5

Lectio 1 LECTURE 1

1 μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα. 2 ἔστιν δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἰεροσολύμοις ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη ἑβραϊστὶ Βηθζαθά, πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα. 3 ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος τῶν ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν. 4-5 ἦν δέ τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ τριάκοντα [καὶ] ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ: 6 τοῦτον ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς κατακείμενον, καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει, λέγει αὐτῷ, θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι; 7 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ ἀσθενῶν, κύριε, ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω ἵνα ὅταν ταραχθῇ τὸ ὕδωρ βάλῃ με εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν: ἐν ᾧ δὲ ἔρχομαι ἐγὼ ἄλλος πρὸ ἐμοῦ καταβαίνει. 8 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει. 9 καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο ὑγιὴς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἦρεν τὸν κράβαττον αὐτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει.

1 After this there was a Jewish festival, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now at Jerusalem there is a Sheep Pool, called in Hebrew Bethsaida, having five porticoes. 3 In these porticoes lay a great number of people: feeble, blind, lame and withered, waiting for the movement of the water. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool and the water was stirred up, and the first one into the pool after it was stirred was healed of whatever ailment he had. 5 There was one man lying there who had been sick for thirty-eight years with his infirmity. 6 Jesus, seeing him lying there and knowing that he had been sick a long time, said to him, “Do you wish to be healed?” 7 The sick man said, “Sir, I have no one to plunge me into the pool once the water is stirred up. By the time I get there, someone else has gone in before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up, pick up your mat and walk!” 9a The man was immediately cured; he picked up his mat, and walked.

