. It is love -that causes spiritual consolation and joy: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, -joy" (Gal 5:22). The Holy Spirit is our advocate: "We do not know how to pray -as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for -words" (Rom 8:26). - -
The fact that he says, another, -indicates a distinction of persons in God, in opposition to Sabellius. - -
1912 An objection. The word "Paraclete" suggests an action -of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by saying another Paraclete, a difference -in nature seems to be indicated, because different actions indicate different -natures. Thus the Holy Spirit does not have the same nature as the Son. - -
I reply that the Holy Spirit is a -consoler and advocate, and so is the Son. John says that the Son is an -advocate: "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteousness" -(1 Jn 2:1). In Isaiah we are told he is a consoler: "The Spirit of the Lord has -sent me to comfort those who mourn" [Is 61:1]. Yet the Son and the Holy Spirit -are not consolers and advocates in the same way, if we consider the -appropriation of persons [how and why we attribute certain attributes to the -different Persons of the Trinity]. Christ is called an advocate because as a -human being he intercedes for us to the Father; the Holy Spirit is an advocate -because he makes us ask. Again, the Holy Spirit is called a consoler because he -is formally love. But the Son is a consoler because he is the Word. The Son is -a consoler in two ways: because of his teaching and because the Son gives the -Holy Spirit and incites love in our hearts. Thus the word, another, does -not indicate a different nature in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Rather, it -indicates the different way each is an advocate and a consoler.[31] - -
1913 Now the promise of the Holy Spirit is given: first, we -see how it is given; secondly, what the gift itself is; thirdly, those who -receive it (v 17). - -
1914 The Spirit is truly given because it is given forever. -Thus he says, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth. When -something is given to a person only for a time, this is not a true giving; but -there is a true giving when something is given to be kept forever. And so the -Holy Spirit is truly given because he is to remain with them forever. He is -with us for ever: in this life he enlightens and teaches us, bringing things to -our mind; and in the next life he brings us to see the very reality: "And the -Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward" (1 Sam 16:13). -Although Judas had received him, the Spirit did not remain with him forever, -because he did not receive him to remain with him forever, but only for a -temporary righteousness. - -
According to Chrysostom, one could -say that our Lord said these things to dispel a certain physical interpretation -they might have.[32] -They could have imagined that this Paraclete, which was to be given to them, -would also leave them after a while by some kind of suffering, like Christ. He -rejects this when he says, to be with you for ever. This is like saying: -The Spirit will not suffer death as I do, nor will he leave you. - -
1915 We saw above that it was said to John the Baptist: "He -on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the -Holy Spirit" (1:33). It seems from this that it is peculiar to Christ that the -Holy Spirit remain with him forever. Yet this is not true if he also remains -with the disciples forever. - -
According to Chrysostom, the -solution is that the Holy Spirit is said to remain in us by his gifts. Certain -gifts of the Holy Spirit are necessary for salvation; these are found in all -the saints and always remain in us, as charity, which never leaves (1 Cor -13:8), since it will continue into the future. Other gifts are not necessary -for salvation, but are given to the faithful so they can manifest the Spirit: -"To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor -12:7). With this in mind, the Holy Spirit is with the disciples and the saints -forever by the first type of gift. But it is peculiar to Christ that the Spirit -is always with him by the second type of gift, for Christ always has a -plenitude of power to work miracles and to prophesy, and so on. This is not -true of others, because, as Gregory says, the spirits of the prophets are not -under the control of the prophets. - +Paraclete is Greek, and means "Consoler." He says, he will give +you another Paraclete, that is, the Father, although not +without the Son, will give the Holy Spirit, who is the Consoler, +since he is the spirit of love. It is love that causes spiritual +consolation and joy: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy" (Gal +5:22). The Holy Spirit is our advocate: "We do not know how to pray +as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs +too deep for words" (Rom 8:26).
+The fact that he says, another, indicates a distinction +of persons in God, in opposition to Sabellius.
+1912 An objection. The word "Paraclete" suggests an action of +the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by saying another Paraclete, a +difference in nature seems to be indicated, because different +actions indicate different natures. Thus the Holy Spirit does not +have the same nature as the Son.
+I reply that the Holy Spirit is a consoler and advocate, and so +is the Son. John says that the Son is an advocate: "We have an +advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteousness" (1 Jn +2:1). In Isaiah we are told he is a consoler: "The Spirit of the +Lord has sent me to comfort those who mourn" [Is 61:1]. Yet the Son +and the Holy Spirit are not consolers and advocates in the same +way, if we consider the appropriation of persons [how and why we +attribute certain attributes to the different Persons of the +Trinity]. Christ is called an advocate because as a human being he +intercedes for us to the Father; the Holy Spirit is an advocate +because he makes us ask. Again, the Holy Spirit is called a +consoler because he is formally love. But the Son is a consoler +because he is the Word. The Son is a consoler in two ways: because +of his teaching and because the Son gives the Holy Spirit and +incites love in our hearts. Thus the word, another, does not +indicate a different nature in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. +Rather, it indicates the different way each is an advocate and a +consoler.[31]
+1913 Now the promise of the Holy Spirit is given: first, we see +how it is given; secondly, what the gift itself is; thirdly, those +who receive it (v 17).
+1914 The Spirit is truly given because it is given forever. Thus +he says, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth. +When something is given to a person only for a time, this is not a +true giving; but there is a true giving when something is given to +be kept forever. And so the Holy Spirit is truly given because he +is to remain with them forever. He is with us for ever: in this +life he enlightens and teaches us, bringing things to our mind; and +in the next life he brings us to see the very reality: "And the +Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward" +(1 Sam 16:13). Although Judas had received him, the Spirit did not +remain with him forever, because he did not receive him to remain +with him forever, but only for a temporary righteousness.
+According to Chrysostom, one could say that our Lord said these +things to dispel a certain physical interpretation they might +have.[32] +They could have imagined that this Paraclete, which was to be given +to them, would also leave them after a while by some kind of +suffering, like Christ. He rejects this when he says, to be with +you for ever. This is like saying: The Spirit will not suffer +death as I do, nor will he leave you.
+1915 We saw above that it was said to John the Baptist: "He on +whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes +with the Holy Spirit" (1:33). It seems from this that it is +peculiar to Christ that the Holy Spirit remain with him forever. +Yet this is not true if he also remains with the disciples +forever.
+According to Chrysostom, the solution is that the Holy Spirit is +said to remain in us by his gifts. Certain gifts of the Holy Spirit +are necessary for salvation; these are found in all the saints and +always remain in us, as charity, which never leaves (1 Cor 13:8), +since it will continue into the future. Other gifts are not +necessary for salvation, but are given to the faithful so they can +manifest the Spirit: "To each is given the manifestation of the +Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor 12:7). With this in mind, the +Holy Spirit is with the disciples and the saints forever by the +first type of gift. But it is peculiar to Christ that the Spirit is +always with him by the second type of gift, for Christ always has a +plenitude of power to work miracles and to prophesy, and so on. +This is not true of others, because, as Gregory says, the spirits +of the prophets are not under the control of the prophets.
1916 The Spirit is a most excellent gift because he is the -Spirit of truth. He is called the Spirit to show the subtlety or fineness of -his nature, for the word "spirit" is used to indicate something which is -undiscoverable and invisible. And so what is invisible is usually referred to -as a spirit. The Holy Spirit also is undiscoverable and invisible: "The Spirit -blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where -it comes from or where it goes" [3:8]. He is also called the Spirit to indicate -his power, because he moves us to act and work well. For the word "spirit" -indicates a certain impulse, and that is why the word spiritus can also -mean the wind: "For all who are impelled by the Spirit of God are sons of God" -[Rom 8:14]; "Let thy good spirit lead me on a level path" (Ps 143:10). - -
He adds, of truth, because -this Spirit proceeds from the Truth and speaks the truth, for the Holy Spirit -is nothing else than Love. (When a person is impelled to love earthly things -and the world, he is impelled by the spirit of the world: "Now we have received -not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God" (1 Cor 2:12); -and when one is impelled to works of the flesh, he is not impelled by the Holy -Spirit, as Ezekiel (13:3) says: "Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their -own spirit.") - -
But the Holy Spirit leads to the -knowledge of the truth, because he proceeds from the Truth, who says, "I am the -way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6). In us, love of the truth arises when -we have conceived and considered truth. So also in God, Love proceeds from -conceived Truth, which is the Son. And just as Love proceeds from the Truth, so -Love leads to knowledge of the truth: "He [The Holy Spirit] will glorify me -because he will receive from me and declare it to you" [16: 14]. And therefore -Ambrose says that any truth, no matter who speaks it, is from the Holy Spirit.[33] -"No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 12:3); "When -the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit -of truth ..." [15:26]. It is a characteristic of the Holy Spirit to reveal the -truth because it is love which impels one to reveal his secrets: "I have called -you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" -(15:15); "He showed it," the truth, "to his friend" [Job 36:33]. - -
1917 The ones who receive the Holy Spirit are those who -believe; he says, whom the world cannot receive. First, he shows to whom -the Spirit is not given; secondly, to whom he is given, you will know him. -First, he shows that he is not given to the world; secondly, he mentions why (v -17). - +Spirit of truth. He is called the Spirit to show the subtlety or +fineness of his nature, for the word "spirit" is used to indicate +something which is undiscoverable and invisible. And so what is +invisible is usually referred to as a spirit. The Holy Spirit also +is undiscoverable and invisible: "The Spirit blows where it wills, +and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes +from or where it goes" [3:8]. He is also called the Spirit to +indicate his power, because he moves us to act and work well. For +the word "spirit" indicates a certain impulse, and that is why the +word spiritus can also mean the wind: "For all who are +impelled by the Spirit of God are sons of God" [Rom 8:14]; "Let thy +good spirit lead me on a level path" (Ps 143:10).
+He adds, of truth, because this Spirit proceeds from the +Truth and speaks the truth, for the Holy Spirit is nothing else +than Love. (When a person is impelled to love earthly things and +the world, he is impelled by the spirit of the world: "Now we have +received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from +God" (1 Cor 2:12); and when one is impelled to works of the flesh, +he is not impelled by the Holy Spirit, as Ezekiel (13:3) says: "Woe +to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit.")
+But the Holy Spirit leads to the knowledge of the truth, because +he proceeds from the Truth, who says, "I am the way, and the truth, +and the life" (14:6). In us, love of the truth arises when we have +conceived and considered truth. So also in God, Love proceeds from +conceived Truth, which is the Son. And just as Love proceeds from +the Truth, so Love leads to knowledge of the truth: "He [The Holy +Spirit] will glorify me because he will receive from me and declare +it to you" [16: 14]. And therefore Ambrose says that any truth, no +matter who speaks it, is from the Holy Spirit.[33] "No one can say 'Jesus is +Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 12:3); "When the Paraclete +comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of +truth ..." [15:26]. It is a characteristic of the Holy Spirit to +reveal the truth because it is love which impels one to reveal his +secrets: "I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from +my Father I have made known to you" (15:15); "He showed it," the +truth, "to his friend" [Job 36:33].
+1917 The ones who receive the Holy Spirit are those who believe; +he says, whom the world cannot receive. First, he shows to +whom the Spirit is not given; secondly, to whom he is given, you +will know him. First, he shows that he is not given to the +world; secondly, he mentions why (v 17).
1918 As to the first he says, whom the world cannot -receive. Our Lord is here calling those who love the world, the "world." As -long as they love the world they cannot receive the Holy Spirit, for he is the -love of God. And no one can love, as his destination, both God and the world: -"If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him" (1 Jn 2:15). As -Gregory says: "The Holy Spirit inflames everything he fills with a desire for -invisible things. And because worldly hearts love only visible things, the -world does not receive him, because it does not rise to the love of what is -invisible. For worldly minds, the more they widen themselves with their -desires, the more they narrow the core of their hearts to the Spirit"[34] -(Morals V). "The Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful" -[Wis 1:5]. - -
1919 In regard to the second, why he is not given to the -world, he says, because it neither sees him nor knows him. For spiritual -gifts are not received unless they are desired: "She," divine Wisdom, "hastens -to make herself known to those who desire her." And they are not desired unless -they are somehow known. Now there are two reasons why they are not known. -First, because one does not want to know them; and secondly, because one is not -capable of such knowledge. These two reasons apply to the worldly. In the first -place, they do not desire this, and as to this he says, the world neither -sees him, that is, does not want to know him: "They have fixed their eyes -on the ground" [Ps 16:11]. Further, they are not capable of knowing him, and as -to this he says, nor knows him. As Augustine says: "Worldly love does -not have invisible eyes which alone can see the invisible Holy Spirit."[35] -"The sensual person does not perceive those things pertaining to the Spirit of -God" [1 Cor 2:14]. Just as a tainted tongue does not taste sweet flavors, so a -soul tainted by the corruption of the world does not taste the sweetness of -heavenly things. - -
Here is the interpretation of -Chrysostom.[36] -I say that he will give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, but -he will not assume flesh, because the world neither sees him nor knows him, -that is, it will not receive him, but only you will. - -
1920 Now he mentions, first of all, to whom the Spirit is -given; secondly, he gives the reason. The Holy Spirit is given to believers: he -says, you, who are moved by the Holy Spirit, will know him: "Now -we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God" -(1 Cor 2:12). This is because you scorn the world: "We look not to the things -that are seen but to the things that are unseen" (2 Cor 4:18). - -
The reason for this is, for he -will dwell with you. Note, first, the familiarity of the Holy Spirit with -the apostles, for he will dwell with you, that is, for your benefit: -"Let your good spirit lead me on a level path!" (Ps 143:10); "O, how good is -your spirit, O Lord, in all things" [Wis 12:1]. Secondly, note how intimate his -indwelling is, for he will be in you, that is, in the depths of your -heart: "I will put a new Spirit within them" (Ez 11:19). -
-LECTURE 5 - -
- -18 "I will not leave you [orphans] desolate; I will come -to you. 19 Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will -see me; because I live, [and] you will live also. 20 In that day you will know -that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 He who has my -commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be -loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."[37]
1921 Above, our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would be -our Consoler. But because the apostles had not risen very high in their -knowledge of the Holy Spirit, and their attention was absorbed by the presence -of Christ, this consolation seemed small to them. Thus, in this part, our Lord -promises, first, that he will return; secondly, his own gifts (v 25). -Concerning the first, he promises then that he will return; and then he gives -the reason (v 21); thirdly, he answers a question for one of the disciples (v -22). Concerning the first, he first shows that he will return; secondly, the -way he will return (v 19); and thirdly, he foretells the fruit of his return (v -20). Concerning the first, he shows why he needs to return; secondly, he -promises to return, I will come to you (v 18). - -
1922 The reason our Lord has to return is so that the -disciples would not remain orphans; he says, I will not leave you orphans. -The word "orphans" comes from the Greek, and indicates little children who do -not have a father: "We have become orphans, fatherless; our mothers are like -widows" (Lam 5:3). - -
Consider that we can have three -fathers. One father gives us existence: "We have had earthly fathers," -literally, fathers of our flesh (Heb 12:9). Another father would be one whose -evil example we follow: "You are of your father the devil" (8:44). A third -father would be one who gratuitously adopts us: "You have received the spirit -of adoption of sons" [Rom 8:15]. Now God does not adopt as his children those -who imitate their father, the devil, for "What fellowship has light with -darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). And he does not adopt those who are too attached, in a -worldly way, to their parents: "He who loves father or mother more than me is -not worthy of me" (Mt 10:37). But God does adopt as his children those who have -become orphans by being stripped of their affection for sin and by abandoning a -worldly love for their parents. "For my father and my mother have forsaken me, -but the Lord will take me up" (Ps 27:10); but much more one who has left them: -"Forget your people and your father's house; and the king will desire your -beauty" (Ps 45:10). - -
Note that Christ presents himself -to his disciples as a father. Now although the word "father," if taken to -indicate a person, is special to the Father, yet if it is taken to indicate an -essence, it is appropriate for the entire Trinity. So our Lord said above -(13:33): "Little children, yet a little while I am with you." - +receive. Our Lord is here calling those who love the world, the +"world." As long as they love the world they cannot receive the +Holy Spirit, for he is the love of God. And no one can love, as his +destination, both God and the world: "If anyone loves the world, +love for the Father is not in him" (1 Jn 2:15). As Gregory says: +"The Holy Spirit inflames everything he fills with a desire for +invisible things. And because worldly hearts love only visible +things, the world does not receive him, because it does not rise to +the love of what is invisible. For worldly minds, the more they +widen themselves with their desires, the more they narrow the core +of their hearts to the Spirit"[34] (Morals V). "The Holy Spirit of +discipline will flee from the deceitful" [Wis 1:5].
+1919 In regard to the second, why he is not given to the world, +he says, because it neither sees him nor knows him. For +spiritual gifts are not received unless they are desired: "She," +divine Wisdom, "hastens to make herself known to those who desire +her." And they are not desired unless they are somehow known. Now +there are two reasons why they are not known. First, because one +does not want to know them; and secondly, because one is not +capable of such knowledge. These two reasons apply to the worldly. +In the first place, they do not desire this, and as to this he +says, the world neither sees him, that is, does not want to +know him: "They have fixed their eyes on the ground" [Ps 16:11]. +Further, they are not capable of knowing him, and as to this he +says, nor knows him. As Augustine says: "Worldly love does +not have invisible eyes which alone can see the invisible Holy +Spirit."[35] +"The sensual person does not perceive those things pertaining to +the Spirit of God" [1 Cor 2:14]. Just as a tainted tongue does not +taste sweet flavors, so a soul tainted by the corruption of the +world does not taste the sweetness of heavenly things.
+Here is the interpretation of Chrysostom.[36] I say that he will give you +another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, but he will not assume +flesh, because the world neither sees him nor knows him, +that is, it will not receive him, but only you will.
+1920 Now he mentions, first of all, to whom the Spirit is given; +secondly, he gives the reason. The Holy Spirit is given to +believers: he says, you, who are moved by the Holy Spirit, +will know him: "Now we have received not the spirit of the +world, but the Spirit which is from God" (1 Cor 2:12). This is +because you scorn the world: "We look not to the things that are +seen but to the things that are unseen" (2 Cor 4:18).
+The reason for this is, for he will dwell with you. Note, +first, the familiarity of the Holy Spirit with the apostles, for +he will dwell with you, that is, for your benefit: "Let your +good spirit lead me on a level path!" (Ps 143:10); "O, how good is +your spirit, O Lord, in all things" [Wis 12:1]. Secondly, note how +intimate his indwelling is, for he will be in you, that is, +in the depths of your heart: "I will put a new Spirit within them" +(Ez 11:19).
+
+
+LECTURE 5
+++18 "I will not leave you [orphans] desolate; I will come to +you. 19 Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but +you will see me; because I live, [and] you will live also. 20 In +that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I +in you. 21 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who +loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I +will love him and manifest myself to him."[37]
+1921 Above, our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would be our +Consoler. But because the apostles had not risen very high in their +knowledge of the Holy Spirit, and their attention was absorbed by +the presence of Christ, this consolation seemed small to them. +Thus, in this part, our Lord promises, first, that he will return; +secondly, his own gifts (v 25). Concerning the first, he promises +then that he will return; and then he gives the reason (v 21); +thirdly, he answers a question for one of the disciples (v 22). +Concerning the first, he first shows that he will return; secondly, +the way he will return (v 19); and thirdly, he foretells the fruit +of his return (v 20). Concerning the first, he shows why he needs +to return; secondly, he promises to return, I will come to +you (v 18).
+1922 The reason our Lord has to return is so that the disciples +would not remain orphans; he says, I will not leave you +orphans. The word "orphans" comes from the Greek, and indicates +little children who do not have a father: "We have become orphans, +fatherless; our mothers are like widows" (Lam 5:3).
+Consider that we can have three fathers. One father gives us +existence: "We have had earthly fathers," literally, fathers of our +flesh (Heb 12:9). Another father would be one whose evil example we +follow: "You are of your father the devil" (8:44). A third father +would be one who gratuitously adopts us: "You have received the +spirit of adoption of sons" [Rom 8:15]. Now God does not adopt as +his children those who imitate their father, the devil, for "What +fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). And he does not +adopt those who are too attached, in a worldly way, to their +parents: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy +of me" (Mt 10:37). But God does adopt as his children those who +have become orphans by being stripped of their affection for sin +and by abandoning a worldly love for their parents. "For my father +and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord will take me up" (Ps +27:10); but much more one who has left them: "Forget your people +and your father's house; and the king will desire your beauty" (Ps +45:10).
+Note that Christ presents himself to his disciples as a father. +Now although the word "father," if taken to indicate a person, is +special to the Father, yet if it is taken to indicate an essence, +it is appropriate for the entire Trinity. So our Lord said above +(13:33): "Little children, yet a little while I am with you."
1923 Christ promises to come when he says, I will come to -you. But he had already come to them by taking on flesh: "Christ Jesus came -into the world" (1 Tim 1:15). Still, he will come in three more ways. Two of -these ways are bodily or physical. One is after the resurrection and before his -ascension, when he leaves them by death and comes to them after the -resurrection and stands among his disciples, as is stated below (c 20). The -other bodily coming will be at the end of the world: "This Jesus, who was taken -up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into -heaven" (Acts 1:11); "And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud -with power and great glory" (Lk 21:27). His third coming is spiritual and -invisible, that is, when he comes to his faithful by grace, either in life or -in death: "If he comes to me I will not see him" [Job 9:11]. - -
He says, therefore, I will come -to you, after the resurrection (and this is the first way of coming -mentioned above) and "I will see you again" (16:22). Again, I will come to you -at the end of the world: "The Lord will come to judge" [Is 3:14]. And again I -will come at your death to take you to myself: "I will come again and will take -you to myself" (above v 3). And again, I will come to you, visiting you -in a spiritual way: "We will come to him and make our home with him" (14:23). - +you. But he had already come to them by taking on flesh: +"Christ Jesus came into the world" (1 Tim 1:15). Still, he will +come in three more ways. Two of these ways are bodily or physical. +One is after the resurrection and before his ascension, when he +leaves them by death and comes to them after the resurrection and +stands among his disciples, as is stated below (c 20). The other +bodily coming will be at the end of the world: "This Jesus, who was +taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw +him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11); "And then they will see the Son of +man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk 21:27). His +third coming is spiritual and invisible, that is, when he comes to +his faithful by grace, either in life or in death: "If he comes to +me I will not see him" [Job 9:11].
+He says, therefore, I will come to you, after the +resurrection (and this is the first way of coming mentioned above) +and "I will see you again" (16:22). Again, I will come to you at +the end of the world: "The Lord will come to judge" [Is 3:14]. And +again I will come at your death to take you to myself: "I will come +again and will take you to myself" (above v 3). And again, I +will come to you, visiting you in a spiritual way: "We will +come to him and make our home with him" (14:23).
1924 Here he explains how he will return and shows that his -return to the apostles will be in a special way. Since they might think that he -would return to them as still subject to death, he excludes this, saying: Yet -a little while, and the world will see me no more. If we explain this as -referring to his return after the resurrection, the meaning is this: Yet a -little while, that is, I will be with you only for a short time in this -mortal flesh, and then I will be crucified; but after that, the world will -see me no more. This is because after the resurrection he did not show -himself to all, but only to witnesses pre‑ordained by God, that is, to -his disciples (Acts 1:3). Thus he says, but you will see me, that is, in -my glorified and immortal body. - -
He gives the reason for this when -he says, because I live and you will live. This clears up a difficulty. -The disciples could have wondered how they would see him, since he would be -dead, and they with him. So he says that this will not be the case, because -I live, that is, I will live after the resurrection: "I died, and behold I -am alive for evermore" (Rev 1:18), and you will live, because you will -not be killed with me: "If you seek me, let these men go" (18:8). Here is -another interpretation: I live, by my resurrection, and you will live, -that is, you will rejoice over this, since "The disciples were glad when they -saw the Lord" (20:20) Here, to live means to rejoice, and it is used in this -sense in Genesis [45:26]: "When Jacob heard that Joseph was ruling in Egypt his -spirit began to live again," with joy. - -
1925 Augustine finds fault with this interpretation because -our Lord said, Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more.[38] -This means that the worldly will never see him again. Yet they will see him at -the judgment, according to: "Every eye will see him" (Rev 1:7). For this reason -Augustine explains this little while as including the second coming, -when Christ comes to judge. This time is described as little in comparison to -eternity: "For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is -past" (Ps 90:4). The Apostle, in Hebrews (12:26), also refers to this time as a -little while when he is explaining the statement in Haggai: "In a little while, -I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land" (2:7). And -the world will see me no more, because after the judgment those who love -the world and the wicked will not see him, since they are going into eternal -fire. As we read in another version of Isaiah [26:10]: "Remove the wicked so -they do not see the glory of God." But you, who have followed me and -stayed with me in my trials, will see me, in an everlasting eternity: -"Your eyes will see the king in his beauty" (Is 33:17); "We shall always be -with the Lord" (1 Thess 4:17). You will see me because I live and you will -live also. This is like saying: Just as I have a glorified life in my soul -and in my body, so will you "Christ will change our lowly body to be like his -glorious body" (Phil 3:21). He says this because our glorified life is produced -by the glorified life of Christ: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ -shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22). Christ speaks of himself in the present -tense, I live, because his resurrection would be immediately after his -death, and there would be no delay; according to: "I will rise at dawn" [Ps -108:2], because "You will not let your holy one undergo corruption" [Ps 16:10]. -When referring to the disciples he uses the future, you will live, -because the resurrection of their bodies was to be postponed till the end of -the world: "Your dead shall live, their bodies shall rise" (Is 26:19). - -
1926 Now we see the fruit of his return, which is the -knowledge of those things which the apostles did not know. For, as we saw, -Peter did not know where Christ was going, and so he asked: "Lord, where are -you going?" (13:36); and Thomas did not know this, nor the way he would go: -"Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" (14:5). -Philip did not know the Father, and so he asked: "Lord, show us the Father, and -we shall be satisfied" (14:8). All these arose from ignorance of one thing: -they did not know how the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. -Thus Christ said to Philip: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the -Father in me?" (14:10). And so our Lord promises them that they will know this, -saying, In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and so forth. -This will dispel all confusion from the hearts of the disciples. - -
1927 This sentence can be explained as referring to his -coming at the time of the resurrection, and his coming at the judgment. We have -two kinds of knowledge of the mysteries of the divinity. One is imperfect, and -we have this by faith; the other is perfect, and comes by vision. These two -kinds of knowledge are mentioned in, "For now we see in a mirror dimly," by the -first kind of knowledge, "but then face to face." referring to the second kind -of knowledge (1 Cor 13:12). - -
He says, In that day, after -my resurrection, you will know that I am in my Father: and they will -know this by the knowledge of faith, because then having seen that he has -arisen and is among them, they will have a most certain faith about him, -especially those who would receive the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all -things. Or, on the other hand, In that day, of the final resurrection at -the judgment, you will know, that is, clearly and by vision: "Then I -shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood" (1 Cor 13:12). - -
1928 But what will they know? The two things he mentioned -above. First, "the Father who dwells in me does the works" [14:10]. Referring -to this he says, that I am in my Father, that is, by a consubstantiality -of nature. The other thing they will know is what he said about doing works -through the disciples, when he said, "he who believes in me will also do the -works that I do" (14:12). And referring to this he says, and you in me, and -I in you. - +return to the apostles will be in a special way. Since they might +think that he would return to them as still subject to death, he +excludes this, saying: Yet a little while, and the world will +see me no more. If we explain this as referring to his return +after the resurrection, the meaning is this: Yet a little +while, that is, I will be with you only for a short time in +this mortal flesh, and then I will be crucified; but after that, +the world will see me no more. This is because after the +resurrection he did not show himself to all, but only to witnesses +pre‑ordained by God, that is, to his disciples (Acts 1:3). +Thus he says, but you will see me, that is, in my glorified +and immortal body.
+He gives the reason for this when he says, because I live and +you will live. This clears up a difficulty. The disciples could +have wondered how they would see him, since he would be dead, and +they with him. So he says that this will not be the case, +because I live, that is, I will live after the resurrection: +"I died, and behold I am alive for evermore" (Rev 1:18), and you +will live, because you will not be killed with me: "If you seek +me, let these men go" (18:8). Here is another interpretation: I +live, by my resurrection, and you will live, that is, you +will rejoice over this, since "The disciples were glad when they +saw the Lord" (20:20) Here, to live means to rejoice, and it is +used in this sense in Genesis [45:26]: "When Jacob heard that +Joseph was ruling in Egypt his spirit began to live again," with +joy.
+1925 Augustine finds fault with this interpretation because our +Lord said, Yet a little while, and the world will see me no +more.[38] This means that the worldly will +never see him again. Yet they will see him at the judgment, +according to: "Every eye will see him" (Rev 1:7). For this reason +Augustine explains this little while as including the second +coming, when Christ comes to judge. This time is described as +little in comparison to eternity: "For a thousand years in your +sight are but as yesterday when it is past" (Ps 90:4). The Apostle, +in Hebrews (12:26), also refers to this time as a little while when +he is explaining the statement in Haggai: "In a little while, I +will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land" +(2:7). And the world will see me no more, because after the +judgment those who love the world and the wicked will not see him, +since they are going into eternal fire. As we read in another +version of Isaiah [26:10]: "Remove the wicked so they do not see +the glory of God." But you, who have followed me and stayed +with me in my trials, will see me, in an everlasting +eternity: "Your eyes will see the king in his beauty" (Is 33:17); +"We shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thess 4:17). You will see me +because I live and you will live also. This is like saying: +Just as I have a glorified life in my soul and in my body, so will +you "Christ will change our lowly body to be like his glorious +body" (Phil 3:21). He says this because our glorified life is +produced by the glorified life of Christ: "For as in Adam all die, +so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22). Christ +speaks of himself in the present tense, I live, because his +resurrection would be immediately after his death, and there would +be no delay; according to: "I will rise at dawn" [Ps 108:2], +because "You will not let your holy one undergo corruption" [Ps +16:10]. When referring to the disciples he uses the future, you +will live, because the resurrection of their bodies was to be +postponed till the end of the world: "Your dead shall live, their +bodies shall rise" (Is 26:19).
+1926 Now we see the fruit of his return, which is the knowledge +of those things which the apostles did not know. For, as we saw, +Peter did not know where Christ was going, and so he asked: "Lord, +where are you going?" (13:36); and Thomas did not know this, nor +the way he would go: "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how +can we know the way?" (14:5). Philip did not know the Father, and +so he asked: "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied" +(14:8). All these arose from ignorance of one thing: they did not +know how the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. +Thus Christ said to Philip: "Do you not believe that I am in the +Father and the Father in me?" (14:10). And so our Lord promises +them that they will know this, saying, In that day you will know +that I am in my Father, and so forth. This will dispel all +confusion from the hearts of the disciples.
+1927 This sentence can be explained as referring to his coming +at the time of the resurrection, and his coming at the judgment. We +have two kinds of knowledge of the mysteries of the divinity. One +is imperfect, and we have this by faith; the other is perfect, and +comes by vision. These two kinds of knowledge are mentioned in, +"For now we see in a mirror dimly," by the first kind of knowledge, +"but then face to face." referring to the second kind of knowledge +(1 Cor 13:12).
+He says, In that day, after my resurrection, you will +know that I am in my Father: and they will know this by the +knowledge of faith, because then having seen that he has arisen and +is among them, they will have a most certain faith about him, +especially those who would receive the Holy Spirit, who would teach +them all things. Or, on the other hand, In that day, of the +final resurrection at the judgment, you will know, that is, +clearly and by vision: "Then I shall understand fully, even as I +have been fully understood" (1 Cor 13:12).
+1928 But what will they know? The two things he mentioned above. +First, "the Father who dwells in me does the works" [14:10]. +Referring to this he says, that I am in my Father, that is, +by a consubstantiality of nature. The other thing they will know is +what he said about doing works through the disciples, when he said, +"he who believes in me will also do the works that I do" (14:12). +And referring to this he says, and you in me, and I in +you.
1929 Here our Lord seems to say that the relation between -himself and the Father is like the relation of the disciples to himself. For -this reason the Arians maintained that just as the disciples are inferior to -Christ and not consubstantial with him, so the Son is inferior to the Father -and distinct from him in substance. One should answer this by saying that when -Christ says, I am in my Father, he means by a consubstantiality of -nature: "I and the Father are one" (10:30); "And the Word was with God" (1:1). - +himself and the Father is like the relation of the disciples to +himself. For this reason the Arians maintained that just as the +disciples are inferior to Christ and not consubstantial with him, +so the Son is inferior to the Father and distinct from him in +substance. One should answer this by saying that when Christ says, +I am in my Father, he means by a consubstantiality of +nature: "I and the Father are one" (10:30); "And the Word was with +God" (1:1).
1930 The statement, and you in me, means that the -disciples are in Christ. For what is protected or shielded by something is said -to be in that thing, like something contained in its container. In this way the -affairs of a kingdom are said to be in the hands of the king. And with this -meaning it is said that "in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts -17:28). And I in you, remaining within you, and acting and indwelling -within you by grace: "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph -3:17); "You desire proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor 113:3). - -
Hilary gives another exposition. And -you in me, that is, you will be in me through your nature, which I have -taken on: for in taking on our nature he took us all on: "He did not take hold -of the angels, but he did take hold of the seed of Abraham" [Heb 2:16]. And -I in you, that is, I will be in you when you receive my sacrament, for when -one receives the body of Christ, Christ is in him: "He who eats my flesh and drinks -my blood abides in me, and I in him" (6:56).[39] - -
Another interpretation: and you -in me, and I in you, that is, by our mutual love, for we read: "God is -love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn -4:16). And you did not know these things, but you will know them in that day. - +disciples are in Christ. For what is protected or shielded by +something is said to be in that thing, like something contained in +its container. In this way the affairs of a kingdom are said to be +in the hands of the king. And with this meaning it is said that "in +him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). And I in +you, remaining within you, and acting and indwelling within you +by grace: "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph +3:17); "You desire proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor +113:3).
+Hilary gives another exposition. And you in me, that is, +you will be in me through your nature, which I have taken on: for +in taking on our nature he took us all on: "He did not take hold of +the angels, but he did take hold of the seed of Abraham" [Heb +2:16]. And I in you, that is, I will be in you when you +receive my sacrament, for when one receives the body of Christ, +Christ is in him: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides +in me, and I in him" (6:56).[39]
+Another interpretation: and you in me, and I in you, that +is, by our mutual love, for we read: "God is love, and he who +abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). +And you did not know these things, but you will know them in that +day.
1931 Now the reason for his return is given, and our Lord -mentions two reasons why he is seen by the faithful and not by the world. The -first is their true love for God; the second is God's love for them (v 21b). - -
1932 As to the first he says, he who has my commandments -and keeps them, he it is who loves me. Note that true love is love which -appears and proves itself by actions: for love is revealed by its actions. -Since to love someone is to will that person something good and to desire what -this person wants, one does not seem to truly love a person if he does not -accomplish the will of the beloved or do what he knows this person wants. And -so one who does not do the will of God does not seem to truly love him. Thus he -says, he who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me, -that is, with a true love for me. - +mentions two reasons why he is seen by the faithful and not by the +world. The first is their true love for God; the second is God's +love for them (v 21b).
+1932 As to the first he says, he who has my commandments and +keeps them, he it is who loves me. Note that true love is love +which appears and proves itself by actions: for love is revealed by +its actions. Since to love someone is to will that person something +good and to desire what this person wants, one does not seem to +truly love a person if he does not accomplish the will of the +beloved or do what he knows this person wants. And so one who does +not do the will of God does not seem to truly love him. Thus he +says, he who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who +loves me, that is, with a true love for me.
1933 Some have these commandments of God in their heart, by -remembering them and continually meditating on them: "I have laid up your word -in my heart, that I might not sin against you" (Ps 119:11). But this is not -enough unless they are kept in one's actions: "A good understanding have all -those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). Others have these commandments on their -lips, by preaching and exhorting: "How sweet are your words to my taste" (Ps -119:103). They also should follow them in their actions, because "He who does -them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt -5:19). Thus in Matthew (c 23), God reprimands those who speak but do not act. -Others have them by hearing them, gladly and earnestly listening to them: "He -who is of God hears the words of God" (8:47). Yet this is not enough unless -they keep them in their actions, "for it is not the hearers of the law who are -righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Rom -2:13); "Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which -endures to eternal life" (6:27). Therefore, those who have the commandments [in -the above ways] do keep them to a certain extent; but they still have to -persist in keeping them. For this reason Augustine says: "The person who keeps -the commandments in his memory and keeps them in his life, who has them in his -speech and keeps them in his conduct, who has them by hearing them and keeps -them by doing them, who has them by doing and persisting in doing them, this is -one who loves me."[40] - +remembering them and continually meditating on them: "I have laid +up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you" (Ps +119:11). But this is not enough unless they are kept in one's +actions: "A good understanding have all those who practice it" (Ps +111:10). Others have these commandments on their lips, by preaching +and exhorting: "How sweet are your words to my taste" (Ps 119:103). +They also should follow them in their actions, because "He who does +them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of +heaven" (Mt 5:19). Thus in Matthew (c 23), God reprimands those who +speak but do not act. Others have them by hearing them, gladly and +earnestly listening to them: "He who is of God hears the words of +God" (8:47). Yet this is not enough unless they keep them in their +actions, "for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous +before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Rom +2:13); "Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food +which endures to eternal life" (6:27). Therefore, those who have +the commandments [in the above ways] do keep them to a certain +extent; but they still have to persist in keeping them. For this +reason Augustine says: "The person who keeps the commandments in +his memory and keeps them in his life, who has them in his speech +and keeps them in his conduct, who has them by hearing them and +keeps them by doing them, who has them by doing and persisting in +doing them, this is one who loves me."[40]
1934 As for the second reason why he will be seen by the -faithful, he says, he who loves me will be loved by my Father. At first -glance this does not seem to make sense. Does God love us because we love him? -Assuredly not; for we read: "not that we loved God, but because he has first -loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. - -
Therefore, we should understand -this statement in the light of what was said before, "He who has my -commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me." This does not mean that -one keeps the commandments and as a result of this loves. But rather, one -loves, and as a result of this, keeps the commandments. In the same way, we should -say here that one is loved by the Father, and as a result he loves Christ, and -not that one is loved because he loves. Therefore, we love the Son because the -Father loves us. For it is a characteristic of true love that it draws the one -loved to love the one who loves him: "I have loved you with an everlasting -love, and therefore I have drawn you having compassion on you" [Jer 31:3]. - -
1935 Because the Father's love is not without the Son's -love, since it is the same love in each, "Whatever the Father does, that the -Son does likewise" [5:19], he adds, and I will love him. Why does he -say, I will love, using the future, since the Father and the Son love -all things from eternity? We should answer that love, considered as being in -the divine will, is eternal; but considered as manifested in the accomplishment -of some work and effect, is temporal. So the meaning is: and I will love him, -that is, I will show the effect of my love, because I will manifest myself -to him: for I love in order to manifest myself. - -
1936 Note that one's love for another is sometimes qualified -and sometimes absolute. It is qualified when one wills the other some -particular good; but it is absolute when one wills the other all good. Now God -loves every created thing in a qualified sense, because he wills some good to -every creature, even to the demons, for example, that they live and understand -and exist. There are particular goods. But God loves absolutely those to whom -he wills all good, that is, that they have God himself. And to have God is to -have truth, for God is Truth. But truth is had or possessed when it is known. -So God, who is Truth, truly and absolutely loves those to whom he manifests -himself. This is what he says, and I will manifest myself to him, that -is, in the future, by glory, which is the ultimate effect of future beatitude: -"He showed it to his friend" [Job 36:33]; "She hastens to make herself known to -those who desire her" (Wis 6:13). - -
1937 Someone might ask: The Father will manifest himself, -will he not? Yes, both the Father and the Son. For the Son manifests himself -and the Father at the same time, because the Son is the Word of the Father: "No -one knows the Father except the Son" (Mt 11:27). If in the meantime the Son -manifests himself to anyone in some way, this is a sign of God's love. And this -can be a reason why the world will not see him, because he will not manifest -himself to it because it does not love him. -
-LECTURE 6 - -
- -22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that -you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23 Jesus answered him, -"If a man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we -will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me does -not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who -sent me. 25 These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. 26 -But the [Paraclete] Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my -name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I -have said to you."[41]
1938 Above, our Lord promised the disciples that he would -come to them; here he clears up a perplexity for one of the disciples. First, -we see the bewildered disciple; secondly, Christ's answer (v 23). - -
1939 With respect to the first, when those who are humble -and saintly hear great things about themselves, they are usually astonished and -bewildered. Now the disciples had just heard our Lord say, "Yet a little while, -and the world will see me no more, but you will see me," and so on. So it -seemed that he was preferring the apostles to the entire world. Thus Judas, the -brother of James, whose letter is part of Holy Scripture, was bewildered and -astonished, and said, Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, -and not to the world? It is like saying: Why will you do this? Are we -superior to the whole world? David said something like this: "Who am I, O Lord -God, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?" (2 Sam 7:18). -And the righteous also say: "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you?" -(Mt 25:37). - -
1940 Then, Christ's answer is given: first, Christ states -the reason why he will manifest himself to the disciples and not to the world; -secondly, he explains something he had said (v 24b). He shows, first, why he -will manifest himself to his disciples; secondly, why he will not manifest -himself to the world, at he who does not love me. As to the first, we -see the fitness of the disciples to have Christ manifest himself to them; -secondly, we see the manner and order of this manifestation, at and my -Father will love him (v 23). In regard to the first, he mentions two things -which make a person fit to receive God's manifestation. The first, is charity, -the second is obedience. - +faithful, he says, he who loves me will be loved by my +Father. At first glance this does not seem to make sense. Does +God love us because we love him? Assuredly not; for we read: "not +that we loved God, but because he has first loved us" [1 Jn +4:10].
+Therefore, we should understand this statement in the light of +what was said before, "He who has my commandments and keeps them, +he it is who loves me." This does not mean that one keeps the +commandments and as a result of this loves. But rather, one loves, +and as a result of this, keeps the commandments. In the same way, +we should say here that one is loved by the Father, and as a result +he loves Christ, and not that one is loved because he loves. +Therefore, we love the Son because the Father loves us. For it is a +characteristic of true love that it draws the one loved to love the +one who loves him: "I have loved you with an everlasting love, and +therefore I have drawn you having compassion on you" [Jer +31:3].
+1935 Because the Father's love is not without the Son's love, +since it is the same love in each, "Whatever the Father does, that +the Son does likewise" [5:19], he adds, and I will love him. +Why does he say, I will love, using the future, since the +Father and the Son love all things from eternity? We should answer +that love, considered as being in the divine will, is eternal; but +considered as manifested in the accomplishment of some work and +effect, is temporal. So the meaning is: and I will love him, +that is, I will show the effect of my love, because I will +manifest myself to him: for I love in order to manifest +myself.
+1936 Note that one's love for another is sometimes qualified and +sometimes absolute. It is qualified when one wills the other some +particular good; but it is absolute when one wills the other all +good. Now God loves every created thing in a qualified sense, +because he wills some good to every creature, even to the demons, +for example, that they live and understand and exist. There are +particular goods. But God loves absolutely those to whom he wills +all good, that is, that they have God himself. And to have God is +to have truth, for God is Truth. But truth is had or possessed when +it is known. So God, who is Truth, truly and absolutely loves those +to whom he manifests himself. This is what he says, and I will +manifest myself to him, that is, in the future, by glory, which +is the ultimate effect of future beatitude: "He showed it to his +friend" [Job 36:33]; "She hastens to make herself known to those +who desire her" (Wis 6:13).
+1937 Someone might ask: The Father will manifest himself, will +he not? Yes, both the Father and the Son. For the Son manifests +himself and the Father at the same time, because the Son is the +Word of the Father: "No one knows the Father except the Son" (Mt +11:27). If in the meantime the Son manifests himself to anyone in +some way, this is a sign of God's love. And this can be a reason +why the world will not see him, because he will not manifest +himself to it because it does not love him.
+
+
+LECTURE 6
+++22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that +you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23 Jesus +answered him, "If a man love me, he will keep my word, and my +Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home +with him. 24 He who does not love me does not keep my words; and +the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. +25 These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. 26 +But the [Paraclete] Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father +will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to +your remembrance all that I have said to you."[41]
+1938 Above, our Lord promised the disciples that he would come +to them; here he clears up a perplexity for one of the disciples. +First, we see the bewildered disciple; secondly, Christ's answer (v +23).
+1939 With respect to the first, when those who are humble and +saintly hear great things about themselves, they are usually +astonished and bewildered. Now the disciples had just heard our +Lord say, "Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, +but you will see me," and so on. So it seemed that he was +preferring the apostles to the entire world. Thus Judas, the +brother of James, whose letter is part of Holy Scripture, was +bewildered and astonished, and said, Lord, how is it that you +will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world? It is like +saying: Why will you do this? Are we superior to the whole world? +David said something like this: "Who am I, O Lord God, and what is +my house, that you have brought me thus far?" (2 Sam 7:18). And the +righteous also say: "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed +you?" (Mt 25:37).
+1940 Then, Christ's answer is given: first, Christ states the +reason why he will manifest himself to the disciples and not to the +world; secondly, he explains something he had said (v 24b). He +shows, first, why he will manifest himself to his disciples; +secondly, why he will not manifest himself to the world, at he +who does not love me. As to the first, we see the fitness of +the disciples to have Christ manifest himself to them; secondly, we +see the manner and order of this manifestation, at and my Father +will love him (v 23). In regard to the first, he mentions two +things which make a person fit to receive God's manifestation. The +first, is charity, the second is obedience.
1941 As to charity, he says, If a man loves me. Three -things are necessary for a person who wants to see God. First, one must draw -near to God: "Those who approach his feet will receive his teaching" [Deut -33:3]. Secondly, one must lift up his eyes in order to see God: "Lift up your -eyes on high and see who created these things" [Is 40:26]. And thirdly, one -must take time to look, for spiritual things cannot be seen if one is absorbed -by earthly things: "Take time and see that the Lord is sweet" [Ps 34:8]. Now it -is charity which accomplishes these three things. Charity joins our soul to -God: "He who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). -It also makes us look at God: "For where your treasure is, there will your -heart be also" (Mt 6:21). As the saying goes: "Where your love is, there your -eyes are." Charity also frees us from worldly matters: "If any one loves the -world, perfect love for God is not in him" [1 Jn 2:15]. Thus, to turn it about, -one who perfectly loves God, does not love the world. - -
1942 Obedience follows from charity; and so he says, he -will keep my word. Gregory says: "The proof of love is one's actions. Love -for God is never lazy: if it is present it accomplishes great things; if it -refuses to work, it is not love."[42] -For the will, especially when it is concerned with an end, moves the other -powers to their actions: for a person does not rest until he does those things -which will bring him to his intended end, especially if it is intensely -desired. And so, when a person's will is intent on God, who is its end, it -moves all powers to do those things which obtain him. Now it is charity which -makes one intent on God, and thus it is charity which causes us to keep the -commandments: "The love of Christ controls us" (2 Cor 5:14); "Its flashes are -flashes of fire" (Song 8:6). And through obedience a person is rendered fit to -see God: "Through your precepts," that is, as kept by me, "I get understanding" -(Ps 119:104). Again, "I understood more than the aged" (Ps 119:100). - -
1943 Then when he says, and my Father will love him, -we see the manner and order of this manifestation. Three things are needed so a -divine manifestation can be made to us. The first is divine love; and he refers -to this when he says, and my Father will love him. We explained above -why the future tense is used, will love, which is that he is referring -to the effect of love, although from the point of view of his willing to do -good, God loves us from eternity: "Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated -Esau" (Mal 1:2). Jesus does not say here, "I will love him," because he had -already made that clear to them before: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17). -It remained for him to say that the Father would love them: "He loved the -people: all the saints are in his hand" [Deut 4:37]. - +things are necessary for a person who wants to see God. First, one +must draw near to God: "Those who approach his feet will receive +his teaching" [Deut 33:3]. Secondly, one must lift up his eyes in +order to see God: "Lift up your eyes on high and see who created +these things" [Is 40:26]. And thirdly, one must take time to look, +for spiritual things cannot be seen if one is absorbed by earthly +things: "Take time and see that the Lord is sweet" [Ps 34:8]. Now +it is charity which accomplishes these three things. Charity joins +our soul to God: "He who abides in love abides in God, and God +abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). It also makes us look at God: "For +where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Mt 6:21). +As the saying goes: "Where your love is, there your eyes are." +Charity also frees us from worldly matters: "If any one loves the +world, perfect love for God is not in him" [1 Jn 2:15]. Thus, to +turn it about, one who perfectly loves God, does not love the +world.
+1942 Obedience follows from charity; and so he says, he will +keep my word. Gregory says: "The proof of love is one's +actions. Love for God is never lazy: if it is present it +accomplishes great things; if it refuses to work, it is not +love."[42] +For the will, especially when it is concerned with an end, moves +the other powers to their actions: for a person does not rest until +he does those things which will bring him to his intended end, +especially if it is intensely desired. And so, when a person's will +is intent on God, who is its end, it moves all powers to do those +things which obtain him. Now it is charity which makes one intent +on God, and thus it is charity which causes us to keep the +commandments: "The love of Christ controls us" (2 Cor 5:14); "Its +flashes are flashes of fire" (Song 8:6). And through obedience a +person is rendered fit to see God: "Through your precepts," that +is, as kept by me, "I get understanding" (Ps 119:104). Again, "I +understood more than the aged" (Ps 119:100).
+1943 Then when he says, and my Father will love him, we +see the manner and order of this manifestation. Three things are +needed so a divine manifestation can be made to us. The first is +divine love; and he refers to this when he says, and my Father +will love him. We explained above why the future tense is used, +will love, which is that he is referring to the effect of +love, although from the point of view of his willing to do good, +God loves us from eternity: "Yet I have loved Jacob but I have +hated Esau" (Mal 1:2). Jesus does not say here, "I will love him," +because he had already made that clear to them before: "I love +those who love me" (Prv 8:17). It remained for him to say that the +Father would love them: "He loved the people: all the saints are in +his hand" [Deut 4:37].
