12
Lectio 1 LECTURE I In praecedentibus Evangelista ostendit divinitatis Christi virtutem per ea quae in vita fecit et docuit; hic autem incipit ostendere virtutem divinitatis ipsius quantum ad passionem et mortem eius: 1589 So far the Evangelist has been showing the power of Christ's divinity by what he did and taught during his public life. Now he begins to show the power of his divinity as manifested in his passion and death. et primo agit de passione et morte eius; secundo de resurrectione ipsius, XX capitulo, ibi una autem sabbati et cetera. Prima pars dividitur in tres. In prima ostendit causas sive occasiones passionis et mortis eius; in secunda ponitur praeparatio discipulorum, a quibus per mortem erat corporaliter recessurus, XIII capitulo, ibi ante diem festum Paschae etc.; in tertia agitur de ipsa passione et morte eius, XVIII capit., ibi haec cum dixisset Iesus, egressus est et cetera. First, he treats of Christ's passion and death; secondly, of his resurrection (c 20). The first is divided into three parts: in the first he states what caused or occasioned Christ's passion and death; in the second, how Christ prepared his disciples, since his death involved his physical separation from them (c 13); in the third, he describes his passion and death (c 18). Causa autem, sive occasio passionis Christi fuit duplex: scilicet gloria ipsius Christi, quae invidiam excitavit, et infidelitas Iudaeorum, quae ipsos excaecavit. Primo agit de gloria Christi; secundo de infidelitate Iudaeorum, ibi cum autem tanta signa fecisset coram eis, non credebant in eum. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quomodo Christus glorificatus est ab hominibus; secundo quomodo glorificatus est a Deo, ibi nunc anima mea turbata est et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quomodo glorificatus est a familiaribus et domesticis; secundo quomodo glorificatus est a turbis Iudaeorum, ibi cognovit ergo turba multa etc.; tertio quomodo glorificatus est a gentilibus, ibi erant autem gentiles et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit gloriam Christi in ministerio sibi a familiaribus exhibito; secundo zelum proditoris ex hoc concitatum, ibi dixit ergo unus ex discipulis et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit tempus; secundo locum, ibi venit Iesus in Bethaniam etc.; tertio obsequium Christo exhibitum, ibi fecerunt autem ei coenam et cetera. Now there were two things which caused or occasioned the passion of Christ: the glory of Christ, which aroused the envy of the Jews, and their disbelief, which blinded them. So first, he treats of the glory Christ received; secondly, of the unbelief of the Jews (v 37). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how Christ received glory from other people; secondly, how he received glory from God (v 27). Concerning the first he does three things: first, he shows how Christ received glory from his intimate friends; secondly, from the crowd of the Jewish people (v 9): thirdly, from the Gentiles (v 20). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he shows the glory Christ received by being ministered to by his friends; secondly, how this kindled the indignation of the one who was to betray him (v 4). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he describes the time; secondly, the place (v 1); and thirdly, the kindness shown to Christ (v 2). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est, quod Christus ante festum Paschae abiit in regionem iuxta desertum, et quod imminente solemnitate paschali quaerebatur a Iudaeis. Ergo imminente paschali tempore, quo agnus typicus immolabatur, ipse tamquam verus agnus ad locum passionis accessit, pro salute mundi voluntarie immolandus: secundum illud Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est, quia ipse voluit. 1590 He says first, what we have already stated: that before the Passover Christ went into a region near the wilderness, and since the feast was drawing near, the Jews began to look for him. Thus, when the paschal season was at hand, during which the symbolic lamb was immolated, he, as the true lamb, came to the place where he would suffer and of his own free will be immolated for the salvation of the world: "He was offered because it was his own will," as we read in Isaiah [53:7]. Dicit autem ante sex dies Paschae, ut intelligas diem Paschae non quidem quartum decimum diem primi mensis, in qua ad vesperam immolabatur paschalis agnus, ut habetur Ex. XII, sed potius hic dicitur Pascha decimaquinta dies, quae tota erat festiva, et illo anno occurret feria sexta in qua passus est dominus; ita quod sextus dies ante Pascha, fuit prima feria, id est dies dominicus, in qua dominus ramis palmarum Ierosolymam intravit, et in die praecedenti, scilicet sabbato, Christus venit in Bethaniam: et hoc est quod dicitur ante sex dies Paschae. The Evangelist says Christ came there six days before the Passover, to inform us that by the day of the Passover he did not mean the fourteenth day of the first month (when according to the twelfth chapter of Exodus, the Passover lamb was slain in the evening), but the fifteenth day. This entire day was festive, and that year it fell on the Friday our Lord suffered. Thus the sixth day before the Passover was the first day of the week, i.e., the Palm Sunday on which our Lord entered Jerusalem. Consequently, Christ came to Bethany on the previous day, that is, on the Sabbath. This is what he means by the phrase, six days before the Passover. Convenit autem hic numerus mysteriis. Primo quidem quantum ad numerum: numerus enim senarius perfectus est, unde et Deus opera creationis perfecit sex diebus, ut dicitur Gen. I. Et propter hoc decuit quod sex diebus quodammodo compleretur opus passionis, quo omnia sunt restaurata, secundum illud Coloss. I, 20: pacificans per sanguinem suum sive quae in caelis, sive quae in terris sunt et cetera. II Cor. V, v. 19: Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi. 1591 This number is very appropriate to the mystery to be enacted. First of all, because of the number itself, for six is a perfect number. For God completed the works of creation in six days. For this reason it was appropriate that it should take six days to accomplish the work of the passion, which would restore all things: "to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20); "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19). Secundo congruit mysterio quantum ad figuram. Mandatur enim Ex. XII, quod decima die mensis primi tollat unusquisque per familias suas agnum paschalem immolandum. Unde et dominus decimo die primi mensis, hoc est sexta die ante decimum quintum diem, Ierusalem intrare voluit, quasi ad locum immolationis accedens; ut patet per id quod dicitur infra eodem: in crastino autem turba multa quae venerat ad diem festum, cum audissent quia venit Iesus Ierosolymam, acceperunt ramos palmarum, et processerunt obviam ei. Secondly, it is appropriate to the mystery, considering its foreshadowing. For Exodus (v 12) commanded that on the tenth day of the first month every man was to take a lamb for his household and keep it for the sacrifice. Thus it was also on the tenth day of the first month, i.e., on the sixth day before the fifteenth day, that our Lord decided to enter Jerusalem, drawing near to the place where he would be sacrificed. This is clear from what follows: "The next day a great crowd who had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him" (12:12). Deinde describitur locus: venit Bethaniam et cetera. Bethania autem erat vicus prope Ierusalem, et interpretatur domus obedientiae: unde congruit mysterio. Primo quidem quantum ad causam passionis, secundum illud Phil. II, 8: factus est obediens patri usque ad mortem; secundo quantum ad fructum passionis, quem consequuntur soli illi qui ei obediunt, secundum illud Hebr. V, 9: factus est omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis aeternae et cetera. 1592 Then when he says, Jesus came to Bethany, the place is mentioned. Bethany was a village near Jerusalem, and it means the "house of obedience." This also is appropriate to the mystery. First, as regards a reason for the passion: "He became obedient unto death" (Phil 2:8). Secondly, with respect to the fruit of the passion, which is obtained only by those who obey Christ: "He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Heb 5:9). Signanter autem additur ubi fuerat Lazarus mortuus, quem suscitavit Iesus, quia in domo obedientiae illi qui sunt spiritualiter mortui in peccatis, resuscitantur reducti ad viam iustitiae. Rom. V, 19: per unius hominis obedientiam, iusti constituentur multi. Sed secundum litteram hoc dicitur ad ostendendum quod Christus in Bethaniam venit ut memoriam resurrectionis Lazari revocaret. Ps. CX, 4: memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors et miserator dominus. It is significant that he added, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead, because in the house of obedience those who are spiritually dead are raised to life by being restored to the way of righteousness: "By one man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). According to the literal sense, however, this was written to show that Christ came to Bethany in order to revive the memory of the resurrection of Lazarus: "He has caused his wonderful works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful" as we read in the Psalm (11:4). Deinde cum dicit fecerunt autem ei coenam ibi, ponit obsequium Christo exhibitum a suis familiaribus, et primo in communi quantum ad omnes; secundo in speciali quantum ad singulos, ibi et Martha ministrabat. 1593 Then when he says, there they made him a supper, he mentions the kindness shown to Christ by his friends: first, by his friends in general; secondly, in particular. Martha served, etc. Convenit autem mysterio, quod ibi, idest in Bethania, fecerunt ei coenam, quia dominus in domo obedientiae spiritualiter reficitur, delectatus in obedientia nostra, secundum illud Apoc. III, 20: si quis audierit vocem meam, et aperuerit mihi ianuam, introibo ad illum, et coenabo cum illo, et ipse mecum. 1594 It was also appropriate to this mystery that they served him a supper there, at Bethany, because the Lord is spiritually refreshed in the house of obedience since our obedience pleases him, according to: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me" (Rev 3:20). Deinde ponuntur tres personae ei assistentes vel ministrantes: scilicet Martha, Lazarus et Maria. Per Martham significantur praelati, qui ad ministerium in Ecclesiis instituuntur, secundum illud I Cor. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei. Unde dicitur et Martha ministrabat; Lc. X, 40: Martha autem satagebat circa frequens ministerium. Per Lazarum autem resuscitatum significantur subditi ministerio praelatorum a peccatis ad statum iustitiae reducti, qui cum aliis iustis spiritualiter cum domino epulantur, unde dicitur Lazarus autem unus erat ex discumbentibus cum eo; Ps. LXVII, 4: iusti epulentur, et exultent in conspectu Dei, et delectentur in laetitia. Per Mariam significantur contemplativi. Dicitur enim Lc. X, 39, quod Maria sedens secus pedes domini, audiebat verba illius. 1595 Next he mentions the three people who attended or sat with Jesus: Martha, Lazarus and Mary. Martha signifies the prelates who are appointed to serve in the churches: "This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewardess of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor 4:1). Thus we read that Martha served: "Martha was busy with much serving" [Lk 10:40]. Lazarus, who had been raised to life, signifies those who have been brought from sin to the state of righteousness by the ministry or service of the prelates; and they, alone with the other righteous, feast spiritually with the Lord. Thus he says, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him: "Let the just feast and rejoice before God and be delighted with gladness" [Ps 67:4]. Mary signifies the contemplatives, for we read in Luke (10:39): "Mary sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching." Circa cuius ministerium tria tanguntur, quantum ad litteram pertinet. Primo enim tangitur unguentum in quo obsecuta est; secundo obsequium quod exhibuit, ibi et unxit pedes Iesu; tertio effectum obsequii, ibi et domus impleta est ex odore unguenti. 1596 Three things are mentioned about Mary's kindness: first, the ointment she used; secondly, the kindness she offered; thirdly, its effect. Circa primum tria tangit. Primo quantitatem unguenti, quia multum fuit, unde dicit libram unguenti; Tob. IV, 9: si multum tibi fuerit, abundanter tribue. Secundo materiam, quia fuit ex nardo confectum; unde dicit nardi; Cant. I, 11: dum esset rex in accubitu suo, nardus mea dedit odorem suum. Est autem nardus herba brevis et spicosa et nigra, ex qua fit unguentum, quod vim confortandi habet ex sua aromaticitate. Tertio compositionis formam, in eo quod dicit pistici pretiosi. Et, secundum Augustinum, dicitur pistici a loco, in quo nardus oriebatur. Sed melius est quod exponatur pistici, idest fidelis, hoc est non sophisticati per aliquam admixtionem: nam pistis in Graeco idem est quod fides. Addit autem pretiosi, quia confectum erat ex spica nardi, ex qua pretiosum unguentum fit, et forte admixtis aliis pretiosis rebus. In quo docemur quod ea quae pretiosissima sunt apud nos, Deo debemus offerre, secundum illud Ps. LXV, 15: holocausta offeram tibi cum incenso arietum. Et Mal. I, 14: maledictus dolosus, qui habet in grege suo masculum, et votum faciens, offert domino debile. With regard to the ointment, three things are noted. First, the amount, and it was a large amount, a pound of ointment: "If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion" (Tobit 4:8). Secondly, its matter, for it was made of nard: "While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance" (Song 1:11). Recall that nard is a short black aromatic herb; and the ointment which is made from it has a fragrance which has the power to give strength and comfort. Thirdly, its composition is noted, for the nard is described as pisticus. According to Augustine, the word pisticus is taken from the place where nard originates. [2] However, it is better to interpret this word as meaning "true" or "pure," that is, as not adulterated: for pistis in Greek is the same as our fides [truthful, honest]. He adds that it was costly, because it was made from nard, which is used in costly ointments, and perhaps other expensive ingredients were added to it. This teaches us that we should offer to God those things we regard as most precious: "I will offer to thee burnt offerings of fatlings, with the smoke of the sacrifice of rams" (Ps 66:15); "Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished" (Mal 1:14). Circa obsequium eius primo nota humilitatem in hoc quod dicitur unxit pedes Iesu, ad pedes procidens, secundum illud Ps. c. CXXXI, 7: adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt pedes eius. Secundo devotionem, quia extersit capillis suis, ut de seipsa quodammodo obsequium offerret. Rom. VI, 13: exhibete membra vestra arma iustitiae Deo. See Mary's humility, for she fell down at the feet of Jesus and anointed the feet of Jesus, according to, "Let us worship at his footstool" (Ps 132:7). Secondly, see her devotion, for she wiped his feet with her hair, in this way making an offering of herself: "Yield your members to God as instruments of righteousness" (Rom 6:13). Effectus autem obsequii tangitur consequenter, cum dicit et domus impleta est ex odore unguenti: per quod insinuatur unguenti bonitas, cuius odor totam domum implevit; Cant. I, 3: curremus in odorem unguentorum tuorum. He mentions the effect of her ministering when he says, and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. This tells us of the goodness of this ointment, which filled the entire house: "We will run after thee to the odor of thy ointments" [Song 1:3]. Dubitatur autem utrum haec eadem mulier fuerit de qua dicitur hic quod unxit dominum, et de qua dicitur Lc. VII, v. 37, et Matth. XXVI, 7, et Mc. XIV, 3. Multis quidem videtur, secundum Hieronymum et Chrysostomum, quod mulier peccatrix de qua Lucas narrat, non sit Maria soror Lazari, quae dominum dicitur unxisse. Origenes autem addit, quod non sit eadem etiam de qua Matthaeus et Marcus narrant, sed illa sit quaedam alia tertia: et hoc vult probare ex tribus. Primo quidem ex tempore: nam haec unxit dominum ante sex dies Paschae; illa vero de qua Matthaeus et Marcus narrant, infra biduum ante Pascha. Praemittit enim Matthaeus dominum dixisse: scitis quia post biduum Pascha fiet. Marcus autem: erat Pascha, et azyma post biduum. Secundo ex loco: nam illa mulier legitur dominum unxisse in domo Simonis leprosi; hoc autem colligitur esse factum in domo Marthae, ex hoc quod dicitur quod Martha ministrabat, ut etiam Augustinus dicit. Tertio ex ipso facto: nam illa mulier legitur unxisse caput, haec autem pedes. 1597 The question is raised as to whether this woman is the same woman who anointed our Lord as mentioned in Luke (7:37), Matthew (26:7) and Mark (14:3). We learn from Jerome and Chrysostom that many think that the sinful woman mentioned by Luke is not the sister of Lazarus, Mary, who is said [in John] to have anointed the Lord. [3] Origen adds that [in John] she is also not the woman of whom Matthew and Mark speak, but they were speaking of some other woman. [4] He gives three reasons for this opinion. The first is based on the time: for the woman in John anointed the Lord six days before the Passover, while the woman mentioned by Matthew and Mark did so some time during the two days preceding the Passover. For Matthew prefaces his account by stating that the Lord said: "You know that after two days the Passover is coming" (Matt 26:2); and in Mark we read: "It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of the Unleavened Bread" (Mk 14:1). The second reason is based on the place: for in Matthew and Mark the woman is said to have anointed the Lord in the house of Simon the leper, but in John she seems to be in the house of Martha, for we read that Martha was serving the guests. And Augustine agrees with this. The third reason is from the action itself: for the woman in Matthew and Mark anointed the head of our Lord, while the one in John anointed his feet. Augustinus vero et Gregorius dicunt, quod una et eadem mulier fuit quam quatuor Evangelistae narrant dominum unxisse, sed bis hoc fecit. Primo quidem in principio suae conversionis intermedio tempore praedicationis Christi, quod Lucas narrat; secundo vero imminente Christi passione hoc fecit, quod tres alii Evangelistae narrant. Unde idem factum est quod hic narratur, et quod habetur Matth. XXVI et Mc. XIV. On the other hand, Augustine and Gregory claim that the four Evangelists are speaking of one and the same woman, but that she anointed our Lord twice. [5] The first time, mentioned by Luke, was at the beginning of her conversion, some time during the middle of Christ's public life. The second time, mentioned by the other three Evangelists, was a few days before Christ's passion. Thus the same act is mentioned here in John and in Matthew and Mark. Ad primum ergo quod dicitur de dissonantia temporis, dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod Ioannes ipse servat ordinem historiae; Matthaeus et Marcus per recordationem interponunt quod prius fuerat factum immediate ante proditionem Iudae, quae ex hoc facto creditur occasionem habuisse. Ad secundum quod obiicitur de dissonantia loci, potest intelligi quod eadem sit domus Simonis leprosi, et etiam Mariae et Marthae, ita quod Simon fuerit paterfamilias domus. Dicitur autem leprosus, quia primo leprosus fuerat et a Christo curatus. Ad tertium quod obiicitur de dissonantia facti, dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod mulier unxit et pedes et caput. As for the discrepancy in the time, Augustine says that John preserved the historical order, while Matthew and Mark merely remembered that it took place just prior to Judas' betrayal, which was believed to have been occasioned by this event. As for the argument based on the difference of place, there is no reason why the house of Simon the leper could not be the house of Mary and Martha, since Simon might have been the head of the house. He is called a leper because at one time he was a leper, but was cured by Christ. As far as the act itself is concerned, Augustine says that the woman anointed both the head and feet of Jesus. Et si quis obiiciat quod Marcus dicit, quod, fracto alabastro, effudit super caput ipsius recumbentis, potest dupliciter responderi. Uno modo, quod non fuit ita fractum quin aliquid remanserit, unde pedes possent inungi. Alio modo potest dici quod prius inunxit pedes, postea, fracto alabastro, totum supra caput effudit. 1598 If the objection is raised that according to Mark she broke the alabaster jar and poured ointment on the head of Jesus, one might answer this in two ways. First, that it was broken in such a way that some remained for anointing his feet; secondly, she could have anointed his feet first, and then, breaking the jar, poured the rest on his head. Secundum mysterium autem, per libram quam Maria accepit, designatur opus iustitiae: nam ad iustitiam pertinet singula librare et ponderare; Ez. XLV, 11: iuxta mensuram cori, erit libratio eorum. Opus autem iustitiae debet quadruplici virtute adiuncta esse perfectum. Primo quidem pietate: unde dicit unguenti, quod, quia lenitivum est, misericordiam significat; Iac. II, 13: iudicium sine misericordia illi qui non fecit misericordiam. Secundo humilitate: unde dicit nardi, quae, cum sit herba brevis, significat humilitatem; Eccli. III, 20: quanto magnus es, humilia te in omnibus. Tertio fide: unde dicit pistici, idest fidelis. Habac. II, 4: iustus autem meus ex fide vivit. Quarto caritate: unde dicit pretiosi, sola enim caritas pretium praestat vitae aeternae; I Cor. XIII, v. 3: si distribuero pauperibus omnes facultates meas (...) caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest. 1599 Mystically, the pound Mary used denotes the work of justice, for it belongs to justice to weigh things and give pound for pound: "Their weight shall be equal" [Ezek 45:11]. Now four other virtues must be added if the work of justice is to be perfect. First, compassion: and so he says, ointment, which, because it is soothing, represents mercy: "For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy" (James 2:12). Secondly, humility is needed: so he says, nard, which, since it is a small herb, signifies humility: "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Si 3:18). Thirdly, faith is needed: thus he says, pure (pisticus), that is believing (fidelis): "The righteous shall live by his faith" (Hab 2:4). Fourthly, charity must be present: so he says, costly, for charity alone pays the price for eternal life: "If I give away all I havebut have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Cor 13:3). Opere autem iustitiae unguntur pedes Iesu, et caput suum. Per pedes intelligimus mysterium humanitatis; per caput vero divinitatem, secundum illud I Cor. XI, 3: caput Christi Deus: ut intelligatur caput et pedes Christi ungere qui divinitatem et humanitatem eius veneratur. The works of justice anoint both the feet and head of Jesus. By his feet we understand the mystery of his humanity; and by his head, his divinity, according to: "The head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Thus one who venerates the divinity and humanity of Christ is said to anoint his head and feet. Vel per caput possumus intelligere ipsam Christi personam, secundum illud Eph. I, 22: ipsum dedit caput super omnem Ecclesiam. Per pedes autem, Christi fideles, de quibus Matth. XXV, 40: quod uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis; Is. LII, v. 7: quam pulchri pedes supra montem annuntiantis et praedicantis pacem. Unde caput Christi inungit qui ipsum Christum veneratur; pedes autem qui eius fidelibus obsequitur. Or, we can take the head as indicating the very person of Christ, according to: "He has made him the head over all things for the church" (Eph 1:22). Then the feet are Christ's faithful, of whom we read: "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt 25:40); "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace" (Is 52:7). Thus, one who honors Christ himself, anoints the head of Christ; and one who serves his faithful anoints our Lord's feet. Quia vero capilli ex superfluitate generantur, pedes domini capillis terguntur, quando aliquis ex ipsis quae sibi superfluunt, defectui subvenit proximorum. Lc. XI, 41: verumtamen quod superest, date eleemosynam. Unde Augustinus dicit: si habes superflua, da pauperibus, et domini pedes tersisti. Again, because the hair is produced from what is superfluous in the body, one dries the Lord's feet with his hair when he takes what he has in surplus and relieves the needs of his neighbor: "Give that which remains as alms" [Lk 11:41]. Thus Augustine says: "If you have a surplus of anything, give it to the poor and you have dried the feet of the Lord." [6] Per hoc autem quod dicitur et domus impleta est ex odore unguenti, significatur quod propter opera iustitiae, bona fama totam replet Ecclesiam; II Cor. II, 14: odorem suae notitiae manifestat per nos in omni loco: quia Christi bonus odor sumus. The fact that the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment signifies that because of the works of justice, the Church enjoys and is filled with a good name: "We are the aroma of Christ" (2 Cor 2:15). Deinde cum dicit dixit ergo unus ex discipulis eius etc., ponitur zelus proditoris ex praedicto ministerio concitatus. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit proditoris zelum; secundo ponitur zeli repressio, ibi dixit ergo ei Iesus et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describitur persona proditoris; secundo ponuntur verba eius, ibi quare hoc unguentum non veniit trecentis denariis? etc.; tertio manifestatur eius malitiosa intentio, ibi dixit autem hoc, non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, sed quia fur erat. 1600 Next (v 40), the Evangelist describes the traitor's indignation at this. He does two things concerning it: first, he shows his indignation; secondly, how it was curbed (v 7). Concerning the first he does three things: first, he describes the traitor; secondly, he mentions what he said; and thirdly, he states that his intention was evil (v 6). Persona autem eius manifestatur ex tribus. Primo quidem ex dignitate, cum dicitur dixit ergo unus ex discipulis eius: ut ostendatur quod nullus in quacumque excellentia constitutus de se praesumere debet, quia, ut dicitur Iob IV, 18: in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem. Secundo ex nomine, cum dicit Iudas Iscariotis, nomine. Interpretatur autem Iudas, confitens, ut significetur quod praeter confessionem virtuosam, de qua Rom. X, 10 dicitur: confessio fit ad salutem, est quaedam confessio vituperabilis et mercenaria, de qua dicitur in Ps. XLVIII, 19: confitebitur tibi cum benefeceris ei. Tertio describitur ex crimine, cum dicitur qui erat eum traditurus; Ps. XL, 10: qui edebat panes meos, magnificavit super me supplantationem. 1601 The traitor is portrayed in three ways. First, his dignity is given when he says, one of his disciples. This teaches us that no one should presume on himself no matter to what dignity he has been raised: "His angels he charges with wickedness" [Job 4:18]. Secondly, his name, Judas Iscariot. The name "Judas" means "professing," to indicate to us that in addition to a way of professing that is virtuous - "Man professes with his lips and so is saved" [Rom 10:10] - there is a way of professing that is blameworthy and mercenary - "He will profess you," [that is, profess your praises] "when you have done good to him" [Ps 49:18]. Thirdly, his crime is mentioned, he who was to betray him: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me" (Ps 41:10). Deinde ponuntur verba ipsius, ex quibus ostenditur quod de bono odore unguenti spiritualiter mortuus erat, secundum illud II Cor. II, 15: Christi bonus odor sumus: aliis odor mortis in mortem, aliis autem odor vitae in vitam. Displicebat enim ei quod unguentum non erat venditum, sed effusum in obsequium Christi: unde dicit quare hoc unguentum non veniit, idest venditum est, trecentis denariis? Sed sicut dicitur II Cor. XI, 15, ministri Satanae transfigurantur velut ministri iustitiae. Unde iniquitatem suam sub specie pietatis occultavit, dicens et datum est egenis; Is. XXXII, 6: cor eius faciet iniquitatem, ut perficiat simulationem et loquatur ad dominum fraudulenter. 1602 Then he gives the traitor's words, from which we see that he had died spiritually from the aroma of the ointment, according to: "For we are the aroma of Christto one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life" (2 Cor 2:15). Judas was displeased because the ointment was not sold but poured out as an act of homage to Christ. Thus Judas says, Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii? But as we read in 2 Corinthians (11:14), the ministers of Satan disguise themselves as angels of righteousness. Thus Judas hid his evil under the cloak of piety, saying, and given to the poor: "His heart will work iniquity to practice hypocrisy and speak to the Lord deceitfully" [Is 32:6]. Unde Evangelista eius fraudulentam aperit intentionem, subdens dixit autem hoc, non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, sed quia fur erat. Non enim curabat quod eis subveniretur, quia Prov. XII, v. 10, dicitur: viscera impiorum crudelia, sed quia fur erat, consuetudinem furandi habens, dolebat sibi occasionem furandi sublatam per effusionem unguenti, et ex hac avaritia ductus est ad proditionem: dicitur enim Eccli. X, 9: avaro nihil est scelestius; et supra X, 10: fur non venit nisi ut furetur, et mactet, et perdat. Unde autem furari consueverit, exponit subdens et loculos habens, idest, custos loculorum domini constitutus, ea quae mittebantur, scilicet in loculis, donata a fidelibus ad usum Christi et pauperum, portabat, ministerio, sed asportabat furto. 1603 The Evangelist unmasks the deceit when he adds, This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief. For he was not interested in helping the poor - "The hearts of the wicked are cruel" [Prv 12:10] - but because he was a thief, and accustomed to stealing, he was pained that the use of the ointment had deprived him of an opportunity to steal, and it was this avarice that led to the betrayal, for we read: "Nothing is more wicked than the covetous man" [Sir 10:9]; and "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy" (10:10). He had the opportunity to steal for he had the money box, that is, he was in charge of our Lord's purse, and he used to take what was put into it, i.e., whatever was donated by the faithful for Christ's use and for the poor he carried as a duty, but carried off as a thief. Ubi duo notantur. Primo quod Christus tamquam pauper de eleemosynis vivebat; Ps. XXXIX, 18: ego autem mendicus sum et pauper. Secundo, quod non derogat perfectioni, si eleemosynae in loculis reserventur: unde quod dicitur Matth. VI, v. 34: nolite solliciti esse in crastinum, non intelligitur quod nihil in crastinum debeat reservari, cum dominus hoc fecerit, qui fuit summum exemplar perfectionis. 1604 Two things can be noted here. First, that Christ lived on alms as a poor person: "As for me, I am poor and needy" (Ps 40:17). Secondly, it is not opposed to perfection to keep alms in a money box. Thus what we read in Matthew (6:34), "Do not be anxious about tomorrow," does not forbid one from saving for tomorrow, since our Lord did this very thing, and he is the supreme model of perfection. Sed quaeritur quare dominus Iudae, quem furem sciebat, custodiam loculorum commisit? Ad quod respondendum est tripliciter. Primo quidem, secundum Augustinum, hoc fecit Christus, ut eius Ecclesia cum fures patitur toleraret: non enim est bonus qui malos tolerare non potuit, unde dicitur Cant. c. II, 2: sicut lilium inter spinas, sic amica mea inter filias. Secundo ei loculos dominus commisit, ut perditionis occasionem auferret, cum haberet ex loculis concupiscentiae mitigationem; sed, sicut dicitur Eccle. c. V, 9: avarus non implebitur pecunia. Tertio, secundum alios, ut doceret quod spiritualia sunt maioribus committenda, temporalia vero minus dignis; unde dicitur Act. VI, v. 2, ab apostolis: non est aequum relinquere nos verbum Dei, et ministrare mensis, sed uni de diaconibus hoc ministerium commiserunt. 1605 One might ask why our Lord, since he knew that Judas was a thief, entrusted him with the money box? This can be answered in three ways. First, according to Augustine, Christ did this so that his Church would be patient when it was robbed; for one is not good if he cannot endure those who are evil. [7] Thus we read: "As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). Secondly, our Lord entrusted him with the money box to lessen his danger of final damnation, because he could then satisfy his greed from the money box. But as it is said: "He who loves money will not be satisfied with money" (Eccl 5:10). Thirdly, according to others, he did this in order to teach us that spiritual things should be entrusted to those who are more worthy, and temporal things should be entrusted to the less worthy. Thus the Apostles said: "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables" (Acts 6:2), and they entrusted this work to one of the deacons. Quaeritur etiam quomodo hic dicatur quod solus Iudas de hoc unguento effuso dixerit, cum Matthaeus narret discipulos hoc dixisse. Sed dicendum est, quod Matthaeus ponit numerum pluralem pro numero singulari; sicut Matthaei, II, 20, dicitur: defuncti sunt enim qui quaerebant animam pueri. Vel potest dici, quod Iudas primo murmuravit, et ab eo sunt postmodum alii provocati ut similia verba proferrent, licet non ex eadem intentione. 1606 But why does it say here that only Judas said this when the ointment was poured out, while Matthew says that the disciples said this? One reply is that Matthew uses the plural for the singular, as he also did in "Those who sought the child's life are dead" (2:20). Or, one might answer that Judas was the first to grumble and that this incited the others to say the same, although not from the same motive.