Supra dominus egit de regeneratione spirituali; hic agit consequenter de beneficiis quae regeneratis spiritualiter conferuntur a Deo. Sed his qui carnaliter generantur tria conferuntur a parentibus carnalibus: scilicet vita, nutrimentum et doctrina sive disciplina; et haec tria a Christo etiam regenerati spiritualiter percipiunt. Primo quidem spiritualem vitam; secundo vero spirituale nutrimentum; tertio spiritualem doctrinam. Secundum hoc ergo de tribus hic agitur. Primo de collatione spiritualis vitae; secundo de collatione spiritualis cibi; et hoc infra VI, ibi post haec abiit Iesus etc.; tertio de spirituali doctrina, infra VII post haec ambulabat Iesus. 699 Above, our Lord dealt with spiritual rebirth; here he deals with the benefits God gives to those who are spiritually reborn. Now we see that parents give three things to those who are physically born from them: life, nourishment, and instruction or discipline. And those who are spiritually reborn receive these three from Christ: spiritual life, spiritual nourishment, and spiritual teaching. And so these three things are considered here: first, the giving of spiritual life; secondly, the giving of spiritual food (c 6); and thirdly, spiritual teaching (c 7).
Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit signum visibile, in quo manifestatur virtus Christi factiva et reparativa vitae, secundum consuetudinem huius Evangelii, in quo semper doctrinae Christi adiungitur aliquod visibile factum, pertinens ad illud de quo est doctrina, ut sic ex visibilibus invisibilia innotescant. Secundo ponitur occasio doctrinae proponendae, ibi erat autem sabbatum et cetera. Tertio ponitur ipsa doctrina, ibi respondit itaque Iesus: amen, amen dico vobis et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describitur locus miraculi perpetrati; secundo infirmitas, ibi erat autem ibi homo etc.; tertio restitutio sanitatis, ibi dixit ei Iesus: surge, tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. About the first he does three things. First, he sets forth a visible sign in which he shows Christ’s power to produce and to restore life. This is the usual practice in this Gospel: to always join to the teaching of Christ some appropriate visible action, so that what is invisible can be made known through the visible. Secondly, the occasion for this teaching is given (v 9b). Thirdly, the teaching itself is given (v 19). As to the first he does three things. First, the place of the miracle is given. Secondly, the illness involved. Thirdly, the restoration of the sick person to health (v 8).
Locus autem miraculi describitur dupliciter, scilicet generalis et specialis. Generalis locus est Ierosolyma; et ideo dicit: post haec, idest post miraculum in Galilaea factum, erat dies festus Iudaeorum; scilicet Pentecostes, secundum Chrysostomum: nam supra fit mentio de festo Paschae, quando ierat in Ierusalem. Nunc ergo in sequenti festo Pentecostes, ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam, iterato: nam, sicut legitur Ex. XXIII, 17, mandatum erat a domino, ut omne masculinum generis Iudaeorum tribus vicibus in anno, scilicet in die festo Paschae, Pentecostes, Scenopegiae, in templo praesentaretur. 700 The place of this miracle is described in two ways: in general and in particular. The general place is Jerusalem; so he says, After this, i.e., after the miracle performed in Galilee, there was a Jewish festival, that is Pentecost, according to Chrysostom. For above, when Christ went to Jerusalem, it was the Passover that was mentioned; and now, on the following festival of Pentecost, Jesus went up to Jerusalem again. For as we read in Exodus (23:17), the Lord commanded that all Jewish males be presented in the temple three times a year: on the festival days of the Passover, Pentecost, and the Dedication.
Et in istis festis dominus in Ierusalem ascendit propter duo: scilicet ne videretur legi fore contrarius, sicut ipse dixerat, Matth. c. V, 17: non veni legem solvere, sed adimplere: et ut multitudinem populi illuc concurrentis in diebus festis ad Deum per signa et doctrinam trahat, secundum illud Ps. CVIII, v. 30: in medio multorum laudabo eum: et alibi annuntiabo iustitiam tuam in Ecclesia magna. Unde et ipse dicit, infra XVIII, 20: ego palam locutus sum mundo. There were two reasons why our Lord went up to Jerusalem for these festivals. First, so that he would not seem to oppose the law, for he said himself: “I have not come to destroy the law, but to complete it” (Mt 5:17); and in order to draw the many people gathered there on the feast days to God by his signs and teaching: “I will praise him in the midst of the people” (Ps 108:30); and again, “I have declared your justice in the great assembly” (Ps 39:10). So Christ himself says, as we read below (18:20): “1 have spoken openly to the world.”
Locus autem specialis miraculi fuit probatica piscina; et ideo dicit: est Ierosolymis probatica piscina etc., quae quidem describitur ex quatuor, scilicet ex nomine, ex dispositione, ex inhabitatione, et ex virtute. 701 The specific place of the miracle was the pool called the Sheep Pool; so he says, Now at Jerusalem there is a Sheep Pool. This is described here in four ways: by its name, its structure, from its occupants, and from its power.
Ex nomine quidem cum dicit probatica piscina: probaton enim Graece ovis dicitur. Probatica ergo piscina, quasi oviaria, vel pecuaria dicitur, ex eo quod sacerdotes cadavera bestiarum, et praecipue ovium, quae ut plurimum in sacrificiis offerebantur, ibi abluebant: et ideo Hebraice cognominabatur Bethsaida, idest domus ovium. Erat enim prope templum ex aquis pluvialibus collecta. 702 First, it is described from its name when he says, there is a Sheep Pool (probatica piscina), for probaton is Greek for “sheep.” It was called the Sheep Pool for it was there that the priests washed the sacrificial animals; especially the sheep, who were used more than the other animals. And so in Hebrew it was called Bethsaida, that is, the “house of sheep.” This pool was located near the temple, and formed from collected rain water.
Mystice autem, secundum Chrysostomum, haec piscina Baptismum praefigurabat: nam dominus volens gratiam baptismalem in diversis praefigurare, primo quidem dedit aquam expurgantem corporis sordes, quae erant ex tactu immundorum secundum legem, de qua habetur Num. XIX. Secundo dedit virtutem huic piscinae quae repraesentat expressius quam aqua illa virtutem Baptismi, non solum ab immunditiis carnis sanando, sed etiam ab infirmitatibus corporis salvando: nam quanto figurae fuerunt propinquiores veritati, tanto expressiores erant. Signabat ergo virtutem Baptismi: quia sicut aqua illa per hoc quod lavabat corpora, habebat virtutem ex Angelo, non natura propria, infirmitatem sanandi, ita aqua Baptismi habet virtutem sanandi et abluendi animam a peccatis; Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis nostris. Et inde est quod passio Christi per sacrificia veteris legis praefigurata, in Baptismo repraesentatur; Rom. VI, 3: quicumque baptizati estis in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati estis et cetera. 703 In its mystical sense, this pool, according to Chrysostom, has prefigured Baptism. For the Lord, wishing to prefigure the grace of baptism in different ways, first of all chose water: for this washes the body from the uncleanness which came from contact with what was legally unclean (Nm 19). Secondly, he gave this pool a power that expresses even more vividly than water the power of Baptism: for it not only cleansed the body from its uncleanness, but also healed it from its illness; for symbols are more expressive, the closer they approach the reality. Thus it signified the power of Baptism: for as this water when applied to the body had the power (not by its own nature, but from an angel) to heal its illness, so the water of Baptism has the power to heal and cleanse the soul from sins: “He loved us, and washed us from our sins” (Rv 1:5). This is the reason why the passion of Christ, prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Law, is represented in Baptism: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death” (Rom 6:3).
Secundum Augustinum vero, aqua illius piscinae significabat statum populi Iudaeorum, secundum illud Apoc. XVII, 15: aquae multae, populi multi. Nam populus gentium non erat inclusus sub limite divinae legis, sed unusquisque ambulabat secundum vanitatem cordis sui, secundum illud Eph. IV, 17. Populus vero Iudaeorum conclusus erat sub cultu unius Dei, secundum illud Gal. III, 23: conclusi in eam fidem quae revelanda erat. Et ideo iste populus significabatur per aquam in piscina conclusam. Et dicitur probatica, quia ipsi erant speciales oves Dei, secundum illud Ps. XCIV, 7: nos autem populus eius, et oves pascuae eius. According to Augustine, the water in this pool signified the condition of the Jewish people, according to: “The waters are the peoples” (Rv 17:15). The Gentiles were not confined within the limits of the divine law, but each of them lived according to the vanity of his heart (Eph 4:17). But the Jews were confined under the worship of the one God: “We were kept under the law, confined, until the faith was revealed” (Gal 3:23). So this water, confined to the pool, signified the Jewish people. And it was called the Sheep Pool, for the Jews were the special sheep of God: “We are his people, his sheep” (Ps 94:7).
Ex dispositione autem describitur, quia erat quinque porticus habens, scilicet per circuitum, ut multi sacerdotes absque impedimento commode starent ad lavandum cadavera bestiarum. Per hos quinque porticus mystice significantur, secundum Chrysostomum, quinque vulnera corporis Christi, de quibus dicitur infra XX, 27: mitte manum tuam in latus meum, et noli esse incredulus, sed fidelis. Secundum Augustinum vero, quinque libri Moysi. 704 The pool is described in its structure as having five porticoes, i.e., round about, so that a number of the priests could stand and wash the animals without inconvenience. In the mystical sense these five porticoes, according to Chrysostom, signify the five wounds in the body of Christ; about which we read: “Put your hand into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe” (below 20:27). But according to Augustine, these five porticoes signify the five books of Moses.
Ex inhabitatione autem describitur, quia in his, scilicet porticibus, iacebat multitudo magna languentium, caecorum, claudorum, aridorum et cetera. Cuius litteralis ratio est propter concursum omnium infirmorum ad virtutem aquae: quae quia continue non sanabat, nec multos simul, oportebat quod multi illic expectantes morarentur. Per hoc autem mystice significatur, secundum Augustinum, quod lex non poterat peccata sanare, secundum illud Hebr. X, 4: impossibile est per sanguinem hircorum aut taurorum peccata purgari. Sed ostendebat ea tantum, secundum illud Rom. III, 20: per legem enim cognitio peccati. 705 The pool is also described from its occupants, for in these porticoes lay a great number of people: feeble, blind, lame and withered. The literal explanation of this is that since all the afflicted persons gathered because of the curative power of the water, which did not always cure nor cure many at the same time, it was inevitable that there be many hanging around waiting to be cured. The mystical meaning of this, for Augustine, was that the law was incapable of healing sins: “It is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats” (Heb 10:4). The law merely shed light on them, for “The knowledge of sin comes from the law” (Rom 3:20).
Et ideo iacebant in ea infirmi diversis infirmitatibus, curari non valentes. Quae quidem describuntur quantum ad quatuor. Primo quidem quantum ad situm, quia iacebant prostrati, scilicet per peccata inhaerendo terrenis: qui enim iacet, ex toto inhaeret terrae; Matth. IX, 36: misertus est eorum, quia erant vexati et iacentes, quasi oves non habentes pastorem. Iusti autem non iacent, sed recti ad caelestia stant; Ps. XIX, 9: ipsi, scilicet peccatores, obligati sunt, et ceciderunt; nos autem, scilicet iusti surreximus, et erecti sumus. 706 And so, subject to various illnesses, these people lay there, unable to be cured. They are described in four ways. First, by their posture: for there they lay, i.e., clinging to earthly things by their sins; for one who is lying down is in direct contact with the earth: “He had compassion on them, for they were suffering, and lying like sheep without a shepherd” (Mt 9:36). But the just do not lie down, but stand upright, toward the things of heaven: “They,” i.e., sinners, “are bound, and have fallen down; but we,” the just, “have stood and are erect” (Ps 19:9).
Secundo quantum ad numerum quia multi, unde dicit: multitudo magna; Eccle. I, 15: perversi difficile corriguntur, et stultorum infinitus est numerus. Et Matth. VII, 13: lata est via quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi incedunt per eam. Secondly, they are described as to their number, for there was a great number of them: “The evil are hard to correct, and the number of fools is infinite” (Ecc 1:15); and in Matthew (7:13): “The road that leads to destruction is wide, and many go this way.”
Tertio quantum ad dispositionem seu habitum infirmorum. Et ponit quatuor quae homo per peccatum incurrit. Primo enim homo ex hoc quod subiicitur passionibus peccatorum ei praedominantibus, efficitur languidus: et quantum ad hoc dicit languentium. Unde et a Tullio passiones animae, puta irae et concupiscentiae, et huiusmodi, quaedam aegritudines animae dicuntur. Unde Ps. VI, 3, dicebat: miserere mei, domine quoniam infirmus sum. Thirdly, these sick people are described as to their condition. And he mentions four things which a person brings on himself through sin. First, a person who is ruled by sinful passions is made listless or feeble: and so he says, feeble. So it is that Cicero calls certain passions of the soul, such as anger and concupiscence and the like, illnesses of the soul. And the Psalm says: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am week” (Ps 6:3).
Secundo vero ex dominio passionum et victoria in homine excaecatur ratio per consensum: et quantum ad hoc dicit caecorum, scilicet per peccata, secundum illud Sap. II, v. 21: excaecavit eos malitia eorum; Ps. LVII, v. 9: supercecidit ignis, scilicet irae et concupiscentiae, et non viderunt solem. Secondly, due to the rule and victory of a man’s passions, his reason is blinded by consent; and he says as to this, blind, that is, through sins. According to Wisdom (2:21): “Their own evil blinded them”; and in the Psalm (57:9): “Fire,” that is the fire of anger and concupiscence, “fell on them, and they did not see the sun.”
Tertio, homo languens et caecus efficitur instabilis in suis operibus, et est quasi claudus; unde dicitur Prov. XI, 18: impius facit opus instabile. Et quantum ad hoc dicit claudorum; III Reg. XVIII, 21: usquequo claudicatis in duas partes? Thirdly, a person who is feeble and blind is inconstant in his works and is, in a way, lame. So we read in Proverbs (11:18): “The work of the wicked is unsteady.” With respect to this the Evangelist says, lame. “How long will you be lame?” (1 Kgs 18:2 1).
Quarto homo sic languidus, caecus intellectu, claudus in effectu, efficitur aridus in affectu, inquantum exsiccatur in eo omnis pinguedo devotionis, quam petebat Psalmus LXII, 6, dicens: sicut adipe et pinguedine repleatur anima mea. Et quantum ad hoc dicit aridorum; Ps. XXI, 16: aruit tamquam testa virtus mea. Fourthly, a man who is thus feeble, blind in understanding, and lame in his exterior actions, becomes dry in his affections, in the sense that all the fatness of devotion withers within him. This devotion is sought in the Psalm (62:6): “May my soul be filled with fat and marrow.” With respect to this the Evangelist says, withered. “My strength is dried up like baked clay” (Ps 21:16).
Sed sunt aliqui sic affecti languore peccati, qui non expectant aquae motum, in peccatis suis requiescentes, secundum illud Sap. XIV, 22: in magno viventes inscientiae bello, tot et tanta mala pacem appellant. De quibus dicitur Prov. II, 14: laetantur cum male fecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis. Cuius ratio est, quia non abhorrent peccata; nec peccant ex ignorantia, seu infirmitate, sed ex certa malitia. Isti autem, utpote non ex malitia peccantes, non quiescebant in peccatis sed per desiderium expectabant aquae motum. Unde dicit et expectantium; Iob XIV, 14: cunctis diebus quibus nunc milito, expecto donec veniat immutatio mea. Sic et illi qui erant in veteri testamento expectabant Christum, secundum illud Gen., penult., 18: salutare tuum expectabo, domine. But there are some so afflicted by the lassitude of sin, who do not wait for the motion of the water, wallowing in their sins, according to Wisdom (14:22): “They live in a great strife of ignorance, and they call so many and great evils peace.” We read of such people: “They are glad when they do evil, and rejoice in the worst of things” (Prv 2:14). The reason for this is that they do not hate their sins: they do not sin from ignorance or weakness, but from malice. But others, who do not sin from malice, do not wallow in their sins, but wait by desire for the motion of the water. So he says, waiting. “Every day of my service I wait for my relief to come” (Jb 14:14). This is the ‘way those in the Old Testament waited for Christ: “I will wait for your salvation, O Lord” (Gn 49:18).
Ex virtute vero describitur piscina, quia sanat ab omni infirmitate corporali, virtute Angeli descendentis; et ideo dicit Angelus autem domini secundum tempus descendebat in piscinam. Et quidem virtus piscinae in aliquo concordat cum Baptismo, et in aliquo differt. Concordat quidem in duobus. Primo quidem in occultatione virtutis: nam virtus aquae huius piscinae non erat ex natura sua, alias semper sanasset, sed ex aliqua virtute occulta, scilicet ex Angelo; unde dicitur, quod Angelus domini secundum tempus descendebat in piscinam. Et similiter aqua Baptismi, ex eo quod aqua non habet virtutem purgativam animarum, sed ex occulta virtute spiritus sancti, secundum illud supra III, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Secundo concordat in effectu, quia sicut aqua Baptismi sanat, ita et ista piscina sanabat: et ideo dicit, quod qui prior descendisset, sanus fiebat. Ideo autem virtutem sanandi corpora aquae istius piscinae Deus contulit, ut homines abluendo, per salutem corporalem assuescerent quaerere spiritualem. 707 Finally, the power of the pool is described, for it healed all physical illnesses in virtue of an angel who came to it; so he says, From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool. In certain ways, the power of this pool is like that of Baptism. It is like it, first, in the fact that its power was unperceived: for the power of the water in this pool did not come from its very nature, otherwise it would have healed at all times; its power was unseen, being from an angel. So he says, From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool. The water of Baptism is like this in that precisely as water it does not have the power to cleanse souls, but this comes from the unseen power of the Holy Spirit, according to: “Unless one is born again ofwater and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (above 3:5). It is like it, in a second way, in its effect: for as the water of Baptism heals, so also the water of that pool healed. So he says, the first one into the pool was healed. Further, God gave to that water the power to heal so that men by washing might learn through their bodily health to seek their spiritual health.