1944 The second thing needed is that the divine come to us; -referring to this, he says, and we will come to him. An objection to -this is that for a thing to come, it has to change its place. But God does not -change. Therefore, I answer that God is said to come to us not because he moves -to us, but because we move to him. Something comes into a place in which it -previously was not: but this does not apply to God since he is everywhere: "Do -I not fill heaven and earth?" (Jer 23:24). Rather, God is said to come to -someone because he is there in a new way, in a way he had not been there -before, that is, by the effect of his grace. It is by this effect of grace that -he makes us approach him. - -
1945 According to Augustine, God comes to us in three ways -and we go to him in the same three ways.[43] -First, he comes to us by filling us with his effects; and we go to him by -receiving them: "Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my -produce" (Sir 24:19). Secondly, God comes to us by enlightening us; and we go -to him by thinking of him: "Come to him and be enlightened" [Ps 33:6]. Thirdly, -he comes to us by helping us; and we go to him by obeying, because we cannot -obey unless helped by Christ: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord" -(Is 2:3). - +referring to this, he says, and we will come to him. An +objection to this is that for a thing to come, it has to change its +place. But God does not change. Therefore, I answer that God is +said to come to us not because he moves to us, but because we move +to him. Something comes into a place in which it previously was +not: but this does not apply to God since he is everywhere: "Do I +not fill heaven and earth?" (Jer 23:24). Rather, God is said to +come to someone because he is there in a new way, in a way he had +not been there before, that is, by the effect of his grace. It is +by this effect of grace that he makes us approach him.
+1945 According to Augustine, God comes to us in three ways and +we go to him in the same three ways.[43] First, he comes to us +by filling us with his effects; and we go to him by receiving them: +"Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce" +(Sir 24:19). Secondly, God comes to us by enlightening us; and we +go to him by thinking of him: "Come to him and be enlightened" [Ps +33:6]. Thirdly, he comes to us by helping us; and we go to him by +obeying, because we cannot obey unless helped by Christ: "Come, let +us go up to the mountain of the Lord" (Is 2:3).
1946 Why does he not mention the Holy Spirit? Augustine says -that we do not read here that the Spirit will be excluded when the Father and -Son come, because we read above that the Spirit was "to be with you for ever" -(v 16). Since in the Trinity there is a distinction of Persons and a unity of -essence, sometimes the three persons are mentioned to indicate the distinction -of the persons. And sometimes only two of the three persons are mentioned to -indicate the unity of essence. Or again, one could say that since the Holy -Spirit is nothing other than the love of the Father and the Son, when the -Father and Son are mentioned, the Spirit is implied. - -
1947 The third thing required for the manifestation of God -is the continuation of each of the above, that is, of the love of God and of -his coming to us. In regard to these he says, and make our home with him. -Two things are indicated here. First, when he says, home, he indicates -the stability with which we cling to God. God comes to some by faith, but does -not remain because "they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall -away" (Lk 8:13). He comes to others through their sorrow for sin; yet he does -not stay with them because they return to their sins: "Like a dog that returns -to his vomit is a fool that repeats his folly" (Prv 26:11). But he remains -forever in his predestined: "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt -28:20). Secondly, these words indicate the intimacy of Christ with us: with -him, that is, with the one who loves and obeys him, since he takes pleasure -in us, and has us take pleasure in him, "delighting in the sons of men" (Prv -8:31). - -
1948 Chrysostom gives this a different meaning.[44] -He says that when Judas heard I will not leave you orphans ... but you will -see me, he thought that after his death Christ would come to them like the -dead appear to us in a dream. So he asks, how is it that you will manifest -yourself to us, and not to the world? This was like saying: How unfortunate -for us! You will die and can only help us as the dead do. To exclude this -Christ says, I and the Father will come to him (v 23), that is, as the -Father manifests himself, so I do also, and make our home with him, -which is not done in dreams. - -
1949 Now he gives the reason why he will not manifest -himself to the world: this reason is the lack of those things on account of -which he says that he will manifest himself. For when the cause is absent, the -effect is absent. Now the causes for a divine manifestation to be made to the -worldly are not found in them. And so God will not manifest himself to the -world and the worldly. - -
It is clear that they do not have -the cause, because the world does not love him. Referring to this he says, he -who does not love me. Further, they do not obey him; and so he says, does -not keep my words. As Gregory says: "To love God it is necessary to use our -words, our minds and our lives."[45] -The reason is obvious why God will manifest himself to his own, and not to the +that we do not read here that the Spirit will be excluded when the +Father and Son come, because we read above that the Spirit was "to +be with you for ever" (v 16). Since in the Trinity there is a +distinction of Persons and a unity of essence, sometimes the three +persons are mentioned to indicate the distinction of the persons. +And sometimes only two of the three persons are mentioned to +indicate the unity of essence. Or again, one could say that since +the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the love of the Father and +the Son, when the Father and Son are mentioned, the Spirit is +implied.
+1947 The third thing required for the manifestation of God is +the continuation of each of the above, that is, of the love of God +and of his coming to us. In regard to these he says, and make +our home with him. Two things are indicated here. First, when +he says, home, he indicates the stability with which we +cling to God. God comes to some by faith, but does not remain +because "they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall +away" (Lk 8:13). He comes to others through their sorrow for sin; +yet he does not stay with them because they return to their sins: +"Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool that repeats his +folly" (Prv 26:11). But he remains forever in his predestined: "I +am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20). Secondly, +these words indicate the intimacy of Christ with us: with +him, that is, with the one who loves and obeys him, since he +takes pleasure in us, and has us take pleasure in him, "delighting +in the sons of men" (Prv 8:31).
+1948 Chrysostom gives this a different meaning.[44] He says that when Judas +heard I will not leave you orphans ... but you will see me, +he thought that after his death Christ would come to them like the +dead appear to us in a dream. So he asks, how is it that you +will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world? This was +like saying: How unfortunate for us! You will die and can only help +us as the dead do. To exclude this Christ says, I and the Father +will come to him (v 23), that is, as the Father manifests +himself, so I do also, and make our home with him, which is +not done in dreams.
+1949 Now he gives the reason why he will not manifest himself to +the world: this reason is the lack of those things on account of +which he says that he will manifest himself. For when the cause is +absent, the effect is absent. Now the causes for a divine +manifestation to be made to the worldly are not found in them. And +so God will not manifest himself to the world and the worldly.
+It is clear that they do not have the cause, because the world +does not love him. Referring to this he says, he who does not +love me. Further, they do not obey him; and so he says, does +not keep my words. As Gregory says: "To love God it is +necessary to use our words, our minds and our lives."[45] The reason is +obvious why God will manifest himself to his own, and not to the world. It is because his own really have love, and it is love which -distinguishes the saints from the world: "He hides the light from the proud. He -shows his friend that he owns it" [Job 36:32]; "The deep says 'It is not in me' -and the sea," that is, one who is disordered, "says, 'It is not with me.'" (Job -28:14). - -
1950 Then when he says, and the word which you hear is -not mine but the Father's, he clears up what he had just said, "If a man -loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will -come to him." For someone could say that there was no reason for this statement -(v 23), and it would be more reasonable to have said: "I will love him, and I -will come to him." To exclude this idea he says, and the word which you hear -is not mine, that is, it is not mine as coming from myself, but it is mine -as coming from another, from the Father, who sent me. It is like saying: One -who does not hear this word does not love only me, he also does not love the -Father. And therefore, one who loves both Christ and the Father deserves a -manifestation of each. So he says: and the word which you hear, spoken -by me, as a human being, is indeed mine insofar as I speak it, and yet it is -not mine, insofar as it is mine from another: "My teaching is not mine" -(7:16); "The words that I say to you I do not speak of my self" [14:10]. - +distinguishes the saints from the world: "He hides the light from +the proud. He shows his friend that he owns it" [Job 36:32]; "The +deep says 'It is not in me' and the sea," that is, one who is +disordered, "says, 'It is not with me.'" (Job 28:14).
+1950 Then when he says, and the word which you hear is not +mine but the Father's, he clears up what he had just said, "If +a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will +love him, and we will come to him." For someone could say +that there was no reason for this statement (v 23), and it would be +more reasonable to have said: "I will love him, and I will come to +him." To exclude this idea he says, and the word which you hear +is not mine, that is, it is not mine as coming from myself, but +it is mine as coming from another, from the Father, who sent me. It +is like saying: One who does not hear this word does not love only +me, he also does not love the Father. And therefore, one who loves +both Christ and the Father deserves a manifestation of each. So he +says: and the word which you hear, spoken by me, as a human +being, is indeed mine insofar as I speak it, and yet it is not +mine, insofar as it is mine from another: "My teaching is not +mine" (7:16); "The words that I say to you I do not speak of my +self" [14:10].
1951 Augustine remarks that when our Lord refers to his own -words he uses the plural, "my words" (v 24), but when he speaks of the -utterance of the Father, he uses the singular form, "the word which you hear is -not mine," because he wants us to understand that the word of the Father is he -himself, the unique Word of the Father.[46] -Thus he says he is from the Father, and not from himself, because he is neither -his own image nor his own Son, but the Son and image of the Father. Yet all the -words in our heart are from this unique Word of the Father. - +words he uses the plural, "my words" (v 24), but when he speaks of +the utterance of the Father, he uses the singular form, "the word +which you hear is not mine," because he wants us to understand that +the word of the Father is he himself, the unique Word of the +Father.[46] Thus he says he is from the Father, and not +from himself, because he is neither his own image nor his own Son, +but the Son and image of the Father. Yet all the words in our heart +are from this unique Word of the Father.
1952 Here our Lord promises gifts to his disciples. He had -promised them both the Holy Spirit and himself; and so now he first mentions -what they will receive when the Holy Spirit comes; and secondly, what they will -receive from him, peace. From the coming of the Holy Spirit they will -receive great things, namely an understanding of all the words of Christ. In -regard to this he first mentions what he taught them, and secondly he promises -they will understand them (v 26). - -
1953 He says, in regard to the first, these things, -what I have said, I have spoken to you, by the instrument of my human -nature, while I am still with you, as bodily present. It is indeed a -very great favor that the Son himself should speak to us and teach us: "In -these last days he has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb 1:1); "What is all flesh -that it should hear its Lord?" [Deut 5:26]. - -
1954 He promises them that they will understand his -teachings through the Holy Spirit, who will give himself to them; he says, the -Paraclete ... will teach you all things. He does three things concerning -the Holy Spirit: he describes him, mentions his mission and his effect. - +promised them both the Holy Spirit and himself; and so now he first +mentions what they will receive when the Holy Spirit comes; and +secondly, what they will receive from him, peace. From the +coming of the Holy Spirit they will receive great things, namely an +understanding of all the words of Christ. In regard to this he +first mentions what he taught them, and secondly he promises they +will understand them (v 26).
+1953 He says, in regard to the first, these things, what +I have said, I have spoken to you, by the instrument of my +human nature, while I am still with you, as bodily present. +It is indeed a very great favor that the Son himself should speak +to us and teach us: "In these last days he has spoken to us by a +Son" (Heb 1:1); "What is all flesh that it should hear its Lord?" +[Deut 5:26].
+1954 He promises them that they will understand his teachings +through the Holy Spirit, who will give himself to them; he says, +the Paraclete ... will teach you all things. He does three +things concerning the Holy Spirit: he describes him, mentions his +mission and his effect.
1955 He describes the Holy Spirit in several ways: as the -Paraclete, as Spirit, and as Holy. He is the Paraclete because he consoles us. -He consoles us in our sorrows which arise from the troubles of this world: -"fighting without and fear within" (2 Cor 7:5); "who comforts us in all our -affliction" (2 Cor 1:4). He does this because he is love, and causes us to love -God and give him great honor. For this reason we endure insults with joy: "Then -they left the presence of the council rejoicing that they were counted worthy -to suffer dishonor for the name" (Acts 5:41); "Rejoice and be glad, for your -reward is great in heaven" (Mt 5:12). He also consoles us in our sadness over -past sins; Matthew refers to this in "Blessed are those who mourn for they -shall be comforted" (5:4). He does this because he gives us the hope of -forgiveness: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are -forgiven" (20:22). - -
He is the Spirit because he moves -hearts to obey God: "He will come like a rushing stream, which the Spirit of -the Lord drives" [Is 59:19]; "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons -of God" (Rom 8:14). He is Holy because he consecrates us to God, and all -consecrated things are called holy: "Do you not know that your body is a temple -of the Holy Spirit within you" (1 Cor 6:19); "There is a river whose streams -make glad the city of God" (Ps 46:4). - +Paraclete, as Spirit, and as Holy. He is the Paraclete because he +consoles us. He consoles us in our sorrows which arise from the +troubles of this world: "fighting without and fear within" (2 Cor +7:5); "who comforts us in all our affliction" (2 Cor 1:4). He does +this because he is love, and causes us to love God and give him +great honor. For this reason we endure insults with joy: "Then they +left the presence of the council rejoicing that they were counted +worthy to suffer dishonor for the name" (Acts 5:41); "Rejoice and +be glad, for your reward is great in heaven" (Mt 5:12). He also +consoles us in our sadness over past sins; Matthew refers to this +in "Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted" (5:4). +He does this because he gives us the hope of forgiveness: "Receive +the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven" +(20:22).
+He is the Spirit because he moves hearts to obey God: "He will +come like a rushing stream, which the Spirit of the Lord drives" +[Is 59:19]; "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of +God" (Rom 8:14). He is Holy because he consecrates us to God, and +all consecrated things are called holy: "Do you not know that your +body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you" (1 Cor 6:19); +"There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God" (Ps +46:4).
1956 Then when he says, whom the Father will send in my -name, he refers to the mission of the Spirit. We should not think the -Spirit comes by a local motion, but rather by being in them in a new way in -which he was not before: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created," -that is, with a spiritual existence (Ps 104:30). Notice that the Holy Spirit is -sent by the Father and the Son. To show this Christ sometimes says that the -Father sends him, as he does here; and he sometimes says that he himself sends -him, "I will send him to you" (16:7). Yet Christ never says that the Spirit is -sent by the Father without mentioning himself. So he says here, whom the -Father will send in my name. Nor does Christ say that the Spirit is sent by -himself, the Son, without mentioning the Father: "the Paraclete, whom I shall -send to you from the Father" (15:26). - -
1957 Why does he say, in my name? Will the Holy -Spirit be called the Son? One could answer that this was said for the reason -that the Holy Spirit was given to the faithful when they invoked the name of -Christ. But it is better to say that just as the Son comes in the name of the -Father ‑ "I have come in my Father's name" ‑ so the Holy Spirit -comes in the name of the Son. Now the Son comes in the name of the Father not -because he is the Father, but because he is the Son of the Father. In a similar -way, the Holy Spirit comes in the name of the Son not because he was to be -called the Son, but because he is the Spirit of the Son: "Any one who does not -have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him" (Rom 8:9); "God has sent the -Spirit of his Son into our hearts" (Gal 4:6), because he is the Spirit of his -Son, and not because he was to be called the Son: "he predestined [them] to be -conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29). The basis for this is the -consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and of the Holy Spirit with the -Son. - -
Further, just as the Son, coming in -the name of the Father, subjects his faithful to the Father ‑ "and has -made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:10) ‑ so the Holy -Spirit conforms us to the Son because he adopts us as children of God: You have -received the spirit of adoption, by which we cry out 'Abba!' Father" [Rom -8:15].[47] - +name, he refers to the mission of the Spirit. We should not +think the Spirit comes by a local motion, but rather by being in +them in a new way in which he was not before: "When you send forth +your Spirit, they are created," that is, with a spiritual existence +(Ps 104:30). Notice that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and +the Son. To show this Christ sometimes says that the Father sends +him, as he does here; and he sometimes says that he himself sends +him, "I will send him to you" (16:7). Yet Christ never says that +the Spirit is sent by the Father without mentioning himself. So he +says here, whom the Father will send in my name. Nor does +Christ say that the Spirit is sent by himself, the Son, without +mentioning the Father: "the Paraclete, whom I shall send to you +from the Father" (15:26).
+1957 Why does he say, in my name? Will the Holy Spirit be +called the Son? One could answer that this was said for the reason +that the Holy Spirit was given to the faithful when they invoked +the name of Christ. But it is better to say that just as the Son +comes in the name of the Father ‑ "I have come in my Father's +name" ‑ so the Holy Spirit comes in the name of the Son. Now +the Son comes in the name of the Father not because he is the +Father, but because he is the Son of the Father. In a similar way, +the Holy Spirit comes in the name of the Son not because he was to +be called the Son, but because he is the Spirit of the Son: "Any +one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him" +(Rom 8:9); "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts" +(Gal 4:6), because he is the Spirit of his Son, and not because he +was to be called the Son: "he predestined [them] to be conformed to +the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29). The basis for this is the +consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and of the Holy Spirit +with the Son.
+Further, just as the Son, coming in the name of the Father, +subjects his faithful to the Father ‑ "and has made them a +kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:10) ‑ so the Holy +Spirit conforms us to the Son because he adopts us as children of +God: You have received the spirit of adoption, by which we cry out +'Abba!' Father" [Rom 8:15].[47]
1958 Next he mentions the effect of the Holy Spirit, saying, -he will teach you all things. Just as the effect of the mission of the -Son was to lead us to the Father, so the effect of the mission of the Holy -Spirit is to lead the faithful to the Son. Now the Son, once he is begotten -Wisdom, is Truth itself: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6). -And so the effect of this kind of mission [of the Spirit] is to make us sharers -in the divine wisdom and knowers of the truth. The Son, since he is the Word, -gives teaching to us; but the Holy Spirit enables us to grasp it. - -
He says, he will teach you all -things, because no matter what a person may teach by his exterior actions, -he will have no effect unless the Holy Spirit gives an understanding from -within. For unless the Spirit is present to the heart of the listener, the -words of the teacher will be useless: "The breath of the Almighty makes him -understand" (Job 32:8). This is true even to the extent that the Son himself, -speaking by means of his human nature, is not successful unless he works from -within by the Holy Spirit. - -
1959 We read before that "Every one who has heard and -learned from the Father comes to me" (6:45). Here he is expanding on this, -because one does not learn without the Holy Spirit teaching. He is saying in -effect: one who receives the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son knows the -Father and the Son and comes to them. The Spirit makes us know all things by -inspiring us from within, by directing us and lifting us up to spiritual -things. Just as one whose sense of taste is tainted does not have a true -knowledge of flavors, so one who is tainted by love of the world cannot taste -divine things: "The sensual man does not perceive those things of the Spirit of -God" [1 Cor 2:14]. - +he will teach you all things. Just as the effect of the +mission of the Son was to lead us to the Father, so the effect of +the mission of the Holy Spirit is to lead the faithful to the Son. +Now the Son, once he is begotten Wisdom, is Truth itself: "I am the +way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6). And so the effect of this +kind of mission [of the Spirit] is to make us sharers in the divine +wisdom and knowers of the truth. The Son, since he is the Word, +gives teaching to us; but the Holy Spirit enables us to grasp +it.
+He says, he will teach you all things, because no matter +what a person may teach by his exterior actions, he will have no +effect unless the Holy Spirit gives an understanding from within. +For unless the Spirit is present to the heart of the listener, the +words of the teacher will be useless: "The breath of the Almighty +makes him understand" (Job 32:8). This is true even to the extent +that the Son himself, speaking by means of his human nature, is not +successful unless he works from within by the Holy Spirit.
+1959 We read before that "Every one who has heard and learned +from the Father comes to me" (6:45). Here he is expanding on this, +because one does not learn without the Holy Spirit teaching. He is +saying in effect: one who receives the Holy Spirit from the Father +and the Son knows the Father and the Son and comes to them. The +Spirit makes us know all things by inspiring us from within, by +directing us and lifting us up to spiritual things. Just as one +whose sense of taste is tainted does not have a true knowledge of +flavors, so one who is tainted by love of the world cannot taste +divine things: "The sensual man does not perceive those things of +the Spirit of God" [1 Cor 2:14].
1960 Since to remind a person of something is the task of an -inferior, like an agent in divine affairs, shall we say that the Holy Spirit, -who brings things to our mind, is inferior to us? According to Gregory, we -should say that the Holy Spirit is said to bring things to our remembrance not -as though he brought us knowledge from below, but because in a hidden way he -aids our ability to know.[48] -Or, one could say the Spirit teaches because he makes us share in the wisdom of -the Son; and he brings things to our remembrance because, being love, he -incites us. Or, the Spirit will bring to your remembrance all that I have -said to you, that is, he will recall them to your memory: "All the ends of -the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord" (Ps 22:27). - -
We should notice that of all the -things Christ said to his disciples, some were not understood, and others were -not remembered. Thus our Lord says, he will teach you all things, which -you cannot now understand, and bring to your remembrance all that you -cannot remember. How could John the Evangelist after forty years have -remembered all the sayings of Christ he wrote in his Gospel unless the Holy -Spirit had brought them to his mind? -
-LECTURE 7 - -
- -27a "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not -as the world gives do I give to you."
1961 Above, our Lord promised his disciples what they would -gain from the presence of the Holy Spirit. Here he promises them a gift they -will obtain from his own coming and presence. - -
Note that if we consider the -characteristic feature of the persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit, our Lord -seems to interchange their gifts. Since the Son is the Word, it seems that the -gifts of wisdom and knowledge are appropriate to him. But peace is appropriate, -appropriated, to the Holy Spirit, since he is love, which the cause of peace. -Nevertheless, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and what the -Holy Spirit gives he has from the Son, our Lord here attributes this gift of -knowledge to the Holy Spirit, saying, he will teach you all things. Yet, -this gift is still appropriate to the Son. And because the Holy Spirit proceeds -from the Son, actions which are appropriate to the Holy Spirit are attributed -to the Son. This is the reason why Christ attributes peace to himself, saying, Peace -I leave with you. First, he promises his gift of peace, which he is -leaving; secondly, he distinguishes this peace from the peace of the world. - -
1962 He says, Peace I leave with you. Peace is -nothing else than the tranquillity arising from order, for things are said to -have peace when their order remains undisturbed. In a human being there is a threefold -order: that of a person to himself; of a person to God; and of a person to his -neighbor. Thus, the human person can enjoy a threefold peace. One peace is -interior, when he is at peace with himself, and his faculties are not -unsettled: Great peace have those who love your law" (Ps 119:165). Another -peace is peace with God, when one is entirely conformed to his direction: -"Since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with God" (Rom 5:1). The -third peace is with our neighbor: "Strive for peace with all men" (Heb 12:14). - -
There are three things which have -to be put in order within us: the intellect, the will and sense appetency. The -will should be directed by the mind or reason, and sense appetency should be -directed by the intellect and will. Accordingly, Augustine, in his The Words -of our Lord, describes the peace of the saints by saying: "Peace is a -calmness of mind, a tranquillity of soul, a simplicity of heart, a bond of love -and a fellowship of charity."[49] -Calmness of mind refers to our reason, which should be free, not tied down, nor -absorbed by disordered affections; tranquillity of soul refers to our sense -appetency, which should not be harassed by our emotional states; simplicity of -heart refers to our will, which should be entirely set toward God, its object; -the bond of love refers to our neighbor; and the fellowship of charity to God. -The saints have this peace now, and will have it in the future. But here it is -imperfect because we cannot have an undisturbed peace either with ourselves, or -with God, or with our neighbor. We will enjoy it perfectly in the future, when -we reign without an enemy and there can never be conflicts. - -
Our Lord here promises us each kind -of peace. The first kind when he says, Peace I leave with you, that is, -in this world, so that you can conquer the enemy and love each other. This is a -kind of covenant established by Christ which we should keep: "A covenant of -peace was established with him" (Si 45:24). As Augustine says, one can not gain -the inheritance of the Lord who is unwilling to observe his covenant, nor can -he have a union with Christ if he lives in strife with a Christian.[50] -He promises the second kind of peace when he says, my peace I give to you, -that is, in the future: "I will bring her," the heavenly Jerusalem, "a river of -peace" [Is 66:12]. - -
1963 Since whether in this world or in our native land, all -the peace possessed by the saints comes to them through Christ - "in me you -shall have peace" [16:33] ‑ why does our Lord, when speaking of the peace -of the saints in this life not say, "my peace I give to you," instead of -reserving this for the peace of our native land? We should say that each peace, -of the present and of the future, is a peace of Christ. But our present peace -is the peace of Christ because he is only its author. The future peace is the -peace of Christ both because he is its author and because it is a peace such as -he possesses it. He always had this second kind of peace, because he was always -without [interior] conflict. Our present peace, as was said, is not without -conflict, and although Christ is its author, he does not possess it this way. -This explanation makes use of the distinction between the peace of this time -and the peace of eternity. According to Augustine, both statements can refer to -the peace of this time. Then Christ is saying, Peace I leave with you, -by my example, but my peace I give to you, by my power and strength. - -
1964 Then when he says, not as the world gives do I give -to you, he distinguishes this peace from the peace of the world. The peace -of the saints is different from the peace of the world in three ways. First, -the purpose of each is different. Temporal peace is directed to the quiet and -calm enjoyment of temporal things, with the result that it sometimes helps a person -to sin: "They live in strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils -peace" (Wis 14:22). But the peace of the saints is directed to eternal goods. -The meaning, therefore is: not as the world gives do I give to you, that -is, not for the same end. The world gives peace so exterior goods can be -possessed undisturbed; but I give peace so that you can obtain eternal things. - -
They also differ as the pretended -or deceitful from the true, because the peace of the world is a pretended peace -since it is only on the outside: "The wicked ... who speak peace with their -neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 27:3). But the peace of -Christ is true, because it is both on the outside and the inside. So the -meaning is, not as the world gives do I give to you, that is, I do not -give a pretended peace, as the world does, but true peace. Thirdly, they differ -in perfection, because the peace of the world is imperfect since it is not -concerned with the interior tranquillity of a person but only with externals. -"There is no peace, says my God, for the wicked" (Is 57:21). But the peace of -Christ brings tranquillity both within and without. "Great peace have those who -love your law" (Ps 119:165). So the meaning is: not as the world gives, -that is, not such an imperfect peace. -
-LECTURE 8 - -
- -27b "Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be -afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you -loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father, [who is greater -than I]: for the Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it -takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe. 30 I will no -longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no -power over me; 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world -may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go hence."[51]
1965 Above, our Lord consoled his disciples by mentioning -what directly affected them: he promised them that they could approach the -Father, that the Holy Spirit would come, and that he himself would return. Here -he consoles them by mentioning what directly concerns himself. These give them -two reasons for being consoled: one is from the fruit which will follow -Christ's leaving; the other is from the reason for his death (v 30). - +inferior, like an agent in divine affairs, shall we say that the +Holy Spirit, who brings things to our mind, is inferior to us? +According to Gregory, we should say that the Holy Spirit is said to +bring things to our remembrance not as though he brought us +knowledge from below, but because in a hidden way he aids our +ability to know.[48] Or, one could say the Spirit teaches because +he makes us share in the wisdom of the Son; and he brings things to +our remembrance because, being love, he incites us. Or, the Spirit +will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you, +that is, he will recall them to your memory: "All the ends of the +earth shall remember and turn to the Lord" (Ps 22:27).
+We should notice that of all the things Christ said to his +disciples, some were not understood, and others were not +remembered. Thus our Lord says, he will teach you all +things, which you cannot now understand, and bring to your +remembrance all that you cannot remember. How could John the +Evangelist after forty years have remembered all the sayings of +Christ he wrote in his Gospel unless the Holy Spirit had brought +them to his mind?
+
+
+LECTURE 7
+++27a "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as +the world gives do I give to you."
+1961 Above, our Lord promised his disciples what they would gain +from the presence of the Holy Spirit. Here he promises them a gift +they will obtain from his own coming and presence.
+Note that if we consider the characteristic feature of the +persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit, our Lord seems to +interchange their gifts. Since the Son is the Word, it seems that +the gifts of wisdom and knowledge are appropriate to him. But peace +is appropriate, appropriated, to the Holy Spirit, since he is love, +which the cause of peace. Nevertheless, because the Holy Spirit is +the Spirit of the Son, and what the Holy Spirit gives he has from +the Son, our Lord here attributes this gift of knowledge to the +Holy Spirit, saying, he will teach you all things. Yet, this +gift is still appropriate to the Son. And because the Holy Spirit +proceeds from the Son, actions which are appropriate to the Holy +Spirit are attributed to the Son. This is the reason why Christ +attributes peace to himself, saying, Peace I leave with you. +First, he promises his gift of peace, which he is leaving; +secondly, he distinguishes this peace from the peace of the +world.
+1962 He says, Peace I leave with you. Peace is nothing +else than the tranquillity arising from order, for things are said +to have peace when their order remains undisturbed. In a human +being there is a threefold order: that of a person to himself; of a +person to God; and of a person to his neighbor. Thus, the human +person can enjoy a threefold peace. One peace is interior, when he +is at peace with himself, and his faculties are not unsettled: +Great peace have those who love your law" (Ps 119:165). Another +peace is peace with God, when one is entirely conformed to his +direction: "Since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with +God" (Rom 5:1). The third peace is with our neighbor: "Strive for +peace with all men" (Heb 12:14).
+There are three things which have to be put in order within us: +the intellect, the will and sense appetency. The will should be +directed by the mind or reason, and sense appetency should be +directed by the intellect and will. Accordingly, Augustine, in his +The Words of our Lord, describes the peace of the saints by +saying: "Peace is a calmness of mind, a tranquillity of soul, a +simplicity of heart, a bond of love and a fellowship of +charity."[49] +Calmness of mind refers to our reason, which should be free, not +tied down, nor absorbed by disordered affections; tranquillity of +soul refers to our sense appetency, which should not be harassed by +our emotional states; simplicity of heart refers to our will, which +should be entirely set toward God, its object; the bond of love +refers to our neighbor; and the fellowship of charity to God. The +saints have this peace now, and will have it in the future. But +here it is imperfect because we cannot have an undisturbed peace +either with ourselves, or with God, or with our neighbor. We will +enjoy it perfectly in the future, when we reign without an enemy +and there can never be conflicts.
+Our Lord here promises us each kind of peace. The first kind +when he says, Peace I leave with you, that is, in this +world, so that you can conquer the enemy and love each other. This +is a kind of covenant established by Christ which we should keep: +"A covenant of peace was established with him" (Si 45:24). As +Augustine says, one can not gain the inheritance of the Lord who is +unwilling to observe his covenant, nor can he have a union with +Christ if he lives in strife with a Christian.[50] He promises the second +kind of peace when he says, my peace I give to you, that is, +in the future: "I will bring her," the heavenly Jerusalem, "a river +of peace" [Is 66:12].
+1963 Since whether in this world or in our native land, all the +peace possessed by the saints comes to them through Christ - "in me +you shall have peace" [16:33] ‑ why does our Lord, when +speaking of the peace of the saints in this life not say, "my peace +I give to you," instead of reserving this for the peace of our +native land? We should say that each peace, of the present and of +the future, is a peace of Christ. But our present peace is the +peace of Christ because he is only its author. The future peace is +the peace of Christ both because he is its author and because it is +a peace such as he possesses it. He always had this second kind of +peace, because he was always without [interior] conflict. Our +present peace, as was said, is not without conflict, and although +Christ is its author, he does not possess it this way. This +explanation makes use of the distinction between the peace of this +time and the peace of eternity. According to Augustine, both +statements can refer to the peace of this time. Then Christ is +saying, Peace I leave with you, by my example, but my +peace I give to you, by my power and strength.
+1964 Then when he says, not as the world gives do I give to +you, he distinguishes this peace from the peace of the world. +The peace of the saints is different from the peace of the world in +three ways. First, the purpose of each is different. Temporal peace +is directed to the quiet and calm enjoyment of temporal things, +with the result that it sometimes helps a person to sin: "They live +in strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace" +(Wis 14:22). But the peace of the saints is directed to eternal +goods. The meaning, therefore is: not as the world gives do I +give to you, that is, not for the same end. The world gives +peace so exterior goods can be possessed undisturbed; but I give +peace so that you can obtain eternal things.
+They also differ as the pretended or deceitful from the true, +because the peace of the world is a pretended peace since it is +only on the outside: "The wicked ... who speak peace with their +neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 27:3). But the +peace of Christ is true, because it is both on the outside and the +inside. So the meaning is, not as the world gives do I give to +you, that is, I do not give a pretended peace, as the world +does, but true peace. Thirdly, they differ in perfection, because +the peace of the world is imperfect since it is not concerned with +the interior tranquillity of a person but only with externals. +"There is no peace, says my God, for the wicked" (Is 57:21). But +the peace of Christ brings tranquillity both within and without. +"Great peace have those who love your law" (Ps 119:165). So the +meaning is: not as the world gives, that is, not such an +imperfect peace.
+
+
+LECTURE 8
+++27b "Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be +afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to +you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the +Father, [who is greater than I]: for the Father is greater than I. +29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it +does take place, you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much +with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power +over me; 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the +world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go +hence."[51]
+1965 Above, our Lord consoled his disciples by mentioning what +directly affected them: he promised them that they could approach +the Father, that the Holy Spirit would come, and that he himself +would return. Here he consoles them by mentioning what directly +concerns himself. These give them two reasons for being consoled: +one is from the fruit which will follow Christ's leaving; the other +is from the reason for his death (v 30).
1966 Now the fruit which would follow from Christ's leaving -would be such things as his exaltation, which would console them. For it is -usual among friends that when one departs to go to his exaltation, the others -feel less desolate. And so our Lord mentions this reason for their consolation. -First, he casts a certain uneasiness from their hearts; secondly, he recalls -something which somewhat consoled them, yet partly troubled them; thirdly, he -gives a reason which will completely console them; fourthly, he answers an -unspoken question. - +would be such things as his exaltation, which would console them. +For it is usual among friends that when one departs to go to his +exaltation, the others feel less desolate. And so our Lord mentions +this reason for their consolation. First, he casts a certain +uneasiness from their hearts; secondly, he recalls something which +somewhat consoled them, yet partly troubled them; thirdly, he gives +a reason which will completely console them; fourthly, he answers +an unspoken question.
1967 He casts out uneasiness from their hearts when he says, -Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. Here, -trouble means sadness, and being afraid refers to fear. Sadness and fear are -similar in that both are concerned with an evil. Yet they are different because -sadness is over an evil which is present, while fear is over an evil which is -to come. Our Lord said, Let not your hearts be troubled, about evil -which is present: "For the righteous will never be moved" (Ps 112:6). Neither -let them be afraid, of what is future: "Who are you that you are afraid of -man who dies?" (Is 51:12), which refers to human fear, for he does not reject -divine fear. - +Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. +Here, trouble means sadness, and being afraid refers to fear. +Sadness and fear are similar in that both are concerned with an +evil. Yet they are different because sadness is over an evil which +is present, while fear is over an evil which is to come. Our Lord +said, Let not your hearts be troubled, about evil which is +present: "For the righteous will never be moved" (Ps 112:6). +Neither let them be afraid, of what is future: "Who are you +that you are afraid of man who dies?" (Is 51:12), which refers to +human fear, for he does not reject divine fear.
1968 Then when he says, You heard me say to you, I go -away, they were troubled because he was leaving them. But they were -somewhat consoled because he added, and I will come to you. This did not -completely console them because they were afraid that perhaps in the meantime, -when the shepherd was gone, the wolf would attack the flock, according to -"Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered" (Zech 13:7). Thus he -said to them, Let not your hearts be troubled because I go away, -neither let them be afraid because I will come to you. - -
He goes by his own power, by dying; -and he comes by arising: "The Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests -and scribes, and they will condemn him to death ... and he will rise on the -third day" [Mt 20:18]. Again, he went by his ascension: "The beautiful one in -his robe, walking in the greatness of his strength" [Is 63:1]; and he will come -to judge: "They will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great -glory" (Lk 21:27). - -
1969 He completely consoles them when he says, If you -loved me, you would have rejoiced. It is like saying: If you love me, you -should not be sad, but rather rejoice that I am leaving, because I am leaving -to be exalted, because I go to the Father, who is greater than I. - -
1970 This passage led Arius to the disparaging statement -that the Father is greater than the Son. Yet our Lord's own words repel this -error. One should understand the Father is greater than I, based on the -meaning of I go to the Father. Now the Son does not go to the Father -insofar as he is the Son of God, for as the Son of God he was with the Father -from eternity: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God" (1:1). -Rather, he is said to go to the Father because of his human nature. Thus when -he says, the Father is greater than I, he does not mean I, as Son of -God, but as Son of man, for in this way he is not only inferior to the Father -and the Holy Spirit, but even to the angels: "We see Jesus, who was made a -little lower than the angels" [Heb 2:9]. Again, in some things he was subject -to human beings, as his parents (Lk 2:51). Consequently, he is inferior to the -Father because of his human nature, but equal because of his divine nature: "He -did not think it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the -form of a servant" [Phil 2:6]. - -
1971 One could also say, as Hilary does, that even according -to the divine nature the Father is greater than the Son, yet the Son is not -inferior to the Father, but equal.[52] -For the Father is not greater than the Son in power, eternity and greatness, but -by the dignity of a grantor or source. For the Father receives nothing from -another, but the Son, if I can put it this way, receives his nature from the -Father by an eternal generation. So, the Father is greater because he gives; -but the Son is not inferior, but equal, because he receives all that the Father -has: "God has bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). -For the one to whom a single act of existence (esse) is given, is not -inferior to the giver. - -
1972 Chrysostom explains this by saying that our Lord is -saying this by taking into account the opinions of the apostles, who did not -yet know of the resurrection or think that he was equal to the Father.[53] -And so he said to them: even if you do not believe me on the ground that I cannot -help myself, or expect that I will see you again after my cross, yet believe me -because I go to the Father, who is greater than I. - +away, they were troubled because he was leaving them. But they +were somewhat consoled because he added, and I will come to +you. This did not completely console them because they were +afraid that perhaps in the meantime, when the shepherd was gone, +the wolf would attack the flock, according to "Strike the shepherd, +that the sheep may be scattered" (Zech 13:7). Thus he said to them, +Let not your hearts be troubled because I go away, +neither let them be afraid because I will come to +you.
+He goes by his own power, by dying; and he comes by arising: +"The Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, +and they will condemn him to death ... and he will rise on the +third day" [Mt 20:18]. Again, he went by his ascension: "The +beautiful one in his robe, walking in the greatness of his +strength" [Is 63:1]; and he will come to judge: "They will see the +Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk +21:27).
+1969 He completely consoles them when he says, If you loved +me, you would have rejoiced. It is like saying: If you love me, +you should not be sad, but rather rejoice that I am leaving, +because I am leaving to be exalted, because I go to the Father, +who is greater than I.
+1970 This passage led Arius to the disparaging statement that +the Father is greater than the Son. Yet our Lord's own words repel +this error. One should understand the Father is greater than +I, based on the meaning of I go to the Father. Now the +Son does not go to the Father insofar as he is the Son of God, for +as the Son of God he was with the Father from eternity: "In the +beginning was the Word and the Word was with God" (1:1). Rather, he +is said to go to the Father because of his human nature. Thus when +he says, the Father is greater than I, he does not mean I, +as Son of God, but as Son of man, for in this way he is not only +inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but even to the angels: +"We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels" [Heb +2:9]. Again, in some things he was subject to human beings, as his +parents (Lk 2:51). Consequently, he is inferior to the Father +because of his human nature, but equal because of his divine +nature: "He did not think it robbery to be equal to God, but +emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" [Phil 2:6].
+1971 One could also say, as Hilary does, that even according to +the divine nature the Father is greater than the Son, yet the Son +is not inferior to the Father, but equal.[52] For the Father is not greater +than the Son in power, eternity and greatness, but by the dignity +of a grantor or source. For the Father receives nothing from +another, but the Son, if I can put it this way, receives his nature +from the Father by an eternal generation. So, the Father is greater +because he gives; but the Son is not inferior, but equal, because +he receives all that the Father has: "God has bestowed on him the +name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). For the one to whom a +single act of existence (esse) is given, is not inferior to +the giver.
+1972 Chrysostom explains this by saying that our Lord is saying +this by taking into account the opinions of the apostles, who did +not yet know of the resurrection or think that he was equal to the +Father.[53] +And so he said to them: even if you do not believe me on the ground +that I cannot help myself, or expect that I will see you again +after my cross, yet believe me because I go to the Father, who +is greater than I.
1973 He now answers an unspoken question when he says, And -now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you -may believe. For they could have asked why he was telling them these -things, and so he anticipates them by saying this. - -
Augustine brought up a problem: -since faith is concerned with things which are not seen, a person should not -believe after the event, but before it. One should say to this that the -apostles saw one thing and believed another. They saw the death and -resurrection of Christ, and having seen, they believed that he was the Christ, -the Son of God. But after these events they did not believe with a new faith, -but with an increased faith. Or, indeed, they believed with a failing faith -when he had died, and a renewed faith when he arose, as Augustine says.[54] - +now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does +take place, you may believe. For they could have asked why he +was telling them these things, and so he anticipates them by saying +this.
+Augustine brought up a problem: since faith is concerned with +things which are not seen, a person should not believe after the +event, but before it. One should say to this that the apostles saw +one thing and believed another. They saw the death and resurrection +of Christ, and having seen, they believed that he was the Christ, +the Son of God. But after these events they did not believe with a +new faith, but with an increased faith. Or, indeed, they believed +with a failing faith when he had died, and a renewed faith when he +arose, as Augustine says.[54]
1974 Then when he says, I will no longer talk much with -you, he mentions another source of their consolation, based on the reason -for his death. Sometimes the reason for a person's death is a cause for sorrow, -as when one is killed because he is guilty; other reasons are consoling, as -when someone dies for that good we call virtue: "Let none of you suffer as a -murderer or a thief ... yet if one suffer as a Christian, let him not be -ashamed" (1 Pet 4:15). With respect to this, our Lord first shows that a sin -was not the reason for his death; secondly, that it was caused by the virtues -of obedience and love, so that the world may know that I love the Father. - +you, he mentions another source of their consolation, based on +the reason for his death. Sometimes the reason for a person's death +is a cause for sorrow, as when one is killed because he is guilty; +other reasons are consoling, as when someone dies for that good we +call virtue: "Let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief ... +yet if one suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed" (1 Pet +4:15). With respect to this, our Lord first shows that a sin was +not the reason for his death; secondly, that it was caused by the +virtues of obedience and love, so that the world may know that I +love the Father.
1975 He says, I will no longer talk much with you, -because the time is short: "Little children, yet a little while I am with you" -(13:33). Or, because you are not yet ready for it: "I have yet many things to -say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (16:12). Or, I will no longer talk -much with you, because I will briefly explain to you that I will not die -because of my own guilt. And he does this when he says, for the ruler of this -world is coming. He has no power over me. This ruler is the devil, and he -is called a ruler of this world not because he is its creator, or because of -his natural power, as the Manicheans blasphemed, but because of guilt, that is, -because of the lovers of this world. For this reason he is called the ruler of -the world and of sin: "For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but -against ... the world rulers this present darkness" (Eph 6:12). Therefore, he -is not the ruler of creatures, but of sinners and of darkness: "He is king over -all the children of pride" (Job 41:34). - -
So this ruler comes to afflict: he -entered into the heart of Judas to incite his betrayal, and into the hearts of -the Jews to incite them to kill. But he has no power over me, for he has -no power over us except because of sin: "Every one who commits sin is a slave -to sin" (8:34). Now in Christ there was no sin: not in his soul, "He committed -no sin" (1 Pet 2:22), nor in his flesh, because he was conceived of the Virgin -without original sin through the Holy Spirit: "the child to be born of you will -be called holy, the Son of God" (Lk 1:35). Because the devil even attacked -Christ, over whom he had no right, he deserved to lose what he justly held: -"What have I do to with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?" [Mk 5:7]. So it -is clear that the cause of Christ's death wasArial'> not -his own guilt; and there was no reason for him to die if he had no sin. - -
1976 Then he mentions the true reason for his death, which -is that good which is virtue. He says, so that the world may know that I -love the Father. Augustine relates this sentence to what follows, Rise, -let us go hence.[55] - -
Two things led Christ to undergo -death: love for God and love for neighbor; "Walk in love" (Eph 5:2). He shows -this love by the sign that he accomplishes what God commands: "If you love me -keep my commandments" [14:15]. Referring to this he says, that the world may -know that I love the Father, with an active love, because I go to die. Thus -he adds, I do as the Father has commanded me. This is obedience, which -is produced by love; and it is the second thing by which the Father moved him -to undergo death. The Father did not give this commandment to the Son of God, -who since he is the Word, is also the command of the Father. He gave this -commandment to the Son of man, insofar as he infused into his soul that it was -necessary for the salvation of humankind that the Christ die in his human -nature. And so, that the world may know these things, Rise, from the -place where they had eaten, let us go hence, to the place where I am to -be betrayed, so that you can see that I am not dying by necessity, but from -love and obedience: "He goes out to meet the weapons" (Job 39:21). - -
1977 Chrysostom understands this differently, since he does -not relate Rise, let us go hence, to what came before it in the same -way.[56] -The meaning now is: I am not dying because the ruler of this world has power -over me; I am doing this because I love the Father. But as for you, Rise, -let us go hence. He said this because he saw they were afraid, both because -of the time, as it was deep into the night, and due to the place, for they were -obviously at some house and constantly watching the entrance as if expecting to -be set upon by their enemies. Consequently they were not paying attention to -what he was saying. So Christ led them to another hidden place, so that feeling -more secure they could listen with more attention to what he would say to them -and understand it better: "I will bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly -to her" (Hos 2:14). - -
- -
- -- -- -[1] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 14:1 in the Summa -Theologiae: II-II, q. 1, a. 9, obj. 5; q. 16, a. 1, obj. 2; q. 174, a. 6; -Jn 14: 2: ST I-II, q. 5, a. 2, s. c.; III, q. 57, a. 6; q. 75, a. 1; Jn -14:3: ST III, q. 57, a. 1, ad 3; q. 57, a. 6. - -
- -- -[2] -Summa-different degrees of happiness in heaven. - -
- -- -[3] Moralia, 22, ch. 24; PL 76; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:1-4. - -
- -- -[4] Tract. -in Io., 67, ch.2, col. 1812; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:1-4. - -
- -- -[5] Ibid., -3, col. 1813; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:1-4. - -
- -- -[6] Tract. -in Io., 68, ch. 1, col. 1814; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:1-4. - -
- -[7] -Summa-the saints will be with Christ immediately after death. - +because the time is short: "Little children, yet a little while I +am with you" (13:33). Or, because you are not yet ready for it: "I +have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" +(16:12). Or, I will no longer talk much with you, because I +will briefly explain to you that I will not die because of my own +guilt. And he does this when he says, for the ruler of this +world is coming. He has no power over me. This ruler is the +devil, and he is called a ruler of this world not because he is its +creator, or because of his natural power, as the Manicheans +blasphemed, but because of guilt, that is, because of the lovers of +this world. For this reason he is called the ruler of the world and +of sin: "For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but +against ... the world rulers this present darkness" (Eph 6:12). +Therefore, he is not the ruler of creatures, but of sinners and of +darkness: "He is king over all the children of pride" (Job +41:34).
+So this ruler comes to afflict: he entered into the heart of +Judas to incite his betrayal, and into the hearts of the Jews to +incite them to kill. But he has no power over me, for he has +no power over us except because of sin: "Every one who commits sin +is a slave to sin" (8:34). Now in Christ there was no sin: not in +his soul, "He committed no sin" (1 Pet 2:22), nor in his flesh, +because he was conceived of the Virgin without original sin through +the Holy Spirit: "the child to be born of you will be called holy, +the Son of God" (Lk 1:35). Because the devil even attacked Christ, +over whom he had no right, he deserved to lose what he justly held: +"What have I do to with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?" [Mk +5:7]. So it is clear that the cause of Christ's death wasArial'> +not his own guilt; and there was no reason for him to die if he had +no sin.
+1976 Then he mentions the true reason for his death, which is +that good which is virtue. He says, so that the world may know +that I love the Father. Augustine relates this sentence to what +follows, Rise, let us go hence.[55]
+Two things led Christ to undergo death: love for God and love +for neighbor; "Walk in love" (Eph 5:2). He shows this love by the +sign that he accomplishes what God commands: "If you love me keep +my commandments" [14:15]. Referring to this he says, that the +world may know that I love the Father, with an active love, +because I go to die. Thus he adds, I do as the Father has +commanded me. This is obedience, which is produced by love; and +it is the second thing by which the Father moved him to undergo +death. The Father did not give this commandment to the Son of God, +who since he is the Word, is also the command of the Father. He +gave this commandment to the Son of man, insofar as he infused into +his soul that it was necessary for the salvation of humankind that +the Christ die in his human nature. And so, that the world may know +these things, Rise, from the place where they had eaten, +let us go hence, to the place where I am to be betrayed, so +that you can see that I am not dying by necessity, but from love +and obedience: "He goes out to meet the weapons" (Job 39:21).
+1977 Chrysostom understands this differently, since he does not +relate Rise, let us go hence, to what came before it in the +same way.[56] +The meaning now is: I am not dying because the ruler of this world +has power over me; I am doing this because I love the Father. But +as for you, Rise, let us go hence. He said this because he +saw they were afraid, both because of the time, as it was deep into +the night, and due to the place, for they were obviously at some +house and constantly watching the entrance as if expecting to be +set upon by their enemies. Consequently they were not paying +attention to what he was saying. So Christ led them to another +hidden place, so that feeling more secure they could listen with +more attention to what he would say to them and understand it +better: "I will bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly +to her" (Hos 2:14).
+
+
++- -[1] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 14:1 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 1, a. +9, obj. 5; q. 16, a. 1, obj. 2; q. 174, a. 6; Jn 14: 2: ST +I-II, q. 5, a. 2, s. c.; III, q. 57, a. 6; q. 75, a. 1; Jn 14:3: +ST III, q. 57, a. 1, ad 3; q. 57, a. 6.
- -[8] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 14:5 in the Summa -Theologiae: III, q. 45, a. 1; Jn 14:6: ST I, q. 2, a. 1, obj. 3; I. -q. 3, a. 3, s. c.; I, q. 16, a. 5, s. c.; I, q. 39, a. 8, obj 5; II-II, q. 34, -a. 1, obj. 2; III, q. 78, a. 5, s. c. - +
+- -[2] +Summa-different degrees of happiness in heaven.