Lectio 2 LECTURE 2 Posito zelo proditoris propter obsequium mulieris, hic consequenter ponitur ipsius zeli repressio, et primo dominus repellit calumniam quam mulieri Iudas iniecerat; secundo excludit piam causam quam praetenderat, ibi pauperes enim semper habebitis vobiscum et cetera. 1607 Having narrated the traitor's indignation at the kindness shown by the woman, the Evangelist now shows how our Lord put a stop to it. First, our Lord answers the unjust criticism Judas spoke against the woman; secondly, he rejects the spiritual reason Judas pretended to have (v 8). Dicit ergo sinite illam, idest, ne prohibeatis eam. Sciendum enim, quod multa bona opera fiunt, de quibus si peteretur consilium antequam fiant, non consuleremus quod fierent, quia forte possent fieri meliora; postquam tamen incipiunt fieri, dummodo iam bona sint, non sunt prohibenda. Et, ut Chrysostomus dicit, forte Iesus antequam mulier effudisset unguentum, potius illud dari pauperibus elegisset; nunc vero quia iam factum erat, prohibentes comprimit, dicens sinite illam. Prov. III, 27: nolite prohibere eum qui bene facit: si vales et ipse benefac. 1608 He says, Let her alone, i.e., do not stop her. For it is well known that many good works are done which if our advice had been sought before they were done, we would not have advised that they be done, because something better could possibly have been done. Yet after they are begun, so long as they are good, they should not be stopped. Thus, as Chrysostom says, before the woman had poured out the ointment, Jesus would perhaps have preferred that it be given to the poor, but now that it was done, he held back those who were trying to stop her, saying, Let her alone: "Do not prevent one who is able from doing good. If you are able, you also do good," as we read in Proverbs [3:27]. [8] Et subdit ut in diem sepulturae meae servet illud: ubi primo praenuntiat suam mortem imminere, et obsequium huius mulieris, quod parata fuit ei impendere in sepultura, nisi praeventa fuisset celeri Christi resurrectione: nam, ut in Marco legitur, Maria Magdalena cum aliis emit aromata, ut venientes ungerent Iesum. Ideo ergo dicit ut in diem sepulturae meae servet illud, scilicet non idem quod effusum fuit, sed simile in specie, vel in genere, vel etiam opere; quasi dicat: non prohibeatis eam facere mihi iam vivo quod non poterit facere mortuo: nam, ut dictum est, fuit celeri Christi resurrectione praeventa. Et hoc magis exprimitur Mc. XIV, 8, ibi enim dicitur: praevenit enim ungere corpus meum in sepulturam. He adds, let her keep it for the day of my burial, foretelling both his approaching death and the kindness this woman was ready to do for him in his tomb if he had not precluded it by rising so soon, for as we read in Mark's Gospel (16:1): "Mary Magdalene," along with other women, "bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him." This is why he said, let her keep it for the day of my burial, not the identical ointment she used, but ointment of the same kind, in general or particular, or even a similar service. It is as though he were saying: Do not stop her from doing for me while I am alive what she will be unable to do for me when I am dead. For, as I said, she was prevented by the resurrection of Christ occurring so quickly. This is expressed in a clearer way in Mark (14:8): "She has anointed my body beforehand for burying." Sed numquid praescivit mortem Christi? Dicendum, quod non: non enim intelligebat quod fecit; sed quodam instinctu interiori mota est ad hoc faciendum. Frequenter enim aliqui moventur ad faciendum quod non intelligunt, sicut Caiphas, supra XI, 49, cum esset pontifex anni illius, dixit eis: vos nescitis quidquam. Et huiusmodi vocantur praesagia, inquantum primo ante facta aguntur. 1609 But did she have foreknowledge of Christ's death? Not at all: for she did not understand what she was doing. Rather, she was moved to do it by a certain inner urge. It often happens that people are moved to do things that they do not understand, as in the case of Caiaphas, the high priest, who said, "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people" (11:49). Things of this sort are called presages, because they take place before the event. Consequenter cum dicit pauperes enim semper habebitis vobiscum etc. excludit piam causam quam Iudas praetendebat, dicens: quare hoc unguentum non venditur trecentis denariis, et datur egenis? Unde dominus subdit pauperes enim semper habebitis vobiscum. Ubi sciendum est, quod quandoque faciendum est illud quod minus est necessarium, si remanet locus implendi quod est magis necessarium: et ideo dominus, licet magis necessarium esset quod hoc unguentum daretur pauperibus quam quod ungerentur pedes eius ex eo; quia tamen adhuc potest fieri, cum pauperes semper habeamus nobiscum, ideo dominus permisit fieri istud, quod est minus necessarium. 1610 Then when he says, the poor you always have with you, he rejects the spiritual reason which Judas feigned when he said: "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor." Our Lord answered, the poor you always have with you. Here it might be remarked that sometimes one should do what is less needful if the opportunity remains for doing what is more needful. Thus, although it was more needful that this ointment be given to the poor rather than having it used to anoint the Lord's feet, nevertheless, because there was still opportunity to do the former, since we always have the poor with us, our Lord allowed what was less needful. In hoc autem quod dicit pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum datur intelligi familiaritas quam divites debent habere ad pauperes et cetera. Eccli. IV, 7: congregationi pauperum affabilem te facito. In the statement that the poor you always have with you, we are led to understand the fellowship the rich should have toward the poor: "Make yourself companionable to the poor" [Si 4:7]. Me autem non semper habebitis. Sed contra. Matth. ult., 20: ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi. Responsio, secundum Augustinum. Dominus dicens me autem non semper habebitis, loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui, prout in sua specie apparet, secundum quam iturus erat ad caelum; infra XVI, 28: iterum relinquo mundum. Sed quantum ad praesentiam divinitatis semper est nobiscum; et etiam sacramentaliter in Ecclesia. 1611 But you do not always have me. Yet we read in Matthew (28:20): "I am with you always, to the close of the age." Augustine gives this reply. When our Lord said, but you do not always have me, he was speaking of his bodily presence, that is, as he appeared and in the form in which he would ascend into heaven: "Again, I am leaving the world" (16:28). [9] But he is always with us as present in his divinity; and he is also present sacramentally in the Church. Vel aliter. Dicendum quod dominus hoc dicens, intelligit de praesentia divinitatis suae. Quidam enim videntur habere Christum spiritualiter vel in sacramento, vel in confessione fidei, qui tamen non sunt semper eum habituri, cum sint tantum de Ecclesia quantum ad numerum, non quantum ad meritum: et huiusmodi sunt servi. Filii autem semper sunt eum habituri: quia, ut dicitur supra VIII, 35, filius manet in domo in aeternum. Dicit ergo Iudae me autem non semper habebitis: quia indignum te fecisti ad hoc. Another explanation would be this. When our Lord said this he was thinking of the presence of his divinity. Now some seem to possess Christ spiritually, either in the sacrament or in professing the faith; yet they will not always possess him because they belong to the Church only nominally, and not by merit. These are the servants. But the children will always possess him because "the son continues for ever" (8:35). Thus he said to Judas, but you do not always have me, because you have made yourself unworthy of this. Ut autem Chrysostomus dicit, in hoc dominus obiurgat Iudam: nam per hoc quod moleste tulit obsequium Christo impensum, videtur gravari de praesentia Christi: et ideo Christus dicit me autem non semper habebitis, quasi diceret: gravis sum tibi et onerosus; sed expecta parum, et abibo. As Chrysostom says, our Lord was rebuking Judas when he said this: for by being annoyed that this respect was shown to Christ, he seemed to consider Christ's presence as a burden. [10] So Christ said, you do not always have me. This was like saying: I am a burden to you; but wait awhile, and I will be leaving. Consequenter cum dicit cognovit ergo turba multa ex Iudaeis quia illic est etc., ostendit quomodo Iesus glorificatus est a turbis Iudaeorum, et primo quomodo a turbis Christum visitantibus; secundo quomodo a turbis ei obviantibus, ibi in crastinum autem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur devotio turbarum visitantium; secundo exagitatur concitatus zelus Pharisaeorum invidentium, ibi cogitaverunt autem principes sacerdotum. 1612 Next (v 9), the Evangelist shows how Jesus was honored by many of the Jews; first, by the crowd that went to see him there; secondly, by the crowd which meet him on his way to Jerusalem (v 12). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the eagerness of those who came to see him; secondly, he shows the vehemence of the Pharisees aroused by their envy (v 10). Prima pars dividitur in duas. In prima ponitur turbarum visitatio; in secunda subditur visitationis occasio. Quantum ad primum dicit cognovit ergo turba multa ex Iudaeis quia Iesus illic esset, in Bethania, et venerunt, ad quod dominus invitat, Matth. XI, 28: venite ad me omnes qui laboratis, et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos. Et ideo ubi scimus esse eum, debemus festinanter accedere. 1613 The first part is divided into two parts: first, he states that a crowd came to him; secondly, he gives the reason why they came. As to the first, he says, When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came, to Bethany. This was in keeping with our Lord's invitation: "Come to me, all who labor and are heaven laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). And so, when we know where Jesus is, we should go to him quickly. Causa autem visitationis ponitur duplex. Una, ut fruerentur visione et doctrina Christi; alia, ut viderent Lazarum. Et hoc propter duo. Primo, quia illud quod factum erat circa ipsum, inquantum quatriduanus in monumento suscitatus fuit, valde mirabile erat; et hoc homines videre desiderant. Ps. CXXXVIII, v. 14: mirabilia opera tua, et anima mea cognoscet nimis; idest, laborabit ad cognoscendum. Secundo, quia sperabant Lazaro referente, aliquod de alia vita perpendere et audire; cuius cognitionis desiderium innatum est hominibus. Hoc autem est contra illud quod stulti dicunt, Sap. II, 1: exiguum, et cum taedio est tempus vitae nostrae, et non est refrigerium in fine hominis; et non est qui agnitus sit reversus ab Inferis. Ecce enim Lazarus, quem suscitavit a mortuis, ab Inferis rediit. Now there were two reasons why they came. The first was to enjoy the sight and teaching of Christ. Secondly, they came to see Lazarus. And they came to see Lazarus for two reasons. First, because of the extraordinary miracle accomplished on Lazarus, that is, his being raised back to the living after four days in the tomb; and the people desired to see this: "Your works are wonderful, and my soul knows them well," that is, it attempts to understand them [Ps 138:14]. Secondly, they came because they hoped they would learn something about the other life from Lazarus, for man has an inborn desire for knowledge of this kind, in spite of what the foolish say: "For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, 'Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been known to return from Hades'" (Wis 2:1). But here he is! Lazarus, whom he raised from the dead, has resumed from the lower world. Concitatum autem zelum Pharisaeorum invidentium ponit, dicens cogitaverunt autem principes sacerdotum ut et Lazarum interficerent, in quo videbantur obviare Deo: ipse enim vivificavit Lazarum, et isti volebant occidere. Iob XV, 26: cucurrit adversus eum erecto collo, et pingui cervice armatus est. Ratio autem zeli ponitur quia multi propter illum abibant ex Iudaeis, et credebant in Iesum. 1614 Then the Evangelist describes the vehemence of the Pharisees in their envy, when he says, So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus also to death. In this they were opposing God: for God had raised him to life, and they wanted to kill him: "Running stubbornly against him" (Job 15:26). Then the reason for their vehemence is stated, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus. Sed contra. Christus multos sanaverat, puta paralyticum, supra V, 5 s. caecum natum supra IX, 1 s., quare Lazarum tantum volebant occidere? Ad quod Chrysostomus quatuor rationes assignat. Unam, quia istud miraculum erat evidentius, coram multis factum, et inopinabile videre mortuum quatriduanum, ambulantem et loquentem. Alia ratio erat, quia Lazarus persona insignis erat, caecus autem persona ignobilis: unde et eiecerunt eum de templo. Tertia ratio est, quia miraculum istud factum est imminente festivitate, quando totus populus Iudaeorum ad diem festum conveniens admirabantur, et dimittentes festivitates, Bethaniam veniebant. Quarta ratio, quia in aliis Christi miraculis nitebantur criminari violationem sabbati, et per hoc ab eo turbas abducere; sed hic nihil tale facere poterant. Unde quia in nullo habebant conqueri contra Iesum, adversus Lazarum faciunt conatum, tamquam haec esset potissima via ad miraculum occultandum. Prov. I, v. 16: pedes eorum ad malum currunt, et festinant ut effundant sanguinem. 1615 But since Christ had cured many people, such as the paralytic and the man born blind, why did they want to kill only Lazarus? Chrysostom gives four reasons. [11] First, because this miracle was more evident, it was performed before many people, and it was absolutely astounding to see a man dead for four days walking and speaking. The second reason was that Lazarus was a well-known person, while the blind man was unimportant, so much so that they even expelled him from the temple. The third reason was because this miracle was accomplished near the time of a great feast, and all the Jewish people who had come for the feast disregarded the solemnities and went to Bethany. The fourth reason was that in the other miracles they could accuse Christ of breaking the Sabbath, and in this way alienate the people from him; but this time that way was closed. And so because they could find no reason to attack Jesus, they attacked Lazarus as the best way to conceal the miracle: "Their feet run to evil and they make haste to shed blood" (Prv 1:16).
Lectio 3 LECTURE 3 Hic ponitur devotio turbae obviantis Christo, et primo ponitur obviatio turbarum; secundo zelus Pharisaeorum, ibi Pharisaei autem dicebant et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur turbae obviatio; secundo adventus domini, ibi et invenit Iesus asellum etc.; tertio obviationis causa, ibi testimonium ergo perhibebat turba. 1616 Here we see the fervor of the crowd which went to meet Christ. First, they go to meet Christ; secondly, we have the reaction of the Pharisees (v 19). Concerning the first the Evangelist does three things: first, he mentions their going out; secondly, he tells of our Lord's entrance (v 14); and thirdly, he states why the crowd went out to him. Obviatio autem describitur quo ad quatuor. Primo quantum ad tempus, quia in crastinum, scilicet ab illo die de quo dixerat ante sex dies Paschae, qui est decimus dies mensis. Et congruit figurae, Ex. XII, v. 3 ss. ubi dicitur quod agnus paschalis qui immolandus erat quartodecimo die ad vesperam, debebat accipi decimo die mensis. 1617 He mentions four things concerning the crowd which went out to the Lord. First, the time they went out, the next day, that is, the day following the one he meant when he said, "six days before the Passover"; in other words, the tenth day of the month. This is in keeping with the figure in Exodus (12:3), where we read that the Paschal lamb which was to be immolated on the fourteenth day in the evening should be procured on the tenth day of the month. Secundo describitur quantum ad personas obviantes, quia turba multa quae convenerat ad diem festum, per quod significatur populorum multitudo qui convertendi erant ad Christum; Ps. VII, 8: synagoga populorum circumdabit me. Dicit autem ad diem festum, quia ad hoc fideles convertuntur ad Christum ut ad diem festum caelestis Ierusalem perveniant; Matth. VIII, 11: multi venient ab oriente et occidente, et recumbent cum Abraham et Isaac et Iacob in regno caelorum. 1618 Secondly, the ones who went out are described, a great crowd who had come to the feast. They signify the multitudes of the people who would be converted to Christ: "Let the assembly of the people be gathered about thee" (Ps 7:7). He says to the feast, because believers are converted to Christ so that they may come to the feast day of the heavenly Jerusalem: "Many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 8:11). Tertio describitur quantum ad motivum obviandi, quod est auditus de adventu Iesu; unde dicit cum audissent quia venit Iesus Ierosolymam. Ad Christum enim omnes fideles convertuntur propter auditum fidei; Rom. X, 17: fides ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Christi; Exod. IV, 31: audierunt filii Israel quod visitasset dominus filios Israel, et credidit populus. 1619 Thirdly, the Evangelist mentions their motive for going out, which was that they heard that Jesus was coming: he says that they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. For all the faithful are converted to Christ through what they hear about the faith: "Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom 10:17); "and the children of Israel heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel; and the peoples believed," as we read in Exodus [4:31]. Quarto describitur quantum ad modum obviandi: et primo quantum ad ea quae fecerunt, quia receperunt ramos palmarum. Palma enim, quae viriditatem suam conservat, significat victoriam, unde et apud antiquos triumphantibus in signum victoriae dabatur. Et de martyribus triumphantibus legitur Apoc. VII, 9, quod palmae erant in manibus eorum. Rami ergo palmarum, secundum Augustinum, laudes sunt, significantes victoriam, quia dominus erat mortem moriendo superaturus, in trophaeo crucis de Diabolo mortis principe triumphaturus. Et processerunt obviam ei; Amos, IV, 12: praeparare in occursum Dei tui, Israel. 1620 Fourthly, he mentions how they conducted themselves. And first of all, what they did: they took branches of palm trees. Now the palm, since it retains its freshness, signifies victory. Thus in antiquity it was conferred upon conquerors as a symbol of their victory. Again, we read in Revelation (7:9) of the conquering martyrs that they held "palm branches in their hands." And so the branches of palm trees were given as praise, signifying victory, because our Lord was to conquer death by dying and to triumph over Satan, the prince of death, by the victory of the cross. And went out to meet him: "Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!" (Amos 4:12). Secundo quantum ad ea quae dixerunt, quia clamabant: hosanna, benedictus qui venit in nomine domini rex Israel. Ubi ponit petitionem, et laudem. Petitionem quidem cum dicunt hosanna, idest, salva obsecro quasi dicant. Hosy, quod est salva et Anna, quod est obsecro. Quod, secundum Augustinum, non est verbum, sed interiectio deprecantis. Recte a domino Iesu salutem petunt, quia dicitur Is. XXXV, 4: dominus ipse veniet, et salvabit nos; Ps. LXXIX, v. 3: excita potentiam tuam et veni. 1621 Secondly, the Evangelist mentions what they said: they shouted out Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel! Here they combine both petition and praise. There is petition when they say, Hosanna, that is "Save us, I implore you." It is like saying: hosy, which means "save," and anna, which means "implore." According to Augustine, this is not a word, but rather an exclamation of one praying. [13] And it is quite proper that they should ask the Lord Jesus for salvation, because we read in Isaiah (35:4): "Behold your GodHe will come and save you"; "Stir up thy might, and come to save us!" (Ps 80:2). Laudant autem quantum ad duo, scilicet quantum ad eius adventum, et quantum ad potentiam regni eius. Adventum quidem eius laudant, dicentes benedictus qui venit in nomine domini. Unde sciendum est, quod benedicere est bonum dicere. Aliter autem Deus benedicit nobis, aliter nos Deo. Deus enim benedicendo nobis, facit nos bonos, nam dicere suum, est eius facere: dixit enim, et facta sunt, Ps. CXLVIII, 5. Nos autem benedicendo Deo, confitemur eius bonitatem; Ps. CXVII, 26: benediximus vobis de domo domini. Gen. c. XXVII, 29: qui benedixerit tibi, sit ille benedictus et cetera. Benedictus ergo qui venit in nomine domini. Christus enim operabatur in nomine Dei; quia omnia opera quae faciebat, ad gloriam Dei ordinabat. 1622 They praise him for two things: for his coming and for the power of his reign or kingdom. They praise his coming when they say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Note that to bless is to speak good things. Now God blesses us in one way, and we bless God in another way. For when God blesses us he makes us good, since for God to speak is to do: "For he commanded [that is, spoke], and they were created" (Ps 148:5). But when we bless God, we profess his goodness: "We bless you from the house of the Lord" (Ps 118:26); "Blessed be every one who blesses you!" (Gen 27:29). Therefore, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, for Christ worked in the name of God, because every thing he did he directed to the glory of God. Quia vero et pater dominus est, et filius dominus est, ideo hoc quod dicitur in nomine domini, potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo benedictus qui venit in nomine domini idest, in nomine sui ipsius, tamquam dominus; Is. XXXIII, 22: dominus legifer noster. Moyses ergo hoc modo non venit in nomine domini, quia venit sicut servus. Hebr. III, 5: Moyses in omni domo sua tamquam famulus fidelis erat, in testimonium eorum quae dicenda erant. Sed, secundum Augustinum, melius dicitur in nomine domini, scilicet patris. Nam verba eius ad hoc nostrum dirigunt intellectum. Supra V, 43: ego veni in nomine patris mei et cetera. Dupliciter autem dicitur venire in nomine patris. Primo quidem in quantum venit ut filius, per quod datur intelligi pater; secundo inquantum venit ut manifestans patrem; infra c. XVII, 6: manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus. Now because both the Father and the Son are the Lord, the phrase, in the name of the Lord, can be understood in two ways. In one way, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, means blessed is he who comes in his own name, as Lord: "The Lord is our ruler" (Is 33:22). Moses did not come in the name of the Lord in this way, because he came as a servant: "Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later" (Heb 3:5). According to Augustine, the better interpretation would be to say that in the name of the Lord means in the name of the Father. [14] For Christ's words direct our minds to this: "I have come in my Father's name" (5:45). Further, there are two ways in which Christ is said to have come in the name of the Father. First, he came as the Son, which implies the Father; secondly, he came to manifest the Father: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gave me" (17:6). Potentiam vero regni eius laudant cum dicunt rex Israel. Ad litteram enim credebant Iudaei quod venisset regnaturus temporaliter super eos, et redempturus eos a servitute Romanorum, et ideo applaudebant ei tamquam regi; Ier. XXIII, 5: regnabit rex, et sapiens erit; Is. XXXII, 1: ecce in iustitia regnabit rex, et principes in iudicio praeerunt. 1623 The people praise the power of his reign when they say, the King of Israel! Literally, the Jews believed that he had come to reign over them temporally, and ransom them from subjection to the Romans. That is why they hailed him as a king: "He shall reign as king and deal wisely" (Jer 23:5); "Behold, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in justice" (Is 32:1). Sed sciendum, quod omnia verba praedicta poterant haberi ex Psalmis. Nam cum Psal. CXVII, 22, diceret: lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, subdit o domine, salvum me fac (...) benedictus qui venit in nomine domini. Ubi Hieronymus, secundum Hebraeam veritatem, transtulit hosanna, benedictus. Sed hoc quod subdunt rex Israel, non est in Psalmis, sed est ibi: Deus dominus, et illuxit nobis. In quo ex eorum caecitate minuunt eius laudem, quia Psalmus laudat eum tamquam Deum, ipsi vero tamquam regem temporalem. 1624 We should note that the above words can be gathered from the Psalms. For when the Psalm says, "The stone which the builders rejected" (Ps 118:22), it then continues on, "Save us, we beseech thee, O Lord!Blessed is he who enters in the name of the Lord!" (v 25-26). And there Jerome, according to the meaning of the Hebrew, translated hosanna as "blessed." But what the people added, the King of Israel, is not in the psalms. Instead, the Psalm says: "The Lord is God, and he has given us light" (v 27). In saying this, the people, due to their blindness, have lessened his praise: for the Psalm praises our Lord as God, but they praised him as a temporal king. Consequenter cum dicit et invenit Iesus asellum, et sedit super eum, ponit domini adventum: et primo ponit modum veniendi; secundo inducit prophetiam; tertio ostendit dispositionem discipulorum circa hoc factum. 1625 When the Evangelist says, and Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it, he describes our Lord's coming: first, he tells how he came; secondly, he mentions a prophecy (v 15); and thirdly, he describes the state of mind of the disciples in regard to this event (v 16). Notandum est circa primum, quod Ioannes Evangelista Evangelium suum post omnes alios Evangelistas conscripsit, unde omnia Evangelia diligenter perlegerat et quae per alios diffuse dicta erant, ipse compendio tradidit, quae vero omiserant, ipse supplevit. Quia vero diffuse in aliis Evangelistis habetur quomodo dominus misit duos de discipulis suis ut asinam adducerent, ideo hoc Ioannes breviter pertransivit, dicens et invenit Iesus asellum, et sedit super eum. 1626 It should be noted in regard to the first point, that John the Evangelist wrote his Gospel after all the others. And so, after carefully noting what these had written, he merely summarized what they had already mentioned, but filled in what they had omitted. Therefore, since the other Evangelists had already told how the Lord sent two of his disciples to bring the ass, John contents himself with mentioning briefly that Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it. Sciendum autem, quod facta Christi sunt quasi media inter facta veteris testamenti et novi: et ideo tam turba quae praecedebat quam quae sequebatur, eum laudabat, inquantum facta Christi sunt regula et exemplar eorum quae fiunt in novo testamento, et praefigurata a patribus veteris testamenti. Here it should be pointed out that Christ's actions are in a way midway between the events of the Old Testament and of the New Testament. Thus the crowds praised him, both the one which went before him, and the one which followed him, because Christ's actions are the rule and exemplar of the things that are done in the New Testament, and they were prefigured by the fathers of the Old Testament. Asellus autem, quod est animal rude, significat populum gentium, super quem sedit, ut significaret quod ipse redempturus esset gentes; Is. XLIX, 6: dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis salus mea usque ad extremum terrae; ibid. XXXII, 20: beati qui seminatis super omnes aquas, mittentes pedes bovis et asinae, idest, coniungentes in unitatem fidei populum Iudaeorum et gentium. The young ass is an awkward animal, and signifies the Gentiles. Christ sat upon it to signify that he would redeem the Gentiles: "I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth" (Is 49:6); "Happy are you who sow beside all waters, who let the feet of the ox and the ass range free," that is, thus uniting the Jews and the Gentiles in one faith. Quia autem Matthaeus Evangelium suum scripsit Iudaeis, mentionem facit de asina, per quam signatur synagoga Iudaeorum, quae fuit quasi mater gentium in spiritualibus, quia de Sion exibit lex, et verbum domini de Ierusalem: Is. II, 3. Alii vero Evangelistae, quia gentibus Evangelia scripsere, faciunt etiam mentionem de pullo et cetera. Now Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and so he made mention of a she-ass. This she-ass signifies the synagogue of the Jews, which was like a mother to the Gentiles in spiritual matters, because "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Is 2:3). The other Evangelists, however, wrote their Gospels for the Gentiles, and so they mention the young colt of the she-ass. Consequenter cum dicit sicut scriptum est etc., inducit prophetiam quae scripta est Zac. IX, 9, in qua primo dat securitatem; secundo promittit regiam maiestatem; tertio subdit utilitatem regis. 