Differt autem quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad id cuius virtute hoc fiebat: quia aqua piscinae conferebat sanitatem virtute Angeli; aqua vero Baptismi virtute increata, non solum spiritus sancti, sed etiam Trinitatis. Unde etiam Matth. III, 16 s. super dominum baptizatum tota Trinitas affuit: pater in voce, filius in persona, spiritus sanctus in columbae specie. Et inde est quod in nostro Baptismo fit invocatio Trinitatis. Yet the water of this pool differs from the water of Baptism in three ways. First, in the source of its power: for the water in the pool produced health because of an angel, but the water of Baptism produces its effect by the uncreated power not only of the Holy Spirit, but of the entire Trinity. Thus the entire Trinity was present at the baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Son in person, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. This is why we invoke the Trinity in our baptism.
Secundo differt quantum ad efficaciam: quia aqua piscinae non habuit virtutem sanativam continue, sed secundum tempus, idest determinato tempore; aqua vero Baptismi continuam abluendi virtutem habet, secundum illud Zach. XIII, 1: erit fons patens domui Iacob, et habitantibus Ierusalem, in ablutionem peccatoris et menstruatae. Secondly, this water differs in its power: for the water in the pool did not have a continuous power to cure, but only from time to time; while the water of Baptism has a permanent power to cleanse, according to: “On that day a fountain will be open to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse the sinner and the unclean” (Zee 13:1).
Tertio quantum ad multitudinem sanandorum: quia ad motum aquae illius piscinae, sanabatur tantum unus; sed ad motum aquae Baptismi sanantur omnes. Nec mirum, quia virtus illius aquae, cum sit creata, finita est, et finitum habet effectum; in hac vero aqua virtus est infinita ad infinitas animas, si essent, abluendas; Ez. XXXVI, 25: effundam super vos aquam mundam, et mundabimini ab omnibus inquinamentis vestris. Thirdly, this water differs as regards the number of people healed: for only one person was cured when the water of this pool was moved; but all are healed when the water of Baptism is moved. And no wonder: for the power of the water in the pool, since it is created, is finite and has a finite effect; but in the water of Baptism there is an infinite power capable of cleansing an infinite number of souls, if there were such: “I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed from all your uncleanness” (Ez 36:25).
Secundum vero Augustinum, per Angelum istum intelligitur Christus, secundum illud Is. IX, 6, secundum aliam litteram: vocabitur magni consilii Angelus. Sicut ille Angelus secundum tempus descendebat in piscinam, ita et Christus secundum determinatum tempus a patre descendit in mundum; Is. XIV, v. 1: prope est ut veniat tempus eius, et dies eius non elongabuntur; Gal. IV, 4: at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere, factum sub lege. Item sicut ille Angelus non videbatur nisi motu aquae, ita etiam Christus secundum divinitatem non cognoscebatur: quia si cognovissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent: I Cor. II, 8. Nam Is. XLV, 15, dicitur: vere tu es Deus absconditus. Et ideo videbatur aqua turbata sed a quo turbaretur non videbatur, quia infirmitatem Christi videntes, divinitatem eius non cognoscebant. Et sicut ille qui descendebat in piscinam sanus fiebat; ita et qui humiliter credit in Deum, eius passione sanatur; Rom. III, 24: iustificati per fidem per redemptionem quae est in Christo, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Sanabatur autem unus tantum, quia nullus sanari potest nisi in ecclesiastica unitate; Eph. IV, 5: unus Deus, una fides, unum Baptisma. Vae ergo illis qui oderunt unitatem, et partes sibi faciunt in hominibus. 708 According to Augustine, however, the angel signifies Christ, according to this reading of Isaiah (9:6): “He will be called great counsel.” Just as the angel descended at certain times into the pool, so Christ descended into the world at a time fixed by the Father: “The time is near” (Is 14:1); “When the fulness of time had come God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law” (Gal 4:4). Again, just as the angel was not seen except by the motion of the water, so Christ was not known as to his divinity, for “If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8). For as Isaiah (45:15) says: “Truly, you are a hidden God.” And so the motion of the water was seen, but not the one who set it in motion, because, seeing the weakness of Christ, the people did not know of his divinity. And just as the one who went into the pool was healed, so a person who humbly believes in God is healed by his passion: “Justified by faith, through the redemption which is in Christ, whom God put forward as an expiation” (Rom 3:24). Only one was healed, because no one can be healed except in the oneness or unity of the Church: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). Therefore, woe to those who hate unity, and divide men into sects.
Consequenter cum dicit, erat autem quidam homo ibi triginta et octo annos in infirmitate habens, ponit infirmitatem, et primo ponitur diuturna infirmitas; secundo ostenditur causa diuturnae infirmitatis, ibi hunc cum vidisset ergo Iesus et cetera. 709 Then (v 5), the Evangelist mentions the disability of a man who lay by the pool. First, we are told how long he was disabled; and secondly, why it was so long (v 7).
Infirmitas diuturna erat, quia homo erat habens triginta octo annos in infirmitate sua. Quod satis pulchre introducitur: homo qui curari non poterat a piscina, curandus tamen a Christo; quia quos lex sanare non poterat, Christus perfecte sanat, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 3: nam quod impossibile erat legi in quo infirmabatur per carnem, mittens Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati, de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis. Eccli. XXXVI, 6: innova signa, et immuta mirabilia. 7 10 He was disabled for a long time, for There was one man lying there who had been sick for thirty-eight years with his infirmity. This episode is very aptly mentioned: the man who could not be cured by the pool was to be cured by Christ, because those whom the law could not heal, Christ heals perfectly, according to: “God did what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as a sin-offering, he condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 8:3), and in Sirach (36:6): “Perform new signs and wonders.”
Congruit autem iste numerus infirmitati, ad languorem pertinens magis quam ad sanitatem: nam, secundum Augustinum, quadragenarius numerus consecratur ad designandam perfectionem iustitiae, quae in observatione legis consistit. Lex autem in decem praeceptis data est, et praedicanda erat in quatuor partibus mundi, vel implenda per quatuor Evangelia, secundum illud Rom. X, v. 4: finis legis Christus. Quia ergo denarius per quatuor multiplicatus pervenit ad quadragenarium, recte perfecta iustitia designatur: subtractis ergo duobus a quadragenario numero efficiuntur triginta octo. Haec autem duo sunt duo praecepta caritatis, quibus impletur omnis perfecta iustitia. Et ideo homo iste languebat, quia de quadraginta, duo minus habebat, idest imperfectam iustitiam: quia, ut dicitur Matth. XXII, 40: in his duobus pendent lex et prophetae. 711 The number thirty-eight is well-suited to his infirmity, for we see it associated with sickness rather than with health. For, as Augustine says, the number forty signifies the perfection of justice, which consists in observing the law. But the law was given in ten precepts, and was to be preached to the four corners of the world, or be completed by the four Gospels, according to: “The end of the law is Christ” (Rom 10:4). So since ten times four is forty, this appropriately signifies perfect justice. Now if two is subtracted from forty, we get thirty-eight. This two is the two precepts of charity, which effects perfect justice. And so this man was sick because he had forty minus two, that is, his justice was imperfect, for “On these two commandments all the law and the prophets depend” (Mt 22:40).
Consequenter cum dicit hunc cum vidisset Iesus, exquiritur causa diuturnae infirmitatis. Et primo ponitur interrogatio domini; secundo responsio languidi, ibi respondit ei languidus. 712 Now the reason for the length of the man’s illness is considered. First, we have the Lord’s query; secondly, the sick man’s answer (v 7).
Dixit ergo: hunc, scilicet hominem, cum vidisset Iesus iacentem, non solum oculo corporis, sed etiam miserationis, qualiter videri petebat David dicens: respice in me, domine, et miserere mei. Et cognovisset quia multum tempus haberet, in infirmitate; quod est contra cor Christi, et infirmi, secundum illud Eccli. X, v. 11: languor prolixior gravat medicum. Dixit ei: vis sanus fieri? Non quasi ignorans, nam satis constare poterat quod sanus fieri volebat, sed ut excitet desiderium infirmi, et ut ostendat patientiam, qui tot annis expectavit eripi ab aegritudine, non desistens, et ex hoc cognoscatur dignior ad sanandum; Ps. XXX, 25: viriliter agite, et confortetur cor vestrum, omnes qui speratis in Deo. Excitat autem desiderium: quia stabilius tenetur quod cum desiderio percipitur et facilius acquiritur nobis; Matth. VII: pulsate, per desiderium, et aperietur vobis. 713 John says, Jesus, seeing him, the man, lying there. Jesus saw him not only with his physical eyes, but also with the eyes of his mercy; this is the way David begged to be seen, saying: “Look at me, O Lord, and have mercy on me” (Ps 85:16). And Jesus knowing that he had been sick a long time —which was repugnant to the heart of Christ as well as to the sick man himself: “A long illness is a burden to the physician” (Sir 10:11)—said to him, Do you wish to be healed? He did not say this because he did not know the answer, for it was quite evident that the man wanted to be healed, he said it to arouse the sick man’s desire, and to show his patience in waiting so many years to be cured of his sickness. and in not giving up. We see from this that he was all the worthier to be cured: “Act bravely, and let your heart be strengthened, all you who hope in the Lord” (Ps 30:25). Jesus incites the man’s desires because we keep more securely what we perceive with desire and more easily acquire. “Knock,” by your desire, “and it will be opened to you,” as we read in Matthew (7:7).
Sed notandum, quod dominus a ceteris fidem requirit; Matth. IX, 28: creditis quod possum hoc facere vobis? Sed in isto nihil tale facit: quia illi quidem audierant aliqua de miraculis Iesu, iste autem nondum: et ideo fidem ab eo non requirit, nisi post factum miraculum. Note that in other situations the Lord requires faith: “Do you believe that I can do this for you” (Mt 9:28); but here he does not make any such demand. The reason is that the others had heard of the miracles of Jesus, of which this man knew nothing. And so Jesus does not ask faith from him until after the miracle has been performed.
Responsio languidi ponitur cum dicit: domine, hominem non habeo. Et duo insinuat, quae causa erant diuturnae infirmitatis: scilicet paupertatem et debilitatem. Quia enim pauper erat, non poterat habere hominem qui mitteret eum in piscinam; unde dicit domine, hominem non habeo et cetera. Et forte, secundum Chrysostomum, opinabatur sibi Christum utilem fore ad mittendum eum in aquam. Quia vero debilis erat, et festinanter ire non poterat, praeveniebatur ab alio; unde dicit dum venio enim ego, alius ante me descendit. Et sic poterat dicere cum Iob VI, 13: ecce non est auxilium mihi in me. Per hoc significatur quod non erat aliquis homo purus qui humanum genus salvare posset, quia omnes peccaverunt, et egerunt gratia Dei, quousque veniret Christus Deus et homo, per quem sanaretur. 714 Then (v 7), the answer of the sick man is given. Two reasons are given for the length of his illness: his poverty and his weakness. As he was poor, he could not afford a man to plunge him into the pool; so he says, Sir, I have no one to plunge me into the pool. Perhaps he thought, as Chrysostom says, that Christ might even help to put him into the water. Someone else always reached the pool before him because he was weak and not able to move fast; so he says, By the time I get there, someone else has gone in before me. He could say with Job: “I cannot help myself” (Jb 6:13). This signifies that no mere man could save the human race, for all had sinned and needed the grace of God. Mankind had to wait for the coming of Christ, God and man, by whom it would be healed.
Consequenter cum dicit surge, tolle grabatum tuum, ponitur restitutio sanitatis, seu perpetratio miraculi. Et primo ponitur mandatum domini; secundo obedientia hominis, ibi et statim sanus factus est homo et cetera. 715 Now we see the man restored to health, i.e., the working of the miracle. First, the Lord’s command is given; secondly, the man’s obedience (v 9).
Praecipit autem dominus naturae, et voluntati hominis; haec enim duo sub potestate eius sunt. Naturae praecipit, cum dicit surge: non enim hoc voluntati praecipitur, quia hoc non erat in eius potestate, sed naturae, quam dominus praecipiendo immutavit, dando ei virtutem qua surgere posset. Voluntati vero duo praecipit, scilicet tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. Et quidem, quantum ad litteram, haec duo praecepit, ut ostendat perfectam sanitatem homini restitutam. In omnibus enim miraculis, secundum optimum illius naturae, dominus perfectum opus fecit; Deut. XXXII, 4, dicitur: Dei perfecta sunt opera. Iste autem in duobus defecerat: scilicet in viribus propriis, se sustinere non valens, unde dominus eum iacentem invenit; et in subsidio aliorum, unde dicebat hominem non habeo. Ut ergo perfecta sanitas innotesceret, ei qui se sustinere non valebat, praecipit ut lectum suum tollat; et ei qui ambulare non poterat, praecepit ut ambulet. 716 The Lord commanded both the nature of the man and his will, for both are under the Lord’s power. He commanded his nature when he said, Stand up. This command was not directed to the man’s will, for this was not within the power of his will. But it was within the power of his nature, to which the Lord gave the power to stand by his command. He gave two commands to the man’s will: pick up your mat and walk! The literal meaning for this is that these two things were commanded in order to show that the man had been restored to perfect health. For in all his miracles the Lord produced a perfect work, according to what was best in the nature of each case: “The works of God are perfect” (Dt 32:4). Now this man was lacking two things: first, his own energy, since he could not stand up by himself, thus our Lord found him lying by the pool. Secondly, he lacked the help of others; so he said, I have no one. So our Lord, in order that this man might recognize his perfect health, ordered him who could not help himself to pick up his mat, and him who could not walk to walk.
Nihilominus tamen haec tria in iustificatione dominus praecipit. Primo quod surgat recedendo a peccato; Eph. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge a mortuis. Secundo praecipitur tolle grabatum, satisfaciendo de commissis. Per grabatum enim, in quo homo requiescit, significatur peccatum. Tollit ergo homo grabatum suum, quando fert onus poenitentiae sibi pro peccato impositum; Mich. c. VII, 9: iram domini portabo, quoniam peccavi ei. Tertio ut ambulet proficiendo in bono, secundum illud Ps. LXXXIII, 8: ibunt de virtute in virtutem. 717 These are the three things which the Lord commands in the justification of a sinner. First, he should stand up, by leaving his sinful ways: “Rise up, you who sleep, and arise from the dead” (Eph 5:14). Secondly, he is commanded to pick up your mat, by making satisfaction for the sins he has committed. For the mat on which a man rests signifies his sins. And so a man takes up his mat when he begins to do the penance given to him for his sins. “I will bear the anger of God, because I have sinned against him” (Mi 7:9). Thirdly, he is commanded to walk, by advancing in what is good, according to: “They will go from strength to strength” (Ps 83:8).
Secundum Augustinum, duo deficiebant isti languido, scilicet praecepta geminae caritatis: et ideo voluntati, quae caritate perficitur, duo mandat, scilicet tollere grabatum, et ambulare. Primum pertinet ad dilectionem proximi, quae prior est ordine faciendi; secundum ad dilectionem Dei, quae prior est ordine praecipiendi. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum tolle grabatum tuum, quasi dicat: quando infirmus es, proximus tuus sustinet te, et patienter fovet ut grabatus infirmum; Rom. XV, 1: debemus nos firmiores, imbecillitates infirmorum sustinere, et non nobis ipsis placere. Quando ergo sanus factus es, tolle grabatum tuum, idest, sustine et supporta proximum tuum, qui te infirmum portabat; Gal. VI, 2: alter alterius onera portate. Quantum vero ad secundum, dicit ambula, appropinquando ad Deum. Unde in Ps. LXXXIII, v. 8, dicitur: ibunt de virtute in virtutem; et sequitur: videbitur Deus deorum in Sion; infra XII, 35: ambulate dum lucem habetis. 718 According to Augustine, this sick man was lacking two things: the two precepts of charity. And so our Lord gives two commands to his will, which is perfected by charity: to take up his mat, and to walk. The first concerns the love of neighbor, which is first in the order of doing; the second concerns the love of God, which is first in the order of precept. Christ says, with respect to the first, pick up you mat. As if to say: When you are weak, your neighbor bears with you and, like a mat, patiently supports you: “We who are stronger ought to bear with the infirmities of the weak, and not seek to please ourselves” (Rom 15:1). Thus, after you have been cured, pick up your mat, i.e., bear and support your neighbor, who carried you when you were weak: “Carry each other’s burdens” (Gal 6:2). About the second he says, walk, by drawing near God; so we read: “They will go from strength to strength” (Ps 83:8); “Walk while you have the light” (below 12:35).
Consequenter cum dicit et statim sanus factus est homo ille, ponitur obedientia: et primo vere quia statim factus est homo sanus. Nec mirum, quia ipse est verbum per quod caelum et terra facta sunt; Ps. CXLVIII, 5: dixit, et facta sunt. Et alibi: verbo domini caeli firmati sunt. Secundo voluntas: et primo, quia sustulit grabatum suum; secundo, quia ambulabat; Ex. XXIV, 7: omnia quaecumque praecepit dominus faciemus, et erimus obedientes. 719 Next we see the man’s obedience. First, the obedience of his nature, because, The man was immediately cured. And no wonder, because Christ is the Word through whom heaven and earth were made: “He commanded and they were created” (Ps 148:5); “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made” (Ps 32:6). Secondly, we see the obedience of the man’s will: first, because he picked up his mat, and secondly, because he walked. “We will do everything that the Lord commands, and obey him” (Ex 24:7).