- -[9] -Summa-Christ is essentially truth and life and thus the object of man's desire. - - +
++[3] +Moralia, 22, ch. 24; PL 76; cf. Catena Aurea, +14:1-4.
++- -[4] Tract. in +Io., 67, ch.2, col. 1812; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:1-4.
- -[10] Sermones de Verbis Domini 142, ch. 1; PL 38, col. 778; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:5-7. - +
++[5] Ibid., 3, +col. 1813; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:1-4.
++- -[6] Tract. in +Io., 68, ch. 1, col. 1814; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:1-4.
- -[11] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:15-7. - +
+- -[7] Summa-the +saints will be with Christ immediately after death.
- -[12] De -Trin., 7, ch. 33; PL 10, col. 228A; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:5-7. - +
+- -[8] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 14:5 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 45, a. 1; +Jn 14:6: ST I, q. 2, a. 1, obj. 3; I. q. 3, a. 3, s. c.; I, +q. 16, a. 5, s. c.; I, q. 39, a. 8, obj 5; II-II, q. 34, a. 1, obj. +2; III, q. 78, a. 5, s. c.
- -[13] Tract. -in Io., 69, ch. 2, col. 1816; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:5-7. - +
+- -[9] Summa-Christ +is essentially truth and life and thus the object of man's +desire.
- -[14] In Ioannem hom., 73, ch. -2; PG 59, col. 398; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:5-7. - +
+- -[10] +Sermones de Verbis Domini 142, ch. 1; PL 38, col. 778; cf. +Catena Aurea, 14:5-7.
- -[15] De -Trin., 7, ch. 33; PL 10, col. 228A; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:5-7. - +
+- -[11] Ibid.; +cf. Catena Aurea, 14:15-7.
- -[16] -St. Thomas quotes Jn 14: 9 in the Summa Theologiae: I, -q. 19, a. 4, arg. 1; q. 88, a. 3, arg 2; Jn 14: 11: ST I, q. 42, a. 5, -s. c; II-II, q. 1, a. 8, obj. 3; Jn 14:10: ST III, q. 43, a. 2, s. c.; -Jn 14:12: ST I- q. 105, a. 8, s. c.; I-II, q. 111, a. 2, obj. 2; q. 113, -a. 9, s. c.; III, q. 43, a. 4, obj. 2; q. 64, a. 4, obj. 2; q. 69, a. 6, obj. -2. - +
++[12] De +Trin., 7, ch. 33; PL 10, col. 228A; cf. Catena Aurea, +14:5-7.
++- -[13] +Tract. in Io., 69, ch. 2, col. 1816; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:5-7.
- -[17] Tract. -in Io., 70, ch. 1, col. 1818; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:8-11. - +
+- -[14] In +Ioannem hom., 73, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 398; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:5-7.
- -[18] De -Trin., 7, ch. 34; PL 10, col. 228D; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:8-11. - +
+- -[15] De +Trin., 7, ch. 33; PL 10, col. 228A; cf. Catena Aurea, +14:5-7.
- -[19] Tract. -in Io., 70, ch. 2, col. 1819 ; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:8-11. - +
+- -[16] St. +Thomas quotes Jn 14: 9 in the Summa Theologiae: I, q. 19, a. 4, +arg. 1; q. 88, a. 3, arg 2; Jn 14: 11: ST I, q. 42, a. 5, s. +c; II-II, q. 1, a. 8, obj. 3; Jn 14:10: ST III, q. 43, a. 2, +s. c.; Jn 14:12: ST I- q. 105, a. 8, s. c.; I-II, q. 111, a. +2, obj. 2; q. 113, a. 9, s. c.; III, q. 43, a. 4, obj. 2; q. 64, a. +4, obj. 2; q. 69, a. 6, obj. 2.
- -- -[20] Summa-- - -
- -[21] In Ioannem hom., 74, ch. -1; PG 59, col. 401; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:8-11. - +
+- -[17] +Tract. in Io., 70, ch. 1, col. 1818; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:8-11.
- -[22] Tract. -in Io., 70, ch. 3, col. 1820; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:8-11. - +
+- -[18] De +Trin., 7, ch. 34; PL 10, col. 228D; cf. Catena Aurea, +14:8-11.
- -[23] De -Trin., 7; PL 10; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:8-11. - +
+- -[19] +Tract. in Io., 70, ch. 2, col. 1819 ; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:8-11.
- -[24] -Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 74, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 401; cf. Catena Aurea, -14:8-11. - +
++[20] +Summa--
++- -[21] In +Ioannem hom., 74, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 401; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:8-11.
- -[25] Tract. -in Io., 71, ch. 1, 2, col. 1820-1; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:8-11. - +
++[22] +Tract. in Io., 70, ch. 3, col. 1820; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:8-11.
++- -[23] De +Trin., 7; PL 10; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:8-11.
- -[26] Tract. -in Io., 71, ch. 2, col. 1821; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:12-14. - +
+- -[24] +Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 74, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 401; cf. +Catena Aurea, 14:8-11.
- -[27] Tract. -in Io., 71, ch. 3, col. 1821-2; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:12-14. - +
+- -[25] +Tract. in Io., 71, ch. 1, 2, col. 1820-1; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:8-11.
- -[28] In Ioannem hom., -74, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 402; cf. Catena Aurea, -14:12-14. - +
+- -[26] +Tract. in Io., 71, ch. 2, col. 1821; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:12-14.
- -[29] Tract. -in Io., 72, ch. 2, col. 1823; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:12-14. - +
+- -[27] +Tract. in Io., 71, ch. 3, col. 1821-2; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:12-14.
- -[30] -St. Thomas quotes Jn 14:16 in the Summa Theologiae: -I, q. 27, a. 3, s. c.; II-II, q. 83, a. 10, obj. 1; Jn 14:17: ST -I-II, q. 68, a. 3, s. c.; q. 106, a. 1, ad 1. - +
+- -[28] In +Ioannem hom., 74, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 402; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:12-14.
- -[31] -summa-appropriation of persons in the trinity - +
+- -[29] +Tract. in Io., 72, ch. 2, col. 1823; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:12-14.
- -[32] In Ioannem hom., 75, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 405; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:15-17. - +
+- -[30] St. +Thomas quotes Jn 14:16 in the Summa Theologiae: I, q. 27, a. +3, s. c.; II-II, q. 83, a. 10, obj. 1; Jn 14:17: ST I-II, q. +68, a. 3, s. c.; q. 106, a. 1, ad 1.
- -[33] Ambrose. - +
+- -[31] +summa-appropriation of persons in the trinity
- -[34] Moralia, -V, ch. 28, no. 50; PL 75, col. 706A; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:15-17. - +
+- -[32] In +Ioannem hom., 75, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 405; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:15-17.
- -[35] Tract. -in Io., 74, ch. 4; col 1828; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:15-17. - +
++[33] +Ambrose.
++- -[34] +Moralia, V, ch. 28, no. 50; PL 75, col. 706A; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:15-17.
- -[36]Chrysostom, -In Ioannem hom., 75, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 405; cf. -Catena Aurea, 14:15-17. - +
+- -[35] +Tract. in Io., 74, ch. 4; col 1828; cf. Catena Aurea, +14:15-17.
- -[37] -St. Thomas quotes Jn 14: 18 in Summa Theologiae: I, -q. 88, a. 3, s. c.; Jn 14:21: ST I-II, q. 114, a. 4, s. c.; II-II, q. -24, a. 12, s. c.; III, q. 58, a. 3, obj. 4. - +
+- -[36]Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 75, ch. 1; PG +59, col. 405; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:15-17.
- -[38] Tract. -in Io., 75, ch. 2, col. 1829; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:18-21. - +
+- -[37] St. +Thomas quotes Jn 14: 18 in Summa Theologiae: I, q. 88, a. 3, +s. c.; Jn 14:21: ST I-II, q. 114, a. 4, s. c.; II-II, q. 24, +a. 12, s. c.; III, q. 58, a. 3, obj. 4.
- -[39] De -Trin., 8; PL 10; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:18-21. - +
+- -[38] +Tract. in Io., 75, ch. 2, col. 1829; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:18-21.
- -[40] Tract. -in Io., 75, ch. 5, col. 1830; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:18-21. - +
+- -[39] De +Trin., 8; PL 10; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:18-21.
- -[41] -St. Thomas quotes Jn 14:23 in the Summa Theologiae: -II-II, q. 184, a. 3, obj. 3; Jn 14:28: ST I, q. 42, a. 4, obj. 1; Jn -14:23: ST I, q. 43, a. 4 obj. 2 and a. 5. - +
+- -[40] +Tract. in Io., 75, ch. 5, col. 1830; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:18-21.
- -[42] Homiliae -in Evangelista XXX, ch.1; PL 76, col. 1220C; -cf. Catena Aurea, 14:22-27. - +
+- -[41] St. +Thomas quotes Jn 14:23 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. +184, a. 3, obj. 3; Jn 14:28: ST I, q. 42, a. 4, obj. 1; Jn +14:23: ST I, q. 43, a. 4 obj. 2 and a. 5.
- -[43] Tract. -in Io., 76, ch. 2, col. 1831; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:22-27. - +
++[42] +Homiliae in Evangelista XXX, ch.1; PL 76, col. 1220C; +cf. Catena Aurea, 14:22-27.
++- -[43] +Tract. in Io., 76, ch. 2, col. 1831; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:22-27.
- -[44] In Ioannem hom., 75, ch. -3; PG 59, col. 406; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:22-27. - +
+- -[44] In +Ioannem hom., 75, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 406; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:22-27.
- -[45] Homiliae -in Evangelista XXX, ch. 2; PL 76, col. 1221B; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:22-27. - +
+- -[45] +Homiliae in Evangelista XXX, ch. 2; PL 76, col. 1221B; cf. +Catena Aurea, 14:22-27.
- -[46] Tract. -in Io., 76, ch. 5, col. 1832; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:22-27. - +
+- -[46] +Tract. in Io., 76, ch. 5, col. 1832; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:22-27.
- -[47] -Summa-this whole section of the chapter on the nature of the Holy Spirit and -his relationship to the Father and the Son. - +
+- -[47] +Summa-this whole section of the chapter on the nature of the Holy +Spirit and his relationship to the Father and the Son.
- -[48] Homiliae -in Evangelista XXX, ch. 3; PL 76, col 1222B; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:22-27. - +
+- -[48] +Homiliae in Evangelista XXX, ch. 3; PL 76, col 1222B; cf. +Catena Aurea, 14:22-27.
- -[49] Sermones -de Verbis Domini 97; PL 39, col. -1931; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:22-27. - +
++[49] +Sermones de Verbis Domini 97; PL 39, col. 1931; cf. +Catena Aurea, 14:22-27.
++- -[50] Ibid.; +cf. Catena Aurea, 14:22-27.
- -[50] Ibid.; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:22-27. - +
+- -[51] St. +Thomas quotes Jn 14:28 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 3, +a. 8, obj. 1; q. 20, a. 1. s. c.; q. 57, a. 2, obj. 3; q. 58, a. 3 +obj. 3; Jn 14:31: ST I, q. 42, a. 6, obj. 2; III, q. 47, a. +2, ad 1.
- -[51] -St. Thomas quotes Jn 14:28 in the Summa Theologiae: -III, q. 3, a. 8, obj. 1; q. 20, a. 1. s. c.; q. 57, a. 2, obj. 3; q. 58, a. 3 -obj. 3; Jn 14:31: ST I, q. 42, a. 6, obj. 2; III, q. 47, a. 2, ad 1. - +
+- -[52] De +Trin., 9, ch. 54; PL 10, col. 324B; cf. Catena Aurea, +14:27-31.
- -[52] De -Trin., 9, ch. 54; PL 10, col. 324B; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:27-31. - +
+- -[53] In +Ioannem hom., 75, ch. 4; PG 59, col. 407; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:27-31.
- -[53] In Ioannem hom., 75, ch. -4; PG 59, col. 407; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:27-31. - +
+- -[54] +Tract. in Io., 79, ch. 1, col. 1838; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:27-31.
- -[54] Tract. -in Io., 79, ch. 1, col. 1838; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:27-31. - +
+- -[55] +Tract. in Io., 79, ch. 2, col. 1838; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:27-31.
- -[55] Tract. -in Io., 79, ch. 2, col. 1838; cf. Catena -Aurea, 14:27-31. - +
+- -[56] In +Ioannem hom., 76, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 409-411; cf. Catena +Aurea, 14:27-31.
- -+ + + diff -r 2bc1f3a24bc0 -r 178aed5d2c3c john/english/John15.html --- a/john/english/John15.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John15.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,1706 +1,1649 @@ - + + + +[56] In Ioannem hom., 76, ch. -1; PG 59, col. 409-411; cf. Catena Aurea, 14:27-31. - +
- -- -15 -
LECTURE I -
1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 -Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that -does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already made -clean by the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As -the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither -can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who -abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me -you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a -branch and withers; and the branches are [and he is] gathered, thrown into the -fire and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever -you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that -you bear much fruit, and so [become] prove to be my disciples.[1]
1978 In this -talk our Lord especially wants to comfort his disciples about two things: one -was near, in the present, and this was his passion; the other was what they -feared in the future, and this was the troubles which would come upon them. He -had said to them about these two things: Let not your hearts be troubled, referring -to the first, and neither let them be afraid (14:27), referring to the second. - -
So -now, after comforting them over his leaving (14:1), he strengthens them for the -troubles which will come upon them. First, he presents a certain picture; -secondly, he moves from this to his intention (15:3). The picture he presents -is of a vine and a vinedresser. First, he mentions the vine; secondly, the -vinedresser; and thirdly, he approves of the vinedresser's concern for the -branches of the vine. - -
1979 He himself -is the vine. So he says, making a comparison, I am the vine; for just -like a vine, although it seems to be of small account, nevertheless surpasses -all trees in the sweetness of its fruit, so Christ, although he seemed to be -despised by the world because he was poor, and seemed of small account and was -publicly disgraced, nevertheless produced the sweetest fruit: "His fruit was -sweet to my taste" (Song 2:3). And so Christ is a vine producing a wine which -interiorly intoxicates us: a wine of sorrow for sin: "You have given us to drink -the wine of sorrow" [Ps 60:3]; and a wine which strengthens us, that is, which -restores us: "My blood is drink indeed" (6:55). In the same way he compared -himself, above, to wheat, for his flesh is truly food. - -
This -is the vine mentioned in Genesis (40:9‑10): "There was a vine before me, -and on the vine there were three branches," that is Christ, in whom there are -three substances: his body, soul and divinity. This is also the vine about -which Jacob says: "My son, tie your she‑ass," that is, the Church, "to the -vine" [Gen 49:11]. - -
1980 This vine -is true. Sometimes what is true is distinguished from its likeness, as a man is -distinguished from his picture. And sometimes what is true is distinguished -from what is deformed or spoiled, as true wine is distinguished from vinegar, -which is spoiled wine. When Christ says here, I am the true vine, he is -using true in the second sense to distinguish himself from the deformed or -spoiled vine, which is the Jewish people. We read about them: "How then have -you turned degenerate and become a wild vine" (Jer 2:21). This was because this -vine brought forth wild grapes instead of grapes: "When I looked for it to -yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" (Is 5:4). - -
1981 There are -two natures in Christ, the divine and the human. Because of his human nature he -is like us and is less than the Father. Because of his divine nature he is like -God and above us. Thus he is the true vine insofar as he is the head of the -Church, the man Christ Jesus. He implies this when he mentions the vinedresser, -who is the Father. He says, and my Father is the vinedresser. If Christ -is the vine because of his divine nature, the Father would also be the vine -like the Son. But because Christ is the vine by reason of his human nature, the -Father is related to him as vinedresser to vine. Indeed, even Christ himself, -as God, is a vinedresser. - -
1982 [The -vinedresser cultivates the vine.] Now to cultivate something is to devote one's -interest to it. And we can cultivate something in two ways: either to make what -is cultivated better, as we cultivate a field or something of that sort, or to -make ourselves better by the cultivating, and in this way we cultivate wisdom. -God cultivates us to make us better by his work, since he roots out the evil -seeds in our hearts. As Augustine says, he opens our hearts with the plow of -his words, plants the seeds of the commandments, and harvests the fruit of -devotion.[2] - -
But -we cultivate God, not by plowing but by adoring, in order that we may be made -better by him: "If any one is a worshiper," that is, a cultivator, "of God and -does his will, God listens to him" (9:31). And so the Father is the vinedresser -of this vine for the good of others. For he plants: "I planted you a choice -vine, wholly of pure seed" (Jer 2:21), and makes its grow: I planted, Apollos -can make one grow from within and produce fruit, no matter how much others -cooperate on the exterior. And God guards and preserves, for we read that he -built a watchtower in the vineyard, and put a hedge around it (Mt 21:33; Is -5:2). - -
1983 The -vinedresser is concerned about two things: the vine and its branches. Now the -vine considered here was perfect, and did not need care by the vinedresser. And -so the entire care of the vinedresser will be directed to the branches. He says, -every branch of mine and so forth. The branches of a vine, however, have -the nature of the vine; and so those united to Christ are branches of this -vine: "The vine brought forth branches" [Ez 17:6]. He mentions two things about -the branches: first, the attitude of the vinedresser to the bad branches; his -interest in the good branches. - -
1984 The -vinedresser's interest in the bad branches is to cut them off the vine. Thus he -says, every branch, that is, every believer, of mine that bears no -fruit, that is, bears no fruit on the vine, which is me, without whom -nothing can bear fruit, he takes away from the vine. It is clear from -this that not only are some cut off from Christ for doing evil, but also -because they neglect to do good: "We entreat you not to accept the grace of God -in vain" (2 Cor 6:1). Thus the Apostle said about himself: "By the grace of God -I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain" (1 Cor 15:10). We read -in Matthew (25:28) that the money was taken away from the servant who did not -bear fruit with it, but hid it instead; and our Lord ordered the unfruitful fig -tree to be cut down (Lk 13:7). - -
1985 His -interest in the good branches is to help them so they can bear more fruit. So -he says, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear -more fruit. Considering the literal sense, we see that a natural vine with -branches that have many shoots bears less fruit, because the sap is spread out -through all the shoots. Thus the vinedresser prunes away the extra shoots so -that the vine can bear more fruit. It is the same with us. For if we are well‑disposed -and united to God, yet scatter our love over many things, our virtue becomes -weak and we become less able to do good. This is why God, in order that we may -bear fruit, will frequently remove such obstacles and prune us by sending -troubles and temptations, which make us stronger. Accordingly, he says, he prunes, -even though one may be clean, for in this life no one is so clean that he does -not need to be cleansed more and more: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive -ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 Jn 1:8). And he does this so that -it may bear more fruit, that is, grow in virtue, so that the more pruned or -cleansed the more fruitful one is: "Let the just still be justified, and the -holy still be sanctified" [Rev 22:11]; "The Gospel is bearing fruit and -growing" (Col 1:6); "They go from strength to strength" (Ps 84:7). - -
1986 Now he -passes from this picture to his main intention. Two things were noticed in the -above picture when comparing the branches to the vine: the union of the -branches to the vine, and the pruning of the branches. First, he considers the -union of the branches with the vine; secondly, their pruning (v 18). As to the -first, he advises the disciples to cling to the vine; secondly, he gives the -reason for this (v 4b); thirdly, he describes this union (v 9). He does two -things concerning the first: he reminds them of a benefit already received; -secondly, he tells them to abide in him (4a). - -
1987 The benefit -they had already received was that of being cleansed. He says, you are -already made clean. It is like saying: I have said certain things about -branches; and you are branches ready to be pruned so as to bear fruit. And you -are clean by the word which I have spoken to you. - -
The -word of Christ, in the first place, cleanses us from error by teaching us: "He -must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give -instruction in sound doctrine" (Tit 1:9). This is because there is no falsity -in the words of God: "All my words are right" [Prv 8:8]. He says, you are -already made clean from the errors of the Jews. Secondly, the word of -Christ cleanses our hearts from earthly affections by inflaming them toward -heavenly things. For the word of God by its power moves our hearts, weighed -down by earthly things, and sets them on fire: "Is not my word fire?" (Jer -23:29). Thirdly when God is invoked in baptism, his word cleanses us from sin. -For we are cleansed in baptism because the word cleanses with the water. As -Augustine says: "Take away the word and what is the water but only water? The -word accompanies the element and a sacrament is formed."[3] -Thus it is the word which makes the water touch the body and wash the heart. -The word, I say, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. For this -word of faith is so strong in the Church that it even cleanses infants, -although they themselves cannot believe, when it is proclaimed from the faith -of those who believe, offer, bless and touch the infants, "baptizing them in -the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). -Fourthly, the word of Christ cleanses by the power of faith: God "cleansed -their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9).[4] - -
Thus -he says to them, you already instructed, moved, baptized, strengthened in -faith, are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. "You -are clean, but not all" (13:10). Since he had said above that the work of a -vinedresser was to prune, he clearly shows that he is a vinedresser when he -says that his word cleanses. And indeed, Christ, as God, is a vinedresser and -prunes the branches. - -
1988 Here he -urges them to persevere. He is saying in effect: Because you are now cleansed -and have received such a great benefit, you should remain this way. He says, Abide -in me, by charity: "He who abides in love abides in God" (1 Jn 4:16); and -by means of the sacraments: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in -me" (6:56). He says, Abide in me, by receiving grace, and I in you, by -helping you. - -
1989 Next (v -4b), he gives four reasons for being united to Christ. First, it sanctifies -those who are united to him; secondly, those not united are punished (v 6); -thirdly, those who are united to him have their desires satisfied (v 7); -fourthly, it glorifies God (v 8). In regard to the first, he shows that being -united to Christ is necessary in order to bear fruit; secondly that this is -efficacious (v 5). - -
1990 He does two -things about the first: first, he presents an illustration; and secondly shows -that it is apt. As to the first he says, I say that you should abide in me so -that you can bear fruit, because just as the branch literally, a -material branch, cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, from -whose roots sap ascends to give life to the branches, so neither can you bear -fruit unless you abide in me. Thus, being united to Christ is the reason -why someone bears fruit. And so of those who are not united to Christ we read: -"What return [fruit] did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed?" -(Rom 6:21); "The company of the godless is barren" (Job 15:34). - -
His -example is apt because I am the vine, you are the branches. It is like -saying: The relation between you and me is like that of branches to the vine. -We read of these branches: "It sent out its branches to the sea" [Ps 80:11]. - -
1991 Here he -shows that being united to Christ is efficacious: first, he shows that it is -efficacious; secondly, the reason for this efficacy (v 5b). - -
1992 First he -says: I say that it is not only necessary for a person to abide in me in order -to bear fruit, it is also efficacious, because he who abides in me, by -believing, obeying and persevering, and I in him, by giving -enlightenment, help and perseverance, he it is and not another, that bears -much fruit. - -
Such -persons bear a threefold fruit in this life. The first is that they avoid sin. -Secondly, they are eager to accomplish works of holiness: "the return you get -is sanctification" (Rom 6:22). Thirdly, they are eager for the progress of -others: "The earth will be filled with the fruit of your works" [Ps 104:13]. -They also produce a fourth fruit, but in eternal life: "He gathers fruit for -eternal life" (4:36). Eternal life is the last and perfect fruit of our labors: -"The fruit of good works is glorious" [Wis 3:15]. - -
1993 The reason -for this efficacy is because apart from me you can do nothing. With -these words he instructs the hearts of the humble and silences the mouths of -the proud, especially of the Pelagians, who say that they can do by themselves, -without the help of God, the good works of the virtues and of the law. And -although they were trying to maintain our free will, they really undermined it. - -
Look at what our Lord says here! He says that -without him we cannot do anything great, nor anything small, indeed, we cannot -do anything at all. This is not surprising because neither does God do anything -without him: "Without him was not anything made that was made" (1:3). For our -works are either from the power of nature or from divine grace. If they are -from the power of nature, then, since every action of nature is from the Word -of God, no nature can act to do anything without him. If our works are from the -power of grace, then, since he is the author of grace ‑ "grace and truth -came through Jesus Christ" (1:17) ‑ it is obvious that no meritorious -work can be done without him: "Not that we are capable of thinking anything of -ourselves as originating from ourselves; our capability is from God" [2 Cor -3:5]. Therefore, if we cannot even think without it coming from God, much less -can we do anything else.[5] - -
1994 Here he -mentions the second reason for remaining united to Christ, which is the threat -of punishment, for unless we abide in him, we will not escape punishment. He -mentions five things which describe this punishment. Some of these belong to -the punishment of loss, that is to say, the exclusion from glory; so he says, he -is cast forth. Sometimes on a natural vine we see a branch which remains by -some sort of an external connection without sharing any of the sap. In this way -also some remain connected to Christ only by faith, yet they do not share the -sap of the vine because they do not have charity. Thus, such persons will be -cast out, that is, separated from fellowship with the good.[6] - -
The -second punishment of loss is a withering; he says, and withers, for if -such a person once took anything at all from the root, he will lose it when -deprived of its help and life. Even bad Christians seem to have some kind of a -freshness, but when they are separated from the saints and from Christ their -dried up condition will be apparent: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd" -(Ps 22:16). - -
The -third punishment is association with those who are evil; he says, and he is -gathered, by the reaping angels, to be with the wicked. This is a very -great punishment. For if it is a great punishment to be with the wicked for -only a little while, how much greater it is to be with the most evil men and -devils forever: "They will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit" (Is -24:22); "Gather the weeds first and bind them into bundles to be burned" (Mt -13:30). - -
The -fourth punishment is that of sense; he says, thrown into the fire, which -is eternal: "What will be done with the wood of the vine?... Look, it is given -to the fire for fuel" [Ez 15:2]. If the wood of the vine does not remain united -to it, it is more worthless than other woods; but if it abides on the vine it -is more beautiful than the others. Thus Augustine says: "A branch is fit for -two things: either the vine or the fire. If it is not on the vine, it will be -in the fire."[7] -"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire" (Mt 25:41). The fifth -punishment is the unending experience of fire, he says, and burned, without -end: "And they will go away into eternal punishment" (Mt 25:46). - -
1995 Now we have -the third reason for abiding in Christ: our prayers become effective. He is -saying, in effect, If you abide in me, you will obtain this fruit, that -is, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. - -
Note -that when before he urged them to remain united to him, he mentioned two -things; and he repeats them here. First, he said before, Abide in me, -and he repeats it here by saying, If you abide in me. Secondly, he said -before, and I in you, in place of which he now says, and my words -abide in you. Because Christ is the Word of the Father, all words of wisdom -are from him: "The source of wisdom is God's Word in the highest heaven" (Sir -1:5). Thus it is clear that Christ is in us when the words of his wisdom are in -us: "You do not have his word abiding in you" (5:38). - -
Thus -he says, and my words abide in you, in four ways: by your loving them, -believing them, meditating on them and accomplishing them: "My son, be -attentive to my words," by believing them; "incline your ear to my sayings," by -obeying or accomplishing them; "let them not escape from your sight," because -you meditate on them; but "keep them within your heart," by loving them (Prv -4:20). "Your words were found and I ate them" (Jer 15:16). - -
Therefore, -the words of Christ are in us when we do as he commands and love what he -promises. And from this it follows that they teach us what we ought to pray -for: "We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes -for us with sighs too deep for words" (Rom 8:26). For this reason Christ taught -us to pray with his own words (Mt 6:9; Lk 11:2). And so the words of God, when -believed and meditated upon, teach us to ask for the things necessary for our -salvation; and these words of God when loved and accomplished help us to merit -it. So he adds, ask, with sound judgment and perseverance, whatever -you will, and it shall be done for you: "If you ask anything of the Father -in my name he will give it to you" [16:23]. - -
1996 Now the -fourth reason for abiding in Christ is mentioned, and it is the glory of the -Father. All our works should be directed to the glory of God: "Not to us, O -Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory" (Ps 115:1); "So, whether you eat -or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" [1 Cor 10:31]. And so -our Lord shows that we are in Christ, because this is why we bear fruit, and -because we bear fruit the Father is glorified. He says, By this my Father is -glorified, that is, it reflects glory on my Father, that you bear much -fruit. - -
Here -he mentions, in reverse order, three things which follow one from the other. -One refers to abiding in Christ, you become my disciples, and this is -the same as "Abide in me" (v 4). The second follows from this, you bear much -fruit. And from this my Father is glorified. He is saying in effect: It -gives glory to the Father that you bear much fruit, and you bear much fruit -because you are my disciples. You do this, first of all, by living well: "That -they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" -(Mt 5:16); and by teaching well, which also glorifies God: "Glorify the Lord by -teaching" [Is 24:15]; "Every one who calls upon my name I have created him for -my praise and glory" (Is 43:7). And so the apostles are the soil which bears -much fruit because they have become the disciples of Christ by abiding in him -and by the fire of their charity. - -
For -these are the signs of a disciple of Christ: first that one abides in him, is -united to him: "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples" (8:31). -And by doing this they become fit for bearing the fruit of teaching. The second -sign is charity: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you -have love for one another" (13:35). And because of this they are able to bear -the fruit of good works, because nothing has any value without charity: "If I -have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries ... but have not love, I am -nothing" (1 Cor 13:2). -
-LECTURE 2 - -
- -9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide -in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as -I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I -have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. -12 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 -Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his -friends."[8]
1997 Above, our -Lord urged his disciples to remain united with him; here he shows what this -involves. He makes three points: first, to abide in him is to abide in his -love; secondly, to abide in his love is to keep his commandments (v 10); -thirdly, that his commandment is to love (v 12). He does two things about the -first: first, he recalls the benefit granted to the disciples; secondly, he -urges them to persevere, abide in my love (v 9). - -
1998 He says -that the fact that we abide in Christ is due to his grace; and this grace is -the effect of his love: "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer 31:3). -It is clear from this that all our good works are ours due to the benefit of -divine love. For they would not be ours unless faith acted through love, and we -would not love unless we were first loved. And so he reminds them of this -benefit by saying, As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. - -
1999 The word -"as" sometimes indicates an equality of nature, and at other times a similarity -in acting. The Arians, who erred about this passage, wanted the "as" to -indicate an equality, and because of this they concluded that the Son was inferior -to the Father. But this is false. We must say, then, according to Augustine, -that the word "as" indicates a likeness in grace and love; for the love with -which the Son loves his disciples is a certain likeness of that love with which -the Father loves the Son.[9] - -
Now -since to love someone is to will good to that person, the Father loves the Son, -with respect to the Son's divine nature, because the Father wills him his own -infinite good, which he has, by communicating to the Son the very same -numerical nature the Father himself has: "For the Father loves the Son, and -shows him all that he himself is doing" (5:20). The Father also loves the Son -with respect to his human nature: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and -out of Egypt I called my son" (Hos 11:1). And he loves him so that he would be -at once both God and man. - -
But -the Son did not love the disciples in either of these ways. For he did not love -them to the point of their being gods by nature, nor to the point that they -would be united to God so as to form one person with him. But he did love them -up to a similar point: he loved them to the extent that they would be gods by -their participation in grace ‑ "I say, 'You are gods'" (Ps 82:6); "He has -granted to us precious and very great promises, that through these you may -become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4) ‑ and he loved them to -the extent that they would be united to God in affection: "He who is united to -the Lord becomes one spirit with him" (1 Cor 6:17); "For those whom he foreknew -he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29). Thus -the Father communicated to the Son a greater good, with respect to each nature -of the Son, than the Son did to his disciples; yet there is a similarity, as -was said. - -
2000 Abide in -my love. This is like saying: Because you have received such a great -benefit from my love, abide in it so that you love me. Or it could mean, -abide in my love because I love you, that is, abide in my grace so you -will not be excluded from the good things I have prepared for you. This meaning -is the more apt, so that the thought is: Persevere in this state so that you -will be loved by me through the effect of grace: "Every one should remain in -the state in which he was called" (1 Cor 7:20). "He who abides in love abides -in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). - -
2001 Now he -shows what it means to abide in his love. First, he shows that it means to keep -his commandment; secondly, he illustrates it with an example, as I have kept -my Father's commandments; thirdly, he eliminates an assumption (v 11). - -
2002 He says, Abide -in my love, and you will do this if you keep my commandments, for -this is the way you will abide in my love. Keeping the commandments is an -effect of divine love, not only of the love by which we love, but also of the -love by which God loves us. For from the fact that God loves us, he influences -us and helps us to fulfill his commandments, which we cannot do without grace: -"In this is love, not that we love God but that he loved us first" [1 Jn 4:10]. - -
2003 He adds an -example when he says, as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in -his love. For just as the love which the Father has for him is the model or -standard of Christ's love for us, so Christ wants his obedience to be the model -of our obedience. By saying this Christ shows that he abided in the Father's -love because in all things he kept the Father's commandments. For he submitted -to death: "He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a -cross" (Phil 2:8); and refrained from all sin: "He committed no sin; no guile -was found on his lips" (1 Pet 2:22). These things are to be understood of -Christ in his human nature: "He has not left me alone, for I always do what is -pleasing to him" (8:29). And so he says, I abide in his love, because -there is nothing in me, as a human being, opposed to his love. - -
2004 Now so they -do not think he is urging them to keep his commandments for his own benefit and -not for their benefit, he says, These things I have spoken to you, that -you keep my commandments, for your own good, so that my joy may be in you. Now -love is the cause of joy, for everyone takes joy in what he loves. But God -loves himself and creatures, especially rational creatures, to whom he grants -an infinite good. So Christ rejoices in two things from all eternity: first, in -his own good and that of the Father: "I was delighted every day, playing before -him" [Prv 8:30]; secondly, he delights in the good of the rational creature: -"delighting in the sons of men" (Prv 8:31), that is, in the fact that I am -shared in by the children of men. He rejoices in these things from eternity: -"As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you" -(Is 62:5). - -
Consequently, -our Lord wants us to become sharers of his joy by our observing his -commandments. He says, that my joy, the joy I take in my divinity and -that of my Father, may be in you. This is nothing else than eternal -life, which as Augustine says, is joy in the truth.[10] -That my joy may be in you means, in effect, that you may have eternal -life: "Then you will delight yourself in the Almighty" (Job 22:26). And that -your joy, which I take in my own humanity, may be full. The goods in -which we rejoice are either imperfect or imperfectly possessed; and so in this -life our joy cannot be full. But it will be full when perfect goods are -perfectly possessed: "Enter into the joy of your master" (Mt 25:21). - -
2005 Now our -Lord states what his precepts are: first, he states his commandment; secondly, -he presents an example (v 12b); thirdly, he recalls a benefit (v 14). - -
2006 The -commandment he gives is the commandment of charity, which he wants us to keep: This -is my commandment, that you love one another. Since there are many other -commandments of the Lord in the sacred writings, why does he say that his -commandment is only the practice of charity? - -
The -answer, according to Gregory, is that charity is the root and end of all the -virtues.[11] -It is the root, because it is from charity, firmly rooted in the human heart, -that we are led to accomplish all the other commandments: "He who loves his -neighbor has fulfilled the law" (Rom 13:8). Therefore, all the commandments -are, in a way, directed to this: that we do good to our neighbor, and not harm -him; and this is done best through charity. Charity is the end because all the -commandments are directed to it and by it alone are given strength: "The aim of -our charge is love" (1 Tim 1:5). So he says, This is my commandment, that -you love one another, since everything comes from charity as its source, -and all things are directed to charity as their end. As Gregory puts it: just -as many branches of a tree spring from one root, so the many virtues are -produced from one root; and the branch of a good work has no life if it is not -united to the root of charity.[12] - -
2007 Since we -read in Matthew (22:40) that the law and the prophets depend not only on love -for God, but also on love for neighbor, why does Christ mention here only love -for neighbor? The answer is that one is included in the other: for a person who -loves God must love his neighbor and things which belong to God; and the person -who loves his neighbor for the sake of God must love God. Now although the -objects of these acts are different, yet the outcomes are the same. There are -two reasons why he mentions love of neighbor rather than the love of God. By -doing this he wants to teach and lead them to help their neighbor, and to help -them to become strong enough to endure sufferings from those who will persecute -them. To do both of these, charity for our neighbor is necessary. - -
2008 Here he -shows by an example how we should love our neighbor, which is, as Christ loved -us. Now Christ loved us in the correct order and efficaciously. His love was -orderly because he loved nothing in us but God and in relation to God: "I am -the mother of beautiful love" (Si 24:18), and efficacious because he loved us -so much that he delivered himself for us: "Christ loved us and gave himself up -for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:2). So we should love -our neighbor, in a holy way, for his good, and efficaciously, by showing our -love by our actions: "Let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in -truth" (1 Jn 3:18). - -
2009 Greater -love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Here -he shows the efficacy of love, which is that one undergo death for his friends; -this is a sign of the greatest love. Yet one could object that it is considered -to be a sign of a greater love when someone lays down his life for his enemies, -as Christ did: "But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners -Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). - -
We should answer that Christ did not lay down his -life for his enemies so that they would remain his enemies, but to make them -his friends. Or, one could say, that he lay down his life for his friends, not -in the sense that they were friends who loved him, but rather were those whom -he loved. It is clear that the sign of the greatest love is to lay down one's -life for one's friends. This is so because there are four lovable things to be -put in order: God, our soul, our neighbor, and our body. We should love God -more than ourselves and our neighbor, so that for the sake of God we ought to -give ourselves, body and soul, and our neighbor. We should lay down our body, -but not give it, for the sake of our soul. For our neighbor, we should expose -our body and our physical life for his salvation. Consequently, since our -physical life is the best thing we have after our soul, it is the greatest -thing to expose it for the sake of our neighbor, and a sign of greater love: -"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son -into the world, so that we might live through him" (1 Jn 4:9). -
-LECTURE 3 - -
- -14 "You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 No -longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is -doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father -I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and -appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should -abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. -17 This I command you, to love [so that you will love] one another."[13]
2010 Above, our -Lord urged us to love our neighbor, based on his example. Here, Christ shows -his disciples the benefit conferred upon them which obliges them to imitate -him, which is, that he has embraced them in his love. First, he mentions a sign -of friendship; secondly, the cause of this friendship (v 16). He gives two -signs of friendship: one is found in the disciples; the other in himself (v -15). - -
2011 The sign in -the disciples that they are friends of Christ is that they keep his -commandments; he says, You are my friends if you do what I command you. He -is saying in effect: Up to now I have urged you to love one another, but now I -am speaking and teaching you about your friendship with me. - -
The -statement, you are my friends can be understood in two ways, based on -the two ways someone is called a friend. A person is called a friend either -because he loves or because he is loved. And what follows, if you do what I -command you is true for both meanings of friend. Those who love God keep -his commandments, and because a friend is, as Gregory says, in a way the -guardian of the other's soul, it is appropriate that one who guards or keeps -the will of God in his commandments is called the friend of God.[14] -Again, those whom God loves keep his commandments, because by conferring his -grace on them he helps them to keep them: for by loving us, God makes us love -him: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17). It is not they who first loved God, -but God makes them lovers by loving them. - -
2012 Note that -keeping the commandments is not the cause of divine friendship but the sign, -the sign that both God loves us and that we love God: "Love of her [Wisdom] is -the keeping of her laws" (Wis 6:19); "He who says he loves him and does not -keep his commandments is a liar" [1 Jn 2:4]. - -
2013 The sign of -Christ's friendship for them is mentioned when he says, No longer do I call -you servants. First, he excludes what seems opposed to friendship; -secondly, he mentions the sign of true friendship (v 15b). - -
2014 Servitude -is opposed to friendship; and he rejects this by saying, No longer do I call -you servants. It is like saying: although you were formerly servants under -the law, now you are free under grace: "You have received the spirit of -adoption" [Rom 8:15]. - -
Secondly, -he adds the reason for this when he says, for the servant does not know what -his master is doing: for a servant is like a stranger to his master, "The -slave does not continue in the house for ever" (8:35). Now secrets should not -be told to strangers, "Do not tell a secret to a stranger" [Prv 25:9]. And so -secrets should not be given to those who are now servants. This verse shows the -servant does not act for the sake of himself, because charity does not seek its -own, but the interests of Jesus and the salvation of one's neighbor. Those who -act entirely by reason of another are bad servants. Thus it is clear that the -disciples were servants, but it was a good servitude springing from love. - -
As -for the second difficulty, we should say that the servant who is moved only by -another and not by himself, is related to the one who moves him as a tool to -the worker. Now a tool shares with the worker in the work, but not in the -reason for the work. So such servants share only in the work. But when a -servant acts by his own will, it is necessary for him to know the reason for -the work and have secrets revealed to him so he can know what he is doing. "If -you have a servant, regard him as your own soul" [Sir 33:31]. Now the apostles, -as was said, were moved by themselves to accomplish good works, that is, they -were moved by their own will, inclined by love. And so our Lord revealed his -secrets to them. But bad servants do not know what their master is doing. What -things don't they know? Strictly speaking, they do not know what God does in -us. For God acts in us in all the good we do: "O Lord ... you have wrought for -us all our works (Is 26:12). So the bad servant, darkened by the pride in his -own heart, does not know what his master is doing when this servant -attributes to himself what he does. - -
2016 Now he sets -down the true sign of friendship on his own part, which is that all that I -have heard from my Father I have made know to you. For the true sign of -friendship is that a friend reveals the secrets of his heart to his friend. -Since friends have one mind and heart, it does not seem that what one friend -reveals to another is placed outside his own heart: "Argue your case with your -neighbor" (Prv 25:9). Now God reveals his secrets to us by letting us share in -his wisdom: "In every generation she [Wisdom] passes into holy souls and makes -them friends of God and prophets" (Wis 7:27). - -
2017 There is a -question here as to what and in what way the Son hears from the Father. The -answer has already been indicated in many ways. Since to hear is to receive -knowledge from another, for the Son to hear from the Father is nothing other -than for the Son to receive knowledge from the Father. Now the knowledge of the -Son is his own essence. Thus, for the Son to hear from the Father is for the -Son to receive his essence from the Father. - -
2018 Another -question concerns the statement, all that I have heard from my Father I have -made known to you. If he did make all things known to them it would follow -that the disciples knew as much as the Son. The answer, according to -Chrysostom, is that all that I have heard means all that I have heard -which you ought to hear, but not absolutely all things, I have made known to -you: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" -(16:12).[15] - -
Or, -one could say, according to Augustine, that what he would say to them was so -certain that he used the past tense instead of the future.[16] -So the meaning becomes, all that I have heard from my Father I have made -known to you, that is, I will make known with that fullness of which the -Apostle says: "Then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully -understood" (1 Cor 13:12). And below we read, "The hour is coming when I shall -tell you plainly of the Father" (16:25), that is, when I lead you to the vision -of the Father. For all things the Son knows the Father knows. So when he revels -the Father to us, the Son will reveal all that the Son himself knows and which -we know. - -
Again, -one could say with Gregory, and this is better, that the same thing can be -known perfectly or imperfectly. For example, in the sciences it is obvious that -a person who knows all the principles of a science is said to know that -science, although imperfectly. And so a person who teaches some principles of a -science can say that he teaches that science, because everything that belongs -to that science is virtually contained in its principles. But one will know -that same science more perfectly when he knows the individual conclusions which -are virtually in the principles. In the same way we can have a twofold -knowledge of divine matters. One is imperfect, and is gained by faith, which is -a foretaste of that future happiness and knowledge which we will have in -heaven: "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for" [Heb 11:2]. He says -of this knowledge, all ... I have made known to you, that is, in faith, -by a kind of foretaste, like conclusions are virtually contained in their -principles. So Gregory says: "All the things he has made known to his servants -are the joys of interior love and the feasts of our heavenly fatherland, which -he excites in our minds every day by the breath of his love. For as long as we -love the sublime heavenly things we have heard, we already know what we love, -because the love itself is knowledge."[17] - -
2019 Now he -mentions the cause of this friendship. It is the usual practice for each one of -us to say that he or she is the cause of friendship: "Every friend will say, 'I -started the friendship'" [Sir 37:1]. And so many people attribute to themselves -the cause of God's friendship when they attribute to themselves, and not to -God, the source of their good actions. Our Lord rejects this by saying, you -did not choose me. He is saying in effect: Whoever has been called to this -sublime friendship should not attribute the cause of this friendship to -himself, but to me, who chose him or her as a friend. First, he mentions the -gratuitous choice of God; secondly, he sets forth for what they have been -chosen, that you should go and bear fruit. - -
2020 He says, -you did not choose me to be your friend, but I chose you to make you my -friends: "Not that we loved God, but that he loved us first" [1 Jn 4:10]. - -
Now -God's love is twofold. One is eternal, by which we are predestined: "He chose -us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). The other is temporal, -by which we are called by him, and this is simply the carrying out of eternal -predestination. And this is because those he chose by predestining them he also -chose by calling them: "Those whom he predestined he also called" (Rom 8:30); -"He chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13).[18] - -
2021 Some say -that God's temporal choice is caused by the merits of those who are chosen. -This conflicts with what it says here. For if God chose you because you were -good, you were still not able to be good unless you chose the good, and this -good is especially God. Therefore, it was you who first chose the good which is -God, before you were chosen. But our Lord says the contrary: you did not -choose me, but I chose you. Thus we should not say that our own goodness -entirely precedes God's choice. I say "entirely" because we might have some -particular good which could be the cause of another good being given to us; and -this good could be the cause of being given still another good, since there is -a certain order in God's gifts. But in general, nothing can be the cause of and -precede the divine choice, because all our goods are from God. - -
2022 It would be -an even greater error to say that our eternal election was preceded by our own -choice. Yet there are some who said that our preceding merits are the cause of -that election. This was Origen's error. He said that human souls were created -equal at the same time and that while some stood firm, others sinned, more and -less seriously. Thus, some merited to receive grace, and others did not.[19] -Our Lord's saying is opposed to this, you did not choose me. - -
2023 Others say -that it is true that our actually existing merits are not the cause of our -predestination, but those merits preexisting in the foreknowledge of God are. -Thus they say that because God knew that certain persons would be good and make -good use of grace, he decided to give them grace. But if this were so, it would -follow that the reason he chose us was because he foreknew we would choose him. -And so our choice would be prior to the divine choice; which is contrary to our -Lord's statement. - -
2024 Perhaps -someone might say: What choice could there be since we were nothing and there -was no rank among us? But one who says this is mislead by thinking that the -divine choice is like human choice. They are not the same. Our choice is caused -by some already existing good; while God's choice is the cause of an influx of -good, greater in one than in another. Since choice is an act of the will, then -according as the will of God and the human will are differently related to the -good, so the character of their choice will be different. Now God's will is -related to a created good as its cause: "How would anything have endured if -thou hadst not willed it?" (Wis 11:25). And so goodness is dispensed to created -things from the will of God. Accordingly, God prefers one person to another -insofar as he confers more good on that one than on another. But the human will -is moved to something by a preexisting good which has become known. Therefore, -in our choices it is necessary that one good exist before another. The reason -why God confers more good on one than on another is so that there might be a -splendor of order in things. This is clear in material things where prime -matter of itself is uniformly disposed to all forms. Also, before things -themselves exist, they are not disposed to this or that existence; rather, they -receive different forms and existences from God so that an order can be -established among them. It is like this among rational creatures, where some -are chosen for glory and some are rejected for punishment: "The Lord knows who -are his ... In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but -also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble" (2 Tim -2:19). And so we see a diversified order: the mercy of God shines forth in -those whom, without any previous merits, he prepares for grace; in others we -see the justice of God when, because of their own guilt, he allots them -punishment, yet less than is deserved. So, I have chosen you by predestining -you from all eternity, and by calling you to the faith during your lifetime. - -
2025 Then he -points out for what he has chosen them when he says, I appointed you that -you should go and bear fruit. First, he states for what he chose them; -secondly, he gives a reason for the above (v 17). In regard to the first he -does two things: first, he shows that he chose them to do something; secondly, -that he chose them to receive something, whatever you ask the Father. - -
2026 He says, I -appointed you, that is, I gave you a definite rank in my Church: "And God -has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets" (1 Cor 12:28). -Again, I appointed you, that is, firmly set you: "And God made the two -great lights ... and God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light -upon the earth" (Gen 1:16). - -
2027 I -appointed you, I say, to three things. First to go; and so he says, that -you should go, traveling over the whole world to convert the whole world to -the faith: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" -(Mk 16:15). Or, that you should go, that is, progress from virtue to -virtue: "They go from strength to strength; the God of gods will be seen in -Zion" (Ps 84:7); "His shoots shall spread out" (Hos 14:6). - -
Secondly, -he appointed them to bear fruit; so he says, and bear fruit. This fruit -is the fruit of conversion to the faith, as in Paul's first journey, "In order -that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the -Gentiles" (Rom 1:13); or an interior and spiritual fruit, as in his second -journey, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace" (Gal 5:22); "My blossoms -became glorious and abundant fruit" (Sir 24:17). - -
Thirdly, -they were appointed to bear fruit that would not be destroyed by death or sin; -so he says, and that your fruit should abide, that is, that the society -of the faithful would be led into eternal life and their spiritual fruit -flourish: "He gathers fruit for eternal life" (4:36). - -
2028 So that -whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. Here he -shows that he chose them to receive something, namely, all that they ask for. -He is saying: I have appointed you to be worthy to receive from the Father in -my name: "If our hearts do not condemn us we have confidence before God; and we -receive from him whatever we ask" (1 Jn 3:22). - -
2029 These -things I command you so that you will love one another. Here he is giving -the reason for what he has said. Someone might ask: Why did Christ tell them -all these things? So our Lord answers, These things I command you so that -you will love one another. He is saying in effect: Everything I said to you -was to lead you to love your neighbor: "The aim of our charge is love" (1 Tim -1:5). One could also say, with Chrysostom, that the apostles could have said: -Lord, why are you reminding us so much about your love? Are you reprimanding -us? But our Lord says: Not at all. I am doing this to encourage you to love -your neighbor: "And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God -should love his brother also" (1 Jn 4:21). -
-LECTURE 4 - -
- -18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me -before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; -but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, -therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, 'A -servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will -persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all this -they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me."