1627 When the Evangelist says, as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Zion! he cites the prophesy which was written in Zechariah (9:9). First, he reassures them; secondly, he promises a kingly majesty; and thirdly, he adds the benefit which the king will bring. Securitatem dat cum dicit noli timere, filia Sion. Sion arx erat in Ierusalem, ubi erat habitatio regis. Filia ergo Sion est plebs Ierosolymorum, et Iudaeorum qui subditi erant regi Ierusalem. Iudaeis ergo dicitur noli timere, quia dominus defensor tuus; Is. c. LI, 12: quis tu ut timeas ab homine mortali? Ps. XXVI, 1: dominus defensor vitae meae: a quo trepidabo? In quo excludit Evangelista timorem mundanum et servilem. He reassures them when he says, Fear not, daughter of Zion. Zion was the fortress in Jerusalem where the king lived. The daughter of Zion, therefore, would be the people of Jerusalem and of Judea who were subject to the king of Jerusalem. Thus the Jews are being told, Fear not, because the Lord is your defender: "Who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass?" (Is 51:12); "The Lord is the defender of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" [Ps 27:1]. Here the Evangelist is driving out their worldly and servile fear. Regiam autem maiestatem promittit, dicens ecce rex tuus venit et cetera. Is. IX, 6: parvulus datus est nobis. Et infra, ibid. 7: super solium David et super regnum eius sedebit. Dicit autem tuus, idest ex te carnem sumens, quia nusquam Angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae: Hebr. II, 16. Iterum tuus, idest ad utilitatem tuam, unde subdit venit tibi; Lc. XIX, 42: si cognovisses et tu, et quidem nunc quae ad pacem tibi: nunc autem abscondita sunt ab oculis tuis. Sed tamen ipsi resistendo, eorum utilitatem impedierunt. He promises them a kingly majesty, saying, behold, your king is coming: "For to us a son is given" (Is 9:6); "Upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom" (9:7). He says, your king, that means, taking flesh from you, for "It is not with angels that he is concerned, but with the descendants of Abraham" (Heb 2:16). Again, your king, that is, for your benefit. Thus he adds, is coming, to you: "Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes" (Lk 19:42). But when they resisted, they hindered their own good. Venit, inquam, tibi, non ad terrorem, sed ad liberationem, unde subdit sedens super pullum asinae: in quo signatur regis clementia, quae valde est accepta subditis; Prov. XX, v. 28: clementia roboratur thronus eius. Et contra dicitur Prov. XIX, 12: sicut fremitus leonis, ita et regis ira. Quasi dicat: non venit in fastu regio, propter quod posset esse odiosus, sed venit in mansuetudine; Eccli. c. XXXII, 1: rectorem te posuerunt? Noli extolli. Noli ergo timere regni oppressionem. Vetus autem lex in timore data est, quia lex servitutem generabat. Item signatur in hoc regis potentia, inquantum in humilitate et infirmitate veniens, totum mundum attraxit. I Cor. I, 25: quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominibus. The king comes to you, I say, not to harm you, but to set you free; thus he adds, sitting on an ass's colt! This signifies the mercy of the king, which is most welcome to his subjects: "His throne is upheld by mercy" [Prv 20:28]. This is just the opposite to "A king's wrath is like the growling of a lion" (Prv 19:12). He is saying in effect: He is not coming as a haughty king - Which would make him hateful - but with gentleness: "If they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself" (Sir 32:1). Therefore, have no fear that the king will oppress you. Now the Old Law was given in fear, because the Law produced slaves. This phrase also signifies the power of the king, because by coming with humility and in weakness he attracted the entire world: "The weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor 1:25). Consequenter cum dicit haec non cognoverunt discipuli eius primum, ponit dispositionem discipulorum ad prophetiam inductam, in quo Evangelista confitetur ignorantiam et sui et discipulorum, quia, ut dicitur Prov. XVIII, 17, iustus in principio accusator est sui. Unde dicit, quod haec, quae praedicta sunt, non cognoverunt discipuli eius primum, idest ante passionem, sed quando glorificatus est Iesus, idest quando virtutem suae resurrectionis ostendit, tunc recordati sunt quia haec erant scripta de eo, et haec fecerunt ei. Ideo autem quando glorificatus est cognoverunt, quia tunc receperunt virtutem spiritus sancti, ex qua effecti sunt omnibus sapientibus sapientiores; Iob XXXII, 8: inspiratio omnipotentis dat intelligentiam. Hoc autem ideo introducit Evangelista, ut ostendat non fuisse quod factum est, serio a discipulis procuratum. 1628 Then when he says, his disciples did not understand this at first, he describes the state of mind of the disciples regarding this prophecy. And he admits his own ignorance and that of the disciples, for as we read: "The just person is the first to accuse himself" [Prv 18:17]. So he says, his disciples did not understand this, what was predicted, at first, that is, before the passion. But when Jesus was glorified, i.e., when he showed the power of his resurrection, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him. The reason they knew only after he had been glorified was because it was then that they received the power of the Holy Spirit, which made them wiser than all the wise: "The breath of the Almighty makes a man understand" (Job 32:8). Consequenter cum dicit testimonium ergo perhibebat turba etc., ponit causam obviationis, quae fuit exhibitio testimonii, quod perhibebat turba quae cum eo erat, de resurrectione Lazari; quando scilicet vocavit Lazarum de monumento (...) propterea et obviam venit ei turba; I Cor. I, 22: Iudaei signa quaerunt. Istud enim evidentius signum erat, et mirabilius, et ideo ultimo ipsum reservavit, ut magis imprimeretur eorum memoriae. 1629 Then he mentions why the crowd went to meet Jesus, which was to bear witness. This was done by the crowd that had been with him, at the resurrection of Lazarus, when he called Lazarus out of the tomb The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. "For Jews demand signs" (1 Cor 1:22). Now this was a clearer and more marvelous sign than the others; thus Christ made it the last in order to impress it more forcefully on their memory. Consequenter cum dicit Pharisaei ergo dixerunt ad semetipsos etc., ponit Pharisaeorum zelum, qui concitabatur ex frustratione conatus eorum; unde dicebant videtis quia nihil proficimus? etc.: quod quidem est verbum Pharisaeorum invidentium, ut dicant nihil proficimus, scilicet in malitia nostra, non valentes eum impedire. Hoc modo accipitur proficere II Tim. III, v. 13: mali autem homines et seductores proficient in peius, errantes et in errorem mittentes. 1630 Then when the Evangelist says, The Pharisees then said to one another, he describes the reaction of the Pharisees, who were enraged because their plans had been frustrated. Thus they say, You see that you can do nothing. The Pharisees said this out of envy, as if to say: "We are not having any effect, that is, in our evil intentions; we have failed to check him. Sed quid invidet caeca turba? Quia post eum abiit mundus, per quem factus est mundus. Sed tamen signatur per hoc, quod totus mundus eum secuturus erat; Oseae, VI, v. 3: vivemus in conspectu eius, sequemurque, ut cognoscamus dominum. But why were they maddened at the blind crowd? Because the world has gone after him through whom the world was made. This was a sign that the whole world would follow him: "We shall live in his sight. We shall know and we shall follow the Lord" [Hos 6:3]. Chrysostomus autem vult quod haec sint verba Pharisaeorum credentium, occulte tamen propter metum Iudaeorum. Et dicunt hoc, ut retraherent eos a persecutione Christi, ac si dicerent: quantumcumque insidiamini, tanto hic augetur, et gloria eius intenditur. Quid ergo non desistitis a tantis insidiis? Quod quidem quasi idem est cum consilio Gamalielis, de quo habetur Act. V, 34 ss. Chrysostom, however, thinks that these words were said by the Pharisees who believed, but they were spoken privately for fear of the Jews. [15] And they said this to stop the persecution of Christ. It is as though they were saying: No matter what snares you lay, he will grow in stature and his glory will increase. Why then not stop your plotting? This is practically the same as the advice of Gamaliel in the Acts (5:34).
Lectio 4 LECTURE 4 Posita gloria quam Christus habuit ex ministerio domesticorum et ex devotione turbarum, hic Evangelista ponit gloriam quam Christus habuit ex devotione gentilium, et primo ponitur gentilium devotio; secundo devotionis ipsorum denuntiatio, ibi venit Philippus etc.; tertio passionis Christi praenuntiatio, ibi Iesus autem respondit: venit hora ut clarificetur filius hominis. Devotio autem gentilium ponitur quantum ad duo. Primo ponitur quantum ad sacramenta veteris testamenti; secundo quantum ad Christum, ibi hi ergo accesserunt ad Philippum. 1631 Having described the glory Christ received from the helpfulness of his friends and from the devotion of the crowd, the Evangelist now describes the glory Christ received from the devotion of the Gentiles. First, the devotion of the Gentiles is mentioned; secondly, this devotion is reported (v 22); and thirdly, we see the prediction of Christ's passion (v 23). Concerning the devotion of the Gentiles, two things are set forth: first, their devotion to the sacraments of the Old Law; secondly, their devotion to Christ (v 21). Devotio autem gentilium ad sacramenta veteris testamenti ostenditur per hoc quod templum visitabant. Unde dicit erant autem gentiles quidam qui ascenderant, supple in Ierusalem, ut adorarent in die festo, quasi dicat: non solum turba Iudaeorum, sed etiam ipsi gentiles honorabant Christum. Ratio autem quare ascendebant, secundum interlinearem quamdam, assignatur, quia erant proselyti, et conversi ad ritum Iudaeorum, ad praedicationem Iudaeorum: quia per mundum habitabant, et conabantur multos ad se convertere: Matth. XXIII, 15: circuitis mare et aridam, ut faciatis unum proselytum. Et ideo secundum ritum Iudaeorum ascendebant cum aliis. 1632 The devotion of the Gentiles to the sacraments of the Old Testament is shown by the fact that they visited the temple. Thus he says, Now among those who went up, to Jerusalem, to worship at the feast were some Gentiles. He is saying in effect: Not just the Jews, but the Gentiles, also, honored Christ. According to a Gloss, the reason why they went up to Jerusalem was because they were proselytes, who had been converted to the Jewish rite by the preaching of those Jews who were scattered throughout the world, and who strove to convert whomever they could: "You traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte" (Mt 23:15). [17] And so, in keeping with the Jewish rite, they went up with the others. Sed melius dicendum est, secundum Chrysostomum, quod, sicut habetur II Mach. III, v. 2 s., templum Dei quod erat in Ierusalem, in veneratione habebatur cunctis populis et regibus universae terrae, ita ut ipsum templum maximis muneribus illustrarent. Et ideo contingebat quod in diebus festivis multi etiam gentiles ascenderent Ierusalem. Simile habetur Act. VIII, 27, de eunucho Candacis reginae Aethiopum, qui venerat adorare in Ierusalem. Unde et Is. LVI, 7, dicitur: domus mea domus orationis vocabitur cunctis gentibus, ait dominus. Isti autem gentiles ex devotione quam habebant, ad templum ascenderant: in quo praefigurabatur conversio gentilium ad fidem. But a better reason is given by Chrysostom, namely, that as we read in Maccabees (3:2), the temple of God in Jerusalem was held in such esteem by all the people and rulers throughout the world that they considered it an honor to glorify the temple with the finest gifts. [18] And so it happened that on the feast days even many Gentiles would go up to Jerusalem. An example of this is mentioned in the Acts (8:27), where it tells of a eunuch, a minister to Queen Candace of Ethiopia, who had come to Jerusalem to worship. Thus Isaiah says: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (Is 56:7). The fact that these Gentiles came to the temple out of devotion prefigured the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith. Devotio autem gentilium ad Christum ostenditur per hoc quod desiderabant eum videre; unde dicit hi ergo, scilicet gentiles, accesserunt ad Philippum et cetera. Sciendum autem, quod Christus Iudaeis tantum personaliter praedicavit; Rom. XV, 8: dico Christum Iesum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis, propter veritatem Dei, ad confirmandas promissiones patrum. Gentibus autem praedicavit per apostolos; Is. ult., 19: mittam ex eis qui salvati fuerint, ad gentes (...) et annuntiabunt gloriam meam gentibus; Matth. ult., 19: euntes, docete omnes gentes et cetera. Hoc ergo hic iam praesagiebatur, inquantum gentiles Christum videre volentes, non venerunt immediate ad eum, sed ad unum ex discipulis eius, scilicet ad Philippum. Et hoc congruenter, quia ipse primus praedicavit his qui erant extra ritum Iudaeorum, scilicet Samaritanis, ut habetur Act. VIII, 5: Philippus autem descendit in civitatem Samariae, et praedicabat illis Christum. 1633 The devotion of the Gentiles to Christ is shown by their desire to see him; for the Evangelist says, So these, that is, the Gentiles, came to Philip. Here we should note that Christ personally preached only to the Jews: "For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs" (Rom 15:8); but he preached to the Gentiles through the apostles. "And I shall send of them that shall be saved to the Gentiles, and they shall declare my glory to the Gentiles" [Is 66:19]; "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:19). This was now being indicated beforehand inasmuch as the Gentiles who wanted to see Christ did not come to him first, but to one of his disciples, to Philip. And this was fitting, because Philip was the first to preach to those who were not of the Jewish rite, namely, to the Samaritans, as we see from the Acts (8:5): "Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed to them the Christ." Et hoc convenit ei secundum nominis interpretationem: Philippus enim interpretatur os lampadis. Praedicatores autem sunt os Christi; Ier. XV, 19: si separaveris pretiosum a vili, quasi os meum eris. Christus autem lampas est; Is. XLII, 6: dedi te in lucem gentium et cetera. Convenit etiam ei quantum ad locum qui erat a Bethsaida, quae interpretatur venatio, quia praedicatores venantur eos quos ad Christum convertunt; Ier. XVI, 16: mittam eis piscatores, et piscabuntur eos. Item Galilaeae, quae interpretatur transmigratio, et gentiles ad praedicationem apostolorum transmigrati sunt de statu gentilitatis ad statum fidei; Ez. XII, 3: fili hominis, fac tibi vasa transmigrationis, et transmigrabis per diem coram eis. This was also fitting because of his name: for "Philip" means the "mouth of the lantern." [19] Now preachers are the mouth of Christ: "If you utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you shall be as your mouth" (Jer 15:19); and Christ too is the lantern: "I have given you as a light to the nations" (Is 42:6). It was also appropriate to him because of his home: for Philip was from Bethsaida, which means "hunting," and preachers hunt for those whom they convert to Christ: "I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them" (Jer 16:16). Again, it was appropriate because Bethsaida was in Galilee, which means "transmigration," and the Gentiles, by the preaching of the apostles, were transmigrated from the gods of paganism to the state of believers: "Therefore, son of man, prepare for yourself an exile's baggage, and go into exile by day in their sight," as we read in Ezekiel (12:3). Accedentes autem ad Philippum exprimunt eorum desiderium, dicentes, quia volumus Iesum videre, in quo signatur quod gentiles, qui Christum corporaliter non viderant, ministerio apostolorum ad fidem conversi, desiderant eum videre glorificatum in patria; III Reg. X, 24: omnis terra desiderabat videre faciem Salomonis. These Gentiles approached Philip and expressed their desires, saying, we wish to see Jesus. This signifies that those Gentiles who had not seen Christ in the flesh but who had been converted to the faith by the ministry of the apostles, desired to see him glorified in heaven: "All the earth desired to see the face of Solomon" [1 Kgs 10:24]. Hic ponitur denuntiatio devotionis gentilium ad Christum: in qua quidem ordo attenditur, quia, ut dicitur Rom. XIII, v. 1, quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt. Est autem hic divinus ordo, ut inferiora reducantur in Deum per superiora: Andreas autem superior fuit in apostolatu Philippo, quia prius eo conversus fuit; et ideo Philippus non per seipsum tantum, sed per Andream istos gentiles voluit ad Christum adducere, memor forte eius quod dominus dixerat: in viam gentium ne abieritis. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod Philippus dicit Andreae: Andreas et Philippus rursum dixerunt Iesu. In quo datur nobis exemplum, omnia de consilio maiorum facienda. Sic et Paulus ascendit Ierosolymam, et contulit apostolis Evangelium quod in gentibus praedicabat, ut habetur ad Gal. c. II, 1. 1634 Then when he says, Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus, the news of the Gentiles' devotion is carried to Christ. In this action a definite order is being followed, because "the things that are from God are set in order" [Rom 13:1]. Now it belongs to the divine order that lower things be led back to God through those that are higher, and since Andrew outranked Philip among the apostles, because he was converted before him, Philip did not wish to bring these Gentiles to Christ by himself, but through Andrew, perhaps remembering that the Lord had said: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles" (Mt 10:5). And this is what he says, Phillip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus. This teaches us that all things should be done with the advice of those in authority. Thus, even Paul went up to Jerusalem and conferred with the apostles about the Gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2). Possumus autem in nominibus istorum duorum intelligere duo necessaria praedicatoribus, ut homines ad Christum adducant. Primum est disertitudo ordinatae locutionis, quae notatur in nomine Philippi, quod interpretatur os lampadis. Secundum est virtus bonae operationis, quod notatur in nomine Andreae, quod interpretatur virilis. Ps. XXXII, v. 6: verbo domini caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum. Furthermore, from their names we can gather two things which are necessary for preachers if they are to lead others to Christ. The first is clear, orderly speech; and this is indicated by Philip's name, which means the "mouth of the lantern." The second is virtue, manifested in good actions; and this is indicated by Andrew's name, which has the meaning of "strength." By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their strength by the breath of his mouth" [Ps 33:6]. Hic praenuntiatur passio Christi, et primo praenuntiat Christus imminere suae passionis tempus; secundo insinuat passionis necessitatem, ibi amen, amen dico vobis: nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit etc.; tertio inducit necessitatem passionis aliorum, ibi qui amat animam suam, perdet eam. 1635 Then, the passion of Christ is foretold: first, Christ foretells that the time of his passion is near; secondly, he intimates that his passion is necessary (v 24); and thirdly, he mentions the necessity for others to suffer (v 25). Dicit ergo venit hora ut clarificetur filius hominis. Ubi notandum est, quod dominus videns gentiles istos properare ad fidem, et intelligens in eis quodammodo conversionem gentium inchoari, praenuntiavit suae passionis tempus imminere, a simili, sicut qui videt segetem dealbatam, dicit: venit hora ut falx mittatur in messem; supra IV, 35: videte regiones, quae albae sunt iam ad messem. Sic ergo hic dominus loquitur. Ex quo, inquit, gentes quaerunt me videre, venit hora ut glorificetur filius hominis. 1636 He says, The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Here it should be noted that our Lord, seeing these Gentiles hastening to see him, and understanding that in them the conversion of the Gentiles was somehow beginning, foretold the imminence of his passion, somewhat like a person who sees a wheat field growing white says that the hour has come to use the sickle for the harvest" (4:35). This is the way the Lord speaks here. Since the Gentiles want to see me, he says, The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Qui quidem glorificatus est tripliciter. Primo in sua passione, Hebr. V, 5: non semetipsum glorificavit ut pontifex fieret (scilicet in ara crucis), sed qui locutus est ad eum: filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. Et secundum hoc dicit venit hora ut glorificetur filius hominis, idest patiatur, quia ante eius passionem gentes non convertentur ad eum: in qua quidem passione clarificatus fuit et quantum ad signa visibilia, sicut in obscuritate solis, in scissione veli et aliis huiusmodi; et quantum ad signa invisibilia, sicut in triumpho quo palam in semetipso de Tartareis principibus triumphavit, ut dicitur Col. II. Ideo autem supra dixit: nondum venit hora mea, quia nondum parata erat devotio gentium sicut modo. 1637 Now there were three events where he was glorified. First, in his passion: "Christ did not exalt [glorify] himself to be made a high priest," on the altar of the cross, "but was appointed by him who said to him, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee,'" as we read in Hebrews (5:5). In reference to this he says, The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified, that is, to suffer, because the Gentiles will not be converted to him before his passion. Indeed, in his passion he was glorified both with visible signs, such as the sun becoming dark, the rendering of the temple curtain and so forth, and with invisible signs, such as the victory by which in himself he overcame the powers of darkness, as stated in Colossians (2:15). Earlier he had said, "My hour has not yet come" (2:4), because the devotion of the Gentiles had not been as keen as it was now. Secundo clarificatus fuit in resurrectione et ascensione. Prius enim oportuit Christum resurgere, et in caelum ascendere, et sic clarificatum mittere spiritum sanctum in apostolos, per quos gentes convertendae erant. Supra VII, 39: nondum erat spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus; Ps. LXVII, v. 19: ascendens Christus in altum, cepit captivitatem. Secondly, he was glorified in his resurrection and ascension. For it was necessary for Christ to first rise and ascend into heaven, and thus glorified, to send the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, through whom the Gentiles were to be converted: "For as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (7:39); Christ "ascended to the heights: he captured his spoil" [Ps 69:19]. Tertio glorificatus est per conversionem gentium; Phil. II, 11: omnis lingua confiteatur quia dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei patris. Thirdly, he was glorified by the conversion of the Gentiles: in Philippians [2:11] we read, "Every tongue will confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." Consequenter cum dicit amen, amen dico vobis etc., insinuat necessitatem suae passionis, et primo ponit eam; secundo eius utilitatem, ibi si autem mortuum fuerit, multum fructum affert. 1638 Then when he says, I say to you, he intimates the necessity of his passion: first, he suggests its necessity; secondly the benefit it brings (v 24b). Necessitas autem suae passionis causatur ex conversione gentium, quae esse non potest nisi filio hominis per passionem et resurrectionem glorificato: et hoc est quod dicit amen, amen dico vobis, idest in veritate, nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet. Circa quod quantum ad litteram sciendum est, quod grano frumenti utimur ad duo; scilicet ad panem et ad semen. Hoc autem quod dicitur hic, intelligitur de frumento secundum quod est semen, non prout est materia panis: quia secundum hoc numquam pullulat, ut faciat fructum. Dicit autem mortuum fuerit, non quod amittat virtutem seminativam, sed quia mutatur in aliam speciem; I Cor. XV, 36: tu quod seminas, non vivificatur, nisi prius moriatur. Sicut autem verbum Dei est semen in anima hominis, secundum quod est voce sensibili indutum, ad fructum bonae operationis producendum, Lc. c. VIII, 11: semen est verbum Dei, ita verbum Dei carne indutum, est semen missum in mundum, ex quo maxima seges pullulare debebat: unde et grano sinapis comparatur, Matth. XIII, 31. 1639 The necessity for Christ's passion is caused by the conversion of the Gentiles, which cannot take place unless the Son of man is glorified through his passion and resurrection. And this is what he asserts, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone. In regard to the literal sense of this text, it should be noted that we use a grain of wheat either for bread or as a seed. In this text, we should understand that the wheat is taken as a seed, and not as the wheat used for bread, for in the latter case it would never grow and bear fruit. He says, dies, not because it loses its strength, but because it is then changed into something else: "What you sow does not come to life unless it dies" (1 Cor 15:36). Now just as the word of God, so far as it is clothed in a sound that can be heard, is a seed planted in a person's soul to produce the fruit of good works - "The seed is the word of God" (Lk 8:11) - so the Word of God, clothed in flesh, is a seed sent into the world to bring forth a great harvest; thus it is also compared to a grain of mustard seed, in Matthew (13:31). Dicit ergo: ego veni ut semen ad fructificandum, et ideo vere dico vobis nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet, idest, nisi ego moriar, fructus conversionis gentium non sequetur. Ideo autem grano frumenti se comparat, quia ad hoc venit ut reficeret et sustentaret mentes humanas: hoc autem praecipue efficit panis frumenti; Ps. CIII, 15: panis cor hominis confirmat; supra VI, 52: panis quem ego dabo vobis, caro mea est pro mundi vita. So Christ is saying: I have come as a seed, to bear fruit; and so I truly say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone, that is, unless I die, the fruit of the conversion of the Gentiles will not follow. He compares himself to a grain of wheat because the reason he came was to refresh and nourish our spirits, which is principally done by bread made from wheat: "bread to strengthen man's heart" (Ps 104:15); "The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" (6:51). Sed numquid non erat convertenda multitudo gentium nisi per mortem Christi? Erat quidem secundum Dei virtutem sed non secundum Dei determinationem ordinatam ab ipso ut per hunc modum fieret, utpote qui congruentior erat. Hebr. IX, 22: sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio; infra XVI, 7: si enim non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos. 1640 But were the Gentiles to be converted only through the death of Christ? Considering God's power, they could have been converted without it; but according to God's decree they were to be converted through the death of Christ as the more fitting way: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins," as is said in Hebrews (9:22); "if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you" (16:7). Utilitas autem passionis ponitur cum dicit si autem mortuum fuerit, multum fructum affert, quasi diceret: nisi cadens in terram per passionis humilitatem, Phil. II, 8: humiliavit semetipsum factus obediens usque ad mortem, nulla utilitas sequitur, quia ipsum solum manet. Sed si mortuum fuerit, idest mortificatus et occisus a Iudaeis, multum fructum affert. 