Lectio 2 LECTURE 2

9b ἦν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. 10 ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ τεθεραπευμένῳ, σάββατόν ἐστιν, καὶ οὐκ ἔξεστίν σοι ἆραι τὸν κράβαττόν σου. 11 ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς, ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει. 12 ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν, τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ εἰπών σοι, ἆρον καὶ περιπάτει; 13 ὁ δὲ ἰαθεὶς οὐκ ᾔδει τίς ἐστιν, ὁ γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐξένευσεν ὄχλου ὄντος ἐν τῷ τόπῳ.
14 μετὰ ταῦτα εὑρίσκει αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἴδε ὑγιὴς γέγονας: μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε, ἵνα μὴ χεῖρόν σοί τι γένηται. 15 ἀπῆλθεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὸν ὑγιῆ. 16 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐδίωκον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὅτι ταῦτα ἐποίει ἐν σαββάτῳ. 17 ὁ δὲ [Ἰησοῦς] ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτοῖς, ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι. 18 διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν, ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ.

9b That day, however, was a Sabbath. 10 Therefore the Jews told the man who had been cured, “It is the Sabbath; it is not permitted for you to carry your mat.” 11 He replied to them, “He who cured me said to me: ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’” 12 They then asked him, “Who is this man who told you to pick up your mat and walk?” 13 But he who was cured had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away from the crowd that had gathered in that place. 14 Later, Jesus found the man in the temple and said to him, “Remember, you have been made well; now do not sin again lest something worse happen to you.” 15 The man went off and related to the Jews that it was Jesus who had cured him. 16 For reasons like this the Jews began to persecute Jesus, because he performed such works on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus had a reply for them: “My Father works even until now, and so do I.” 18 Consequently, the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

