11
Lectio 1 LECTURE I Supra dominus virtutem suam vivificativam ostendit verbo, hic confirmat eam miraculo, quemdam mortuum, scilicet Lazarum, suscitando, et primo ponitur Lazari infirmitas; secundo ipsius iam mortui suscitatio, ibi ut audivit; tertio subiungitur suscitationis effectus, ibi multi ergo ex Iudaeis (...) crediderunt in eum. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur Lazari aegrotatio; secundo languoris denuntiatio, miserunt ergo sorores eius ad eum; tertio assignatur praemissorum ratio, ibi audiens autem Iesus dixit eis et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit personam aegrotam; secundo languentis locum; tertio personam coniunctam. 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. Persona aegrota est Lazarus; unde dicit erat quidam languens Lazarus. Per hunc fidelis signatur, qui in Deo sperat, et tamen patitur infirmitatem peccati; de qua dicitur in Ps. VI, 3: miserere mei, domine, quoniam infirmus sum. Lazarus enim interpretatur auxiliatus a domino, unde eum significat qui spem habet divini auxilii; Ps. CXX, 2: auxilium meum a domino. 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). Locus infirmi erat Bethania; unde dicit a Bethania de castello Mariae et Marthae: quae quidem Bethania villa quaedam erat prope Ierusalem, ubi dominus consueverat frequenter hospitari, ut frequenter supra dictum est. Et interpretatur domus obedientiae. Per quod datur intelligi, quod si infirmus sit Deo obediens, potest ab eo de facili curari; sicut infirmus obediens medico, facilius ab eo beneficium consequitur sanitatis; IV Reg. V, 13, dixerunt servi Naaman ad eum: pater, etsi rem grandem dixisset tibi propheta, facere debuisses. 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?" Ista Bethania castellum erat Mariae et Marthae sororum Lazari: per quas duplex vita signatur, activa scilicet et contemplativa, ut sic per hoc detur intelligi quod per obedientiam homo perfectus redditur in vita activa et contemplativa. 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. Persona coniuncta erat Maria; unde dicit Maria autem erat quae unxit dominum unguento. Quia enim mentionem fecerat de Maria et plures mulieres huius nominis erant, ideo ne erremus ex nomine, notificat eam ex notissima actione, dicens quae unxit dominum unguento, et extersit pedes eius capillis suis. De hac autem Maria diversitas quaedam est inter sanctos. Quidam enim dicunt, ut Hieronymus et Origenes, quod haec Maria soror Lazari non est eadem cum illa quae peccatrix erat, de qua dicitur Lc. VII, 37, quod attulit alabastrum unguenti, et stans retro secus pedes eius, lacrymis coepit rigare pedes eius, et capillis capitis sui tergebat. Unde, sicut dicit Chrysostomus, haec non fuit illa meretrix quae in Luca legitur. Haec enim honesta fuit et studiosa circa susceptionem Christi: nam peccatricis illius nomen tacetur. Potuit autem Maria ista erga Christum tempore suae passionis ex devotione et speciali dilectione simile opus fecisse, quod fecit ei peccatrix illa diligens et compuncta: quod quidem factum hic ab Evangelista propter Mariae nominis magnitudinem per anticipationem recitatur. 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 sinnerbrought 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]. Quidam alii, sicut Augustinus et Gregorius, dicunt quod haec eadem Maria de qua hic agitur, est illa peccatrix de qua agitur Lc. VII. Et argumentum huius ex hoc verbo Augustinus assumit. Nam hic Evangelista dicit antequam Maria ungeret dominum unguento, quia illud fuit imminente passione; infra XII, 3, ubi dicitur: Maria ergo sumpsit libram unguenti nardi pistici pretiosi, et unxit pedes Iesu. Unde dicit quod hoc quod hic dicit Evangelista de ea factum, recitatur Lc. VII. Ambrosius autem utramque partem tenet. Secundum ergo opinionem Augustini manifestum est quod peccatrix illa de qua dicitur in Luca, est Maria ista. Cuius frater Lazarus infirmabatur, idest, miserandum corpus eius fornaceis febribus alendum edax incendium assumebat. 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.] [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] Hic ponitur infirmitatis denuntiatio a sororibus Lazari, quae languenti aderant, et casu dolentes iuvenis aegrotantis, miserunt ad eum, scilicet Iesum, dicentes: domine, ecce quem amas infirmatur. In qua quidem denuntiatione tria consideranda occurrunt. Unum est, quod amici Dei quandoque corporaliter affliguntur: unde non est signum quod aliquis non sit amicus Dei, si aliquando corporaliter affligatur, sicut Eliphaz contra Iob falso arguit, Iob IV, 7: recordare, obsecro, quis unquam innocens periit, aut quando recti deleti sunt? Et ideo dicunt domine, ecce quem amas infirmatur; Prov. c. III, 12: quem diligit dominus corripit, et quasi pater in filio complacet sibi. 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). Secundum est quod non dicunt domine veni, sana eum sed tantum infirmitatem exponentes, dicunt infirmatur. In quo signatur quod sufficit amico tantum necessitatem exponere, absque alicuius petitionis additamento. Nam amicus cum velit bonum amici sicut bonum suum, sicut sollicitus est ad repellendum malum suum, ita et ad repellendum malum amici sui. Et hoc maxime verum est de eo qui verissime diligit; Ps. CXLIV, v. 20: custodit dominus diligentes se. 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). Tertium est quod istae duae sorores desiderantes curationem fratris languidi, non venerunt personaliter ad Christum, sicut paralyticus, Lc. V, 18, et centurio, Matth. VIII, v. 5: et hoc propter confidentiam quam habebant ad Christum ex speciali dilectione et familiaritate quam Christus erga eas ostenderat: et forte a luctu detinebantur, ut Chrysostomus dicit; Eccli. VI, 11: amicus si permanserit fixus, erit tibi coaequalis, et in domesticis tuis fiducialiter aget. 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]. Hic ponitur praemissorum ratio, et primo ratio ipsius infirmitatis; secundo quare sorores eius non venerunt ad Christum, secundum Augustinum, ibi diligebat autem Iesus Martham, et sororem eius Mariam, et Lazarum. 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] Ratio autem infirmitatis est glorificatio filii Dei; unde dicit dixit eis Iesus: infirmitas haec non est ad mortem, sed pro gloria Dei. Ubi sciendum est, quod infirmitatum corporalium quaedam sunt ad mortem, quaedam autem non. Illae autem sunt ad mortem quae ad aliquod aliud non ordinantur. Nam omnia mala poenae ex divina providentia infliguntur; Amos III, 6: si est malum in civitate quod dominus non faciat. Mali vero culpae Deus ultor est, non tamen auctor. Omnia autem quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt; et ideo omnia mala poenae ad aliquid ordinantur: quaedam ad mortem, quaedam ad aliquid aliud. Haec autem infirmitas non est ordinata ad mortem, sed ad gloriam Dei. 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. Sed numquid non fuit mortuus Lazarus ex hac infirmitate? Videtur quod sic. Alias non foeteret quatriduanus in monumento, nec resuscitatio fuisset miraculosa. Responsio. Dicendum quod infirmitas haec non fuit ordinata ad mortem ut ad finem ultimum, sed propter aliud, ut dictum est: ut scilicet ipse qui resuscitatus fuit, quasi castigatus, iuste viveret ad Dei gloriam, et populus Iudaeus videns miraculum, converteretur ad fidem; Ps. CXVII, 18: castigans castigavit me dominus, et morti non tradidit me. Unde sequitur sed pro gloria Dei, ut glorificetur filius Dei per eam. 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. Ubi, secundum Chrysostomum, ly pro et ly ut non tenentur causaliter, sed consecutive. Non enim ideo infirmatus est ut ex hoc Deus glorificaretur; sed aliunde quidem infirmitas haec venit, et ex ea consecutum est hoc, ut glorificaretur filius Dei, inquantum eum resuscitando usus est ea ad gloriam Dei. 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] Hoc autem uno quidem modo veritatem habet, sed alio modo non. Potest enim infirmitatis Lazari duplex causa considerari. Una naturalis; et secundum hanc verificatur dictum Chrysostomi, quia infirmitas Lazari secundum causam naturalem non ordinabatur ad resuscitationem. Alia causa potest considerari divina providentia; et tunc non habet veritatem dictum Chrysostomi, nam ex divina providentia huiusmodi infirmitas ordinabatur ad gloriam Dei. Et secundum hoc ly pro et ly ut tenentur causaliter; quasi dicat sed pro gloria Dei: quia, licet ad hoc non ordinaretur ex intentione causae naturalis, ordinabatur tamen ex intentione divinae providentiae ad gloriam Dei, inquantum facto miraculo crederent homines in Christum, et vitarent veram mortem. Unde dicit ut glorificetur filius Dei per eam. 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. Hic manifeste dominus filium Dei se nominat: nam ipse glorificandus erat in resuscitatione Lazari, quia ipse est verus Deus; I Io. ult., 20: ut simus in vero filio eius; supra IX, 3: neque hic peccavit neque parentes eius; sed ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo. 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). Hic, secundum Augustinum, Evangelista assignat rationem quare duae sorores non venerunt ad Christum: quae scilicet sumitur ex confidentia specialis dilectionis, unde dicit diligebat autem Iesus Martham, et Mariam sororem eius, et Lazarum. Quippe qui tristium consolator erat, sorores tristes diligebat; et qui languentium salvator erat, languidum et mortuum Lazarum diligebat; Deut. XXXIII, 3: dilexit populos: omnes sancti in manu illius sunt. 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).