1641 The benefit produced by Christ's passion is given when he says, but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He is saying in effect: Unless this seed falls into the earth by the humiliation of the passion - "He humbled himself and became obedient unto death" (Phil 2:8) - there is no benefit, because it remains alone. But if it dies, that is, is put to death and slain by the Jews, it bears much fruit. Et primo quidem fructum remissionis peccati; Is. XXVII, 9: hic est omnis fructus ut tollatur peccatum. Quem quidem fructum attulit passio Christi, secundum illud I Petr. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, iustus pro iniustis, ut nos offerret Deo. Secundo vero fructum conversionis gentium ad Deum. Infra XV, 16: posui vos ut eatis, et fructum afferatis, et fructus vester maneat. Quem fructum attulit passio Christi. Infra eodem: ego, si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. Tertio, fructum gloriae. Sap. III, 15: bonorum laborum gloriosus est fructus. Supra IV, 36: qui metit, mercedem accipit, et congregat fructum in vitam aeternam. Et hunc fructum etiam attulit passio Christi. Hebr. X, 19: habemus fiduciam in introitu sanctorum in sanguine Christi, qui initiavit vobis viam novam, et viventem per velamen, idest carnem suam. The first of these fruits is the remission of sin: "This is all the fruit, that sin is taken away" [Is 27:9]. Truly, this fruit was brought forth by the passion of Christ: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet 3:18). The second of these fruits is the conversion of the Gentiles to God: "I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide" (15:16). This fruit, too, was brought forth by the passion of Christ: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (12:32). A third fruit is the fruit of glory: "The fruit of good labors is renowned [i.e., glorious]" (Wis 3:15); "He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life" (4:36). And again, the passion of Christ produced this fruit: "We have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh" (Heb 10:19-20). Hic ponit necessitatem mortis aliorum, qui amore Christi passionibus se exponunt, et primo ponit mortis huius necessitatem; secundo ad mortem ipsam hortatur, ibi si quis mihi ministrat, me sequatur. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praemittit, subeundam necessitatem mortis propter Christum; secundo subdit mortis huius utilitatem, ibi et qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, in vitam aeternam custodit eam. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum qui amat animam suam. 1642 Then he mentions the necessity for others to die, those who expose themselves to suffering for the love of Christ. First, he states the necessity for their death; secondly, he encourages us to do this (v 26). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he states the necessity of dying for the sake of Christ; secondly, he mentions the benefit this death brings (v 25). Et quidem omnis homo animam suam amat. Sed quidam simpliciter, et quidam secundum quid. Amare enim aliquem est velle ei bonum; ille ergo animam suam amat, qui vult ei bonum. Qui ergo vult animae suae id quod est bonum simpliciter, simpliciter amat eam; qui autem vult ei aliquod particulare bonum, amat eam secundum quid. Bona autem animae simpliciter sunt illa quibus anima fit bona, scilicet summum bonum, quod est Deus. Qui ergo vult animae suae bonum divinum et spirituale, simpliciter amat eam; qui autem vult ei bona terrena, puta divitias et honores, voluptates et huiusmodi, amat eam secundum quid. Ps. X, 6: qui diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam; Eccli. XVIII, 31: si praestes animae tuae concupiscentias suas, faciet te in gaudium inimicis tuis. 1643 Now every one, as a matter of fact, loves his own life, but some love it absolutely, without qualification, and others love it partially, in a qualified way. To love someone is to will good to that person; so, to love one's own life is to will good to it. Therefore, one who wills what is good without qualification to his own life, loves it unqualifiedly; while one who wills his life some partial good loves it in a qualified way. Now the unqualified goods of life are those which make a life good, namely, the highest good, which is God. Thus, one who wills the divine and spiritual good to his life, loves it unqualifiedly; while one who wills it earthly goods, such as riches, honors and pleasures, and things of that sort, loves it in a qualified way. "He who loves sin hates his own life" [Ps 10:5]; "If you allow your soul to take pleasure in base desire, it will make you the laughingstock of your enemies" (Sir 18:31). [20] Potest ergo haec littera dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo sic qui animam suam amat, supple simpliciter ad bona aeterna, perdet eam, idest, exponet se morti propter Christum. Sed hic non est sensus verus. Et ideo dicitur qui amat animam suam, secundum quid, scilicet ad bona temporalia, perdet eam, simpliciter scilicet. Matth. XVI, 26: quid enim proficit homini, si totum mundum lucretur, animae autem suae detrimentum patiatur? Et veritas huius sensus patet ex hoc quod sequitur: qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, in vitam aeternam custodit eam. Igitur qui amat animam suam, in hoc mundo, idest ad bona mundana, perdet eam, quantum ad bona aeterna. Lc. VI, 25: vae vobis qui ridetis, quia flebitis: et ib. cap. XVI, 25: recordare quia recepisti bona in vita tua, et Lazarus similiter mala; nunc autem hic consolatur, tu vero cruciaris. 1644 This passage, therefore, can be understood in two ways. In one way, as saying, he who loves his life, unqualifiedly, that is, in regard to eternal goods, loses it, that is, exposes it to death for Christ. But this is not the true sense. Accordingly it means, he who loves his life, in a qualified way, that is, in regard to temporal goods, loses it, unqualifiedly: "For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?" (Mt 16:26). That this is the true meaning is shown from the statement which follows: he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Therefore, he who loves his life, in this world, that is, as to worldly goods, loses it as to eternal goods: "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep," as we read in Luke (6:25); "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish" (Lk 16:25). Utilitas autem huius mortis subditur cum dicit et qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, idest, qui denegat bona praesentia animae suae, et sustinet propter Deum quae videntur mala in hoc mundo, in vitam aeternam custodit eam; Matth. V, 10: beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum; Lc. XIV, 26: si quis venit ad me, et non odit patrem et matrem (...) adhuc autem et animam suam, non potest meus esse discipulus. 1645 The benefit produced by this death is asserted when he says, and he who hates his life in this world, that is, he who denies his own life's present goods, and endures, for God, things that seem evil in this world, will keep it for eternal life: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:10); "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and motheryes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple," as we read in Luke (14:26). Attendendum autem, quod illud quod supra de grano frumenti dictum est, competit huic sententiae. Nam sicut Christus missus fuit in mundum quasi quoddam semen ad fructificandum; ita, quidquid nobis temporaliter datur a Deo, non confertur nobis ut fructus, sed per illud ad fructum aeternae remunerationis pervenimus. Vita autem nostra est quoddam temporale donum a Deo nobis collatum. Qui ergo eam propter Christum exponit, fructum multum affert. Hic ergo est qui odit animam suam: idest, qui vitam suam exponit, et seminat propter Christum in vitam aeternam; Ps. CXXV, 6: euntes ibant, et flebant, mittentes semina sua; venientes autem venient cum exultatione, portantes manipulos suos. Et similiter qui divitias suas et alia bona quae habet, exponit propter Christum, et communicat aliis in vitam aeternam; II Cor. IX, 6: qui seminat in benedictionibus, de benedictionibus et metet. Note that what was said above about the grain of wheat is in keeping with this teaching. For just as Christ was sent into the world as a seed that was to bear fruit, so whatever temporal goods are given to us in this life by God are not given to us as fruit, but rather that by their means we may obtain the fruit of an eternal reward. Indeed, our very life is a temporal gift from God to us. Therefore, anyone who exposes it for Christ bears much fruit. Such a one, therefore, hates his own life, that is, he exposes his own life, and sows, for the sake of Christ, to gain life everlasting: "He that goes forth weeping, bearing seed for sowing, shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him" (Ps 126:6). And the same is true of those who risk their wealth and other goods for the sake of Christ, and share them with others, to obtain life everlasting: "He who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully" (2 Cor 9:6). Sed quia durum videtur quod homo habeat animam suam odio, ideo dominus ad hoc consequenter hortatur dicens si quis mihi ministrat, me sequatur, et primo ponitur exhortatio; secundo exhortationis ratio, ibi si quis mihi ministraverit, honorificabit eum pater meus. 1646 Now because it seems difficult for one to hate his own life, our Lord encourages us to do this, saying, If any one serves me, he must follow me. First, his encouragement is given; secondly, the reason for this encouragement (v 26b). Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit suorum fidelium conditionem; secundo inducit ad sui imitationem; tertio subdit imitantium remunerationem. 1647 In regard to the first he does three things. First, he describes his faithful; secondly, he urges them to imitate him; thirdly, he indicates the reward of those who imitate him. Et quidem attende, quantum ad primum, fidelium Christi dignitatem, quia ministri Christi; II Cor. XI, 23: ministri Christi sunt, et ego. Illi ergo Christo ministrant, qui ea quae sunt Christi, quaerunt; qui commoda propria quaerunt, non sunt ministri Christi, sed sui ipsorum; Phil. II, 21: omnes quae sua sunt quaerunt. Praelati autem sunt ministri, inquantum eius sacramenta fidelibus dispensant; I Cor. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei. Item quilibet fidelis qui mandata Christi servat; II Cor. VI, 4: in omnibus exhibeamus nosmetipsos sicut Dei ministros et cetera. Observe, in regard to the first, the dignity of Christ's faithful, for they are the ministers or servants of Christ: "Are they ministers of Christ? So am I" [2 Cor 11:23]. Thus, those serve Christ who seek the things of Christ; but those who seek their own advantage are not servants of Christ, but servants of themselves: "They all seek after their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ" (Phil 2:21). Priests are servants inasmuch as they administer the sacraments to the faithful: "This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor 4:1). Again, every one of the faithful who keeps the commandments of Christ is his servant: "Let us act in all circumstances as God's ministers" [2 Cor 6:4]. Quantum ad secundum, attende fidelium Christi gloriam et nobilitatem, unde dicit me sequatur; quasi dicat: homines sequuntur dominos suos, quibus ministrant: qui ergo mihi ministrat, me sequatur; ut scilicet sicut ego mortem subeo ut multum fructum afferam, ita et ipse. Sequi autem Christum est magna gloria; Eccli. XXIII, 38: magna gloria est sequi dominum; supra X, 27: oves meae vocem meam audiunt, et ego cognosco eas et sequuntur me. In regard to the second, observe the glory and grandeur of the faithful of Christ, for he says, he must follow me. This is like saying: We follow our masters, whom we serve. Therefore, If anyone serves me, he must follow me, so that just as I undergo death so that I might bear much fruit, so also my servant. Now to follow Christ is a great glory: "It is a great glory to follow the Lord" [Sir 23:38]; "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (10:27). Quantum ad tertium attende fidelium beatitudinem, quia ubi ego sum, non solum in loco, sed etiam in ipsa participatione gloriae, illic et minister meus erit; Matth. XXIV, v. 28: ubi fuerit corpus, illic congregabuntur et aquilae; Apoc. III, 21: qui vicerit, faciam illum sedere mecum in throno meo. In regard to the third, note the beatitude of the faithful, for where I am, not only in the place, but also as regards the sharing of glory, there shall my servant be also: "Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together" (Mt 24:28); "He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne" (Rev 3:21). Ratio autem exhortationis subditur cum dicit si quis mihi ministraverit, honorificabit eum pater meus; qui enim ministrat Christo, honorat eum pater. Sed supra, V, 23, dicitur: ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem. Idem est ergo honorificare filium et honorificare patrem. Pater autem dicit, I Reg. II, 30: qui glorificaverit me, glorificabo eum et cetera. Qui ergo ministrat Iesu, non sua quaerens, sed quae Iesu Christi, honorificabit eum pater Iesu. Non autem dixit ego honorificabo eum, sed pater meus, quia nondum opinionem de eo habebant, quod scilicet esset aequalis patri. 1648 The reason for this encouragement is given when he says, if any one serves me, the Father will honor him, for the Father honors anyone who serves Christ. Now above we have read: "that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (5:23). Thus, it is the same to honor the Son and to honor the Father. But the Father says, "Those who honor me, I will honor" (1 Sam 2:31). Thus, the Father of Jesus will honor one who ministers to Jesus, not seeking his own, but the things of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not say, "I will honor him," but the Father will honor him, because these people did not think at this time that he was equal to the Father. Vel dicendum, quod haec dicit in signum maioris familiaritatis, inquantum ab eodem honorificabuntur a quo et filius. Nam honorem quem habet filius per naturam, ipsi habebunt per gratiam. Unde Augustinus dicit: maiorem honorem non poterit recipere adoptatus, quam ut sit ubi est unicus. Rom. c. VIII, 29: quos praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Or, it might be said that Jesus said this to show how intimately his servants are related to him, inasmuch as they will be honored by the same one who honors the Son. For the honor the Son has by his nature, they will have by grace. So Augustine says: "An adopted son can receive no greater honor than to be where the only Son is." [21] "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren" (Rom 8:29).
Lectio 5 LECTURE 5 Supra actum est de gloria Christo exhibita a diversis hominibus; hic agit de gloria Christo exhibita a Deo, et primo ponitur huius gloriae petitio; secundo subditur gloriae promissio, ibi venit ergo vox de caelo et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praemittit animae suae affectionem; secundo proponit petitionem, ibi et quid dicam? et cetera. 1649 Above, we saw the glory shown to Christ by various types of people; here the Evangelist considers the glory shown to Christ by God. First, he mentions that Christ asked for glory; secondly, the promise of glory is made (v 28b). Concerning the first he does two things. First, the interior state of Christ is given; secondly, he mentions the request made by Christ. Sed attende circa primum quod est mirabile quod dicit nunc anima mea turbata est. Supra enim fideles suos exhortatus est animam suam in hoc mundo odio habere, et nunc, imminente morte, audivimus ipsum dominum dicentem nunc anima mea turbata est. Propter quod Augustinus dicit: domine, sequi iubes animam meam, turbari video animam tuam: quale fundamentum quaeram, si petra succumbit? Et ideo videndum est primum quid sit haec turbatio in Christo; secundo quare voluit eam subire. 1650 Note, in regard to the first, that it seems incongruous for Christ to be saying, Now is my soul troubled, for he had urged his faithful to hate their own lives in this world; but with his own death near at hand, we hear the Lord himself saying, Now is my soul troubled. This leads Augustine to say: "O Lord, You command my soul to follow. But I see your own soul troubled. What support shall I seek, if the rock crumbles?" [23] Thus we must first examine this troubled state of Christ, and secondly, why he willed to undergo it. Sciendum est autem quantum ad primum, quod proprie dicitur turbari aliquid quando commovetur: unde et mare commotum, dicimus esse turbatum. Quandocumque ergo aliquid excedit modum suae quietis et tranquillitatis, tunc illud dicitur turbari. In anima autem humana est pars sensitiva, et pars rationalis. In sensitiva quidem parte animae accidit turbatio, quando aliquibus motibus commovetur; puta cum timore contrahitur, spe elevatur, gaudio dilatatur, seu aliqua alia passione afficitur. Sed haec quidem turbatio quandoque quidem sub ratione sistit; quandoque vero limitem rationis excedit, cum scilicet ipsa ratio perturbatur. Quod quidem pluries in nobis contingit, sed in Christo hoc locum non habet, cum sit ipsa sapientia patris; nec etiam in aliquo sapiente: unde sententia Stoicorum est quod sapiens non turbatur, scilicet quantum ad rationem. 1651 As to the first, we should note that, properly speaking, a thing is said to be troubled when it is greatly agitated. Hence when the sea is very agitated it is said to be troubled. And so whenever a thing oversteps the bounds of its repose and tranquility, it is said to be troubled. Now in the human soul there is a sentient area and a rational area. The sensitive area of the soul is troubled when it becomes strongly affected by certain movements. For example, when it is contracted by fear, raised up by hope, dilated by joy, or otherwise affected by one or other of the emotions. Sometimes this perturbation remains within the bounds of reason, and sometimes it exceeds the bounds or reason, namely, when the reason itself is troubled. And although this latter condition quite often occurs in us, it is not found in Christ, since he is the Wisdom of the Father. Indeed, it is not found in any wise person; thus the Stoic tenet that one who is wise is not troubled, that is, in his reason. Secundum hoc ergo est sensus: nunc anima mea turbata est; idest, affecta est passionibus timoris et tristitiae, quantum ad sensitivam, quibus tamen ratio non turbabatur nec suum ordinem deserebat; Mc. XIV, 33: coepit Iesus pavere et taedere. Accordingly, the meaning of Now is my soul troubled, is this: My soul is affected by the emotions of fear and sadness in its sentient part; but these emotions do not trouble my reason, and it does not abandon its own order. "He began to be greatly distressed and troubled" (Mk 14:33). Huiusmodi autem passiones aliter sunt in nobis, et aliter fuerunt in Christo. In nobis enim sunt ex necessitate, inquantum quasi ab extrinseco commovemur et afficimur; in Christo autem non sunt ex necessitate, sed ex imperio rationis, cum in eo nulla passio fuerit nisi quam ipse concitavit. Nam intantum inferiores vires erant subditae rationi in Christo quod nihil agere et pati poterant, nisi quod eis ratio ordinabat: et ideo dicitur supra XI, 33, quod Iesus infremuit spiritu, et turbavit semetipsum; Ps. LIX, 4: commovisti terram (idest, humanam naturam) et turbasti eam. Sic ergo turbata est anima Christi quod nec contra rationem, sed secundum rationis ordinem turbatio in eo fuit. Such emotions, however, exist in us otherwise than in Christ. In us, they arise from necessity, insofar as we are moved and affected from without, as it were. But in Christ, they are not from necessity, but from the command of reason, since there was never any emotion in him except that which he himself aroused. For in Christ the lower powers were subject to his reason so perfectly that they could not act or undergo anything except what reason appointed for them. Thus as was said above [11:33]: "he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled himself"; "You have moved the earth," that is, human nature, "and troubled it" [Ps 59:4]. And so the soul of Christ was troubled in such a way that its perturbation was not opposed to reason, but according to the order of reason. Quantum ad secundum autem, sciendum est quod dominus turbari voluit propter duo. Primo quidem propter fidei documenta, ut scilicet veritatem humanae naturae approbaret: et ideo iam ad passionem appropinquans omnia humanitus agit. Secundo propter exemplum: nam si omnia constanter egisset, et nullam passionem sensisset in anima, non fuisset sufficiens exemplum ad mortem sustinendam hominibus. Et ideo turbari voluit, ut, cum turbamur, non recusemus mortem sustinere, nec deficiamus; Hebr. IV, 15: non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia, pro similitudine absque peccato. 1652 In regard to the second point, note that Christ willed to be troubled for two reasons. First, to show us a doctrine of the faith, that is, the truth of his human nature. Accordingly, as his passion was drawing near, he did everything in a human way. Secondly, he wanted to be an example for us. For if he had remained unmoved and had felt no emotions in his soul, he would not have been a satisfactory example of how we should face death. And so he willed to be troubled in order that when we are troubled at the prospect of death, we will not refuse to endure it, we will not run away: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). Unde ex hoc apparet continuatio cum praecedentibus. Quia enim dixerat: qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, in vitam aeternam custodit eam, in quo ad passionem discipulos exhortatus fuerat, ne dicant aliqui: o domine, securus potes disputare et philosophari de morte, qui extra dolores humanos existens, propter mortem non turbaris: et ideo ut hoc excluderet, turbari voluit. Haec autem Christi turbatio naturalis fuit: nam sicut anima naturaliter amat corporis unionem, ita et naturaliter refugit eius separationem, praesertim cum ratio Christi permiserit agere animae et viribus inferioribus quae eis propria erant. 1653 The relationship of this with what came before is clear. He encouraged his disciples to suffer when he said: "He who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." But some might say to him: "Lord, you can calmly discuss and philosophize about death because you are above human sorrows, and death does not trouble you." It was to counter this that he willed to be troubled. This disturbance in Christ was natural: for just as the soul naturally loves union with its body, so it naturally shrinks separation from it, especially since the reason of Christ allowed his soul and its inferior powers to act in their own proper way. Propter hoc etiam quod dicit nunc anima mea turbata est etc., destruitur error Arii et Apollinaris dicentium in Christo non esse animam, sed verbum loco eius. 1654 Again, when he said, Now is my soul troubled, he refuted the error of Arius and Apollinaris. For they said that Christ did not have a soul, and in place of his soul they substituted the Word. Consequenter ponit dominus petitionem gloriae, dicens et quid dicam? Pater, salvifica me ex hac hora: ubi dominus transfert ad se affectum hominis turbati: ad cuius modum quatuor circa suam petitionem facit: primo enim ponit quaestionem deliberantis; secundo proponit petitionem, quae ex uno motu procedit; tertio per rationem illum motum excludit; quarto ponit aliam petitionem ex alio motu causatam. 1655 Then our Lord makes his petition for glory, saying, And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour [understood here not as a question, but as a petition]. Here our Lord takes upon himself the emotions of one who is troubled. And acting as one troubled, he does four things in his petition. First, he poses a question, as one does when deliberating about what is to be done; secondly, he makes a request which arises from a certain inclination; thirdly, he rejects this inclination for a particular reason; and fourthly, he makes another request that arises from a different inclination. Quaestionem autem dubitantis proponit, quia naturale est hominibus in angustiis constitutis quod deliberent, unde philosophus in rhetoricis dicit quod timor facit consiliativos. Ideo Christus post manifestationem suae turbationis, statim subdit et quid dicam? Quasi diceret; quid faciendum est post turbationem? Simile habetur in Ps. LIV, 6: timor et tremor venerunt super me. Et statim sequitur: quis dabit mihi pennas sicut columbae, et volabo, et requiescam? Nam et angustiati, et passione turbati gravantur, et auxilium quaerunt quo liberentur. 1656 He poses this question as one does when in doubt, because it is natural to deliberate about what to do when one is perplexed. So the Philosopher says in his Rhetoric that fear makes a person take counsel. [24] Thus, after mentioning that he is troubled, Christ at once adds, And what shall I say? It is the same as saying: "What shall I do in my trouble." Something like this is met in Psalm 55 (v 5): "Fear and trembling came upon me," and then follows, "O that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be at rest." For both the perplexed and the emotionally disturbed are weighed down and look for help to relieve themselves. Petitionem ex uno motu causatam ponit, quia, cum quis est in ambiguo quid agere debeat, debet recurrere ad Deum; II Paralip. XX, 12: cum ignoremus quid agere debeamus, hoc solum habemus refugii, ut oculos nostros dirigamus ad te, Deus noster; Ps. CXX, 1: levavi oculos meos in montes, unde veniet auxilium mihi. Et ideo ad patrem recurrens, dicit pater, salvifica me; idest, libera me a tribulatione quae imminet in hora passionis; Ps. LXVIII, 2: salvum me fac, domine, quoniam intraverunt aquae usque ad animam meam. Et, ut Augustinus dicit, idem est quod hic dominus dicit nunc anima mea turbata est, et pater, salvifica me, cum eo quod dicit Matth. XXVI, 38: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. 1657 He makes his petition, arising from a certain inclination, because when one is hesitant about what he should do, he ought to turn to God: "We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon thee" (2 Chron 20:12); "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains from whence help will come to me" [Ps 120:1]. And so, turning to the Father, he says, Father save me, that is, from the sufferings which await me at the hour of my passion: "Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck" (Ps 69:1). According to Augustine, what our Lord says here - Now is my soul troubled and Father, save me - is the same as what he says in Matthew (26:38): "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death." [25] Sed notandum, quod haec petitio non proponitur ex proprio motu rationis, sed ipsa ratio quasi advocata loquitur in persona naturalis affectionis, quae desiderabat non mori: et ideo ratio designat motum affectionis naturalis in hac petitione. 