Posito miraculo visibili, per quod ostenditur virtus Christi ad reparandam vitam spiritualem, hic ponitur occasio doctrinae Christi; quae quidem occasio sumitur ex persecutione Iudaeorum contra Christum mota. Cuius quidem persecutionis duplex causa fuit ex parte Iudaeorum invidentium Christo. Prima quidem operatio pietatis; secunda vero doctrina veritatis, ibi Iesus autem respondit eis: pater meus usque modo operatur et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo praemittitur occasio persecutionis; secundo ponitur calumnia illata contra curatum, ibi dicebant ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat etc.; tertio ponitur calumnia illata contra Christum, ibi interrogaverunt eum: quis est ille homo? et cetera. 720 Having seen a visible miracle which shows the power of Christ to restore spiritual life, we now see an opportunity given to him to teach. This opportunity was the persecution launched against him by the Jews. These Jews, who were envious of Christ, persecuted him for two reasons: first, the above act of his mercy; secondly, his teaching of the truth (v 17). As to the first, the Evangelist does three things. First, he gives the occasion for their persecution. Secondly, the false accusation against the man who was just cured (v 10). And thirdly, their attempt to belittle Christ (v 12).
Occasio autem persecutionis inductae contra Christum sumitur ex eo quod in sabbato curavit; et ideo dicit Evangelista erat autem sabbatum in die illo, quando miraculum fecit Iesus, quando grabatum tollere iussit. 721 Their opportunity to persecute Christ was the fact that he cured the man on the Sabbath; accordingly, the Evangelist says, That day, however, was a Sabbath, when Christ performed the miracle ofcommanding the man to pick up his mat.
Assignatur autem triplex ratio quare dominus in sabbato operari incepit. Una ab Ambrosio super Lucam, Christus enim ad hoc venit, ut opus creationis, scilicet hominem, deformatum repararet. Inde autem incipere debebat, ubi actor in creationis opus consummatum creaverat: hoc autem fuit in die sabbati, ut dicitur Gen. I; et ideo, ut Christus ostenderet se reparatorem totius creaturae, incepit in sabbato. Three reasons are given why our Lord began to work on the Sabbath. The first is given by Ambrose, in his commentary, On Luke. He says that Christ came to renovate the work of creation, that is, man, who had become deformed. And so he should have begun where the Creator had left off the work of creation, that is, on a Sabbath, as mentioned in Genesis (c 1). Thus Christ began to work on the Sabbath to show that he was the renovator of the whole creature.
Alia ratio est, quia dies sabbati celebratur a Iudaeis in memoriam primae creationis. Christus autem venit, ut quasi novam creaturam faceret, secundum illud Gal. ult., 15: in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio, neque praeputium aliquid valet; sed nova creatura, per gratiam, quae fit per spiritum sanctum, secundum illud Ps. CIII, 30: emittes spiritum tuum, et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem terrae. Volens ergo Christus ostendere, per eum recreationem fieri, in sabbato operatur; Iac. I, 18: ut simus initium aliquod creaturae. Another reason was that the Sabbath day was celebrated by the Jews in memory of the first creation. But Christ came to make, in a way, a new creature, according to Galatians (6:15): “In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor the lack of circumcision is a benefit; what counts is a new creation,” i.e., through grace, which comes through the Holy Spirit: “You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created; and you will renew the face of the earth” (Ps 103:30). And so Christ worked on the Sabbath to show that a new creation, a re-creation, was taking place through him: “that we might be the first fruits of his creatures” (Jas 1:18).
Tertia ratio est, ut ostenderet se facturum quod lex facere non poterat; Rom. VIII, 3: nam quod impossibile erat legi, in quo infirmabatur per carnem, misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati. Et infra ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis. The third reason was to show that he was about to do what the law could not do: “God did what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, he condemned sin in his flesh, in order that the requirements of the law might be accomplished in us” (Rom 8:3).
Iudaei autem nihil operabantur in sabbato, in figura quod quaedam quae erant sabbati, consummanda erant, quae per legem fieri non poterant. Et hoc patet in quatuor, quae Deus erga diem sabbati ordinavit. Nam diem sabbati sanctificavit, diem sabbati benedixit, in eo opera sua consummavit, et in eo requievit. Quae quidem lex facere non potuit, nam sanctificare non poterat. Unde Ps. XI, 1, dicebat: salvum me fac, domine, quoniam defecit sanctus. Neque etiam benedicere; quinimmo qui sunt ex operibus legis, sub maledicto sunt, ut dicitur Gal. III, 10. Nec consummare et perficere: quia neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex: Hebr. VII, 19. Nec etiam perfectam quietem praestare: quia, ut dicitur Hebr. IV, 8: nam si eis Iesus requiem praestitisset, numquam de alia loqueretur. The Jews, however, did not do any work on the Sabbath, as a symbol that there were certain things pertaining to the Sabbath which were to be accomplished, but which the law could not do. This is clear in the four things which God ordained for the Sabbath: for he sanctified the Sabbath day, blessed it, completed his work on it, and then rested. These things the law was not able to do. It could not sanctify; so we read: “Save me, O Lord, for there are no holy people left” (Ps 11:1). Nor could it bless; rather, “Those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse” (Gal 3:10). Neither could it, complete and perfect, because “the law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). Nor could it bring perfect rest: “If Joshua had given them rest, God would not be speaking after of another day” (Heb 4:8).
Haec ergo quae lex facere non potuit, Christus fecit: ipsum enim populum sanctificavit per passionem. Heb. XIII, 12: Iesus ut per suum sanguinem sanctificaret populum, extra portam passus est. Ipse benedixit per gratiae infusionem; Ephes. I, 3: benedictus Deus pater domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui benedixit nos in omni benedictione spirituali in caelestibus in Christo. Ipse consummavit per perfectae iustitiae instructionem; Matth. V, v. 48: estote perfecti, sicut et pater caelestis perfectus est. Ipse introduxit in veram requiem; Hebr. IV, 3: nos qui credimus, ingrediemur in requiem, quemadmodum dixit: sicut iuravi in ira mea, si introibunt in requiem meam. Ipsi ergo competit in die sabbati operari, qui, quae ad sabbatum pertinent, perficere potest, a quibus lex impotens quiescebat. These things, which the law could not do, Christ did. For he sanctified the people by his passion: “Jesus, in order to sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate” (Heb 13:12). He blessed them by an inpouring of grace: “Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing of heaven, in Christ” (Eph 1:3). He brought the people to perfection by instructing them in the ways of perfect justice: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). He also led them to true rest: “We who have believed will find rest,” as is said in Hebrews (4:3). Therefore, it is proper for him to work on the Sabbath, who is able to make perfect those things that pertain to the Sabbath, from which an impotent law rested.
Consequenter ponit calumniam illatam contra curatum, cum dicit: dicebant ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat et cetera. Et primo ponitur calumniae contra curatum illatio; secundo subditur curati excusatio, ibi respondit eis: qui me sanum fecit et cetera. 722 Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives the accusation brought against the man who was healed. First, we have the accusation; and secondly, the explanation given by the man who was healed (v 11).
Calumniam autem inferunt contra istum de hoc quod in sabbato grabatum portat, sed non de curatione; unde dicunt sabbatum est, non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum. Cuius ratio multiplex potest assignari. Una, quia Iudaei frequenter Christo de curatione in die sabbati calumniam inferentes, confutati erant a Christo, per hoc quod ipsi etiam iumenta de puteo in die sabbati eruebant et salvabant, ut habetur Lc. XIV, 15. Et ideo de curatione tamquam de re utili et necessaria tacent; de portatione vero lecti, quae non necessaria videbatur, calumniantur; quasi dicant: si sanitas non erat differenda, quid erat necessarium lectum portare, seu portari praecipere? Alia ratio est, quia dominus dixerat, contra eos concludens, quod licet sabbato benefacere. Et ideo, quia curari non est benefacere sed bene pati, curatum potius quam curantem calumniantur. Tertia ratio est, quia hoc in lege videtur prohibitum esse Iudaeis, ne aliquid in die sabbati operentur; specialiter tamen portatio onerum in die sabbati prohibetur. Ier. XVII, 21: ne portetis onera in die sabbati. Et ideo specialiter calumniati sunt portationem in die sabbati, utpote dicto prophetae contrariam. Sed hoc tamen mandatum prophetae mysticum est: nam per onera non portanda intendebat eos inducere ut in die sabbati requiescerent ab oneribus peccatorum; de quibus dicitur in Ps. XXXVII, 5: iniquitates meae sicut onus grave gravatae sunt super me. Unde, quia iam erat tempus solvendi figuras occultas, mandat Christus isti grabatum tollere, idest proximum in infirmitate sustentare, secundum illud Gal. VI, 2: alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi. 723 The man was accused for carrying his mat on the Sabbath, and not for being healed; so they say: It is the Sabbath; it is not permitted for you to carry your mat. There are several reasons for this. One is that the Jews, although frequently charging Christ with healing on the Sabbath, had been embarrassed by him on the ground that they themselves used to pull their cattle from ditches on the Sabbath in order to save them. For this reason the Jews did not mention his healing, as it was useful and necessary; but they charge him with carrying his mat, which did not seem to be necessary. As if to say: Although your cure need not have been postponed, there was no need for you to carry your mat, or for the order to carry it. Another reason was that the Lord had shown, contrary to their opinion, that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath. And so, because being healed is not the same as doing good, but being done a good, they attack the one healed rather than the one healing. The third reason was that the Jews thought that they were forbidden by the law to do any work on the Sabbath; and it was the carrying of burdens that was especially forbidden on the Sabbath: “Do not carry a burden on the Sabbath” (Jer 17:2 1). Accordingly, they made a special point of being against the carrying of anything on the Sabbath, as being opposed to the teaching of the prophet. But this command of the prophet was mystical: for when he forbade them to carry burdens, he wanted to encourage them to rest from the burdens of their sins on the Sabbath. Of these sins it is said: “My iniquities are a heavy burden and have weighed me down” (Ps 37.5). Therefore, since the time had come to explain the meaning of obscure symbols, Christ commanded him to take up his mat, i.e., to help his neighbors in their weaknesses: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).
Consequenter ponitur excusatio curati, cum subditur respondit eis: qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit. Et quidem prudenter se excusat: numquam enim adeo bene probatur doctrina esse divinitus, sicut per ostensionem miraculorum, quae nonnisi divinitus fieri possunt. Mc. ult., 20: illi autem profecti praedicaverunt ubique, domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante, sequentibus signis. Et ideo iste, auctorem sanitatis suae calumniantibus, obiiciebat dicens qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit; quasi dicat: vos dicitis prohibitum esse ne onus portetur in sabbato, et hoc auctoritate divina; sed mihi eadem auctoritate est impositum ut tollam grabatum: nam ille, qui me salvum fecit, et per sanitatem restitutam se divinam virtutem habere ostendit, mihi dixit: tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. Et ideo mandatis eius qui tantae est virtutis, et qui mihi tale beneficium contulit, merito teneor obedire. Ps. CXVIII, 93: in aeternum non obliviscar iustificationes tuas, quia in ipsis vivificasti me. 724 Then (v 11), we see the man who was healed defending himself. His defense is wisely taken: for a doctrine is never so well proved to be divinely inspired as by miracles which can be accomplished only by divine power: “Going out, they preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word by the signs that followed” (Mk 16:20). Thus he argued with those who were defaming the one who healed him, saying: He who cured me said to me. As if to say: You say that I am forbidden to carry a burden on the Sabbath, and this on divine authority; but I was commanded by the same authority to pick up my mat. For, he who cured me, and by restoring my health showed that he had divine power, said to me, Pick up your mat and walk. Therefore, I was duty bound to obey the commands of one who has such power and who had done me such a favor. “I will never forget your precepts because you have brought me to life by them” (Ps 118:93).
Consequenter dicit interrogaverunt ergo eum. Quia curatum hominem calumniari non poterant, Christi curationem calumniari nituntur: per hunc enim se excusaverat homo ille. Et quia eum determinate quis esset, non indicaverat, maligne interrogabant ab eo qui esset. Et ideo circa hoc primo agitur de Christi inquisitione; secundo de eius inventione, ibi postea invenit eum Iesus; tertio de eius persecutione, ibi propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum. 725 Then, since they could not very well charge the man who was cured, they try to belittle Christ’s cure, for this man defended himself through Christ. But since he did not indicate precisely who he was, they maliciously ask him who it was. With respect to this, first, the search for Christ is set down. Secondly, his discovery. And thirdly, his persecution (v 16).
Circa primum tria ponuntur: scilicet Iudaeorum inquisitio, curati ignorantia et ignorantiae causa. 726 Three things are mentioned about the first: the Jews’ interrogation; the ignorance of the man who was cured, and the cause of that ignorance.
Quantum ad primum dicitur: interrogabant ergo eum Iudaei, scilicet non bona intentione, ut proficiant, sed maligno animo, ut persequantur et perdant. Infra VIII, 21: quaeretis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Et hanc eorum malitiam eorum verba manifestant. Cum enim dominus et sanari languidum, et grabatum tolli iusserit, primum divinae virtutis ostensivum et irrefragabile signum subticent; aliud quod contra legem videtur, replicant, dicentes quis est ille homo qui dixit tibi: tolle grabatum tuum et ambula? Eccli. XI, 33: bona in mala pervertens, insidiatur, et in electis imponit, scilicet imponere nititur maculam. As to the first, we read: They then asked him, not with the good intention of making progress, but for the evil purpose of persecuting and destroying Christ: “You will seek me, and you will die in your sin” (below 8:21), Their very words show their malice: for while our Lord had commanded the man who was sick to become healed and to pick up his mat, they ignored the first, which is an undeniable sign of divine power, and harped on the second, which seemed to be against the law, saying, Who is this man who told you to pick up you mat and walk? “He lies in wait, and turns good into evil, and he will put blame,” i.e., attempt to put blame, “on the elect” (Sir 11:33).
Quantum ad secundum dicit qui autem sanus factus fuerat, nesciebat qui esset. Sanus iste significat fideles per gratiam Christi sanatos. Ephes. II, 8: gratia salvati estis. Qui quidem nesciunt Christum quis est, sed effectum tantum eius cognoscunt. II Cor. c. V, 6: quamdiu sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a domino: per fidem enim ambulamus, et non per speciem. Sed tunc cognoscemus Christum quis est, quando videbimus eum sicuti est: I Io. III, 2. 727 As to the second, the Evangelist says, But he who was cured had no idea who it was. This cured man signifies those who believe and have been healed by the grace of Christ: “You are saved by grace” (Eph 2:8). Indeed, they do not know who Christ is, but they know only his effects: “While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith, and not by sight” (2 Cor 5:6). We will know who Christ is when “we shall see him as he is,” as said in 1 John (3:2).
Huius autem ignorantiae causam assignat quantum ad tria, cum dicit Iesus autem declinavit a turba constituta in loco. Quod quidem causam habet litteralem et mysticam. Litteralem quidem quantum ad duo. Primo ut daret nobis exemplum occultandi opera nostra bona et non quaerendi in eis hominum favorem, secundum illud Matth. VI, 1: attendite ne iustitiam vestram faciatis coram hominibus. Secundo ut declinemus et fugiamus oculos invidorum ab omnibus operibus nostris, ne ex hoc eorum invidia crescat; Eccli. VIII, 14: ne contra faciem stes contumeliosi, ne sedeat quasi insidiator ori tuo. 728 Next, the Evangelist gives the reason for the man’s ignorance, saying, for Jesus had slipped away from the crowd that had gathered in that place. There are both literal and mystical reasons why Christ left. Of the two literal reasons, the first is to give us the example of concealing our good deeds and of not using them to seek the applause of men: “Take care not to perform your good actions in the sight of men, in order to be seen by them” (Mt 6:1). The second literal reason is to show us that, in all our actions, we should leave and avoid those who are envious, so as not to feed and increase their envy: “Do not be provoked by one who speaks evil of you, so he will not trap you by your own words” (Sir 8:14).
Mysticam vero quantum ad duo. Primo, ut det intelligere quod Christus non de facili invenitur in hominum multitudine et in turbine curarum temporalium, sed in spirituali secreto. Osee II, 14: ducam eam in solitudinem, et ibi loquar ad cor eius. Nam verba sapientium audiuntur in silentio, ut dicitur Eccle. IX, 17. Secundo, ut insinuet quod Christus debebat declinare a Iudaeis ad gentes; Is. VIII, 17: abscondit faciem suam parumper a Iacob, idest subtraxit veritatis suae notitiam a populo Iudaeorum. There are also two mystical reasons why Christ slipped away. First, it teaches us that Christ is not easy to find in the midst of men, or in the whirlwind of temporal cares; rather, he is found in spiritual seclusion: “I will lead her into the wilderness, and there I will speak to her heart” (Hos 2:14); and in Ecclesiastes (9.17): “The words of the wise are heard in silence.” Secondly, this suggests to us that Christ was to leave the Jews for the Gentiles: “He hid his face for a while from the house of Jacob” (Is 8:17), i.e., he withdrew the knowledge of his truth from the Jewish people.
Consequenter agitur de inventione Christi, cum dicit postea invenit eum Iesus in templo. Et primo dicit quod invenitur; secundo insinuat quod inventus docet; tertio quod post doctrinam manifestatur. 729 Then (v 14), the Evangelist tells us how Jesus was found. First, he says that he was found. Secondly, that after having been found, he taught. Thirdly, that after having taught, his identity was reported to the Jews.
Quantum ad inventionem duo ponit, scilicet modum inveniendi, et locum. Modus quidem est mirabilis, quia non invenitur nisi inveniat, unde dicit postea, scilicet quae dicta sunt, invenit eum Iesus: nam homo sua virtute Christum invenire non potest, nisi ei se Christus praesentet. Unde etiam Ps. CXVIII, 176 dicebat: require servum tuum. Sap. VI, 14: praeoccupat eos qui se concupiscunt. 730 The Evangelist tells us both where and the way in which Christ was found. The way in which he was found was remarkable, for Christ is not found unless he first finds; hence he says, Later, after the above events, Jesus found the man. For we cannot find Jesus by our own power unless Christ first presents himself to us; so we read: “Seek your servant” (Ps 118:176); and, “She [wisdom] goes to meet those who desire her” (Wis 6:14).