2030 After -presenting the picture of the vine and the branches and explaining the part -about the branches being united to the vine, he now explains it in regard to -the pruning or cleansing they will receive from their trials. So our Lord now -consoles them against the tribulations they were going to endure. First, he -mentions a few considerations which will console them; secondly, he explains -these (v 20); thirdly, he rejects the excuses of those who will persecute them -(v 22). He mentions two reasons why they should be consoled: the first uses -himself as an example; the second is based on the reason for their being hated, -because you are not of the world. - -
2031 Our Lord -consoles them by using himself as an example of one who has suffered the -persecution of oppressors, saying, If the world hates you, know that it has -hated me before it hated you. Note that just as the source of all benefits -is love, so the source of all persecutions is hatred. And so our Lord foretells -that they will be hated: "You will be hated by all nations" (Mt 24:9); "Blessed -are you when men hate you" (Lk 6:22). - -
He -says, If the world hates you, that is, it will come to pass that the -world will hate you, and show its hatred by persecuting you, know that it -has hated me before it hated you: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates -me" (7:7). This thought is a great consolation for the just so that they can -courageously endure persecutions: "Consider him who endured from sinners such -hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted" (Heb -12:3); "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should -follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21). According to Augustine, the members should -not consider themselves greater than the Head, nor refuse to be part of his -body by being unwilling to endure with their Head the hatred of the world.[20] - -
2032 The world -can have two meanings. First a good meaning, for those who lead a good life in -the world: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19). -Secondly, it can have an evil sense, meaning those who love the world: "The -whole world is in the power of the evil one" (1 Jn 5:19). And so the whole -world hates the whole world, because those who love the world, and they are -spread throughout the whole world, hate the whole world, that is, the Church of -the good, which has been established throughout the whole world. - -
2033 Now he -mentions a second point for their consolation, and this is based on the reason -for their being hated. When a person endures another's hatred because of his -own sins, there is reason for regret and sorrow; but when he is hated because -of his virtue he should rejoice. First, our Lord gives the reason why some are -loved by the world; secondly, why the apostles are hated by the world (v 19). - -
2034 The reason -why some are loved by the world is that they are like the world; If you were -of the world, the world would love its own. Like loves like: "Every -creature loves its like" (Sir 13:15). And thus the world, that is, those who -love the world, love those who love the world. Accordingly, our Lord says, If -you were of the world, that is, followers of the world, the world would -love its own, because you would be its own and like to it: "The world -cannot hate you, but it hates me" (7:7). "They are of the world, therefore what -they say is of the world, and the world listens to them" (I Jn 4:5). - -
2035 One might -object that our Lord meant by the world the authorities of the world, who would -persecute the apostles. Yet these very same authorities persecute other worldly -people, like murderers and thieves. Therefore, the world does not love its own -any more than it loves the apostles. - -
I -reply that it is possible to find something purely good, but not something -purely evil, since the subject of evil is something good. Consequently, the -evil of guilt is located in some good of nature. Therefore, no person can be a -sinner and evil without having some good. So it is because of the evil of these -authorities, the evil of their unbelief, that they belong to the world and hate -the apostles and those who are not of the world. But because of the good they -possess they are not of the world and hate those who are of the world, as -thieves and robbers, and such. Still, there were some who were living well in -the world yet loved the apostles and approved of their actions. - -
2036 But now -there seems to be a greater difficulty. For every sin pertains to the world, -and so a person is of the world by reason of any sin. Yet we observe that -people who commit the same sin hate each other, for, example, the proud: "Among -the proud there is always strife" [Prv 13:10]. And one greedy person hates -another who is also greedy. As the Philosopher says, potters quarrel with one -another.[21] -Thus, the world is hating the world, and what our Lord says here does not seem -to be true, that is, the world would love its own. - -
I -reply that there are two kinds of love: the love of friendship and the love of -concupiscence. These are quite different. With the love of concupiscence we -draw external things or persons to ourselves, and we love these others insofar -as they are useful to us or give us pleasure. But in the love of friendship we -have the opposite, for we draw ourselves to what is external to us, because -those we love in this way we treat the same as ourselves, sharing ourselves -with them in some way. Thus, likeness is a cause of love, when we are speaking -of the love of friendship, for we do not love a person in this way unless we -are one with that person: and likeness is a certain way of being one. But with -the love of concupiscence, whether it is for what is useful or gives pleasure, -likeness is a cause of division and hated. For since with this love I love some -person or thing insofar as it is useful to me or gives me pleasure, I hate as -opposed to me whatever hinders this usefulness or pleasure. So it is that the -proud feud among themselves, for one takes for himself the glory that another -loves and in which he takes pleasure. As for the potters, they quarrel because -one takes for himself some profit which another wants for himself. - -
Notice -that the love of concupiscence is not a love for the thing desired but a love -for the person desiring: for in this kind of love, one loves another because -the other is useful, as was said. Therefore, in this kind of love, one is -rather loving himself than the other. For example, a person who loves wine -because it gives him pleasure loves himself rather than the wine. But the love -of friendship is concerned rather with the thing loved than with the one -loving, because here one loves another for the sake of the one loved, and not -for the sake of the one loving. And so because in the love of friendship -likeness is a cause of love, and unlikeness a cause of hatred, the world hates -what is not its own and is unlike it; but it loves, with the love of -friendship, what is its own. It is the reverse with the love of concupiscence. -Thus he says, If you were of the world, the world would love its own, with -the love of friendship. - -
2037 Now he -gives the reason why the world hates the apostles, which is because they are -unlike the world. He says, but because you are not of the world, because -your spirit has been lifted above it ‑ although you are of the world by -your origin: "You are from below, I am from above" (8:23) ‑ lifted above -it not by yourselves but by my grace, because I chose you out of the world, therefore, -because you are not of the world, the world hates you, that is, those -who love the world and who are unlike you, hate you: "An unjust man is an -abomination to the righteous, but he whose way is straight is an abomination to -the wicked" (Prv 29:27); and in the same chapter "Bloodthirsty men hate one who -is blameless" (v 10). - -
2038 Three -reasons can be given why the world hates those who are holy. First, there is a -difference of condition: the world is in a state of death, but those who are -holy are in a state of life: "Do not wonder, brethren, that the world hates -you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the -brethren" (1 Jn 3:13). And so we read: "The very sight of him is a burden to -us" (Wis 2:15). The second reason is that the world does not like to be -corrected: for those who are holy are, by their words and actions, a rebuke to -the conduct of the world. Consequently the world hates them: "They hate him who -reproves in the gate" (Amos 5:10); "But it," the world, "hates me because I -testify of it that its works are evil" (7:7). The third reason is because of -evil envy, for those who are evil envy the good when they see them grow and -increase in goodness and holiness, just like the Egyptians hated and persecuted -the children of Israel when they saw them increasing (Ex 1:9). And we also see -that Joseph's brothers hated him when they saw that he was loved more than they -(Gen 37:4). - -
2039 Now he -amplifies on the reasons just given for their consolation: first, the one using -himself as an example; secondly, the one relating to the reason why they are -hated (v 21). He does two things with the first: first, he reminds them that he -and they are different in condition; secondly, he shows they are alike in what -will be done to them, If they persecuted me, they will persecute you. - -
2040 Their -different conditions were that Christ was the Lord and the apostles were -servants: "A servant is not greater than his master" (13:16). He reminds them -of this difference when he says, Remember the word that I said to you, A -servant is not greater than his master. Therefore, it is not unfitting for -you to undergo the same sufferings as your Lord; rather, you should regard this -as a great glory. Thus Christ said to the disciples who were asking to sit on -his right and left, "Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" (Mt -20:22). "It is a great honor to follow God" (Sir 23:28); "It is enough for the -disciple to be like his teacher" (Mt 10:25). - -
2041 On the -contrary. He said above, "No longer do I call you servants" (15:15), while he -says here, A servant is not greater than his master. I answer that there -are two kinds of servitude. One comes from a slave‑like fear, that is, -from a fear of punishment; and the Apostles were not servants in this way. The -other comes from a "chaste fear," [the respect of a spouse], and such servitude -was in the apostles: "Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake -when he comes" (Lk 12:37). - -
2042 If then you -are my servants and I am your Lord, you should be content to have happen to you -what happens to me. Now some have despised me, while others have accepted me: "He -came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who -received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of -God" (1:11). You will be treated the same way: if some despise you, yet others -will honor you. - -
For -this reason he says, If they persecuted me, they will persecute you. Here -we see how the saints are like Christ: for the disciples were persecuted for -the same reason that Christ was, because Christ was being persecuted in the -disciples. In fact in Acts (9:4) Christ said that he was being persecuted in -the persecution of his disciples: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" - -
And -so because their reason for acting is the same in the two cases, the -consequence follows: If they persecuted me, they will persecute you: "If -they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they -malign those of his household" (Mt 10:25). Matthew (23:34) says of this -persecution: "Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of -whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues -and persecute from to town to town." Similarly, they will be honored for the -same reason that Christ was: if they kept my word, they will keep yours also, -because your words are my words: "You desire proof that Christ is speaking in -me" (2 Cor 13:3); "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father -speaking through you" (Mt 10:20). And so Christ says, "He who hears you hears -me" (Lk 10:16). The apostles were in truth accepted and honored by some of the -people, as is clear from "When you received the word of God which you heard -from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the -word of God" (1 Thess 2: 13). - -
2043 Now he -amplifies on the second consideration that would console them, which is based -on the reason for their being hated. The apostles were chosen and raised above -the world insofar as they had been made sharers of divinity and joined to God. -This is why the world hated them. From this it follows that the world rather -hated God in them than hated them. The reason for this hatred was that the -world lacked the true knowledge of God which comes from the true faith and -devoted love. If they did have this knowledge and recognized that the apostles -were friends of God, they would not have persecuted them. Thus he says, all -this they will do to you, that is, hate and persecute you, on my account. -And so this should be your glory: "Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a -thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief‑maker; yet if one suffers as a -Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God" (1 -Pet 4:14). On my account, not because they love me, but because they hate me; -just as, on the contrary, you will suffer on my account because you love me. - -
They -will do these things to you because they do not know him who sent me: -"If you knew me, you would perhaps know my Father also" [8:19]. For they did -not know that God would be pleased by their accepting Christ. Note that he is -speaking here of a perfect knowledge, which consists in a faith which perfects -the intellect and joins the affections to God. We read of this kind of -knowledge: "Let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows -me" (Jer 9:24); "To know you is complete righteousness" (Wis 15:3). -
-LECTURE 5 - -
- -22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not -have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates me hates -my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else -did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my -Father. 25 It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, 'They hated -me without a cause.' 26 But when the Counselor [Paraclete] comes, whom I shall -send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the -Father, he will bear witness to me. 27 And you also are witnesses, because you -have been with me from the beginning."[22]
2044 Before, -when our Lord said that the Jews would persecute his disciples, he give as the -reason that the Jews did not know the one who sent him. Now, since ignorance -usually excuses one, he here shows that they are inexcusable. He does this in -two ways: first, because of the things he personally did and taught them; -secondly, because of what will occur when he is no longer present (v 26). In -regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that they were without -excuse because of the truth he taught; secondly, because of the witness of the -works he performed (v 24). He does three things about the first: first, he -shows what could have excused them; secondly, that they did not have this -excuse (v 22); thirdly, he shows the real source of their persecution (v 23). - -
2045 He had -said: "But all this they will do to you on my account." Yet they might have had -an excuse. If I had not come and spoken to them, that is, if I had not -shown myself personally and taught them personally, they would not have sin. - -
2046 How does -this reconcile with Romans (3:23) which states that "All have sinned"? We -should say that our Lord is not speaking here of just any sin, but of the sin -of disbelief, that is, they do not believe in Christ. This is called here -simply "sin" because it is a prime example of sin, because as long as this sin -lasts, no other sin can be remitted; for no sin is remitted except by faith in -Jesus Christ through whom we are justified, as we read in Romans (5:1). -Consequently, they would not have sin means that they would not be -charged with not believing in him. This is primarily because "faith comes from -what is heard" (Rom 10:17). So, if Christ had not come and had not spoken to -them, they could not have believed. And no one is charged with a sin for not -doing what he can't do at all. - -
2047 Yet some -could say that they were bound to believe and could have believed even if -Christ had not come, since he had been foretold to them by the prophets: "which -he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel -concerning his Son" (Rom 1:2). I answer that of themselves the Jews could not -believe and understand the words of the prophets unless they were shown by -divine help: "The words are shut up and sealed until the appointed time" [Dan -12:9]. Thus the eunuch said: "How can I understand, unless some one guides me?" -(Acts 8:31). - -
Therefore, if Christ had not come, they would not -have this sin, the sin of disbelief, although they would have had other actual -sins for which they would have been punished. And a similar reasoning holds for -all those whom the preaching of God's word could not reach. For this reason -they cannot be charged with the sin of disbelief for their condemnation; but -they will be condemned, because deprived of God's favors because of their other -actual sins and original sin. - -
2048 Note that -Christ's coming and teaching resulted in good for many, that is, for those who -accepted him and kept his word. And for many it turned out bad, that is, for -those who decided neither to listen to him nor believe him. "He will become ... -a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and -a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Is 8:14); "This child is set for the -fall and rising of many in Israel" (Lk 2:34). - -
2049 He has just -stated what could have excused them from unbelief. But they don't have this -excuse because Christ showed himself to them in person and taught them. Thus he -says, but now, since I have come and spoken to them, they have no -excuse, that of ignorance, for their sin. "So they are without -excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God" (Rom 1:20). -But they did know Christ, as is clear from Matthew (21:38): "This is the heir; -come, let us kill him." However, they knew that he was the Christ promised in -the law, but they did not know that he was God, because "If they had, they -would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). And so their ignorance -is no excuse, because they did not do this from ignorance but from another -root, that is, from hatred and a certain malice. - -
2050 This is why -he adds, He who hates me hates my Father also. This is like saying: -Their sin is not ignorance of me, but hatred for me, and this involves hatred -for the Father. Since the Son and the Father are one in essence, truth and -goodness, and since all knowledge of anyone is through the truth which is in -him, whoever loves the Son loves the Father also; and whoever knows the one -knows the other also; and whoever hates the Son hates the Father also. - -
2051 Two -problems arise here. First, whether anyone can hate God? We should say that no -one can hate God as God. Since God is the pure essence of goodness, and since -this is lovable in itself, it is impossible that God be hated in himself. This -is the reason why it is impossible for an evil person to see God. For it is -impossible for God to be seen without being loved; and one who loves God is -good. So these two things are incompatible, namely, to see God and be evil. - -
Yet -one can hate God from a particular point of view. For example, one who loves -lustful pleasures hates God as forbidding the enjoyment of lust, and one who -wants to be free from all punishment hates the justice of God when it punishes.[23] - -
2052 The second -problem arises because no once can hate what he does not know. But the Jews did -not know the Father: "They do not know him who sent me" (15:21). Therefore, -what he says here does not seem to be true, that they hate my Father also. We -can say, according to Augustine, that a person can love or hate something that -was never seen nor truly known.[24] -This can happen in two ways. In one way, I can hate or love a person according -as I know him; or, according to what I am told about him. For example, if I -hear that someone is a thief I hate him, not because I know or hate this very -person, but because in general I hate all thieves. So, if he were a thief and I -did not know it, I would hate him without knowing that I hated him. Now the -Jews hated Christ and the truth that he preached. Since the very truth that -Christ preached and the works he performed were in the will of God the Father, -then just as they hated Christ, so also they hated the Father, even though they -did not know that these things were in the will of the Father. - -
2053 Now he -shows they are without excuse because of the witness of his signs. They could -say that they were not convinced by the words he spoke in opposition to them. -So he corroborates his words with marvelous actions, saying, If I had not -done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin. First, -he shows that they could be somewhat excused; secondly, he reveals the root of -their sin (v 24b); thirdly, he cites an authority (v 25). - -
2054 There are -two questions about the first point. One is about the truth of the antecedent -statement, If I had not done among them the works which no one else did. Did -Christ perform certain good works among them that no one else had done? It -seems not. If we say that Christ raised the dead, Elijah and Elisha also did -this. If Christ walked on the water, Moses parted the waters. Again, Joshua did -something greater [than Christ] for he made the sun stand still. So it seems -that Christ should not use this as an argument, and thus the conclusion is not -true. - -
I -answer that we can say, according to Augustine, that our Lord is not speaking -of the miracles he worked among them, that is, merely in their sight, but of -those he worked "among" them, that is, on their very persons.[25] -In curing the sick, although others did it, no one did it so much as Christ, -because no other was made God and no one was born of a virgin but Christ. So in -healing the sick he performed among them works which no one else performed; and -this in three ways. First, because his works were so great: for he raised a -person who had been dead for four days; he gave sight to a man who was born -blind, which had never been heard of before, as we read above (9:32). Secondly, -because of the great number of his works, for he healed all who were sick (Mt -14:35), and no one else did this. Thirdly, because of the way he did these -works: others did these things by praying for help, which showed that they were -not doing this by their own power; but Christ did it by command, for he did it -by his own power: "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands -even the unclean spirits, and they obey him" (Mk 1:27). - -
Therefore, -although others have raised the dead and have accomplished other miracles which -Christ did, they did not do it in the same manner as Christ, nor by their own -power, as Christ did. Further, making the sun stand still is less than what the -dying Christ did, when he made the moon move backwards and changed the whole -course of the heavens, as Dionysius says.[26] - -
2055 The second -question is about the truth of the conditional statement, that if Christ had -not done among them works which no one else did, the Jews would not have the -sin of disbelief. My reply is that if we speak of any of the miracles -indiscriminately, the Jews would have been excusable if they had not been done -among them by Christ. For no one can come to Christ by faith unless he is -drawn: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44). -So the spouse says in the Song (1:4): "Draw me after you." Therefore, if there -were no one who had drawn them to the faith, they would have an excuse for -their disbelief. Note that Christ drew by words and by signs, both visible and -invisible, that is, by inciting and stirring hearts from within: "The king's -heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord" (Prv 21:1). And so an inner -impulse to act well is the work of God, and those who resist it sin. If not, -Stephen would have no reason to say: "You always resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts -7:51). And Isaiah (50:5) says: "The Lord has opened my ear," that is, the ear -of my heart, "and I was not rebellious." When our Lord said, If I had not -done among them the works which no one else did, we have to understand this -as referring not only to visible works but also to the interior impulses and -attractions to his teaching. If these had not been done among them, they would -not have sin. It is now clear how they could have been excused, that is, if he -had not accomplished miraculous works among them. - -
2056 Now he -shows the root of their sin of disbelief, namely, their hatred, because of -which they did not believe the works they saw. He says, but now they have seen, -the works he did among them, and hated both me and my Father: "Because -they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord" (Prv 1:29). As -Gregory says, there are some in the Church who not only do not do good works, -but they even persecute those who do, so that what they fail to do they detest -in others.[27] -Thus their sin is not one of weakness or ignorance, but is committed of set -purpose. - -
2057 Yet some -could say: If it is true that the Jews hated you and your Father, why did you -perform miracles among them? He answers and says It is to fulfill the word -that is written in their law. Here we could ask why he says that this was -written in their law when it was written in the Psalms? We can say to this that -the "law" is understood in three ways in scripture. Sometimes it is taken for -the entire Old Testament; and this is the way it is understood here, because -the entire teaching of the Old Testament is directed to the observance of the -law: "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom" (Lk 23:42). Sometimes -it is taken as distinguished from the histories and the prophets: "that -everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the -psalms" (in which the histories are sometimes included) "must be fulfilled" (Lk -24:44). And sometimes the law is taken as distinct only from the prophets, and -then the histories are included in the prophets. He says, It is to fulfill -what is written in their law, that is, in the Psalms (35:19) 'They hated -me without a cause,' and not to gain some benefit or avoid some trouble -(for this is why people hate). Indeed, Christ gave them opportunities to love -him when he healed and taught them: "He went about doing good" (Acts 10:38); -"Is evil a recompense for good? They have dug a pit for my life" (Jer 18:20); -"What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me" (Jer 2:5). - -
2058 Now he -shows that they are inexcusable because of what will come to pass after him: -because they would have other testimonies, namely, those of the Holy Spirit and -of the apostles. First, he states what was to come from the Holy Spirit; -secondly, from the apostles (v 27). He indicates four things about the Spirit: -his freedom, tenderness, procession and activity. - -
2059 He -indicates his freedom, or power, when he says, But when the Paraclete comes. -Strictly speaking that person is said to come who comes willingly and on -his own authority; and this is true of the Holy Spirit, because "the Spirit -blows where it wills" [3:8]; "I called upon God, and the Spirit of wisdom came -to me" (Wis 7:7). Therefore, in saying, whom I shall send, he does not -suggest force but origin. - -
2060 He touches -on his tenderness when he says, the Paraclete, that is the Consoler. -Since the Paraclete is the Love of God he makes us scorn earthly things and -cling to God; and thus he takes away our pain and sadness and gives us joy in -divine things: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace" (Gal 5:22); and in -Acts (9:31) we read that the Church was walking "in the comfort of the Holy -Spirit." - -
2061 Thirdly, he -touches on the twofold procession of the Holy Spirit. First, he mentions the -temporal procession when he says, whom I shall send to you from the Father. Note -that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent not because the Spirit is changing -place, since the Spirit fills the entire universe, as we read in Wisdom (1:7), -but because, by grace, the Holy Spirit begins to dwell in a new way in those he -makes a temple of God: "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that -God's Spirit dwells in you?" (1 Cor 3:16). There is no disagreement in saying -that the Holy Spirit is sent and that he comes. In saying that the Spirit comes -the grandeur of his divinity is indicated: the "Spirit, who apportions to each -one individually as he wills" (1 Cor 12:11). And he is said to be sent to -indicate his procession from another, for the fact that he sanctifies the -rational creature by indwelling he has from that other, from whom he has it -that he is, just as it is from another that the Son has whatever he does. - -
The -Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son together; and this is indicated -in "He showed me the river of the water of life," that is, the Holy Spirit, -"flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb," that is, of Christ (Rev -22:1). Therefore, when speaking of the sending of the Holy Spirit he mentions -the Father and the Son, who send the Spirit by the same and equal power. Thus -sometimes he mentions the Father as sending the Spirit, but not without the -Son, as above (14:26): "The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name"; -at other times he says that he himself sends the Holy Spirit, but not without -the Father: as here, whom I shall send to you from the Father, because -whatever the Son does he has from the Father: "The Son cannot do anything of -himself" [5:19].[28] - -
2062 He mentions -the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit when he shows in a similar way that -the Spirit is related both to the Father and the Son. He shows the Spirit as -related to the Son when he says, the Spirit of truth, for the Son is the -Truth: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6). He shows the Spirit -as related to the Father when he says, who proceeds from the Father. So -to say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, is the same as -saying the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son: "God has sent the Spirit of -his Son into our hearts" (Gal 4:6). And because the word "spirit" (spiritus) -suggests a kind of impulse and every motion produces an effect in harmony with -its source (as heating makes something hot), it follows that the Holy Spirit -makes those to whom he is sent like the one whose Spirit he is. And since he is -the Spirit of Truth "He will teach you all truth" [16:13]; "The inspiration of -the Almighty gives understanding" [Job 32:8]. In the same way, because he is -the Spirit of the Son, he produces sons: "You have received the spirit of -sonship" (Rom 8:15). He says the Spirit of truth as contrasted with the -spirit of lying: "The Lord has mingled within her the spirit of error" [Is -19:14]; "I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his -prophets" (1 Kgs 22:22). - -
2063 Because he -says who proceeds from the Father and does not add "and from the Son," -the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son but only from -the Father. But this absolutely cannot be. For the Holy Spirit could not be -distinguished from the Son unless he either proceeds from the Son, or on the -other hand, the Son proceeds from him (and no one claims this). For one cannot -say that among the divine persons, who are entirely immaterial and simple, -there is a material distinction based on a division of quantity, which matter -underlies. Thus it is necessary that the distinction of the divine persons be -by way of a formal distinction, which has to involve some kind of opposition. -For if forms are not opposed they are compatible with one another in the same -subject and do not diversify a supposit; for example, to be white and large. So -among the divine persons, since "not subject to birth" and "fatherhood" are not -opposed, they belong to one person. If, then, the Son and the Holy Spirit are -distinct persons proceeding from the Father, they have to be distinguished by -some properties that are opposed. These properties cannot be opposed like -affirmation and negation or privation and possessing are opposed, because then -the Son and the Holy Spirit would be related to one another like being and non‑being -and as the complete to the deprived, and this is repugnant to their equality. -Nor can these properties be opposed like contraries are opposed, one of which -is more perfect than the other. What remains is that the Holy Spirit is -distinguished from the Son only by a relative opposition. - -
This -kind of opposition rests solely on the fact that one of them is referred to the -other. For the different relations of two things to some third thing are not -directly opposed except accidentally, that is by some incidental consequence. -So in order for the Holy Spirit to be distinguished from the Son, they must -have relations that are opposed, by which they will be opposed to each other. -No such relations can be found except relations of origin, insofar as one -person is from the other. Thus it is impossible, granting the Trinity of -persons, that the Holy Spirit not be from the Son. - -
2064 Some say -that the Holy Spirit and the Son are distinguished by the different ways they -proceed, insofar as the Son is from the Father by being born and the Holy -Spirit by proceeding. But the same problem still returns which arose from the -previous opinion, as to how these two processions differ. One cannot say that -they are distinguished because of the diverse things received by their -respective generations, like the generation of a human being and a horse differ -because of the diverse natures that are communicated. For the very same nature -is received by the Son by being born from the Father and by the Holy Spirit by -proceeding. So we are left with the conclusion that they are distinguished only -by the order of origin, that is to say, insofar as the birth of the Son is a principle -of the procession of the Holy Spirit. And so, if the Holy Spirit were not from -the Son, the Spirit would not be distinguished from the Son and procession -would not be distinguished from birth. - -
Thus -even the Greeks admit some order between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For they -say that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, and that the Son acts through the Holy -Spirit, but not conversely. And some even admit that the Holy Spirit is from -the Son, but they will not concede that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. -Yet in this they are obviously imprudent. For we use the word "procession" in -all cases in which one thing is from another in any way. And so this word, -because it is so general, has been adapted to indicate the existence of the -Holy Spirit as from the Son. We don't have any examples of this in creatures -which would lead us to give it a specific name; while we do have examples which -give us the special term of "generation" which is applied to the Son. The -reason for this is that in creatures we do not find a person proceeding from -will, as love, while we do find a person proceeding from nature, as son. Thus, -however the Holy Spirit is ordered to the Son, it can be concluded that the -Spirit proceeds from the Son. - -
2065 -Nevertheless some of the Greeks assert that one should not say that the Holy -Spirit proceeds from the Son because for them the preposition "from" indicates -a principle which is not from a principle, and this is so only of the Father. -This is not compelling because the Son with the Father is one principle of the -Holy Spirit, as also of creatures. And although the Son has it from the Father -that the Son is a principle of creatures, still creatures are said to be from -the Son; and for the same reason it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds -from the Son. - -
Nor -does it make any difference that we read here, who proceeds from the Father, -instead of "from the Father and the Son," because in a similar way it is -said, whom I shall send, and yet the Father is also understood to send, -since there is added, from the Father. In a similar way because it says, -the Spirit of truth, that is, the Spirit of the Son, we understand that -the Spirit proceeds from the Son. For, as has been said, when the procession of -the Holy Spirit is mentioned, the Son is always joined to the Father, and the -Father to the Son; and so these different ways of expression indicate a -distinction of persons. - -
2066 Fourthly, -he mentions the activity of the Holy Spirit when he says, he will bear -witness to me; and this in three ways. First, the Spirit will teach the -disciples and give them the confidence to bear witness: "For it is not you who -speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Mt 10:20). -Secondly, the Spirit will communicate his teaching to those who believe in -Christ: "God also bore witness by signs and miracles and by gifts of the Holy -Spirit" wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit" (Heb -2:4). Thirdly, the Spirit will soften the hearts of their hearers: "When you -send forth your Spirit, they are created" (Ps 104:30). - -
2067 Finally, he -mentions what lies ahead for the disciples when he says, and you also are -witnesses, inspired by the Holy Spirit: "You shall be my witnesses in -Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of this earth" (Acts -1:8). We read of this twofold testimony in Acts (5:32): "We are witnesses to -these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey -him." - -
He -adds why this testimony is appropriate when he says, because you have been -with me from the beginning, that is, the beginning of my preaching and -working of miracles, and so you can testify to what you have seen and heard: -"That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you" (1 Jn 1:3). We can -see from this that Christ did not perform miracles in his youth, as some -apocryphal gospels relate but only from the time he called his disciples. - +
++15
+LECTURE I
+++1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 +Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every +branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. +3 You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to +you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit +by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless +you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who +abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for +apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, +he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are [and +he is] gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you abide in +me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall +be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear +much fruit, and so [become] prove to be my disciples.[1]
+1978 In this talk our Lord especially wants to comfort his +disciples about two things: one was near, in the present, and this +was his passion; the other was what they feared in the future, and +this was the troubles which would come upon them. He had said to +them about these two things: Let not your hearts be +troubled, referring to the first, and neither let them be +afraid (14:27), referring to the second.
+So now, after comforting them over his leaving (14:1), he +strengthens them for the troubles which will come upon them. First, +he presents a certain picture; secondly, he moves from this to his +intention (15:3). The picture he presents is of a vine and a +vinedresser. First, he mentions the vine; secondly, the +vinedresser; and thirdly, he approves of the vinedresser's concern +for the branches of the vine.
+1979 He himself is the vine. So he says, making a comparison, +I am the vine; for just like a vine, although it seems to be +of small account, nevertheless surpasses all trees in the sweetness +of its fruit, so Christ, although he seemed to be despised by the +world because he was poor, and seemed of small account and was +publicly disgraced, nevertheless produced the sweetest fruit: "His +fruit was sweet to my taste" (Song 2:3). And so Christ is a vine +producing a wine which interiorly intoxicates us: a wine of sorrow +for sin: "You have given us to drink the wine of sorrow" [Ps 60:3]; +and a wine which strengthens us, that is, which restores us: "My +blood is drink indeed" (6:55). In the same way he compared himself, +above, to wheat, for his flesh is truly food.
+This is the vine mentioned in Genesis (40:9‑10): "There +was a vine before me, and on the vine there were three branches," +that is Christ, in whom there are three substances: his body, soul +and divinity. This is also the vine about which Jacob says: "My +son, tie your she‑ass," that is, the Church, "to the vine" +[Gen 49:11].
+1980 This vine is true. Sometimes what is true is distinguished +from its likeness, as a man is distinguished from his picture. And +sometimes what is true is distinguished from what is deformed or +spoiled, as true wine is distinguished from vinegar, which is +spoiled wine. When Christ says here, I am the true vine, he +is using true in the second sense to distinguish himself from the +deformed or spoiled vine, which is the Jewish people. We read about +them: "How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine" +(Jer 2:21). This was because this vine brought forth wild grapes +instead of grapes: "When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did +it yield wild grapes?" (Is 5:4).
+1981 There are two natures in Christ, the divine and the human. +Because of his human nature he is like us and is less than the +Father. Because of his divine nature he is like God and above us. +Thus he is the true vine insofar as he is the head of the Church, +the man Christ Jesus. He implies this when he mentions the +vinedresser, who is the Father. He says, and my Father is the +vinedresser. If Christ is the vine because of his divine +nature, the Father would also be the vine like the Son. But because +Christ is the vine by reason of his human nature, the Father is +related to him as vinedresser to vine. Indeed, even Christ himself, +as God, is a vinedresser.
+1982 [The vinedresser cultivates the vine.] Now to cultivate +something is to devote one's interest to it. And we can cultivate +something in two ways: either to make what is cultivated better, as +we cultivate a field or something of that sort, or to make +ourselves better by the cultivating, and in this way we cultivate +wisdom. God cultivates us to make us better by his work, since he +roots out the evil seeds in our hearts. As Augustine says, he opens +our hearts with the plow of his words, plants the seeds of the +commandments, and harvests the fruit of devotion.[2]
+But we cultivate God, not by plowing but by adoring, in order +that we may be made better by him: "If any one is a worshiper," +that is, a cultivator, "of God and does his will, God listens to +him" (9:31). And so the Father is the vinedresser of this vine for +the good of others. For he plants: "I planted you a choice vine, +wholly of pure seed" (Jer 2:21), and makes its grow: I planted, +Apollos can make one grow from within and produce fruit, no matter +how much others cooperate on the exterior. And God guards and +preserves, for we read that he built a watchtower in the vineyard, +and put a hedge around it (Mt 21:33; Is 5:2).
+1983 The vinedresser is concerned about two things: the vine and +its branches. Now the vine considered here was perfect, and did not +need care by the vinedresser. And so the entire care of the +vinedresser will be directed to the branches. He says, every +branch of mine and so forth. The branches of a vine, however, +have the nature of the vine; and so those united to Christ are +branches of this vine: "The vine brought forth branches" [Ez 17:6]. +He mentions two things about the branches: first, the attitude of +the vinedresser to the bad branches; his interest in the good +branches.
+1984 The vinedresser's interest in the bad branches is to cut +them off the vine. Thus he says, every branch, that is, +every believer, of mine that bears no fruit, that is, bears +no fruit on the vine, which is me, without whom nothing can bear +fruit, he takes away from the vine. It is clear from this +that not only are some cut off from Christ for doing evil, but also +because they neglect to do good: "We entreat you not to accept the +grace of God in vain" (2 Cor 6:1). Thus the Apostle said about +himself: "By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward +me was not in vain" (1 Cor 15:10). We read in Matthew (25:28) that +the money was taken away from the servant who did not bear fruit +with it, but hid it instead; and our Lord ordered the unfruitful +fig tree to be cut down (Lk 13:7).
+1985 His interest in the good branches is to help them so they +can bear more fruit. So he says, and every branch that does bear +fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Considering the +literal sense, we see that a natural vine with branches that have +many shoots bears less fruit, because the sap is spread out through +all the shoots. Thus the vinedresser prunes away the extra shoots +so that the vine can bear more fruit. It is the same with us. For +if we are well‑disposed and united to God, yet scatter our +love over many things, our virtue becomes weak and we become less +able to do good. This is why God, in order that we may bear fruit, +will frequently remove such obstacles and prune us by sending +troubles and temptations, which make us stronger. Accordingly, he +says, he prunes, even though one may be clean, for in this +life no one is so clean that he does not need to be cleansed more +and more: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the +truth is not in us" (1 Jn 1:8). And he does this so that it may +bear more fruit, that is, grow in virtue, so that the more +pruned or cleansed the more fruitful one is: "Let the just still be +justified, and the holy still be sanctified" [Rev 22:11]; "The +Gospel is bearing fruit and growing" (Col 1:6); "They go from +strength to strength" (Ps 84:7).
+1986 Now he passes from this picture to his main intention. Two +things were noticed in the above picture when comparing the +branches to the vine: the union of the branches to the vine, and +the pruning of the branches. First, he considers the union of the +branches with the vine; secondly, their pruning (v 18). As to the +first, he advises the disciples to cling to the vine; secondly, he +gives the reason for this (v 4b); thirdly, he describes this union +(v 9). He does two things concerning the first: he reminds them of +a benefit already received; secondly, he tells them to abide in him +(4a).
+1987 The benefit they had already received was that of being +cleansed. He says, you are already made clean. It is like +saying: I have said certain things about branches; and you are +branches ready to be pruned so as to bear fruit. And you are clean +by the word which I have spoken to you.
+The word of Christ, in the first place, cleanses us from error +by teaching us: "He must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so +that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine" (Tit +1:9). This is because there is no falsity in the words of God: "All +my words are right" [Prv 8:8]. He says, you are already made +clean from the errors of the Jews. Secondly, the word of Christ +cleanses our hearts from earthly affections by inflaming them +toward heavenly things. For the word of God by its power moves our +hearts, weighed down by earthly things, and sets them on fire: "Is +not my word fire?" (Jer 23:29). Thirdly when God is invoked in +baptism, his word cleanses us from sin. For we are cleansed in +baptism because the word cleanses with the water. As Augustine +says: "Take away the word and what is the water but only water? The +word accompanies the element and a sacrament is formed."[3] Thus it is the word +which makes the water touch the body and wash the heart. The word, +I say, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. For +this word of faith is so strong in the Church that it even cleanses +infants, although they themselves cannot believe, when it is +proclaimed from the faith of those who believe, offer, bless and +touch the infants, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of +the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). Fourthly, the word of +Christ cleanses by the power of faith: God "cleansed their hearts +by faith" (Acts 15:9).[4]
+Thus he says to them, you already instructed, moved, baptized, +strengthened in faith, are already made clean by the word which +I have spoken to you. "You are clean, but not all" (13:10). +Since he had said above that the work of a vinedresser was to +prune, he clearly shows that he is a vinedresser when he says that +his word cleanses. And indeed, Christ, as God, is a vinedresser and +prunes the branches.
+1988 Here he urges them to persevere. He is saying in effect: +Because you are now cleansed and have received such a great +benefit, you should remain this way. He says, Abide in me, +by charity: "He who abides in love abides in God" (1 Jn 4:16); and +by means of the sacraments: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my +blood abides in me" (6:56). He says, Abide in me, by +receiving grace, and I in you, by helping you.
+1989 Next (v 4b), he gives four reasons for being united to +Christ. First, it sanctifies those who are united to him; secondly, +those not united are punished (v 6); thirdly, those who are united +to him have their desires satisfied (v 7); fourthly, it glorifies +God (v 8). In regard to the first, he shows that being united to +Christ is necessary in order to bear fruit; secondly that this is +efficacious (v 5).
+1990 He does two things about the first: first, he presents an +illustration; and secondly shows that it is apt. As to the first he +says, I say that you should abide in me so that you can bear fruit, +because just as the branch literally, a material branch, +cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, +from whose roots sap ascends to give life to the branches, so +neither can you bear fruit unless you abide in me. +Thus, being united to Christ is the reason why someone bears fruit. +And so of those who are not united to Christ we read: "What return +[fruit] did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed?" +(Rom 6:21); "The company of the godless is barren" (Job 15:34).
+His example is apt because I am the vine, you are the +branches. It is like saying: The relation between you and me is +like that of branches to the vine. We read of these branches: "It +sent out its branches to the sea" [Ps 80:11].
+1991 Here he shows that being united to Christ is efficacious: +first, he shows that it is efficacious; secondly, the reason for +this efficacy (v 5b).
+1992 First he says: I say that it is not only necessary for a +person to abide in me in order to bear fruit, it is also +efficacious, because he who abides in me, by believing, +obeying and persevering, and I in him, by giving +enlightenment, help and perseverance, he it is and not another, +that bears much fruit.
+Such persons bear a threefold fruit in this life. The first is +that they avoid sin. Secondly, they are eager to accomplish works +of holiness: "the return you get is sanctification" (Rom 6:22). +Thirdly, they are eager for the progress of others: "The earth will +be filled with the fruit of your works" [Ps 104:13]. They also +produce a fourth fruit, but in eternal life: "He gathers fruit +for eternal life" (4:36). Eternal life is the last and perfect +fruit of our labors: "The fruit of good works is glorious" [Wis +3:15].
+1993 The reason for this efficacy is because apart from me +you can do nothing. With these words he instructs the hearts of +the humble and silences the mouths of the proud, especially of the +Pelagians, who say that they can do by themselves, without the help +of God, the good works of the virtues and of the law. And although +they were trying to maintain our free will, they really undermined +it.
+Look at what our Lord says here! He says that without him we +cannot do anything great, nor anything small, indeed, we cannot do +anything at all. This is not surprising because neither does God do +anything without him: "Without him was not anything made that was +made" (1:3). For our works are either from the power of nature or +from divine grace. If they are from the power of nature, then, +since every action of nature is from the Word of God, no nature can +act to do anything without him. If our works are from the power of +grace, then, since he is the author of grace ‑ "grace and +truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17) ‑ it is obvious that +no meritorious work can be done without him: "Not that we are +capable of thinking anything of ourselves as originating from +ourselves; our capability is from God" [2 Cor 3:5]. Therefore, if +we cannot even think without it coming from God, much less can we +do anything else.[5]
+1994 Here he mentions the second reason for remaining united to +Christ, which is the threat of punishment, for unless we abide in +him, we will not escape punishment. He mentions five things which +describe this punishment. Some of these belong to the punishment of +loss, that is to say, the exclusion from glory; so he says, he +is cast forth. Sometimes on a natural vine we see a branch +which remains by some sort of an external connection without +sharing any of the sap. In this way also some remain connected to +Christ only by faith, yet they do not share the sap of the vine +because they do not have charity. Thus, such persons will be cast +out, that is, separated from fellowship with the good.[6]
+The second punishment of loss is a withering; he says, and +withers, for if such a person once took anything at all from +the root, he will lose it when deprived of its help and life. Even +bad Christians seem to have some kind of a freshness, but when they +are separated from the saints and from Christ their dried up +condition will be apparent: "My strength is dried up like a +potsherd" (Ps 22:16).
+The third punishment is association with those who are evil; he +says, and he is gathered, by the reaping angels, to be with +the wicked. This is a very great punishment. For if it is a great +punishment to be with the wicked for only a little while, how much +greater it is to be with the most evil men and devils forever: +"They will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit" (Is 24:22); +"Gather the weeds first and bind them into bundles to be burned" +(Mt 13:30).
+The fourth punishment is that of sense; he says, thrown into +the fire, which is eternal: "What will be done with the wood of +the vine?... Look, it is given to the fire for fuel" [Ez 15:2]. If +the wood of the vine does not remain united to it, it is more +worthless than other woods; but if it abides on the vine it is more +beautiful than the others. Thus Augustine says: "A branch is fit +for two things: either the vine or the fire. If it is not on the +vine, it will be in the fire."[7] "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal +fire" (Mt 25:41). The fifth punishment is the unending experience +of fire, he says, and burned, without end: "And they will go +away into eternal punishment" (Mt 25:46).
+1995 Now we have the third reason for abiding in Christ: our +prayers become effective. He is saying, in effect, If you abide +in me, you will obtain this fruit, that is, ask whatever you +will, and it shall be done for you.
+Note that when before he urged them to remain united to him, he +mentioned two things; and he repeats them here. First, he said +before, Abide in me, and he repeats it here by saying, If +you abide in me. Secondly, he said before, and I in you, +in place of which he now says, and my words abide in you. +Because Christ is the Word of the Father, all words of wisdom are +from him: "The source of wisdom is God's Word in the highest +heaven" (Sir 1:5). Thus it is clear that Christ is in us when the +words of his wisdom are in us: "You do not have his word abiding in +you" (5:38).
+Thus he says, and my words abide in you, in four ways: by +your loving them, believing them, meditating on them and +accomplishing them: "My son, be attentive to my words," by +believing them; "incline your ear to my sayings," by obeying or +accomplishing them; "let them not escape from your sight," because +you meditate on them; but "keep them within your heart," by loving +them (Prv 4:20). "Your words were found and I ate them" (Jer +15:16).
+Therefore, the words of Christ are in us when we do as he +commands and love what he promises. And from this it follows that +they teach us what we ought to pray for: "We do not know how to +pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with +sighs too deep for words" (Rom 8:26). For this reason Christ taught +us to pray with his own words (Mt 6:9; Lk 11:2). And so the words +of God, when believed and meditated upon, teach us to ask for the +things necessary for our salvation; and these words of God when +loved and accomplished help us to merit it. So he adds, ask, +with sound judgment and perseverance, whatever you will, and it +shall be done for you: "If you ask anything of the Father in my +name he will give it to you" [16:23].
+1996 Now the fourth reason for abiding in Christ is mentioned, +and it is the glory of the Father. All our works should be directed +to the glory of God: "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your +name give glory" (Ps 115:1); "So, whether you eat or drink, or +whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" [1 Cor 10:31]. And so +our Lord shows that we are in Christ, because this is why we bear +fruit, and because we bear fruit the Father is glorified. He says, +By this my Father is glorified, that is, it reflects glory +on my Father, that you bear much fruit.
+Here he mentions, in reverse order, three things which follow +one from the other. One refers to abiding in Christ, you become +my disciples, and this is the same as "Abide in me" (v 4). The +second follows from this, you bear much fruit. And from this +my Father is glorified. He is saying in effect: It gives glory to +the Father that you bear much fruit, and you bear much fruit +because you are my disciples. You do this, first of all, by living +well: "That they may see your good works and give glory to your +Father who is in heaven" (Mt 5:16); and by teaching well, which +also glorifies God: "Glorify the Lord by teaching" [Is 24:15]; +"Every one who calls upon my name I have created him for my praise +and glory" (Is 43:7). And so the apostles are the soil which bears +much fruit because they have become the disciples of Christ by +abiding in him and by the fire of their charity.
+For these are the signs of a disciple of Christ: first that one +abides in him, is united to him: "If you continue in my word, you +are truly my disciples" (8:31). And by doing this they become fit +for bearing the fruit of teaching. The second sign is charity: "By +this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love +for one another" (13:35). And because of this they are able to bear +the fruit of good works, because nothing has any value without +charity: "If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries +... but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Cor 13:2).
+
+
+LECTURE 2
+++9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in +my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, +just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. +11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, +and that your joy may be full. 12 This is my commandment, that you +love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no man +than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."[8]
+1997 Above, our Lord urged his disciples to remain united with +him; here he shows what this involves. He makes three points: +first, to abide in him is to abide in his love; secondly, to abide +in his love is to keep his commandments (v 10); thirdly, that his +commandment is to love (v 12). He does two things about the first: +first, he recalls the benefit granted to the disciples; secondly, +he urges them to persevere, abide in my love (v 9).
+1998 He says that the fact that we abide in Christ is due to his +grace; and this grace is the effect of his love: "I have loved you +with an everlasting love" (Jer 31:3). It is clear from this that +all our good works are ours due to the benefit of divine love. For +they would not be ours unless faith acted through love, and we +would not love unless we were first loved. And so he reminds them +of this benefit by saying, As the Father has loved me, so have I +loved you.
+1999 The word "as" sometimes indicates an equality of nature, +and at other times a similarity in acting. The Arians, who erred +about this passage, wanted the "as" to indicate an equality, and +because of this they concluded that the Son was inferior to the +Father. But this is false. We must say, then, according to +Augustine, that the word "as" indicates a likeness in grace and +love; for the love with which the Son loves his disciples is a +certain likeness of that love with which the Father loves the +Son.[9]
+Now since to love someone is to will good to that person, the +Father loves the Son, with respect to the Son's divine nature, +because the Father wills him his own infinite good, which he has, +by communicating to the Son the very same numerical nature the +Father himself has: "For the Father loves the Son, and shows him +all that he himself is doing" (5:20). The Father also loves the Son +with respect to his human nature: "When Israel was a child, I loved +him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hos 11:1). And he loves him +so that he would be at once both God and man.
+But the Son did not love the disciples in either of these ways. +For he did not love them to the point of their being gods by +nature, nor to the point that they would be united to God so as to +form one person with him. But he did love them up to a similar +point: he loved them to the extent that they would be gods by their +participation in grace ‑ "I say, 'You are gods'" (Ps 82:6); +"He has granted to us precious and very great promises, that +through these you may become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet +1:4) ‑ and he loved them to the extent that they would be +united to God in affection: "He who is united to the Lord becomes +one spirit with him" (1 Cor 6:17); "For those whom he foreknew he +also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom +8:29). Thus the Father communicated to the Son a greater good, with +respect to each nature of the Son, than the Son did to his +disciples; yet there is a similarity, as was said.
+2000 Abide in my love. This is like saying: Because you +have received such a great benefit from my love, abide in it +so that you love me. Or it could mean, abide in my love +because I love you, that is, abide in my grace so you will not be +excluded from the good things I have prepared for you. This meaning +is the more apt, so that the thought is: Persevere in this state so +that you will be loved by me through the effect of grace: "Every +one should remain in the state in which he was called" (1 Cor +7:20). "He who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" +(1 Jn 4:16).
+2001 Now he shows what it means to abide in his love. First, he +shows that it means to keep his commandment; secondly, he +illustrates it with an example, as I have kept my Father's +commandments; thirdly, he eliminates an assumption (v 11).
+2002 He says, Abide in my love, and you will do this +if you keep my commandments, for this is the way you will +abide in my love. Keeping the commandments is an effect of divine +love, not only of the love by which we love, but also of the love +by which God loves us. For from the fact that God loves us, he +influences us and helps us to fulfill his commandments, which we +cannot do without grace: "In this is love, not that we love God but +that he loved us first" [1 Jn 4:10].
+2003 He adds an example when he says, as I have kept my +Father's commandments and abide in his love. For just as the +love which the Father has for him is the model or standard of +Christ's love for us, so Christ wants his obedience to be the model +of our obedience. By saying this Christ shows that he abided in the +Father's love because in all things he kept the Father's +commandments. For he submitted to death: "He humbled himself and +became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8); and +refrained from all sin: "He committed no sin; no guile was found on +his lips" (1 Pet 2:22). These things are to be understood of Christ +in his human nature: "He has not left me alone, for I always do +what is pleasing to him" (8:29). And so he says, I abide in his +love, because there is nothing in me, as a human being, opposed +to his love.
+2004 Now so they do not think he is urging them to keep his +commandments for his own benefit and not for their benefit, he +says, These things I have spoken to you, that you keep my +commandments, for your own good, so that my joy may be in +you. Now love is the cause of joy, for everyone takes joy in +what he loves. But God loves himself and creatures, especially +rational creatures, to whom he grants an infinite good. So Christ +rejoices in two things from all eternity: first, in his own good +and that of the Father: "I was delighted every day, playing before +him" [Prv 8:30]; secondly, he delights in the good of the rational +creature: "delighting in the sons of men" (Prv 8:31), that is, in +the fact that I am shared in by the children of men. He rejoices in +these things from eternity: "As the bridegroom rejoices over the +bride, so shall your God rejoice over you" (Is 62:5).
+Consequently, our Lord wants us to become sharers of his joy by +our observing his commandments. He says, that my joy, the +joy I take in my divinity and that of my Father, may be in +you. This is nothing else than eternal life, which as Augustine +says, is joy in the truth.[10] That my joy may be in you means, in +effect, that you may have eternal life: "Then you will delight +yourself in the Almighty" (Job 22:26). And that your joy, +which I take in my own humanity, may be full. The goods in +which we rejoice are either imperfect or imperfectly possessed; and +so in this life our joy cannot be full. But it will be full when +perfect goods are perfectly possessed: "Enter into the joy of your +master" (Mt 25:21).