Lectio 2 LECTURE 2 Hic agitur de mortui resuscitatione, et primo ponitur resuscitandi propositum; secundo subditur suscitationis ordo, ibi venit itaque Iesus et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo dat dominus locum morti; secundo praenuntiat propositum de accedendo ad locum ubi mortuus erat, ibi deinde post haec dicit etc.; tertio praenuntiat propositum suscitandi, ibi haec ait, et post haec dicit illis et cetera. 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). Dat autem locum morti, moram trahendo dominus trans Iordanem: et ideo dicit ut autem audivit quia infirmabatur, mansit in eodem loco duobus diebus. Ex quo notatur quod eodem die quo Christus recepit nuntium sororum Lazari, mortuus fuit Lazarus: nam quando Christus venit ad locum ubi mortuus fuit, iam quatriduanus erat; Christus autem duobus diebus postquam recepit nuntium, remansit in eodem loco, et sequenti die ab illis duobus ivit in Iudaeam. Dedit autem locum morti per tot dies, propter duo. Primo quidem ne ex praesentia eius mors Lazari impedita fuisset: nam ubi vita praesens est, mors locum non habet. Secundo, ut miraculum credibilius redderetur, et nullus posset dicere quoniam nondum defunctum eum suscitavit, sed potius stupefactum. 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. Consequenter cum dicit deinde post haec dicit discipulis suis, dominus manifestat propositum accessus sui ad locum, et primo praenuntiat propositum; secundo subditur timor discipulorum, ibi dicunt ei discipuli etc.; tertio dominus timorem propellit, ibi respondit Iesus: nonne duodecim horae sunt diei? 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). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum deinde post haec, scilicet moram contractam, dixit, scilicet Iesus, discipulis suis: eamus in Iudaeam iterum. Hic quaeritur quare hic solum praedixit apostolis se iterum iturum in Iudaeam, cum hoc alias non fecerit. Sed huius quidem ratio est, quia Iudaei nuper in Iudaea persecuti fuerant Christum, ita ut pene eum lapidassent; unde et propterea inde decesserat: propter quod credendum erat quod, Christo iterato illuc ire volente, discipulorum corda timor invaderet. Et quia praevisa iacula minus feriunt, et mala quae praevidentur, facilius tolerantur, ut Gregorius dicit, ideo dominus, ut eis timorem auferret, eis itineris sui propositum manifestat. Per hoc autem quod iterum revertitur in Iudaeam, mystice datur intelligi, dominum in fine mundi iterum reversurum ad Iudaeos, qui convertentur ad Christum; Rom. XI, 25: caecitas ex parte contigit in Israel, donec plenitudo gentium intraret. 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). Timor discipulorum ponitur cum dicitur dicunt ei discipuli: Rabbi, nunc quaerebant te Iudaei lapidare, et iterum vadis illuc? Quasi dicant: videtur quod spontaneus vadas ad mortem. Sed timor iste irrationabilis est, quia secum habebant discipuli Deum protectorem, cum quo qui est, timere non debet; Is. l, 8: stemus simul: quis est adversarius meus? Ps. XXVI, 1: dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea: quem timebo? 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). Hunc timorem expellit dominus confortans eos; unde dicit respondit Iesus, scilicet discipulis, nonne duodecim horae sunt diei? Ubi primo ponit conditionem temporis; secundo ostendit quod tempus sit aptum ambulationi; tertio quod non sit aptum. Secundum ibi si quis ambulaverit in die, non offendit; tertium ibi si autem ambulaverit in nocte, offendit. 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. Ad intelligentiam autem huius litterae, sciendum est, quod tripliciter exponitur. Uno modo a Chrysostomo sic. Nonne duodecim horae sunt diei? Quasi dicat: vos dubitatis ascendere in Iudaeam, quia nuper Iudaei voluerunt me lapidare; sed dies habet duodecim horas, et quod contingit in una, non contingit in alia. Unde licet tunc voluissent me lapidare, in alia hora hoc nollent; Eccle. III, 1: omnia tempus habent. Et eiusdem VIII, 6: omni negotio tempus est et opportunitas. 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] Sed hic incidit quaestio litteralis: quia aut loquitur de die naturali, aut de die artificiali. Si quidem loquatur de die naturali, tunc falsum est quod dicit; cum non habeant duodecim, sed vigintiquatuor horas. Similiter si loquitur de die artificiali, falsum est quod dicit: quia hoc non est verum nisi in aequinoctiali, quia non omnes dies artificiales habent duodecim horas. Sed ad hoc dicendum, quod intelligendum est de die artificiali: quia omnes dies artificiales habent duodecim horas. Nam horae huiusmodi dierum distinguuntur dupliciter. Quaedam enim sunt aequales, et quaedam sunt inaequales. Aequales autem distinguuntur secundum circulum aequinoctialis: et secundum hoc non omnes dies habent duodecim horas sed aliqui plures, aliqui pauciores; nisi tantum in aequinoctio. Inaequales autem distinguuntur secundum ascensiones zodiaci propter eius obliquitatem: quia non aequaliter ascendit zodiacus in omnibus partibus suis; aequinoctialis autem aequaliter: et de istis horis inaequalibus quilibet dies artificialis habet duodecim horas; quia quolibet die ascendunt sex signa de die, et sex de nocte; sed illa quae ascendunt in aestate, sunt tardioris motus quam illa quae ascendunt in hieme; ascensus autem cuiuslibet signi facit duas horas. 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. Si quis ambulaverit in die, idest honeste, et absque conscientia alicuius mali, Rom. XIII, 13: sicut in die honeste ambulemus, non offendit, idest, non invenit quod ei noceat. Et hoc ideo quia lucem huius mundi videt; idest, lux iustitiae in eo est; Ps. XCVI, 11: lux orta est iusto, et rectis corde laetitia; quasi dicat dominus: nos secure possumus ire, cum in die ambulemus. 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. Si autem ambulaverit in nocte, scilicet iniquitatum, de facili multa pericula inveniet: de qua nocte I Thess. V, 7: qui dormiunt, nocte dormiunt. Et talis offendit, idest impingit, quia lux, scilicet iustitiae, non est in eo. 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. Alio modo exponit quidam Graecus, scilicet Theophylactus, ab illo loco si quis ambulaverit in die, dicens, quod dies est praesentia Christi in mundo, nox vero est tempus post passionem eius. Ut sit sensus: non est timendum de Iudaeis, quia quamdiu ego sum in mundo, vobis non imminet periculum, sed mihi. Unde quando Iudaei eum capere voluerunt, infra XVIII, 8, dixit dominus turbis: si ergo me quaeritis, sinite hos abire. Ut impleretur sermo quem dixit: quia quos dedisti mihi, non perdidi ex eis quemquam. Sed in nocte, idest in tempore post passionem, tunc timendum est vobis ire in Iudaeam, quia patiemini a Iudaeis persecutionem; Zach. XIII, 7: percute pastorem, et dispergentur oves. 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." Alio modo exponit Augustinus sicut per diem intelligatur Christus; supra c. IX, 4: me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me, donec dies est: et quamdiu sum in mundo, lux sum mundi. Huius ergo diei duodecim horae, sunt duodecim apostoli; supra VI, 71: nonne ego vos duodecim elegi? Sed timendum est valde quod sequitur: et unus ex vobis Diabolus est. Iudas ergo non erat hora huius diei, quia non lucebat. Sed dicendum, quod dominus hoc dixit, non habito respectu ad Iudam, sed ad successorem eius Mathiam. Est ergo sensus nonne duodecim horae sunt diei? Quasi diceret: vos estis horae, ego sum dies. Sicut ergo horae consequuntur diem, ita et vos me debetis sequi. Unde si ego volo ire in Iudaeam, vos non debetis me praecedere, nec mutare voluntatem meam; sed debetis me sequi. Simile dicit Petro, Matth. XVI, 23: vade retro post me, Satanas, idest, non praecedas me, sed me sequere, voluntatem meam imitando. Si quis ambulaverit in die, quasi diceret: non debetis timere periculum, quia vos itis mecum, qui sum dies. Unde sicut qui in die vadit non impingit, idest non offendit; ita nec vos qui mecum itis; Rom. VIII, 31: si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos? Et hoc ideo quia lucem huius mundi videt, in me. Si autem ambulaverit in nocte, idest in tenebris ignorantiae et peccati, tunc offendit; et hoc ideo quia lux, scilicet spiritualis, non est in eo, non quidem ex defectu lucis, sed eorum rebellione; Iob XXIV, 13: ipsi fuerunt rebelles lumini. 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).
Lectio 3 LECTURE 3 Supra praenuntiavit dominus propositum de accedendo ad locum defuncti, hic manifestat propositum de defuncti suscitatione, et primo praenuntiat ipsum propositum; secundo discipulorum affectum, ibi dicit ei Thomas et cetera. Propositum autem praenuntiat primo quasi implicite et obscure; secundo Evangelista ostendit tarditatem intellectus discipulorum, ibi dixerunt ergo discipuli; tertio dominus ipsum propositum denuntiat manifeste, ibi tunc ergo dixit eis Iesus. 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). dictis, postmodum dicit discipulis suis Lazarus amicus noster dormit. Quod quidem, secundum Chrysostomum, videtur facere ad secundam rationem excludentem timorem discipulorum: nam prima procedebat ex discipulorum innocentia, quia qui ambulat in die, non offendit; ista sumitur ex necessitate imminente, quasi necessarium sit ire. 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] Dicit ergo haec ait, et post haec dicit illis, quasi diceret: his, quae supra posita sunt, Unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo commemorat pristinam amicitiam defuncti, dicens Lazarus amicus noster: amicus scilicet propter multa beneficia et obsequia quae nobis exhibuit; et ideo non debemus in necessitate deficere; Prov. XII, 26: qui negligit damnum propter amicum fidelem. 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]. Secundo ponit necessitatis instantiam; unde dicit dormit: unde oportet quod ei subveniatur; Prov. XVII, 17: frater in angustiis comprobatur. Dormit, inquam, ut dicit Augustinus, domino; sed mortuus erat hominibus, qui eum suscitare non poterant. Sciendum est enim, quod somnus accipitur multis modis. Quandoque pro somno naturae; I Reg. III, 9: dormivit Samuel usque mane. Et Iob XI, 18: securus dormias et cetera. Quandoque pro somno mortis; I Thess. IV, v. 12: nolumus vos ignorare de dormientibus, ut non contristemini, sicut et ceteri qui spem non habent. Quandoque pro negligentia; Ps. CXX, 4: ecce non dormitabit neque dormiet qui custodit Israel. Quandoque vero pro somno culpae; Eph. V, 14: exurge qui dormis, et exurge a mortuis. Quandoque pro quiete contemplationis; Cant. V, 2: ego dormio, et cor meum vigilat. Quandoque pro quiete futurae gloriae; Ps. IV, 9: in pace in idipsum dormiam, et requiescam. 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). Mors autem dicitur somnus propter spem resurrectionis; et ideo mors consuevit appellari dormitio, ab eo tempore quo Christus mortuus est et resurrexit; Ps. III, 6: ego dormivi, et soporatus sum. 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). Tertio ostendit suam ad resuscitandum efficaciam, cum dicit sed vado ut a somno excitem eum. In quo dat intelligere quod tanta facilitate excitabat eum de sepulcro, quanta excitas dormientem in lecto. Nec mirum: quia ipse est qui suscitat mortuos et vivificat, supra V; unde ipse dicit ibidem: venit hora, in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt audient vocem filii Dei. 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." Tarditatem autem intellectus discipulorum ponit Evangelista cum dicit dixerunt ergo discipuli eius: domine, si dormit, salvus erit. Et primo ponit signum tarditatis eorum, scilicet quod non responderunt secundum intentionem domini; secundo ostenditur eorum tarditas manifeste, ibi dixerat autem Iesus de morte eius. 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). Circa primum sciendum est, quod id quod dixerat dominus de somno mortis, isti intellexerunt de somno naturae. Et quia solet somnus aegrotantium salutis esse indicium, ideo discipuli dixerunt: si dormit, salvus erit: quasi dicant: hoc manifeste salutis est signum, ut per hoc ulterius concludant: domine, si dormit, non videtur utile esse ut tu vadas ad excitandum eum. 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. Tarditatem autem ipsorum subdit dicens dixerat autem Iesus de morte eius, quia rudes erant. Unde dominus dicit eis Matth. XV, 16: adhuc et vos sine intellectu estis? De sapiente vero dicitur Prov. I, 6: animadvertet parabolam et interpretationem, verba sapientum et aenigmata eorum. 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 hearand understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prv 1:5-6) Manifestat autem dominus explicite suscitandi propositum, cum subdit Lazarus mortuus est; et gaudeo propter vos. Et primo annuntiat eis Lazari mortem, quod pertinet ad eius scientiam; secundo insinuat suum affectum circa eius mortem, quod pertinet ad eius providentiam; tertio innuit propositum de eundo ad locum ubi mortuus erat, quod pertinet ad eius clementiam. 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. Mortem quidem praenuntiat dicens manifeste Lazarus mortuus est, idest, subiit legem communem mortis, quam nullus hominum subterfugere potest; Ps. LXXXVIII, v. 49: quis est homo qui vivit, et non videbit mortem? 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). Affectum autem suum ostendit circa eius mortem, dicens et gaudeo propter vos, ut credatis, quoniam non eram ibi. Quod potest dupliciter exponi. 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. Uno modo sic. Nos audivimus infirmitatem Lazari, sed ego absens annuntio mortem eius, et gaudeo propter vos, idest propter vestram utilitatem, ut ex hoc sumatis experimentum divinitatis meae, quia in absentia video; Hebr. IV, 13: omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius. Nec mirum, quia ipse est omnibus praesens; Ier. c. XXIII, 24: caelum et terram ego impleo. Ut credatis: non ut de novo inciperent credere, sed ut firmius robustiusque crederent: secundum illud Mc. IX, 23: credo, domine, adiuva meam incredulitatem. 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). Alio modo sic. Gaudeo, scilicet quod mortuus est; et hoc propter vos, idest propter vestram utilitatem, scilicet ut credatis. Ideo, inquam, gaudeo (...) quia non eram ibi: nam si ibi fuissem, non fuisset mortuus; sed quia defunctus est, maius apparebit miraculum cum resuscitabo defunctum putrescentem: et ex hoc vos magis corroboramini in fide. Maius est enim defunctum suscitare quam viventem a morte praeservare. 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. Ex quo datur intelligi quod aliquando mala sunt ratio gaudii, inquantum ordinantur ad bonum; Rom. c. VIII, 28: diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum. 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). Propositum autem eundi innuit dicens sed eamus ad eum: in quo ostenditur Dei clementia, inquantum homines in peccatis existentes et quasi mortuos per se ad eum accedere non valentes misericorditer praeveniendo attrahit, secundum illud Ier. XXXI, v. 3: in caritate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans. 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]. Hic ponitur discipulorum affectus: quod potest quidem dupliciter exponi. Uno modo ut importet affectum dubitantis; alio modo ut importet affectum diligentis. Et primo modo exponitur a Chrysostomo. Nam, ut supra dictum est, omnes discipuli timebant Iudaeos, et super alios Thomas. Nam ante passionem infirmior erat aliis, et infidelior; qui tamen postea fortior factus est, et irreprehensibilis, qui solus orbem terrarum percurrit. Unde ex hac dubietate dicit ad condiscipulos eamus et nos, et moriamur cum illo, quasi dicat: iste non timet mortem, penitus vult ire, se et nos volens tradere morti. 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. Secundo modo exponit Augustinus. Thomas enim et alii discipuli ita Christum amabant ut vel cum eo praesente vivere, vel cum eo mori vellent, ne post mortem deserti iterum inconsolati remanerent. Unde ex hoc affectu Thomas dicit ad condiscipulos eamus et nos, et moriamur cum eo, quasi dicat: ire vult, periculum mortis ei imminet: numquid et nos remanebimus ut vivamus? Absit. Sed eamus, et moriamur cum illo; Rom. VIII, 17: si compatimur, et conregnabimus; II Cor. V, v. 14: si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt. 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).