1658 Note that this petition is not made as though it arose from the inclination of reason; rather, reason is speaking as an advocate of the natural inclination not to die. And so in this petition reason is pointing out the impulse of a natural inclination. Ex quo solvitur quaestio quae fieri consuevit, quia, ut dicitur ad Hebr. V, 7: in omnibus exauditus est pro sua reverentia. Et tamen in hoc quod petiit, non fuit exauditus. Ad quod dicendum, quod in illis est exauditus quae ipsa ratio ex parte sua petebat, et ut exaudienda. Hoc autem quod hic petit, non proponit ex parte sua, nec ut exaudienda, sed ut exprimens naturalem affectum: et ideo, secundum Chrysostomum, legitur interrogative. Et quid dicam? Numquid hoc: pater, salvifica me ex hac hora? Quasi diceret, non dicam hoc. This explanation solves a question which is frequently raised. For we read: "In all things he was heard for his reverence" [Heb 5:7]; and yet in this case, Christ was not heard. The answer to this is that Christ was heard in those matters in which his petition came from reason itself and which he intended to be granted. But the petition he made here did not come from reason, nor was it intended to be granted, rather, it expressed a natural inclination. Thus Chrysostom reads it as a question, that is, as: And what shall I say? Shall I say, Father, save me from this hour? It is the same as saying: "No! I will not say this." [26] Petitionem autem hanc ex motu naturalis appetitus propositam repellit, dicens propterea veni in horam hanc, quasi diceret: non est iustum ut liberer ex hac hora passionis, quia ideo veni ut paterer, non fatali necessitate ductus, non humana violentia coactus, sed sponte oblatus; Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est, quia ipse voluit; supra X, 18: nemo tollet eam, scilicet animam meam, a me; sed ego pono eam. 1659 Yet Christ rejects this petition, which arose from an inclination of the natural appetite, when he says, No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. It is the same as saying: It is not right that I be freed from this time of suffering, because I came to suffer; and not as compelled by the necessity of fate or forced by the violence of me, but by willingly offering myself: "He was offered because it was his own will" [Is 53:7]; "No ones take it," my life, "from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18). Petitionem autem suam proponit ratio, cum dicit pater, clarifica nomen tuum. Ubi per nomen tuum possumus duo intelligere. Scilicet ipsum filium. Nomen enim a notitia dicitur, quasi notamen: unde nomen est quo manifestatur res; filius autem manifestat patrem; infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus. Et de hoc nomine dicitur Is. XXX, 27: ecce nomen domini venit de longinquo. Est ergo sensus: pater, clarifica nomen tuum, idest filium tuum; infra XVII, 5: clarifica me, pater, claritate quam habui, priusquam mundus esset, apud te. Vel nomen domini est notitia patris; et tunc est sensus: fac hoc, pater, clarifica nomen tuum; idest, fac illud quod gloria est tui nominis. Et in idem redit, quia clarificato filio, clarificatum est nomen patris. Ideo autem hoc dicit quia passione filius glorificandus erat; Phil. II, 8: factus est obediens, patri, usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis. Propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum. 1660 Now his reason proposes its own petition when he says, Father, glorify thy name. Thy name can be understood in two ways. First, it can mean the Son himself. For a name (nomen) - which comes from the word for knowledge or being known (notitia) - is like a sign (notamen). Thus a name is what manifests a thing. Now the Son manifests the Father: "FatherI have manifested thy name" (17:6). We read of this name: "Behold, the name of the Lord comes from far" (Is 30:27). So the meaning in this: Father, glorify thy name, that is, your Son: "And now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made" (17:5). Or, the name of the Lord indicates the knowledge which men have of the Father, then the meaning is, Father, glorify thy name, that is, do what is for the glory of your name. Yet it comes to the same thing, because when the Son is glorified the name of the Father is glorified. He says this because the Son was going to be glorified by his passion: "He became obedient," to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him" (Phil 2:8). Quasi dicat: affectus naturalis petit ut salver, sed ratio petit ut clarificetur nomen tuum, idest, ut filius patiatur, quia, scilicet passione Christi notitia Dei clarificanda erat. Nam ante passionem Deus notus erat in Iudaea tantum, et in Israel magnum nomen eius; sed post passionem suam nomen eius clarificatum est in gentibus. He is saying here in effect: By the desire of nature I ask to be saved, but my reason asks that your name be glorified, that is, that the Son suffer, because it was by the passion of Christ that men were to receive their knowledge of God and glorify him. For before the passion God was known only in Judea, and his name was great in Israel; but after the passion, God's name was glorified even among the Gentiles. Consequenter cum dicit venit ergo vox de caelo etc., ponitur gloriae promissio, et primo inducitur vox gloriam promittentis; secundo ponitur opinio turbae devotae dubitantis, ibi turba autem quae stabat et audierat, dicebat tonitruum factum esse; tertio ponitur expositio prolatae vocis, ibi respondit Iesus, et dixit: non propter me haec vox venit. 1661 Then when the Evangelist says, Then a voice came from heaven, the promise of glory is given. First, the voice promising glory is heard; secondly, the crowd expresses its opinion (v 29); lastly, the meaning of the voice is explained (v 30). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum: venit ergo vox de caelo. Vox ista, vox est Dei patris, sicut illa quae supra Christum baptizatum, Matth. II, 17: hic est filius meus dilectus, et similiter quae venit super eum transfiguratum, Matth. XVII, 5. Licet autem omnis talis vox formata sit virtute totius Trinitatis, specialiter tamen formatur ad repraesentandum personam patris, unde et vox patris dicitur: sicut columba formata est a tota Trinitate, ad significandum personam spiritus sancti; et similiter corpus Christi a tota Trinitate formatum est, sed specialiter a persona verbi assumptum, quia ad hoc formatum est ut ei uniretur. 1662 With regard to the first, he says, Then a voice came from heaven. This is the voice of God the Father. It was the same voice that was heard when Christ was baptized, "This is my beloved Son" (Mt 3:17), and at his transfiguration (Mt 17:5). Although every voice of this kind was formed by the power of the entire Trinity, this was specifically formed to represent the person of the Father; thus it is referred to as the voice of the Father. In a similar manner the dove was formed by the entire Trinity to signify the person of the Holy Spirit. And again, the body of Christ was formed by the entire Trinity, but specifically assumed by the person of the Word because it had been formed to be united to him. Vox ergo ista duo facit. Primo manifestat praeteritum, dicens et clarificavi, idest, clarum genui ab aeterno, quia filius non est nisi quaedam claritas et splendor patris; Sap. VII, 26: candor est lucis aeternae, et speculum sine macula Dei maiestatis; Hebr. c. I, 3: qui cum sit splendor gloriae, et figura substantiae eius. Vel clarificavi, in nativitate, quando Angeli cecinerunt: gloria in excelsis Deo, Lc. II, 14, et in miraculis per eum factis. This voice, then, does two things. First, it reveals the past, when saying, I have glorified it, that is, I have begotten you as glorious from all eternity, because the Son is a certain glory and splendor of the Father: "For she [Wisdom] is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God" (Wis 7:26); "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Heb 1:3). Or, I have glorified it at your birth, when the angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest" (Lk 2:14) and in the miracles the Father performed through him. Secundo praenuntiat futurum: et iterum clarificabo, in passione, in qua triumphavit de Diabolo, et in resurrectione et ascensione, et in totius mundi conversione; Act. III, 13: Deus patrum nostrorum clarificavit filium suum Iesum. Secondly, the voice foretells what is to come: and I will glorify it again, in the passion, in which Christ triumphed over the devil, and in the resurrection and the ascension, and in the conversion of all the world: "The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his Son Jesus" [Acts 3:13]. Opinio turbae dubitantis de voce ponitur, cum dicit turba ergo quae stabat, et audierat, dicebat tonitruum esse factum: in qua quidem turba, et in omni turba, quidam erant grossioris et tardioris intellectus, quidam vero acutioris; quamvis omnes imperfecte se haberent ad ipsius vocis cognitionem. Nam desidiosi et carnales non perceperunt vocem ipsam nisi quantum ad sonum; et ideo dicebant tonitruum factum esse. Sed non usquequaque decipiebantur: vox enim domini tonitruum erat, tum quia mirabilem significationem habebat, tum quia maxima continebat; Iob XXVI, 14: cum vix parvam scintillam sermonum eius audierimus, quis poterit tonitruum magnitudinis illius intueri? Ps. LXXVI, 19: vox tonitrui tui in rota. 1663 Next we see the opinion of the crowd, which was wondering about the voice, The crowd standing by heard it and said. In this crowd, as in every other, some were dull and slow to understand, and others were more perceptive; yet all of them failed to identify the voice. Those who were slow and carnal only heard it as a sound; so they said that it had thundered. Still, they were not entirely mistaken, for the Lord's voice was thunder, both because it had an extraordinary meaning, and because it contained very great things: "How small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?" (Job 26:14); "The voice of your thunder" [Ps 76:19]. Acutiores vero perceperunt de ipsa voce quod esset sonus vocis articulatae et significativae: unde dixerunt eam esse locutionem. Sed credentes Christum esse purum hominem, defecerunt, locutionem illam Angelo tribuentes; unde dicebant Angelus ei locutus est: qui quidem similia patiebantur Diabolo, qui credebat Christum Angelorum adminiculo indigere; unde dicebat, Matth. IV: Angelis suis mandavit de te, et in manibus tollent te. Non enim Angelorum custodia indiget et adiutorio, sed ipse Angelos glorificat et custodit. Those who were keener discerned that the sound was a voice, pronouncing words and having a meaning; so they said someone was speaking. But because they thought that Christ was merely human they erred, attributing these words to an angel. So they said that, An angel has spoken to him. They were under the same error as the devil, who thought that Christ needed the help of the angels: thus he said: "He will give his angels charge of you" (Mt 4:6). But he did not need to be guarded and helped by angels; rather, he is the one who glorifies and guards the angels. Expositio vocis subditur, cum dicit: respondit Iesus, et dixit etc., et primo exponit vocem prolatam; secundo ponit contradictionem, ibi respondit ei turba; tertio subdit domini responsionem, ibi dixit ergo eis Iesus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit causam vocis; secundo subdit eius significationem, ibi nunc iudicium est mundi et cetera. 1664 The voice is explained when he says, Jesus answered. First, he explains the voice; secondly, he mentions the answer given by the people (v 34); and thirdly, our Lord's answer (v 35). He does two things about the first: first he mentions the reason for the voice; and secondly, he adds its meaning (v 31). Sciendum est circa primum, quod quia dixerant Angelus locutus est ei Angelus autem loquitur alicui revelando ad utilitatem eius qui loquitur, sicut patet Apoc. I, et Ez. 1, ideo dominus, ostendens se non indigere alicuius vocis, seu angelicae revelationis adminiculo, dicit non propter me, scilicet instruendum, venit haec vox, sed propter vos. Nihil enim significavit quod ipse ante nesciret, quia in ipso sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae Dei absconditi: Col. II, v. 3, ita ut noverit omnia quae pater novit. Sed propter vos venit, scilicet instruendos. In quo datur intelligi, quod multa dispensative circa Christum propter nos facta sunt, non quod eis Christus indigeret; Rom. XV, v. 4: quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. 1665 It should be noted in regard to the first that they had said, An angel has spoken to him. Now an angel speaks by revealing something that will profit the one to whom he speaks, as is clear in Revelation (ch 1) and in Ezekiel (ch 1). And so to show that he did not need this voice or any revelation from an angel, our Lord says, This voice has come for your sake, not for mine, that is, it has not come to instruct me. For this voice mentioned nothing he did no know before, because "in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge" (Col 2:2), so that he knew all that the Father knew. But it has come for your sake, that is, for your instruction. From this we can understand that many things relating to Christ were, in God's plan, allowed to take place not because Christ needed them, but for our sakes: "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction" (Rom 15:4). Consequenter cum dicit nunc iudicium est mundi, ponit vocis significationem, et primo ponit iudicium quo erat glorificandus; secundo subdit iudicii effectum, ibi nunc princeps mundi huius eiicietur foras, et tertio clarificationis modum, ibi et si ego exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. 1666 He says, Now is the judgment of this world, he states the meaning of this voice. First, he mentions the judgment by which he would be glorified; secondly, the effect of this judgment (v 31b); and thirdly, the way he will be glorified (v 32). Dicit ergo nunc iudicium est mundi. Sed si hoc est, quid ergo expectamus quod dominus veniat iterum iudicaturus? Ad quod dicendum, quod iam venit ad iudicandum iudicio discretionis, quo discerneret suos a non suis; supra IX, 39: in iudicium ego in hunc mundum veni. Et de hoc dicit nunc iudicium est mundi. Sed venturus est ad iudicandum iudicio condemnationis, ad quod primo non venit; supra III, 17: non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. 1667 He says, Now is the judgment of this world. But if this is true, why do we expect that our Lord will come again to judge? The answer is that now he comes to judge with a judgment of distinction or discernment, by which he discerns his own from those who are not his: "For judgment I came into this world" (9:39). This is what he is speaking of when he says, Now is the judgment of this world. But he will come again to judge with the judgment of condemnation, for which he did not come the first time: "For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (3:17). Vel dicendum, quod duplex est iudicium. Unum quo condemnatur mundus, et de hoc non dicitur hic; aliud est iudicium mundi quo iudicatur pro mundo, inquantum mundus a servitute Diaboli liberatur. Hoc modo intelligitur illud Ps. XXXIV, 1: iudica, domine, nocentes me, expugna impugnantes me et cetera. Et haec duo in idem redeunt: quia hoc ipso quod iudicatur pro mundo, excluso Diabolo, discernuntur boni a malis. Or, we might say that there are two kinds of judgment. One is that which condemns the world; and this is not referred to here. The other is the judgment which will be in favor of the world, insofar as the world is set free from servitude to the devil. This is the way the Psalm is understood: "O Lord! Judge those who wrong me; overthrow those who fight against me" [Ps 34:1]. But this judgment and the judgment of distinction are the same, because by the very fact that the judgment is in favor of the world by casting out the devil, the good are distinguished from the wicked. Effectus iudicii est exclusio Diaboli, unde dicit nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras, per virtutem passionis Christi. Unde sua passio est eius clarificatio, ut quasi per hoc exponat quod dicit et clarificabo, inquantum scilicet princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras, quasi per passionem victoriam de Diabolo habeat; I Io. III, 8: in hoc apparuit filius Dei, ut dissolvat opera Diaboli. 1668 The effect of this judgment is the casting out of the devil. So he says, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out, by the power of the passion of Christ. Thus the passion of Christ is his glorification; and this explains what he had said, I will glorify it, insofar as the ruler of this world shall be cast out, since Christ has the victory over the devil by his passion. "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8). Sed circa hoc dubitatur de tribus. Primo de hoc quod dicit Diabolum principem huius mundi; ex quo Manichaei dicunt eum creatorem et dominum omnium visibilium. Ad hoc dicendum, quod Diabolus dicitur princeps mundi huius, non naturali dominio, sed usurpatione, inquantum homines mundani, contempto vero domino, se sibi subdiderunt; II Cor. IV, 4: Deus huius saeculi excaecavit mentes infidelium. Est ergo princeps mundi huius, inquantum in mundanis hominibus principatur, ut Augustinus dicit, qui toto orbe terrarum diffusi sunt. Nam nomen mundi quandoque accipitur in malam partem pro hominibus mundum amantibus, supra I, v. 10: mundus eum non cognovit; quandoque autem in bonam pro bonis hominibus sic in mundo viventibus, ut tamen eorum conversatio sit in caelis; II Cor. V, 19: Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi. 1669 A difficulty arises here on three points. First, because he says that the devil is the ruler or prince of this world. It was this that led the Manicheans to call him the creator and lord of everything that was visible. The answer is that the devil is called the ruler of this world not by a natural right, but by usurpation, insofar as worldly people, rejecting the true Lord, subject themselves to him: "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4). Thus, he is the ruler of this world insofar as he rules those who are worldly, as St. Augustine says, and these are spread throughout the entire world. [27] For the word "world" is sometimes taken in a pejorative sense to mean those who love the world: "The world knew him not" (1:10). Yet sometimes it is taken in a good sense to indicate those who are good and live in the world in such a way that they are citizens of heaven: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19). Secundo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit eiicietur foras. Nam si eiectus esset foras, non ita tentaret nunc sicut ante tentabat, cum tamen tentare non desierit: non ergo eiectus est. Ad quod dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod licet Diabolus tentet homines qui desierunt esse de mundo, non tamen eo modo tentat quo prius. Quia tunc tentabat et regnabat ab interiori, sed postmodum ab exteriori tantum. Nam quamdiu homines sunt in peccato, tunc regnat ab interiori, et tentat; Rom. VI, 12: non regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore, ut obediatis concupiscentiis eius. Sic ergo eiectus est foras, quia effectus peccati in homine non est ab interiori, sed ab exteriori. 1670 The second difficulty concerns the fact that the ruler of this world is said to be cast out. For if he had truly been cast out, he would not longer tempt us now as he did before; yet he continues to tempt us. Therefore, he was not cast out. Augustine answers this by saying that although the devil may tempt those who have ceased to be of the world, he does not tempt them in the same way as he did before. For before he tempted and ruled them from within, but now he does so only from without. For as long as men are in sin, he rules and tempts them from within: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions" (Rom 6:12). And so he was cast out because the effect of sin in man is not [now] from within but from without. [28] Tertio quaeritur de hoc quod dicit nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras: ex quo videtur sequi quod ante passionem Christi non erat eiectus foras, et per consequens, cum tunc eiiciatur foras quando homines liberantur a peccatis, quod Abraham, Isaac, et alii veteris testamenti non fuerunt liberati a peccato. Ad quod dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod ante passionem Christi eiectus erat a singularibus personis, sed non a mundo, sicut post. Nam illud quod tunc in paucissimis hominibus factum est, nunc in multis magnisque populis Iudaeorum et gentium ad Christum conversis, virtute passionis Christi factum esse dignoscitur. 1671 Thirdly, there is a difficulty from the fact that he says, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out. For it seems to follow from this that he had not been cast out before the passion of Christ, and consequently, if he is cast out only when men are set free from sin, it seems that Abraham, Isaac and the other men of the Old Testament were not set free from sin. The answer, according to Augustine, is that before the passion of Christ he had been cast out of individual persons, but not from the world, as he was to be later. [29] For what formerly took place in only a few men, but now happens in many Jews and Gentiles who have converted to Christ, is recognized to have been accomplished by the passion of Christ. Vel dicendum quod Diabolus eiicitur per hoc quod homines liberantur a peccato; sed ante passionem Christi, omnes iusti liberati erant a peccato, sed non totaliter, quia adhuc detinebantur ne introducerentur in regnum: et quantum ad hoc in eis aliquid iuris habebat, quod tamen per passionem Christi totaliter sublatum est, quando flammeus gladius amotus est, quando dictum est homini: hodie mecum eris in Paradiso. Or, it might be said that the devil is cast out by the fact that men are set free from sin; but before the passion of Christ all the just had been set free from sin, although not entirely, because they were still kept from entering the kingdom. In this respect, therefore, the devil had some right over them which was entirely taken away by the passion of Christ, when the fiery sword was removed, when Christ said to the man: "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (23:43). Modus autem passionis est per exaltationem, unde dicit et ego, si exaltatur fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. Circa quod sciendum, quod Chrysostomus utitur tali exemplo: quod si aliquis tyrannus, qui consuevisset aliquos subditos opprimere, ferire, et in vincula mittere, deinde ex eadem dementia etiam eum qui in nullo sibi subditur eodem modo afficiat, ut in eumdem carcerem ducat, merito hoc etiam aliorum qui subiiciebantur dominio privari debet: ita et Christus contra Diabolum fecit. Diabolus enim propter peccatum primi parentis, aliquod ius habebat in hominibus, unde poterat aliquo modo iuste in eos saevire. Quia vero etiam in Christo, in quo nullum ius habebat, similia tentare ausus est, dum eum tentator invasit in quem non habebat quidquam, ut dicitur infra XIII, ideo dignum fuit ut etiam dominio privaretur per mortem Christi. Et hoc est quod dicit si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. Ubi primo praemittit modum mortis; secundo Evangelista exponit quod dicit, ibi hoc autem dicebat significans qua morte esset moriturus. Modus autem mortis est per exaltationem in ligno crucis. Expositio autem est quod in hoc signavit qua morte esset moriturus. 1672 The form or manner of this passion would be by being lifted up; thus he says, and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men [all things] to myself. In regard to this, Chrysostom has the following example: If a tyrant, accustomed to oppress and rage against his subjects and cast them into chains, were in his madness to treat in the same way some one who was not subject to him and cast him into the same prison, then he would deserve that even his dominion over the others be taken from him. [30] This is what Christ did against the devil. For the devil had some right over men because of the sin of the first parent; and so in some sense he could justly rage against them. But since he dared to try the same things with Christ, over whom he had no right, assailing him in whom he had no part, as the tempter, it was fitting that he be deprived of his dominion by the death of Christ. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. First, he describes the manner of his death; secondly, the Evangelist explains it, saying, he said this to show by what death he was to die, for he would die by being lifted up on the wood of the cross. Sciendum est autem, quod duplici de causa dominus voluit mori morte crucis. Una quidem propter mortis turpitudinem; Sap. II, 20: morte turpissima condemnemus eum. Unde et Augustinus dicit: ideo hoc modo dominus mori voluit, ut hominem neque ipsa mortis turpitudo a perfectione iustitiae repellat. 1673 Here we should note that there are two reasons why the Lord willed to die the death of the cross. First, because it is a shameful death: "Let us condemn him to a shameful death" (Wis 2:20). So Augustine says: "The Lord willed to die in this way so that not even a shameful death would keep a person from the perfection of righteousness." [31] Secundo, quia sic mors est per modum exaltationis: unde et dominus dicit si exaltatus fuero. Quod quidem genus mortis conveniebat fructui, causae et figurae passionis. Fructui quidem, quia per passionem erat exaltandus. Phil. II, 8: factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis: propter quod Deus exaltavit illum, et donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen. Et ideo Ps. XX, 14, dicebat: exaltare, domine, in virtute tua. Secondly, because such a death involves a lifting up; so our Lord says, when I am lifted up. Such a manner of death was in harmony with the fruit, the reason and the symbol of the passion. It was in harmony with its fruit, because it was by the passion that Christ was to be lifted up, exalted: "He became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him" (Phil 2:8). Thus the Psalmist said: "Be exalted, O Lord, in thy strength!" (Ps 2:8). Causae vero passionis conveniebat dupliciter: quia et ex parte Daemonis, et ex parte hominum. Ex parte quidem hominum, quia pro ipsorum salute moriebatur; ipsi autem perierant, quia deiecti et demersi erant ad terrena; Ps. XVI, 11: statuerunt oculos suos declinare in terram. Voluit ergo mori exaltatus, ut corda nostra ad caelestia elevaret. Sic enim ipse est via nostra in caelum. Ex parte vero Daemonum, ut scilicet eos qui in aere principatum et potestatem exercebant, ipse elevatus in aere conculcet. It harmonized with the reason for the passion, and in two ways: both with respect to men and with respect to the devil. With respect to me, because he died for their salvation. For they had perished, because they were cast down and sunk in earthly things: "they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth" [Ps 16:11]. Thus he willed to die raised up in order to lift our hearts up to heavenly things. For in this way he is our way into heaven. With respect to the devils, it was fitting in the sense that those who exercised their principality and power in the air were trod under foot by him while he was raised in the air. Figurae vero conveniebat, quia dominus fieri praecepit serpentem aeneum in deserto, ut habetur Num. XXI, 9. Supra III, 14: sicut Moyses exaltavit serpentem in deserto, ita exaltari oportet filium hominis et cetera. Sic ergo exaltatus omnia traham, per caritatem, ad meipsum: Ier. XXXI, 3: in caritate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te, miserans. Finally, it harmonized with the symbol, because the Lord commanded that a bronze serpent be fashioned in the desert, as recorded in Numbers (21:9), and above: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up" (3:14). And so thus lifted up I will draw all things to myself, through love "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore have I drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer 31:3]. In hoc etiam maxime apparet caritas Dei ad hominem, inquantum pro ipsis mori dignatus est; Rom. V, 8: commendat Deus suam caritatem in nobis, quoniam cum adhuc peccatores essemus secundum tempus, Christus pro nobis mortuus est. In hoc complevit quod sponsa petit Cant. I, 3: trahe me post te, et curremus in odorem unguentorum tuorum. Furthermore, the love of God for men appears most clearly in the fact that he condescended to die for them: "God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us," as we read in Romans (5:8). By doing this he fulfilled the request of the bride: "Draw me after you, and we will run to the aroma of your perfume" [Song 1:3]. Notandum est autem quod trahit pater, trahit et filius; supra VI, 44: nemo potest venire ad me nisi pater, qui misit me, traxerit eum. Ideo autem dicit hic omnia traham, ut ostendat quod eadem est operatio utriusque. Dicit autem omnia, non omnes quia non omnes trahuntur ad filium. Omnia, inquam traham, idest animam et corpus. Vel omnia genera hominum, scilicet gentiles et Iudaeos, servos et liberos, mares et feminas. Vel omnia praedestinata ad salutem. 1674 Here we may note that the Father draws and the Son also draws: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44). He says here, I will draw all things, in order to show that the same action belongs to both of them. And he says, all things, and not "all men," because not all men are drawn to the Son. I will draw all things, that is, the body and the soul; or all types of men, such as Gentiles and Jews, servants and freemen, male and female; or, all who are predestined to salvation. Et notandum, quod hoc ipsum quod dicit omnia trahere ad seipsum, est principem huius mundi foras eiicere: non enim est conventio Christi ad Belial, nec lucis ad tenebras. Finally, we should note that to draw all things to himself is for Christ to cast out the prince of this world, for Christ has no fellowship with Belial, nor light with darkness (2 Cor 6:15).