Locus autem in quo invenitur Christus est venerabilis, quia in templo, secundum illud Ps. X, 5: dominus in templo sancto suo. Nam et mater eius in templo eum invenit, Lc. II, 46 et hoc quia in his quae patris sui sunt, oportebat eum esse. In quo datur nobis intelligi quod curatus iste non ad vanitatem, sed ad religionis studium conversus, templum frequentans, in ipso Christum cognoscit: quia si ad conditoris cognitionem venire volumus, fugienda est turba pravorum affectuum, et declinanda sunt malorum conventicula, et fugiendum est ad templum cordis nostri, quod Deus invisere et habitare dignatur. The place Christ was found was holy, in the temple, according to: “The Lord is in his holy temple” (Ps 10:5). For his mother had also found him in the temple (Lk 2:46); and he was there for he had to be concerned with his Father’s affairs. We see from this that this man was not cured in vain, but having been converted to a religious way of life, he visited the temple and found Christ: because if we desire to come to a knowledge of the Creator, we must run from the tumult of sinful affections, leave the company of evil men, and flee to the temple of our heart, where God condescends to visit and live.
Consequenter inventus docet; unde et dixit illi: ecce sanus factus es, iam noli peccare. Ubi primo commemorat impensum beneficium; secundo proponit sanum consilium; tertio ostendit imminens periculum. 731 After Christ was found, he began to teach (v 14). First, Christ reminded the man of the gift he was given. Secondly, he offered him sound advice. And thirdly, he pointed out an imminent danger.
Sed beneficium est admirabile, quia subita restitutio sanitatis. Unde dicitur ecce iam sanus factus es. Et ideo semper oportet in memoria teneri, secundum illud Is. LXIII, v. 7: miserationum domini recordabor. 732 The gift was remarkable, for it was a sudden restoration to health; so he says, Remember, you have been made well. Therefore, you should always keep this in mind, according to: “I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord” (Is 63:7).
Consilium vero utile, quia iam amplius noli peccare; Eccli. XXI, 1: fili, peccasti, ne adiicias iterum. 733 His advice, too, was useful, that is, do not sin again. “My son, you have sinned. Do not sin again” (Sir 21:1).
Quare dominus isti paralytico et aliis quibusdam ab eo curatis mentionem facit de peccatis, et non aliis? Ideo scilicet ut ostendat per hoc, infirmitates aliquibus, ex peccatis prioribus provenire, secundum illud I Cor. XI, v. 30: ideo multi imbecilles et infirmi, et dormiunt multi. Per quod etiam se esse Deum ostendit, peccata et occulta cordium manifestans. Prov. XV, 11: Infernus et perditio coram illo: quanto magis corda filiorum hominum? Istis ergo solis mentionem de peccatis facit et non aliis ab eo curatis, quia non omnes infirmitates propter peccata priora proveniunt; sed quaedam ex naturali dispositione, quaedam propter probationem, sicut in Iob. Vel de istis tantum mentionem fecit, quia magis praeparati erant ad correctionem. Prov. c. IX, 8: noli arguere derisorem, ne oderit te: argue sapientem, et diliget te. Vel in istis, omnibus aliis hoc mandavit. Why did our Lord mention sin to this paralytic and to certain others that he cured, and not to the rest? He did this to show that illness comes to certain people as a result of their previous sins, according to: “For this reason many of you are weak and sick, and many have died” (1 Cor 11:30). In this way he even showed himself to be God, pointing out sins and the hidden secrets of the heart: “Hell and destruction are open to the Lord; how much more the hearts of the children of men” (Prv 15:11). And so Christ mentioned sin only to some he cured and not to all, for not all infirmities are due to previous sins: some come from one’s natural disposition, and some are permitted as a trial, as with Job. Or, Christ might have brought up sin to some because they were better prepared for his correction: “Do not rebuke one who mocks, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you” (Prv 9:8). Or, we could say, in telling some not to sin, he intended his words for all the others.
Periculum autem imminens erat terribile, unde dicit ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat. Quod quidem dupliciter intelligi potest, secundum duo quae in isto praecesserunt. Primo enim punitus fuit per prolixum morbum; secundo consecutus fuit magnum beneficium. Et ideo ad utrumque referri potest quod dicitur. Ad primum quidem: quia cum aliquis pro peccato punitur et ex ipsa poena a peccato non retrahitur, iustum est ut gravius puniatur. Et ideo dicit noli amplius peccare, quia si peccaveris deterius tibi continget. Ier. c. II, 30: frustra percussi filios vestros: disciplinam non receperunt. Ad secundum vero: quia qui post beneficia recepta ad peccata prolabitur, gravioris supplicii reus efficitur propter ingratitudinem, secundum illud II Pet. II, 20: melius erat eis viam veritatis non agnoscere, quam post agnitionem retrorsum converti. Similiter etiam quia postquam homo ad peccatum semel redierit, facilius peccat; secundum illud Mt. XII, v. 45: fiunt novissima hominis illius peiora prioribus. Ier. II, 20: a saeculo fregisti iugum, rupisti vinculum, dixisti: non serviam. 734 The imminent danger was great, so he says, lest something worse happen to you. This can be understood in two ways, according to the two events that preceded. For this man was first punished with a troublesome infirmity, and then received a marvelous favor. Accordingly, Christ’s statement can refer to each. To the first, for when anyone is punished for his sin, and the punishment does not check him from sinning, it is just for him to be punished more severely. So Christ says, do not sin again, because if you do sin, something worse will happen to you: “I have struck your children in vain” (Jer 2:30). It can refer to the second, for one who falls into sin after receiving favors deserves a more severe punishment because of his ingratitude, as we see in 2 Peter (2:20): “It would be better for them not to know the way of truth, than to turn back after knowing it.” Also, because after a man has once returned to sin, he sins more easily, according to Matthew (12:45): “The last state of that man becomes worse than the first”; and in Jeremiah (2:20): “You broke your yoke a long time ago, and snapped off your chains, and said: I will not serve.’”
Consequenter ponitur inventi manifestatio, cum subditur abiit ille homo et annuntiavit et cetera. Et secundum quosdam posset intelligi, ut Chrysostomus dicit, quod ex malitia manifestasset eum; sed hoc non videtur probabile, scilicet quod post tantum beneficium ita ingratus esset. Nuntiavit ergo Iudaeis, quia Iesus esset qui fecit eum sanum, ut manifestaret Christi virtutem ad sanandum. Ps. LXV, 16: venite, et narrabo (...) quanta fecit dominus animae meae. Et hoc patet, quia illi interrogaverunt eum, quis iusserit grabatum tollere. Iste autem annuntiavit eis quod Iesus fecit eum sanum. 735 Then when he says, The man went off and related to the Jews, we see Jesus identified. Some think, as Chrysostom reports, that this man identified Jesus out of malice. But this does not seem probable: that he would be so ungrateful after receiving such a favor. He related to the Jews that it was Jesus who had cured him, in order to make it clear that Christ had the power to heal: “Come... and I will tell you what great things the Lord has done for me,” as we read in the Psalm (65:16). This is obvious, for they had asked him who commanded him to pick up his mat, but he told them that it was Jesus who had cured him.
Consequenter cum dicit propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, ponitur persecutio contra Christum, quae est propter quoddam opus pietatis in sabbato exhibitum; unde dicit propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia haec faciebat in sabbato. Ps. CXVIII, 161: principes persecuti sunt me gratis. 736 Next (v 16), we have the persecution of Christ, begun because he performed a work of mercy on the Sabbath. Thus the Evangelist says, For reasons like this the Jews began to persecute Jesus, because he performed such works on the Sabbath. “Princes have persecuted me without cause” (Ps 118:16 1).
Consequenter cum dicit Iesus autem respondit eis etc., ponitur secunda causa persecutionis, quae sumitur ex doctrina. Et primo ponitur doctrina veritatis; secundo persecutio Iudaicae pravitatis, ibi propterea ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere. 737 Then (v 17), the second reason for his persecution is given: what he taught. First, we are given the truth he taught; and secondly, the perversity of his persecutors (v 18).
Doctrinam autem veritatis proponit dominus, excusando se de solutione sabbati. Sed notandum est, quod dominus de huius solutione aliquando quidem excusavit se, aliquando discipulos suos. Et discipulos quidem, quia homines puri erant, excusavit per similitudinem hominum, scilicet per exemplum sacerdotum, qui operabantur in templo in die sabbati, et sabbatum non solvebant. Et David, qui sub Achimelech sacerdote in die sabbati a facie Saulis fugiens, panes propositionis accepit de templo, ut habetur I Reg. XXI, v. 1 ss. 73 8 Our Lord taught the truth while justifying his breaking of the Sabbath. Here we should note that our Lord justified both himself and his disciples from breaking the Sabbath. He justified his disciples, since they were men, by comparing them to other men: as the priests who, although they worked in the temple on the Sabbath, did not break the Sabbath; and to David, who, while Abimelech was priest, took the consecrated bread from the temple oil the Sabbath when he was running from Saul (1 Sm 21:1).
Se vero, quia homo erat et Deus, aliquando per similitudinem hominum excusavit a solutione sabbati. Lc. XIV, 5: quis vestrum, si ceciderit bos aut asinus suus in puteum, non continuo extrahet eum in die sabbati? Aliquando vero, et praecipue in hoc loco, excusat se per similitudinem Dei, dicens pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor; quasi dicat: nolite putare quod in sabbato ita requieverit pater meus, ut ex illo non operetur; sed sicut ipse et nunc sine labore operatur, ita et ego operor. Our Lord, who was both God and man, sometimes justified himself in breaking the Sabbath by comparing himself to men, as in Luke (14:5): “Which of you, if his donkey or ox falls into a pit, will not take him out on the Sabbath?” And sometimes he justified himself by comparing himself to God: particularly on this occasion, when he said: My Father works even until now, and so do I. As if to say: Do not think that my Father rested on the Sabbath in such a way that from that time he does not work; rather, just as he is working even now without laboring, so I also am working.
In quo excludit falsum intellectum Iudaeorum, qui volentes conformari Deo, nihil in die sabbati operantur, ac si Deus ipso die omnino destiterit operari. Et quidem licet in sabbato requieverit a novis creaturis condendis, nihilominus tamen semper et continue usque modo operatur, creaturas in esse conservando. Unde et signanter verbo requietionis Moyses est usus post opera Dei, a quibus condendis requievit, ut signaret spiritualem requiem, quam Deus exemplo quietis suae fidelibus postea qui bona fecerint opera, arcana significatione pollicebatur. Unde dici potest, illud mandatum in umbra futuri fuisse praeceptum. By saying this, Christ eliminated the misunderstanding of the Jews: for in their desire to imitate God, they did not do any work on the Sabbath, as if God entirely ceased from work on that day. In fact, although God rested on the Sabbath from producing new creatures, he is working always and continuously even till now, conserving creatures in existence. Hence it is significant that Moses used the word “rest,” after recounting the works of God from which he rested: for this signifies, in its hidden meaning, the spiritual rest which God, by the example of his own rest, promised to the faithful, after they have done their own good works. So we may say that this command was a foreshadowing of something that lay in the future.
Signanter autem dicit usque nunc operatur; non autem operatus est, ut designet continuationem divini operis. Nam possent imaginari Deum esse causam mundi, sicut artifex est causa domus, quantum ad fieri tantum: ut sicut domus manet, etiam cessante operatione artificis, ita et mundus subsistere posset, influxu divino cessante. Sed, secundum Augustinum, Deus ita est causa omnium creaturarum quod sit etiam causa subsistendi; quia si eius potentia ad momentum cessaret, simul et illarum cessarent species omnes, quas natura continet: sicut si dicerem, quod aer tamdiu illuminatur quamdiu lumen solis manet in ipso. Cuius quidem ratio est, quia ea quae causam habent, quantum ad fieri solum, cessante causa subsistere possunt; ea vero quae non solum fieri, sed etiam subsistentiae causam habent, continua conservatione causae indigent. 739 He expressly says, works even until now, and not “has worked,” to indicate that God’s work is continuous. For they might have thought that God is the cause of the world as a craftsman is the cause of a house, i.e., the craftsman is responsible only for the making or coming into existence of the house: in other words, just as the house continues in existence even when the craftsman has ceased working, so the world would exist if God’s influence ceased. But according to Augustine, God is the cause of all creatures in such a way as to be the cause of their existing: for it his power were to cease even for a moment, all things in nature would at once cease to be, just as we may say that the air is illuminated only as long as the light of the sun remains in it. The reason for this is that things which depend on a cause only for their coming into existence, are able to exist when that cause ceases; but things that depend on a cause not only for their coming into existence but also to exist, need that cause for their continuous conservation in existence.
Excludit etiam per hoc quod dicit pater meus usque modo operatur, opinionem quorumdam dicentium, quod Deus mediantibus secundis causis res producit; quod est contra illud Is. XXVI, 12: omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis, domine. Sicut ergo pater meus, in principio instituendo naturam, usque modo operatur, eadem operatione ipsam continendo et conservando, et ego operor, quia sum patris verbum, per quod omnia operatur; Gen. I, 3: dixit Deus: fiat lux. Unde sicut primam institutionem rerum per verbum operatus est, ita et ipsarum conservationem. Et sic si ipse usque modo operatur, et ego operor, quia sum verbum patris, per quod omnia fiunt et conservantur. 740 Further, in saying that My Father works even until now, he rejects the opinion of those who say that God creates through the instrumentality of secondary causes. This opinion conflicts with Isaiah (26:12): “O Lord, you have accomplished all our works for LIS.” Therefore, just as my Father, who in the beginning created nature, works even until now, by preserving and conserving his creation by the same activity, so (to I work, because I am the Word of the Father, through whom he accomplishes all things: “God said: ‘Let there be light’” (Gn 1:3). Thus, just as he accomplished the first production of things through the Word, so also their conservation. Consequently, if he works even until now, so do I, because I am the Word of the Father, through whom all things are made and conserved.
Consequenter cum dicit propterea ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, ponitur persecutio ex doctrina proveniens: quia propter ipsam doctrinam Iudaei magis, idest avidiori animo, ferventiori zelo, quaerebant eum interficere. Duo enim crimina in lege morte punita fuerunt: scilicet crimen solutionis sabbati, unde ille qui collegit ligna in sabbato lapidatus est, Num. XV, 32, et crimen blasphemiae, unde dicitur Lev. XXIV, 14: educ blasphemum extra castra (...) et lapidet eum omnis multitudo filiorum Israel. Blasphemiam autem isti reputabant quod homo diceret se esse Deum; infra X, 33: de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia, quia homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum. Et haec duo crimina imponebant Christo: unum scilicet quia solvebat sabbatum, aliud quia dicebat se aequalem Deo. Unde dicit, quod ideo quaerebant eum occidere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed etiam patrem suum dicebat Deum. 741 Then (v 18), the Evangelist mentions the persecution of Christ, which resulted from his teaching: for it was because of his teaching that the Jews tried all the harder, i.e., with greater eagerness and a higher pitch of zeal, to kill him. For in the law two crimes were punished by death: the crime of breaking the Sabbath—thus anyone who gathered wood on the Sabbath was stoned, as we see from Numbers (15:32); and the crime of blasphemy—so we read: “Bring the blasphemer outside the camp... and let all the children of Israel stone him” (Lv 24:14). Now they thought it was blasphemy for a man to claim that he was God: “We are not stoning you for any good work, but for blasphemy: because although you are a man, you make yourself God” (below 10:33). It was these two crimes they imputed to Christ: the first because he broke the Sabbath; the second because he said he was equal to God. So the Evangelist says that the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his own Father.
Sed quia etiam alii iusti Deum patrem suum dicunt: Ier. III, 19: patrem vocabis me, ideo non solum dicunt quod patrem suum dicebat Deum, sed addunt quod pertinet ad blasphemiam aequalem se faciens Deo, quod ex hoc colligunt quod dixit: pater meus operatur, et ego operor. Deum patrem suum dicit, ut det intelligere quod pater eius est per naturam, aliorum autem per adoptionem: secundum quem modum loquitur infra XX, 17: vado ad patrem meum, scilicet per naturam, et patrem vestrum, scilicet per gratiam. Item ad similitudinem eius se operari dicit, solvens per hoc calumniam Iudaeorum de solutione sabbati: quae non esset conveniens excusatio, nisi aequalis auctoritatis esset in operando cum Deo. Et ideo dicunt quod facit se aequalem Deo. Because other just men had also called God their Father, as in “You will call me ‘Father’” (Jer 3:19), they do not just say that he called God his own Father, but added what made it blasphemy, making himself equal to God, which they understood from his statement: My Father works even until now, and so do I. He said that God was his Father so that we might understand that God is his Father by nature, and the Father of others by adoption. He referred to both of these when he said: “I am going to my Father,” by nature, “and to your Father,” by grace (below 20:17). Again, he said that as the Father works, so he works. This answers the accusation of the Jews about his breaking the Sabbath: for this would not be a valid excuse unless he had equal authority with God in working. It was for this reason they said he made himself equal to God.
Et quidem magna est Arianorum caecitas, qui in verbis domini non possunt intelligere quod Iudaei intelligunt, dicentes Christum Deo patre minorem esse. Sed Ariani dicunt, quod Christus non fecit se aequalem Deo, sed Iudaei hoc suspicabantur. Sed per ea quae dicta sunt in ipso textu, aliter etiam manifestum est. Nam Evangelista dicit quod Iudaei persequebantur Christum, quia solvebat sabbatum, et quia dicebat patrem suum Deum, et quia faciebat se aequalem Deo. Aut ergo Christus est mendax, aut est aequalis Deo. Sed si est aequalis Deo, ergo Christus Deus est per naturam. 742 How great then is the blindness of the Arians when they. say that Christ is less than God the Father: for they cannot understand in our Lord’s words what the Jews were able to understand. For the Arians say that Christ did not make himself equal to God, while the Jews saw this. There is another way to settle this, from the very things mentioned in the text. For the Evangelist says that the Jews persecuted Christ because he broke the Sabbath, because he said God is his Father, and because he made himselfequal to God. But Christ is either a liar or equal to God. But if he is equal to God, Christ is God by nature.
Dicit autem Evangelista se aequalem faciens Deo, non quod ipse aequalem se Deo faceret, quia per aeternam generationem aequalis erat Deo; sed secundum intentionem Iudaeorum loquens, qui non credentes Christum esse filium Dei per naturam, intellexerunt ex verbis eius quod se diceret Dei filium, quasi volens se aequalem Deo facere, cum tamen hoc eum esse non crederent; infra c. X, 33: tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum; idest, dicis te esse Deum: quod interpretatur ac si tu ipse facias teipsum Deum. 743 Finally, the Evangelist says, making himself equal to God, not as though he was making himself become equal to God, because he was equal to God through an eternal generation. Rather, the Evangelist is speaking according to the understanding of the Jews who, not believing that Christ was the Son of God by nature, understood him to say that he was the Son of God in the sense of wishing to make himself equal to God; but they could not believe he was such: “because although you are a man, you make yourself God” (below 10:33), i.e., you say that you are God, understanding this as you wish to make yourself God.