Lectio 4 LECTURE 4 Postquam praenuntiavit defuncti suscitationem, hic describit Evangelista resuscitationis ordinem, et primo praemittit quaedam praeambula pertinentia ad alios; secundo proponit quaedam quae pertinent ad affectum Christi, ibi Iesus autem ut vidit eam plorantem etc.; tertio subdit suscitationis effectum, ibi Iesus ergo rursum fremens et cetera. Praeambula autem ad alios pertinentia primo praemittit quantum ad defuncti conditionem; secundo quantum ad Iudaeorum erga sorores consolationem, ibi erat autem Bethania etc.; tertio quantum ad sororum devotionem, ibi Martha autem, ut audivit et cetera. 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). Defuncti autem conditio describitur quantum ad tempus mortis, quia quatriduanus, unde dicit venit itaque Iesus, et invenit eum quatuor dies habentem, et quantum ad locum, quia in monumento. Ex quo apparet, secundum litteram, ut dictum est supra, quod primus dies mortis fuit quando nuntiata fuit ei infirmitas. 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. Per hos autem quatuor dies, secundum Augustinum, signantur quatuor dies quadruplicis mortis. Una dies est peccati originalis, quod homo trahit de mortis propagine; Rom. V, 12: per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum. Alii tres dies referuntur ad mortem peccati actualis; nam quodlibet peccatum mortale quaedam mors dicitur; Ps. XXXIII, 22: mors peccatorum pessima. Et dividuntur secundum transgressionem triplicis legis. 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. Primo quidem legis naturae, quam homines transgrediuntur; et sic est secundus dies mortis, Is. XXIV, 5: transgressi sunt legem et pactum sempiternum, idest legem naturae. Secundo legis scriptae, quam etiam homines transgrediuntur; et sic est tertius dies, supra VII, 19: nonne Moyses dedit vobis legem, et nemo ex vobis facit legem? Tertio legis Evangelii et gratiae, quam homines transgrediuntur; et sic est quartus dies, et gravior ceteris. Hebr. X, 28: irritam quis faciens legem Moysi, sine ulla miseratione duobus vel tribus testibus moritur: quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia qui filium Dei conculcaverit, et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, in quo sanctificatus est, et spiritui gratiae contumeliam fecerit? Thus the second day indicates the transgression of the law of nature: "They have transgressed the lawsbroken 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). Vel aliter, primus dies est peccatum cordis; Is. I, 16: auferte malum cogitationum vestrarum et cetera. Secundus dies est peccatum oris; Eph. IV, 29: omnis sermo malus de ore vestro non procedat. Tertius dies est peccatum operis; de quo Is. I, 16: quiescite agere perverse. Quartus dies est peccatum perversae consuetudinis; de quo Ier. XIII, 23: sic et vos poteritis bene facere, cum didiceritis male. 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). Qualitercumque tamen exponatur, dominus quandoque sanat mortuos quatuor dies habentes, idest legem Evangelii transgredientes, et in consuetudine peccati detentos. 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. isitantium autem conditio describitur, et quantum ad visitandi opportunitatem, et quantum ad eorum quantitatem. Quantum ad opportunitatem quidem, quia locus defuncti erat prope Ierosolymam; unde dicit erat autem Bethania iuxta Ierosolymam quasi stadiis quindecim, quod erat fere milliaria duo: nam milliare habet octo stadia: et sic facilis multis Iudaeorum a Ierosolymis patebat illuc accessus. 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. VMystice autem per Bethaniam quae interpretatur domus obedientiae, et Ierusalem visio pacis, datur intelligi, quod qui sunt in statu obedientiae, sunt propinqui ad pacem vitae aeternae; supra X, 27: oves meae vocem meam audiunt, et ego vitam aeternam do eis. Et dicit quindecim stadiis, quia qui vult de Bethania, idest de statu obedientiae, ire in Ierusalem caelestem, oportet quod transeat stadia quindecim. Primo quidem septem, quae pertinent ad observantiam veteris legis: nam septenarius numerus pertinet ad legem veterem, quae diem septimum sanctificat; deinde vero octo, idest impletionem novi testamenti, ad quem pertinet numerus octonarius propter octavam resurrectionis. 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 voiceand 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. Quantum vero ad quantitatem describitur, quia multi; unde dicit multi autem ex Iudaeis venerant ad Mariam et Martham, ut consolarentur eas: quod quidem pietatis erat; Rom. XII, 15: gaudere cum gaudentibus oportet. Eccli. VII, 38: non desis plorantibus in consolationem. 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). Sorores autem describit Evangelista primo quantum quidem ad Martham; secundo vero quantum ad Mariam, ibi haec cum dixisset, abiit, et vocavit Mariam. Martham autem describit quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad eius occursum quo Christo obviavit; secundo quantum ad devotionis affectum quem Christo exhibuit et tertio quantum ad instructionis profectum ad quem Christus eam erexit. 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. Occursus autem Marthae describitur festinus, quia Martha, ut audivit quia Iesus venit, occurrit illi, absque morae dilatione. Venit autem praesentis temporis est: forte enim Christo prope castrum existente, aliquis praecessit, et nuntiavit Marthae adventum Christi, quo audito, statim cucurrit. Ratio autem quare Martha primo audivit, et sola occurrit, est quia Martha sollicita erat; unde dominus dicit, Lc. X, 41: Martha, Martha, sollicita es, et turbaris erga plurima: et ideo occupata circa dispositionem negotiorum discurrebat per domum, et nuntianti facilius occurrit. Maria autem sedebat domi cum illis qui venerant de Ierosolymis; et ideo non ita cito potuit sibi indicari sicut Marthae. Ratio autem quare Martha non statim indicavit Mariae assignatur a Chrysostomo. Quia Maria sedebat cum Iudaeis, et Martha sciebat quod Iudaei persequebantur Christum, et iam conspiraverant in eius mortem; et ideo timens ne, si nuntiaret ei et illa ivisset in occursum Christi, ivissent cum ea: propter hoc ergo sibi nuntiare noluit. 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] Sed si Iudaei conspiraverant contra Christum, quomodo visitabant Lazarum et sorores suas, qui Christi familiares erant, et quasi discipuli? Ad quod respondet Chrysostomus, quod hoc faciebant propter necessitatis calamitatem, et propter nobilitatem harum mulierum, quas spreto principum mandato, consolabantur. Vel quia hi qui aderant, non mali erant, sed bene se habebant ad Christum: multi enim ex populo credebant. 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] Mystice autem signantur per haec vita activa, quae signatur per Martham, quae occurrit Christo ad exhibendum obsequii beneficium membris eius; et vita contemplativa, quae per Mariam signatur, quae domi sedet quieti contemplationis et puritati conscientiae vacans; Sap. VIII, 16: intrans in domum meam, conquiescam cum illa. 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). Affectus autem devotionis in Martha ostenditur praecipuus; unde dicit, dixit Martha ad Iesum: domine, si fuisses hic, frater meus non fuisset mortuus. Ubi duo Christo devote proponit: unum quod respicit ad praeteritum, et aliud quod respicit ad futurum. Ad praeteritum quidem respicit quod dicit domine, si fuisses hic, frater meus non fuisset mortuus: credebat enim quod praesente Christo mors locum non haberet, cum vidisset mulierem ad solum tactum fimbriae Iesu sanatam, Matth. IX, 20. Et quidem rationabiliter movebatur, nam vita contrariatur morti; Christus autem vita est, et lignum vitae; Prov. III, 18: lignum vitae est his qui apprehenderint eam. Si ergo lignum vitae poterat praeservare a morte, multo magis Christus. Nihilominus tamen imperfectam habebat fidem, aestimans Christum minus posse absentem quam praesentem; unde dicebat domine, si fuisses hic, frater meus non fuisset mortuus: quod quidem de virtute limitata et creata dici potest; sed de virtute infinita et increata, quae Deus est, non est dicendum, quia aequaliter se habet ad praesentia et absentia, immo sibi omnia sunt praesentia; Ier. XXIII, 23: putasne Deus e vicino ego sum? et cetera. 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). Ad futurum autem respicit hoc quod subdit sed et nunc scio quia quaecumque poposceris a Deo, dabit tibi Deus. In quo quidem licet aliquo modo verum dixerit nam Christo secundum quod homo pertinebat a Deo petere; unde et frequenter orasse legitur, et supra IX, 13, dicitur: si quis Dei cultor est (...) hunc exaudit: tamen minus dixit: nam per haec verba arbitrari videtur Christum sicut unum sanctum hominem, qui praeteritam mortem orando posset excludere; sicut Eliseus orando mortuum suscitavit. 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. Profectus autem ponitur cum addit dicit illi Iesus: resurget frater tuus. Quia enim adhuc imperfecte cognoscebat, ideo dominus ad altiora eam instruendo provehit, et primo praenuntiat fratris resurrectionem; secundo ostendit resuscitationis potestatem, ibi ego sum resurrectio et vita et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praenuntiat futurum miraculum; secundum ponitur intellectus Marthae de resuscitatione, ibi dixit ei Martha et cetera. 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). Miraculum autem quod futurum dominus praenuntiat est resuscitatio Lazari; unde dicit resurget frater tuus; Is. XXVI, 19: vivent, et mortui tui resurgent. Sciendum est autem Christum tres mortuos suscitasse: puellam archisynagogi, ut habetur Matth. XI, 23 ss., filium viduae qui efferebatur extra portam, ut habetur Lc. VII, v. 12 s., et Lazarum quatuor dies habentem in monumento. Sed puellam quidem in domo, iuvenem extra portam, Lazarum in monumento. Item puellam paucis arbitris secum habens, patrem videlicet, et matrem puellae, et tres ex discipulis suis, Petrum scilicet, Iacobum et Ioannem; iuvenem vero magna turba praesente; sed Lazarum assistente multitudine, et cum gemitu. Nam per hos tres suscitatos tria genera peccatorum intelliguntur. Quidam enim peccant per consensum peccati mortalis in corde; et isti signantur per puellam mortuam in domo. Alii vero sunt qui per exteriora signa et actus peccant; et signantur per mortuum qui effertur extra portam. Sed quando per consuetudinem in peccato firmantur, tunc clauduntur in monumento. Et tamen dominus omnes resuscitat. Sed illi qui per consensum solum peccant, et mortaliter peccando moriuntur, facilius suscitantur. Et quia secretum est, ideo secreta emendatione curatur. Quando autem peccatum procedit extra, tunc publico indiget remedio. 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. Intellectus autem Marthae de resuscitatione promissa ponitur cum dicit dicit ei Martha: scio quia resurget in resurrectione in novissimo die. Non enim auditum est a saeculo quod quis quatriduanum foetentem in monumento resuscitaverit, et ideo non poterat cadere in corde Marthae quod statim eum suscitaret a mortuis; sed credebat hoc in communi resurrectione futurum. Unde dicit scio, idest certissime teneo, quod resurget in novissimo die; supra VI, 40: ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. 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). Consequenter cum dicit dixit ei Iesus: ego sum resurrectio et vita, dominus Martham ad altiora elevans, primo ostendit virtutem et potestatem suam; secundo subdit potestatis effectum, ibi qui credit in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet; tertio exposcit fidem, ibi credis hoc? 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? Potestas autem sua est vivificativa; unde dicit ego sum resurrectio et vita; quasi diceret Marthae: credis quod frater tuus resurgat in novissimo die? Totum autem hoc quod homines resurgent, erit mea virtute; et ideo ego, cuius virtute tunc omnes resurgent, possum etiam fratrem tuum suscitare in praesentia. 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. Dicit autem duo: scilicet quod est resurrectio, et quod est vita. Sciendum est enim, quod effectum vitae aliqui participare indigent. Quidam quidem, quia vitam amiserunt; quidam vero, non quia ipsam amiserunt, sed ut iam habitam conservent. Sic ergo quantum ad primum dicit ego sum resurrectio, quia qui vitam per mortem amiserunt, reparantur; quantum ad secundum dicit et vita, qua scilicet viventes conservantur. 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. Sciendum est autem, quod hoc quod dicit ego sum resurrectio, est locutio causalis; quasi dicat: ego sum resurrectionis causa. Hic autem locutionis modus in illis tantum fieri consuevit qui sunt causa alicuius rei; Christus autem est tota causa resurrectionis nostrae, tam animarum quam corporum, et ideo hoc quod dicit ego sum resurrectio, est causalis locutio, quasi dicat: totum hoc quod resurgent in animabus et in corporibus, per me erit; I Cor. XV, 21: quoniam quidem per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. 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). Hoc, inquam, quod sum resurrectio, est mihi per hoc quod sum vita; nam vitae est quod aliqui reparentur ad vitam, sicut ignis est quod aliquod extinctum reignitur. Supra c. I, 4: in Christo vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum. 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). Effectus autem potestati respondet, unde dicit qui credit in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet. Primo ergo agit de effectu qui respondet primae potestati; secundo de effectu qui respondet secundae. 