Lectio 6 LECTURE 6 Posita promissione de glorificatione domini, et expositione vocis, hic consequenter ponitur dubitatio turbae, ubi primo introducit auctoritatem legis; secundo ex ea dubitationem movet, ibi et quomodo tu dicis et cetera. 1675 Having mentioned the promised glorification of the Lord and explaining the voice, the Evangelist now describes the doubt which prevailed among the crowd. First, they introduce the authority of the Law; and secondly, they raise a problem based on it (v 34). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum respondit ei turba, scilicet domino de sua morte loquenti, nos audivimus ex lege (lex hic accipitur communiter pro tota Scriptura veteris testamenti) quod Christus in aeternum manet. Et hoc potest ex multis locis veteris testamenti haberi, et praecipue Is. c. IX, 7: multiplicabitur eius imperium, et pacis non erit finis; Dan. VII, 14: potestas eius potestas aeterna, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius quod non corrumpetur. 1676 In regard to the first the Evangelist says, The crowd answered him, that is, the Lord, who was speaking of his death, We have heard from the law, and law is taken here for the entire Old Testament that the Christ remains for ever. This can be gathered from many passages of the Old Testament, especially from Isaiah (9:7): "Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end"; and in Daniel (7:14): "His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." Et ex hac auctoritate duas dubitationes formant: unam de facto, aliam de persona. De facto, cum dicunt quomodo tu dicis: oportet exaltari filium hominis? Sed cum Christus non dixerit oportet exaltari filium hominis, sed ego si exaltatus fuero etc., quomodo Iudaei dicunt oportet exaltari filium hominis? Sed dicendum, quod Iudaei iam assueti erant verbis domini, unde memoriter tenuerunt quod dicebat se esse filium hominis. Ideo cum dixit: ego, si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum, pro eodem intellexerunt ac si dixisset: si filius hominis esset exaltatus, ut Augustinus dicit. Vel dicendum, quod licet hic non fecerit mentionem de filio hominis, tamen supra III, 14, hoc dixit: oportet, inquam exaltari filium hominis. 1677 Basing themselves on this authority, they formulate two doubts: one concerns a fact, and the other the person. As concerns the fact, they say, How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? But since Christ did not say that "the Son of man must be lifted up," but "and I, when I am lifted up," why do the Jews say that "the Son of man" must be lifted up? The answer to this is that the Jews were now accustomed to our Lord's words; thus they remembered that he called himself the Son of man. And so when he said, "And I, when I am lifted up," they took it to mean, "If the Son of man is lifted up," as Augustine says. [33] Or, one might answer that although Christ did not here mention the Son of man, yet earlier he had said: "The Son of man must be lifted up" (3:14). Sed videtur hoc quod ipsi dicunt oportet exaltari filium hominis, in nullo contrariari ei quod dixerat quod Christus manet in aeternum. Sed dicendum ad hoc, quod quia dominus consueverat eis parabolice loqui, ideo multa eorum quae dicebantur, intelligebant. Unde et hoc quod dominus dixit, exaltationem in mortem crucis suspicati sunt; supra VIII, 28: cum exaltaveritis filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis quia ego sum. Vel dicendum, quod hoc ideo intellexerunt, quia iam id facere cogitabant. Unde eis verborum istorum intellectum non aperuit acumen scientiae, sed simulata conscientia malitiae. 1678 Yet it seems that their statement, The Son of man must be lifted up, is in no way opposed to the statement that the Christ remains for ever. The answer is that since our Lord was accustomed to speak to them in figurative language, they understood much of what was said in that way. And so they also suspected that when our Lord spoke of being lifted up, he was referring to death on the cross: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know," as we read above (8:28). Or, it could be said that they understood it in this sense because they had already thought of doing that very thing. Thus it was not the sharpness of their understanding that gave them this interpretation of these words, but an awareness of their own wickedness. Sed attende eorum malitiam, quia non dicunt nos audivimus ex lege, quod Christus nihil patitur: nam in multis locis de passione et resurrectione eius agitur, sicut illud Is. LIII, 7: tamquam ovis ad occisionem ducetur, et illud Ps. III, 6: ego dormivi, et soporatus sum, et exsurrexi. Sed dicunt quoniam Christus manet in aeternum. Cuius ratio est, quia in hoc nulla fuisset contrarietas, cum immortalitati Christi ex passione eius nullum factum fuisset impedimentum. Volebant enim ostendere eum ideo non esse Christum, quoniam Christus manet in aeternum, ut Chrysostomus dicit. 1679 Note their wickedness, for they do not say: "We have heard from the law that the Christ does not suffer," because in many places of the law reference is made to his passion and resurrection: as "Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter" (Is 53:7); "I have slept and taken my rest: and I have risen up" [Ps 3:7]. Rather, they say, the Christ remains for ever. The reason for this is that the former would not have involved any opposition, since no obstacle to Christ's immortality arises from the mere fact of his suffering. In other words, as Chrysostom says, they wished to show that he was not the Christ for the reason that the Christ remains for ever. [34] De persona autem quaestionem movent, cum dicunt quis est iste filius hominis? Hoc ideo quaerunt, quia Dan. VII, 13, dicitur: vidi, et ecce quasi filius hominis veniebat, et usque ad antiquum dierum pervenit, quia per illum filium hominis intelligebant Christum; quasi dicerent: dicis, quod oportet exaltari filium hominis, et filius hominis, quem intelligimus Christum, manet in aeternum, quis est ergo iste filius hominis? Si non manet in aeternum, nec est Christus. In hoc autem reprehendenda est eorum tarditas: quia adhuc dubitant post tot visa, tot audita, an ipse esset Christus; Eccli. XXII, 9. Cum dormiente loquitur qui narrat stulto sapientiam. 1680 They raise a question concerning his person when they say, Who is this Son of man? They ask this because it says in Daniel (7:13): "And behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days"; and by that Son of man they understood the Christ. It is as though they were saying: "You say the Son of man must be lifted up; yet the Son of man, whom we take to be the Christ, remains forever. So Who is this Son of man? If he does not remain for ever, neither is he the Christ." In this they deserve to be reprimanded for their dullness, because even though they had seen and heard so many great things, they still had doubts about his being the Christ: "He who tells a story to a fool tells it to a drowsy man" (Sir 22:9). Consequenter cum dicit dixit ergo eis Iesus etc., satisfacit dominus eorum dubitationem aliqualiter, et primo commendat bonum quod habebant; secundo hortatur eos ad profectum, ibi ambulate dum lucem habetis; tertio admonitionem exponit dicens dum lucem habetis, credite in lucem. 1681 Then when he says, Jesus said to them, our Lord somewhat settles their doubt. First, he commends the good they had; and secondly, he encourages them to make progress (35b); thirdly, he explains his admonition (v 36). Dixit ergo eis Iesus: adhuc modicum lumen in vobis est. Quod quidem potest dupliciter legi. Uno modo, secundum Augustinum, ut scilicet modicum sit adiectivum determinans hoc quod dicit lumen, quasi dicat: quoddam lumen in vobis est, inquantum recognoscitis quod Christus manet in aeternum. Haec enim veritas quaedam est: omnis autem manifestatio veritatis est quoddam lumen infusum a Deo. Sed tamen lumen istud quod est in vobis, modicum est, quia, licet cognoscatis Christi aeternitatem, eius tamen mortem et resurrectionem non creditis: in quo patet quod non habetis fidem perfectam. Istis ergo convenit quod dictum est Petro, Matth. XIV, 31: modicae fidei, quare dubitasti? 1682 Jesus said to them, Adhuc modicum lumen in vobis est. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, according to Augustine, so that "little" modifies "light." [35] As if to say: "A little light is in you," insofar as it sees that the Christ remains for ever. For this is a truth, and every manifestation of the truth is a light infused by God. Yet this light which is in you is "little," because even though you recognize the eternity of the Christ, you do not believe in his death and resurrection. This shows that you do not have perfect faith. Thus, what was said to Peter applies also to them: "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Mt 14:31). Secundum Chrysostomum vero dicitur adhuc modicum, scilicet tempus extat, quod lumen in vobis est, idest ego, qui sum lumen; quasi diceret: parvo tempore ego lux vobiscum sum; infra XVI, 16: modicum, et iam non videbitis me. It is understood in another way by Chrysostom, as meaning that the light is with you for a little longer time, that is, I, who am the light. [36] It is the same as saying: I, the light, am among you for a brief time: "A little while, and you will see me no more" (16:16). Et ideo consequenter exhortatur eos ad complementum et profectum boni, et primo ponit suam exhortationem; secundo ostendit periculum imminens, nisi proficiant, ibi qui ambulat in tenebris, nescit quo vadat. 1683 And so he exhorts them to make progress in good. First, he gives his exhortation; secondly, he shows the danger threatening them unless they do make progress (v 35b). Dicit ergo: dico quod modicum lumen habetis, tamen dum illud habetis, ambulate; idest accedite et proficite, ut simul cum aeternitate intelligatis moriturum Christum, et resurrecturum. Et hoc secundum primam expositionem. Vel ambulate dum lucem habetis, idest, dum vobiscum sum, proficite et satagite sic me habere ut numquam perdatis; Ps. LXXXVIII, 16: domine, in lumine vultus tui ambulabunt. 1684 He says: I say that you have a little light, but while you have it, walk, that is, move forward and make progress, so that you may understand that the Christ, in addition to his eternity, will also die and rise again. This is in keeping with the first explanation given above. Or, Walk while you have the light, that is, while I am among you, make progress and be concerned with possessing me in such a way as never to lose me: "Blessed are the peopleO Lord, who walk in the light of thy countenance" (Ps 89:15). Et hoc ne tenebrae, infidelitatis, ignorantiae et perpetuae damnationis, vos comprehendant, et sic ulterius procedere non possitis. Tunc enim homo comprehenditur tenebris quando totaliter infidelitate demergitur: quod esset, si eo modo credideritis Christi aeternitatem ut negetis in eo mortis humilitatem; Iob III, 23: viro cui abscondita est via; ibid. XXXVII, 19: omnes involvimur quippe tenebris. And do this lest the darkness of unbelief, ignorance and eternal damnation overtake you and prevent you from going any further. For a person is overtaken by darkness when he is totally sunk in unbelief; and they would be this way if they believed in the eternity of the Christ in such a way as to deny the humiliation of his death: "A man whose way is hid" (Job 3:23); "We are wrapped up in darkness" (Job 37:19). Periculum imminens nisi proficiant, subdit dicens et qui ambulat in tenebris, nescit quo vadat. Nam lumen, sive exterius sive interius, dirigit hominem. Exterius quidem dirigit quantum ad exteriores actus corporales, sed interius dirigit ipsam voluntatem. Qui ergo non ambulat in luce, non perfecte credendo in Christum, sed ambulat in tenebris, nescit quo vadat, idest, ad quem terminum dirigatur; Ps. LXXXI, 5: nescierunt neque intellexerunt: in tenebris ambulant. Quod quidem et ipsis Iudaeis contingit quia nesciunt quid agant, sed, ut in tenebris ambulantes, putant quidem rectam incedere viam, et unde Deo placere credunt magis displicent. Similiter et haeretici errantes, unde mereri credunt lumen veritatis et gratiae, privari potius demerentur; Prov. XIV, 12: est via quae videtur homini recta; novissima autem eius deducunt ad mortem. 1685 The danger threatening them unless they do progress is mentioned when he says, he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. For light, whether exterior or interior, directs man. Exterior light directs him as to external bodily acts, while the interior light directs his will. One, therefore, who does not walk in the light, not perfectly believing in Christ, but walks in the darkness, does not know where he goes, that is, to what goal he is being led. As we read in the Psalm (82:5): "They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness." This is what happened to the Jews because they did not know what they were doing, but as people who were walking in the darkness they thought they were on the right road. And so they displeased God in the very things in which they believed they were pleasing him. Similarly, in the very things in which erring heretics believe they merit the light of truth and grace is the source of their being deprived of it: "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Prv 14:12). Consequenter cum dicit dum lucem habetis, credite in lucem, exponit quod dixit, scilicet quid sit ambulare: et hoc dupliciter, secundum duas praemissas expositiones. Primo, secundum primam, dum lucem habetis, idest, dum aliquid habetis de notitia et lumine veritatis, credite in lucem, idest in veritatem perfectam, ut filii lucis sitis, idest, ut renascamini veritati; I Thess. V, 6: non sumus noctis neque tenebrarum: igitur non dormiamus. 1686 Then when he says, While you have the light, believe in the light, he explains what he said, namely, what it means to walk. This is explained in two ways, according to the two explanations given above. According to the first explanation: While you have the light, that is, while you have some knowledge and light of the truth, believe in the light, that is, in the complete truth, that you may become sons of light, that is, that you may be reborn in the truth: "We are not of the night or of darkness. So then let us not sleep" (1 Thess 5:6). Vel, secundum aliam expositionem, dum lucem habetis, idest me qui sum lux: supra I, 9: erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, credite in lucem, idest in me, hoc est, proficite in cognitione mea: ut filii lucis sitis, quia ex hoc quod creditis in me, eritis filii Dei; supra I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius. Or, according to the other explanation: While you have the light, that is, me who am the light - "He was the true light which enlightens every man who comes into the world" [1:9] - believe in the light, that is, in me. In other words, make progress in the knowledge of me, that you may become sons of light, because from the fact that you believe in me you will be the children of God: "But to all who receive him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:2). Hic Evangelista narrat factum quod fecit Iesus, scilicet quod abscondit se. Sed cum supra VIII, 59 legerimus, Christum hoc idem fecisse, in promptu est ratio, quia tulerunt lapides, ut iacerent in eum; sed hic suae absconsionis nulla ratio assignatur, ut cum nec lapides levarent, nec eum blasphemarent: quare ergo abscondit se? Ad quod dicendum, quod dominus scrutans eorum corda, cognovit furorem et malitiam eorum, quam iam conceperant de eo occidendo. Unde volens eos praevenire, non expectavit ut in opus exirent, sed abscondendo se, eorum invidiam et iracundiam mitigavit. In quo nobis dedit exemplum, ut cum de aliquorum malitia nobis constat, iam antequam patrare opere tentent, fugere debemus. Nihilominus tamen dominus ostendit facto quod dixit verbo. Dixerat enim: ambulate dum lucem habetis, ut non tenebrae vos comprehendant, has tenebras cuiusmodi sint, insinuavit per suam absconsionem; Is. VIII, 17: expectabo eum qui abscondit se a domo Iacob. 1687 When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them. Here the Evangelist tells what Jesus did, that he hid himself. When we read above (8:59) that Christ did this very thing, the reason was obvious, for they were taking stones to cast at him. But here there is no reason for his hiding given, such as that they took up stones or that they blasphemed him. Why then did he hide? The answer is that our Lord, seeing into their hearts, knew their rage and the evil they had planned, i.e., to kill him. And so in his desire to stop them he did not wait for them to act, but hid himself so their anger and envy would abate. In doing this he is an example to us that when the evil purposes of others are clear to us, we should flee before they can accomplish them. In addition, our Lord was showing by his actions what he had said by his words. For he just said, Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you. And by hiding himself he indicated what sort of darkness he means: "I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob" (Is 8:17).
Lectio 7 LECTURE 7 Supra Evangelista tractavit multipliciter de gloria Christi, ex qua Iudaei ex invidia commoti sunt ad occidendum eum; hic agit de alia occasione passionis eius, scilicet de infidelitate Iudaeorum, et primo tangitur eorum infidelitas; secundo ipsa reprehenditur a domino, ibi Iesus autem clamavit et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo reprehendit infidelitatem omnino non credentium; secundo infidelitatem eorum qui credebant, tamen in occulto, ibi verumtamen et ex principibus multi crediderunt in eum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit eorum mirabilem infidelitatis duritiam; secundo ne credatur irrationabiliter vel fortuito factum, inducit prophetiam, ibi ut sermo Isaiae prophetae impleretur. 1688 Above, the Evangelist gave many examples of Christ's glory, because of which the Jews sought to kill him out of envy. Now he deals with another of the occasions surrounding his passion, that is, the unbelief of the Jews. First, their unbelief is discussed; in the second place, it is reproved by our Lord (v 44). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he reproves the unbelief of those who believed, but in secret (v 42). As to the first, two things are done: first, he mentions the strange hardness of their unbelief; secondly, to show that it came about not without reason or by chance, he mentions a prophecy (v 38). Dicit ergo Evangelista, quasi admirans: dictum est, quod dominus multa signa fecit, puta quod aquam mutavit in vinum, supra II, quod paralyticum curavit, supra V, quod illuminavit caecum, supra IX, quod resuscitavit mortuum, supra XI: et tamen cum tanta signa fecisset coram eis, non credebant in eum. Consueverunt ergo dicere: quod signum ostendis nobis, ut credamus tibi? Sed ecce quod Evangelista dicit cum tanta signa fecisset coram eis, non credebant in eum; infra XV, 24: si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. Unde non poterant dicere illud Ps. LXXIII, 9: signa nostra non vidimus. 1689 The Evangelist, as though at a loss to explain it, says that our Lord had done many miracles: such as changing water into wine, curing a paralytic, giving sight to a blind man, and raising a dead man to life: nevertheless, though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him. They usually said: "What sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you?" (6:30). But now! The Evangelist says: though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him. "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24). And so they could not say: "We do not see our signs" (Ps 74:9). Consequenter cum dicit ut sermo Isaiae prophetae impleretur, introducuntur ad hoc testimonia prophetarum, et primo introducuntur prophetiae; secundo ostenditur quod de Christo loquuntur, ibi haec dicit Isaias et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit prophetiam praedicentem eorum infidelitatem; secundo subdit prophetiam praedicentem infidelitatis causam, ibi propterea non poterant credere. 1690 Then (v 38), the testimony of the prophet on this point is cited. First, the prophecies are mentioned; secondly, it is shown that they refer to Christ (v 41). He does two things about the first: he cites the prophecy foretelling their unbelief; secondly, he adds the prophecy foretelling the reason for their unbelief (v 39). Dicit ergo: dico quod non credebant in eum, ut sermo Isaiae prophetae impleretur ubi sciendum est, quod ly ut in sacra Scriptura quandoque accipitur causaliter, sicut illud supra X, 10: ego veni ut vitam habeant, quandoque autem tenetur consecutive, et significat eventum futurum: et sic accipitur hic. Non enim ideo non credebant quia praedixerat Isaias, sed quia non erant credituri, ideo praedixit: unde ex non credentibus sermo Isaiae impletur; Lc. ult., 44: necesse est impleri omnia quae scripta sunt; Matth. V, 18: iota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant. 1691 He says: I say that they did not believe in him that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled. Here we should note that in Sacred Scripture the word "that" sometimes indicates a cause, as in "I came that they may have light" (10:10). But at other times it just indicates a sequence of events, and signifies a future event; and that is how it is used here. These people did not believe, but it was not because Isaiah predicted this. Rather, Isaiah predicted this because they were not going to believe. And so this saying of Isaiah is fulfilled from the fact that they did not believe. "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:18). Sed si necesse erat ut impleretur sermo Isaiae, videtur quod Iudaei sint excusabiles de eo quod non crediderunt: non enim poterant facere contra prophetiam. Responsio. Dicendum, quod sic prophetatum erat, ut eorum arbitrio uterentur. Deus enim futurorum praescius eorum infidelitatem per prophetiam praedixit, non fecit: non enim propterea Deus quemquam ad peccandum cogit, quia futura hominum peccata iam novit. Illud ergo peccatum quod Iudaei fecerunt, dominus, quem nihil latet, facturos eos praedixit. 1692 But if it was necessary that the saying of Isaiah be fulfilled, it seems that the Jews should be excused for not believing, for they could not act contrary to the prophecy. I answer that the prophecy took account of their freedom. For God, knowing the future beforehand, foretold their unbelief in the prophecy, but he did not bring it about; for God does not force one to sin just because he already knows one's future sins. And so our Lord, from whom nothing is hidden, predicted that the Jews would commit the sin which they did commit. Quid autem propheta dicat, subiungit dicens domine quis credidit auditui nostro, et brachium domini cui revelatum est? Ubi sciendum est, quod duplex est modus credendi. Aliquando quidem per instructionem alterius; et hic est communis modus credendi; Rom. X, 17: fides ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Christi. Aliquando autem per revelationem divinam; et hic est singularis modus, de quo apostolus dicit: neque ab homine didici illud, neque accepi, sed per revelationem Iesu Christi. 1693 Now the Evangelist states what the prophet said, Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? Here we should note that belief comes in two ways. Sometimes by instruction from another; and this is the usual way: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Sometimes it come by a divine revelation; and this is the special way, spoken of by the Apostle: "For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12). Is. LIII, 1 ergo praedixit quidem credentium raritatem, dicens domine, quis credidit auditui nostro? Et primo quantum ad modum communem, qui est per instructionem, cum dicit quis credidit auditui nostro? Quod quidem habetur loc. cit., et potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo ut sit sensus: quis credidit auditui nostro? Quod scilicet nos audivimus a te; Abd. 1: auditum audivimus a domino exercituum et cetera. Ps. LXXXIV, 9: audiam quid loquatur in me dominus Deus. Quasi dicant: nos audivimus a te; sed domine, quis credet nobis quae de nativitate et passione tua te loquente audivimus? Unde et totum illud capitulum Isaiae loquitur de his. 1694 Isaiah foretold that there would be few believers. First, as to those who would believe in the usual way, by instruction, he says, Lord, who has believed our report? This can be understood in two ways. In one way, the meaning is: who has believed our report? That is, what you reported to us, what we have heard from you. "We have heard tidings from the Lord" (Obad 1:1); "Let us hear what the Lord will speak" (Ps 85:8). It is like they were saying: "Lord, we have heard these things from you. But who will believe us when we tell what we have heard from you about your birth and passion?" This entire chapter of Isaiah (ch. 53) is speaking of these things. Dicit autem prophetas audire ut insinuet modum illuminationis prophetarum. Nam per visum accipit homo cognitionem immediate de re visa, sed per auditum non habetur immediate cognitio a re visa, sed ab aliquo signo illius rei. Quia ergo prophetae non immediate videbant essentiam divinam, sed quaedam signa divinorum, ideo dicit eos audire. Num. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta domini, in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum; quasi per quaedam signa. Filius autem aeternaliter videt ipsam divinam essentiam; supra I, 18: Deum nemo vidit unquam: unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit. Quis ergo credidit auditui nostro? Idest, quis credidit his quae audivimus et narravimus? Is. XXI, 10: quae audivi a domino exercituum Deo Israel, annuntiavi vobis. Prophets are said to hear in order to suggest the way in which the prophets are instructed. By sight, a person receives an immediate knowledge of the thing seen, but by hearing he does not have an immediate knowledge of what he sees, but he gains his knowledge from certain signs of the thing. And so because the prophets did not immediately see the divine essence, but only certain signs of divine realties, they are said to hear. "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream," by certain signs (Num 12:6). The Son, however, eternally sees the divine essence itself: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known," as was said above (1:18). Who has believed our report? That is, who has believed in the things we have heard and preached? "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10). Alio modo. Quis credidit auditui nostro? Idest, his quae a nobis audiunt; Ez. XXXIII, 31: audiunt sermones meos ex ore tuo, et non faciunt eos: quia in canticum oris sui vertunt illos. The second way of understanding who has believed our report? is to take it as meaning the things we report to them, what they have heard from us. "They hear what you say but they will not do it" as Ezekiel (33:31) says. Quantum autem ad modum singularem, qui est per revelationem, dicit et brachium domini cui revelatum est? Brachium dicitur filius, per quem pater omnia operatur, sicut brachium hominis dicitur per quod homo operatur. Et si homo solo verbo interiori operaretur, tunc verbum eius posset dici brachium suum. Sic ergo dicitur brachium Dei, non quod Deus pater figura determinetur carnis humanae, et brachium habeat corporale; sed quia per ipsum omnia facta sunt: supra II, v. 3. Et Iob XL, 4: si habes brachium sicut Deus, et si voce simili tonas? Lc. I, 51: fecit potentiam in brachio suo, dispersit superbos mente cordis sui. 1695 As to the special way belief comes, by revelation, he says, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? The "arm" refers to the Son, through whom the Father does all things, just as we accomplish things through our arm. And if we accomplished things only through an interior word, then this word would be called our arm. And so the Son is called the arm of God not because God the Father has a human shape and a physical arm, but because "all things were made through him," the Son (1:3). "Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?" (Job 40:9); "He has shown strength with his arm" (Lk 1:51). Notandum ergo, quod ex hoc verbo occasionem sumpsit erroris sui Sabellius, dicens, eamdem personam esse patris et filii: et Arius dicens, filium esse patre minorem. Non enim duae personae, sed una est homo et brachium eius; nec brachium homini aequale dici potest. Ad quod dicendum est, quod in talibus non est sufficiens similitudo: nam ea quae in creaturis sunt, non perfecte repraesentant ea quae sunt in Deo. Unde Dionysius dicit quod symbolica theologia non est argumentativa. Non ergo dicitur brachium filius quasi eiusdem personae cum patre sit vel minor eo, sed quia per eum omnia operatur. Dicit ergo et brachium domini cui revelatum est? Quasi dicat, paucis, scilicet ipsis apostolis; I Cor. c. II, 10: nobis autem revelavit Deus per spiritum suum. 1696 Here we should note that Sabellius misunderstood this passage and said that the Father and the Son are the same person; and Arius also did when he said that the Son is inferior to the Father. The reasons for this were that a person and his arm do not form two persons, but only one, and an arm is not equal to the person. The answer to this is that in expressions of this kind the similarities are not really adequate, for what we find in creatures does not perfectly represent what is in God. Thus Dionysius says that symbolic theology is not argumentative. Thus the Son is not called an arm as though he is the same person as the Father or inferior to the Father, but because the Father does all things through him. When he says, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? it is like saying, only to a few, that is, to the apostles: "God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:10). Consequenter cum dicit propterea non poterant credere, ponit prophetiam praedicentem infidelitatis causam. Et si intendamus haec verba Evangelistae, videntur quidem secundum superficiem litterae habere obscurum intellectum. Et primo, quia si dicatur quod propterea non poterant credere, quia hoc dixit Isaias, videntur Iudaei excusabiles esse. Quod enim peccatum est hominis non facientis quod non potest facere? Et, quod gravius est, in Deum culpa retorquetur, quod excaecavit oculos eorum. Tolerabile autem esset, si hoc de Diabolo diceretur, quia, ut dicitur II Cor. IV, 4: Deus huius saeculi excaecavit mentes infidelium. Sed hic dicitur de domino nostro. Nam Is. VI, 1, dicit: vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum. Et sequitur: excaeca cor populi huius, et aures eius aggrava, et oculos eius claude; ne forte videat oculis suis, et auribus suis audiat, et corde suo intelligat, et convertatur et sanem eum. 1697 When the Evangelist says, therefore they could not believe, he states the prophecy which foretold the reason for their unbelief. If we examine these words of the Evangelist they seem, if taken at their surface value, difficult to understand. First, because if it is said that therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said this, the Jews seem to be excusable. For is it a sin for a person not to do what he cannot do? And what is more serious, the fault will be cast back on God, since he blinded their eyes. This could be accepted if it were said of the devil, as in 2 Corinthians (4:4): "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers." But here it is said of our Lord, for Isaiah [6:1] says: "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne," and follows with "Blind the heart of this people and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted and I heal them" [v 10]. Sed ad evidentiam huius, primo, exponamus hoc quod dicit propterea non poterant credere. Ubi sciendum, quod aliquid dicitur impossibile vel necessarium dupliciter: absolute scilicet, et ex suppositione. Absolute quidem, sicut impossibile est hominem esse asinum; ex suppositione vero, sicut impossibile est me esse extra domum, dum intus in ea sedeo. Secundum hoc ergo dicendum, quod homo excusatur, si non facit ea quae absolute sunt sibi impossibilia: sed si non facit ea si qua sunt sibi impossibilia ex suppositione, non excusatur. Sicut si detur quod aliquis habeat malam voluntatem omnino furandi, et dicat impossibile sibi esse non peccare quamdiu voluntatem obstinatam illam habeat, non excusatur; quia huiusmodi impossibilitas non est simpliciter, sed ex suppositione: potest enim voluntatem malam disponere. Dicit ergo propterea non poterant credere, quia scilicet habent voluntatem obscuratam in sua malitia; Ier. XIII, 23: quomodo scilicet potest Aethiops mutare pellem suam, et pardus varietates suas; et vos poteritis bene facere, cum didiceritis malum; Matth. XII, 34: quomodo potestis bona facere, cum sitis mali? Et simile est sicut si dicerem de aliquo: ego nullo modo possum eum diligere; sed habeo eum odio. 1698 To clarify this let us first explain the statement, therefore they could not believe. Here we should note that something is said to be impossible or said to be necessary in two ways: absolutely, and granted a certain presupposition. For example, it is absolutely impossible for a human being to be an ass; but granting a certain presupposition, it is impossible for me to be outside my house, presupposing, that is, that I remain within it sitting down. With this in mind, we may say that a person is excused if he does not do things that are absolutely impossible for him. But he is not excused if he does not do things that are impossible for him granting some presupposition. So, if someone has the evil intention of always stealing, and says that it is impossible for him not to sin as long as he continues with that intention, he is not excused: for this impossibility is not absolute, but based on a certain presupposition, for he can abandon his evil intention. So he says, therefore they could not believe, that is, because they had a will clouded over by their wickedness: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer 13:23); "How can you do good things when you are evil?" [Mt 12:34]. It is like one saying: "I can in nowise love him, because I hate him." Quantum ad secundum, sciendum, quod excaecatio et induratio Dei non intelligitur quasi Deus immittat malitiam vel ad peccandum impellat, sed per hoc quod non infundat gratiam: quam quidem gratiam infundit ex sua misericordia; sed causa huius quod non infundit, est ex parte nostra, inquantum scilicet in nobis est aliquid gratiae divinae repugnans. Nam ipse, quantum in se est, illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum: supra I, 9; I Tim. II, 4: vult omnes homines salvos fieri. Sed quia nos a Deo recedimus, ideo gratiam suam nobis subtrahit; Oseae IV, 6: quia tu scientiam repulisti, repellam te; ibid. XIII, 9: perditio tua, Israel ex te: tantummodo in me auxilium tuum. Et est simile sicut si alius clausisset fenestram domus, et diceretur ei: tu non potes videre, quia privaris lumine solis. Sed hoc non esset ex defectu solis, sed quia ipse sibi lumen solare interclusisset. Et similiter hic dicitur quod non poterant credere, quia Deus excaecavit eos: quia scilicet ipsi causam praestiterant ut excaecarentur, secundum illud Sap. II, 21: excaecavit illos malitia eorum. As to the second point, when we read that God blinds and hardens, we should not think that God puts malice into us or forces us to sin; but we should understand it as meaning that God does not infuse grace. Now he infuses grace because of his mercy, while the cause of his not infusing grace is due to us, insofar as there is something in us which opposes divine grace. As far as he is concerned: "He enlightens every man coming into this world" [1:9]; "He desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). But because we leave God, he takes his grace from us: "Because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you" (Hos 4:6), "Your destruction, O Israel, is from yourself; your help is only in me" [Hos 13:9]. It is like a person who closes the shutters of his house, and someone says to him: "You cannot see because you lack the light of the sun." This would not be due to a failure of the sun, but because he shut out the light of the sun. In the same way we read here that they could not believe, because God blinded them, that is, they were the cause why they were deprived of sight as in "Their wickedness blinded them" (Wis 2:21). [37] His ergo visis, consideranda sunt verba prophetiae huius, quae quidem habentur Is. VI, 10, non secundum eadem verba, sed secundum eamdem sententiam. In his ergo verbis tria continentur. Primo Iudaeorum induratio et excaecatio; secundo utriusque effectus, ibi ut non videant; tertio finis, ibi et convertantur, et sanem eos. 1699 With these distinctions in mind, let us consider the words of this prophecy. It is found in Isaiah (6:10), not in these exact words, but with the same meaning. Three things are mentioned here: first, the hardening and blinding of the Jews; secondly, the effect of each of these; thirdly, their end. Circa primum considerandum est, quod dominus inducebat ad fidem dupliciter: scilicet miraculis et doctrina, unde utrumque eis improperat dicens: si opera non fecissem in eis quae nullus alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. Et iterum: si non venissem, et non loquutus fuissem eis, peccatum non haberent; nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo. Utrumque enim contempserunt. 1700 In regard to the first, note that our Lord brought people to the faith in two ways, by his miracles and his teaching. And so he rebukes them on both points: "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24); and again in (15:22): "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." For they had derided both. In quantum ergo Christi miracula non attendebant diligentia debita, dicit excaecavit oculos eorum, scilicet cordis: de quibus habetur Eph. I, 18: illuminatos oculos cordis vestri; si per intellectum considerarent quod talia miracula fieri non poterant nisi virtute divina: Is. XLII, 20: qui vides multa, nonne consideras? Et iterum ibid. 19: quis caecus, nisi servus meus; et surdus, nisi ad quem nuntios meos misi? Insofar as they did not give due consideration to Christ's miracles, he says, he has blinded their eyes, that is, the eyes of their hearts, about which we read: "Having the eyes of your hearts enlightened" (Eph 1:18). For they should have understood that such miracles could only be done by divine power: "You see many things, but do not observe them" (Is 42:20); and again, "Who is blind but my servant? Or deaf, except he to whom I have sent my messengers?" [Is 42:19]. Quia quantum ad doctrinam Christi non movebantur, subdit et induravit cor eorum. Videtur enim durissimum quod forti calore non resolvitur, et divina percussione non conteritur. Verba autem Christi sunt quasi ignis, et sicut malleus conterens petras, ut dicitur Ier. XXIII, 29. Ignis quidem, quia inflammant per caritatem; malleus autem, quia terrent per comminationem, et confringunt per manifestissimam veritatem. Et tamen verbum Christi cor Iudaeorum non attendebat. Unde patet quod fuit induratum; Iob XLI: cor eius indurabitur quasi malleatoris incus; Rom. IX, 18: cuius vult miseretur, et quem vult indurat. Because they were not moved by the teaching of Christ, he adds, and hardened their heart. That is very hard which is not melted by intense heat nor broken by divine blows. Now the words of Christ are "like fireand like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces" (Jer 23:29). Fire, indeed, because they inflame through love; and like a hammer because they terrify when they threaten, and break one by the revelation of the truth. And still the hearts of the Jews paid no attention to the words of Christ. Thus it is obvious that they were hardened: "His heart is hard as a stone" (Job 41:24); "He has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Rom 9:18). Effectus autem excaecationis ponitur cum dicit ut non videant oculis, scilicet spiritualibus, intelligendo Christi divinitatem; Ps. CXIII, 5: oculos habent, et non videbunt. E contra dicitur Lc. X, 23: beati oculi qui vident quae vos videtis. Effectus indurationis ponitur cum dicit contra nec intelligant corde: ut subintelligatur, ut non intelligant corde; Iob IV, 20: et quia nullus intelligit, in aeternum peribit; Ps. XXXV, 4: noluit intelligere, ut bene ageret. Est autem hic advertendum, quod ly ut non ponitur hic causaliter, sed consecutive. 1701 The effect of their becoming blind is mentioned when he says, lest they should see with their eyes, that is, their spiritual eyes, and perceive the divinity of Christ: "They have eyes, but do not see" (Ps 115:5). In contrast, Luke says: "Blessed are the eyes which see what you see!" (Lk 10:23). The effect of their becoming hard of heart is mentioned when he says, lest they should perceive, understand, with their heart: "Because no one understands, they will perish forever" [Job 4:20]; "He would not understand so that he might act well" [Ps 35:4]. Here it should be noted that when he says, "lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart," that is, "that they should not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart," the "that" does not indicate a cause, but merely the sequence of events. Finis autem excaecationis et indurationis ponitur consequenter, cum dicit et convertantur et sanem eos. Et potest intelligi dupliciter, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de quaestionibus Evangel. Uno modo, ut repetatur haec dictio non, ut sit sensus: et non convertantur, et non sanem eos. Via enim salvationis a peccato est conversio ad Deum; Thren. c. V, 21: converte nos, domine, ad te, et convertemur, et statim subditur: innova dies nostros sicut a principio. Illis autem qui indignos se praestiterunt, quibus remitterentur peccata, non praestat Deus beneficia, quibus convertantur et sanentur, sicut patet de omnibus non approbatis. 1702 The end of their becoming blind and hard in heart is given when he says, and turn for me to heal them. This can be understood in two ways, as Augustine says in his work, On Gospel Questions. [38] In one way, so that both parts are negative, and then the meaning would be: "and they do not turn to me and I do not heal them." For the way of salvation from sin is to turn to God: "Restore us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be restored! Renew our days of old!" (Lam 5:21). But to those who prove themselves unworthy to have their sins forgiven, God does not offer the gifts by which they might turn to him and be healed, as is obvious in the case of the non-chosen. Alio modo potest intelligi, ut non reiteretur haec dictio non, ut sit sensus: ideo excaecati sunt et indurati ut ad tempus nec viderent nec intelligerent; et sic non videntes et non intelligentes, idest non credentes in Christum, eum occiderent, et postmodum compuncti converterentur et sanarentur. Permittit enim aliquos quandoque cadere in peccatum, ut humiliati ad iustitiam firmius resurgant. The other interpretation is to regard only the first part as negative and then the meaning would be: they were blinded and hardened so they should not see or understand for a time, and so not seeing or understanding, that is, not believing in Christ, they would put him to death, but afterwards they would repent and turn to God and be healed. For now and then God permits us to fall into sin so that being humbled we may arise firmer in holiness. Et utraque expositio locum habet in diversis Iudaeis. Prima quidem in illis qui in sua incredulitate finaliter permanserunt: secunda vero in illis qui post Christi passionem sunt ad Christum conversi, qui scilicet compuncti corde ex verbis Petri, dixerunt apostolis: quid faciemus, viri fratres? Ut dicitur Act. II, 37. Each of these interpretations is verified in the case of some of the Jews: the first one in those who persisted to the end in their unbelief, and the second one in those who turned to Christ after his passion, namely, those with remorse in their hearts at the words of Peter, and who said to the apostles: "Brethren, what shall we do?" as we read in the Acts (2:37). Deinde cum dicit haec dixit Isaias etc., ostendit praedicta ad propositum pertinere; unde dicit haec dixit Isaias quando vidit gloriam Dei. Simul enim vidit gloriam Dei et excaecationem Iudaeorum, ut patet Is. c. VI: ubi primo dicitur: vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum, et postea subditur: excaeca cor populi huius, et aures eius aggrava, et oculos eius claude: ne forte videat oculis suis, et auribus suis audiat, et corde suo intelligat, et convertatur et sanem eum. Et quia quod viderat conveniens erat ut testaretur, ut dicitur I Io. c. I, ideo sequitur et locutus est de eo, scilicet de Christo, cuius gloriam vidit; secundum illud Act. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent; Rom. I, 2: quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis de filio suo. 1703 Then (v 41), the Evangelist shows that these words of Isaiah apply here. He says, Isaiah said this because he saw his glory, the glory of God. For when he saw the glory of God he saw at the same time that the Jews would be blinded, as is clear from, "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne" [Is 6:1], followed by, "Blind the heart of his people and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them" [v 10]. And because it is fitting that one should testify about what he has seen - as we read in 1 John (1:1) - he adds, and spoke of him, that is, of Christ, whose glory he saw: "To him all the prophet bear witness" (Acts 10:43); "Which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Rom 1:2). Circa prima duo quae hic tanguntur, cavendus est error Arianorum, qui dicunt solum patrem invisibilem omni creaturae, filium autem visum fuisse in visionibus veteris testamenti. Sed cum dicatur infra XIV, 9: qui videt me, videt et patrem meum, manifestum est quod uno et eodem modo est filius visibilis ut pater. Videns ergo Isaias gloriam filii, vidit et gloriam patris; immo totius Trinitatis, quae est unus Deus sedens super solium excelsum, cui Seraphim proclamant: sanctus, sanctus, sanctus. Non autem ita quod Isaias essentiam Trinitatis viderit, sed imaginaria visione, cum intelligentia, quaedam signa maiestatis expressit, secundum illud Num. c. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta domini, per somnium aut in visione loquar ad eum. 1704 We read that Isaiah saw and said these things. As to the first, we should avoid the error of the Arians, who say that the Father alone is invisible to every creature, but that the Son was seen in the visions of the Old Testament. But since it is stated that "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (14:9), it is obvious that the Father and the Son are visible in one and the same way. And so Isaiah, seeing the glory of the Son, also saw the glory of the Father, and indeed of the entire Trinity, which is one God, seated upon a high throne before whom the seraphim cry out: Holy, Holy, Holy! This does not mean that Isaiah saw the essence of the Trinity; rather in an imaginary vision, with understanding, he expressed certain signs of this majesty, according to the saying in Numbers (12:6): "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream." Per illud vero quod secundo dicitur et locutus est de eo, excluditur error Manichaeorum, qui dixerunt nullas prophetias in veteri testamento praecessisse de Christo, ut Augustinus narrat in Lib. contra Faustum, et Theodorum Mopsuestenum, qui dixit omnes prophetias veteris testamenti esse de aliquo negotio dictas, per quamdam tamen appropriationem esse adductas ab apostolis et Evangelistis ad ministerium Christi: sicut ea quae dicunt in uno facto, possunt adaptari ad aliud factum. Omnia autem excluduntur per hoc quod dicitur et locutus est de eo, de me sicut de Moyse, supra V, 46, dixit Christus: de me enim ille scripsit. 1705 As to the second thing, that Isaiah spoke of him: this excludes the error of the Manicheans, who said that there were no prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament, as Augustine reports to us in his book Against Faustus; and it excludes the error of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that all the prophecies of the Old Testament bore on some current event, but the apostles and evangelists appropriated them to the life of Christ, like things said about one event can be appropriated to another event. [39] But all this is excluded by the statement, and spoke of him, just as Christ said of Moses that "he wrote of me" (5:46).