Lectio 3 LECTURE 3

19 ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς,
ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν
ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα:
ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ.
20 ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν
καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ,

19 Jesus therefore replied and said to them:
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
the Son cannot do anything of himself,
but only what he sees the Father doing.
For whatever the Father does,
the Son does likewise.
20a For the Father loves the Son,
and shows him everything that he does.”

Hic tradit doctrinam de potestate vivificativa. Et primo ponitur ipsa doctrina; secundo confirmatio eius, ibi si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit doctrinam eius de potestate vivificativa in communi; secundo in speciali, ibi et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo insinuat potestatis suae originem; secundo ipsius potestatis magnitudinem, ibi quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit. Tertio assignat utriusque rationem, ibi pater enim diligit filium. 744 Here we have Christ’s teaching on his life-giving power. First, his teaching is presented. Secondly, it is confirmed (v 3 1). Two things are done with the first. First, Christ’s teaching on his life-giving power in general is given. Secondly, it is presented in particular (v 20b). As to the first, three things are done. First, the origin of this power is mentioned. Secondly, the greatness of this power, at (v 19b). Thirdly, the reason for each is given (v 20).
Considerandum autem circa primum, quod Ariani ex his verbis quae hic dominus dicit non potest filius a se facere quidquam etc., errorem suum confirmare nituntur, scilicet quod filius minor sit patre, quia, secundum quod Evangelista dixit, Iudaei persequebantur Christum, quia faciebat se aequalem Deo. Quod videns dominus, Iudaeos ex hoc moveri, volens hoc excludere, ut Ariani dicunt, talia verba subiunxit, ut se aequalem patri non esse monstraret, dicens: amen, amen dico vobis, non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem; quasi dicat: non intelligatis me per hoc quod dixi pater meus operatur, et ego operor, sic operari quasi ego sim ei aequalis, quia nihil possum facere a meipso. Quia ergo filius non potest facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, utique minor est patre, ut ipsi dicunt. Sed hic intellectus falsus est et erroneus: quia si filius non esset aequalis patri, tunc non esset filius idem cum patre, quod est contra illud, infra X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus. Nam aequalitas attenditur secundum magnitudinem, quae in divinis est ipsa essentia. Unde si esset patri inaequalis, differret ab eo secundum essentiam. 745 We should point out, with respect to the first, that the Arians use what Christ said here, the Son cannot do anything of himself, to support their error that the Son is less than the Father. As the Evangelist said, the Jews persecuted Christ for making himself equal to God. But the Arians say that when our Lord saw that this disturbed the Jews, he tried to correct this by stating that he was not equal to the Father, saying, Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing. As if to say: Do not interpret what I said, “My Father works even until now, and so do I, as meaning that I work as though I am equal to the Father. for I cannot do anything of myself. Therefore, they say, because the Son can do only what he sees the Father doing, he is less than the Father. But this interpretation is false and erroneous. For if the Son were not equal to the Father, then the Son would not be the same as the Father; and this is contrary to: “I and the Father are one” (below 10:30). For equality is considered with respect to greatness, which in divine realities is the essence itself. Hence, if the Son were not equal to the Father, he would be different from him in essence.
Ad verum autem huius intellectum, sciendum est, quod in his quae in filio minorationem importare videntur, posset dici ab aliquibus haec de Christo dicta esse secundum naturam assumptam, sicut dicitur infra XIV, v. 28: pater maior me est. Unde secundum hoc vellent dicere, quod hoc quod dominus dicit non potest filius a se facere quidquam, intelligendum est de filio secundum naturam assumptam. Quod quidem stare non potest, quia secundum hoc oporteret dicere quod omnia quae filius Dei fecit in natura assumpta, pater ante eum fecisset; puta quod siccis pedibus super mare ambulasset, sicut Christus ambulavit, alias non diceretur nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. 746 To get the true meaning of Christ’s statement, we should know that in those matters which seem to imply inferiority in the Son, it could be said, as some do, that they apply to Christ according to the nature he assumed; as when he said: “The Father is greater than I” (below 14:28). According to this, they would say that our Lord’s statement, the Son cannot do anything of himself, should be understood of the Son in his assumed nature. However, this does not stand up, because then one would be forced to say that whatever the Son of God did in his assumed nature, the Father had done before him. For example, that the Father had walked upon the water as Christ did: otherwise, he would not have said, but only what he sees the Father doing.
Sed si dicatur, quod quaecumque Christus in carne fecit, etiam Deus pater fecit, inquantum in eo pater operatur, secundum illud, infra XIV, 10: pater autem in me manens ipse facit opera; ut sit sensus: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, in seipso, scilicet filio. Sed nec hoc stare potest, quia secundum hoc ea quae sequuntur, non possent ei adaptari, scilicet quaecumque ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit. Numquam enim secundum naturam assumptam filius creavit mundum, sicut pater creavit. Non ergo ad naturam assumptam referendum est quod dicitur. And if we say that whatever Christ did in his flesh, God the Father also did in so far as the Father works in him, as said below (14:10): “The Father, who lives in me, he accomplishes the works,” then Christ would be saying that the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing in him, i.e., in the Son. But this cannot stand either, because Christ’s next statement, For whatever the Father, does, the Son does likewise, could not, in this interpretation, be applied to him, i.e., to Christ. For the Son, in his assumed nature, never created the world, as the Father did. Consequently, what we read here must not be understood as pertaining to Christ’s assumed nature.
Secundum Augustinum autem, alius modus est intelligendi ea quae videntur in filio minorationem importare, licet non importent: ut scilicet referantur ad originem filii a patre. Quia licet filius sit aequalis patri per omnia, tamen hoc ipsum habet a patre per aeternam generationem; sed pater a nullo habet, cum sit ingenitus. Unde secundum hoc continuatur sic. Quid scandalizati estis, quia patrem meum dixi Deum, et quia aequalem me feci Deo? Amen, amen dico vobis, non potest filius a seipso facere quidquam; quasi dicat: ita sum aequalis patri, ut ab illo sim, non ille a me; et quidquid ego habeo ut faciam, est mihi a patre. 747 According to Augustine, however, there is another way of understanding statements which seem to, but do not, imply inferriority in the Son: namely, by referring them to the origin of the Son coming or begotten from the Father. For although the Son is equal to the Father in all things, he receives all these things from the Father in an eternal begetting. But the Father gets these from no one, for he is unbegotten. According to this explanation, the continuity of thought is the following: Why are you offended because I said that God is my Father, and because I made myself equal to the Father? Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself. As if to say: I am equal to the Father, but in such a way as to be from him, and not he from me; and whatever I may do, is in me from the Father.
Secundum hunc ergo modum in his verbis fit mentio de potestate filii, per hoc verbum potest, et de eius operatione per hoc verbum facere. Et ideo utrumque potest hic intelligi: ut scilicet ostendatur primo derivatio potestatis filii a patre; secundo vero ut ostendatur conformitas operationis filii ad operationem patris. 748 According to this interpretation, mention is made of the power of the Son when he says, can, and of his activity when he says, do. Both can be understood here, so that, first of all, the derivation of the Son’s power from the Father is shown, and secondly, the conformity of the Son’s activity to that of the Father.
Quantum ad primum, exponit Hilarius hoc modo. Supra dominus dixit se esse aequalem patri. Sed aliqui haeretici propter auctoritates Scripturae, quae dicunt unitatem et aequalitatem filii ad patrem, attribuunt filio quod sit ingenitus, sicut Sabelliani, dicentes filium esse idem cum patre in persona. Ne ergo hoc intelligas, dicit: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nam potentia filii idem est quod natura eius. Ab eo ergo filius habet posse a quo habet esse; esse autem habet a patre, infra XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum: a quo etiam habet naturam, quia Deus est de Deo, ergo ab eo habet posse. 749 As to the first, Hilary explains it this way: Shortly above our Lord said that he is equal to the Father. Some heretics, basing themselves on certain scriptural texts which assert the unity and equality of the Son to the Father, claim that the Son is unbegotten. For example, the Sabellians, who say that the Son is identical in person with the Father. Therefore, so you do not understand this teaching in this way, he says, the Son cannot do anything of himself, for the Son’s power is identical with his nature. Therefore the Son has his power from the same source as he has his being (esse); but he has his being (esse) from the Father: “I came forth from the Father, and I have come into the world” (Jn 16:28). He also has his nature from the Father, because he is God from God; therefore, it is from him that the Son has his power (posse) .
Sic ergo hoc quod dicit: non potest filius facere quidquam, nisi quod patrem viderit facientem, tantum valet ac si dicatur: filius, sicut non habet esse nisi a patre, ita nec posse facere aliquid nisi a patre. In naturalibus enim ab eodem aliquid accipit posse operari a quo recipit esse, sicut ignis ab eo recipit quod possit ascendere sursum a quo recipit formam et esse. Nec tamen per hoc quod dicit non potest filius a se facere quidquam, importatur inaequalitas: quia hoc pertinet ad relationem; quaestio autem aequalitatis et inaequalitatis pertinet ad quantitatem. So his statement, the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing, is the same as saying: The Son, just as he does not have his being (esse) except from the Father, so he cannot do anything except from the Father. For in natural things, a thing receives its power to act from the very thing from which it receives its being: for example, fire receives its power to ascend from the very thing from which it receives its form and being. Further, in saying, the Son cannot do anything of himself, no inequality is implied, because this refers to a relation; while equality and inequality refer to quantity.
Per hoc autem quod dicit nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, posset alicui falsus intellectus subintrare, ut crederet filium hoc modo facere, quia vidit patrem facientem; scilicet, quod pater primo fecit, hoc viso, filius postea inceperit facere; ad modum duorum fabrorum, magistri scilicet et discipuli, qui arcam facit secundum modum quem viderit magistrum facere. Quod quidem non est verum de verbo; nam supra dicitur: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Ergo pater non fecit aliquid, ita quod filius videret fieri, et addisceret. 750 Someone might misunderstand his saying, but only what he sees the Father doing, and take it to mean that the Son works or acts in the way he sees the Father acting, i.e., that the Father acts first, and when the Son sees this, then the Son begins to act. It would be like two carpenters, a master and his apprentice, with the apprentice making a cabinet in the way he saw the master do. But this is not true for the Word, for it was said above (1:3): “All things were made through him.” Therefore, the Father did not make something in such a way that the Son saw him doing it and so learned from it.
Sed hoc dictum est ut designetur communicatio paternitatis filio per generationem, quae convenienter designatur hoc verbo viderit, quia per visum et auditum in nos ab alio scientia transfunditur. Nam per visum quidem scientiam a rebus accipimus, per auditum vero a sermonibus. Filius autem non est aliud quam sapientia, secundum illud Eccli. XXIV, 5: ego ex ore altissimi prodii primogenita ante omnem creaturam. Et sic derivatio filii a patre nihil aliud est quam derivatio divinae sapientiae. Quia ergo visio designat derivationem cognitionis et sapientiae ab alio, recte per visionem generatio filii a patre designatur, ut sic nihil aliud sit filium videre patrem facientem, quam procedere intelligibili processione a patre operante. But this is said so that the communication of paternity to the Son might be designated in terms of begetting or generation, which is fittingly described by the verb sees, because knowledge is conveyed to us by another through seeing and hearing. For we receive our knowledge from things through seeing. and we receive knowledge from words through hearing, Now the Son is not other than Wisdom, as we read: “I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before all creatures” (Sir 24:5). Accordingly, the derivation of the Son from the Father is nothing other than the derivation of divine Wisdom. And so, because the act of seeing indicates the derivation of knowledge and wisdom from another, it is proper for the generation of the Son from the Father to be indicated by an act of seeing; so that for the Son to see the Father doing something is nothing other than to proceed by an intellectual procession from the acting Father.
Potest autem et de huiusmodi, secundum Hilarium, alia ratio assignari; scilicet, ut per hoc quod dicit viderit, excludatur omnis imperfectio a generatione filii vel verbi; nam in generatione materiali illud quod generatur, paulatim per incrementa temporum ab imperfecto ad perfectum perducitur: non enim iam perfectum est aliquid quando generari incipit. Sed hoc in generatione aeterna locum non habet, cum sit generatio perfecti a perfecto. Et ideo dicit nisi quod viderit filius patrem facientem. Cum enim videre sit actus perfecti, manifestum est quod filius statim perfectus genitus est, tamquam statim videns, et non per incrementa temporum ad perfectum perducitur. Another possible explanation of this is given by Hilary. For him, the word sees eliminates all imperfection from the generation of the Son or Word. For in physical generation, what is generated changes little by little in the course of time from what is imperfect to what is perfect, for such a thing is not perfect when it is first generated. But this is not so in eternal generation, since this is the generation of what is perfect from what is perfect. And so he says, but only what he sees the Father doing. For since the act of seeing is the act of a perfect thing, it is plain that the Son was begotten as perfect at once, as seeing at once, and not as coming to perfection over a course of time.
Quantum vero ad secundum exponit Chrysostomus, scilicet ad ostendendum conformitatem patris ad filium, quantum ad operationem, hoc modo. Dico quod licet mihi operari in sabbato, quia et pater meus continue operatur, cui non possum operari contrarium; et hoc quia non potest filius a se facere quidquam et cetera. Tunc enim quis aliquid a se facit, cum in faciendo non se conformat alteri. Quicumque autem est ab alio, si discordat ab eo, peccat; infra VII, 18: qui a semetipso loquitur, gloriam propriam quaerit. Quicumque ergo existens ab alio, a semetipso operatur, peccat; filius autem est a patre: ergo si operatur a semetipso, peccat; quod est impossibile. Per hoc ergo quod dicit dominus, filius non potest a se facere quidquam etc., nihil aliud insinuat, quam quod filius non potest peccare. Quasi dicat: iniuste persequimini me de solutione sabbati, quia non possum peccare, quia non operor contraria patri meo. 751 Apropos of the second point, Chrysostom explains it as showing the conformity of the Father to the Son in operation. So that the sense is: I say that it is lawful for me to work on the Sabbath, because my Father, too, continues to work, and I cannot do anything opposed to him: and this is because the Son cannot do anything of himself. For one does something of himself when he does not conform himself to another in his actions. But whoever is from another sins, if he is opposed to him: “Whoever speaks on his own, seeks his own glory” (below 7:18). Therefore, whoever exists from another, but acts of himself, sins. Now the Son is from the Father; thus, if he acts of himself, he sins; and this is impossible. So by saying, the Son cannot do anything of himself, he means nothing more than that the Son cannot sin. As if to say: You are persecuting me unjustly for breaking the Sabbath, because I cannot sin, since I do not act in a way opposed to my Father.
Utramque autem expositionem, scilicet Hilarii et Chrysostomi, facit Augustinus, licet in diversis locis. Augustine makes use of both of these explanations, that of of Hilary and the one given by Chrysostom, but in different places.
Consequenter cum dicit quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit, ponitur magnitudo potestatis Christi et excludit in his tria circa potestatem suam: scilicet particularitatem, diversitatem et imperfectionem. 752 Then when he says, For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise, he affirms the greatness of Christ’s power. He excludes three things in the power of Christ: limitation, difference, and imperfection.
Particularitatem: quia, cum sint diversa agentia in mundo, et agens primum universale virtutem habeat super omnia agentia, alia vero agentia, quae sunt ab ipso, tanto particularis virtutis sint, quanto sunt inferiora in ordine causalitatis, posset ex hoc aliquis credere, quod cum filius non sit a se, habeat potestatem particularem respectu aliquorum existentium, et non universalem respectu omnium, sicut habet pater. Et ideo hoc excludens dicit quaecumque enim ille, idest pater, fecerit, idest ad omnia ad quae se extendit potestas patris, extendit se etiam potestas filii. Supra I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. First, limitation is excluded. Since there are diverse agents in the world, and the first universal agent has power over all other agents, but the other agents, which are from him, have a limited power in proportion to their rank in the order of causality, some might think that since the Son is not of himself, that he must have a power limited to certain existents, rather than a universal power over all, as the Father has. And so to exclude this he says, whatever the Father does, i.e., to all the things to which the Father’s power extends, the Son’s power also extends: “All things were made through him” (above 1:3).
Diversitatem vero, quia aliquando unum, ab alio existens, potest quidem facere quaecumque ille a quo est facit, nihilominus tamen illa quae facit, non sunt eadem cum illis quae ille a quo est facit. Sicut si unus ignis existens ab alio, potest facere quaecumque alius facit, puta comburere, sed tamen alia comburit iste, alia ille, licet eadem sit combustio utriusque secundum speciem. Ne ergo intelligas sic operationem filii diversam esse ab operatione patris, dicit haec, idest non diversa, sed eadem. Secondly, difference is excluded. For sometimes a thing that exists from another is able to do whatever that from which it exists does. And yet the things the former does are not the same as those done by that from which it is. For example, if one fire which exists from another can do whatever that other does, i.e., cause combustion, the act of causing combustion would be specifically the same in each, even though one fire ignites certain things and the other fire ignites different things. And so that you do not think that the Son’s activity is different from the activity of the Father in this way, he says, whatever the Father does, the Son does, i.e., not different things, but the very same.
Imperfectionem vero, quia quandoque contingit aliquod unum et idem ex duobus agentibus fieri, sed ab uno quidem sicut a principali et perfecto, ab alio vero sicut ab instrumento et imperfecto; sed non similiter, quia aliter agit principale agens, et aliter instrumentum, quia instrumentum imperfecte agit, utpote in virtute alterius. Ne ergo sic intelligas filium facere quaecumque facit pater, addit similiter, idest, potestate qua pater facit, facit et filius; quia eadem virtus et eadem perfectio est in patre et filio; Prov. VIII, 30: cum eo eram cuncta componens. Thirdly, imperfection is excluded. Sometimes one and the same thing comes from two agents: from one as the principal and perfect agent, and from the other as an instrumental and imperfect agent. But it does not come in the same way, because the principal agent acts in a different way from the instrumental agent: for the instrumental agent acts imperfectly, and in virtue of the other. And so that no one thinks that this is the way the Son does whatever the Father does, he says that whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise, i.e., with the same power by which the Father acts, the Son also acts; because the same power and the same perfection are in the Father and the Son: “I was with him, forming all things” (Prv 8:30).
Consequenter cum dicit pater enim diligit filium, assignat rationem utriusque, scilicet originis et magnitudinis potestatis filii; quae quidem ratio assignatur ex dilectione patris, qui diligit filium; unde dicit: pater enim diligit filium. 753 Then when he says, For the Father loves the Son, he gives the reason for each, i.e., for the origin of the Son’s power and for its greatness. This reason is the love of the Father, who loves the Son. Thus he says, For the Father loves the Son.
Sed ad sciendum quomodo dilectio patris ad filium sit ratio originis, seu communicationis potestatis filii, attendendum est, quod dupliciter aliquid diligitur. Cum enim bonum solum sit amabile, aliquod bonum potest se dupliciter ad amorem habere, scilicet vel ut causa amoris, vel ut ab amore causatum. In nobis autem bonum causat amorem; nam causa amoris nostri ad aliquem est bonitas eius. Non enim ideo bonus est, quia nos eum diligimus; sed ideo diligimus eum, quia bonus est: unde in nobis amor causatur a bono. Sed in Deo aliter est, quia ipse amor Dei est causa bonitatis in rebus dilectis: quia enim Deus diligit nos, ideo boni sumus, nam amare nihil est aliud quam velle bonum alicui. Cum ergo voluntas Dei sit causa rerum, quia omnia quaecumque voluit, dominus, fecit, ut dicit Ps. CXIII, 3, manifestum est quod amor Dei, causa est bonitatis in rebus. Unde Dionysius dicit, VI cap. de divinis nominibus, quod divinus amor non permisit eum sine germine esse. Ergo si consideremus originem filii, videamus utrum amor quo pater diligit filium, sit principium originis vel procedat ab ea. In order to understand how the Father’s love for the Son is the reason for the origin or communication of the Son’s power, we Should point out that a thing is loved in two ways. For since the good alone is loveable, a good can be related to love in two ways: as the cause of love, or as caused by love. Now in us, the good causes love: for the cause of our loving something is its goodness, the goodness in it. Therefore, it is not good because we love it, but rather we love it because it is good. Accordingly. in us, love is caused by what is good. But it is different with God, because God’s love itself is the cause of the goodness in the things that are loved. For it is because God loves us that we are good, since to love is nothing else than to will a good to someone. Thus, since God’s will is the cause of things, for “whatever he willed he made” (Ps 113:3), it is clear that God’s love is the cause of the goodness in things. Hence Denis says in The Divine Names (c. 4) that the divine love did not allow itself to be without issue. So, if we wish to consider the origin of the Son, let us see whether the love with which the Father loves the Son, is the principle of his origin, so that he proceeds from it.
Amor autem in divinis dupliciter accipitur; scilicet essentialiter, secundum quod pater diligit et filius et spiritus sanctus; et notionaliter, seu personaliter, secundum quod spiritus sanctus procedit ut amor. Sed neutro horum modorum amor dictus, potest esse principium originis filii. Nam secundum quod accipitur essentialiter, sic importat actum voluntatis. Si ergo esset principium originis filii, sequeretur quod pater genuisset filium voluntate, non natura: quod est erroneum. Similiter etiam nec amor notionaliter sumptus, qua pertinet ad spiritum sanctum, quia tunc sequeretur quod spiritus sanctus esset principium filii: quod est erroneum; immo nullus haereticus hoc dixit. Licet enim amor notionaliter sumptus sit principium omnium donorum quae nobis donantur a Deo, non tamen est principium filii, sed potius ipse a patre filioque procedit. In divine realities, love is taken in two ways: essentially, so far as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit love; and notionally or personally, so far as the Holy Spirit proceeds as Love. But in neither of these ways of taking love can it be the principle of origin of the Son. For if is is taken essentially, it implies an act of the will; and if that were the sense in which it is the principle of origin of the Son, it would follow that the Father generated the Son, not by nature, but by will—and this is false. Again, love is not understood notionally, as pertaining to the Holy Spirit. For it would then follow that the Holy Spirit would be the principle of the Son—which is also false. Indeed, no heretic ever went so far as to say this. For although love, notionally taken, is the principle of all the gifts given to us by God, it is nevertheless not the principle of the Son; rather it proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Sic ergo dicendum, quod ratio ista non sumitur ex dilectione ut ex principio, sed ut ex signo. Cum enim similitudo sit causa dilectionis (omne enim animal diligit simile sibi): ubi invenitur perfecta similitudo Dei, ibi invenitur etiam perfecta dilectio Dei. Perfecta autem similitudo patris in filio est secundum illud Coloss. I, 15: qui est imago invisibilis Dei; Hebr. I, 3: qui cum sit splendor, gloria et figura substantiae eius. Perfecte ergo filius a patre diligitur: et ideo quia perfecte diligit eum, signum est quod pater omnia ostenderit ei et communicaverit ei suam potestatem et naturam. Et de huius dilectione dicitur supra II, 35: pater diligit filium, et omnia dedit in manu eius. Et Matth. III, 17: hic est filius meus dilectus. Consequently, we must say that this explanation is not taken from love as from a principle (ex principio), but as from a sign (ex signo) . For since likeness is a cause of love (for every animal loves its like), wherever a perfect likeness of God is found, there also is found a perfect love of God. But the perfect likeness of the Father is in the Son, as is said: “He is the image of the invisible God” (1:15); and “He is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the image of his substance” (Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Son is loved perfectly by the Father, and because the Father perfectly loves the Son, this is a sign that the Father has shown him everything and has communicated to him his very own [the Father’s] power and nature. And it is of this love that we read above (3:5): “The Father loves the Son, and has put everything into his hands”; and, “This is my beloved. Son” (Mt 3:17).
Circa hoc autem quod sequitur et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit, sciendum est, quod dupliciter potest aliquis alicui sua opera demonstrare. Vel quantum ad visum, sicut artifex ea quae facit demonstrat discipulo; vel quantum ad auditum, sicut quando verbo instruit eum. Quocumque ergo istorum modorum accipiatur demonstrat, sequi potest duplex inconveniens: quod tamen non est in ista demonstratione, qua pater demonstrat filio. Si enim pater dicatur demonstrare filio quantum ad visum, primo quidem sequitur in istis inferioribus quod prius operetur aliquid quod alteri demonstrat; deinde quod seorsum ab eo cui demonstrat. Sed pater non demonstrat filio ea quae prius facit, quia ipse filius dicit Prov. VIII, 22: dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum, antequam quidquam faceret. Neque etiam ea quae seorsum a filio facit: quia pater omnia operatur per filium; supra I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Si autem accipiatur demonstratio quantum ad auditum, duo videntur sequi: nam qui verbo docet, primo demonstrat ignoranti; deinde verbum est inter demonstrantem et cui fit demonstratio. Sed neutro modo pater demonstrat filio: non enim sicut ignoranti, cum filius sit sapientia patris, I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam; nec aliquo alio verbo medio, quia ipse filius est verbum patris, supra I: verbum erat apud Deum. 754 With respect to what follows, and shows him everything that he does, we should point out that someone can show another his works in two ways: either by sight, as an artisan shows his apprentice the things he has made, or by hearing, as when he verbally instructs him). In whatever of these ways shows is understood, there can follow something which is not appropriate, that is, something that is not present when the Father shows things to the Son. For if we say the Father shows things to the Son by sight, then it follows, as with humans, that the Father first does something which he then shows to the Son; and that he does this by himself, without the Son. But the Father does not show the Son things which he did before, for the Son himself says: “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways, before he made anything” (Prv 8:22). Nor does the Father show the Son things he has done without the Son, for the Father does all things through the Son: “All things were made through him” (above 1:3). If shows is understood as a kind of hearing, two things seem to follow. For the one who teaches by word first points out something to the one who is ignorant; again, the word is something intermediate between the one showing and the one being shown. But it is in neither of these ways that the Father shows things to the Son: for he does not do so to one who is ignorant, since the Son is the Wisdom of the Father: “Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24); nor does the Father use some intermediate word, because the Son himself is the Word of the Father: “The Word was with God” (above 1:1).
Dicitur ergo pater omnia quae facit demonstrare filio, inquantum communicat ei notitiam omnium suorum operum: sic enim magister dicitur demonstrare discipulo, inquantum dat ei notitiam eorum quae facit. Unde, secundum Augustinum, demonstrare patrem filio, nihil aliud est quam patrem generare filium. Et filium videre quae pater facit, nihil aliud est quam filium esse et naturam a patre recipere. Therefore, it is said that the Father shows all that he does to the Son, inasmuch as he gives the Son a knowledge of all of his works. For it is in this way that a master is said to show something to his disciple, inasmuch as he gives him a knowledge of the things he makes. Hence, according to Augustine, for the Father to show anything to the Son is nothing more than for the Father to beget or generate the Son. And for the Son to see what the Father does is nothing more than for the Son to receive his being (esse) and nature from the Father.
Potest tamen dici demonstratio illa similis visuali, inquantum ipse filius est splendor visionis paternae, ut dicitur Hebr. I, 3: nam pater videns se et intelligens, concipit filium, qui est conceptus huius visionis. Potest etiam esse similis ei quae fit per auditum, inquantum filius procedit a patre ut verbum. Ut si dicatur quod pater omnia demonstrat filio, inquantum producit ipsum ut splendorem, et conceptum suae sapientiae, et verbum. Hoc ergo quod dicit demonstrat, refertur ad illud quod supra dixit: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Hoc vero quod dicit omnia, refertur ad illud quod dixit: quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec similiter et filius facit. Nevertheless, this showing can be considered similar to seeing insofar as the Son is the brightness of the paternal vision, as we read in Hebrews (1:3): for the Father, seeing and understanding himself, conceives the Son, who is the concept of this vision. Again, it can be considered similar to hearing insofar as the Son proceeds from the Father as the Word. As if to say: The Father shows him everything, insofar he he generates him as the brightness and concept of his own wisdom, and as the Word. Thus the words, The Father shows, refer to what was said before: the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing. And the word, everything, refers to, For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.