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]. Primum autem quod de potestate sua dixerat, est quod ipse sit resurrectio; et huic respondet effectus quod ipse mortuos vivificat: et quantum ad hoc dicit qui credit in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet. Cuius quidem causa est, quia ego sum resurrectionis causa, cuius causae effectum aliquis consequitur credendo in me. Unde dicit qui credit in me, vivet, etiam si mortuus fuerit: nam per hoc quod credit, habet me in se, Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris, qui autem habet me, habet resurrectionis causam: ergo qui credit in me, vivet. Quod autem per fidem aliqui resurgant, habetur supra V, 25: venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent, vita scilicet spirituali, resurgentes de morte culpae, et etiam vita naturali, resurgentes de morte poenae. 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. Secundum autem quod de potestate sua dixerat, est quod ipse sit vita; et huic respondet effectus praeservationis in vita; unde dicit et omnis qui vivit, et credit in me, vita iustitiae, de qua Hab. II, 4: iustus meus ex fide vivit, non morietur in aeternum, idest morte aeterna; sed habebit vitam aeternam; supra VI, 40: haec est voluntas patris mei, ut omnis qui videt filium, et credit in eum, habeat vitam aeternam. Et hoc non est intelligendum quin moriatur ad tempus morte carnis; sed quod aliquando sic morietur, ut tamen resuscitatus vivat in aeternum in anima, donec resurgat caro numquam postea moritura; unde subdit ibidem: et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. 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). Exposcit autem fidem, ut eam perficiat; unde dicit credis hoc? Et primo ponitur quaestio domini dicentis credis hoc? Non interrogat dominus quasi ignorans, sed sciens fidem eius, quippe qui ipsam fidem sibi infuderat: credere enim a Deo est. Quaerit autem ut fidem quam habebat in corde, confiteatur ore; Rom. X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. 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). Secundo ponitur responsio mulieris cum dicit ait illi: utique, domine, ego credidi quia tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Quae quidem responsio impertinens videtur ad ea quae dominus dixerat. Dixit enim ego sum resurrectio et vita et postea quaesivit utrum hoc crederet. Mulier autem non respondit: credo quod tu es resurrectio et vita; sed ego credidi quia tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, qui in hunc mundum venisti. 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. Quod quidem dupliciter exponitur. Chrysostomus enim dicit quod haec mulier non intelligens alta verba domini, quasi stupefacta respondit dicens: domine, ego non intelligo hoc quod dicis, scilicet quod tu es resurrectio et vita, sed hoc credidi quia tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Augustinus vero dicit, quod mulier respondit hoc ideo quia hoc quod dicit est ratio omnium praemissorum a domino; quasi diceret: quidquid dicis de potestate tua et effectu salutis, totum credo: quia ego credo quod plus est et radix omnium, scilicet quia tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. 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. Haec autem confessio Marthae perfecta est. Confitetur enim Christi dignitatem, naturam et dispensationem, scilicet incarnationis. Dignitatem quidem et regiam et sacerdotalem; et hoc, cum dicit: tu es Christus. Christus enim Graece, Latine dicitur unctus. Inunguntur autem reges et sacerdotes: est ergo Christus rex et sacerdos. Unde Angelus Lc. II, 11: natus est nobis hodie salvator, qui est Christus dominus. Et vere ipse est singulariter Christus, quia alii unguntur oleo visibili, iste vero oleo invisibili, scilicet spiritu sancto, et ceteris aliis abundantius; Ps. c. XLIV, 8: unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. Ideo prae consortibus, quia, ut dicitur supra III, 34 non ad mensuram dat ei Deus spiritum. 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). Naturam autem in Christo confitetur divinam patri aequalem; unde dicit filius Dei vivi: nam ex hoc quod singulariter vocat eum filium Dei vivi, veritatem filiationis annuntiat; non autem est verus Dei filius, nisi sit patri connaturalis: unde de Christo dicitur I Io. ult., 20: ut simus in vero filio eius, Christo. Hic est verus Deus et vita aeterna. 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]. Dispensationis autem mysterium confitetur cum dicit qui in hunc mundum venisti, scilicet carnem assumens. Simile confitetur Petrus, Matth. XVI, 16: tu es Christus filius Dei vivi; infra XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum. 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).
Lectio 5 LECTURE 5 Postquam Evangelista praemisit conditiones sororum quantum ad Martham, hic describit eas quantum ad Mariam, et primo describit vocationem Mariae; secundo occursum eius ad Christum, ibi illa, ut audivit; tertio eius devotionem, quam exhibuit Christo, ibi Maria ergo cum venisset ubi erat Iesus (...) cecidit ad pedes eius. 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). Vocatur autem Maria per Martham, quae consolata et instructa per Christum, nolens sororem suam esse tantae consolationis expertem, cum dixisset verba praedicta cum domino, abiit, statim et vocavit Mariam sororem suam silentio, dicens: magister adest, et vocat te et cetera. Ubi quidem duo dubitanda occurrunt. Primo de hoc quod dicit silentio: nam silentium nihil aliud est quam privatio locutionis vel soni. Non ergo eam silentio vocare potuisset. Responsio. Dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod silentium suppressam vocem nuncupavit, quasi dicat, vocavit eam submisse, secundum illud Eccle. IX, 17: verba sapientium audiuntur in silentio. Ideo autem eam silenter vocat, quia multitudo Iudaeorum erat cum ea, ut dictum est, et forte erant inter eos aliqui qui non diligerent Christum, qui vel recederent, vel, hoc audito, Mariam non sequerentur. Mystice autem per hoc datur intelligi quod ad Christum quis vocat exteriore voce tantum, sed efficacius silenter; unde dicitur Is. XXX, v. 15: in silentio et spe erit fortitudo vestra. 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). Secundo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit magister adest, et vocat te. Videtur falsum dixisse: non enim dixit dominus Marthae quod vocaret Mariam. Responsio. Dicit Augustinus, quod Evangelista causa brevitatis dat intelligere quod in sua narratione intermiserat: nam forte dominus dixit Marthae quod eam vocaret. Alii autem dicunt, quod Martha ipsam praesentiam vocationem reputavit; quasi diceret: inexcusabile est ut eo praesente tu non exeas obviam ipsi. 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. Consequenter cum dicit illa, ut audivit, surrexit cito, et venit ad eum, ponitur occursus Mariae. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponitur promptitudo Mariae ad occurrendum; secundo locus in quo ei occurrit, ibi nondum enim venerat Iesus in castellum; tertio comitiva quae eam sequitur, ibi Iudaei ergo qui erant cum ea in domo (...) secuti sunt eam. 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). Promptitudo autem Mariae ad occurrendum describitur, quia non distulit propter luctum, non tardavit propter astantes, sed statim ut audivit, surrexit cito, de domo in qua erat, et venit ad eum, scilicet Iesum. Ex quo patet quod non illam praevenisset Martha, si ei a principio notus fuisset adventus Iesu. Datur etiam per hoc nobis exemplum non tardandi, cum vocamur ad Christum. Eccli. c. V, 8: ne tardes converti ad dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; Is. l, 4: audiam eum quasi magistrum. 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]. Locus autem ubi Maria Christo occurrit, est idem ille ubi Martha cum Christo locuta fuerat; unde dicit nondum enim venerat Iesus in castellum, sed erat adhuc in illo loco ubi occurrerat ei Martha; quod ideo ponit Evangelista, ne credatur superfluus occursus Mariae, cum Christus potuerit adeo cito in castellum venire sicut et Martha. Ideo autem Christus in illo loco remansit, ut non videatur seipsum ingerere miraculo; sed dum rogatus et inductus miraculum operatur, confiteantur ipsum mortuum esse, et miraculum nullam calumniam patiatur. Datur etiam per hoc intelligi, quod cum volumus Christo frui, eum venientem anticipemus, non expectantes quod ipse nobis condescendat: sed ut ipsi potius condescendamus ad eum; Ier. XV, 19: ipsi convertentur ad te, et tu non converteris ad eos. 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). Comitiva autem quae sequitur Mariam, describitur cum dicit Iudaei ergo qui erant cum ea in domo (...) secuti sunt eam. Causam autem quare eam sequebatur ponit, dicens quia vadit ad monumentum ut ploret ibi. Credebant enim quod ex impetu doloris hoc faceret: non enim audierant verba quae Martha dixerat Mariae. In quo quidem Iudaei commendandi sunt, quia, ut dicitur Eccli. VII, 38, non desis plorantibus in consolatione. Nihilominus divina providentia factum est ut eam sequerentur, ut cum plures essent ibi cum Lazarus suscitatus est, tam grande miraculum quatriduani resurgentis testes plurimos inveniret, ut dicit Augustinus. 1527 Those who followed Mary are described when the Evangelist says, the Jews who were with her in the housefollowed 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] Consequenter cum dicit Maria ergo cum venisset ubi erat Iesus, videns eum cecidit ad pedes eius, commendatur devotio Mariae ad Iesum, et primo devotio quam exhibuit facto; secundo devotio quam exhibuit verbo, ibi domine, si fuisses hic, non esset mortuus frater meus. 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. Circa primum nota in Maria securitatem et humilitatem. Securitatem quidem, quia contra mandatum principum, quod nullus confiteretur Christum, non verecundatur turbam, nec suspicionem Iudaeorum de Christo veretur: cum aliqui inimicorum Christi interessent, ad Christum currit; Prov. XXVIII, 1: iustus quasi leo confidens, absque terrore erit. 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). Humilitatem autem, quia cecidit ad pedes eius, quod non de Martha legitur; I Petr. V, v. 6: humiliamini sub potenti manu Dei, ut vos exaltet in tempore visitationis; Ps. CXXXI, 7: adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt pedes eius. 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). Verbo autem devotionem exhibuit, cum dixit ei: domine, si fuisses hic, non esset mortuus frater meus. Credebat enim esse vitam, et ubi ipse esset, mortem locum non habere; II Cor. VI, 14: non est conventio lucis ad tenebras. Quasi dicat: dum nobiscum praesens fuisti ut Augustinus dicit, non morbus, non infirmitas aliqua apparere ausa est, apud quas vitam noverat hospitari. O infidelis conventio. Te adhuc posito in saeculo, Lazarus amicus tuus mortuus est. Si amicus moritur, inimicus quid patietur? 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] Consequenter cum dicit Iesus ergo ut vidit eam plorantem (...) infremuit spiritu, et turbavit se, ponuntur ea quae pertinent ad affectum Christi. Christus enim non respondet eadem Mariae quae respondit Marthae; sed propter astantem turbam nihil loquitur, factis demonstrans suam virtutem. Primo ergo ponitur affectus Christi ostensus Mariae; secundo subditur disceptatio de Christi affectu, ibi dixerunt ergo Iudaei: ecce quomodo amabat eum. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur affectus Christi quem corde habuit; secundo quomodo eum verbis expressit, ibi et dixit, ubi posuistis eum? Tertio quomodo eum lacrymis demonstravit, ibi et lacrymatus est. 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). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum Iesus ergo, ut vidit eam plorantem et cetera. Ubi notandum est, Christum verum Deum esse, et verum hominem; et ideo ubique fere in factis suis mixta leguntur humana divinis, et divina humanis: et si quandoque ponitur aliquid humanum de Christo, statim additur aliquid divinum. Nihil enim infirmius de Christo legimus quam eius passionem; et tamen eo in cruce pendente, divina facta patent, quod sol obscuratur, petrae scinduntur, corpora sanctorum qui dormierant resurgunt. In nativitate etiam et eo iacente in praesepio, sidus de caelo fulget, Angelus laudes cecinit, magi et reges munera offerunt. Simile autem habemus in hoc loco: nam Christus secundum humanitatis affectum aliquid infirmum patitur, turbationem quamdam de morte Lazari concipiens; unde dicit infremuit spiritu, et turbavit semetipsum. 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. Circa quam quidem turbationem primo quidem attende pietatem, secundo discretionem, tertio potestatem. Pietatem quidem ex causa, quae est iusta. Tunc enim iuste turbatur quis, si ex aliorum tristitia et malo turbetur: et quantum ad hoc dicit ut vidit eam plorantem; Rom. XII, 15: gaudere cum gaudentibus et flere cum flentibus. 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). Discretionem autem, quia secundum iudicium rationis turbatur; unde dicit fremuit spiritu; quasi iudicium rationis servans. In turbatione enim spiritus dicitur mens, vel ratio, secundum illud Eph. IV, 23: renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae. Quandoque autem contingit quod huiusmodi passiones sensitivae partis nec fiunt spiritu, nec servant moderamen rationis, quin potius ipsam perturbant: quod quidem in ipso non fuit, quia infremuit spiritu. 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. Sed quid significat fremitus Christi? Videtur quod significet iram; Prov. XIX, 12: sicut fremitus leonis, ita et ira regis. Item videtur quod significet indignationem; secundum illud Ps. CXI, 10: dentibus suis fremet, et tabescet. Responsio. Dicendum quod hic fremitus in Christo iram quamdam et indignationem cordis significat. Omnis autem ira et indignatio ex aliquo dolore et tristitia causatur. Duo autem hic suberant: unum de quo Christus turbabatur, quod erat mors homini inflicta propter peccatum; aliud autem de quo indignabatur, erat saevitia mortis et Diaboli. Unde, sicut quando aliquis vult repellere hostem, dolet de malis illatis ab ipso, et indignatur ad animadvertendum in eum, ita et Christus doluit et indignatus est. 