Lectio 8 LECTURE 8 Supra Evangelista exposuit defectum omnino non credentium; hic exponit defectum credentium in occulto, qui pusillanimes erant, et primo proponit eorum dignitatem; secundo ostendit eorum defectum, ibi sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur; tertio insinuat defectus radicem, ibi dilexerunt enim magis gloriam hominum quam gloriam Dei. 1706 Above, the Evangelist described the failing of those who did not believe at all; here he explains the failing of those who believed in secret, because they were timid, faint-hearted. First, he mentions their dignity; secondly, their failing (v 42); and thirdly, he suggests the root of this failing (v 43). Dignitas autem eorum qui in occulto credebant magna est, quia principes; et quantum ad hoc dicit verumtamen et ex principibus multi crediderunt in eum. Quasi dicat: dixi, quod cum tanta signa fecisset coram eis, non credebant in eum; quod quidem verum est pro maiori parte, non tamen quin aliqui in eum crederent, quia ex principibus, scilicet populi, multi crediderunt in eum; quorum unus fuit Nicodemus, qui venit ad Iesum nocte, ut dicitur supra III. Sic impletur quod in Ps. XLVI, 10 dicitur: principes populorum congregati sunt cum Deo Abraham. Sic etiam falsum ostenditur quod Pharisaei dixerunt supra VII, 48: numquid ex principibus aliquis credit in eum, aut ex Pharisaeis? 1707 The dignity of those who believed in secret was great, for they were the authorities, and on this point he says, many even of the authorities believed in him. He is saying in effect: I said that although Jesus had done so many signs, still they did not believe in him; and although this was true for the majority, yet there were some who did believe in him, because many even of the authorities, of the people, believed in him. One of these was Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, as was said (c 3). Thus the words of the Psalm (47:9) were fulfilled: "The princes of the peoples gather as their people of the God of Abraham"; and the statement of the Pharisees is proved false: "Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?" (7:48). Defectus horum principum est pusillanimitas, unde dicit sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur: ut enim supra IX, v. 22 dictum est, Pharisaei conspiraverunt, ut si quis eum confiteretur Christum, extra synagogam fieret. Licet crederent corde, non tamen confitebantur ore. Sed eorum fides insufficiens erat, quia, ut dicitur Rom. X, 10, corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore confessio fit ad salutem; Lc. IX, 26: qui erubuerit me et meos sermones, hunc filius hominis erubescet. 1708 The failing of these authorities is timidity, faint-heartedness; thus he says, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it. For as stated above, the Pharisees "agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue" (9:22). So, although they believed with their hearts, they did not profess him with their lips. Their faith, therefore, was insufficient, for as is said in Romans (10:10): "For a man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved." "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed" (Lk 9:26). Radix autem defectus istorum est inanis gloria; unde sequitur dilexerunt enim gloriam hominum magis quam gloriam Dei: ex hoc enim quod publice confitebantur, amittebant gloriam hominum; sed ex hoc consequebantur gloriam Dei. Isti autem magis elegerunt privari gloria Dei, nolentes publice confiteri, quam gloria hominum, cupientes in mundanis gloriari. Supra V, 44: quomodo potestis credere qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis, et gloriam quae a solo Deo est, non quaeritis? Galat. I, 10: si adhuc hominibus placerem, servus Christi non essem. 1709 The root of their failing is vanity, vainglory; so he says, for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. By confessing Christ publicly they would have lost the glory of men, but won the glory of God. But they chose rather to be deprived of the glory of God than the glory of men: "How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?" (5:44). "If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ" (Gal 1:10). Hic ostendit quomodo Christus Iudaeorum infidelitatem redarguit, et primo ostendit credendi debitum; secundo subdit fidei fructum, ibi ego lux in mundum veni etc.; tertio comminatur infidelibus supplicium ibi et si quis audierit verba mea, et non custodierit, ego non iudico eum et cetera. Quia autem fidei succedit visio, ideo circa primum primo agit de fide; secundo de visione, ibi qui videt me, videt eum qui misit me. 1710 Now he shows how Christ rebuked the Jews for their unbelief: first, he shows their duty to believe; secondly, he mentions the fruit of faith (v 46); thirdly, he warns the unbelievers about punishment (v 47). But because vision comes after faith, with regard to the first, he treats of faith; and secondly, of vision (v 45). Quantum ad primum dicit Iesus autem clamavit, et propter magnitudinem dicendorum, et propter libertatem animi ad redarguendum peccata: Is. LVIII, 1: clama, ne cesses; quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam, et annuntia populo meo scelera eorum. Et dixit: qui credit in me, non credit in me, sed in eum qui misit me, quod quidem videtur contradictionem implicare, dicit enim: qui credit in me, non credit in me. Ad cuius intellectum sciendum est primo, secundum Augustinum, hoc esse dictum a domino ad distinguendum in se naturam divinam et naturam humanam. Cum enim proprium obiectum fidei sit Deus, possumus quidem credere creaturam esse, sed non debemus credere in creaturam, sed in Deum solum. In Christo autem est natura creata, et natura increata. Requiritur ergo ad fidei veritatem ut fides nostra tendat in Christum, quantum ad naturam increatam; et secundum hoc dicit qui credit in me, scilicet in personam, non credit in me, secundum quod homo, sed in eum qui me misit, idest in me secundum quod sum missus a patre; supra VII, 16: mea doctrina non est mea, sed eius qui misit me. 1711 As to the first he says, And Jesus cried out, both because of the importance of what he intended to say and because of their free will, to charge them with their sins: "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression" (Is 58:1), and said, He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. This seems to contain a contradiction, for he says, he who believes in me believes not in me. To understand this we should note first, according to Augustine, that our Lord said this to distinguish his divine and human nature. [41] For since the proper object of faith is God, we can indeed believe that a creature exists, but we should not believe in a creature (in creaturam) but in God alone (in Deum) [See Part I, commentary on 6:29]. Now in Christ there is a created nature and the uncreated nature. Therefore, the truth of faith requires that our faith be in Christ as having an uncreated nature. And so he says, he who believes in me, that is, in my person, believes not in me, as a human being, but in him who sent me, that is, he believes in me as sent from the Father: "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me" (7:16). Secundum Chrysostomum vero notandum est, quod dominus dicit hoc ad insinuandum eius originem tantum. Et est similis modus loquendi, sicut si aliquis hauriens de aqua fluminis dicat: ista aqua non est fluminis, sed est fontis: non est quidem fluminis originalis et cetera. Sic ergo dominus dicit qui credit in me, non credit in me, sed in eum qui misit me; quasi dicat: non sum principium mei ipsius, sed divinitas est mihi ab alio, idest a patre: unde qui credit in me, non credit in me, nisi in quantum sum a patre. According to Chrysostom, however, our Lord says this to suggest his origin. [42] It is a way of speaking similar to a person drawing water from a stream and saying that this water is not from the stream but from the spring: for it does not originate from the stream. So our Lord says, he who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me, as though to say: I am not the source of myself, but my divinity is from another, that is, from my Father. So, he who believes in me, believes not in me, except insofar as I am from the Father. Consequenter cum dicit et qui videt me, videt eum qui misit me, agit de visione. Circa quod sciendum est, quod sicut pater misit filium ad convertendum Iudaeos, ita et Christus misit discipulos suos: infra XX, v. 21: sicut misit me pater, et ego mitto vos. Nullus autem discipulorum ausus fuit dicere, nec debuit, quod crederetur in eum; quamvis dicere potuisset quod crederetur ei. Quia hoc non potuisset esse sine hoc quod derogaret mittenti, quia si crederent in discipulum desinerent credere in magistrum. Possent ergo Iudaei dicere, quod eodem modo, cum sis missus a patre, qui credit in te, desinit credere in patrem. Et ideo dominus contra hoc ostendit quod qui non credit in eum, non credit in patrem: et hoc est quod dicit qui videt me, videt eum qui misit me. 1712 Then when he says, and he who sees me sees him who sent me, he treats of vision. In regard to this we should note that just as the Father sent the Son to convert the Jews, so Christ also sent his disciples: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (20:21). But no one of the disciples dared to say, nor should he, that one should believe in him [the disciple], although he could say that one should believe him (crederetur ei). For this could not take place without detracting from the One who sent him, because if someone believed in the disciple, they would cease to believe in the master. So the Jews could say on the same basis that since you have been sent from the Father, anyone who believes in you ceases to believing in the Father. Therefore, our Lord shows against this that one who does not believe in him, does not believe in the Father. This is his meaning when he says, he who sees me sees him who sent me. Visio hic dicitur non corporalis intuitus, sed veri consideratio, quae est per intellectum. Ideo autem qui videt filium, videt et patrem, quia est in eo per essentiae unitatem. Dicitur enim aliquid videri in aliquo, vel quia sunt idem, vel omnino conformes. Pater autem et filius sunt idem in natura, et omnino conformes: quia filius est imago patris in nullo dissimilis; Col. I, 15: qui est imago invisibilis Dei; Hebr. I, 3: qui cum sit splendor gloriae, et figura substantiae eius. Et ideo, sicut credit in patrem, ita et in me; infra c. XIV, 9: Philippe, qui videt me, videt et patrem. Non credis quia ego in patre, et pater in me est? Quasi dicat: ista est ratio quare qui videt me videt et patrem, quia pater in me est, et ego in eo. Sic ergo apparet fidei debitum, ut scilicet fides tendat in Christum inquantum Deus, sicut ut in patrem. The seeing which is referred to here is not a physical vision, but a consideration of the truth by the mind. And the reason why one who sees the Son also sees the Father is that the Father is in the Son by a unity of essence. For one thing is said to be seen in another either because they are the same, or they are entirely conformed. But the Father and the Son are the same in nature and entirely conformed: because the Son is the image of the Father and unlike in nothing, for "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15); "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Heb 1:3). And so, just as one believes in the Father, so also he believes in me: "He who has seen me has seen the FatherDo you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?" (14:9). It is as though he said: The reason why one who sees me sees the Father also, is that the Father is in me and I in the Father. Thus it is clear what faith should be: faith should be in Christ, as God, just as it is in the Father. Fructum autem fidei consequenter ostendit: et primo ostendit suam dignitatem et virtutem, cum dicit ego lux in mundum veni. Quomodo Christus sit lux, expositum est supra I, 9: erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem: et VIII, 12: ego sum lux mundi. In hoc etiam ostendit se habere divinam naturam. Esse enim lucem est proprium Dei, alia vero sunt lucentia, idest participantia lucem; sed Deus lux est per essentiam; I Io. I, 5: Deus lux est, et tenebrae non sunt in eo ullae. Sed quia, I ad Tim. VI, 16 dicitur, quod lucem habitat inaccessibilem, quam nemo hominum videt, non poteramus accedere ad eum: et ideo oportuit quod ipse ad nos veniret. Et hoc est quod subdit in mundum veni; scilicet, ego sum lux inaccessibilis, qui ab errore eripio, et intellectuales tenebras solvo. Infra XVI, 28: exivi a patre et veni in mundum; supra I, 11: in propria venit et cetera. Licet apostoli dicantur lux, Matth. V, v. 14: vos estis lux mundi, non tamen ea ratione qua Christus: ipsi enim sunt lux illuminata; quamvis aliquo modo, scilicet ministerio, illuminantes essent. Nec alicui apostolorum convenit dicere ego lux in mundum veni: quia, quando in mundum venerunt, adhuc tenebrae erant, et non lux: quia, ut dicitur Iob XXXVII, 19, omnes involvimur tenebris. 1713 Next he shows the fruit of faith. First, he shows his own worth and power when he says, I have come as light into the world. It has already been explained how Christ is a light: "He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world" [1:9], and "I am the light of the world" (8:12). He also shows by this that he has the divine nature. For to be light is proper to God; others may give off light, that is participate in light, but God is light by essence: "God is light and in him is no darkness at all" (1 Jn 1:5). But because he "dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen" (1 Tim 6:16), we were unable to approach him. And so it was necessary that he come to us. This is what he says, I have come as light into the world, that is, I am the unapproachable light which rescues from error and disperses intellectual darkness: "I came from the Father and have come into the world" (16:28); "He came to his own" [1:11]. And although the apostles are called light - "You are the light of the world" (Mt 5:14) - they are not light in the same way as Christ. For they are a light whose light has been given to them, even though in some way they also give light, that is, in their ministry. Furthermore, none of the apostles could truly say, I have come as light into the world, because when they came into the world they were still darkness and not light, for in Job [37:19] it says: "We are wrapped in darkness." Secundo subdit dicens ut omnis qui credit in me, in tenebris non maneat. Illuminatio ergo est effectus fidei; supra VIII, 12: ut omnis qui credit in me, non ambulet in tenebris. In tenebris non maneat, scilicet ignorantiae, infidelitatis, et damnationis perpetuae: per quod patet quod omnes nascuntur in tenebris culpae; Eph. V, v. 8: eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino. Item in tenebris ignorantiae; Iob III, 23: viro cui abscondita est via, et circumdedit eum Deus tenebris. Et tandem nisi convertantur ad Christum, deducentur ad tenebras damnationis perpetuae. Qui ergo non credit in me, in tenebris manet; supra c. III, 36: qui incredulus est filio, non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum. 1714 Secondly, he continues, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. To become enlightened, therefore, is an effect of faith: "He who follows me will not walk in darkness" (8:12). May not remain in darkness: that is, the darkness of ignorance, of unbelief and eternal damnation. This shows that all are born in the darkness of sin: "For once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord," as we read in Ephesians (5:8). And in the darkness of ignorance: "A man whose way is hidden and God has surrounded him with darkness" [Job 3:23]. And in the end, unless they turn to Christ, they will be brought to the darkness of eternal damnation. And so, he who does not believe in me remains in darkness: "Whoever is unbelieving in the Son will not see life; rather, the anger of God rests on him" [3:36]. Supplicium autem infidelium insinuat dicens et si quis audierit verba mea, et non custodierit; ego non iudico eum: quod incurrent per iudicii condemnationem. Et primo proponit dilationem iudicii; secundo pronuntiat ipsum iudicium futurum esse, ibi qui spernit me, et non accipit verba mea, habet qui iudicet eum; tertio ostendit dilationis causam, ibi sermo quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit eum novissimo die. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit iudicii dilationem; secundo assignat dilationis rationem. 1715 Then he discloses the punishment of unbelievers, which they will incur through their condemnation at the judgment. First, he states that the judgment will be delayed; secondly, that there will be a judgment in the future (v 48); and thirdly, he shows the cause of the judgment (v 48b). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum et si quis audierit verba mea, et non custodierit, ego non iudico eum. Notandum ergo, quod illi beatificantur qui audiunt verbum Dei et custodiunt illud, credendo interius in corde, et exequendo exterius in opere. Qui vero audiunt istud et custodire non satagunt, magis rei ex hoc efficiuntur; Rom. II, 13: non enim auditores legis iusti sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis iustificabuntur; et Iac. I, 22: estote factores, et non auditores tantum. Et ideo si quis audierit verba mea, et non custodierit, ego non iudico eum. 1716 As to the first he says, If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him. Note that the ones to be made happy, beatified, are those who hear the word of God and keep it, believing it within in their hearts, and doing it without in their actions. But they who hear it but take no care to keep it, become more guilty: "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified" (Rom 2:13); "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only" (Jas 1:22). And so, If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him. Sed hoc videtur contrarium ei quod dicitur supra V, 22: pater omne iudicium dedit filio: et ideo intelligendum est non iudico eum, scilicet modo. Potuisset enim sibi ad infirmitatem putari, si qui ipsum contemnunt, illos dimittit; et ideo dicit, quod huiusmodi iudicabuntur, sed non modo: nam, ut dicitur Eccle. XII, 14, omnia quae fecit Deus, adducet in iudicium; et Iob XIX, 29: fugite a facie iniquitatis, quoniam ultor iniquitatis est gladius, et scitote esse iudicium. But this seems to conflict with what was said above (5:22): "The Fatherhas given all judgment to the Son." Therefore, we should understand it as, I do not judge him at this time. It could be considered a weakness in him if he overlooked those who despised him. And so he says that such persons will be judged, although not now; for we read that "God will bring every deed into judgment" (Eccl 12:14), and "Flee from the face of iniquity, for the sword is the avenger of iniquity: and know that there is a judgment" [Job 19:29]. Causam vero dubitationis dilationis subdit dicens non veni ut iudicem mundum, sed ut salvificem mundum. Duplex enim est adventus filii Dei: unus quo venit ut salvator; alius quo venit ut iudex. Sed cum omnes essent in peccatis, si primo venisset ut iudex, nullum salvasset, quia omnes eramus filii irae: et ideo oportuit ut veniret primo ad salvandum credentes, et postmodum ad iudicandum et fideles et peccatores. Et hoc est quod dicit: ideo scilicet non iudico eum modo, quia non veni, scilicet in primo adventu, ut iudicem mundum, sed ut salvificem mundum; supra III, 17: non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. 1717 He continues with the reason for the delay, saying for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. Now the Son of God comes two times: one time he comes as Savior, and the next as judge. But since all were in sin, if he had come the first time as judge, he would have saved no one, because all were the children of wrath. And so it was fitting that he come first to save believers, and later to judge both believers and sinners. This is what he is saying: I do not judge now, for I did not come at this come to judge the world but to save the world. "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" [3:17]. Consequenter cum dicit qui spernit me, et non accipit verba mea, habet qui iudicet eum, praenuntiat iudicium futurum; quasi dicat: licet qui verba mea non custodiunt, non iudicentur modo, tamen non evadent impunes, quicumque sint illi, quia qui spernit me, et non accipit verba mea, credendo et opere implendo, habet qui iudicet eum. Cuius ratio est, quia si non accipit verba eius, contemnit dictum Dei, cuius ipse est verbum, sicut qui non obedit mandato domini sui. Iob XIX, 29: fugite a facie iniquitatis, quoniam ultor iniquitatis est gladius, et scitote esse iudicium; Eccle. XII, v. 14: cuncta quae fecit Deus adducet in iudicium pro omni errato; Is. XXXIII, 1: vae qui spernis, nonne et ipse sperneris? I Reg. c. II, 30: qui autem contemnunt me, erunt ignobiles. 1718 Then when he says, he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge, he foretells the judgment to come. It is like saying: Although those who do not keep my word are not judged now, they will not go unpunished, whoever they are, because, he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings by believing them and acting according to them, has a judge. The reason for this is that if one does not receive the word of Christ, he scorns the word of God, whose Word is Christ, just like the one who does not obey the command of his master. "Flee from the face of iniquity; and know that there is a judgment" [Job 19:29]; "For God will bring every deed into judgment" (Eccl 12:14); "Woe to you who scorn. Will not you yourselves also be scorned?" [Is 33:1]; "They who despise me will be despised" [1 Sam 2:30]. Consequenter cum dicit sermo quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit eum in novissimo die, assignat causam dilationis iudicii, et primo ponitur causa dilationis iudicii; secundo assignatur sufficientia ipsius causae, ibi quia ego ex meipso non sum locutus. 1719 Then when he says, the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day, he assigns the cause of the judgment. And first, he mentions the cause of the judgment; secondly, the adequacy of this cause (v 49). Dicit ergo: dico quod qui est huiusmodi, habet qui iudicet eum. Quis autem hic erit? Sermo, inquit, quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit eum in novissimo die. Quod tantum valet, ut dicit Augustinus, ac si dixisset: ego iudicabo eum in novissimo die. Seipsum quippe Christus expressit in suo sermone, seipsum annuntiavit. Ipse ergo est sermo quem locutus est: quia de se locutus est; supra VIII, 14: et si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimonium meum, quia scio unde veni et quo vado. Quasi dicat: hoc ipsum quod locutus sum eis, et tamen contempserunt, iudicabit eos. Act. c. X, 42: hic est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. 1720 He says: I say that such a person has one that judges him. But who will that judge be? He says, the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. According to Augustine, this is the same as saying: I will judge him on the last day. [43] For Christ revealed himself in his sayings, he announced himself. He, therefore, is the word that he spoke, for he spoke about himself: "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going" (8:14). It is like saying: What I have said to them and they have despised will judge them: "He is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness" (Acts 10:42). Sufficientiam autem causae ostendit, dicens quia ex meipso non sum locutus, et primo ostendit eam ex origine sermonis; secundo ex dignitate ipsius, ibi et scio quia mandatum eius vita aeterna est. Circa primum duo facit. Primo excludit falsitatem; secundo adstruit veritatem. 1721 Then he shows the sufficiency of this cause, saying, for I have not spoken on my own authority [ of myself, ex meipso ]. So first he shows this from the origin of his sayings; secondly, from their dignity or value (v 50). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he excludes a false notion: secondly, he states the truth. Falsitas quidem est quod filius aliquid operetur vel loquatur vel sit a seipso tantum et non ab alio: hoc enim esset ponere quod filius non sit a patre. Et hoc est quod dicit: ideo dico, quod verbum quod ego locutus sum, iudicabit eos, quia ego ex meipso non sum locutus; supra V, 19: non potest filius a se facere quidquam; et infra XIV, 10: a meipso non loquor. Idem autem est ex meipso non sum locutus, quod ego non ex me sum natus, sed ex patre, quasi dicat: iudicabo eum in novissimo die, in forma servi apparens; supra V, 27: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Sed tamen non iudicabo ex potestate humana, quia scilicet filius sum hominis, sed ex potestate divina, quia sum filius Dei. Non ergo iudicabo ex meipso, sed ex patre, ex quo virtutem iudicandi habeo. 1722 The false notion, of course, is that the Son works, or says, or is, merely of himself, and not from another: for this would be to say that the Son is not from the Father, which is what he does say: I say that the word which I have spoken will judge them, for I have not spoken of myself: "The Son cannot do anything of himself" [5:19]; "I do not speak of myself" [14:10]. Indeed, I have not spoken of myself, is the same as "I was not born of myself but from the Father." He is saying in effect, I will judge him on the last day (appearing in the form of a servant): "He gave him the power to pass judgment, because he is the Son of man" [5:27]. Yet I will not judge from human authority, that is, because I am the Son of man, but from divine authority, because I am the Son of God. Therefore, I will not judge of myself, but from the Father from whom I have the authority to judge. Veritatem astruit, dicens sed qui misit me pater, ipse mihi mandatum dedit quid dicam et quid loquar. Ex quibus quidem verbis, nisi pie intelligantur, patet locus duplici errori. Primo quidem, quia mandans maior est eo cui mandat: filio ergo maior est pater. Deinde, quia illud quod datur alicui, non habebatur ab eo antequam sibi daretur; et per consequens nesciebat illud. Si ergo pater dat mandatum filio, sequitur quod filius quandoque illud non habuerit, et per consequens ignoraverit: ergo est ei aliquid additum. Non igitur filius eius est verus Deus. 1723 He establishes the truth when he says, the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. Unless this is appropriately understood, it can be the source of two errors. The first is that since the one commanding is greater than the one commanded, the Father is greater than the Son. Secondly, since what is given to someone was not possessed by him before it was given, and so was not known by him, it seems that if the Father gave a commandment to the Son it follows that the Son at some time did not have it, and so did not know it. As a result, something has been added to the Son, and so the Son is not truly God. Ad quod sciendum est, quod omnia mandata divina sunt in mente patris, cum ipsa mandata nihil aliud sint quam rationes agendorum. Sicut ergo in mente patris sunt rationes omnium creaturarum quae a Deo producuntur, quas ideas vocamus, ita et in ea sunt rationes omnium per nos agendorum. Sicut ergo a patre derivantur in filium, qui est sapientia patris, rationes omnium rerum, ita et rationes omnium agendorum. Sic ergo dicit filius: sed qui misit me pater, ipse mihi dedit, inquantum Deus, mandatum, idest per aeternam generationem communicavit, quid dicam, interius, et quid loquar, exterius: sicut etiam nostrum verbum (si vera fateri volumus) ea profert quae suggerit mens. In answer to this we should note that all the divine commands are in the mind of the Father, since these commands are nothing other than the plans or patterns of things to be done. And so just as the patterns of all creatures produced by God are in the mind of the Father, and are called ideas, so the patterns of all things to be done by us are in his mind. And just as the patterns of all things pass from the Father to the Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father, so also the patterns of all things to be done. Therefore, the Son says, the Father who sent me has himself given me, as God, commandment, that is, by an eternal generation he has communicated to me what to say within and what to speak without, just as what we say (if we speak the truth) makes known what is in our minds. [44] Chrysostomus autem haec omnia, scilicet si quis audierit verba mea, et non custodierit, ego non iudico eum etc., aliter exponit, et planius; ut dicatur si quis audierit verba mea, et non custodierit, non iudico eum. Dupliciter enim potest dici aliquis aliquem condemnare: vel sicut iudex, vel sicut causa condemnationis. Homicidam enim condemnat ad suspendium et iudex qui profert sententiam, et ipsum homicidium perpetratum quod est causa suae condemnationis. Dicit ergo ego non iudico eum, idest, non sum causa suae condemnationis, sed ipse; Oseae XIII, 9: perditio tua, Israel, ex te (scilicet est); tantummodo in me auxilium tuum. Et hoc ideo, quia non veni ut iudicem mundum, idest, non sum missus ad condemnandum, sed ad salvandum. 1724 Chrysostom explains all this differently, and more clearly. [45] First of all (v 47): If any one hear my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him. Now one is said to be condemned in two ways: either by a judge or by the reason for the condemnation. For a murderer is condemned to be hanged both by the judge who passes sentence and by the murder he committed, which is the reason for his condemnation. He says, I do not judge him, that is, I am not the reason for his condemnation, but he himself is: "Your destruction, O Israel is from yourself; your help is only in me" [Hos 13:9]. And the reason is: for I did not come to judge the world, that is, I was not sent to condemn but to save. Sed numquid talis non iudicabitur? Immo, quia qui spernit me et non accepit verba mea habet qui iudicet eum. Quis autem sit iste qui iudicat, ostendit dicens sermo quem locutus sum, auditus a nobis, qui stabit in ordine accusatoris, ille iudicabit eum in novissimo die; infra XV, 22: si non venissem, et eis locutus non fuissem, peccatum non haberent; nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo. Quod autem sermo quem locutus est, iudicabit eos, ostendit dicens quia ego ex meipso non sum locutus. Quod quidem non ponitur causaliter, sed quasi materialiter, ut sit sensus: dicis, quod sermo tuus iudicabit eum; sed quis est iste sermo? Ille scilicet quem dixi quia ego ex meipso non sum locutus, idest, quem ego locutus sum a patre, et ea quae mihi dedit ut dicerem et loquerer: alias si fuissem locutus contrarium patri, vel quae ab eo non habuerim, et non credidissent mihi, excusationem haberent; sed quia sic locutus sum, certum est quod non solum me, sed etiam patrem meum contempserunt. But will not such a person be judged? He certainly will, because he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge. He shows what that judge is when he says, the word that I have spoken, and you have heard, will be his accuser and will be his judge on the last day. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" (15:22). He shows that the word that he spoke will judge them by saying, for I have not spoken of myself. This is not said causally, but in a material sense, so that the meaning is: You say that your word will judge. But what is that word? It is the word that I have spoken, for I have not spoken of myself; that is, it is the word from the Father that I have spoken, and what he gave me to say and speak. Otherwise, if I had spoken something in opposition to the Father, or something I had not received from the Father, and they had believed me, they would have an excuse. But because I have spoken as I have, it is certain that they have rejected not only me, but also my Father. Et secundum hanc expositionem, hoc quod dixit qui misit me pater, ipse mihi mandatum dedit quid dicam et quid loquar, ostendit sufficientiam causae ex parte dignitatis ipsius sermonis. Et primo ponitur eius dignitas, secundo concluditur ipsius sermonis executio. Dignitas quidem, cum dicit et scio, quia mandatum eius est, inquam, vita aeterna; I Io. ult., 20: hic est verus Deus, et vita aeterna. Ipse enim filius est mandatum patris. Vel est vita aeterna, idest ducens in vitam aeternam; Matth. XIX, 17: si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. 1725 According to this explanation, the statement, the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak, shows the sufficiency of the basis of the judgment because of the dignity or value of the word. First, its dignity is given; secondly, the fact that the word was spoken. Its dignity is stated when he says, I know that his commandment is eternal life. "This is the true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20). For the Son himself is the commandment of the Father, or, he is eternal life. "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). Quia ergo pater dedit mihi mandatum, quod quidem mandatum est vita aeterna, ego autem ad hoc veni ut homines ducam in vitam aeternam: ideo mandatum patris per omnia exequor. Et hoc est quod dicit quae ergo ego loquor; sicut dixit mihi pater, sic loquor. Quod, secundum Chrysostomum, planum est, ut sit sensus: quae ego loquor, exterius praedicando, sicut dixit mihi pater, sic loquor, idest, inquantum accepi notitiam ab eo: ut intelligantur de Christo secundum quod homo. Therefore, because the Father has given me commandment, and this commandment is eternal life, and since I have come to lead men to eternal life, I accomplish the commandment of the Father in all that I do. This is what he is saying, What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has said to me. According to Chrysostom, whose explanation is clear, the meaning is: what I say, therefore, when preaching in public, I say as the Father has said to me, that is, insofar as I have received knowledge from him - understanding this was received by Christ as man. Sed si intelligantur, secundum Augustinum, de Christo secundum quod filius Dei: quomodo dicit ei pater, cum ipse sit verbum? Ad quod dicendum, quod non ita dixit ei quasi per verba locutus sit unico verbo suo, sed sic dixit pater filio sicut generavit eum pater, et sicut dedit ei vitam habere in semetipso; Ps. II, 7: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu. 1726 But if, with Augustine, we understand this to apply to Christ as God, how can the Father say something to him, since Christ is his Word? The answer is that the Father did not say anything to him as though he spoke by words to his only Word. Rather, the Father spoke to the Son by generating him, and giving him life in himself: "He [the Lord] said to me, 'You are my son'" (Ps 2:7). [46]
[1] St. Thomas refers to Jn 12:6 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 55, a. 7, obj. 3; q. 188, a. 7.
[2] Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 6, col. 1760; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11.
[3] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 62, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 342; cf. Catena Aurea, 11:1-5; Jerome, Evang. Ioan.; PL 29, col. 670.
[4] Origen.
[5] Augustine, De consensus evangelistarum, 2, ch. 79, 78; PL 34; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11. Gregory, Epistola V ad Theoctistam; PL 77; col. 449C.
[6] Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 6, col. 1760; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11.
[7] Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 10, col. 1762; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11.
[8] Chrysostom.
[9] Tract. in Io., 50, ch. 13, col. 1763; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11.
11.0pt;color:red'>[10] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 65, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 363; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11.
11.0pt;color:red'>[11] In Ioannem hom., 66, ch. 1; PG 59, col 365, 366; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:1-11.
[12] St. Thomas refers to Jn 12:13 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 1, a. 9, s. c.
[13] Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 2, col. 1764; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:12-19.
[14] Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 3, col. 1763.
[15] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 66, ch. 2; PG 59, col 367; cf. Catena Aurea, 12-19.
[16] St. Thomas refers to Jn 12:24 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 74, a. 3, s. c.; Jn 12:24, 25: ST III, q. 46, a. 2, obj. 1.
[17] Gloss (not Alcuin or Bede Alcuin)
[18] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 66, ch. 2; PG 59, col 367.
[19] The most commonly accepted derivation of Philip is from the Greek phil--hippos meaning "lover of horses."
[20] Summa-man can love himself partially or absolutely by willing temporal or eternal goods. To himself.
[21] Tract. in Io., 51, ch. 11, col. 1767.
[22] St. Thomas refers to Jn 12:31 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 44, a. 1; q. 49, a. 2, s. c.; Jn 12:31: ST III, q. 46, a. 4; q. 49, a. 2, s. c.
[23] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 2, col. 1769; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33.
[24] Aristotle, Rhetoric.
[25] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 3, col. 1770; cf. Catena Aurea, 7:9-13..
[26] In Ioannem hom., 67, ch. 1; PG 59, col 371; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33.
[27] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 6, col. 1771; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33.
[28] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33.
[29] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33.
[30] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 67, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 373; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:27-33.
[31] See Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 13, col. 1774.
[32] St. Thomas refers to Jn 12:36 in the Summa Theologiae: I-II, q. 108, a. 1, s. c.
[33] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 12, col. 1773; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:34-36.
[34] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 374; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:34-36.
[35] Tract. in Io., 52, ch. 13, col. 1774.
[36] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 374; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:34-36.
[37] Summa-the way in which God is said to blind the eyes and hearts of those who do not believe.
[38] Augustine, Quaest. Evang.
[39] Augustine, Contra Faustum, lib. 4, ch. 1; PL 42, col. 217 .
[40] St. Thomas refers to Jn 12:43 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 132, a. 3; Jn 12:48: ST III, q. 59, a. 5, s. c.
[41] Tract. in Io., 54, ch. 2, col. 1780-1; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50.
[42] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 69, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 377; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50.
[43] Tract. in Io., 54, ch. 6, col. 1782-3; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50.
[44] Summa-patterns of all things existing in the mind of the Father and communicated to the Son.
[45] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 68, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 379; cf. Catena Aurea, 12:44-50.