+2005 Now our Lord states what his precepts are: first, he states +his commandment; secondly, he presents an example (v 12b); thirdly, +he recalls a benefit (v 14).
+2006 The commandment he gives is the commandment of charity, +which he wants us to keep: This is my commandment, that you love +one another. Since there are many other commandments of the +Lord in the sacred writings, why does he say that his commandment +is only the practice of charity?
+The answer, according to Gregory, is that charity is the root +and end of all the virtues.[11] It is the root, because it is from charity, +firmly rooted in the human heart, that we are led to accomplish all +the other commandments: "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled +the law" (Rom 13:8). Therefore, all the commandments are, in a way, +directed to this: that we do good to our neighbor, and not harm +him; and this is done best through charity. Charity is the end +because all the commandments are directed to it and by it alone are +given strength: "The aim of our charge is love" (1 Tim 1:5). So he +says, This is my commandment, that you love one another, +since everything comes from charity as its source, and all things +are directed to charity as their end. As Gregory puts it: just as +many branches of a tree spring from one root, so the many virtues +are produced from one root; and the branch of a good work has no +life if it is not united to the root of charity.[12]
+2007 Since we read in Matthew (22:40) that the law and the +prophets depend not only on love for God, but also on love for +neighbor, why does Christ mention here only love for neighbor? The +answer is that one is included in the other: for a person who loves +God must love his neighbor and things which belong to God; and the +person who loves his neighbor for the sake of God must love God. +Now although the objects of these acts are different, yet the +outcomes are the same. There are two reasons why he mentions love +of neighbor rather than the love of God. By doing this he wants to +teach and lead them to help their neighbor, and to help them to +become strong enough to endure sufferings from those who will +persecute them. To do both of these, charity for our neighbor is +necessary.
+2008 Here he shows by an example how we should love our +neighbor, which is, as Christ loved us. Now Christ loved us in the +correct order and efficaciously. His love was orderly because he +loved nothing in us but God and in relation to God: "I am the +mother of beautiful love" (Si 24:18), and efficacious because he +loved us so much that he delivered himself for us: "Christ loved us +and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to +God" (Eph 5:2). So we should love our neighbor, in a holy way, for +his good, and efficaciously, by showing our love by our actions: +"Let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth" (1 Jn +3:18).
+2009 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down +his life for his friends. Here he shows the efficacy of love, +which is that one undergo death for his friends; this is a sign of +the greatest love. Yet one could object that it is considered to be +a sign of a greater love when someone lays down his life for his +enemies, as Christ did: "But God shows his love for us in that +while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8).
+We should answer that Christ did not lay down his life for his +enemies so that they would remain his enemies, but to make them his +friends. Or, one could say, that he lay down his life for his +friends, not in the sense that they were friends who loved him, but +rather were those whom he loved. It is clear that the sign of the +greatest love is to lay down one's life for one's friends. This is +so because there are four lovable things to be put in order: God, +our soul, our neighbor, and our body. We should love God more than +ourselves and our neighbor, so that for the sake of God we ought to +give ourselves, body and soul, and our neighbor. We should lay down +our body, but not give it, for the sake of our soul. For our +neighbor, we should expose our body and our physical life for his +salvation. Consequently, since our physical life is the best thing +we have after our soul, it is the greatest thing to expose it for +the sake of our neighbor, and a sign of greater love: "In this the +love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son +into the world, so that we might live through him" (1 Jn +4:9).
+
+
+LECTURE 3
+++14 "You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 No +longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what +his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I +have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not +choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and +bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you +ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17 This I command +you, to love [so that you will love] one another."[13]
+2010 Above, our Lord urged us to love our neighbor, based on his +example. Here, Christ shows his disciples the benefit conferred +upon them which obliges them to imitate him, which is, that he has +embraced them in his love. First, he mentions a sign of friendship; +secondly, the cause of this friendship (v 16). He gives two signs +of friendship: one is found in the disciples; the other in himself +(v 15).
+2011 The sign in the disciples that they are friends of Christ +is that they keep his commandments; he says, You are my friends +if you do what I command you. He is saying in effect: Up to now +I have urged you to love one another, but now I am speaking and +teaching you about your friendship with me.
+The statement, you are my friends can be understood in +two ways, based on the two ways someone is called a friend. A +person is called a friend either because he loves or because he is +loved. And what follows, if you do what I command you is +true for both meanings of friend. Those who love God keep his +commandments, and because a friend is, as Gregory says, in a way +the guardian of the other's soul, it is appropriate that one who +guards or keeps the will of God in his commandments is called the +friend of God.[14] Again, those whom God loves keep his +commandments, because by conferring his grace on them he helps them +to keep them: for by loving us, God makes us love him: "I love +those who love me" (Prv 8:17). It is not they who first loved God, +but God makes them lovers by loving them.
+2012 Note that keeping the commandments is not the cause of +divine friendship but the sign, the sign that both God loves us and +that we love God: "Love of her [Wisdom] is the keeping of her laws" +(Wis 6:19); "He who says he loves him and does not keep his +commandments is a liar" [1 Jn 2:4].
+2013 The sign of Christ's friendship for them is mentioned when +he says, No longer do I call you servants. First, he +excludes what seems opposed to friendship; secondly, he mentions +the sign of true friendship (v 15b).
+2014 Servitude is opposed to friendship; and he rejects this by +saying, No longer do I call you servants. It is like saying: +although you were formerly servants under the law, now you are free +under grace: "You have received the spirit of adoption" [Rom +8:15].
+Secondly, he adds the reason for this when he says, for the +servant does not know what his master is doing: for a servant +is like a stranger to his master, "The slave does not continue in +the house for ever" (8:35). Now secrets should not be told to +strangers, "Do not tell a secret to a stranger" [Prv 25:9]. And so +secrets should not be given to those who are now servants. This +verse shows the servant does not act for the sake of himself, +because charity does not seek its own, but the interests of Jesus +and the salvation of one's neighbor. Those who act entirely by +reason of another are bad servants. Thus it is clear that the +disciples were servants, but it was a good servitude springing from +love.
+As for the second difficulty, we should say that the servant who +is moved only by another and not by himself, is related to the one +who moves him as a tool to the worker. Now a tool shares with the +worker in the work, but not in the reason for the work. So such +servants share only in the work. But when a servant acts by his own +will, it is necessary for him to know the reason for the work and +have secrets revealed to him so he can know what he is doing. "If +you have a servant, regard him as your own soul" [Sir 33:31]. Now +the apostles, as was said, were moved by themselves to accomplish +good works, that is, they were moved by their own will, inclined by +love. And so our Lord revealed his secrets to them. But bad +servants do not know what their master is doing. What things don't +they know? Strictly speaking, they do not know what God does in us. +For God acts in us in all the good we do: "O Lord ... you have +wrought for us all our works (Is 26:12). So the bad servant, +darkened by the pride in his own heart, does not know what his +master is doing when this servant attributes to himself what he +does.
+2016 Now he sets down the true sign of friendship on his own +part, which is that all that I have heard from my Father I have +made know to you. For the true sign of friendship is that a +friend reveals the secrets of his heart to his friend. Since +friends have one mind and heart, it does not seem that what one +friend reveals to another is placed outside his own heart: "Argue +your case with your neighbor" (Prv 25:9). Now God reveals his +secrets to us by letting us share in his wisdom: "In every +generation she [Wisdom] passes into holy souls and makes them +friends of God and prophets" (Wis 7:27).
+2017 There is a question here as to what and in what way the Son +hears from the Father. The answer has already been indicated in +many ways. Since to hear is to receive knowledge from another, for +the Son to hear from the Father is nothing other than for the Son +to receive knowledge from the Father. Now the knowledge of the Son +is his own essence. Thus, for the Son to hear from the Father is +for the Son to receive his essence from the Father.
+2018 Another question concerns the statement, all that I have +heard from my Father I have made known to you. If he did make +all things known to them it would follow that the disciples knew as +much as the Son. The answer, according to Chrysostom, is that +all that I have heard means all that I have heard which you +ought to hear, but not absolutely all things, I have made known +to you: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot +bear them now" (16:12).[15]
+Or, one could say, according to Augustine, that what he would +say to them was so certain that he used the past tense instead of +the future.[16] So the meaning becomes, all that I have +heard from my Father I have made known to you, that is, I will +make known with that fullness of which the Apostle says: "Then I +shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood" (1 +Cor 13:12). And below we read, "The hour is coming when I shall +tell you plainly of the Father" (16:25), that is, when I lead you +to the vision of the Father. For all things the Son knows the +Father knows. So when he revels the Father to us, the Son will +reveal all that the Son himself knows and which we know.
+Again, one could say with Gregory, and this is better, that the +same thing can be known perfectly or imperfectly. For example, in +the sciences it is obvious that a person who knows all the +principles of a science is said to know that science, although +imperfectly. And so a person who teaches some principles of a +science can say that he teaches that science, because everything +that belongs to that science is virtually contained in its +principles. But one will know that same science more perfectly when +he knows the individual conclusions which are virtually in the +principles. In the same way we can have a twofold knowledge of +divine matters. One is imperfect, and is gained by faith, which is +a foretaste of that future happiness and knowledge which we will +have in heaven: "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for" +[Heb 11:2]. He says of this knowledge, all ... I have made known +to you, that is, in faith, by a kind of foretaste, like +conclusions are virtually contained in their principles. So Gregory +says: "All the things he has made known to his servants are the +joys of interior love and the feasts of our heavenly fatherland, +which he excites in our minds every day by the breath of his love. +For as long as we love the sublime heavenly things we have heard, +we already know what we love, because the love itself is +knowledge."[17]
+2019 Now he mentions the cause of this friendship. It is the +usual practice for each one of us to say that he or she is the +cause of friendship: "Every friend will say, 'I started the +friendship'" [Sir 37:1]. And so many people attribute to themselves +the cause of God's friendship when they attribute to themselves, +and not to God, the source of their good actions. Our Lord rejects +this by saying, you did not choose me. He is saying in +effect: Whoever has been called to this sublime friendship should +not attribute the cause of this friendship to himself, but to me, +who chose him or her as a friend. First, he mentions the gratuitous +choice of God; secondly, he sets forth for what they have been +chosen, that you should go and bear fruit.
+2020 He says, you did not choose me to be your friend, but I +chose you to make you my friends: "Not that we loved God, but +that he loved us first" [1 Jn 4:10].
+Now God's love is twofold. One is eternal, by which we are +predestined: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the +world" (Eph 1:4). The other is temporal, by which we are called by +him, and this is simply the carrying out of eternal predestination. +And this is because those he chose by predestining them he also +chose by calling them: "Those whom he predestined he also called" +(Rom 8:30); "He chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk +6:13).[18]
+2021 Some say that God's temporal choice is caused by the merits +of those who are chosen. This conflicts with what it says here. For +if God chose you because you were good, you were still not able to +be good unless you chose the good, and this good is especially God. +Therefore, it was you who first chose the good which is God, before +you were chosen. But our Lord says the contrary: you did not +choose me, but I chose you. Thus we should not say that our own +goodness entirely precedes God's choice. I say "entirely" because +we might have some particular good which could be the cause of +another good being given to us; and this good could be the cause of +being given still another good, since there is a certain order in +God's gifts. But in general, nothing can be the cause of and +precede the divine choice, because all our goods are from God.
+2022 It would be an even greater error to say that our eternal +election was preceded by our own choice. Yet there are some who +said that our preceding merits are the cause of that election. This +was Origen's error. He said that human souls were created equal at +the same time and that while some stood firm, others sinned, more +and less seriously. Thus, some merited to receive grace, and others +did not.[19] +Our Lord's saying is opposed to this, you did not choose +me.
+2023 Others say that it is true that our actually existing +merits are not the cause of our predestination, but those merits +preexisting in the foreknowledge of God are. Thus they say that +because God knew that certain persons would be good and make good +use of grace, he decided to give them grace. But if this were so, +it would follow that the reason he chose us was because he foreknew +we would choose him. And so our choice would be prior to the divine +choice; which is contrary to our Lord's statement.
+2024 Perhaps someone might say: What choice could there be since +we were nothing and there was no rank among us? But one who says +this is mislead by thinking that the divine choice is like human +choice. They are not the same. Our choice is caused by some already +existing good; while God's choice is the cause of an influx of +good, greater in one than in another. Since choice is an act of the +will, then according as the will of God and the human will are +differently related to the good, so the character of their choice +will be different. Now God's will is related to a created good as +its cause: "How would anything have endured if thou hadst not +willed it?" (Wis 11:25). And so goodness is dispensed to created +things from the will of God. Accordingly, God prefers one person to +another insofar as he confers more good on that one than on +another. But the human will is moved to something by a preexisting +good which has become known. Therefore, in our choices it is +necessary that one good exist before another. The reason why God +confers more good on one than on another is so that there might be +a splendor of order in things. This is clear in material things +where prime matter of itself is uniformly disposed to all forms. +Also, before things themselves exist, they are not disposed to this +or that existence; rather, they receive different forms and +existences from God so that an order can be established among them. +It is like this among rational creatures, where some are chosen for +glory and some are rejected for punishment: "The Lord knows who are +his ... In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and +silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, +some for ignoble" (2 Tim 2:19). And so we see a diversified order: +the mercy of God shines forth in those whom, without any previous +merits, he prepares for grace; in others we see the justice of God +when, because of their own guilt, he allots them punishment, yet +less than is deserved. So, I have chosen you by predestining you +from all eternity, and by calling you to the faith during your +lifetime.
+2025 Then he points out for what he has chosen them when he +says, I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit. +First, he states for what he chose them; secondly, he gives a +reason for the above (v 17). In regard to the first he does two +things: first, he shows that he chose them to do something; +secondly, that he chose them to receive something, whatever you +ask the Father.
+2026 He says, I appointed you, that is, I gave you a +definite rank in my Church: "And God has appointed in the church, +first apostles, second prophets" (1 Cor 12:28). Again, I +appointed you, that is, firmly set you: "And God made the two +great lights ... and God set them in the firmament of the heavens +to give light upon the earth" (Gen 1:16).
+2027 I appointed you, I say, to three things. First to +go; and so he says, that you should go, traveling over the +whole world to convert the whole world to the faith: "Go into all +the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mk 16:15). +Or, that you should go, that is, progress from virtue to +virtue: "They go from strength to strength; the God of gods will be +seen in Zion" (Ps 84:7); "His shoots shall spread out" (Hos +14:6).
+Secondly, he appointed them to bear fruit; so he says, and +bear fruit. This fruit is the fruit of conversion to the faith, +as in Paul's first journey, "In order that I may reap some harvest +among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles" (Rom 1:13); or +an interior and spiritual fruit, as in his second journey, "The +fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace" (Gal 5:22); "My blossoms +became glorious and abundant fruit" (Sir 24:17).
+Thirdly, they were appointed to bear fruit that would not be +destroyed by death or sin; so he says, and that your fruit +should abide, that is, that the society of the faithful would +be led into eternal life and their spiritual fruit flourish: "He +gathers fruit for eternal life" (4:36).
+2028 So that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may +give it to you. Here he shows that he chose them to receive +something, namely, all that they ask for. He is saying: I have +appointed you to be worthy to receive from the Father in my name: +"If our hearts do not condemn us we have confidence before God; and +we receive from him whatever we ask" (1 Jn 3:22).
+2029 These things I command you so that you will love one +another. Here he is giving the reason for what he has said. +Someone might ask: Why did Christ tell them all these things? So +our Lord answers, These things I command you so that you will +love one another. He is saying in effect: Everything I said to +you was to lead you to love your neighbor: "The aim of our charge +is love" (1 Tim 1:5). One could also say, with Chrysostom, that the +apostles could have said: Lord, why are you reminding us so much +about your love? Are you reprimanding us? But our Lord says: Not at +all. I am doing this to encourage you to love your neighbor: "And +this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should +love his brother also" (1 Jn 4:21).
+
+
+LECTURE 4
+++18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before +it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its +own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of +the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that +I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they +persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they +will keep yours also. 21 But all this they will do to you on my +account, because they do not know him who sent me."
+2030 After presenting the picture of the vine and the branches +and explaining the part about the branches being united to the +vine, he now explains it in regard to the pruning or cleansing they +will receive from their trials. So our Lord now consoles them +against the tribulations they were going to endure. First, he +mentions a few considerations which will console them; secondly, he +explains these (v 20); thirdly, he rejects the excuses of those who +will persecute them (v 22). He mentions two reasons why they should +be consoled: the first uses himself as an example; the second is +based on the reason for their being hated, because you are not +of the world.
+2031 Our Lord consoles them by using himself as an example of +one who has suffered the persecution of oppressors, saying, If +the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated +you. Note that just as the source of all benefits is love, so +the source of all persecutions is hatred. And so our Lord foretells +that they will be hated: "You will be hated by all nations" (Mt +24:9); "Blessed are you when men hate you" (Lk 6:22).
+He says, If the world hates you, that is, it will come to +pass that the world will hate you, and show its hatred by +persecuting you, know that it has hated me before it hated +you: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me" (7:7). This +thought is a great consolation for the just so that they can +courageously endure persecutions: "Consider him who endured from +sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow +weary or fainthearted" (Heb 12:3); "Christ also suffered for you, +leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet +2:21). According to Augustine, the members should not consider +themselves greater than the Head, nor refuse to be part of his body +by being unwilling to endure with their Head the hatred of the +world.[20]
+2032 The world can have two meanings. First a good meaning, for +those who lead a good life in the world: "God was in Christ +reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19). Secondly, it can +have an evil sense, meaning those who love the world: "The whole +world is in the power of the evil one" (1 Jn 5:19). And so the +whole world hates the whole world, because those who love the +world, and they are spread throughout the whole world, hate the +whole world, that is, the Church of the good, which has been +established throughout the whole world.
+2033 Now he mentions a second point for their consolation, and +this is based on the reason for their being hated. When a person +endures another's hatred because of his own sins, there is reason +for regret and sorrow; but when he is hated because of his virtue +he should rejoice. First, our Lord gives the reason why some are +loved by the world; secondly, why the apostles are hated by the +world (v 19).
+2034 The reason why some are loved by the world is that they are +like the world; If you were of the world, the world would love +its own. Like loves like: "Every creature loves its like" (Sir +13:15). And thus the world, that is, those who love the world, love +those who love the world. Accordingly, our Lord says, If you +were of the world, that is, followers of the world, the +world would love its own, because you would be its own and like +to it: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me" (7:7). "They +are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the +world listens to them" (I Jn 4:5).
+2035 One might object that our Lord meant by the world the +authorities of the world, who would persecute the apostles. Yet +these very same authorities persecute other worldly people, like +murderers and thieves. Therefore, the world does not love its own +any more than it loves the apostles.
+I reply that it is possible to find something purely good, but +not something purely evil, since the subject of evil is something +good. Consequently, the evil of guilt is located in some good of +nature. Therefore, no person can be a sinner and evil without +having some good. So it is because of the evil of these +authorities, the evil of their unbelief, that they belong to the +world and hate the apostles and those who are not of the world. But +because of the good they possess they are not of the world and hate +those who are of the world, as thieves and robbers, and such. +Still, there were some who were living well in the world yet loved +the apostles and approved of their actions.
+2036 But now there seems to be a greater difficulty. For every +sin pertains to the world, and so a person is of the world by +reason of any sin. Yet we observe that people who commit the same +sin hate each other, for, example, the proud: "Among the proud +there is always strife" [Prv 13:10]. And one greedy person hates +another who is also greedy. As the Philosopher says, potters +quarrel with one another.[21] Thus, the world is hating the world, and what +our Lord says here does not seem to be true, that is, the world +would love its own.
+I reply that there are two kinds of love: the love of friendship +and the love of concupiscence. These are quite different. With the +love of concupiscence we draw external things or persons to +ourselves, and we love these others insofar as they are useful to +us or give us pleasure. But in the love of friendship we have the +opposite, for we draw ourselves to what is external to us, because +those we love in this way we treat the same as ourselves, sharing +ourselves with them in some way. Thus, likeness is a cause of love, +when we are speaking of the love of friendship, for we do not love +a person in this way unless we are one with that person: and +likeness is a certain way of being one. But with the love of +concupiscence, whether it is for what is useful or gives pleasure, +likeness is a cause of division and hated. For since with this love +I love some person or thing insofar as it is useful to me or gives +me pleasure, I hate as opposed to me whatever hinders this +usefulness or pleasure. So it is that the proud feud among +themselves, for one takes for himself the glory that another loves +and in which he takes pleasure. As for the potters, they quarrel +because one takes for himself some profit which another wants for +himself.
+Notice that the love of concupiscence is not a love for the +thing desired but a love for the person desiring: for in this kind +of love, one loves another because the other is useful, as was +said. Therefore, in this kind of love, one is rather loving himself +than the other. For example, a person who loves wine because it +gives him pleasure loves himself rather than the wine. But the love +of friendship is concerned rather with the thing loved than with +the one loving, because here one loves another for the sake of the +one loved, and not for the sake of the one loving. And so because +in the love of friendship likeness is a cause of love, and +unlikeness a cause of hatred, the world hates what is not its own +and is unlike it; but it loves, with the love of friendship, what +is its own. It is the reverse with the love of concupiscence. Thus +he says, If you were of the world, the world would love its +own, with the love of friendship.
+2037 Now he gives the reason why the world hates the apostles, +which is because they are unlike the world. He says, but because +you are not of the world, because your spirit has been lifted +above it ‑ although you are of the world by your origin: "You +are from below, I am from above" (8:23) ‑ lifted above it not +by yourselves but by my grace, because I chose you out of the +world, therefore, because you are not of the world, the +world hates you, that is, those who love the world and who are +unlike you, hate you: "An unjust man is an abomination to the +righteous, but he whose way is straight is an abomination to the +wicked" (Prv 29:27); and in the same chapter "Bloodthirsty men hate +one who is blameless" (v 10).
+2038 Three reasons can be given why the world hates those who +are holy. First, there is a difference of condition: the world is +in a state of death, but those who are holy are in a state of life: +"Do not wonder, brethren, that the world hates you. We know that we +have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren" +(1 Jn 3:13). And so we read: "The very sight of him is a burden to +us" (Wis 2:15). The second reason is that the world does not like +to be corrected: for those who are holy are, by their words and +actions, a rebuke to the conduct of the world. Consequently the +world hates them: "They hate him who reproves in the gate" (Amos +5:10); "But it," the world, "hates me because I testify of it that +its works are evil" (7:7). The third reason is because of evil +envy, for those who are evil envy the good when they see them grow +and increase in goodness and holiness, just like the Egyptians +hated and persecuted the children of Israel when they saw them +increasing (Ex 1:9). And we also see that Joseph's brothers hated +him when they saw that he was loved more than they (Gen 37:4).
+2039 Now he amplifies on the reasons just given for their +consolation: first, the one using himself as an example; secondly, +the one relating to the reason why they are hated (v 21). He does +two things with the first: first, he reminds them that he and they +are different in condition; secondly, he shows they are alike in +what will be done to them, If they persecuted me, they will +persecute you.
+2040 Their different conditions were that Christ was the Lord +and the apostles were servants: "A servant is not greater than his +master" (13:16). He reminds them of this difference when he says, +Remember the word that I said to you, A servant is not greater +than his master. Therefore, it is not unfitting for you to +undergo the same sufferings as your Lord; rather, you should regard +this as a great glory. Thus Christ said to the disciples who were +asking to sit on his right and left, "Are you able to drink the cup +that I am to drink?" (Mt 20:22). "It is a great honor to follow +God" (Sir 23:28); "It is enough for the disciple to be like his +teacher" (Mt 10:25).
+2041 On the contrary. He said above, "No longer do I call you +servants" (15:15), while he says here, A servant is not greater +than his master. I answer that there are two kinds of +servitude. One comes from a slave‑like fear, that is, from a +fear of punishment; and the Apostles were not servants in this way. +The other comes from a "chaste fear," [the respect of a spouse], +and such servitude was in the apostles: "Blessed are those servants +whom the master finds awake when he comes" (Lk 12:37).
+2042 If then you are my servants and I am your Lord, you should +be content to have happen to you what happens to me. Now some have +despised me, while others have accepted me: "He came to his own +home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received +him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of +God" (1:11). You will be treated the same way: if some despise you, +yet others will honor you.
+For this reason he says, If they persecuted me, they will +persecute you. Here we see how the saints are like Christ: for +the disciples were persecuted for the same reason that Christ was, +because Christ was being persecuted in the disciples. In fact in +Acts (9:4) Christ said that he was being persecuted in the +persecution of his disciples: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute +me?"
+And so because their reason for acting is the same in the two +cases, the consequence follows: If they persecuted me, they will +persecute you: "If they have called the master of the house +Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" +(Mt 10:25). Matthew (23:34) says of this persecution: "Therefore I +send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will +kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and +persecute from to town to town." Similarly, they will be honored +for the same reason that Christ was: if they kept my word, they +will keep yours also, because your words are my words: "You desire +proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor 13:3); "For it is not +you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" +(Mt 10:20). And so Christ says, "He who hears you hears me" (Lk +10:16). The apostles were in truth accepted and honored by some of +the people, as is clear from "When you received the word of God +which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but +as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess 2: 13).
+2043 Now he amplifies on the second consideration that would +console them, which is based on the reason for their being hated. +The apostles were chosen and raised above the world insofar as they +had been made sharers of divinity and joined to God. This is why +the world hated them. From this it follows that the world rather +hated God in them than hated them. The reason for this hatred was +that the world lacked the true knowledge of God which comes from +the true faith and devoted love. If they did have this knowledge +and recognized that the apostles were friends of God, they would +not have persecuted them. Thus he says, all this they will do to +you, that is, hate and persecute you, on my account. And +so this should be your glory: "Let none of you suffer as a +murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief‑maker; +yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but +under that name let him glorify God" (1 Pet 4:14). On my account, +not because they love me, but because they hate me; just as, on the +contrary, you will suffer on my account because you love me.
+They will do these things to you because they do not know him +who sent me: "If you knew me, you would perhaps know my Father +also" [8:19]. For they did not know that God would be pleased by +their accepting Christ. Note that he is speaking here of a perfect +knowledge, which consists in a faith which perfects the intellect +and joins the affections to God. We read of this kind of knowledge: +"Let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows +me" (Jer 9:24); "To know you is complete righteousness" (Wis +15:3).
+
+
+LECTURE 5
+++22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have +sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates me +hates my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works +which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have +seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 It is to fulfill the word +that is written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.' 26 +But when the Counselor [Paraclete] comes, whom I shall send to you +from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the +Father, he will bear witness to me. 27 And you also are witnesses, +because you have been with me from the beginning."[22]
+2044 Before, when our Lord said that the Jews would persecute +his disciples, he give as the reason that the Jews did not know the +one who sent him. Now, since ignorance usually excuses one, he here +shows that they are inexcusable. He does this in two ways: first, +because of the things he personally did and taught them; secondly, +because of what will occur when he is no longer present (v 26). In +regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that they +were without excuse because of the truth he taught; secondly, +because of the witness of the works he performed (v 24). He does +three things about the first: first, he shows what could have +excused them; secondly, that they did not have this excuse (v 22); +thirdly, he shows the real source of their persecution (v 23).
+2045 He had said: "But all this they will do to you on my +account." Yet they might have had an excuse. If I had not come +and spoken to them, that is, if I had not shown myself +personally and taught them personally, they would not have +sin.
+2046 How does this reconcile with Romans (3:23) which states +that "All have sinned"? We should say that our Lord is not speaking +here of just any sin, but of the sin of disbelief, that is, they do +not believe in Christ. This is called here simply "sin" because it +is a prime example of sin, because as long as this sin lasts, no +other sin can be remitted; for no sin is remitted except by faith +in Jesus Christ through whom we are justified, as we read in Romans +(5:1). Consequently, they would not have sin means that they +would not be charged with not believing in him. This is primarily +because "faith comes from what is heard" (Rom 10:17). So, if Christ +had not come and had not spoken to them, they could not have +believed. And no one is charged with a sin for not doing what he +can't do at all.
+2047 Yet some could say that they were bound to believe and +could have believed even if Christ had not come, since he had been +foretold to them by the prophets: "which he promised beforehand +through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning +his Son" (Rom 1:2). I answer that of themselves the Jews could not +believe and understand the words of the prophets unless they were +shown by divine help: "The words are shut up and sealed until the +appointed time" [Dan 12:9]. Thus the eunuch said: "How can I +understand, unless some one guides me?" (Acts 8:31).
+Therefore, if Christ had not come, they would not have this sin, +the sin of disbelief, although they would have had other actual +sins for which they would have been punished. And a similar +reasoning holds for all those whom the preaching of God's word +could not reach. For this reason they cannot be charged with the +sin of disbelief for their condemnation; but they will be +condemned, because deprived of God's favors because of their other +actual sins and original sin.
+2048 Note that Christ's coming and teaching resulted in good for +many, that is, for those who accepted him and kept his word. And +for many it turned out bad, that is, for those who decided neither +to listen to him nor believe him. "He will become ... a stone of +offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap +and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Is 8:14); "This child +is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel" (Lk 2:34).
+2049 He has just stated what could have excused them from +unbelief. But they don't have this excuse because Christ showed +himself to them in person and taught them. Thus he says, but +now, since I have come and spoken to them, they have no +excuse, that of ignorance, for their sin. "So they are +without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him +as God" (Rom 1:20). But they did know Christ, as is clear from +Matthew (21:38): "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." +However, they knew that he was the Christ promised in the law, but +they did not know that he was God, because "If they had, they would +not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). And so their +ignorance is no excuse, because they did not do this from ignorance +but from another root, that is, from hatred and a certain +malice.
+2050 This is why he adds, He who hates me hates my Father +also. This is like saying: Their sin is not ignorance of me, +but hatred for me, and this involves hatred for the Father. Since +the Son and the Father are one in essence, truth and goodness, and +since all knowledge of anyone is through the truth which is in him, +whoever loves the Son loves the Father also; and whoever knows the +one knows the other also; and whoever hates the Son hates the +Father also.
+2051 Two problems arise here. First, whether anyone can hate +God? We should say that no one can hate God as God. Since God is +the pure essence of goodness, and since this is lovable in itself, +it is impossible that God be hated in himself. This is the reason +why it is impossible for an evil person to see God. For it is +impossible for God to be seen without being loved; and one who +loves God is good. So these two things are incompatible, namely, to +see God and be evil.
+Yet one can hate God from a particular point of view. For +example, one who loves lustful pleasures hates God as forbidding +the enjoyment of lust, and one who wants to be free from all +punishment hates the justice of God when it punishes.[23]
+2052 The second problem arises because no once can hate what he +does not know. But the Jews did not know the Father: "They do not +know him who sent me" (15:21). Therefore, what he says here does +not seem to be true, that they hate my Father also. We can +say, according to Augustine, that a person can love or hate +something that was never seen nor truly known.[24] This can happen in two +ways. In one way, I can hate or love a person according as I know +him; or, according to what I am told about him. For example, if I +hear that someone is a thief I hate him, not because I know or hate +this very person, but because in general I hate all thieves. So, if +he were a thief and I did not know it, I would hate him without +knowing that I hated him. Now the Jews hated Christ and the truth +that he preached. Since the very truth that Christ preached and the +works he performed were in the will of God the Father, then just as +they hated Christ, so also they hated the Father, even though they +did not know that these things were in the will of the Father.
+2053 Now he shows they are without excuse because of the witness +of his signs. They could say that they were not convinced by the +words he spoke in opposition to them. So he corroborates his words +with marvelous actions, saying, If I had not done among them the +works which no one else did, they would not have sin. First, he +shows that they could be somewhat excused; secondly, he reveals the +root of their sin (v 24b); thirdly, he cites an authority (v +25).
+2054 There are two questions about the first point. One is about +the truth of the antecedent statement, If I had not done among +them the works which no one else did. Did Christ perform +certain good works among them that no one else had done? It seems +not. If we say that Christ raised the dead, Elijah and Elisha also +did this. If Christ walked on the water, Moses parted the waters. +Again, Joshua did something greater [than Christ] for he made the +sun stand still. So it seems that Christ should not use this as an +argument, and thus the conclusion is not true.
+I answer that we can say, according to Augustine, that our Lord +is not speaking of the miracles he worked among them, that is, +merely in their sight, but of those he worked "among" them, that +is, on their very persons.[25] In curing the sick, although others did it, no +one did it so much as Christ, because no other was made God and no +one was born of a virgin but Christ. So in healing the sick he +performed among them works which no one else performed; and this in +three ways. First, because his works were so great: for he raised a +person who had been dead for four days; he gave sight to a man who +was born blind, which had never been heard of before, as we read +above (9:32). Secondly, because of the great number of his works, +for he healed all who were sick (Mt 14:35), and no one else did +this. Thirdly, because of the way he did these works: others did +these things by praying for help, which showed that they were not +doing this by their own power; but Christ did it by command, for he +did it by his own power: "What is this? A new teaching! With +authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him" +(Mk 1:27).
+Therefore, although others have raised the dead and have +accomplished other miracles which Christ did, they did not do it in +the same manner as Christ, nor by their own power, as Christ did. +Further, making the sun stand still is less than what the dying +Christ did, when he made the moon move backwards and changed the +whole course of the heavens, as Dionysius says.[26]
+2055 The second question is about the truth of the conditional +statement, that if Christ had not done among them works which no +one else did, the Jews would not have the sin of disbelief. My +reply is that if we speak of any of the miracles indiscriminately, +the Jews would have been excusable if they had not been done among +them by Christ. For no one can come to Christ by faith unless he is +drawn: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws +him" (6:44). So the spouse says in the Song (1:4): "Draw me after +you." Therefore, if there were no one who had drawn them to the +faith, they would have an excuse for their disbelief. Note that +Christ drew by words and by signs, both visible and invisible, that +is, by inciting and stirring hearts from within: "The king's heart +is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord" (Prv 21:1). And so an +inner impulse to act well is the work of God, and those who resist +it sin. If not, Stephen would have no reason to say: "You always +resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51). And Isaiah (50:5) says: "The +Lord has opened my ear," that is, the ear of my heart, "and I was +not rebellious." When our Lord said, If I had not done among +them the works which no one else did, we have to understand +this as referring not only to visible works but also to the +interior impulses and attractions to his teaching. If these had not +been done among them, they would not have sin. It is now clear how +they could have been excused, that is, if he had not accomplished +miraculous works among them.
+2056 Now he shows the root of their sin of disbelief, namely, +their hatred, because of which they did not believe the works they +saw. He says, but now they have seen, the works he did among +them, and hated both me and my Father: "Because they hated +knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord" (Prv 1:29). As +Gregory says, there are some in the Church who not only do not do +good works, but they even persecute those who do, so that what they +fail to do they detest in others.[27] Thus their sin is not one of weakness or +ignorance, but is committed of set purpose.
+2057 Yet some could say: If it is true that the Jews hated you +and your Father, why did you perform miracles among them? He +answers and says It is to fulfill the word that is written in +their law. Here we could ask why he says that this was written +in their law when it was written in the Psalms? We can say to this +that the "law" is understood in three ways in scripture. Sometimes +it is taken for the entire Old Testament; and this is the way it is +understood here, because the entire teaching of the Old Testament +is directed to the observance of the law: "Jesus, remember me when +you come in your kingdom" (Lk 23:42). Sometimes it is taken as +distinguished from the histories and the prophets: "that everything +written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the +psalms" (in which the histories are sometimes included) "must be +fulfilled" (Lk 24:44). And sometimes the law is taken as distinct +only from the prophets, and then the histories are included in the +prophets. He says, It is to fulfill what is written in their +law, that is, in the Psalms (35:19) 'They hated me without a +cause,' and not to gain some benefit or avoid some trouble (for +this is why people hate). Indeed, Christ gave them opportunities to +love him when he healed and taught them: "He went about doing good" +(Acts 10:38); "Is evil a recompense for good? They have dug a pit +for my life" (Jer 18:20); "What wrong did your fathers find in me +that they went far from me" (Jer 2:5).
+2058 Now he shows that they are inexcusable because of what will +come to pass after him: because they would have other testimonies, +namely, those of the Holy Spirit and of the apostles. First, he +states what was to come from the Holy Spirit; secondly, from the +apostles (v 27). He indicates four things about the Spirit: his +freedom, tenderness, procession and activity.
+2059 He indicates his freedom, or power, when he says, But +when the Paraclete comes. Strictly speaking that person is said +to come who comes willingly and on his own authority; and this is +true of the Holy Spirit, because "the Spirit blows where it wills" +[3:8]; "I called upon God, and the Spirit of wisdom came to me" +(Wis 7:7). Therefore, in saying, whom I shall send, he does +not suggest force but origin.
+2060 He touches on his tenderness when he says, the +Paraclete, that is the Consoler. Since the Paraclete is the +Love of God he makes us scorn earthly things and cling to God; and +thus he takes away our pain and sadness and gives us joy in divine +things: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace" (Gal 5:22); +and in Acts (9:31) we read that the Church was walking "in the +comfort of the Holy Spirit."
+2061 Thirdly, he touches on the twofold procession of the Holy +Spirit. First, he mentions the temporal procession when he says, +whom I shall send to you from the Father. Note that the Holy +Spirit is said to be sent not because the Spirit is changing place, +since the Spirit fills the entire universe, as we read in Wisdom +(1:7), but because, by grace, the Holy Spirit begins to dwell in a +new way in those he makes a temple of God: "Do you not know that +you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?" (1 Cor +3:16). There is no disagreement in saying that the Holy Spirit is +sent and that he comes. In saying that the Spirit comes the +grandeur of his divinity is indicated: the "Spirit, who apportions +to each one individually as he wills" (1 Cor 12:11). And he is said +to be sent to indicate his procession from another, for the fact +that he sanctifies the rational creature by indwelling he has from +that other, from whom he has it that he is, just as it is from +another that the Son has whatever he does.
+The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son together; and +this is indicated in "He showed me the river of the water of life," +that is, the Holy Spirit, "flowing from the throne of God and of +the Lamb," that is, of Christ (Rev 22:1). Therefore, when speaking +of the sending of the Holy Spirit he mentions the Father and the +Son, who send the Spirit by the same and equal power. Thus +sometimes he mentions the Father as sending the Spirit, but not +without the Son, as above (14:26): "The Holy Spirit, whom the +Father will send in my name"; at other times he says that he +himself sends the Holy Spirit, but not without the Father: as here, +whom I shall send to you from the Father, because whatever +the Son does he has from the Father: "The Son cannot do anything of +himself" [5:19].[28]
+2062 He mentions the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit when +he shows in a similar way that the Spirit is related both to the +Father and the Son. He shows the Spirit as related to the Son when +he says, the Spirit of truth, for the Son is the Truth: "I +am the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6). He shows the +Spirit as related to the Father when he says, who proceeds from +the Father. So to say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of +truth, is the same as saying the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of +the Son: "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts" (Gal +4:6). And because the word "spirit" (spiritus) suggests a +kind of impulse and every motion produces an effect in harmony with +its source (as heating makes something hot), it follows that the +Holy Spirit makes those to whom he is sent like the one whose +Spirit he is. And since he is the Spirit of Truth "He will teach +you all truth" [16:13]; "The inspiration of the Almighty gives +understanding" [Job 32:8]. In the same way, because he is the +Spirit of the Son, he produces sons: "You have received the spirit +of sonship" (Rom 8:15). He says the Spirit of truth as +contrasted with the spirit of lying: "The Lord has mingled within +her the spirit of error" [Is 19:14]; "I will go forth, and will be +a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets" (1 Kgs 22:22).
+2063 Because he says who proceeds from the Father and +does not add "and from the Son," the Greeks say that the Holy +Spirit does not proceed from the Son but only from the Father. But +this absolutely cannot be. For the Holy Spirit could not be +distinguished from the Son unless he either proceeds from the Son, +or on the other hand, the Son proceeds from him (and no one claims +this). For one cannot say that among the divine persons, who are +entirely immaterial and simple, there is a material distinction +based on a division of quantity, which matter underlies. Thus it is +necessary that the distinction of the divine persons be by way of a +formal distinction, which has to involve some kind of opposition. +For if forms are not opposed they are compatible with one another +in the same subject and do not diversify a supposit; for example, +to be white and large. So among the divine persons, since "not +subject to birth" and "fatherhood" are not opposed, they belong to +one person. If, then, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct +persons proceeding from the Father, they have to be distinguished +by some properties that are opposed. These properties cannot be +opposed like affirmation and negation or privation and possessing +are opposed, because then the Son and the Holy Spirit would be +related to one another like being and non‑being and as the +complete to the deprived, and this is repugnant to their equality. +Nor can these properties be opposed like contraries are opposed, +one of which is more perfect than the other. What remains is that +the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son only by a relative +opposition.
+This kind of opposition rests solely on the fact that one of +them is referred to the other. For the different relations of two +things to some third thing are not directly opposed except +accidentally, that is by some incidental consequence. So in order +for the Holy Spirit to be distinguished from the Son, they must +have relations that are opposed, by which they will be opposed to +each other. No such relations can be found except relations of +origin, insofar as one person is from the other. Thus it is +impossible, granting the Trinity of persons, that the Holy Spirit +not be from the Son.
+2064 Some say that the Holy Spirit and the Son are distinguished +by the different ways they proceed, insofar as the Son is from the +Father by being born and the Holy Spirit by proceeding. But the +same problem still returns which arose from the previous opinion, +as to how these two processions differ. One cannot say that they +are distinguished because of the diverse things received by their +respective generations, like the generation of a human being and a +horse differ because of the diverse natures that are communicated. +For the very same nature is received by the Son by being born from +the Father and by the Holy Spirit by proceeding. So we are left +with the conclusion that they are distinguished only by the order +of origin, that is to say, insofar as the birth of the Son is a +principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit. And so, if the Holy +Spirit were not from the Son, the Spirit would not be distinguished +from the Son and procession would not be distinguished from +birth.
+Thus even the Greeks admit some order between the Son and the +Holy Spirit. For they say that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, and +that the Son acts through the Holy Spirit, but not conversely. And +some even admit that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, but they will +not concede that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Yet in this +they are obviously imprudent. For we use the word "procession" in +all cases in which one thing is from another in any way. And so +this word, because it is so general, has been adapted to indicate +the existence of the Holy Spirit as from the Son. We don't have any +examples of this in creatures which would lead us to give it a +specific name; while we do have examples which give us the special +term of "generation" which is applied to the Son. The reason for +this is that in creatures we do not find a person proceeding from +will, as love, while we do find a person proceeding from nature, as +son. Thus, however the Holy Spirit is ordered to the Son, it can be +concluded that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
+2065 Nevertheless some of the Greeks assert that one should not +say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son because for them the +preposition "from" indicates a principle which is not from a +principle, and this is so only of the Father. This is not +compelling because the Son with the Father is one principle of the +Holy Spirit, as also of creatures. And although the Son has it from +the Father that the Son is a principle of creatures, still +creatures are said to be from the Son; and for the same reason it +can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
+Nor does it make any difference that we read here, who +proceeds from the Father, instead of "from the Father and the +Son," because in a similar way it is said, whom I shall +send, and yet the Father is also understood to send, since +there is added, from the Father. In a similar way because it +says, the Spirit of truth, that is, the Spirit of the Son, +we understand that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. For, as has +been said, when the procession of the Holy Spirit is mentioned, the +Son is always joined to the Father, and the Father to the Son; and +so these different ways of expression indicate a distinction of +persons.
+2066 Fourthly, he mentions the activity of the Holy Spirit when +he says, he will bear witness to me; and this in three ways. +First, the Spirit will teach the disciples and give them the +confidence to bear witness: "For it is not you who speak, but the +Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Mt 10:20). Secondly, +the Spirit will communicate his teaching to those who believe in +Christ: "God also bore witness by signs and miracles and by gifts +of the Holy Spirit" wonders and various miracles and by gifts of +the Holy Spirit" (Heb 2:4). Thirdly, the Spirit will soften the +hearts of their hearers: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are +created" (Ps 104:30).
+2067 Finally, he mentions what lies ahead for the disciples when +he says, and you also are witnesses, inspired by the Holy +Spirit: "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea +and Samaria and to the end of this earth" (Acts 1:8). We read of +this twofold testimony in Acts (5:32): "We are witnesses to these +things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who +obey him."
+He adds why this testimony is appropriate when he says, +because you have been with me from the beginning, that is, +the beginning of my preaching and working of miracles, and so you +can testify to what you have seen and heard: "That which we have +seen and heard we proclaim also to you" (1 Jn 1:3). We can see from +this that Christ did not perform miracles in his youth, as some +apocryphal gospels relate but only from the time he called his +disciples.
+
+
++- -Arial'>[1] +"Times New Roman";color:blue'>St. Thomas refers to Jn 15:1 in +the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 74, a. 5, s. c.; Jn 15:3: +ST III, q. 74, a. 5, s. c.; Jn 15:5: ST I-II, q. 6, +a. 1, obj. 3; q. 109, a. 6, ad 2; II-II, q. 156, a. 2, ad 1.
- -
- -- -Arial'>[1] "Times New Roman";color:blue'>St. Thomas refers to Jn 15:1 -in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 74, a. 5, s. c.; Jn 15:3: ST III, -q. 74, a. 5, s. c.; Jn 15:5: ST I-II, q. 6, a. 1, obj. 3; q. 109, a. 6, -ad 2; II-II, q. 156, a. 2, ad 1. - +
+- -[2] Sermones +de Verbis Domini 61; PL 38, col. 1859;"Times New +Roman";color:black'> "Times New Roman";color:green'>cf. +Catena Aurea, 15:1-3.
- -[2] Sermones -de Verbis Domini 61; PL 38, col. 1859;"Times New Roman";color:black'> "Times New Roman";color:green'>cf. Catena Aurea, 15:1-3. - +
++[3] Tract. in +Io., 80, ch. 3, col. 1839; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:1-3.
++- -[4] Summa-Word +of Christ cleanses both in faith and baptism.
- -- -[3] Tract. in Io., 80, ch. 3, col. 1839; cf. -Catena Aurea, 15:1-3. - -
- -[4] Summa-Word of Christ cleanses -both in faith and baptism. - +
+- -[5] Summa-it it +impossible to do any work except by Christ.
- -[5] Summa-it it impossible to do -any work except by Christ. - +
+- -[6] Summa-that +it is possible to be united to the Church in faith, but not by +charity.
- -[6] Summa-that it is -possible to be united to the Church in faith, but not by charity. - +
+- -[7] Tract. in +Io., 81 ch. 3, col. 1841-2; cf. Catena Aurea, +15:4-7.
- -[7] Tract. in Io., 81 ch. -3, col. 1841-2; cf. -Catena Aurea, 15:4-7. - +
+- -[8] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 15:11 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 28, a. +3 s. c.; Jn 15:12: ST I-II, q. 68, a. 1; II-II, q. 22, a. 1. +s. c.; Jn 15:13: ST II-II, q. 26, a. 5, obj. 3; q. 124, a. +2, obj. 2; q. 124, a. 3, q. 184, a. 5, obj. 3; q. 184, a. 2, ad 3; +III, q. 66, a. 12.
- -[8] St. Thomas -refers to Jn 15:11 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 28, a. 3 s. c.; Jn -15:12: ST I-II, q. 68, a. 1; II-II, q. 22, a. 1. s. c.; Jn 15:13: ST -II-II, q. 26, a. 5, obj. 3; q. 124, a. 2, obj. 2; q. 124, a. 3, q. 184, a. 5, -obj. 3; q. 184, a. 2, ad 3; III, q. 66, a. 12. - +
+- -[9] Tract. in +Io., 82, ch. 4, col. 1844; cf. Catena Aurea, +15:8-11.
- -[9] Tract. in Io., 82, ch. -4, col. 1844; cf. -Catena Aurea, 15:8-11. - +
+- -[10] +Tract. in Io., 83, ch. 1, col. 1844-5; cf. Catena +Aurea, 15:8-11.
- -[10] Tract. in Io., 83, ch. -1, col. 1844-5; cf. -Catena Aurea, 15:8-11. - +
++[11] +Homiliae in Evangelista, XXVII; 1; PL 76, col. 1205B; cf. +Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
++- -[12] Ibid.; +cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
- -[11] Homiliae in Evangelista, -XXVII; 1; PL 76, col. 1205B; -cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16. - +
+- -[13] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 15:14 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. +23, a. 1, s. c.; Jn 15:15: ST II-II, q. 172, a. 4, obj. 2; +Jn 15:17: ST I, q. 73, a. 2, arg. 1.
- -- -[12] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16. - -
- -[13] St. Thomas refers -to Jn 15:14 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 23, a. 1, s. c.; Jn -15:15: ST II-II, q. 172, a. 4, obj. 2; Jn 15:17: ST I, q. 73, a. -2, arg. 1. - +
+- -[14] +Moralia XVII, ch. 15, no. 28; PL 76, col. 415B"Times New +Roman";color:green'>; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
- -[14] Moralia -XVII, ch. 15, no. 28; PL 76, col. 415B"Times New Roman";color:green'>; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16. - +
+- -[15] In +Ioannem hom., 77, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 415; cf. Catena +Aurea, 15:12-16.
- -[15] In Ioannem hom., 77, ch. 1; -PG 59, col. 415; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16. - +
+- -[16] +Tract. in Io., 86, ch. 1, col. 1850; cf. Catena +Aurea, 15:12-16.
- -[16] Tract. in Io., 86, ch. -1, col. 1850; cf. -Catena Aurea, 15:12-16. - +
+- -[17] +Homiliae in Evangelista XXVII; PL 76; cf. Catena +Aurea, 15:12-16.
- -[17] Homiliae in Evangelista -XXVII; PL 76; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16. - +
+- -[18] +Summa-God predestines and calls men not based on their merit.
- -[18] Summa-God predestines and -calls men not based on their merit. - +
+- -[19] +Origen.
- -[19] -Origen. - +
+- -[20] +Tract. in Io., 87, ch. 2, col. 1853; cf. Catena +Aurea, 15:17-21.
- -[20] Tract. in Io., 87, ch. -2, col. 1853; cf. -Catena Aurea, 15:17-21. - +
+- -[21] +Aristotle.