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. Potestatem autem, quia ipse suo imperio turbavit semetipsum. Nam huiusmodi quidem passiones aliquando insurgunt ex causa indebita; sicut cum aliquis de malis gaudet et de bonis tristatur; Prov. II, 14: qui laetantur cum male fecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis. Et hoc non fuit in Christo; unde dicit ut vidit eam plorantem (...) turbavit seipsum. Aliquando insurgunt ex aliqua causa bona, non tamen ratione moderantur: et propter hoc dicit infremuit spiritu. Aliquando autem etsi moderentur ab aliquo, praeveniunt tamen iudicium rationis, cuiusmodi sunt subiti motus. Quod quidem in Christo non fuit: quia omnis motus appetitus sensitivi fuit in eo secundum modum et imperium rationis. 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 weepinghe 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. Et ideo dicit turbavit semetipsum, quasi dicat: iudicio rationis hanc sibi tristitiam assumpsit. Thus he says, he troubled himself (turbovit semetipsum). This was like saying: He took on this sadness by a judgment of reason. Sed contra est quod dicitur Is. XLII, 4: non erit tristis neque turbulentus. Responsio. Dicendum quod hoc intelligitur de tristitia praeveniente et immoderata. Voluit etiam Christus se turbare et tristari ex triplici causa. Primo quidem ad probandum conditionem et veritatem humanae naturae. Secundo ut dum tristatur et cohibet seipsum, doceat modum servandum esse in tristitiis. Stoici enim dixerunt quod nullus sapiens tristatur. Sed valde inhumanum esse videtur quod aliquis de morte alicuius non tristetur. Aliqui autem sunt qui in tristitiis de malo amicorum, nimis excedunt. Sed dominus tristari voluit, ut significet tibi quod aliquando debeas contristari, quod est contra Stoicos: et modum in tristitia tenuit, quod est contra secundos. Unde apostolus I Thess. IV, 12: nolumus vos ignorare de dormientibus, ut non contristemini sicut ceteri qui spem non habent; Eccli. XXII, 10: super mortuum plora, quia deficit lux eius, et postea subdit: modicum plora supra mortuum, quoniam requievit. Tertia ratio est ut insinuet quod nos pro mortuis corporaliter tristari et plorare debemus: secundum illud Ps. XXXVII, 9: afflictus sum, et humiliatus sum nimis. 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] Consequenter dominus affectum sui cordis verbis demonstrat; unde dicit ubi posuistis eum? Sed contra. Numquid dominus locum ubi positus erat ignorabat? Videtur quod non: nam sicut virtute divinitatis absens scivit mortem eius, ita scivit etiam locum sepulcri. Quare ergo quaerit quod scivit? Responsio. Dicendum quod non ut ignorans interrogat, sed dum a populo sibi sepulcrum ostenditur, vult eos confiteri Lazarum mortuum et sepultum: ut sic miraculum ab omnium suspicione eripiat. 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. Sunt ad hoc etiam duae rationes mysticae. Una est, quia qui interrogat, videtur nescire ea de quibus interrogat. Per Lazarum autem in monumento, signantur mortui in peccatis. Ostendit ergo dominus se ignorare locum Lazari, dans per hoc intelligere quod quasi nesciat peccatores, secundum illud Matth. c. VII, 23: non novi vos, et Gen. III, 9: Adam, ubi es? Alia ratio est, quia quod aliqui a peccato resurgant ad statum iustitiae divinae, est ex profundo praedestinationis divinae: quod quidem profundum homines ignorant; Rom. XI, 34: quis cognovit sensum domini, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? Et Ier. XXIII, 18: quis enim affuit in consilio domini, et vidit, et audivit sermonem eius? Et ideo dominus hoc innuens, ad modum nescientis se habuit, cum et ipsi hoc nesciamus. Sic ergo ponitur domini interrogatio, et sequitur populi responsio; unde dicit dicunt ei: domine, veni et vide. Veni miserando, vide, considerando; Ps. XXIV, 18: vide humilitatem meam et laborem meum, et dimitte universa delicta mea. 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). Consequenter dominus affectum suum lacrymis demonstrat; unde subditur et lacrymatus est Iesus: quae quidem lacrymae non erant ex necessitate, sed ex pietate et causa. Fons enim pietatis erat, et ideo flebat ut ostenderet non esse reprehensibile si aliquis ploret ex pietate; Eccli. c. XXXVIII, 16: fili, super mortuum produc lacrymas. Flevit ex causa, ut doceret hominem propter peccatum fletibus indigere, secundum illud Ps. VI, 7: laboravi in gemitu meo, lavabo per singulas noctes lectum meum. 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). Consequenter cum dicit dixerunt ergo Iudaei: ecce quomodo amabat eum, ponit Evangelista disceptationem de affectu Christi: et primo inducit quosdam admirantes Christi affectum; secundo quosdam in dubium revocantes miraculum prius factum, ibi quidam autem ex ipsis dixerunt et cetera. 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). Admirantes autem miraculum Christi inducit Evangelista per modum conclusionis, cum dicit dixerunt ergo Iudaei, ostensis scilicet signis affectus Christi, tam verbis quam lacrymis, ecce quomodo amabat eum: nam amor maxime in tristitiis hominum manifestatur; Prov. XVII, 17: in tristitia amicus cognitus est. Mystice autem per hoc datur intelligi quod Deus homines etiam in peccatis amat, nisi enim eos amasset, non utique diceret: non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores ad poenitentiam: Matth. IX, 13. Unde Ier. XXXI, 3: in caritate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans. 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." Vertentes autem in dubium miraculum factum, erant ex invidis Iesu; unde dicit quidam autem ex ipsis, scilicet Iudaeis, dixerunt: non potuit hic, qui aperuit oculos caeci nati, facere ut hic non moreretur? Quasi dicant: si sic amabat eum ut etiam pro eius morte lacrymaretur, videtur quod voluisset eum non mori: nam tristitia est de his quae nobis non volentibus acciderunt. Si ergo eo nolente mortuus est, videtur quod non potuit mortem impedire; multo magis videtur quod non potuerit aperire oculos caeci nati. Vel, dicendum quod hoc dixerunt admirando, eo modo loquendi quo Eliseus dixit IV Reg. II, 14: ubi est Deus Eliae etiam nunc? Et David in Ps. LXXXVIII, 50: ubi sunt misericordiae tuae antiquae, domine? 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).
Lectio 6 LECTURE 6 Postquam autem Evangelista posuit quaedam praeambula ad suscitationem, hic consequenter agit de ipsa suscitatione: circa quam quatuor agit. Primo de Christi ad monumentum perventione; secundo de lapidis sublatione, ibi erat autem spelunca etc.; tertio de Christi oratione, ibi Iesus autem, elevatis sursum oculis, dixit etc.; quarto de mortui resuscitatione, ibi haec cum dixisset, voce magna clamavit: Lazare, veni foras. 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). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum Iesus ergo rursum fremens in semetipso, venit ad monumentum. Studiose autem Evangelista frequenter dicit, quod lacrymatus est et quod infremuit, ut Chrysostomus dicit, quia in futuro ostensurus erat suae divinitatis potestatem. Ne ergo dubites de veritate suae humanitatis, infirmiora et humiliora nostrae naturae de Christo asserit. Et sicut Ioannes ceteris Evangelistis expressius divinam naturam et potestatem ostendit, ita etiam quaedam infirmiora de eo loquitur, sicut quod lacrymatus est, quod infremuit, et huiusmodi, quae maxime affectum in Christo demonstrant humanae naturae. 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. Mystice autem infremuit, ut detur intelligere, eos qui a peccatis resurgunt, in continuo debere persistere luctu, secundum illud Ps. XXXVII, 7: tota die contristatus ingrediebar. 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). Vel dicendum, quod supra infremuit spiritu, propter mortem Lazari, hic autem rursum in semetipso propter infidelitatem Iudaeorum. Unde Evangelista praemiserat dubietatem miraculi, dicentium non potuit hic, qui aperuit oculos caeci nati, facere ut hic non moreretur? Qui quidem fremitus fuit ex compassione et miseratione ad Iudaeos; Matth. XIV, 14: videns Iesus turbas, misertus est eis. 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). Hic agitur de lapidis sublatione, ubi quatuor facit. Primo describit lapidem; secundo subdit mandatum Christi de lapide submovendo; tertio addit disceptationem de lapidis amotione; quarto insinuat mandati impletionem. 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. Lapis autem describitur superpositus monumento; unde dicit erat autem spelunca, et lapis superpositus erat ei. Sciendum est enim, quod in partibus illis cavernas quasdam in modum speluncae habent ad hominum sepulturas, ubi possunt plura mortuorum corpora ponere diversis temporibus, et ideo habent foramen quoddam, quod lapide claudunt et aperiunt quando est necesse. Et ideo dicitur hic, quod lapis erat superpositus ei, scilicet ostio speluncae. Simile habetur Gen. XXIII, 1-20, ubi Abraham emit agrum et speluncam ad sepeliendum Saram uxorem suam. 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. Mystice autem per speluncam intelligitur profunditas peccatorum, de qua habetur in Ps. LXVIII, 3: infixus sum in limo profundi, et non est substantia. Per lapidem superpositum intelligitur lex, quae in lapide scripta est, et peccatum non tollebat, sed tenebat eos in peccato: quia ex hoc gravius peccabant, quod contra legem faciebant; unde dicitur Gal. III, 22: conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccato. 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). Mandatum Christi de lapide submovendo ponit, dicens ait Iesus, tollite lapidem. Sed quaeritur, cum maius sit suscitare mortuum quam removere lapidem, quare non etiam simul cum hac virtute lapidem sustulit? Ad quod respondet Chrysostomus, quod hoc factum est ad maiorem certitudinem miraculi, ut scilicet eos testes faciat miraculi, ut non dicant quod in caeco dixerunt: non est hic, qui mortuus fuit. 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] Mystice, secundum Augustinum, remotio lapidis signat amotionem ponderis legalium observantiarum a fidelibus Christi ex gentibus ad Ecclesiam venientibus, quod eis aliqui imponere volebant. Unde dicit beatus Iacobus, Act. XV, 28: visum est spiritui sancto et nobis, nihil ultra imponere vobis oneris. Et Petrus dicit eodem: cur tentatis imponere iugum super cervices discipulorum, quod neque patres nostri, neque nos portare potuimus? De hoc ergo dicit dominus, tollite lapidem, idest legis pondus, et gratiam praedicate. 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. Vel per lapidem significat eos qui in Ecclesia corrupte vivunt, et offensioni sunt credere volentibus, dum eos a conversione retrahunt; de quo lapide in Ps. XC, 12: ne forte offendas ad lapidem pedem tuum. Qui quidem dominus praecipit ut removeatur; Is. LVII, 14: auferte offendicula de via populi mei. 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). Disceptatio autem ponitur ex parte Marthae, et primo ponuntur verba Marthae disceptantis; secundo verba Christi respondentis. 1545 Next, we see Martha's objection. First, we see what she said; secondly, the words of Christ's answer. Verba quidem Marthae ponit dicens dixit ei Martha, soror eius qui mortuus fuerat: domine, iam foetet, quatriduanus enim est. Quod quidem ad litteram factum est ad ostensionem veritatis miraculi, quasi iam per putrefactionem inciperent membra resolvi. Mystice autem de illo qui peccare consuevit iam foetet, scilicet per pessimam famam, cuius odor deterrimus per peccatum consurgit. Nam sicut ex bonis operibus fragrat odor bonus, secundum quod dicit apostolus II Cor. II, 15: Christi bonus odor sumus Deo, ita ex malis operibus foetor et malus odor evaporat: qui etiam recte quatriduanus dicitur, quasi pressus pondere terrenorum peccatorum et cupiditatum carnalium, terra enim est ultimum de quatuor elementis; Ioel. c. II, 20: ascendet foetor eius, et ascendet putredo eius, quia superbe egit. 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). Illi autem Christus respondit dicens nonne dixi tibi, quoniam si credideris, videbis gloriam Dei? Ubi dominus videtur Martham arguere, quod non memor erat eius quod Christus ei dixerat: qui credit in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet; nam Martha diffidebat an Christus posset resuscitare mortuum quatriduanum. Licet enim aliquos recenter mortuos suscitasset, impossibile tamen hoc de fratre credebat ob dierum diuturnitatem. Et ideo dominus dixit ei nonne dixi tibi: si credideris, videbis gloriam Dei? Idest suscitationem fratris tui, per quam Deus glorificabitur. 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. Sed cum supra dominus hoc miraculum apostolis dixerit futurum ad gloriam suam, inquiens ut glorificetur filius Dei per eam, scilicet per mortem, hic tamen dicit Marthae hoc miraculum futurum ad gloriam Dei. Et hoc ideo, quia eadem est gloria patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Ideo autem non expressit hic gloriam filii, ne turbaret astantes Iudaeos, ad contradictionem promptos. 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. Innuitur autem in his domini verbis duplex fructus fidei nostrae. Primus est miraculorum operatio, quae debetur fidei; Matth. XVII, 19: si habueritis fidem sicut granum sinapis, dicetis monti huic: transi hinc illuc, et transibit; et nihil impossibile erit vobis. Unde et apostolus I Cor. XIII, 2: si habuero fidem, ita ut montes transferam. Et Mc. ult., 20, dicitur: illi autem praedicaverunt ubique, domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante, sequentibus signis. Quae quidem miraculorum operatio est ad gloriam Dei: et ideo dicit si credideris, videbis gloriam Dei. 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. Secundus fructus est visio aeternae gloriae, quae debetur fidei pro praemio; unde dicit videbis gloriam Dei; Is. VII, 9, secundum aliam litteram: si non credideritis, non intelligetis. I Cor. XIII, 12: videmus nunc per speculum, et in aenigmate, per fidem, tunc autem facie ad faciem. 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." Impletionem mandati ponit inferens tulerunt ergo lapidem. Ubi considerandum est, secundum Origenem, quod mora tollendi lapidem adiacentem, ex sorore defuncti causata est. Et ideo, tamdiu resuscitatio fratris dilata est quamdiu Christum per verba detinuit, sed statim cum Christi mandatum obediendo exequitur, frater resuscitatur. Ut per hoc discamus nihil interponere inter iussa Iesu et ipsorum executionem, si cupimus quod statim salutis sequatur effectus; Ps. XVII, 45: in auditu auris obedivit mihi. 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). Hic agitur de Christi oratione, in qua gratias agit: circa quam Evangelista quatuor ponit. Primo ponit orandi modum; secundo orationis efficaciam; tertio excludit orandi necessitatem; quarto subiungit orationis utilitatem. 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. Modum autem orandi ponit congruentem quia elevatis sursum oculis; idest, intelligentiam suam erexit, adducens illam per orationem ad excelsum patrem. Nobis autem, si ad exemplum orationis Christi orare volumus, necesse est levare oculos mentis nostrae ad eum, removendo illos a praesentibus rebus, memoria, cogitationibus et intentionibus. Levamus etiam oculos ad Deum quando non confidentes de meritis nostris, de sola misericordia speramus, secundum illud Ps. CXXII, 1: ad te levavi oculos meos qui habitas in caelis, et: sicut oculi ancillae in manibus dominae suae, ita oculi ad dominum Deum nostrum, donec misereatur nostri; Thren. III, 41: levemus corda nostra cum manibus ad dominum in caelis. 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). Orationis autem efficaciam ponit, cum dicit pater, gratias ago tibi, quoniam audisti me. In quo argumentum habemus, quod Deus facilis est ad largiendum, secundum illud Ps. X, 17: desiderium pauperum exaudivit dominus, ut sic desiderium, etiam antequam proferat verba, exaudiat; Is. c. XXX, 19: ad vocem clamoris tui statim ut audierit, respondebit tibi; et LXV, 24: adhuc illis loquentibus, dicam, ecce adsum. Multo ergo magis expedit arbitrari de domino salvatore, quod Deus pater praeveniens eius orationem, eum exaudierit: nam lacrymae quas Christus pro morte Lazari fuderat, vicem orationis habuerunt. 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. Per hoc autem quod in principio orationis gratias agit, datur nobis exemplum quod cum orare volumus, antequam futura petamus, pro perceptis beneficiis Deo gratias referamus; I Thess. V, 18: in omnibus gratias agite. 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). Quod autem dicit quoniam audisti me, si exponatur de Christo, secundum quod homo, non habet difficultatem: sic enim Christus minor patre erat, et secundum hoc competit sibi orare patrem, et exaudiri ab eo. Si vero, ut Chrysostomus vult, exponatur de Christo, secundum quod Deus, tunc verbum difficultatem habet: nam secundum hoc, ei orare non convenit nec exaudiri sed potius aliorum orationes exaudire. Et ideo dicendum, quod tunc aliquis auditur quando voluntas eius impletur. Voluntas autem patris semper impletur, quia, ut dicitur in Ps. CXIII, 3, omnia quaecumque voluit dominus fecit. Cum ergo eadem sit voluntas patris et filii, quandocumque pater implet voluntatem suam, implet voluntatem filii. Dicit ergo filius, secundum quod verbum, quoniam audisti me, idest, fecisti quae erant in verbo tuo ut fierent. Dixit enim, et perfecta sunt. 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. Necessitatem autem orandi excludit dicens ego autem sciebam quoniam semper me audis et cetera. Ubi quasi obumbrate dominus suam divinitatem ostendit, quasi diceret: ad hoc ut fieret voluntas mea, non indigeo oratione, quia ab aeterno voluntas mea impleta est; Hebr. V, 7: in omnibus exauditus est pro sua reverentia. Nam ego sciebam, scilicet certitudinaliter, quoniam semper me, verbum, audis: quia quidquid facis, in me est ut fiat. 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. Item me, hominem, semper audis, quia voluntas mea semper est conformis voluntati tuae, sed propter populum qui circumstat, ut credant quia tu me misisti. In quo datur intelligi quod multa fecit et dixit propter utilitatem aliorum; infra c. XIII, 15: exemplum dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis. Nam omnis Christi actio, nostra est instructio. Voluit autem Christus specialiter per istam operationem demonstrare, se non esse alienum a patre, sed recognoscebat eum ut suum principium: et ideo subdit ut credant quia tu me misisti; infra XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum; Gal. c. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege. Et in hoc ponitur orationis utilitas. 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. Hic agitur de suscitatione Lazari, et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponitur vox excitantis; secundo vocis effectus ibi et statim prodiit qui fuerat mortuus; tertio mandatum de solutione excitati, ibi dicit eis Iesus: solvite eum. 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. Vox autem excitantis ponitur magna, unde dicit haec cum dixisset, scilicet Iesus, voce magna clamavit: et hoc ad litteram, ut destrueret errorem gentilium et quorumdam Iudaeorum, dicentium animas mortuorum commorari in tumulis cum corporibus. Et ideo clamat, quasi animam ex longinquo evocans in tumulo non existentem. 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. Vel dicendum, et melius, quod vox Christi magna dicitur propter virtutis eius magnitudinem: nam tanta virtus eius fuit quod suscitavit Lazarum quatriduanum a morte, quomodo excitaretur dormiens a somno; Ps. c. LXVII, 34: dedit voci suae vocem virtutis. Vox etiam ista magna, repraesentativa est illius magnae vocis quae erit in communi resurrectione, per quam omnes de monumentis resuscitabuntur; Matth. XXV, 6: media nocte clamor factus est et cetera. 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). Clamat, inquam, dicens Lazare, veni foras. Quem ideo ex proprio nomine vocat, quia tanta erat virtus vocis eius quod pariter omnes mortui cogerentur exire, nisi per expressionem nominis virtutem suam ad unum determinasset, ut Augustinus dicit de verbo domini. Datur etiam per hoc intelligi quod Christus vocat peccatores foras exire de conversatione peccati: Apoc. XVIII, 4: exite de illa, populus meus. Item de occultatione eius per confessionem ipsum peccatum manifestando; Iob XXX, 33: si abscondi quasi homo peccatum meum. 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). Consequenter cum dicit et statim prodiit qui fuerat mortuus, ponitur vocis effectus: et primo ponitur mortui resurrectio; secundo resurgentis mortui dispositio. Resurrectio quidem mortui fuit festina ad domini imperium; unde dicit et statim prodiit qui fuerat mortuus. Tanta enim erat virtus vocis Christi ut absque temporis dilatione vitam conferret: sicut erit in resurrectione communi, quando in ictu oculi, mortui audientes tubam canentem, mortui qui in Christo sunt, resurgent primi, ut dicitur I Thess. IV, 15. Iam enim anticipatur officium Christi, quod dicitur supra V, 25: venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent. Sic ergo impletum est quod dixerat dominus: vado, ut excitem eum. 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). Quantum autem ad dispositionem resurgentis, dicitur ligatus, idest habens ligatas manus et pedes institis, idest fasciis, quibus antiqui mortuos involvebant, et facies eius sudario erat ligata, ne scilicet horrorem faceret. Ideo autem ligatum et coopertum resurgere iussit, ut miraculum magis approbaretur. 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. Consequenter cum dicit solvite eum, et sinite abire, mandat ut solvatur. Cuius quidem ratio est, ut ipsimet qui solverent, fidentiores testes essent miraculi, et eius quod fit tenaciorem memoriam haberent. Similiter etiam dum eum tangunt et sibi appropinquant, videant quod vere est ille. Ideo autem addit et sinite abire, ut ostendat miraculum non esse phantasticum. Aliqui enim magi visi sunt aliquando mortuos suscitasse, non tamen ad hoc eos perducere potuerunt ut pristina officia exequerentur: et hoc quidem erat, quia eorum resuscitatio phantastica tantum erat, et non vera. 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. Sciendum est autem, quod hoc totum quod dicitur et statim prodiit mystice exponitur ab Augustino; et hoc dupliciter, secundum duplicem modum prodeundi. Prodit namque peccator quando exit poenitendo a consuetudine peccati ad statum iustitiae; II Cor. VI, 17: exite de medio eorum, et separamini. Qui tamen habet manus ligatas institis, idest carnalibus concupiscentiis: quia adhuc in corpore constituti, alieni a molestiis esse non possunt, etiam a peccatis surgentes, unde apostolus dicit, Rom. VII, 25: ego ipse mente servio legi Dei, carne autem legi peccati. Quod autem facies eius sudario tecta erat, hoc est quod in hac vita plenam cognitionem Dei habere non possumus; I Cor. c. XIII, 12: videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Et ideo solvere eum iubet, et abire: quia post hanc vitam auferentur a peccato surgentibus omnia velamina, ut Deum facie ad faciem contemplentur, ut dicitur I Cor. XIII, v. 12. Tunc enim solvetur corruptibilitas corporis, quae est quasi quoddam vinculum ligans et aggravans animam, ab omni huiusmodi plena et clara contemplatione; Is. LII, v. 2: solve vincula colli tui, captiva filia Sion. Sic ergo apparet unus modus spiritualiter prodeundi, qui ponitur ab Augustino, libro LXXXIII quaestionum. 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] Alius modus prodeundi est per confessionem, de quo dicitur Prov. XXVIII, 13: qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur; qui autem confessus fuerit, et reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Sic enim prodire est ab occultis exeundo, per confessionem manifestari; sed ut confitearis, Deus facit voce, idest gratia, magna vocando. Mortuus autem procedens adhuc ligatus, est confitens adhuc reus. Ut autem solvantur peccata eius, ministris mandatur ut solvant eum, et sinant abire. Nam quem Christus per seipsum interius vivificat, discipuli solvunt, quia ministerio sacerdotum vivificati absolvuntur; Matth. XVI, 19: quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis. 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). Dicunt autem quidam hoc mysterium prosequentes, quod sicut Christus Lazarum per seipsum vivificavit, vivificatum a discipulis absolvendum mandavit; ita Deus interius vivificat animam per gratiam, remittendo culpam, et absolvendo a reatu poenae aeternae, sed sacerdotes virtute clavium absolvunt a parte poenae temporalis. Sed haec positio nimis parum attribuit Ecclesiae clavibus. Hoc est enim proprium sacramentorum novae legis quod in eis gratia conferatur. Sacramenta autem in dispensatione ministrorum consistunt, unde in sacramento poenitentiae contritio et confessio se tenent materialiter, ex parte suscipientis sacramentum; vis autem causativa sacramenti est in absolutione sacerdotis, ex virtute clavium, per quas effectum dominicae passionis quodammodo applicat ad eum quem absolvit, ut remissionem consequatur. Si ergo sacerdos non absolveret nisi solum a poena, sacramentum poenitentiae non esset gratiae collativum, per quam culpa remittitur; et per consequens non esset sacramentum novae legis. Est ergo dicendum, quod sicut in sacramento Baptismi sacerdos verba proferens et exterius abluens, ministerium Baptismi exhibet, Christo interius baptizante, ita sacerdos exterius virtute clavium ministerium absolutionis impendit, Christo per gratiam culpam remittente. 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] Sed hoc dubium facere videtur quod ad Baptismum plerumque accedunt pueri, non ante Baptismum iustificati, qui in Baptismo remissionis gratiam consequuntur; sed ad absolutionem consequendam accedunt adulti plerumque antea per contritionem, peccatorum remissionem consecuti: ut sic sequens absolutio nihil facere videatur ad peccatorum remissionem. 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. Sed si quis diligenter consideret, ex utraque parte adultos accipiens, invenietur omnimoda similitudo. Contingit enim aliquos adultos, antequam actu sacramentum Baptismi consequantur, habentes illud in voto, remissionem peccatorum consequi, Baptismo flaminis baptizari; et tamen Baptismus sequens, quantum est de se, remissionem peccatorum operatur, licet in isto cui iam sunt remissa, hoc locum non habeat, sed solum augmentum gratiae consequatur. Si quis autem adultus ante Baptismum non perfecte fuisset dispositus ad consequendum remissionem peccatorum, in ipso actu dum baptizatur remissionem consequitur virtute Baptismi, nisi ponat per fictionem obstaculum spiritui sancto. Et similiter est dicendum in poenitentia. Si quis enim ante absolutionem sacerdotis plene contritus fuerit, consequitur remissionem peccatorum, eo quod habet in voto ut subiiciat se Ecclesiae clavibus, sine quo vera contritio non esset. Si autem antea non plena fuisset contritio sufficiens ad remissionem, in ipsa absolutione remissionem culpae consequitur, nisi ponat obstaculum spiritui sancto. Et similiter est in Eucharistia et extrema unctione, et in aliis sacramentis. 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.