- -[21] Aristotle. - +
+- -[22] St. +Thomas refers to Jn 15:22 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. +5, a. 2, obj. 3; q. 10, a. 1; q. 10, a. 3, s. c.; III, q. 47, a. 5; +q. 80, a. 5, s. c.; q. 86, a. 3, ad 2; Jn 15:24: ST II-II, +q. 34, a. 1 s. c.; III, q. 43, a. 4, ad 1; q. 47, a. 5, obj. 2; Jn +15:25: ST II-II, q. 16, a. 1, obj. 5: Jn 15:26: ST I, +q. 27, a. 3, s. c.; q. 36, a. 2, obj 1.
- -[22] St. Thomas -refers to Jn 15:22 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 5, a. 2, obj. 3; -q. 10, a. 1; q. 10, a. 3, s. c.; III, q. 47, a. 5; q. 80, a. 5, s. c.; q. 86, -a. 3, ad 2; Jn 15:24: ST II-II, q. 34, a. 1 s. c.; III, q. 43, a. 4, ad -1; q. 47, a. 5, obj. 2; Jn 15:25: ST II-II, q. 16, a. 1, obj. 5: Jn -15:26: ST I, q. 27, a. 3, s. c.; q. 36, a. 2, obj 1. - +
+- -[23] +Summa-man can hate God under a certain aspect.
- -[23] Summa-man can hate God under a -certain aspect. - +
+- -[24] +Tract. in Io., 90, ch. 1, col. 1858-9; cf. Catena +Aurea, 15:22-25.
- -[24] Tract. in Io., 90, ch. 1, -col. 1858-9; cf. -Catena Aurea, 15:22-25. - +
+- -[25] Ibid., +cf. Catena Aurea, 15:22-25.
- -[25] Ibid., cf. Catena Aurea, 15:22-25. - +
+- -[26] +Dionysius.
- -[26] Dionysius. - +
+- -[27] +Moralia, XXV, ch. 11, no. 28; PL 76, col. 339B; "Times New +Roman";color:green'>cf. Catena Aurea, 15:22-25.
- -[27] Moralia, -XXV, ch. 11, no. 28; PL 76, col. 339B; "Times New Roman";color:green'>cf. Catena Aurea, 15:22-25. - +
+- -[28] +Summa-procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. +2061-2065.
- -+ + + diff -r 2bc1f3a24bc0 -r 178aed5d2c3c john/english/John16.html --- a/john/english/John16.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John16.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,1911 +1,1888 @@ - + + + +[28] Summa-procession of the Holy -Spirit from the Father and the Son. 2061-2065. - +
- -- -16 -
LECTURE I -
- -1 "I have said all this to you to keep you from falling -away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming -when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. 3 And they -will do this because they have not known the Father, nor me. 4 But I have said -these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told -you of them. I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I -was with you."[1]
2068 Above, our Lord had used certain considerations to -console his disciples over his leaving and against the persecutions and -tribulations that would come upon them. Here he amplifies these considerations -more clearly. First, he explains the considerations he gave before; and secondly, -we see the effect of this explanation on the disciples (v 29). - -
If we pay close attention to what -was said in the pervious two chapters, we can see that our Lord aimed at -consoling his disciples against two things: his own leaving them, and the -tribulations that would come upon them. But he here explains these two things -in reverse order. He had consoled them first over his leaving because this -would take place very soon and he had not yet foretold all the tribulations -that would come upon them. But now, since they seemed to be more troubled by -their own tribulations than by Christ's leaving, our Lord here consoles them -first of all against their forthcoming trials, and then against his leaving (v -5). He does three things concerning the first: first, he gives his intention; -secondly, he mentions the tribulations they will suffer from being persecuted -(v 2); thirdly, he tells why they will be persecuted (v 3). - -
2069 He says: I have said that the Jews hate me and you, -because they do not know who sent me. I have said that they are inexcusable and -that you and the Holy Spirit will bear witness against them. Now I have said -all this to you to keep you from falling away, that is, so you don't fall -away when the tribulations I have foretold come upon you. And it is fitting -that our Lord restrains them from falling after promising the Holy Spirit, -because the Holy Spirit is love ‑ "God's love has been poured into our -hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5) ‑ -and the Holy Spirit prevents stumbling: "Great peace have those who love your -law; nothing can make them stumble" (Ps 119:165). Now it is characteristic of -friends that they disregard any loss for the sake of one another, as stated in -Proverbs [12:26]. So, for one who is a friend of God, to suffer punishment and -loss is no reason to fall away. Yet because the disciples had not yet received -the Holy Spirit before the death of Christ, they did fall away during his -passion: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31). But -after the Holy Spirit came there was no falling away. - -
2070 The disciples might say: Don't we have reason to fall -away? Many troubles will come upon us: first, that of rejection; secondly, we -will be killed. - -
2071 They will be rejected from the society of the Jews; so -he says, They will put you out of the synagogues: "The Jews had already -agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of -the synagogue" (9:22). This was so successful that for this reason some of the -[Jewish] authorities who did believe in Christ were afraid to profess him -publicly, as we read above (12:42). Christ foretold this rejection: "Blessed -are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast -out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man" (Lk 6:22). - +
++- -16
+LECTURE I
+++1 "I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away. +2 They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is +coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to +God. 3 And they will do this because they have not known the +Father, nor me. 4 But I have said these things to you, that when +their hour comes you may remember that I told you of them. I did +not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with +you."[1]
+2068 Above, our Lord had used certain considerations to console +his disciples over his leaving and against the persecutions and +tribulations that would come upon them. Here he amplifies these +considerations more clearly. First, he explains the considerations +he gave before; and secondly, we see the effect of this explanation +on the disciples (v 29).
+If we pay close attention to what was said in the pervious two +chapters, we can see that our Lord aimed at consoling his disciples +against two things: his own leaving them, and the tribulations that +would come upon them. But he here explains these two things in +reverse order. He had consoled them first over his leaving because +this would take place very soon and he had not yet foretold all the +tribulations that would come upon them. But now, since they seemed +to be more troubled by their own tribulations than by Christ's +leaving, our Lord here consoles them first of all against their +forthcoming trials, and then against his leaving (v 5). He does +three things concerning the first: first, he gives his intention; +secondly, he mentions the tribulations they will suffer from being +persecuted (v 2); thirdly, he tells why they will be persecuted (v +3).
+2069 He says: I have said that the Jews hate me and you, because +they do not know who sent me. I have said that they are inexcusable +and that you and the Holy Spirit will bear witness against them. +Now I have said all this to you to keep you from falling +away, that is, so you don't fall away when the tribulations I +have foretold come upon you. And it is fitting that our Lord +restrains them from falling after promising the Holy Spirit, +because the Holy Spirit is love ‑ "God's love has been poured +into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" +(Rom 5:5) ‑ and the Holy Spirit prevents stumbling: "Great +peace have those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble" +(Ps 119:165). Now it is characteristic of friends that they +disregard any loss for the sake of one another, as stated in +Proverbs [12:26]. So, for one who is a friend of God, to suffer +punishment and loss is no reason to fall away. Yet because the +disciples had not yet received the Holy Spirit before the death of +Christ, they did fall away during his passion: "You will all fall +away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31). But after the Holy +Spirit came there was no falling away.
+2070 The disciples might say: Don't we have reason to fall away? +Many troubles will come upon us: first, that of rejection; +secondly, we will be killed.
+2071 They will be rejected from the society of the Jews; so he +says, They will put you out of the synagogues: "The Jews had +already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he +was to be put out of the synagogue" (9:22). This was so successful +that for this reason some of the [Jewish] authorities who did +believe in Christ were afraid to profess him publicly, as we read +above (12:42). Christ foretold this rejection: "Blessed are you +when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and +cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man" (Lk +6:22).
2072 Was it an evil for the apostles to be cast out of the -Jewish synagogues, since they were going to leave them in any case? The answer, -according to Augustine, is that it was a trial for them, because this was our -Lord's way of telling them that the Jews would not accept Christ.[2] -For if they had received Christ, the synagogue of the Jews and the Church of Christ would have been the same; and those who would be converted to the Church of Christ would have been converted to the synagogue of the Jews. - +Jewish synagogues, since they were going to leave them in any case? +The answer, according to Augustine, is that it was a trial for +them, because this was our Lord's way of telling them that the Jews +would not accept Christ.[2] For if they had received Christ, the synagogue +of the Jews and the Church of Christ would have been the same; and +those who would be converted to the Church of Christ would have +been converted to the synagogue of the Jews.
2073 The other trial is that of being killed: indeed, the -hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. -We can take these words as spoken to console the disciples, so that the indeed -signifies a contrary train of thought and the sense would be: indeed, -you ought to be consoled by what they will do to you, for the hour is coming -when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. How is it -a consolation for them that whoever kills them thinks he is serving God? The -answer, according to Augustine, is that in saying, they will put you out of -the synagogues, we are to understand that those converted to Christ would -be immediately killed by the Jews.[3] -And so to console his disciples our Lord tells them that they would win so many -to Christ, who would be expelled from the Jewish synagogues, that they could -not all be killed, and so the Jews would try to kill the apostles so they would -not convert all the people to the name of Christ by their preaching. - -
Or, we could say that here Christ -is simply telling them beforehand that they will be killed. - +hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering +service to God. We can take these words as spoken to console +the disciples, so that the indeed signifies a contrary train +of thought and the sense would be: indeed, you ought to be +consoled by what they will do to you, for the hour is coming +when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to +God. How is it a consolation for them that whoever kills them +thinks he is serving God? The answer, according to Augustine, is +that in saying, they will put you out of the synagogues, we +are to understand that those converted to Christ would be +immediately killed by the Jews.[3] And so to console his disciples our Lord tells +them that they would win so many to Christ, who would be expelled +from the Jewish synagogues, that they could not all be killed, and +so the Jews would try to kill the apostles so they would not +convert all the people to the name of Christ by their +preaching.
+Or, we could say that here Christ is simply telling them +beforehand that they will be killed.
2074 He says, whoever kills you will think he is offering -service to God, and not to the gods, to show that he is speaking only of -persecution from the Jews: "I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some -of whom you will kill and crucify" (Mt 23:34). The martyrs of Christ were -killed by the gentiles, and they did not consider that they were serving God -but only their own gods. It was the Jews who, when they killed those who were -preaching Christ, thought this was a service to God. For they had zeal for God, -but without knowledge, since they believed that anyone who converted to Christ -was deserting God. We read of this killing: "For your sake we are slain all the -day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (Ps 44:22). - +service to God, and not to the gods, to show that he is +speaking only of persecution from the Jews: "I send you prophets +and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify" +(Mt 23:34). The martyrs of Christ were killed by the gentiles, and +they did not consider that they were serving God but only their own +gods. It was the Jews who, when they killed those who were +preaching Christ, thought this was a service to God. For they had +zeal for God, but without knowledge, since they believed that +anyone who converted to Christ was deserting God. We read of this +killing: "For your sake we are slain all the day long, and +accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (Ps 44:22).
2075 He gives the reason why this will be so (v 3), first -stating the reason, and then saying why he foretold this persecution (v 4). - +stating the reason, and then saying why he foretold this +persecution (v 4).
2076 He says, they will persecute you, but they will do -this, not out of zeal for the truth, but because they have not known the -Father, as Father, nor me, his Son: "If you did know me, perhaps you -would have known my Father also" [8:19]; "I formerly blasphemed and persecuted -and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in -unbelief" (1 Tim 1:13). - +this, not out of zeal for the truth, but because they have +not known the Father, as Father, nor me, his Son: "If +you did know me, perhaps you would have known my Father also" +[8:19]; "I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but +I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim +1:13).
2077 One could ask: If the Jews are going to persecute you -because of their ignorance of the faith, why did Christ foretell this to you? -So Christ first gives the reason why he foretold this; and secondly, why he did -not tell them before (v 4). - -
2078 He says, But I have said these things to you, that -when their hour comes you may remember that I told you of them. The hour is -said to come for people when they are able to accomplish what they desire and -do what they want: "Let not the flower of time," that is, the hour ripe for -indulging in pleasures, "pass us by" [Wis 2:7]. So the hour of the Jews will -come when they are able to begin to persecute you. This is the hour of -darkness: "But this is your hour, and the power of darkness" (Lk 22:53). - -
That you may remember that I -told you of them. This would help in two ways. In the midst of their -persecutions, when they recalled that Christ had predicted them, they would -realize his divinity and become more confident of his help. Again, when people -foresee that tribulations are soon to come, they are less afflicted by them, -for forewarned is forearmed. Cicero gives the reason for this in his Tusculan -Questions.[4] -The better temporal goods and evils are known, he says, the less they are -regarded. Thus, riches are more highly regarded by those who don't have them -than by the same people after they acquire them. In the same way, troubles are -more feared and considered more oppressive before they are experienced than -when they have come and are present. Now when evil is meditated upon before it -actually comes, this makes it present in a certain sense, and because of this -presence it is less regarded. So Cicero says that one who is wise, by premeditation -on evils before they strike, can acquire strength against the sadness they will -bring. Accordingly, Christ foretold the apostles about their tribulations for -two reasons: to increase their confidence in his help, and to lessen their -sadness. - +because of their ignorance of the faith, why did Christ foretell +this to you? So Christ first gives the reason why he foretold this; +and secondly, why he did not tell them before (v 4).
+2078 He says, But I have said these things to you, that when +their hour comes you may remember that I told you of them. The +hour is said to come for people when they are able to accomplish +what they desire and do what they want: "Let not the flower of +time," that is, the hour ripe for indulging in pleasures, "pass us +by" [Wis 2:7]. So the hour of the Jews will come when they are able +to begin to persecute you. This is the hour of darkness: "But this +is your hour, and the power of darkness" (Lk 22:53).
+That you may remember that I told you of them. This would +help in two ways. In the midst of their persecutions, when they +recalled that Christ had predicted them, they would realize his +divinity and become more confident of his help. Again, when people +foresee that tribulations are soon to come, they are less afflicted +by them, for forewarned is forearmed. Cicero gives the reason for +this in his Tusculan Questions.[4] The better temporal goods and +evils are known, he says, the less they are regarded. Thus, riches +are more highly regarded by those who don't have them than by the +same people after they acquire them. In the same way, troubles are +more feared and considered more oppressive before they are +experienced than when they have come and are present. Now when evil +is meditated upon before it actually comes, this makes it present +in a certain sense, and because of this presence it is less +regarded. So Cicero says that one who is wise, by premeditation on +evils before they strike, can acquire strength against the sadness +they will bring. Accordingly, Christ foretold the apostles about +their tribulations for two reasons: to increase their confidence in +his help, and to lessen their sadness.
2079 Here he gives the reason why he did not foretell these -things to them before, namely, because I was with you. We can relate -this to the two points just mentioned. First, to the increasing of their hope. -While I was with you, you had confidence in my help. But now that you will see -me die, you might doubt my power. Consequently, I must foretell certain things -that are to come so that you may realize my divinity and power. Or, we can -refer this to the second point, and then the meaning becomes this: I was -with you, protecting you, and letting you cast all your troubles on me ‑ -"Father ... while I was with them, I kept them in your name" (17:12). But since -I am about to leave you, the entire weight of your troubles will fall upon -yourselves. And so it is necessary that your be forewarned. - +things to them before, namely, because I was with you. We +can relate this to the two points just mentioned. First, to the +increasing of their hope. While I was with you, you had confidence +in my help. But now that you will see me die, you might doubt my +power. Consequently, I must foretell certain things that are to +come so that you may realize my divinity and power. Or, we can +refer this to the second point, and then the meaning becomes this: +I was with you, protecting you, and letting you cast all +your troubles on me ‑ "Father ... while I was with them, I +kept them in your name" (17:12). But since I am about to leave you, +the entire weight of your troubles will fall upon yourselves. And +so it is necessary that your be forewarned.
2080 Yet it seems that our Lord did predict similar things -before, for the other Evangelists tells us that before this the Lord foretold -to his disciples that they would be handed over to the authorities and rulers -and that they would be scourged in the Jewish synagogues. This is not at odds -with what our Lord says here, I did not say these things to you from the -beginning, because they said that our Lord said this to them on the Mount -of Olives, when his passion was near, that is, three days before the last -supper. So the phrase, from the beginning, does not refer to the time of -the passion, but to the time [of his public ministry, before the time of his -passion] when he was first with his disciples, as Augustine says.[5] - -
2081 But this conflicts with Matthew. For he says that our -Lord foretold that tribulations would come to the disciples not only when his -passion was fast approaching, but even when he first chose them: "I send you -out as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Mt 10:16). One must say then that from -the beginning refers to the Holy Spirit, for he did not tell them of the -coming of the Holy Spirit from the beginning, as Augustine says.[6] - -
Or, it could be said, with -Chrysostom, that Christ is referring to their tribulations.[7] -In this case, he did not tell them from the beginning two things which -he now newly foretells. One is that they would suffer persecutions from the -Jews, which he had not said previously, but had only mentioned the gentiles, as -is clear from Matthew (10). The second regards something he had previously -foretold them, which was that they would be scourged. But he now adds an -element which was especially troublesome, which was that the Jews would regard -their death as a service to God. -
-LECTURE 2 - -
5 "But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you -asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6 But because I have said these things to you, -sorrow has filled your hearts. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to -your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor -[Paraclete] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."[8]
2082 Above, our Lord dealt with what would console his -disciples in their coming troubles. Here he deals with what will console them -against his leaving. Our Lord consoles them against his leaving with three -considerations: first, they will have access to the Father, as promised when he -said, "Let not your hearts be troubled ... In my Father's house there are many -rooms" (14:1); secondly, because he was going to send the Paraclete, and so he -said, "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete" -[14:16]; thirdly, they will see him again, as he said, "I will not leave your -orphans; I will come to you" [14:18]. He explains these three things here, but -not in the above order. First, we see the promise of the Spirit; secondly, the -fact that they will see him again (v 16); thirdly, we see their access to the -Father. He does two things with the first: first, he mentions that they need -some consolation; secondly, he gives it (v 7). He does two things with the -first: first, he foretells his leaving them; secondly, he mentions the effect -of this prediction (v 6). - +before, for the other Evangelists tells us that before this the +Lord foretold to his disciples that they would be handed over to +the authorities and rulers and that they would be scourged in the +Jewish synagogues. This is not at odds with what our Lord says +here, I did not say these things to you from the beginning, +because they said that our Lord said this to them on the Mount of +Olives, when his passion was near, that is, three days before the +last supper. So the phrase, from the beginning, does not +refer to the time of the passion, but to the time [of his public +ministry, before the time of his passion] when he was first with +his disciples, as Augustine says.[5]
+2081 But this conflicts with Matthew. For he says that our Lord +foretold that tribulations would come to the disciples not only +when his passion was fast approaching, but even when he first chose +them: "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Mt 10:16). +One must say then that from the beginning refers to the Holy +Spirit, for he did not tell them of the coming of the Holy Spirit +from the beginning, as Augustine says.[6]
+Or, it could be said, with Chrysostom, that Christ is referring +to their tribulations.[7] In this case, he did not tell them from the +beginning two things which he now newly foretells. One is that +they would suffer persecutions from the Jews, which he had not said +previously, but had only mentioned the gentiles, as is clear from +Matthew (10). The second regards something he had previously +foretold them, which was that they would be scourged. But he now +adds an element which was especially troublesome, which was that +the Jews would regard their death as a service to God.
+
+
+LECTURE 2
+++5 "But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you +asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6 But because I have said these +things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. 7 Nevertheless I tell +you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do +not go away, the Counselor [Paraclete] will not come to you; but if +I go, I will send him to you."[8]
+2082 Above, our Lord dealt with what would console his disciples +in their coming troubles. Here he deals with what will console them +against his leaving. Our Lord consoles them against his leaving +with three considerations: first, they will have access to the +Father, as promised when he said, "Let not your hearts be troubled +... In my Father's house there are many rooms" (14:1); secondly, +because he was going to send the Paraclete, and so he said, "And I +will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete" +[14:16]; thirdly, they will see him again, as he said, "I will not +leave your orphans; I will come to you" [14:18]. He explains these +three things here, but not in the above order. First, we see the +promise of the Spirit; secondly, the fact that they will see him +again (v 16); thirdly, we see their access to the Father. He does +two things with the first: first, he mentions that they need some +consolation; secondly, he gives it (v 7). He does two things with +the first: first, he foretells his leaving them; secondly, he +mentions the effect of this prediction (v 6).
2083 He is leaving them, going to the Father. He says, I was -with you till now, but now I am going to him who sent me, that is, to -the Father. This is a mark of perfection, for a thing reaches its perfection -when it returns to its source: "I am ascending to him who sent me" (Tob 12:20); -"The rivers return to the place from which they came" [Sir 1:7]. He went, in -his human nature, to the one with whom he was from all eternity, in his divine -nature. This was explained more fully before. - +with you till now, but now I am going to him who sent me, +that is, to the Father. This is a mark of perfection, for a thing +reaches its perfection when it returns to its source: "I am +ascending to him who sent me" (Tob 12:20); "The rivers return to +the place from which they came" [Sir 1:7]. He went, in his human +nature, to the one with whom he was from all eternity, in his +divine nature. This was explained more fully before.
2084 He adds, yet none of you asks me, Where are you -going? Why does he says this? For Peter asked, "Lord, where are you going?" -(13:36); and Thomas said, "Lord, we do not know where you are going" (14:5). -Both Chrysostom and Augustine give an answer to this, but not the same one. - -
Chrysostom says that when the -disciples heard that they would be killed and cast out of the synagogues, they -became so sad and stunned that they practically forgot about Christ's leaving -them and losing the thread of his thought did not ask him about this.[9] -So Christ says, but because I have said these things to you, sorrow has -filled your hearts. Thus when our Lord says, But now I am going to him -who sent me; yet none of you asks me, Where are you going? he is really -reproving them, according to Chrysostom. They did not question him about this: -"Ask your Father, and he will show you" (Deut 32:7); "Search out and seek, and -she will become known to you" (Sir 6:28). - -
Augustine, on the other hand, -thinks that the statement, But now I am going to him who sent me, does -not refer to this very time when he is speaking, but refers to the time when he -was to ascend into heaven.[10] -It was like saying: You asked me before where I was going; but I will be going -now in such a way that you will not have to ask me, Where are you going? -because "as they were looking on, he was lifted up" (Acts 1:9). - -
2085 Now he mentions the sorrow of the disciples. For -Chrysostom this sorrow is the effect of Christ's prediction [of the future -troubles of the disciples] ‑ For Augustine, their sorrow is the effect of -Christ's leaving, for they were glad to be in his presence, and attracted in a -certain carnal way to him in his human nature, like one friend is pleased at -the presence of another. So they were sad that he was leaving: "Weeping may -tarry for the night," that is, the time of the passion, "but joy comes" to the -apostles "with the morning" of the resurrection (Ps 30:5). It is human for -sorrow to touch our hearts, but it is bad when it completely takes over our -heart because it then destroys our reason. So he says, somewhat like a rebuke, sorrow -has filled your hearts; "Do not give yourself over to sorrow" (Sir 30:21); -"Let not your hearts be troubled" (14:27). - -
2086 Now he mentions one of the things which will console -them, the promise of the Holy Spirit. First, he promises the Holy Spirit; -secondly, he foretells the effect of the Spirit (v 8). - -
2087 He does two things about the first. First, he points -out the necessity of his going; secondly, he shows that his going is -beneficial. - -
He says, sorrow has filled your -hearts, because I am leaving; but you should rather be glad, because it is -to your advantage that I go away, that is, it is very necessary for you, for -if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you. Furthermore, my -going is very fruitful and beneficial for you, because if I go, I will send -him to you. - -
2088 But, could not Christ have sent the Holy Spirit while -he was still living in the flesh? He could have, because even at his baptism -the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove and never left him. -Indeed, from the instant of his conception he received the Spirit without -measure. But Christ did not choose to give the Spirit to his disciples while he -was still living among them for four reasons. First, they were not prepared, -for carnal love is contrary to the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit is spiritual -love. Now the disciples were affected by a certain carnal love for the human -nature of Christ, without yet being elevated to a spiritual love of his -divinity. And so they were not yet ready for the Holy Spirit: "From now on, -therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view," with carnal affection; -"even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view," before his -passion, "we regard him thus no longer" (2 Cor 5: 16). - -
Secondly, Christ did not give them -the Spirit then because of the characteristic of divine help, which is to be -especially present in times of need: "A stronghold in times of trouble" (Is -9:9); "For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord will take me -up" (Ps 27:10). Now as long as Christ was with them, he was all the help they -needed. But when he left they were exposed to many tribulations, and so another -consoler and helper was very quickly given to them: "He will give you another -Paraclete" [14:16]; "Whom will he teach knowledge? Those who are weaned from -the milk, those taken from the breast" (Is 28:9). - -
Thirdly, the Spirit was not given -then out of consideration for the dignity of Christ. As Augustine says in his -book On the Trinity, Christ as human does not have the power to give the -Holy Spirit, but he does as God.[11] -When he was with his disciples, he seemed to be human, just like them. And so -that it would not seem that it was a mere human being who was giving the Holy -Spirit, Christ did not give the Spirit before his ascension: "the Spirit has -not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (7:39) "Send her forth -from the holy heavens" (Wis 9:10). - -
Fourthly, the Spirit was not given -at that time to preserve unity in the Church. We saw that "John did no sign" -(10:41), and this was so in order not to divert the people from Christ, and to -make the superiority of Christ over John more evident. But the disciples were -to be filled with the Holy Spirit so that they could do even greater works than -Christ had done: "And greater works than these will he do" (14:12). If the Holy -Spirit had been given to them before the passion, the people might have become -confused as to who really was the Christ, and they would be divided: "You have -ascended to the heights, and have given gifts to men" [Ps 68:18]. - -
- +going? Why does he says this? For Peter asked, "Lord, where are +you going?" (13:36); and Thomas said, "Lord, we do not know where +you are going" (14:5). Both Chrysostom and Augustine give an answer +to this, but not the same one.
+Chrysostom says that when the disciples heard that they would be +killed and cast out of the synagogues, they became so sad and +stunned that they practically forgot about Christ's leaving them +and losing the thread of his thought did not ask him about +this.[9] So +Christ says, but because I have said these things to you, sorrow +has filled your hearts. Thus when our Lord says, But now I +am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, Where are you +going? he is really reproving them, according to Chrysostom. +They did not question him about this: "Ask your Father, and he will +show you" (Deut 32:7); "Search out and seek, and she will become +known to you" (Sir 6:28).
+Augustine, on the other hand, thinks that the statement, But +now I am going to him who sent me, does not refer to this very +time when he is speaking, but refers to the time when he was to +ascend into heaven.[10] It was like saying: You asked me before where +I was going; but I will be going now in such a way that you will +not have to ask me, Where are you going? because "as they +were looking on, he was lifted up" (Acts 1:9).
+2085 Now he mentions the sorrow of the disciples. For Chrysostom +this sorrow is the effect of Christ's prediction [of the future +troubles of the disciples] ‑ For Augustine, their sorrow is +the effect of Christ's leaving, for they were glad to be in his +presence, and attracted in a certain carnal way to him in his human +nature, like one friend is pleased at the presence of another. So +they were sad that he was leaving: "Weeping may tarry for the +night," that is, the time of the passion, "but joy comes" to the +apostles "with the morning" of the resurrection (Ps 30:5). It is +human for sorrow to touch our hearts, but it is bad when it +completely takes over our heart because it then destroys our +reason. So he says, somewhat like a rebuke, sorrow has filled +your hearts; "Do not give yourself over to sorrow" (Sir 30:21); +"Let not your hearts be troubled" (14:27).
+2086 Now he mentions one of the things which will console them, +the promise of the Holy Spirit. First, he promises the Holy Spirit; +secondly, he foretells the effect of the Spirit (v 8).
+2087 He does two things about the first. First, he points out +the necessity of his going; secondly, he shows that his going is +beneficial.
+He says, sorrow has filled your hearts, because I am +leaving; but you should rather be glad, because it is to your +advantage that I go away, that is, it is very necessary for +you, for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to +you. Furthermore, my going is very fruitful and beneficial for +you, because if I go, I will send him to you.
+2088 But, could not Christ have sent the Holy Spirit while he +was still living in the flesh? He could have, because even at his +baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove +and never left him. Indeed, from the instant of his conception he +received the Spirit without measure. But Christ did not choose to +give the Spirit to his disciples while he was still living among +them for four reasons. First, they were not prepared, for carnal +love is contrary to the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit is spiritual +love. Now the disciples were affected by a certain carnal love for +the human nature of Christ, without yet being elevated to a +spiritual love of his divinity. And so they were not yet ready for +the Holy Spirit: "From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a +human point of view," with carnal affection; "even though we once +regarded Christ from a human point of view," before his passion, +"we regard him thus no longer" (2 Cor 5: 16).
+Secondly, Christ did not give them the Spirit then because of +the characteristic of divine help, which is to be especially +present in times of need: "A stronghold in times of trouble" (Is +9:9); "For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord +will take me up" (Ps 27:10). Now as long as Christ was with them, +he was all the help they needed. But when he left they were exposed +to many tribulations, and so another consoler and helper was very +quickly given to them: "He will give you another Paraclete" +[14:16]; "Whom will he teach knowledge? Those who are weaned from +the milk, those taken from the breast" (Is 28:9).
+Thirdly, the Spirit was not given then out of consideration for +the dignity of Christ. As Augustine says in his book On the +Trinity, Christ as human does not have the power to give the +Holy Spirit, but he does as God.[11] When he was with his disciples, he seemed +to be human, just like them. And so that it would not seem that it +was a mere human being who was giving the Holy Spirit, Christ did +not give the Spirit before his ascension: "the Spirit has not been +given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (7:39) "Send her forth +from the holy heavens" (Wis 9:10).
+Fourthly, the Spirit was not given at that time to preserve +unity in the Church. We saw that "John did no sign" (10:41), and +this was so in order not to divert the people from Christ, and to +make the superiority of Christ over John more evident. But the +disciples were to be filled with the Holy Spirit so that they could +do even greater works than Christ had done: "And greater works than +these will he do" (14:12). If the Holy Spirit had been given to +them before the passion, the people might have become confused as +to who really was the Christ, and they would be divided: "You have +ascended to the heights, and have given gifts to men" [Ps +68:18].
+
2089 Chrysostom thinks that we can use this as an argument -against the Macedonians.[12] -They say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and the minister of the Father and -the Son. But if this were true, the coming of the Holy Spirit would not have -been a sufficient consolation to the Apostles for Christ's leaving them. It -would be like the departure of a king, where the substitution for him of one of -his ministers would not be a sufficient consolation. Thus, because the Holy -Spirit is equal to the Son, our Lord consoles them by promising that the Spirit -will come. - -
2090 Yet if the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal, why is it -to their advantage that the Son leave so that the Holy Spirit can come? The Son -left as far as concerns his bodily presence, but he came invisibly together -with the Holy Spirit. If the Son had dwelt here invisibly and said, "It is to -your advantage that I go because the Holy Spirit will come," people would think -the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. -
-LECTURE 3 - -
8 "And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin -and of righteousness and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in -me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no -more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is [already] judged. 12 I -have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the -Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth [will teach you all -truth]; for he will not speak on his own authority [from himself], but whatever -he hears [will hear] he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that -are to come."[13]
2091 Above, our Lord consoled his apostles by promising them -the Holy Spirit. Here he shows the benefit the Holy Spirit will bring to them -when he comes. He mentions three benefits: one for the world; a second for the -disciples; and a third for Christ. As for the world, the Holy Spirit will -convince the world; as for the apostles, the Spirit will teach them (v 12); as -for Christ, the Spirit will glorify him (v 14). First, he mentions the benefit of -the Spirit's coming for the world; secondly, he explains it (v 9). - -
2092 He says: It is to your advantage that I go, because I -will send the Holy Spirit to you, and when he comes, he will convince the -world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. This has received two -interpretations; one by Augustine, and the other by Chrysostom. - -
2093 Augustine explains it this way.[14] -And when he comes, the Holy Spirit, that is, he will convince, -that is, rebuke or reprove, the world. "Reprove a wise man, and he will -love you" (Ps 9:8). - -
But did not Christ also rebuke the -world? He did, as in "You are of your father the devil" (8:44), and in Matthew -(c 23) he said many things against the Pharisees and Scribes. Why then does he -say, he will convince, as though he himself did not reprove? - -
Perhaps someone will say that Christ rebuked -only the Jews, but that the Holy Spirit, in and through the disciples, will -rebuke the entire world. But this is in opposition to the fact that Christ also -speaks in and through the apostles, just as the Holy Spirit does: "You desire -proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor 13:3). - -
One must therefore say that, he -will convince, rebuke, the world, as the one who will invisibly -enter into their hearts and pour his charity into them so that their fear is -conquered and they have the strength to rebuke. For as was already said, as -long as the disciples were carnally attracted to Christ, the Holy Spirit was -not in them as he would be later. Consequently they were not as courageous then -as they were after the Spirit came. "Their power," the power of the apostles, -"came from the Spirit of his mouth" [Ps 33:6]; "Then the Spirit of God took -possession of Zechariah" (2 Chron 24:20). Again, he will convince the world because -he will fill hearts which were before worldly and lead them to rebuke -themselves: "I will reprove my ways in his sight" [Job 13:15]. The Holy Spirit -does this: "Put a new and right spirit within me" (Ps 51:10). - +against the Macedonians.[12] They say that the Holy Spirit is a creature +and the minister of the Father and the Son. But if this were true, +the coming of the Holy Spirit would not have been a sufficient +consolation to the Apostles for Christ's leaving them. It would be +like the departure of a king, where the substitution for him of one +of his ministers would not be a sufficient consolation. Thus, +because the Holy Spirit is equal to the Son, our Lord consoles them +by promising that the Spirit will come.
+2090 Yet if the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal, why is it to +their advantage that the Son leave so that the Holy Spirit can +come? The Son left as far as concerns his bodily presence, but he +came invisibly together with the Holy Spirit. If the Son had dwelt +here invisibly and said, "It is to your advantage that I go because +the Holy Spirit will come," people would think the Holy Spirit was +greater than the Son.
+
+
+LECTURE 3
+++8 "And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and +of righteousness and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not +believe in me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and +you will see me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this +world is [already] judged. 12 I have yet many things to say to you, +but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he +will guide you into all the truth [will teach you all truth]; for +he will not speak on his own authority [from himself], but whatever +he hears [will hear] he will speak, and he will declare to you the +things that are to come."[13]
+2091 Above, our Lord consoled his apostles by promising them the +Holy Spirit. Here he shows the benefit the Holy Spirit will bring +to them when he comes. He mentions three benefits: one for the +world; a second for the disciples; and a third for Christ. As for +the world, the Holy Spirit will convince the world; as for the +apostles, the Spirit will teach them (v 12); as for Christ, the +Spirit will glorify him (v 14). First, he mentions the benefit of +the Spirit's coming for the world; secondly, he explains it (v +9).
+2092 He says: It is to your advantage that I go, because I will +send the Holy Spirit to you, and when he comes, he will convince +the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. This has +received two interpretations; one by Augustine, and the other by +Chrysostom.
+2093 Augustine explains it this way.[14] And when he comes, the +Holy Spirit, that is, he will convince, that is, rebuke or +reprove, the world. "Reprove a wise man, and he will love +you" (Ps 9:8).
+But did not Christ also rebuke the world? He did, as in "You are +of your father the devil" (8:44), and in Matthew (c 23) he said +many things against the Pharisees and Scribes. Why then does he +say, he will convince, as though he himself did not +reprove?
+Perhaps someone will say that Christ rebuked only the Jews, but +that the Holy Spirit, in and through the disciples, will rebuke the +entire world. But this is in opposition to the fact that Christ +also speaks in and through the apostles, just as the Holy Spirit +does: "You desire proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor +13:3).
+One must therefore say that, he will convince, rebuke, +the world, as the one who will invisibly enter into their +hearts and pour his charity into them so that their fear is +conquered and they have the strength to rebuke. For as was already +said, as long as the disciples were carnally attracted to Christ, +the Holy Spirit was not in them as he would be later. Consequently +they were not as courageous then as they were after the Spirit +came. "Their power," the power of the apostles, "came from the +Spirit of his mouth" [Ps 33:6]; "Then the Spirit of God took +possession of Zechariah" (2 Chron 24:20). Again, he will +convince the world because he will fill hearts which were +before worldly and lead them to rebuke themselves: "I will reprove +my ways in his sight" [Job 13:15]. The Holy Spirit does this: "Put +a new and right spirit within me" (Ps 51:10).
2094 For what will the Spirit rebuke the world? For three -things. He will reprove the worldly for the sin they have committed: "Declare -to my people their transgression" (Is 58:1). And this was done by the apostles: -"Their voice goes out through all the earth" (Ps 19:4). He will reprove the -world for the righteousness it has neglected. And the apostles did this: "None -is righteousness, no not one" (Rom 3:10). And the Spirit will reprove the world -because of the judgment it has held in contempt: "When wickedness comes, -contempt comes also" (Prv 18:3); "She [Jerusalem] has despised my judgments" -[Ez 5:6]. - -
2095 Now he explains all this. First, what he says about -their sin, because they do not believe in me. The Spirit rebukes them only for -the sin of disbelief because by faith all other sins are remitted. In a similar -way our Lord charges the damned only with a lack of mercy, because all sins are -washed away by mercy: "By mercy and faith sins are cleansed away" [Prv 15:27]. -The same applies here, because as long as they remain in disbelief, their other -sins remain, but when there is no longer disbelief the other sins are remitted. -He says, "because they do not believe in me," using the form in me, and -not the forms mihi or me, because even the devils believe that -Christ exists and they tremble (Jas 2:19). In me, that is, with a faith enlivened -by hope and love. [On faith "in me" see no. 901 above] - -
2096 Secondly, he explains what he said about righteousness -when he says because I go to the Father. This can be understood in two -ways: either as referring to the righteousness of Christ or that of the -apostles. As referring to the righteousness of the apostles the explanation is -this: the world will be rebuked because of our righteousness, because the world -has not imitated it. The righteousness, I say, which is not from the law but -from faith: "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom -3:22). - -
Faith is concerned with what is -invisible (Heb 11:1). Now the disciples saw one thing, the humanity of Christ, -and did not see another, his divinity. But Christ promises this to them as a -reward: "I will ... manifest myself to him" (14:21). Thus, the disciples had -faith only regarding the divinity of Christ; but when Christ's human nature was -taken from them, they had faith regarding both. And so, according to Augustine -in his Commentary on John, when Christ says, because I go to the -Father, and you will see me no more, it is like saying: You believe in me, -that is, as regards my divinity, and because I go to the Father, you will -believe in me also as regards my humanity.[15] -This is the righteousness of faith which the world does not imitate. - -
He says, and you will see me no -more, not because they would never see him, but because they would not see -him in that mortal flesh. They did see him at the resurrection, but then he was -immortal; and they will see him at the judgment, coming in glory. - -
This phrase is expounded as -referring to the righteousness of Christ in the book, On the Words of the -Lord.[16] -The Jews were unwilling to recognize the righteousness of Christ: "We know that -this man is a sinner" (9:24). But he will manifest his righteousness to them, -saying because I go to the Father: for the very fact that I go to the -Father is a sign of my righteousness. Christ descended because of his mercy, -but his ascension was due to his righteousness: "Therefore God has highly -exalted him" (Phil 2:9). - +things. He will reprove the worldly for the sin they have +committed: "Declare to my people their transgression" (Is 58:1). +And this was done by the apostles: "Their voice goes out through +all the earth" (Ps 19:4). He will reprove the world for the +righteousness it has neglected. And the apostles did this: "None is +righteousness, no not one" (Rom 3:10). And the Spirit will reprove +the world because of the judgment it has held in contempt: "When +wickedness comes, contempt comes also" (Prv 18:3); "She [Jerusalem] +has despised my judgments" [Ez 5:6].
+2095 Now he explains all this. First, what he says about their +sin, because they do not believe in me. The Spirit rebukes them +only for the sin of disbelief because by faith all other sins are +remitted. In a similar way our Lord charges the damned only with a +lack of mercy, because all sins are washed away by mercy: "By mercy +and faith sins are cleansed away" [Prv 15:27]. The same applies +here, because as long as they remain in disbelief, their other sins +remain, but when there is no longer disbelief the other sins are +remitted. He says, "because they do not believe in me," using the +form in me, and not the forms mihi or me, +because even the devils believe that Christ exists and they tremble +(Jas 2:19). In me, that is, with a faith enlivened by hope and +love. [On faith "in me" see no. 901 above]
+2096 Secondly, he explains what he said about righteousness when +he says because I go to the Father. This can be understood +in two ways: either as referring to the righteousness of Christ or +that of the apostles. As referring to the righteousness of the +apostles the explanation is this: the world will be rebuked because +of our righteousness, because the world has not imitated it. The +righteousness, I say, which is not from the law but from faith: +"The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom +3:22).
+Faith is concerned with what is invisible (Heb 11:1). Now the +disciples saw one thing, the humanity of Christ, and did not see +another, his divinity. But Christ promises this to them as a +reward: "I will ... manifest myself to him" (14:21). Thus, the +disciples had faith only regarding the divinity of Christ; but when +Christ's human nature was taken from them, they had faith regarding +both. And so, according to Augustine in his Commentary on +John, when Christ says, because I go to the Father, and you +will see me no more, it is like saying: You believe in me, that +is, as regards my divinity, and because I go to the Father, you +will believe in me also as regards my humanity.[15] This is the +righteousness of faith which the world does not imitate.
+He says, and you will see me no more, not because they +would never see him, but because they would not see him in that +mortal flesh. They did see him at the resurrection, but then he was +immortal; and they will see him at the judgment, coming in +glory.
+This phrase is expounded as referring to the righteousness of +Christ in the book, On the Words of the Lord.[16] The Jews were +unwilling to recognize the righteousness of Christ: "We know that +this man is a sinner" (9:24). But he will manifest his +righteousness to them, saying because I go to the Father: +for the very fact that I go to the Father is a sign of my +righteousness. Christ descended because of his mercy, but his +ascension was due to his righteousness: "Therefore God has highly +exalted him" (Phil 2:9).
2097 Thirdly, the Holy Spirit reproves the world by the -judgment. This is because the ruler of this world is already judged. It -is the devil who is the ruler of this world, that is, of worldly people. He is -the ruler, not by creation, but by his suggestions and their imitation of him: -"Those on his side imitate him" [Wis 2:25]; "He is king over all the sons of -pride" (Job 41:34). Therefore, this ruler is already judged, that is, -cast outside: "Now is the judgment of this world," that is, in favor of the -world, "now shall the ruler of this world be cast out" (12:31). He says this to -anticipate the excuse that some will make for their sins, saying that the devil -tempted them. He is saying in effect: They cannot be excused because the devil -has been cast out by the grace and faith of Christ and by the Holy Spirit, cast -out from the hearts of the faithful so that he no longer tempts from within as -before, but from without. And so those who resolve to cling to Christ can -resist. This is why the devil, who has conquered the strongest males, can be -conquered by frail women. Thus the world is reproved by this judgment because -being unwilling to resist, it is overcome by the devil, who although expelled -is brought back by their consent to sin: "Let not sin therefore reign in your -mortal bodies" (Rom 6:12). - -
Another explanation is in the book, -The Words of the Lord. It says here that the phrase, is already -judged, refers to the judgment of condemnation.[17] -That is, the ruler of this world is already condemned, and consequently all who -adhere to him: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for -the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41). The world is reproved by this judgment -because although the world knows that its ruler has been condemned, it has not -escaped from this judgment but is judged with its ruler, because it imitates -his pride and evil ways. - -
2098 Chrysostom gives another explanation of this passage, -as follows. When he comes, the Holy Spirit, he will convince, -that is, convict, the world of sin.[18] -It is like saying: The Holy Spirit will be a witness against the world: "God -also bore witness by signs and wonders" (Heb 2:4). He will show that they have -sinned grievously because they did not believe in me, when they see that -the Holy Spirit will be given in my name to those who believe: "And we are -witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to -those who obey him" (Acts 5:32). The Holy Spirit will be a witness to my righteousness, -which the world did not think I possessed. And he will be this witness because -I go to the Father, and will send you the Spirit, who will show that I am -righteous and have led a faultless life: "Whom I shall send to you from the -Father, even the Spirit of truth" (15:26); and in the Psalm [68:18] we see that -after Christ ascends he gives gifts to men. He will be a witness of -judgment, because the ruler of this world is already judged, that is, it is -by the Holy Spirit that he is judged, that is, cast out of the hearts of those -who believe: "I will remove from the land ... the unclean spirit" (Zech 13:2); -"Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from -God" (1 Cor 2:12). He will convict the world by his judgment because the world -wickedly judged that Christ had a devil and cast out devils by Beelzebul. The -Holy Spirit, which I will send, will condemn the devil and cast him out. - -
2099 Now he mentions the benefit his disciples will receive -from the coming of the Holy Spirit; this benefit is their instruction. First, -he states their need for instruction; secondly, he promises this instruction (v -13); thirdly, he eliminates a difficulty (v 13b). - +judgment. This is because the ruler of this world is already +judged. It is the devil who is the ruler of this world, that +is, of worldly people. He is the ruler, not by creation, but by his +suggestions and their imitation of him: "Those on his side imitate +him" [Wis 2:25]; "He is king over all the sons of pride" (Job +41:34). Therefore, this ruler is already judged, that is, +cast outside: "Now is the judgment of this world," that is, in +favor of the world, "now shall the ruler of this world be cast out" +(12:31). He says this to anticipate the excuse that some will make +for their sins, saying that the devil tempted them. He is saying in +effect: They cannot be excused because the devil has been cast out +by the grace and faith of Christ and by the Holy Spirit, cast out +from the hearts of the faithful so that he no longer tempts from +within as before, but from without. And so those who resolve to +cling to Christ can resist. This is why the devil, who has +conquered the strongest males, can be conquered by frail women. +Thus the world is reproved by this judgment because being unwilling +to resist, it is overcome by the devil, who although expelled is +brought back by their consent to sin: "Let not sin therefore reign +in your mortal bodies" (Rom 6:12).
+Another explanation is in the book, The Words of the +Lord. It says here that the phrase, is already judged, +refers to the judgment of condemnation.[17] That is, the ruler of this +world is already condemned, and consequently all who adhere to him: +"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the +devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41). The world is reproved by this +judgment because although the world knows that its ruler has been +condemned, it has not escaped from this judgment but is judged with +its ruler, because it imitates his pride and evil ways.
+2098 Chrysostom gives another explanation of this passage, as +follows. When he comes, the Holy Spirit, he will +convince, that is, convict, the world of sin.[18] It is like saying: The +Holy Spirit will be a witness against the world: "God also bore +witness by signs and wonders" (Heb 2:4). He will show that they +have sinned grievously because they did not believe in me, +when they see that the Holy Spirit will be given in my name to +those who believe: "And we are witnesses to these things, and so is +the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him" (Acts +5:32). The Holy Spirit will be a witness to my +righteousness,which the world did not think I possessed. And +he will be this witness because I go to the Father, and will +send you the Spirit, who will show that I am righteous and have led +a faultless life: "Whom I shall send to you from the Father, even +the Spirit of truth" (15:26); and in the Psalm [68:18] we see that +after Christ ascends he gives gifts to men. He will be a witness +of judgment, because the ruler of this world is already +judged, that is, it is by the Holy Spirit that he is judged, +that is, cast out of the hearts of those who believe: "I will +remove from the land ... the unclean spirit" (Zech 13:2); "Now we +have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is +from God" (1 Cor 2:12). He will convict the world by his judgment +because the world wickedly judged that Christ had a devil and cast +out devils by Beelzebul. The Holy Spirit, which I will send, will +condemn the devil and cast him out.
+2099 Now he mentions the benefit his disciples will receive from +the coming of the Holy Spirit; this benefit is their instruction. +First, he states their need for instruction; secondly, he promises +this instruction (v 13); thirdly, he eliminates a difficulty (v +13b).