Lectio 7 LECTURE 7 Postquam Evangelista posuit Lazari mortem et eius resurrectionem, hic consequenter ponit effectum resurrectionis, et primo ponit effectum eius in turba; secundo ponit effectum eius in principibus, ibi collegerunt ergo pontifices et Pharisaei Concilium. 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). Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit quosdam credentes, dicens multi ergo ex Iudaeis qui venerant ad Mariam et Martham, ad eas consolandas, et viderant quae fecit Iesus, crediderunt in eum. Nec mirum, quia tale miraculum non est auditum a saeculo, quod scilicet mortuus quatriduanus in monumento resuscitaretur ad vitam. Similiter etiam dominus dicit, miraculum istud se facturum propter populum qui circumstabat, ut scilicet credant in eum: et ideo verbum istud non ivit incassum, sed ex miraculo viso multi crediderunt. I Cor. c. I, 22: Iudaei signa quaerunt. 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). Secundo inducit quosdam denuntiantes, dicens quidam autem ex ipsis venerunt ad Pharisaeos et cetera. Quod quidem potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo quod dixerunt ea quae Iesus fecit principibus sacerdotum, ut mitigarent eos adversus Iesum, et ut confutarent eos de hoc quod adversus Iesum, qui tam mira faciebat, machinarentur. Alio modo, et melius, quia hoc dixerunt ut concitarent eos contra Christum. Nam infideles erant, et de miraculo scandalizabantur. Et hoc patet ex ipso modo loquendi. Nam cum dixerat multi ergo ex Iudaeis (...) crediderunt in eum. Subiungit quasi adversantem, dicens quidam autem ex ipsis abierunt ad Pharisaeos et cetera. Hi sunt de quibus dicitur infra XII, 37, quod cum tanta signa fecisset Iesus coram eis, non crediderunt in eum (...) dilexerunt enim gloriam hominum magis quam gloriam Dei. 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 Jewsbelieved 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 himFor they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (12:37, 43). Consequenter cum dicit collegerunt ergo pontifices et Pharisaei Concilium, ponit Evangelista effectum miraculi in principibus, et primo ponit malitiam quam contra Christum excogitaverunt; secundo ostendit quomodo Christus eam declinavit, ibi Iesus ergo iam non in palam ambulabat apud Iudaeos. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit Concilii congregationem; secundo subdit congregatorum dubitationem, ibi et dicebant: quid facimus, quia hic homo multa signa facit? Tertio assignat dubitationis determinationem, ibi unus autem ex ipsis et cetera. 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). Ostenditur autem circa primum pontificum nequitia ex tribus. Primo ex personarum conditione, quia non plebei, sed pontifices et Pharisaei. Pontifices autem, quia erant principes sacrorum; Pharisaei vero, quia speciem religionis habebant, ut sic impleatur quod dicitur Gen. penult., 5: Simeon et levi fratres, vasa bellantia iniquitatis. Nam de Simeone fuerunt adinventores sectae Pharisaeorum. Pontifices autem manifestum est de tribu levi fuisse; I Esd. IX, 2: manus principum prima erat in transgressione hac. 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. Secundo ex malitiae deliberatione; unde dicit collegerunt Concilium, quod est factum ad consiliandum; Gen. penult., 6: in consilium eorum non veniat anima mea; Ps. I, 1: beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et cetera. Sed, ut dicitur Prov. XXI, 30: non est consilium contra dominum. 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). Tertio ex prava intentione, quia adversus Iesum, idest salvatorem; Ps. XL, 8: adversum me loquebantur inimici mei, adversum me cogitabant mala mihi; Ier. XVIII, 18: venite, cogitemus contra Ieremiam cogitationes. Consequenter cum dicit quid facimus, quia hic homo multa signa facit? 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). Ponit ipsorum dubitationem, et primo ponit dubitationis motivum; secundo dubitationis materiam, ibi si dimittimus eum sic, omnes credent in eum. 1568 Now (v 47b), he mentions their problem: first, he gives the reason for this problem; secondly, the core of the problem (v 48). Movebant autem eos ad dubitandum miracula Christi; unde dicebant quid facimus, quia hic homo multa signa facit? Caeci sunt, adhuc eum hominem vocantes, cuius tantam susceperunt divinitatis demonstrationem. Nam, ut ipse dicit supra c. V, 36: opera quae dedit mihi pater ut faciam, ipsa testimonium perhibent de me. Sunt etiam non minus insipientes quam caeci: quia dubitant quid eos facere oporteat, cum nihil aliud eis faciendum erat, quam credere; supra VI, 30: quod signum facis, ut credamus tibi? Sed ecce quod multa signa fecit, et adhuc dicunt quia hic homo multa signa facit. Excaecavit enim eos malitia eorum: Sap. II, 21. 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). Materia autem dubitationis fuit, quia timebant damna eos secutura. Et ponit duo quantum ad hoc. Primo amissionem principatus spiritualis; et quantum ad hoc dicit si dimittimus eum sic, omnes credent in eum: quod quidem secundum rei veritatem optabile erat omnibus, nam fides quae est ad Christum, salvat et ad vitam aeternam perducit; infra XX, v. 31: haec scripta sunt ut credatis (...) et ut credentes vitam habeatis in nomine eius. Sed quantum ad eorum pravam intentionem eis horrendum videbatur, cum crederent, nullum eorum qui crederent in Christum, eis obedire. Unde ex eorum ambitione seipsos et alios retrahunt a salute. Unde dicitur in III Canon. Io.: is quis amat primatum gerere in eis, Diotrephes, non recipit nos. 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 believeand 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). Secundo ponit ambitionem possessionis temporalis, cum dicit et venient Romani, et tollent nostrum locum, et gentem: quod videtur ex hoc sequi, secundum Augustinum: quia si omnes in Christum crederent, nemo remaneret qui adversus Romanos templum Dei defenderet, quia desererent sanctum templum et suas paternas leges, contra quas doctrinam Christi esse sentiebant. Sed hoc non videtur multum ad propositum pertinere, cum adhuc servirent Romanis, nec excogitassent contra eos movere bellum. Et ideo melius videtur dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod ideo hoc dicebant quia videbant Christum honorari a populo tamquam rex. Et quia mandatum Romanorum erat ut nullus nisi per eos rex nominaretur, ideo timebant quod si hoc audirent Romani, quod Christum haberent tamquam regem, reputarent ipsos Iudaeos rebelles et venientes contra eos, destruerent civitatem et gentem; infra XIX, 12: omnis qui se regem facit, contradicit Caesari. 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). Sed attende eorum miseriam, quia nihil timent perdere nisi temporalia, de vita aeterna non cogitantes; Deut. XXXIII, 28: oculus Iacob ad terram. Sed, ut dicitur Proverb. XVI, 24, quod timet impius, veniet super eum. Ideo Romani post passionem domini et glorificationem, tulerunt eis et locum et gentem, expugnando et transferendo. 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. Determinationem autem dubitationis ponit, cum dicit unus autem ex ipsis Caiphas nomine, cum esset pontifex anni illius, dixit eis. Et primo ponitur determinatio; secundo determinationis expositio, ibi hoc a semetipso non dixit; tertio sententiae a congregatione acceptatio, ibi ab illo ergo die cogitaverunt ut interficerent eum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describit personam sententiantis; secundo ponit verba sententiae, ibi vos nescitis quidquam et cetera. 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. Persona sententians describitur ex nomine et ex dignitate. Ex nomine quidem, quia Caiphas; quod quidem nomen convenit suae malitiae. Interpretatur enim primo investigans, quod attestatur suae praesumptioni; Prov. XXV, 27: qui scrutator est maiestatis, opprimetur a gloria. Praesumpsit enim cum dixit: adiuro te per Deum vivum, ut dicas nobis si tu es Christus. Secundo interpretatur sagax, quod attestatur eius astutiae, quia nititur mortem Christi procurare. Tertio interpretatur ore vomens, quod attestatur eius stultitiae; Prov. XXVI, 11: sicut canis qui revertitur ad vomitum. 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). Ex dignitate autem describitur, quia pontifex anni illius. Circa quod sciendum est, quod, ut habetur Lev. VIII, dominus constituit unum summum sacerdotem, cui mortuo unus succederet, qui per totam vitam pontificis officium exerceret. Postmodum autem, crescente ambitione et contentione inter Iudaeos, constitutum est ut plures essent pontifices, et ad omnes vicissim huiusmodi dignitas proveniret, et per annos singulos vicibus ministrarent. Et quandoque etiam hoc sibi pecunia procurabant; ut Iosephus de isto narrat. Et ad hoc ostendendum dicit anni illius. 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. Consequenter cum dicit vos nescitis quidquam etc., ponit verba determinantis: qui quidem primo exprobrat aliis ignaviam, dicens vos nescitis quidquam, nec cogitatis, quasi dicat: vos estis ignavi, et adhuc segnius rem attenditis. Et ideo, secundo, ponit suam malitiam, dicens expedit vobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo. 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. Quae quidem verba alium intellectum habent, secundum intentionem Caiphae, et alium, secundum expositionem Evangelistae. Ut ergo primo exponatur secundum eius pravam intentionem, sciendum est, quod, ut dicitur Deut. XIII, 1 ss., mandatum est domini: si fuerit in medio tui propheta, aut qui somnium vidisse se dicat, et voluerit te a domino retrahere, propheta ille, ut fictor somniorum, interficiatur. Secundum hanc ergo legem credebat iste, quod Christus averteret populum a cultu Dei; Lc. XXIII, 2: hunc invenimus subvertentem gentem nostram. Et ideo dicebat iste vos nescitis, scilicet legem, nec cogitatis quia expedit vobis, scilicet ut unus, idest iste homo, moriatur, ne totus populus seducatur; quasi dicat: unius hominis salutem pro communi republica oportet contemnere. Unde sequitur Deut. XIII, 5: et auferes malum de medio populi tui; I Cor. V, 13: auferte malum ex vobis ipsis. 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 dreamsand 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). Sed aliter Evangelista exponit, dicens hoc autem a semetipso non dixit et cetera. Ubi tria ponit. Primo horum verborum auctorem; secundo ipsorum rectum sensum, ibi quia Iesus moriturus erat pro gente; tertio addit Evangelista ad verba Caiphae, ibi et non tantum pro gente, sed ut filios Dei qui erant dispersi, congregaret in unum. 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). Circa primum sciendum est, quod quia posset aliquis credere Caipham instinctu proprio verba dicta protulisse, Evangelista hoc excludens dicit hoc autem a semetipso non dixit. In quo datur intelligi, quod aliquis aliquando a semetipso loquitur. Homo enim est illud quod principale est in ipso, hoc autem est intellectus et ratio: unde homo id quod est, per rationem est. Quando ergo homo loquitur ex propria ratione, tunc loquitur a semetipso, sed quando loquitur ab aliquo superiori et exteriori instinctu, non loquitur a semetipso. Dupliciter tamen hoc contingit. Quandoque ut motus a spiritu divino, secundum illud Matth. X, v. 20: non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus patris vestri qui loquitur in vobis. Quandoque autem ut motus a spiritu maligno, sicut arreptitii: et utique aliquando dicuntur prophetare. Quod quidem moti a spiritu divino prophetent, dicitur II Petr. I, 21: non enim voluntate humana allata est aliquando prophetia, sed a spiritu sancto inspirati, locuti sunt sancti Dei homines. Quod autem moti a spiritu maligno prophetent, habetur Ier. XXIX, 26: dedit te dominus sacerdotem pro Ioiada sacerdote, ut sis dux in domo domini super omnem virum arreptitium et prophetantem. 