2100 He says: the coming of the Holy Spirit will benefit the -world because he will rebuke it. But the Spirit will also benefit you by -instructing you. You need this instruction because I have yet many things to -say to you, but you cannot bear them now. It is like saying: I have -instructed you, but you are not completely instructed: "Lo, these are but the -outskirts of his ways; and how small a whisper do we hear of him. But the -thunder of his power who can understand?" (Job 26:14). It would be foolish to -ask what those many things were which they could not bear, as Augustine -remarks.[19] -For if they could not bear them, much less can we. - -
2101 The statement, you cannot bear them now, has -been used by certain heretics as a cover for their errors. They tell their -adherents the basest things in private, things they would not dare to say -openly, as though these were the things the disciples were not then able to -bear, and as though the Holy Spirit taught them these things which a man would -blush to teach and preach openly. - -
We should not think that some secret teaching is -kept from believers who are uneducated, and taught to those who are more -learned. Indeed, matters of faith are presented to all the faithful: "What I -tell you in the dark, utter in the light" (Mt 10:27). Still, they have to be -presented in one way to the uneducated and in another way to the learned. For -instance, certain fine points about the mystery of the Incarnation and the -other mysteries would not be presented to the uneducated because they would not -understand them and they would actually be an obstacle. So our Lord presented all -matters of faith to his disciples, but not in the way he later revealed them, -and especially not in the way they will be presented in eternal life. -Accordingly, what they could not bear then was the full knowledge of divine -things, such as knowledge of the equality of the Son with the Father and other -things of that sort which they did not then know. Paul says, "He heard things -that cannot be told, which man may not utter" (2 Cor 12:4), these things were -the very truths of faith, not something else, but known in a more profound way. -Again, the disciples did not then have a spiritual understanding of all the -scriptures, but did only when "He opened their minds to understand the -scriptures" (Lk 24:45). Also, the disciples did not then have a full understanding -of the sufferings and dangers they were to undergo ‑ they could not bear -such knowledge then as their spirits were weak: "Put your shoulder under her -and carry her" (Sir 6:25). For these reasons the disciples were in need of -further instruction. - -
2102 Then he promises that they will be instructed by the -coming of the Holy Spirit, who will teach them all truth. For since the Holy -Spirit is from the Truth, it is appropriate that the Spirit teach the truth, -and make those he teaches like the one who sent him. He says, all the truth, -that is, the truth of the faith. He will teach them to have a better -understanding of this truth in this life, and a fullness of understanding in -eternal life, where we will know as we are known (see 1 Cor 13:12); "His -anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie" (1 Jn -2:27). Or, all the truth, that is, of the figures of the law, which -understanding the apostles received from the Holy Spirit. We read in Daniel -(1:17) that the Lord gave to his children wisdom and understanding. - -
2103 Now he excludes a difficulty which could have arisen. -If the Holy Spirit will teach them, it seems that he is greater than Christ. -This is not true, because the Spirit will teach them by the power of the Father -and the Son, for he will not speak from himself, but from me, because he -will be from me. Just as the Son does not act from himself but from the Father, -so the Holy Spirit, because he is from another, that is, from the Father and -the Son, will not speak from himself, but whatever he will hear by -receiving knowledge as well as his essence from eternity, he will speak, -not in a bodily way but by enlightening your minds from within: "I will bring -her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her" (Hos 2:14); "Let me hear -what God the Lord will speak" (Ps 85:8).[20] - -
2104 Since the Holy Spirit hears from eternity, why does he -say he will hear? We should say to this that eternity includes all time. -Consequently, the Holy Spirit, who hears from all eternity, is said to hear in -the present, in the past, and in the future. Yet at times he is said to hear in -the future because the knowledge in question concerns things that are still in -the future. He will speak, therefore, whatever he will hear, for he will -not only teach about things that are eternal, but future things. Thus he adds, he -will declare to you the things that are to come, which is a characteristic -of God: "She has foreknowledge of signs and wonders" (Wis 8:8); "Tell us what -is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods" (Is 41:23). This is -characteristic of the Holy Spirit: "I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; -your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Joel 2:28). So they would have no -doubts about how they would know of the coming tribulations, which Christ -predicted for them, he adds, and he will declare to you the things that are -to come, that is, upon you. -
-LECTURE 4 - -
- -14 "He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine -[for he will receive from me] and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has -is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine [that he will receive -from me] and declare it to you."[21]
2105 Above, we saw two fruits of the coming of the Holy -Spirit, which were the rebuking of the world and the instruction of the -disciples. Now the third fruit is mentioned, the glorification of Christ. -First, he mentions this fruit, the glorification; secondly, the reason for it -(v 14b); thirdly, he expands on this (v 15). - +world because he will rebuke it. But the Spirit will also benefit +you by instructing you. You need this instruction because I have +yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. It +is like saying: I have instructed you, but you are not completely +instructed: "Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways; and how +small a whisper do we hear of him. But the thunder of his power who +can understand?" (Job 26:14). It would be foolish to ask what those +many things were which they could not bear, as Augustine +remarks.[19] +For if they could not bear them, much less can we.
+2101 The statement, you cannot bear them now, has been +used by certain heretics as a cover for their errors. They tell +their adherents the basest things in private, things they would not +dare to say openly, as though these were the things the disciples +were not then able to bear, and as though the Holy Spirit taught +them these things which a man would blush to teach and preach +openly.
+We should not think that some secret teaching is kept from +believers who are uneducated, and taught to those who are more +learned. Indeed, matters of faith are presented to all the +faithful: "What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light" (Mt +10:27). Still, they have to be presented in one way to the +uneducated and in another way to the learned. For instance, certain +fine points about the mystery of the Incarnation and the other +mysteries would not be presented to the uneducated because they +would not understand them and they would actually be an obstacle. +So our Lord presented all matters of faith to his disciples, but +not in the way he later revealed them, and especially not in the +way they will be presented in eternal life. Accordingly, what they +could not bear then was the full knowledge of divine things, such +as knowledge of the equality of the Son with the Father and other +things of that sort which they did not then know. Paul says, "He +heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter" (2 Cor +12:4), these things were the very truths of faith, not something +else, but known in a more profound way. Again, the disciples did +not then have a spiritual understanding of all the scriptures, but +did only when "He opened their minds to understand the scriptures" +(Lk 24:45). Also, the disciples did not then have a full +understanding of the sufferings and dangers they were to undergo +‑ they could not bear such knowledge then as their spirits +were weak: "Put your shoulder under her and carry her" (Sir 6:25). +For these reasons the disciples were in need of further +instruction.
+2102 Then he promises that they will be instructed by the coming +of the Holy Spirit, who will teach them all truth. For since the +Holy Spirit is from the Truth, it is appropriate that the Spirit +teach the truth, and make those he teaches like the one who sent +him. He says, all the truth, that is, the truth of the +faith. He will teach them to have a better understanding of this +truth in this life, and a fullness of understanding in eternal +life, where we will know as we are known (see 1 Cor 13:12); "His +anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie" +(1 Jn 2:27). Or, all the truth, that is, of the figures of +the law, which understanding the apostles received from the Holy +Spirit. We read in Daniel (1:17) that the Lord gave to his children +wisdom and understanding.
+2103 Now he excludes a difficulty which could have arisen. If +the Holy Spirit will teach them, it seems that he is greater than +Christ. This is not true, because the Spirit will teach them by the +power of the Father and the Son, for he will not speak from +himself, but from me, because he will be from me. Just as the +Son does not act from himself but from the Father, so the Holy +Spirit, because he is from another, that is, from the Father and +the Son, will not speak from himself, but whatever he will +hear by receiving knowledge as well as his essence from +eternity, he will speak, not in a bodily way but by +enlightening your minds from within: "I will bring her into the +wilderness, and speak tenderly to her" (Hos 2:14); "Let me hear +what God the Lord will speak" (Ps 85:8).[20]
+2104 Since the Holy Spirit hears from eternity, why does he say +he will hear? We should say to this that eternity includes all +time. Consequently, the Holy Spirit, who hears from all eternity, +is said to hear in the present, in the past, and in the future. Yet +at times he is said to hear in the future because the knowledge in +question concerns things that are still in the future. He will +speak, therefore, whatever he will hear, for he will not only +teach about things that are eternal, but future things. Thus he +adds, he will declare to you the things that are to come, +which is a characteristic of God: "She has foreknowledge of signs +and wonders" (Wis 8:8); "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we +may know that you are gods" (Is 41:23). This is characteristic of +the Holy Spirit: "I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons +and your daughters shall prophesy" (Joel 2:28). So they would have +no doubts about how they would know of the coming tribulations, +which Christ predicted for them, he adds, and he will declare to +you the things that are to come, that is, upon you.
+
+
+LECTURE 4
+++14 "He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine [for he +will receive from me] and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father +has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine [that +he will receive from me] and declare it to you."[21]
+2105 Above, we saw two fruits of the coming of the Holy Spirit, +which were the rebuking of the world and the instruction of the +disciples. Now the third fruit is mentioned, the glorification of +Christ. First, he mentions this fruit, the glorification; secondly, +the reason for it (v 14b); thirdly, he expands on this (v 15).
2106 He says: "He will teach all truth," because he will -glorify me, in whom is all truth: "I am the way, and the truth, and the -life" (14:6); "In whom," that is, in Christ, "are hid all the treasures of -wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3). - -
He will glorify me, that is, -give a clear knowledge of me. He will do this, first of all, by enlightening -the disciples: for they were still carnal and attached to Christ in a carnal -way, that is, in the weakness of his flesh, not realizing the grandeur of his -divinity. Later, they were able to grasp this through the Holy Spirit: "God has -revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:10). Secondly, the Spirit will give -them the confidence to preach clearly, openly. Before this the disciples were -so timid that they did not dare to profess Christ publicly, but when they were -filled with the Holy Spirit fear was cast out, and they proclaimed Christ to -the people, being somehow impelled by that same Spirit: "He will come like a -rushing stream, which the wind [or Spirit] of the Lord drives" (Is 59:19). This -is why the Apostle says: "The love of Christ impels us" [2 Cor 5:14]. Thirdly, -the Spirit will glorify Christ by accomplishing marvelous works in and through -the apostles: "All things are inspired by one and the same Spirit" (1 Cor -12:11). - +glorify me, in whom is all truth: "I am the way, and the truth, +and the life" (14:6); "In whom," that is, in Christ, "are hid all +the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3).
+He will glorify me, that is, give a clear knowledge of +me. He will do this, first of all, by enlightening the disciples: +for they were still carnal and attached to Christ in a carnal way, +that is, in the weakness of his flesh, not realizing the grandeur +of his divinity. Later, they were able to grasp this through the +Holy Spirit: "God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Cor +2:10). Secondly, the Spirit will give them the confidence to preach +clearly, openly. Before this the disciples were so timid that they +did not dare to profess Christ publicly, but when they were filled +with the Holy Spirit fear was cast out, and they proclaimed Christ +to the people, being somehow impelled by that same Spirit: "He will +come like a rushing stream, which the wind [or Spirit] of the Lord +drives" (Is 59:19). This is why the Apostle says: "The love of +Christ impels us" [2 Cor 5:14]. Thirdly, the Spirit will glorify +Christ by accomplishing marvelous works in and through the +apostles: "All things are inspired by one and the same Spirit" (1 +Cor 12:11).
2107 Now we see the reason why the Holy Spirit will glorify -Christ: it is because the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit. For -everything which is from another manifests that from which it is. Thus the Son -manifests the Father because he is from the Father. And so because the Holy -Spirit is from the Son, it is appropriate that the Spirit glorify the Son. He -says, he will glorify me, for he will receive from me. However, the Holy -Spirit does not receive in the same way creatures do. - -
When creatures receive, three -things are found, and two of these are not found in the divinity. In creatures, -that which receives is one thing, and what is received is something else. This -is not so in the divinity, since the divine persons are simple, and not -composed of several elements. Indeed, the Holy Spirit receives his entire substance -from whomever this Spirit receives, and so does the Son. Another difference is -that among creatures the one who receives did not have at one time what he -receives, as when matter receives a form, or a subject receives an accident: -for at some time the matter was without such a form, and the subject without -that accident. This is not so in the divinity, because what the Son receives -from the Father the Son has from eternity, and what the Holy Spirit receives -from the Father and the Son, the Spirit has from eternity. Accordingly, the -Holy Spirit receives from the Son like the Son receives from the Father: "What -my Father has given to me is greater than all" (10:29). Thus, when the -expression "to receive" is used of the divinity, it indicates an order in origin.[22] - -
2108 Note that when he says, he will receive from me, the -word from (de, "from" or "of") does not indicate participation, -but consubstantiality, because the Spirit receives all that the Son has. For -just as the Son is from (de) the substance of the Father, because he -receives the entire substance of the Father, so also the Holy Spirit is from (de) -the substance of the Son because the Spirit receives the whole substance of the -Son. Thus, because he will receive from me, and I am the Word of God, -therefore he will declare it to you. - -
2109 Now this reason is further explained when Christ shows -that the Holy Spirit received from him because of the unity and +Christ: it is because the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit. +For everything which is from another manifests that from which it +is. Thus the Son manifests the Father because he is from the +Father. And so because the Holy Spirit is from the Son, it is +appropriate that the Spirit glorify the Son. He says, he will +glorify me, for he will receive from me. However, the Holy +Spirit does not receive in the same way creatures do.
+When creatures receive, three things are found, and two of these +are not found in the divinity. In creatures, that which receives is +one thing, and what is received is something else. This is not so +in the divinity, since the divine persons are simple, and not +composed of several elements. Indeed, the Holy Spirit receives his +entire substance from whomever this Spirit receives, and so does +the Son. Another difference is that among creatures the one who +receives did not have at one time what he receives, as when matter +receives a form, or a subject receives an accident: for at some +time the matter was without such a form, and the subject without +that accident. This is not so in the divinity, because what the Son +receives from the Father the Son has from eternity, and what the +Holy Spirit receives from the Father and the Son, the Spirit has +from eternity. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit receives from the Son +like the Son receives from the Father: "What my Father has given to +me is greater than all" (10:29). Thus, when the expression "to +receive" is used of the divinity, it indicates an order in +origin.[22]
+2108 Note that when he says, he will receive from me, the +word from (de, "from" or "of") does not indicate +participation, but consubstantiality, because the Spirit receives +all that the Son has. For just as the Son is from (de) the +substance of the Father, because he receives the entire substance +of the Father, so also the Holy Spirit is from (de) the +substance of the Son because the Spirit receives the whole +substance of the Son. Thus, because he will receive from me, +and I am the Word of God, therefore he will declare it to +you.
+2109 Now this reason is further explained when Christ shows that +the Holy Spirit received from him because of the unity and consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. First, we see the -consubstantiality of the Father and Son; secondly, the conclusion is drawn, therefore -I said that he will receive from me. - -
2110 He says: he will receive from me because all that -the Father has is mine. This is like saying: Although the Spirit of truth -proceeds from the Father, yet because all that the Father has is mine, (and -the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father), the Spirit receives from me. - -
Note that one "has" something in -two ways: in one way as a possession, and in the other way as something -existing in oneself, as a form or a part. The Father has as a possession and as -something subject to himself the totality of created things: "The earth is the -Lord's and the fullness thereof" (Ps 24:1). The Father also has something which -is in him, indeed, which is himself, because the Father is whatever is in -Christ, since the Father is his own essence, own goodness, own truth and own -eternity. The word "has" is being used in this sense here. And so whatever the -Father has is the Son's, because the Son has the same wisdom and the same -goodness that the Father also has: "For as the Father has life in himself, so -he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (5:26); "All things have -been delivered to me by my Father" (Mt 11:27). - +consubstantiality of the Father and Son; secondly, the conclusion +is drawn, therefore I said that he will receive from me.
+2110 He says: he will receive from me because all that the +Father has is mine. This is like saying: Although the Spirit of +truth proceeds from the Father, yet because all that the Father +has is mine, (and the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father), the +Spirit receives from me.
+Note that one "has" something in two ways: in one way as a +possession, and in the other way as something existing in oneself, +as a form or a part. The Father has as a possession and as +something subject to himself the totality of created things: "The +earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" (Ps 24:1). The Father +also has something which is in him, indeed, which is himself, +because the Father is whatever is in Christ, since the Father is +his own essence, own goodness, own truth and own eternity. The word +"has" is being used in this sense here. And so whatever the Father +has is the Son's, because the Son has the same wisdom and the same +goodness that the Father also has: "For as the Father has life in +himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" +(5:26); "All things have been delivered to me by my Father" (Mt +11:27).
2111 As Didymus says, some might make this objection: If all that the Father has the Son also has, then since the Father has the -characteristic of fatherhood, it follows that the Son also has this.[23] -I answer that this argument would appear to be valid if our Lord had said, "All -that God has is mine." But he says, all that the Father has is mine, and -this keeps a distinction between the Father and the Son, and leads us to -understand that all that the Father has is the Son's, except that by which the -Father is distinguished from the Son. For by using the word Father, Christ -declares that he is the Son, and has not usurped the attribute of fatherhood. - -
2112 We have conceded that whatever the Father has the Son -has, but not that the Son has it in the same order as the Father. For the Son -has as receiving from another; while the Father has as giving to another. Thus, -the distinction is not in what is had, but in the order of having. Now -relations of this kind, that is, of fatherhood and sonship, signify a -distinction of order: for fatherhood signifies a giving to another and sonship -a receiving from another. - -
2113 One might ask whether a relation is something real in -the divinity. It seems that it is: for if not, then since the divine persons -are distinguished by relations, the distinction of the persons would not be -real. The answer to this is that in the divinity a relation is considered in -two ways. In one way, a relation is considered in comparison to the essence or -person of the Father. And in this way the relation of Father is not other than -the essence or person of the Father. In the other way, a relation can be -considered in comparison to the opposite relation, for example, to sonship. In -this way fatherhood is a real relation, because it signifies an order of the -nature which the Father gives the Son by an eternal generation. And this order -is really in God. Therefore, if fatherhood is compared to the essence of the -Father, all that the Father has the Son has, because fatherhood is not other -than the essence of the Father, but the Son does not have it in the same order, -as was said. - -
2114 Now he draws his conclusion, that the Holy Spirit -receives from the Son. If all things which the Father has are the Son's, and -the Son is consubstantial to the Father, it is necessary that the Holy Spirit -proceed from the Son as he proceeds from the Father, as Hilary and Didymus -argue.[24] - -
To understand this we should note that among created -things in every procession or origination that by which the agent acts or gives -what it has is the same as what the recipient receives. For instance, fire -which has been generated receives the form of fire which the generating fire -gives it by its own form. There is something similar to this in the origin of -the divine persons, because that by which the Father gives his nature to the -Son (not by will, but by nature), is the same as that which he gives. Still -there is an unlikeness in this way: in creatures, that which is communicated -and that by which it is communicated is only the same in species, not the same -individual; but in the divinity, what the Father gives to the Son and that by -which he gives or communicates it is the same individual nature. - -
2115 Note that we say that the Son receives from (de) -the substance of the Father, that is, he receives the substance of the Father; -and we say that the Holy Spirit receives from the substance of the Father and -the Son; and that the Father, by virtue of his nature, gives his substance to -the Son, and the Father and the Son give to the Holy Spirit. But we do not say -that the Father is from (de) the substance of the Son, or that the -Father and the Son are from the substance of the Holy Spirit, because the -"from" (de) signifies consubstantiality with an order of origin. Thus, -what is communicated to the Holy Spirit is what is common to the Father and the -Son. Now in the divinity the principle of communication must be the same as -what is communicated. And so if what is communicated to the Holy Spirit is as -essence, that which communicates must be this essence. This essence, however, -is common to the Father and the Son. So, if the Father gives his essence to the -Holy Spirit, the Son must also do so. For this reason he says, all that the -Father has is mine. And if the Holy Spirit receives from the Father, he -will also receive from the Son. And for this reason he says, therefore I -said that he will receive from me and declare it to you, for according as -he receives from me, so he will show you. -
-LECTURE 5 - -
- -16 "A little while, and you will see me no more; again a -little while, and you will see me [because I go to the Father]." 17 Some of his -disciples said to one another, "What is this that he says to us, 'A little -while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me', -and, 'because I go to the Father'?" 18 They said, "What does he mean by 'a little -while'? We do not know what he means." 19 Jesus knew that they wanted to ask -him; so he said to them, "Is this what you are asking yourselves, what I meant -by saying, 'A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, -and you will see me'? 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, -but the world will rejoice, you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn -into joy. 21 When a woman is in travail she has sorrow, because her hour has -come; but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the -anguish, for joy that a child [man] is born into the world. 22 So you have -sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one -will take your joy from you."[25]
2116 Above, our Lord explained one reason for their -consolation, that was his promise of the Holy Spirit. Here he gives the second, -which is that they will see him again. First, the promise that they will see -him again is made; secondly, we see the perplexity of the disciples (v 17); and -thirdly, their perplexity is answered (v 19). - -
2117 When our Lord foretold that he would leave his -disciples, he also promised that they would see him again. He insists on this -several times so that by considering the fact that he would come again they -might better endure his absence. He actually mentions three things to console -them: his absence will be brief; he will be with them again; and he will leave -with honor. - -
2118 His absence is brief because a little while and you -will see me no more, so that the little while refers to the time -when you will see me no more. It is like saying: I will be taken from -you by death and you will see me no more; but do not be sad, because the -time during which you will not see me will be a little while, for I will -rise at dawn, that is, on the third day: "Hide yourselves for a little while -until the wrath is past" (Is 26:20). - +characteristic of fatherhood, it follows that the Son also has +this.[23] I +answer that this argument would appear to be valid if our Lord had +said, "All that God has is mine." But he says, all that the +Father has is mine, and this keeps a distinction between the +Father and the Son, and leads us to understand that all that the +Father has is the Son's, except that by which the Father is +distinguished from the Son. For by using the word Father, Christ +declares that he is the Son, and has not usurped the attribute of +fatherhood.
+2112 We have conceded that whatever the Father has the Son has, +but not that the Son has it in the same order as the Father. For +the Son has as receiving from another; while the Father has as +giving to another. Thus, the distinction is not in what is had, but +in the order of having. Now relations of this kind, that is, of +fatherhood and sonship, signify a distinction of order: for +fatherhood signifies a giving to another and sonship a receiving +from another.
+2113 One might ask whether a relation is something real in the +divinity. It seems that it is: for if not, then since the divine +persons are distinguished by relations, the distinction of the +persons would not be real. The answer to this is that in the +divinity a relation is considered in two ways. In one way, a +relation is considered in comparison to the essence or person of +the Father. And in this way the relation of Father is not other +than the essence or person of the Father. In the other way, a +relation can be considered in comparison to the opposite relation, +for example, to sonship. In this way fatherhood is a real relation, +because it signifies an order of the nature which the Father gives +the Son by an eternal generation. And this order is really in God. +Therefore, if fatherhood is compared to the essence of the Father, +all that the Father has the Son has, because fatherhood is not +other than the essence of the Father, but the Son does not have it +in the same order, as was said.
+2114 Now he draws his conclusion, that the Holy Spirit receives +from the Son. If all things which the Father has are the Son's, and +the Son is consubstantial to the Father, it is necessary that the +Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as he proceeds from the Father, as +Hilary and Didymus argue.[24]
+To understand this we should note that among created things in +every procession or origination that by which the agent acts or +gives what it has is the same as what the recipient receives. For +instance, fire which has been generated receives the form of fire +which the generating fire gives it by its own form. There is +something similar to this in the origin of the divine persons, +because that by which the Father gives his nature to the Son (not +by will, but by nature), is the same as that which he gives. Still +there is an unlikeness in this way: in creatures, that which is +communicated and that by which it is communicated is only the same +in species, not the same individual; but in the divinity, what the +Father gives to the Son and that by which he gives or communicates +it is the same individual nature.
+2115 Note that we say that the Son receives from (de) the +substance of the Father, that is, he receives the substance of the +Father; and we say that the Holy Spirit receives from the substance +of the Father and the Son; and that the Father, by virtue of his +nature, gives his substance to the Son, and the Father and the Son +give to the Holy Spirit. But we do not say that the Father is from +(de) the substance of the Son, or that the Father and the +Son are from the substance of the Holy Spirit, because the "from" +(de) signifies consubstantiality with an order of origin. +Thus, what is communicated to the Holy Spirit is what is common to +the Father and the Son. Now in the divinity the principle of +communication must be the same as what is communicated. And so if +what is communicated to the Holy Spirit is as essence, that which +communicates must be this essence. This essence, however, is common +to the Father and the Son. So, if the Father gives his essence to +the Holy Spirit, the Son must also do so. For this reason he says, +all that the Father has is mine. And if the Holy Spirit +receives from the Father, he will also receive from the Son. And +for this reason he says, therefore I said that he will receive +from me and declare it to you, for according as he receives +from me, so he will show you.
+
+
+LECTURE 5
+++16 "A little while, and you will see me no more; again a +little while, and you will see me [because I go to the Father]." 17 +Some of his disciples said to one another, "What is this that he +says to us, 'A little while, and you will not see me, and again a +little while, and you will see me', and, 'because I go to the +Father'?" 18 They said, "What does he mean by 'a little while'? We +do not know what he means." 19 Jesus knew that they wanted to ask +him; so he said to them, "Is this what you are asking yourselves, +what I meant by saying, 'A little while, and you will not see me, +and again a little while, and you will see me'? 20 Truly, truly, I +say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice, +you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. 21 When +a woman is in travail she has sorrow, because her hour has come; +but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the +anguish, for joy that a child [man] is born into the world. 22 So +you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will +rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you."[25]
+2116 Above, our Lord explained one reason for their consolation, +that was his promise of the Holy Spirit. Here he gives the second, +which is that they will see him again. First, the promise that they +will see him again is made; secondly, we see the perplexity of the +disciples (v 17); and thirdly, their perplexity is answered (v +19).
+2117 When our Lord foretold that he would leave his disciples, +he also promised that they would see him again. He insists on this +several times so that by considering the fact that he would come +again they might better endure his absence. He actually mentions +three things to console them: his absence will be brief; he will be +with them again; and he will leave with honor.
+2118 His absence is brief because a little while and you will +see me no more, so that the little while refers to the +time when you will see me no more. It is like saying: I will +be taken from you by death and you will see me no more; but +do not be sad, because the time during which you will not see me +will be a little while, for I will rise at dawn, that is, on +the third day: "Hide yourselves for a little while until the wrath +is past" (Is 26:20).
2119 Yet I will be with you again because again a little -while, that is, during a brief time after the resurrection, for -forty days, "appearing to them during forty days" (Acts 1:3), you will see -me: "Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord" (20:20). - -
2120 And this is because I am leaving with honor, because I -go to the Father: "As they were looking on, he was lifted up" (Acts 1:9). - -
Another interpretation would be -that the little while refers to the time before Christ's death, so that -the meaning is: It will just be a little while until I am taken from -you, that is, on the morrow: "Yet a little while I am with you" (13:33). And -you will see me no more, that is, in mortal form, because "yet a little -while, and the world will see me no more," as mortal (14:19); yet it will see -him at the judgment and coming in majesty. But the disciples will see Christ -when immortal, after the resurrection, because as we read in Acts (10:40): "God -... made him manifest, not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God -as witnesses." And so he adds, a little while, and you will see me, for -I will remain in death only for a little while: "In a moment of indignation I -hid my face from you for a little while" [Is 54:8]. - -
Or this little while and we -will see him can refer to the time of our entire life until the judgment; and -then we will see Christ at the judgment and in glory. It is called a "little -while" in relation to eternity: "For a thousand years in your sight are but as -yesterday when it is past" (Ps 90:4). Because I go to the Father, by my -resurrection and ascension: "Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of -this world to the Father" (13:1). - +while, that is, during a brief time after the resurrection, for +forty days, "appearing to them during forty days" (Acts 1:3), +you will see me: "Then the disciples were glad when they saw +the Lord" (20:20).
+2120 And this is because I am leaving with honor, because I go +to the Father: "As they were looking on, he was lifted up" (Acts +1:9).
+Another interpretation would be that the little while +refers to the time before Christ's death, so that the meaning is: +It will just be a little while until I am taken from you, +that is, on the morrow: "Yet a little while I am with you" (13:33). +And you will see me no more, that is, in mortal form, +because "yet a little while, and the world will see me no more," as +mortal (14:19); yet it will see him at the judgment and coming in +majesty. But the disciples will see Christ when immortal, after the +resurrection, because as we read in Acts (10:40): "God ... made him +manifest, not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as +witnesses." And so he adds, a little while, and you will see +me, for I will remain in death only for a little while: "In a +moment of indignation I hid my face from you for a little while" +[Is 54:8].
+Or this little while and we will see him can refer to the +time of our entire life until the judgment; and then we will see +Christ at the judgment and in glory. It is called a "little while" +in relation to eternity: "For a thousand years in your sight are +but as yesterday when it is past" (Ps 90:4). Because I go to the +Father, by my resurrection and ascension: "Jesus knew that his +hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father" +(13:1).
2121 Now we see the perplexity of the disciples: first, they -talk it over among themselves; secondly, we see the reason for their -perplexity; and thirdly, we see their point of view and attitude. - +talk it over among themselves; secondly, we see the reason for +their perplexity; and thirdly, we see their point of view and +attitude.
2122 The disciples questioned one another about the Lord's -statement, saying, What does he mean by a little while? They show an -admirable respect for Christ for it was so great that they did not presume to -question him. The angels do the same: "Who is this that comes from Edom, in -crimsoned garments from Bozrah" (Is 63:1). And he answers: "It is I who am -speaking of righteousness and a defender who saves you" [Is 63:1]. We see from -the words of the disciples that they did not yet have a complete understanding -of what Christ said, either because they were still sunk in sorrow or because -the words themselves were obscure: "Are you also still without understanding?" -(Mt 15:16). - +statement, saying, What does he mean by a little while? They +show an admirable respect for Christ for it was so great that they +did not presume to question him. The angels do the same: "Who is +this that comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah" (Is +63:1). And he answers: "It is I who am speaking of righteousness +and a defender who saves you" [Is 63:1]. We see from the words of +the disciples that they did not yet have a complete understanding +of what Christ said, either because they were still sunk in sorrow +or because the words themselves were obscure: "Are you also still +without understanding?" (Mt 15:16).
2123 The reason for their perplexity was that Christ's -statements seemed to be incompatible. They understood well enough when he said, -you will not see me, and because I go to the Father. But they -were perplexed as to how they could see the same person a little while after he -had died, for they did not yet know of the resurrection, and we read "What man -can live and never see death? Who can deliver his soul from the power of -Sheol?" (Ps 89:48); "No one has been known to return from Hades" (Wis 2:1). - -
2124 This is why the disciples say, What does he mean by -a little while and we will see him? We do not know what he means, -they reply in an unassuming way. As Augustine remarks, when some do not -understand the words of Scripture they belittle it, preferring their own -theories to the authority of Scripture. Yet others, when they do not -understand, unpretentiously admit their own lack of knowledge: "I am ... a man -who is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws" -(Wis 9:5).[26] -This is what the apostles are doing here, for they do not say that Christ was -wrong or that he said nothing. They ascribe their lack of understanding to -their own ignorance. - -
2125 Now their perplexity is revealed. First, it is -acknowledged [by Christ]; secondly, it is cleared up (v 20); and thirdly Christ -presents a similar situation (v 21). - -
2126 He does two things about the first. First, he shows how -the perplexity of the disciples was recognized by Christ, when he says, Jesus -knew, by reason of his divinity, that they wanted to ask him, about -this difficulty: "He himself knew what was in man" (2:25); "Man looks on the -outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam 16:7). Then he -shows how this recognition was expressed in words, when Christ said to them, Is -this what you are asking yourselves ... ? "I made them known; then suddenly -I did them and they came to pass" (Is 48:3). - -
2127 Now he explains his words and removes the perplexity of -the disciples, not just repeating what he had said, but setting their minds at -ease. First, he states that there will be a division of those who are sad and -those who are joyful; secondly, he mentions their own interior sorrow; and -thirdly, the joy that will follow. - +statements seemed to be incompatible. They understood well enough +when he said, you will not see me, and because I go to +the Father. But they were perplexed as to how they could see +the same person a little while after he had died, for they did not +yet know of the resurrection, and we read "What man can live and +never see death? Who can deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?" +(Ps 89:48); "No one has been known to return from Hades" (Wis +2:1).
+2124 This is why the disciples say, What does he mean by a +little while and we will see him? We do not know what he +means, they reply in an unassuming way. As Augustine remarks, +when some do not understand the words of Scripture they belittle +it, preferring their own theories to the authority of Scripture. +Yet others, when they do not understand, unpretentiously admit +their own lack of knowledge: "I am ... a man who is weak and +short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws" (Wis +9:5).[26] +This is what the apostles are doing here, for they do not say that +Christ was wrong or that he said nothing. They ascribe their lack +of understanding to their own ignorance.
+2125 Now their perplexity is revealed. First, it is acknowledged +[by Christ]; secondly, it is cleared up (v 20); and thirdly Christ +presents a similar situation (v 21).
+2126 He does two things about the first. First, he shows how the +perplexity of the disciples was recognized by Christ, when he says, +Jesus knew, by reason of his divinity, that they wanted +to ask him, about this difficulty: "He himself knew what was in +man" (2:25); "Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord +looks on the heart" (1 Sam 16:7). Then he shows how this +recognition was expressed in words, when Christ said to them, Is +this what you are asking yourselves ... ? "I made them known; +then suddenly I did them and they came to pass" (Is 48:3).
+2127 Now he explains his words and removes the perplexity of the +disciples, not just repeating what he had said, but setting their +minds at ease. First, he states that there will be a division of +those who are sad and those who are joyful; secondly, he mentions +their own interior sorrow; and thirdly, the joy that will +follow.
2128 About the first, he says, Truly, truly I say to you -that during that little while in which you will not see me you will weep, -groaning aloud in sad tones, and lament, shedding tears: "She weeps bitterly in -the night," referring to the first, "tears on her cheeks" referring to the -second (Lam 1:2); "Keep your voice from weeping" (Jer 31:16). - -
2129 But their interior sadness will be in contrast to the -joy of the world. Thus he says, but the world will rejoice. This can be -understood in a particular way as referring to the time of Christ's passion, -and then the world, that is, the Scribes and Pharisees, will rejoice that -Christ is killed: "Ah, this is the day we longed for; now we have it; we see -it!" (Lam 2:16). Or the world, that is the evil members of the Church, -will rejoice that the saints are persecuted: "The inhabitants of the earth will -rejoice" [Rev 17:8]. Or in a general sense, the world, those living -carnally, will rejoice in worldly things: "And behold, joy and gladness, -slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine" (Is 22:13). - -
The sorrow of the disciples -follows, and so he says, you will be sorrowful, because of the -sufferings you will have in this world, or rather at my being killed. This is -the way the saints are saddened: by the sufferings they endure at the hands of -the world and by sin: "For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to -salvation" (2 Cor 7:10). - -
2130 Yet joy will follow this sadness, because your sorrow, which -you will experience over my passion, will turn into joy, at my resurrection: -"The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord" (20:20). And in general, the -sorrow of all the saints will be turned into the joy of the future life: -"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:4); "He that -goes forth weeping, bearing the seed for sowing, shall come home with shouts of -joy" (Ps 126:6). For the saints weep as they sow during this time of merit, but -they will rejoice at the reaping, during the time of reward. - +that during that little while in which you will not see me you +will weep, groaning aloud in sad tones, and lament, shedding +tears: "She weeps bitterly in the night," referring to the first, +"tears on her cheeks" referring to the second (Lam 1:2); "Keep your +voice from weeping" (Jer 31:16).
+2129 But their interior sadness will be in contrast to the joy +of the world. Thus he says, but the world will rejoice. This +can be understood in a particular way as referring to the time of +Christ's passion, and then the world, that is, the Scribes +and Pharisees, will rejoice that Christ is killed: "Ah, this +is the day we longed for; now we have it; we see it!" (Lam 2:16). +Or the world, that is the evil members of the Church, will +rejoice that the saints are persecuted: "The inhabitants of the +earth will rejoice" [Rev 17:8]. Or in a general sense, the +world, those living carnally, will rejoice in worldly +things: "And behold, joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing +sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine" (Is 22:13).
+The sorrow of the disciples follows, and so he says, you will +be sorrowful, because of the sufferings you will have in this +world, or rather at my being killed. This is the way the saints are +saddened: by the sufferings they endure at the hands of the world +and by sin: "For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to +salvation" (2 Cor 7:10).
+2130 Yet joy will follow this sadness, because your sorrow, +which you will experience over my passion, will turn into joy, at +my resurrection: "The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord" +(20:20). And in general, the sorrow of all the saints will be +turned into the joy of the future life: "Blessed are those who +mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:4); "He that goes forth +weeping, bearing the seed for sowing, shall come home with shouts +of joy" (Ps 126:6). For the saints weep as they sow during this +time of merit, but they will rejoice at the reaping, during the +time of reward.
2131 Now our Lord mentions a similar case and then draws the -parallels. The similar instance he gives is that of a woman about to give -birth. First, he mentions the sorrow she has while in labor; and secondly, her -joy once her child is born (v 21). - +parallels. The similar instance he gives is that of a woman about +to give birth. First, he mentions the sorrow she has while in +labor; and secondly, her joy once her child is born (v 21).
2132 In regard to the first he says, When a woman is in -travail she has sorrow, very great sensible sorrow, because her hour of -pain has come: "Anguish as of a woman in travail" (Ps 48:6). We can -understand this pain as the pain of the passion of Christ, which was the -greatest: "Look and see if there is any pain like my pain" [Lam 1:12]. We can -also see in it the pain of the saints when repentant over their sins: "Like a -woman with child, who writhes and cries out in her pangs, when she is near her -time, so were we because of you, O Lord" (Is 26:17). - +travail she has sorrow, very great sensible sorrow, because +her hour of pain has come: "Anguish as of a woman in travail" +(Ps 48:6). We can understand this pain as the pain of the passion +of Christ, which was the greatest: "Look and see if there is any +pain like my pain" [Lam 1:12]. We can also see in it the pain of +the saints when repentant over their sins: "Like a woman with +child, who writhes and cries out in her pangs, when she is near her +time, so were we because of you, O Lord" (Is 26:17).
2133 Now he mentions the joy when it is over. After a birth -there is a double joy: one, because the pain is past; the other, and greater, -is over the birth of the child. This joy is greater if the child is of the male -sex, since the male is complete, while the female is incomplete and fortuitous. -"Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, 'A son is born to you!"' -(Jer 20:15). And in Genesis, when Sara conceived she said, "God has made laughter -for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me" [Gen 21:6]. So he says, but -when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, rejoicing -that the pain is over, but even more for joy that a man is born into the -world. - -
This image is appropriate to Christ -because by his suffering he delivered us from the anguish of death and gave -birth to a new man, that is, he conferred on human nature a newness of life and -glory which were not yet known to us. Thus he does not say, "a child is born," -but rather a man is born, because Christ, in his human nature, rose from -the dead, renewed, with the newness of a child at birth. This image also fits -the Church militant, which walks in a newness of life; and the Church -triumphant, which walks in a newness of glory. He does not say, "There will be -no anguish," but she no longer remembers the anguish, because even -though the saints in glory will remember the afflictions they endured, they -will not experience them. - -
2134 Here he draws the parallels. As regards the present -sorrow the apostles were experiencing he says, So you have sorrow now, -now being from the time of my passion, and the sorrow is over my death: "What -is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk and look -sad?" [Lk 24:17]. Or now, during your entire life, you have sorrow: "You will -weep and lament" (16:20). - -
As regards their future joy he -says, but I will see you again. This is the same as if he said "you will -see me," because we can see him only if he shows himself. Yet he does not say, -"You will see me," but I will see you, because this showing of himself -to us springs from his compassion, which the very sight of him indicates. He -says, I will see you again, at my resurrection and in future glory: -"Your eyes will see the king in his beauty" (Is 33:17). - -
Secondly, he promises them a joyful -heart and gladness, saying, and your hearts will rejoice, when you see -me at my resurrection. Thus the Church sings: "This is the day the Lord has -made: let us rejoice and be glad." And your hearts will rejoice at the -vision of my glory: "Your face will fill me with joy" [Ps 16:11]; "Then you -shall see and be radiant, your heart shall thrill and rejoice" (Is 60:5). For -it is natural for each one to rejoice at the sight of what is loved. Now no one -can see the divine essence unless he loves it: "He shows it to his friend, as -it is his possession" [Job 36:33]. And so it is necessary that joy follow upon -this vision: "You shall see," knowing with your mind, "and your heart shall -rejoice" (Is 66:14). This joy will even spill over on to the body when it is -glorified, and so Isaiah continues: "Your bones shall flourish like the grass"; -"Enter into the joy of your master" (Mt 25:21). - -
Thirdly, he promises that this joy -will last forever, saying, and no one will take your joy from you, that -is, the joy you will have over my resurrection will not be taken from you, like -the Jews took your joy during my passion. And this is because "Christ rising -from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" [Rom -6:9] Or, your joy in the fullness of your glory no one will take from you since -it cannot be lost and is continuous: "Everlasting joy shall be upon their -heads" (Is 35:10). For we will not lose this joy for ourselves by sin since our -wills shall be fixed in the good; and no one can take this joy from us because -then there will be no violence and no injuries will be inflicted on us, etc. -
-LECTURE 6 - -
- -23 "In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, -I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father [in my name], he will give it -to you in my name. 24 Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you -will receive, that your joy may be full."[27]
2135 Above, our Lord enlarged on two things which would -comfort his apostles, the promise of the Paraclete and his own return. Here he -mentions a third reason by which he comforts them, promising them access to the -Father. First, he promises them an intimate relationship with the Father; -secondly, he gives a reason for this intimacy (v 25). He does two things about -the first: he gives them that security that comes from confidence; secondly, he -encourages them to act on their confidence (v 24). He does two things with the -first: first, he rejects a need for an intercessor; secondly, he promises them -an opportunity to ask (v 23). - +there is a double joy: one, because the pain is past; the other, +and greater, is over the birth of the child. This joy is greater if +the child is of the male sex, since the male is complete, while the +female is incomplete and fortuitous. "Cursed be the man who brought +the news to my father, 'A son is born to you!"' (Jer 20:15). And in +Genesis, when Sara conceived she said, "God has made laughter for +me; everyone who hears will laugh with me" [Gen 21:6]. So he says, +but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers +the anguish, rejoicing that the pain is over, but even more +for joy that a man is born into the world.
+This image is appropriate to Christ because by his suffering he +delivered us from the anguish of death and gave birth to a new man, +that is, he conferred on human nature a newness of life and glory +which were not yet known to us. Thus he does not say, "a child is +born," but rather a man is born, because Christ, in his +human nature, rose from the dead, renewed, with the newness of a +child at birth. This image also fits the Church militant, which +walks in a newness of life; and the Church triumphant, which walks +in a newness of glory. He does not say, "There will be no anguish," +but she no longer remembers the anguish, because even though +the saints in glory will remember the afflictions they endured, +they will not experience them.
+2134 Here he draws the parallels. As regards the present sorrow +the apostles were experiencing he says, So you have sorrow +now, now being from the time of my passion, and the sorrow is +over my death: "What is this conversation which you are holding +with each other as you walk and look sad?" [Lk 24:17]. Or now, +during your entire life, you have sorrow: "You will weep and +lament" (16:20).
+As regards their future joy he says, but I will see you +again. This is the same as if he said "you will see me," +because we can see him only if he shows himself. Yet he does not +say, "You will see me," but I will see you, because this +showing of himself to us springs from his compassion, which the +very sight of him indicates. He says, I will see you again, +at my resurrection and in future glory: "Your eyes will see the +king in his beauty" (Is 33:17).
+Secondly, he promises them a joyful heart and gladness, saying, +and your hearts will rejoice, when you see me at my +resurrection. Thus the Church sings: "This is the day the Lord has +made: let us rejoice and be glad." And your hearts will +rejoice at the vision of my glory: "Your face will fill me with +joy" [Ps 16:11]; "Then you shall see and be radiant, your heart +shall thrill and rejoice" (Is 60:5). For it is natural for each one +to rejoice at the sight of what is loved. Now no one can see the +divine essence unless he loves it: "He shows it to his friend, as +it is his possession" [Job 36:33]. And so it is necessary that joy +follow upon this vision: "You shall see," knowing with your mind, +"and your heart shall rejoice" (Is 66:14). This joy will even spill +over on to the body when it is glorified, and so Isaiah continues: +"Your bones shall flourish like the grass"; "Enter into the joy of +your master" (Mt 25:21).
+Thirdly, he promises that this joy will last forever, saying, +and no one will take your joy from you, that is, the joy you +will have over my resurrection will not be taken from you, like the +Jews took your joy during my passion. And this is because "Christ +rising from the dead will never die again; death no longer has +dominion over him" [Rom 6:9] Or, your joy in the fullness of your +glory no one will take from you since it cannot be lost and +is continuous: "Everlasting joy shall be upon their heads" (Is +35:10). For we will not lose this joy for ourselves by sin since +our wills shall be fixed in the good; and no one can take this joy +from us because then there will be no violence and no injuries will +be inflicted on us, etc.
+
+
+LECTURE 6
+++23 "In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I +say to you, if you ask anything of the Father [in my name], he will +give it to you in my name. 24 Hitherto you have asked nothing in my +name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be +full."[27]
+2135 Above, our Lord enlarged on two things which would comfort +his apostles, the promise of the Paraclete and his own return. Here +he mentions a third reason by which he comforts them, promising +them access to the Father. First, he promises them an intimate +relationship with the Father; secondly, he gives a reason for this +intimacy (v 25). He does two things about the first: he gives them +that security that comes from confidence; secondly, he encourages +them to act on their confidence (v 24). He does two things with the +first: first, he rejects a need for an intercessor; secondly, he +promises them an opportunity to ask (v 23).
2136 He says, In that day you will ask nothing of me. -According to Augustine, where we have ask, the Greeks have a word which -means two things: to ask for something, and to ask or pose a question.[28] -Consequently, In that day you will ask nothing of me can mean two -things: you will not ask me for anything, or you will not question me about -anything. - -
In that day. What that day -is can be seen from what he said before, "I will see you again" (v 22). This -can be understood to be the day of his resurrection, or the day when we have -the vision of his glory. - -
2137 Chrysostom understands this passage the first way.[29] -Thus, In that day, when I arise from the dead, you will ask nothing -of me, that is, you will not say such things as "Show us the Father." -Augustine objects to this interpretation because after the resurrection the -disciples did say: "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" -(Acts (1:6); and Peter poses the question: "Lord, what about this man?" -(20:21). - -
Yet one can uphold Chrysostom's -explanation by saying that our Lord calls that day not only the day of -his resurrection, but also that day the disciples were to be taught by the Holy -Spirit: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth" [16:13]. -And so by speaking in a vague manner of that time, our Lord also includes the -coming of the Holy Spirit. It is like saying: In that day, once the Holy -Spirit has been given, you will ask nothing of me, because you will know -all things by the Holy Spirit: "His anointing teaches you about everything" (1 -Jn 2:27). Again, according to Chrysostom, In that day, when the Holy -Spirits comes, you will ask nothing of me, that is, you will have no -need to ask me. - +According to Augustine, where we have ask, the Greeks have a +word which means two things: to ask for something, and to ask or +pose a question.[28] Consequently, In that day you will ask +nothing of me can mean two things: you will not ask me for +anything, or you will not question me about anything.
+In that day. What that day is can be seen from what he +said before, "I will see you again" (v 22). This can be understood +to be the day of his resurrection, or the day when we have the +vision of his glory.
+2137 Chrysostom understands this passage the first way.[29] Thus, In that +day, when I arise from the dead, you will ask nothing of +me, that is, you will not say such things as "Show us the +Father." Augustine objects to this interpretation because after the +resurrection the disciples did say: "Lord, will you at this time +restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts (1:6); and Peter poses the +question: "Lord, what about this man?" (20:21).
+Yet one can uphold Chrysostom's explanation by saying that our +Lord calls that day not only the day of his resurrection, +but also that day the disciples were to be taught by the Holy +Spirit: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all +truth" [16:13]. And so by speaking in a vague manner of that time, +our Lord also includes the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is like +saying: In that day, once the Holy Spirit has been given, +you will ask nothing of me, because you will know all things +by the Holy Spirit: "His anointing teaches you about everything" (1 +Jn 2:27). Again, according to Chrysostom, In that day, when +the Holy Spirits comes, you will ask nothing of me, that is, +you will have no need to ask me.
2138 But after the resurrection did not the apostles pray to -Christ for things? It seems so, for the Apostle says: "Three times I besought -the Lord," that is, Christ (2 Cor 12:8). I answer that there are two natures in -Christ: his human nature, by which he is the mediator between God and us (1 Tim -2:5), and his divine nature, by which he is one God with the Father. Christ, -considered as having a human nature, was not a mediator who never united us to -God, like some mediators who never unite extremes. So, Christ joins us to the -Father. Now to join God the Farther and to join Christ as God are the same. -Thus he says: It is not necessary for you to use my mediation as man. Thus, In -that day you will ask nothing of me as mediator, because you will have -access to God by yourselves ‑ but you will ask me as God. Although Christ -intercedes for us, as the Apostle says (Rom 8:34), still the Church does not -ask him as an intercessor. Thus we do not say, "Christ, pray for us"; but we do -ask him as God, adhering to him as God by faith and love. - -
2139 Augustine explains this passage as referring to the day -of the vision of glory in this way: In that day, when I see you in -glory, you will ask nothing of me, that is, you will not ask me for -anything because there will be nothing left to desire, since all goods will be -ours in superabundance in our homeland: "You will fill me with joy by your -face" [Ps 16:11]; and again, "I will be satisfied when your glory appears" [Ps -17:15].[30] -Also, you will ask no questions because you will be filled with the knowledge -of God: "In your light do we see light" (Ps 36:9). - -
2140 An objection can be raised against both of these -points. The saints do pray in our homeland: "Call now, if there is any who will -answer you; and turn to some of the saints" [Job 5:1]; and in 2 Maccabees -(15:12) we see that a saint prayed for the entire Jewish people. Nor can one -say that the saints pray just for others and not for themselves, for we read: -"O Sovereign Lord ... how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on -those who dwell upon the earth?" (Rev 6:10). Further, the saints ask questions: -for they will be equal to the angels (Mt 22:30), and the angels question: "Who -is the King of glory?" (Ps 24:8), and "Who is this that comes from Edom?" (Is -63:1). Therefore, the saints do question. - -
Two points can be made in answer to -this. The time of glory can be considered in two ways: the time of the -beginning of glory, and the time of its full completion. The time of the -beginning of glory lasts until the day of judgment: for the saints receive glory -in their soul, but something still remains to be received, that is, the glory -of the body for each one, and the completion of the number of the elect. -Consequently, till the day of judgment the saints can both ask for things and -question, but not about what pertains to the very essence of beatitude. The -time of fully complete glory is after the day of judgment, and after this -nothing is left to be asked for, and nothing left to be known. It is about this -that he says, In that day, of consummated glory, you will ask nothing -of me. - -
The observation about the angels -asking questions is true in his way: they do ask about the mysteries of the -humanity of Christ and the incarnation, but they do not question about the -divinity. - -
2141 Now he promises them an opportunity to ask. This is -related to the above in two ways. According to Chrysostom, this refers to the -time of the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit.[31] -It is like saying: It is true that in that day of the resurrection and of the -Holy Spirit that you will not ask me; yet you will have my help, because you -will ask the Father, to whom you have access through me, in my name. - -
Augustine explains it the other -way. "In that day," of my glory," you will ask nothing of me"; but in the -meantime, during your sorrowful pilgrimage, if you ask anything of the -Father, he will give it to you. So according to this explanation, if you -ask anything of the Father, does not refer to "in that day," but to what -precedes that day.[32] - -
2142 Our Lord lays down seven conditions for good prayer. -The first is that spiritual goods should be sought, when he says, "If you -ask anything." For what is entirely earthly, even though it is -something in itself, is nothing when compared to spiritual goods: "I accounted -wealth as nothing in comparison with her" (Wis 7:8); "I looked on the earth, -and lo, it was waste and void" (Jer 4:23). But an objection: In Matthew (6:11), -our Lord teaches us to ask for temporal goods: "Give us this day our daily -bread." I answer that a temporal good asked for in relation to a spiritual good -is then something. The second is that it be made with perseverance; as to this -he says, If you ask, with perseverance: "They ought always to pray and -not lose heart" (Lk 18:1); "Pray constantly" (1 Thess 5: 17). - -
Thirdly, we should pray in harmony -with others; he says, if you, in the plural, ask: "If two of you -agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father -in heaven" (Mt 18:19). Thus the Gloss says, about Romans (c 16), that it is -impossible for the prayers of many not to be heard. [33]Fourthly, -it should arise from an affection like that of a child for its parents, as he -says, the Father. One who asks out of fear does not ask a father, but a -master or an enemy: "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to -your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things -to those who ask him!" (Mt 7:11). - -
The fifth condition is that it be -made with piety, that is, with humility: ‑ "He will regard the prayer of -the humble and will not despise their petitions" [Ps 102:17] ‑ with -confidence that it will be granted ‑ "Let him ask in faith, with no -doubting" (Jas 1:6) ‑ and it should be made correctly ‑ "You ask -and do not receive, because you ask wrongly" (Jas 4:3). In regard to this he -says, in my name, which is the name of the Savior, in which name one -asks when asking for things pertaining to salvation, and when asking in that -way by which one can attain salvation: "There is no other name under heaven -given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). - -
The sixth condition is that prayer -be made for an appropriate time, so he says, he will give. One should -not stop praying if one does not immediately receive; it will be given to us -even if it is postponed till a better time, so as to increase our desire: "You -give them their food in due season" (Ps 145:15). Seventhly, one should ask for -himself. Thus he says, to you, because sometimes prayers for others are -not heard because the demerits of those we ask for stand in the way: "Do not -pray for this people" (Jer 7:16); "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet -my heart would not turn toward this people" (Jer 15:1). - -
2143 Now he encourages them to act with the confidence he -has given them: first, he reminds them of what they lacked in the past; -secondly, he encourages them to advance in the future, ask. - -
2144 What they lacked in the past was not asking; thus he -says, Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name. But this seems to -conflict with Luke (9:1) where it says that Christ gave the twelve "power and -authority over all demons and to cure diseases"; and the same in Matthew -(10:1). Now they did these things by praying. Therefore, they did ask something -in the name of Christ, especially because the disciples said: "Lord, even the -demons are subject to us in your name" (Lk 10:17). - -
We must say, then, that this can be -explained in two ways. First, Hitherto you have asked nothing, that is -nothing great, in my name. For to ask for cures for the body is a small -matter compared to the great things they would accomplish by their prayers; nor -had they yet received the Spirit of adoption to make them aspire to spiritual -and heavenly things. And if you object that they did ask for something great -when they asked before, "Lord, show us the Father" (14:8), I answer that they -were not asking the Father (which is what Christ is talking about here), but -only Christ as man, trusting that as a mediator he would show them the Father. - -
Another explanation: if you ask -anything of the Father in my name. Up to now they had not asked in his name -because they did not have a complete knowledge of the name of Christ. - +Christ for things? It seems so, for the Apostle says: "Three times +I besought the Lord," that is, Christ (2 Cor 12:8). I answer that +there are two natures in Christ: his human nature, by which he is +the mediator between God and us (1 Tim 2:5), and his divine nature, +by which he is one God with the Father. Christ, considered as +having a human nature, was not a mediator who never united us to +God, like some mediators who never unite extremes. So, Christ joins +us to the Father. Now to join God the Farther and to join Christ as +God are the same. Thus he says: It is not necessary for you to use +my mediation as man. Thus, In that day you will ask nothing of +me as mediator, because you will have access to God by +yourselves ‑ but you will ask me as God. Although Christ +intercedes for us, as the Apostle says (Rom 8:34), still the Church +does not ask him as an intercessor. Thus we do not say, "Christ, +pray for us"; but we do ask him as God, adhering to him as God by +faith and love.