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." Sciendum est etiam, quod aliquando loquitur aliquis instinctu spiritus sancti vel spiritus maligni, qui tamen amittit usum rationis, et arripitur. Aliquando autem manet ei liber usus rationis, nec arripitur. Nam quando superabundant vires sensitivae ex superiori impressione, ligatur ratio, et movetur, et arreptus est. Quia vero Daemon habet potestatem imprimendi in phantasiam, cum sit potentia affixa organo, potest in eam aliquando sic imprimere quod ex impressionis abundantia ratio efficiatur quasi ligata, non tamen quod cogatur ad consensum; et tunc homo arripitur a spiritu maligno. 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. Restat ergo quaestio an Caiphas verba ista instinctu spiritus sancti dixerit, vel maligni. Et videtur quod non dixerit instinctu spiritus sancti: nam spiritus sanctus est spiritus veritatis, ut dicitur Ier. c. XV. Spiritus autem malignus est spiritus mendacii; III Reg. ult., 22: egrediar, et ero spiritus mendax in ore omnium prophetarum. Constat autem quod Caiphas locutus fuerit mendacium, dicens expedit vobis ut unus moriatur. Non ergo locutus est instinctu spiritus sancti, ut videtur, sed prophetavit instinctu spiritus maligni arreptitii. 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. Hoc autem non videtur consonare dictis Evangelistae: nam si ita esset, Ioannes non addidisset cum esset pontifex anni illius. Ideo ergo Caiphae dignitatem addidit, ut insinuaret eum instinctu spiritus sancti fuisse locutum. Ex quo datur nobis intelligi quod etiam malos in dignitate constitutos spiritus sanctus movet ad loquendum aliqua vera et futura pro utilitate dumtaxat subditorum. Ad illud ergo quod in contrarium dicitur, scilicet falsum esse quod dixit expedit vobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo, dupliciter responderi potest. Uno modo, quod mors Christi quantum est de se, expediens fuit omnibus, etiam his qui eum occiderunt; I Tim. IV, 10: qui est salvator omnium hominum, maxime fidelium: Hebr. II, 9: ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem. Alio modo ut dicatur expedit vobis, idest populo. Unde Evangelista, ubi Caiphas dicit ut moriatur pro vobis, ponit pro gente. 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. Sed videtur ex verbis Evangelistae quod fuit propheta, cum dicit prophetavit. Si enim prophetat quis, sequitur eum esse prophetam. Sed, secundum Origenem, non sequitur quod quicumque prophetat sit propheta: sed si propheta est, utique prophetat; nam alicui quandoque conceditur actus alicuius rei, cuius tamen conditio ei non conceditur; sicut non quicumque facit aliquid iustum, est iustus, sed qui iustus est, iusta facit. 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. Notandum est autem, quod duplex actus concurrit ad hoc quod aliquis prophetet: scilicet videre; I Reg. IX, 9: qui nunc dicitur propheta, olim vocabatur videns. Item annuntiare: I Cor. XIV, 3: propheta omnibus loquitur ad aedificationem. Contingit autem quandoque quod utrumque aliquis habet, non tamen proprie dicitur propheta: nam quandoque aliquis habet propheticam visionem, sicut Nabuchodonosor et Pharao; et similiter ipsam visionem aliis nuntiaverunt; non tamen prophetae dici possunt, quia defuit eis aliquid, scilicet intelligentia visionis, qua opus est in visione, ut dicitur Dan. X, 1. Caiphas autem licet visionem propheticam non habuerit, habuit tamen denuntiationem rei propheticae, inquantum scilicet denuntiavit utilitatem mortis Christi. Quandoque namque spiritus sanctus movet ad totum quod pertinet ad prophetiam, quandoque autem ad aliquid tantum. Caiphae autem nec mentem illuminavit, nec imaginationem; et ideo eius mens et imaginatio ad malum intenta mansit: movit tamen linguam eius, ut proferret modum quo salus populi impleretur. Unde non dicitur propheta nisi inquantum habuit propheticum actum in denuntiatione, imaginatione et ratione eius ad contrarium existente. Ex quo patet quod non magis potest dici propheta quam asina Balaam. 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 Danieland 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. Consequenter cum dicit et non tantum pro gente, sed ut filios Dei qui erant dispersi, congregaret in unum, addit Evangelista ad verba pontificis, dicens, quod Iesus non tantum moriturus erat pro gente populi, scilicet Iudaeorum, ut Caiphas dixit, Hebr. ult. 12: Iesus ut sanctificaret per suum sanguinem populum, extra portam passus est, sed addit etiam pro toto mundo; unde subdit ut filios Dei qui dispersi erant, congregaret in unum. 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. Ubi cavenda est haeresis Manichaeorum dicentium, animas aliquas esse de substantia divina, et vocari filios Dei; et ad has congregandas in unum dicunt Deum venisse. Sed hoc est erroneum; quia, ut dicitur Ez. c. XVIII, 4: omnes animae meae sunt, scilicet creatione. Et ideo quod dicit ut filios Dei qui erant dispersi, congregaret in unum, non est intelligendum quod tunc iam accepissent adoptionis spiritum: quia, ut Gregorius dicit, nec oves eius neque filii Dei adhuc erant per adoptionem. Sed est intelligendum secundum praedestinationem, ut dicatur ut filios Dei, scilicet ab aeterno praedestinatos, Rom. c. VIII, 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imagini filii eius, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus, qui erant dispersi, per diversos ritus et gentes, congregaret in unum, scilicet in unitatem fidei; supra X, 16: alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili, et illas oportet me adducere (...) et fiet unum ovile et unus pastor; Ps. CXLVI, 2: aedificans Ierusalem dominus, dispersiones Israelis congregabit. 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 alsoso 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. Consequenter cum dicit ab illo ergo die cogitaverunt ut interficerent eum, ponit Evangelista consensum Iudaeorum in mortem Christi. Sed numquid non ante cogitaverunt eum occidere? Videtur quod sic: quia supra in pluribus locis dicitur, quod Iudaei quaerebant eum interficere. Responsio. Dicendum quod ante habuerunt quidem instinctum ad eum occidendum; sed ab illo die, concitati ad iram ex verbis Caiphae, tractaverunt firmo proposito eum occidere. Prov. I, 16: pedes eorum ad malum currunt. 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).
Lectio 8 LECTURE 8 Hic Evangelista ponit quomodo Christus eorum malitiam declinavit, et primo ponit modum declinationis ex parte Christi; secundo effectum admirationis ex parte populi, ibi proximum autem erat Pascha Iudaeorum. 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). Modus autem declinationis fuit per occultationem, et recessum Christi a Iudaeis. Nam post consilium cautius se observans, non in palam ambulabat apud Iudaeos, sed nec ad aliquam civitatem abiit populatam sed in regionem remotam, iuxta desertum in civitatem quae dicitur Ephrem, et ibi morabatur cum discipulis suis. Sed numquid defecerat potentia eius, in qua, si vellet, inter Iudaeos palam conversaretur, et nihil ei facerent? Absit. 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. Sed hoc fecit non propter defectum potentiae sed ut exemplum discipulis demonstraret. In quo apparet non esse peccatum, si fideles eius, oculis persequentium se subtraherent, et furorem sceleratorum latendo potius evitarent, quam se ostendendo eis, magis accenderent: secundum illud Matth. X, 23: si vos persecuti fuerint in una civitate, fugite in aliam. 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). Origenes autem dicit, quod nullus debet se periculis ingerere; tamen valde laudabile est quod quando iam pericula imminent, nec Iesu vitare confessionem, nec recusare subire mortem, gratia veritatis. Et hoc propter duas rationes. Primo, quia valde praesumptuosum est periculis se ingerere propter inexperientiam propriae virtutis, quae quandoque fragilis invenitur, et propter futuri eventus incertitudinem; I Cor. X, 12: qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat. Secundo ne nos ingerentes persecutoribus, occasionem praestemus eis, ut magis impii et noxii fiant; I Cor. X, v. 32: sine offensione estote Iudaeis, et gentibus, et Ecclesiae Dei. 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). Ponitur effectus admirationis in populo, et primo ponitur admirandi occasio; secundo ponitur ipsa admiratio; tertio admirationis ratio. 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. Occasio autem quaerendi et admirandi ponitur duplex. Prima quidem ex conditione temporis, quia proximum erat Pascha Iudaeorum: in quo recolitur memoria transitus Hebraeorum de Aegypto; Ex. XII, 11: est enim phase, idest transitus domini. Addit autem Iudaeorum, quia ipsum Pascha Iudaei male et indebite celebrabant: nam quando devote Pascha celebramus, tunc dicitur Pascha Dei, Is. I, 13: solemnitates vestras non feram. 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). Secunda vero ex concursu populi, quia ascenderunt multi Ierosolymam de regione: nam, ut legitur Ex. XXIII, tribus temporibus in anno, seu festivitatibus, filii Israel se debebant domino praesentare, inter quae primum erat Pascha, et ideo magna multitudo ascendebat Ierosolymam, ubi erat templum. Sed quia nondum erat tempus Paschae, quo debebant ascendere, ideo Evangelista consequenter causam ascensus assignat, subdens ut sanctificarent seipsos: nullus enim audebat comedere agnum nisi mundus, et ideo praeveniebant tempus Paschae, ut interim purificantes seipsos, possent in Pascha agnum rite comedere. In quo datur nobis exemplum, ut tempore quadragesimali ieiuniis et bonis operibus nos purificemus, ut in Pascha rite sumamus corpus domini nostri. 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. Admiratio autem ponitur ex causa absentiae domini: et hoc est quod dicit quaerebant ergo Iesum, non quidem ad honorandum, sed ad occidendum, et colloquebantur adinvicem in templo stantes: quid putatis, quia non venit ad diem festum istum? Sed notandum, quod quando dies festus agitur sancte, semper dominus est in die festo; Matth. c. XVIII, 20: ubicumque fuerint duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum. Et ideo nos congregati in domo Dei, quaeramus Iesum, mutuo nos consolando et exorando ut veniat ad diem festum nostrum. Quando vero non sancte agitur festum, tunc non venit Iesus; Is. I, 14: Kalendas vestras et solemnitates vestras odivit anima mea. 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). Ratio autem admirationis et absentiae Iesu subditur quia dederant pontifices et Pharisaei mandatum, ut si quis cognoverit ubi sit, scilicet Iesus, indicet, ut apprehendant eum, scilicet ad occidendum. Supra VIII, 21: quaeritis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Sed, ut Augustinus dicit, nos qui scimus ubi Christus est, quia ad dexteram patris, indicemus eis, ut sic utinam apprehendant eum per fidem. 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[17] See T ract. 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[41] Origen, In Ioan., XXVIII, ch. 18; PG 14, col. 397; cf. Catena Aurea, 54-57.