+2139 Augustine explains this passage as referring to the day of +the vision of glory in this way: In that day, when I see you +in glory, you will ask nothing of me, that is, you will not +ask me for anything because there will be nothing left to desire, +since all goods will be ours in superabundance in our homeland: +"You will fill me with joy by your face" [Ps 16:11]; and again, "I +will be satisfied when your glory appears" [Ps 17:15].[30] Also, you will +ask no questions because you will be filled with the knowledge of +God: "In your light do we see light" (Ps 36:9).
+2140 An objection can be raised against both of these points. +The saints do pray in our homeland: "Call now, if there is any who +will answer you; and turn to some of the saints" [Job 5:1]; and in +2 Maccabees (15:12) we see that a saint prayed for the entire +Jewish people. Nor can one say that the saints pray just for others +and not for themselves, for we read: "O Sovereign Lord ... how long +before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon +the earth?" (Rev 6:10). Further, the saints ask questions: for they +will be equal to the angels (Mt 22:30), and the angels question: +"Who is the King of glory?" (Ps 24:8), and "Who is this that comes +from Edom?" (Is 63:1). Therefore, the saints do question.
+Two points can be made in answer to this. The time of glory can +be considered in two ways: the time of the beginning of glory, and +the time of its full completion. The time of the beginning of glory +lasts until the day of judgment: for the saints receive glory in +their soul, but something still remains to be received, that is, +the glory of the body for each one, and the completion of the +number of the elect. Consequently, till the day of judgment the +saints can both ask for things and question, but not about what +pertains to the very essence of beatitude. The time of fully +complete glory is after the day of judgment, and after this nothing +is left to be asked for, and nothing left to be known. It is about +this that he says, In that day, of consummated glory, you +will ask nothing of me.
+The observation about the angels asking questions is true in his +way: they do ask about the mysteries of the humanity of Christ and +the incarnation, but they do not question about the divinity.
+2141 Now he promises them an opportunity to ask. This is related +to the above in two ways. According to Chrysostom, this refers to +the time of the resurrection and the coming of the Holy +Spirit.[31] +It is like saying: It is true that in that day of the resurrection +and of the Holy Spirit that you will not ask me; yet you will have +my help, because you will ask the Father, to whom you have access +through me, in my name.
+Augustine explains it the other way. "In that day," of my +glory," you will ask nothing of me"; but in the meantime, during +your sorrowful pilgrimage, if you ask anything of the Father, he +will give it to you. So according to this explanation, if +you ask anything of the Father, does not refer to "in that +day," but to what precedes that day.[32]
+2142 Our Lord lays down seven conditions for good prayer. The +first is that spiritual goods should be sought, when he says, +"If you ask anything." For what is entirely earthly, even +though it is something in itself, is nothing when compared to +spiritual goods: "I accounted wealth as nothing in comparison with +her" (Wis 7:8); "I looked on the earth, and lo, it was waste and +void" (Jer 4:23). But an objection: In Matthew (6:11), our Lord +teaches us to ask for temporal goods: "Give us this day our daily +bread." I answer that a temporal good asked for in relation to a +spiritual good is then something. The second is that it be made +with perseverance; as to this he says, If you ask, with +perseverance: "They ought always to pray and not lose heart" (Lk +18:1); "Pray constantly" (1 Thess 5: 17).
+Thirdly, we should pray in harmony with others; he says, if +you, in the plural, ask: "If two of you agree on earth +about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in +heaven" (Mt 18:19). Thus the Gloss says, about Romans (c 16), that +it is impossible for the prayers of many not to be heard. [33]Fourthly, it +should arise from an affection like that of a child for its +parents, as he says, the Father. One who asks out of fear +does not ask a father, but a master or an enemy: "If you then, who +are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much +more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those +who ask him!" (Mt 7:11).
+The fifth condition is that it be made with piety, that is, with +humility: ‑ "He will regard the prayer of the humble and will +not despise their petitions" [Ps 102:17] ‑ with confidence +that it will be granted ‑ "Let him ask in faith, with no +doubting" (Jas 1:6) ‑ and it should be made correctly ‑ +"You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly" (Jas 4:3). In +regard to this he says, in my name, which is the name of the +Savior, in which name one asks when asking for things pertaining to +salvation, and when asking in that way by which one can attain +salvation: "There is no other name under heaven given among men by +which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
+The sixth condition is that prayer be made for an appropriate +time, so he says, he will give. One should not stop praying +if one does not immediately receive; it will be given to us even if +it is postponed till a better time, so as to increase our desire: +"You give them their food in due season" (Ps 145:15). Seventhly, +one should ask for himself. Thus he says, to you, because +sometimes prayers for others are not heard because the demerits of +those we ask for stand in the way: "Do not pray for this people" +(Jer 7:16); "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart +would not turn toward this people" (Jer 15:1).
+2143 Now he encourages them to act with the confidence he has +given them: first, he reminds them of what they lacked in the past; +secondly, he encourages them to advance in the future, +ask.
+2144 What they lacked in the past was not asking; thus he says, +Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name. But this seems +to conflict with Luke (9:1) where it says that Christ gave the +twelve "power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases"; +and the same in Matthew (10:1). Now they did these things by +praying. Therefore, they did ask something in the name of Christ, +especially because the disciples said: "Lord, even the demons are +subject to us in your name" (Lk 10:17).
+We must say, then, that this can be explained in two ways. +First, Hitherto you have asked nothing, that is nothing +great, in my name. For to ask for cures for the body is a +small matter compared to the great things they would accomplish by +their prayers; nor had they yet received the Spirit of adoption to +make them aspire to spiritual and heavenly things. And if you +object that they did ask for something great when they asked +before, "Lord, show us the Father" (14:8), I answer that they were +not asking the Father (which is what Christ is talking about here), +but only Christ as man, trusting that as a mediator he would show +them the Father.
+Another explanation: if you ask anything of the Father in my +name. Up to now they had not asked in his name because they did +not have a complete knowledge of the name of Christ.
2145 When he says, ask, and you will receive, he is -urging them to make progress, that is, they are now to ask: "Ask, and it will -be given you" (Mt 7:7). Ask, I say, and you will receive, that -is, what you are asking for, that your joy may be full: "The seventy returned -with joy, saying, 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name'" (Lk -10:17). The phrase that your joy may be full can be taken to indicate -the reason why their prayers are heard. Or, it can point to what they are -praying for, so the meaning is: ask, and you will receive, and what you -should ask for is that your joy may be full. - +urging them to make progress, that is, they are now to ask: "Ask, +and it will be given you" (Mt 7:7). Ask, I say, and you +will receive, that is, what you are asking for, that your joy +may be full: "The seventy returned with joy, saying, 'Lord, even +the demons are subject to us in your name'" (Lk 10:17). The phrase +that your joy may be full can be taken to indicate the +reason why their prayers are heard. Or, it can point to what they +are praying for, so the meaning is: ask, and you will +receive, and what you should ask for is that your joy may be +full.
2146 Note that the object of joy is a good that is desired. -Since desire is a kind of movement toward a good, and joy is rest in that good, -a person has joy when he rests in a good, now possessed, to which his desire -was moved. And one's joy is proportionate to the good possessed. There cannot -be full joy in a created good because it does not give complete rest to man's -desires and yearnings. Our joy will be full when we possess that good in which -all the goods we can desire are found superabundantly. This good is solely God -"who satisfies our desire with good things" [Ps 103:5]. Therefore he says, ask -this, that your joy may be full, that is, ask to enjoy God and the -Trinity, as Augustine says, and no joy is greater: "You will fill me with joy -with your face" [Ps 16:11].[34] -And why is this? Because "all good things came to me along with her," that is, -with the contemplation of divine wisdom (Wis 7:11). -
-LECTURE 7 - -
+- +Since desire is a kind of movement toward a good, and joy is rest +in that good, a person has joy when he rests in a good, now +possessed, to which his desire was moved. And one's joy is +proportionate to the good possessed. There cannot be full joy in a +created good because it does not give complete rest to man's +desires and yearnings. Our joy will be full when we possess that +good in which all the goods we can desire are found +superabundantly. This good is solely God "who satisfies our desire +with good things" [Ps 103:5]. Therefore he says, ask this, +that your joy may be full, that is, ask to enjoy God and the +Trinity, as Augustine says, and no joy is greater: "You will fill +me with joy with your face" [Ps 16:11].[34] And why is this? Because "all +good things came to me along with her," that is, with the +contemplation of divine wisdom (Wis 7:11).25 "I have said this to you in figures [proverbs]; the -hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures [proverbs] but tell -you plainly of the Father. 26 In that day you will ask in my name; and I do not -say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; 27 for the Father himself -loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from the -Father [from God]. 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world; -again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father."
+
+LECTURE 7
++25 "I have said this to you in figures [proverbs]; the hour +is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures [proverbs] +but tell you plainly of the Father. 26 In that day you will ask in +my name; and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for +you; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me +and have believed that I came from the Father [from God]. 28 I came +from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving +the world and going to the Father."
+2147 Above, our Lord promised his disciples an access and -intimacy with the Father. Now he gives the reason for this intimacy. There are -two things that make a person intimate with another and foster confidence when -asking for something: knowledge and love. Thus our Lord gives these two reasons -here. The first is taken from their clear knowledge of the Father; the second, -from his special love for them (v 26). - -
2148 He does two things about the first: first, he reminds -them of their previous imperfect knowledge of the Father; secondly, he promises -them complete knowledge, the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to -you in proverbs. - -
Indeed, their knowledge was -imperfect; so he says, I have said this to you in proverbs. A proverb, -strictly speaking, is a maxim, a common expression, as "Train up a child in the -way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prv 22:6). -Now because proverbs are sometimes not clear and are metaphorical, the word -"proverb" is sometimes used to indicate a parable, which states one thing while -actually meaning something else. This is the case here, and "proverb" should be -taken to mean parable. - -
2149 The statement, I have said this to you in proverbs, can -be taken in four ways. The first is literal, and refers to what he had said -immediately before this. Then the sense is: I said to you that hitherto you -have asked nothing in my name, and that you will ask in my name, and I have -said this to you in proverbs, and obscurely. But the hour is coming when -what I said obscurely I will say plainly. Thus he adds: "the Father himself -loves you," and "I came from the Father and have come into the world." This -seems to be the way the apostles understood it because when they heard him say -these things they said, "Ah, now you are speaking plainly, and not in proverbs" -(16:29). - +intimacy with the Father. Now he gives the reason for this +intimacy. There are two things that make a person intimate with +another and foster confidence when asking for something: knowledge +and love. Thus our Lord gives these two reasons here. The first is +taken from their clear knowledge of the Father; the second, from +his special love for them (v 26).
+2148 He does two things about the first: first, he reminds them +of their previous imperfect knowledge of the Father; secondly, he +promises them complete knowledge, the hour is coming when I +shall no longer speak to you in proverbs.
+Indeed, their knowledge was imperfect; so he says, I have +said this to you in proverbs. A proverb, strictly speaking, is +a maxim, a common expression, as "Train up a child in the way he +should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prv +22:6). Now because proverbs are sometimes not clear and are +metaphorical, the word "proverb" is sometimes used to indicate a +parable, which states one thing while actually meaning something +else. This is the case here, and "proverb" should be taken to mean +parable.
+2149 The statement, I have said this to you in proverbs, +can be taken in four ways. The first is literal, and refers to what +he had said immediately before this. Then the sense is: I said to +you that hitherto you have asked nothing in my name, and that you +will ask in my name, and I have said this to you in +proverbs, and obscurely. But the hour is coming when +what I said obscurely I will say plainly. Thus he adds: "the Father +himself loves you," and "I came from the Father and have come into +the world." This seems to be the way the apostles understood it +because when they heard him say these things they said, "Ah, now +you are speaking plainly, and not in proverbs" (16:29).
2150 In the second way, I have said this to you in -proverbs, refers to everything which is read in this Gospel about the -teaching of Christ. Then the next statement, the hour is coming when I shall -no longer speak to you in proverbs, would refer to the time of glory. For -now we see in a mirror, in an obscure manner, since what we are told about God -is presented to us in proverbs. But in our homeland we will see "face to face," -as we read in 1 Corinthians (13:12). Therefore, we will then be plainly told of -the Father, and not in proverbs. He says, of the Father, because no one -can see the Father in that glory unless the Son reveals him: "No one knows the -Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt -11:27). For the Son is the true light, and gives us the light by which we can -see the Father: "I am the light of the world" (8:12). - -
2151 But the next statement, in that day you will ask in -my name, does not fit this [second] explanation. For if that hour is the -time of glory, we will not ask for anything because our desires will be -satisfied with good. Accordingly, there are two other meanings. According to -Chrysostom the sense is this: I have said this to you, that is, what I -have just said, in proverbs, that is, in veiled language, not entirely -expressing all that you should know about me and the Father, because "I have yet -many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (16:12). But the -hour is coming, that is, when I have arisen from the dead, when I shall -no longer speak to you in proverbs, that is, obscurely and in figures, but -tell you plainly of the Father.[35] -Indeed, during those forty days during which he appeared to them, he taught -them many mysteries and told many things about himself and the Father. Further, -they had been raised to higher things by their faith in the resurrection, -firmly believing that Christ was the true God. So we read that Christ was -"speaking of the kingdom of God" to them (Acts 1:3), and that "He opened their -minds to understand the scriptures" (Lk 24:45). - -
2152 The other reading is given by Augustine, and is this.[36] -When Christ said I have said this to you in proverbs, our Lord is -promising to make them spiritual. There is a difference between one who is -spiritual and one who is sensual: a sensual person understands spiritual words -as proverbs, not because they were spoken as proverbs, but because the mind of -such a person cannot rise above material things, and spiritual things are -hidden (1 Cor 2:14). But one who is spiritual understands spiritual words as -spiritual. At the beginning, the disciples themselves were sensual, and what was -told them they found obscure, and took as proverbs. But after they were made -spiritual by Christ and had been taught by the Holy Spirit, they clearly -understood spiritual words as spiritual. And so Christ says, I have said -this to you in proverbs, that is, you understood what I said as proverbs. -But the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs: "And -we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed -into his likeness" (2 Cor 3:18). - +proverbs, refers to everything which is read in this Gospel +about the teaching of Christ. Then the next statement, the hour +is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs, +would refer to the time of glory. For now we see in a mirror, in an +obscure manner, since what we are told about God is presented to us +in proverbs. But in our homeland we will see "face to face," as we +read in 1 Corinthians (13:12). Therefore, we will then be plainly +told of the Father, and not in proverbs. He says, of the +Father, because no one can see the Father in that glory unless +the Son reveals him: "No one knows the Father except the Son and +any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). For the +Son is the true light, and gives us the light by which we can see +the Father: "I am the light of the world" (8:12).
+2151 But the next statement, in that day you will ask in my +name, does not fit this [second] explanation. For if that hour +is the time of glory, we will not ask for anything because our +desires will be satisfied with good. Accordingly, there are two +other meanings. According to Chrysostom the sense is this: I +have said this to you, that is, what I have just said, in +proverbs, that is, in veiled language, not entirely expressing +all that you should know about me and the Father, because "I have +yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" +(16:12). But the hour is coming, that is, when I have arisen +from the dead, when I shall no longer speak to you in +proverbs, that is, obscurely and in figures, but tell you +plainly of the Father.[35]Indeed, during those forty days during which he +appeared to them, he taught them many mysteries and told many +things about himself and the Father. Further, they had been raised +to higher things by their faith in the resurrection, firmly +believing that Christ was the true God. So we read that Christ was +"speaking of the kingdom of God" to them (Acts 1:3), and that "He +opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (Lk 24:45).
+2152 The other reading is given by Augustine, and is +this.[36] +When Christ said I have said this to you in proverbs, our +Lord is promising to make them spiritual. There is a difference +between one who is spiritual and one who is sensual: a sensual +person understands spiritual words as proverbs, not because they +were spoken as proverbs, but because the mind of such a person +cannot rise above material things, and spiritual things are hidden +(1 Cor 2:14). But one who is spiritual understands spiritual words +as spiritual. At the beginning, the disciples themselves were +sensual, and what was told them they found obscure, and took as +proverbs. But after they were made spiritual by Christ and had been +taught by the Holy Spirit, they clearly understood spiritual words +as spiritual. And so Christ says, I have said this to you in +proverbs, that is, you understood what I said as proverbs. But +the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in +proverbs: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory +of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness" (2 Cor 3:18).
2153 Now we see the second reason why they should have -confidence, and it is based on the Father's love for the disciples: first, he -shows the Father's love for them; secondly, the intimacy of the Father with the -Son, I came from the Father. He does two things with the first: first, he -repeats a promise he made to them; secondly, he gives the reason for what was -promised, for the Father himself loves you. - -
2154 He does two things with the first: he repeats one of -his promises; secondly, he promises that they will have confidence when they -pray. - -
He says, In that day, when I -tell you plainly of the Father, you will ask in my name; for when you -plainly know the Father you will know that I am equal to him and of the same -essence, and that it is through me that you can approach or have access to him. -To have this hope of approaching or having access to the Father through Christ -is what is meant by asking in the name of Christ: "Some trust in chariots, and -some in horses. But we will call upon the name of the Lord our God" [Ps 20:7]. -But Christ is silent about asking the Father for them; he says, I do not say -to you that I shall pray the Father for you. - +confidence, and it is based on the Father's love for the disciples: +first, he shows the Father's love for them; secondly, the intimacy +of the Father with the Son, I came from the Father. He does two +things with the first: first, he repeats a promise he made to them; +secondly, he gives the reason for what was promised, for the +Father himself loves you.
+2154 He does two things with the first: he repeats one of his +promises; secondly, he promises that they will have confidence when +they pray.
+He says, In that day, when I tell you plainly of the +Father, you will ask in my name; for when you plainly know +the Father you will know that I am equal to him and of the same +essence, and that it is through me that you can approach or have +access to him. To have this hope of approaching or having access to +the Father through Christ is what is meant by asking in the name of +Christ: "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses. But we will +call upon the name of the Lord our God" [Ps 20:7]. But Christ is +silent about asking the Father for them; he says, I do not say +to you that I shall pray the Father for you.
2155 But doesn't Christ pray for us? Certainly: "We have an -advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 Jn 2:1); "He is able for -all time to save those who draw near to God through him" (Heb 7:25). According -to Augustine, Christ says this so the disciples will not think that Christ, -since he is a man, is limited to interceding for them.[37] -So in that day when I tell you plainly, you will not only ask in my name, but -you will know that I am one with the Father, and not just an intercessor, but -in addition to interceding, I, as God, will hear your prayer. - -
According to Chrysostom, however, -Christ probably says this so the disciples will not believe that they are to -ask through the Son as if they could not approach the Father directly.[38] -He is saying in effect: At present you come to me to intercede for you. But in -that day you will have such confidence in the Father that you will be able to -ask the Father in my name, without needing another to intercede for you. - +advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 Jn 2:1); +"He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through +him" (Heb 7:25). According to Augustine, Christ says this so the +disciples will not think that Christ, since he is a man, is limited +to interceding for them.[37] So in that day when I tell you plainly, you +will not only ask in my name, but you will know that I am one with +the Father, and not just an intercessor, but in addition to +interceding, I, as God, will hear your prayer.
+According to Chrysostom, however, Christ probably says this so +the disciples will not believe that they are to ask through the Son +as if they could not approach the Father directly.[38] He is saying in effect: At +present you come to me to intercede for you. But in that day you +will have such confidence in the Father that you will be able to +ask the Father in my name, without needing another to intercede for +you.
2156 But the apostles did need Christ, as man, to intercede, -didn't they? If not, then since he does intercede, his intercession is -superfluous. We should say that Christ intercedes for them not as though they -were strangers and had no access to the Father, but he makes their prayers more -effective. - +didn't they? If not, then since he does intercede, his intercession +is superfluous. We should say that Christ intercedes for them not +as though they were strangers and had no access to the Father, but +he makes their prayers more effective.
2157 Here he gives the reason for the promise, which is the -Father's love for them: and first, he mentions the Father's love; secondly, the -proof of this love, because you have loved me. - +Father's love for them: and first, he mentions the Father's love; +secondly, the proof of this love, because you have loved +me.
2158 He says: I do not say to you that I shall pray the -Father for you, for then it might seem that the Father did not love them. -Assuredly, the Father himself, who loves all things by willing them the -goods of nature ‑ "For you love all things that exist, and have loathing -for none of the things which you have made" (Wis 11:26) ‑ loves you, -apostles and saints, with an exceptional love, by willing you the highest good, -that is, himself. "He loved his people: all those consecrated to him were in -his hand" (Deut 33:3), because he loved them that much. "The souls of the -righteous are in the hand of God" (Wis 3:1). - +Father for you, for then it might seem that the Father did not +love them. Assuredly, the Father himself, who loves all +things by willing them the goods of nature ‑ "For you love +all things that exist, and have loathing for none of the things +which you have made" (Wis 11:26) ‑ loves you, apostles and +saints, with an exceptional love, by willing you the highest good, +that is, himself. "He loved his people: all those consecrated to +him were in his hand" (Deut 33:3), because he loved them that much. +"The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God" (Wis 3:1).
2159 He proves this from two facts, from the love of the -disciples for Christ, and from their faith. With regard to the first he says, because -you have loved me. This proof does not give the cause [why the Father loves -them], for we read, "Not as though we had loved God, but because he has first -loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. Rather, it gives a sign [of God's love for them], for -the fact that we love God is a sign that he loves us, for our being able to -love God is a gift from God: "God's love has been poured into our hearts -through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5); "He who loves me -will be loved by my Father" (14:21). - -
Referring to the second he says, and have -believed that I came from the Father: "Without faith it is impossible to -please God" [Heb 11:6]. Our faith is due to God's love for us, for "it is the -gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Now a gift is not given except through the love of the -giver. To believe in and to love Christ insofar as he comes forth from God is a -clear sign of one's love for God, since that in virtue of which something is -such is itself even more so. Therefore, when one loves Christ, who came forth -from God, this love is particularly traced back to God the Father; but this is -not so when one loves Christ precisely as human. - -
2160 Because he had mentioned his coming forth from the -Father, he now comments more fully on it, saying, I came (exivi, came -forth) from the Father and have come (veni) into the world. This -shows his intimacy with the Father. He first mentions his coming forth from the -Father; and secondly, his return to the Father (v 28). - -
2161 The Son proceeds or comes from the Father in two ways: -one is eternal, the other temporal. He refers to the eternal procession when he -says, I came (came forth, exivi) from the Father, -eternally begotten from him. - -
Everything which comes forth from -another was first in it. There are three ways one thing can be in something -else. First, as what is contained is in its container; second, as a part in -some whole; thirdly, as an accident in its subject and as an effect in its -cause. What comes forth is in that from which it comes forth in one of these -ways. In the first two ways, what comes forth remains the same individual it -was. For example, what comes from the keg is the very same wine that was in the -keg; and the very same part that was in the whole comes from the whole. In the -other two ways [the third member] what comes forth is not the same individual. -Now none of these ways apply to God: for since God is entirely simple, and is -in some place only metaphorically speaking, we cannot say that the Son is in -God like some part, or that the Son is contained in a container. Rather, the -Son is in the Father by a oneness of essence: "I and the Father are one" -(10:30). For the entire essence of the Father is the entire essence of the Son, -and vice versa. Consequently, the Son does not come forth from the Father in -the previously mentioned ways. For when a part comes from the whole, it is -distinct from the whole in essence: for when a part comes from the whole it -becomes a being in act, while in the whole it was only a being in potency. -Likewise, what comes from being contained in some container now occupies a -different place than it did. But the Son does not come forth from the Father to -occupy a different place because he fills all things, "Do I not fill heaven and -earth?" (Jer 23:24). Nor is the Son split off from the Father because the -Father cannot be divided. Rather, the Son comes forth by reason of a -distinction in person. Thus, insofar as the coming forth of the Son presupposes -some kind of existing in another, this indicates a unity of essence; while -insofar as there is a certain coming forth, a distinction in person is -indicated. "His coming forth is from the highest heaven," that is, from God the -Father [Ps 19:6]; "You are my son, born before the day‑star rises" [Ps -110:3]. - -
In material things, what comes -forth from another is no longer in it, since it comes from it by a separation -from it in place or in essence. This is not the kind of coming forth we have -here, for the Son came forth from the Father from all eternity in such a way -that the Son is still in the Father from all eternity. And so when the Son is -in the Father, he comes forth, and when the Son comes forth he is in the -Father: so the Son is always in the Father and always coming forth from the -Father. - +disciples for Christ, and from their faith. With regard to the +first he says, because you have loved me. This proof does +not give the cause [why the Father loves them], for we read, "Not +as though we had loved God, but because he has first loved us" [1 +Jn 4:10]. Rather, it gives a sign [of God's love for them], for the +fact that we love God is a sign that he loves us, for our being +able to love God is a gift from God: "God's love has been poured +into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" +(Rom 5:5); "He who loves me will be loved by my Father" +(14:21).
+Referring to the second he says, and have believed that I +came from the Father: "Without faith it is impossible to please +God" [Heb 11:6]. Our faith is due to God's love for us, for "it is +the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Now a gift is not given except through +the love of the giver. To believe in and to love Christ insofar as +he comes forth from God is a clear sign of one's love for God, +since that in virtue of which something is such is itself even more +so. Therefore, when one loves Christ, who came forth from God, this +love is particularly traced back to God the Father; but this is not +so when one loves Christ precisely as human.
+2160 Because he had mentioned his coming forth from the Father, +he now comments more fully on it, saying, I came +(exivi, came forth) from the Father and have come +(veni) into the world. This shows his intimacy with +the Father. He first mentions his coming forth from the Father; and +secondly, his return to the Father (v 28).
+2161 The Son proceeds or comes from the Father in two ways: one +is eternal, the other temporal. He refers to the eternal procession +when he says, I came (came forth, exivi) from the +Father, eternally begotten from him.
+Everything which comes forth from another was first in it. There +are three ways one thing can be in something else. First, as what +is contained is in its container; second, as a part in some whole; +thirdly, as an accident in its subject and as an effect in its +cause. What comes forth is in that from which it comes forth in one +of these ways. In the first two ways, what comes forth remains the +same individual it was. For example, what comes from the keg is the +very same wine that was in the keg; and the very same part that was +in the whole comes from the whole. In the other two ways [the third +member] what comes forth is not the same individual. Now none of +these ways apply to God: for since God is entirely simple, and is +in some place only metaphorically speaking, we cannot say that the +Son is in God like some part, or that the Son is contained in a +container. Rather, the Son is in the Father by a oneness of +essence: "I and the Father are one" (10:30). For the entire essence +of the Father is the entire essence of the Son, and vice versa. +Consequently, the Son does not come forth from the Father in the +previously mentioned ways. For when a part comes from the whole, it +is distinct from the whole in essence: for when a part comes from +the whole it becomes a being in act, while in the whole it was only +a being in potency. Likewise, what comes from being contained in +some container now occupies a different place than it did. But the +Son does not come forth from the Father to occupy a different place +because he fills all things, "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" (Jer +23:24). Nor is the Son split off from the Father because the Father +cannot be divided. Rather, the Son comes forth by reason of a +distinction in person. Thus, insofar as the coming forth of the Son +presupposes some kind of existing in another, this indicates a +unity of essence; while insofar as there is a certain coming forth, +a distinction in person is indicated. "His coming forth is from the +highest heaven," that is, from God the Father [Ps 19:6]; "You are +my son, born before the day‑star rises" [Ps 110:3].
+In material things, what comes forth from another is no longer +in it, since it comes from it by a separation from it in place or +in essence. This is not the kind of coming forth we have here, for +the Son came forth from the Father from all eternity in such a way +that the Son is still in the Father from all eternity. And so when +the Son is in the Father, he comes forth, and when the Son comes +forth he is in the Father: so the Son is always in the Father and +always coming forth from the Father.
2162 He mentions his temporal coming when he says, I have -come into the world. Just as the Son's coming forth from the Father from -eternity does not involve a change of place, neither does his coming into the -world imply a change of place. Since the Father is in the Son and the Son is in -the Father, then just as the Father fills all things, so does the Son; nor is -there any place to go. Thus the Son is said to have come into the world because -he assumed a human nature, which had its origin from the world as far as its body -was concerned. But the Son did not move to a new place. "He came to his own -home, and his own people received him not" (1:11). - +come into the world. Just as the Son's coming forth from the +Father from eternity does not involve a change of place, neither +does his coming into the world imply a change of place. Since the +Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, then just as the +Father fills all things, so does the Son; nor is there any place to +go. Thus the Son is said to have come into the world because he +assumed a human nature, which had its origin from the world as far +as its body was concerned. But the Son did not move to a new place. +"He came to his own home, and his own people received him not" +(1:11).
2163 Then when he says, again, I am leaving the world and -going to the Father, he speaks of his return to the Father. First he mentions -his leaving the world, again, I am leaving the world, but not ceasing to -govern us by his providence, because he is always governing the world together -with the Father, and he is always with the faithful by the help of his grace: -"I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20). Rather, he left the -world by withdrawing from the physical sight of the worldly. - -
Secondly, he mentions his return to -the Father when he says, and going to the Father, whom he had never -left. He goes insofar as he offered himself to the Father in his passion: -"Christ ... gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" -(Eph 5:2). Again, he goes to the Father insofar as by his resurrection his -human nature became like the Father in its immortality: "the life he lives he -lives to God" (Rom 6:10). Further, he goes to the Father by ascending into the -heavens where he shines in a special way with divine glory: "So then the Lord -Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the -right hand of God" (Mt 16:19); "But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none -of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'" -
-LECTURE 8 - -
- -29 His disciples said, "Ah, now you are speaking plainly, -not in any figure [proverb]! 30 Now we know that you know all things, and need -none to question you; by this we believe that you came from God." 31 Jesus -answered them, "Do you now believe? 32 The hour is coming, indeed it has come, -when you will be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone; yet -I am not alone, for the Father is with me. 33 I have said this to you, that in -me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, -I have overcome the world."
2164 After these consoling words spoken to the apostles, we -now see their effect on them: first, their reaction is given; secondly, we see -their condition; and thirdly, we see the intention of Christ, I have said -this to you, that ... The reaction of the disciples is a profession of -faith, Ah, now you are speaking plainly ... They profess three things -about Christ: the clarity of his teaching, the certitude of his knowledge, and -his divine origin. - +going to the Father, he speaks of his return to the Father. +First he mentions his leaving the world, again, I am leaving the +world, but not ceasing to govern us by his providence, because +he is always governing the world together with the Father, and he +is always with the faithful by the help of his grace: "I am with +you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20). Rather, he left +the world by withdrawing from the physical sight of the +worldly.
+Secondly, he mentions his return to the Father when he says, +and going to the Father, whom he had never left. He goes +insofar as he offered himself to the Father in his passion: "Christ +... gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to +God" (Eph 5:2). Again, he goes to the Father insofar as by his +resurrection his human nature became like the Father in its +immortality: "the life he lives he lives to God" (Rom 6:10). +Further, he goes to the Father by ascending into the heavens where +he shines in a special way with divine glory: "So then the Lord +Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and +sat down at the right hand of God" (Mt 16:19); "But now I am going +to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you +going?'"
+
+
+LECTURE 8
+++29 His disciples said, "Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not +in any figure [proverb]! 30 Now we know that you know all things, +and need none to question you; by this we believe that you came +from God." 31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe? 32 The hour +is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, every +man to his home, and will leave me alone; yet I am not alone, for +the Father is with me. 33 I have said this to you, that in me you +may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good +cheer, I have overcome the world."
+2164 After these consoling words spoken to the apostles, we now +see their effect on them: first, their reaction is given; secondly, +we see their condition; and thirdly, we see the intention of +Christ, I have said this to you, that ... The reaction of +the disciples is a profession of faith, Ah, now you are speaking +plainly ... They profess three things about Christ: the clarity +of his teaching, the certitude of his knowledge, and his divine +origin.
2165 They profess the clarity of his teaching when they say, -Now you are speaking plainly, not in any proverb! If we consider this -with attention we see that there is scarcely any other place in sacred -scripture where the origin of Christ is so openly expressed as here, when he -says, "I shall tell you plainly of the Father," and "I came forth from the -Father and have come into the world." And so believing that his promise to tell -them plainly of the Father had now been kept so that they did not need any -further teaching, they say, Ah, now you are speaking plainly. As -Augustine remarks, the disciples were still so lacking in understanding that -they did not realize they were lacking in understanding.[39] -For Christ had not promised to speak to them without proverbs at that time, but -at the time of the resurrection or of glory. Yet as far as the disciples were -concerned, he was now speaking more clearly, although they were later to -understand his words still more clearly. - -
2166 They profess the certainty of his knowledge when they -say, Now we know that you know all things. At first glance, the meaning -seems to be that when one clearly explains the things he says, this is a proof -of his certain and full knowledge of them: for the sign of one who knows is the -ability to fully teach what he knows ‑ "Knowledge is easy for a man of -understanding" (Prv 14:6) ‑ and what is beyond one's understanding cannot -be plainly told in words. Yet the apostles said this for another reason, which -is because the Lord knew all the secrets of their hearts, and could satisfy -their perplexities. He consoled them by promising them the joy of the Holy -Spirit, that they would see him again, and that the Father loves them. Thus -they say, Now we know that you know all things, that is, the secrets of -hearts: "Lord, you know everything" (21:17); "The Lord God knows all things -before they are done" [Wis 8:8]. - -
2167 Then they add, and need none to question you. -This seems to contradict what they had just said, namely, that he knows all -things; for one who is wise is questioned (rather than questioning others). Why -then is it not necessary to question him? The answer is that they said this to -indicate that he even knew the secrets of hearts, because even before he was -questioned he satisfied their perplexity when they were saying to each other, -"What does he mean by 'a little while'?" (16:18). Nevertheless, Christ does ask -and is asked, not because he needs it, but because we do. - +Now you are speaking plainly, not in any proverb! If we +consider this with attention we see that there is scarcely any +other place in sacred scripture where the origin of Christ is so +openly expressed as here, when he says, "I shall tell you plainly +of the Father," and "I came forth from the Father and have come +into the world." And so believing that his promise to tell them +plainly of the Father had now been kept so that they did not need +any further teaching, they say, Ah, now you are speaking +plainly. As Augustine remarks, the disciples were still so +lacking in understanding that they did not realize they were +lacking in understanding.[39] For Christ had not promised to speak to them +without proverbs at that time, but at the time of the resurrection +or of glory. Yet as far as the disciples were concerned, he was now +speaking more clearly, although they were later to understand his +words still more clearly.
+2166 They profess the certainty of his knowledge when they say, +Now we know that you know all things. At first glance, the +meaning seems to be that when one clearly explains the things he +says, this is a proof of his certain and full knowledge of them: +for the sign of one who knows is the ability to fully teach what he +knows ‑ "Knowledge is easy for a man of understanding" (Prv +14:6) ‑ and what is beyond one's understanding cannot be +plainly told in words. Yet the apostles said this for another +reason, which is because the Lord knew all the secrets of their +hearts, and could satisfy their perplexities. He consoled them by +promising them the joy of the Holy Spirit, that they would see him +again, and that the Father loves them. Thus they say, Now we +know that you know all things, that is, the secrets of hearts: +"Lord, you know everything" (21:17); "The Lord God knows all things +before they are done" [Wis 8:8].
+2167 Then they add, and need none to question you. This +seems to contradict what they had just said, namely, that he knows +all things; for one who is wise is questioned (rather than +questioning others). Why then is it not necessary to question him? +The answer is that they said this to indicate that he even knew the +secrets of hearts, because even before he was questioned he +satisfied their perplexity when they were saying to each other, +"What does he mean by 'a little while'?" (16:18). Nevertheless, +Christ does ask and is asked, not because he needs it, but because +we do.
2168 They profess Christ's divine origin when they say, by -this we believe that you came (came forth, exist) from God. -This statement is appropriate for it is a distinguishing characteristic of the -divinity to know all things and even the secrets of hearts: "The heart is -deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? 'I -the Lord search the mind and try the heart' "(Jer 17:9). Thus they say, you -came from God, consubstantial with the Father, and true God. - -
2169 Now we see the condition of the disciples, which is one -of weakness: first, Christ reproaches their slowness to believe; secondly, he -foretells their approaching troubles; thirdly, he shows that he cannot be -injured by them. - -
2170 As to the first he says, Do you now believe? If -this is understood as a question, it is a rebuke for being so slow to believe. -It is like saying: Have you waited till now to believe? If we understand this -remissibly, Christ is reproving the instability of their faith. Then it is like -saying: It is true that you believe now, but as soon as I am betrayed, you will -leave me: "They believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Lk -8:13). - -
2171 The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will -be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone. Here -we see their approaching troubles and falling away. Notice that by their -falling away they lost what they had acquired through Christ. They had acquired -the companionship of Christ, freedom from the burdens of ownership, and a life -together. Peter mentions these three things in Matthew (19:27): "We," all of -us, referring to their life together, "have left everything," referring to the -freedom from the burdens of ownership, "and followed you," referring to their -companionship with Christ. They lost these things and our Lord foretold this to -them when he said: The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be -scattered (referring to their life together), because you will be dominated -by such fear that you will not be able to run away together, as a group: -"Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered" (Zech 13:7); every man -to his home (referring to their lost freedom from things), that is, -returning to his desire to possess his own things. And we do see Peter and the -others return to their boat and their own property: "They went out and got into -the boat" (21:3). And will leave me alone, (referring to the loss of -Christ's companionship): "My kinsfolk and my close friends have failed me; the -guests in my house have forgotten me" (Job 19:14); "I have trodden the wine -press alone" (Is 63:3). - -
2172 Yet Christ did not suffer any loss by the falling away -of his disciples; thus he says, yet I am not alone, for the Father is with -me. This is like saying: Although I am one with the Father by a unity of -essence, I am not alone because distinct in person. Thus I have not come forth -from the Father in such a way as to leave him. - -
2173 Here our Lord states the purpose of his teaching: first -he mentions the benefit it brings; secondly, why we need this benefit, in -the world you have tribulation. - -
2174 The benefit his teaching gives is peace. He says to -them: I am telling you that you will be reduced to leaving me alone; and so I -am teaching you so you do not continue in this abandonment. Indeed, everything -I have said to you in this talk and everything I have spoken in the entire -Gospel is aimed at having you return to me, that in me you may have peace. - -
Truly, the purpose of the Gospel is -peace in Christ: "Those who love your name have great peace" [Ps 119:165]. The -reason for this is that peace of heart is opposed to its disturbance, which -comes from the evils that afflict it and grow worse. But if one has affliction -only now and then, or a joy greater than one's evils, his disturbance does not -last. This is why the worldly, who are not united to God by love, have troubles -without peace; while the saints, who have God in their hearts by love, have -peace in Christ even if they have troubles from the world: "He makes peace in -your borders" [Ps 147:14]. And our purpose here should be to have peace in God: -"My soul refused to be comforted," with things of the world, "but I remembered -God and was delighted" [Ps 77:3]. - -
2175 We need this peace because of the troubles imposed by -the world; so Christ says, In the world you have tribulation. First, he -foretells their future distress; secondly, he gives them confidence to meet it. -In regard to the first he says, In the world you have tribulation, that -is, from the worldly: "Do not wonder, brethren, that the world hates you" (1 Jn -3:13); "I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (15:19). +this we believe that you came (came forth, exist) +from God. This statement is appropriate for it is a +distinguishing characteristic of the divinity to know all things +and even the secrets of hearts: "The heart is deceitful above all +things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? 'I the Lord +search the mind and try the heart' "(Jer 17:9). Thus they say, +you came from God, consubstantial with the Father, and true +God.
+2169 Now we see the condition of the disciples, which is one of +weakness: first, Christ reproaches their slowness to believe; +secondly, he foretells their approaching troubles; thirdly, he +shows that he cannot be injured by them.
+2170 As to the first he says, Do you now believe? If this +is understood as a question, it is a rebuke for being so slow to +believe. It is like saying: Have you waited till now to believe? If +we understand this remissibly, Christ is reproving the instability +of their faith. Then it is like saying: It is true that you believe +now, but as soon as I am betrayed, you will leave me: "They believe +for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Lk 8:13).
+2171 The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be +scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone. Here +we see their approaching troubles and falling away. Notice that by +their falling away they lost what they had acquired through Christ. +They had acquired the companionship of Christ, freedom from the +burdens of ownership, and a life together. Peter mentions these +three things in Matthew (19:27): "We," all of us, referring to +their life together, "have left everything," referring to the +freedom from the burdens of ownership, "and followed you," +referring to their companionship with Christ. They lost these +things and our Lord foretold this to them when he said: The hour +is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered +(referring to their life together), because you will be dominated +by such fear that you will not be able to run away together, as a +group: "Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered" (Zech +13:7); every man to his home (referring to their lost +freedom from things), that is, returning to his desire to possess +his own things. And we do see Peter and the others return to their +boat and their own property: "They went out and got into the boat" +(21:3). And will leave me alone, (referring to the loss of +Christ's companionship): "My kinsfolk and my close friends have +failed me; the guests in my house have forgotten me" (Job 19:14); +"I have trodden the wine press alone" (Is 63:3).
+2172 Yet Christ did not suffer any loss by the falling away of +his disciples; thus he says, yet I am not alone, for the Father +is with me. This is like saying: Although I am one with the +Father by a unity of essence, I am not alone because distinct in +person. Thus I have not come forth from the Father in such a way as +to leave him.
+2173 Here our Lord states the purpose of his teaching: first he +mentions the benefit it brings; secondly, why we need this benefit, +in the world you have tribulation.
+2174 The benefit his teaching gives is peace. He says to them: I +am telling you that you will be reduced to leaving me alone; and so +I am teaching you so you do not continue in this abandonment. +Indeed, everything I have said to you in this talk and everything I +have spoken in the entire Gospel is aimed at having you return to +me, that in me you may have peace.
+Truly, the purpose of the Gospel is peace in Christ: "Those who +love your name have great peace" [Ps 119:165]. The reason for this +is that peace of heart is opposed to its disturbance, which comes +from the evils that afflict it and grow worse. But if one has +affliction only now and then, or a joy greater than one's evils, +his disturbance does not last. This is why the worldly, who are not +united to God by love, have troubles without peace; while the +saints, who have God in their hearts by love, have peace in Christ +even if they have troubles from the world: "He makes peace in your +borders" [Ps 147:14]. And our purpose here should be to have peace +in God: "My soul refused to be comforted," with things of the +world, "but I remembered God and was delighted" [Ps 77:3].
+2175 We need this peace because of the troubles imposed by the +world; so Christ says, In the world you have tribulation. +First, he foretells their future distress; secondly, he gives them +confidence to meet it. In regard to the first he says, In the +world you have tribulation, that is, from the worldly: "Do not +wonder, brethren, that the world hates you" (1 Jn 3:13); "I chose +you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (15:19). Referring to the second, Christ says, but be of good cheer [have -confidence], I have overcome the world. For Christ does free us: "You -delivered me ... from choking fire on every side" (Si 51:4). He is saying in -effect: Return to me and you will have peace, for I have overcome the world which -is oppressing you. - -
2176 Christ overcame the world, first of all, by taking away -the weapons it uses to attack us: these are its allurements: "For all that is -in the world [is] the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride -of life" (1 Jn 2:16). He conquered the allurement of riches by his poverty: "I -am poor and needy" (Ps 86:1); "The Son of man has nowhere to lay his head" (Lk -9:58). Christ overcame the allurement of honors by his humility: "Learn from -me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart" (Mt 11:29). He overcame the lusts of -the world by his sufferings and labors: "He ... became obedient unto death, -even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8); "Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey, -sat down beside the well" (4:6); "I have labored from my youth" [Ps 88:16]. -Anyone who conquers these, conquers the world. And this is what faith does - -"This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith" (1 Jn 5:4) ‑ -because since faith is [the present possession of] the substance, the basic -reality, of what we hope for, which is spiritual and eternal good, it causes us -to disdain sensual and passing goods. - -
Secondly, Christ overcame the world -by casting out the ruler of the world: "Now shall the ruler of this world be -cast out" (12:31); "He disarmed the principalities and powers (Col 2:15). This -shows us that the devil is also to be overcome by us: "Will you play with him -as with a bird, or will you put him on a leash for your maidens?" (Job 41:5), -which understood literally means that after the passion of Christ the little -boys and young handmaids of Christ will make him their plaything. - -
Thirdly, Christ overcame the world -by converting the people of this world to himself. The world rebelled by -stirring up dissensions through worldly people. But Christ drew these to -himself: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to -myself" [12:32]. Thus it was said: "The world has gone after him" (12:19). So, -we should not fear its oppression because it has been overcome: "Thanks be to -God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 15:57). - +confidence], I have overcome the world. For Christ does free +us: "You delivered me ... from choking fire on every side" (Si +51:4). He is saying in effect: Return to me and you will have +peace, for I have overcome the world which is oppressing +you.
+2176 Christ overcame the world, first of all, by taking away the +weapons it uses to attack us: these are its allurements: "For all +that is in the world [is] the lust of the flesh and the lust of the +eyes and the pride of life" (1 Jn 2:16). He conquered the +allurement of riches by his poverty: "I am poor and needy" (Ps +86:1); "The Son of man has nowhere to lay his head" (Lk 9:58). +Christ overcame the allurement of honors by his humility: "Learn +from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart" (Mt 11:29). He +overcame the lusts of the world by his sufferings and labors: "He +... became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8); +"Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey, sat down beside the +well" (4:6); "I have labored from my youth" [Ps 88:16]. Anyone who +conquers these, conquers the world. And this is what faith does - +"This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith" (1 Jn +5:4) ‑ because since faith is [the present possession of] the +substance, the basic reality, of what we hope for, which is +spiritual and eternal good, it causes us to disdain sensual and +passing goods.
+Secondly, Christ overcame the world by casting out the ruler of +the world: "Now shall the ruler of this world be cast out" (12:31); +"He disarmed the principalities and powers (Col 2:15). This shows +us that the devil is also to be overcome by us: "Will you play with +him as with a bird, or will you put him on a leash for your +maidens?" (Job 41:5), which understood literally means that after +the passion of Christ the little boys and young handmaids of Christ +will make him their plaything.
+Thirdly, Christ overcame the world by converting the people of +this world to himself. The world rebelled by stirring up +dissensions through worldly people. But Christ drew these to +himself: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all +things to myself" [12:32]. Thus it was said: "The world has gone +after him" (12:19). So, we should not fear its oppression because +it has been overcome: "Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory +through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 15:57).
+
+
++- -[1] St. Thomas +refers to Jn 16:2 in the Summa Theologiae: I-II, q. 19, a. +6, s. c.
- -
- -- -- -[1] -St. Thomas refers to Jn 16:2 in the Summa -Theologiae: I-II, q. 19, a. 6, s. c. - -