Lectio 4 LECTURE 4 b

20b καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε. 21 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζῳοποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ. 22 οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ κρίνει οὐδένα, ἀλλὰ τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν δέδωκεν τῷ υἱῷ, 23 ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα. ὁ μὴ τιμῶν τὸν υἱὸν οὐ τιμᾷ τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν. 24 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων τῷ πέμψαντί με ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν. 25 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν ὅτε οἱ νεκροὶ ἀκούσουσιν τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀκούσαντες ζήσουσιν.

20b “Indeed, he will show him even greater works than these, such that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes. 22 The Father himself judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Amen, amen, I say to you, that whoever hears my voice and believes in him who sent me, possesses eternal life; and he will not encounter judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25 Amen, amen, I say to you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear it will live.”

Ostensa potestate filii in communi, hic consequenter ostendit eam in speciali, et primo dominus manifestat suam potestatem vivificativam; secundo manifestat quaedam praedicta, quae videbantur obscura, ibi sicut enim pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit filio vitam habere in semetipso. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit filium habere potestatem vivificativam; secundo docet modum percipiendi vitam a filio, ibi amen, amen dico vobis, quia qui verbum meum audit et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit potestatem vivificativam filii; secundo dicti rationem assignat, ibi neque enim pater iudicat quemquam; tertio ostendit effectum exinde provenientem, ibi ut omnes honorificent filium et cetera. Et circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit potestatem vivificativam in communi; secundo exprimit eam, ibi sicut enim pater et cetera. 755 Having pointed out the power of the Son in general, he now shows it in more detail. First, the Lord discloses his life-giving power. Secondly, he clarifies what seemed obscure in what was said before (v 26). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows that the Son has life-giving power. Secondly, he teaches how life is received from the Son (v 24). Concerning the first he does three things. First, he presents the life-giving power of the Son. Secondly, he gives a reason for what he says (v 22). Thirdly, he shows the effect of this (v 23). With respect to the first he does two things. First, he sets forth this life-giving power in general. Secondly, he expands on it (v 21).
Quantum ad primum dicit maiora his demonstrabit; quasi dicat: miramini et turbamini de potestate filii in sanatione languidi; sed adhuc pater maiora his demonstrabit opera, scilicet in suscitatione mortuorum, ut vos miremini. 756 He says, to the first, Indeed, he will show even greater works than these. As if to say: You are astonished and affected by the power of the Son in his healing of the sick man, but the Father will show even greater works than these, as in raising the dead, such that you will be amazed.
Sed ex his verbis insurgit dubitatio quantum ad duo: primo quidem quantum ad hoc quod dicit demonstrabit: nam hoc quod supra dictum est, quod pater omnia demonstrat filio, refertur ad aeternam generationem: quomodo ergo hic dicit demonstrabit, cum filius sit ei coaeternus, et in aeternitate non sit accipere futurum? Secundo vero quantum ad hoc quod dicit ut vos miremini. Si enim ideo demonstraturus est ut Iudaei mirentur, tunc filio demonstraturus est simul et istis, alias non mirarentur, nisi viderent; cum tamen filius ab aeterno omnia viderit apud patrem. 757 This passage gives rise to two difficulties. First, about his saying, he will show. For the earlier statement that the Father shows everything to the Son (5:20) refers to his eternal generation. How, then, can he say here, he will show, if the Son is coeternal with him and eternity does not allow of a future? The second difficulty is over, such that you will be amazed. For if he intends to show something to amaze the Jews, then he will be showing it to the Son at the same time as to them; for they could not be amazed unless they saw it. And yet the Son saw all things from eternity with the Father.
Et ideo dicendum est, quod hoc exponitur tripliciter. Uno modo, secundum Augustinum, ut referatur haec demonstratio fienda discipulis. Consuetus enim modus loquendi est Christi, ut aliquando attribuat sibi fieri quod fit membris suis, secundum illud Matth. XXV, v. 40: quod uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis. Et tunc est sensus: vos vidistis filium magna facientem in curatione languidi, et miramini; sed adhuc maiora his pater demonstrabit ei, in membris, scilicet discipulis; infra XIV, 12: et maiora horum faciet. Dicit ergo ut vos miremini: quia ex miraculis discipulorum Iudaei intantum mirati sunt quod maxima multitudo eorum conversa est ad fidem, sicut habetur Act. I. 758 We must say that this is explained in three ways. The first way is given by Augustine, and in it this future showing is referred to the disciples. For it is Christ’s custom that now and then he says that what happens to his members happens to himself, as in Matthew (25:40): “As long as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me.” And then the meaning is this: You saw the Son do something great in healing the sick man, and you were amazed; but the Father will show him even greater works than these, in his members, that is, the disciples: “He will do greater things than these,” as we read below (14:12). He then says, such that you will be amazed, for the miracles of the disciples so amazed the Jews that a great many of them were converted to the faith, as we see in the Acts.
Alio modo, secundum Augustinum, sic, ut scilicet referatur ad Christum secundum naturam assumptam. In Christo enim est et natura divina et natura humana; et secundum utramque habet a patre potestatem vivificativam; sed aliter et aliter, quia secundum divinitatem habet potestatem vivificandi animas, sed secundum naturam assumptam vivificat corpora unde Augustinus: verbum vivificat animas, sed verbum caro factum vivificat corpora. Nam resurrectio Christi, et mysteria quae Christus implevit in carne, sunt causa futurae resurrectionis corporum; Eph. II, 5: convivificavit nos in Christo; I Cor. XV, 12: si autem Christus praedicatur quod resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo quidam dicunt in vobis, quoniam resurrectio mortuorum non est? Sed primum habet ab aeterno, et hoc ostendit cum supra dixit: et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit; quae quidem omnia demonstrat carni; 759 The second explanation, also by Augustine, refers this showing to Christ according to his assumed nature. For in Christ there is both a divine nature and a human nature, and in each he has life-giving power from the Father, although not in the same way. According to his divinity he has the power to give life to souls; but according to his assumed nature, he gives life to bodies. Hence Augustine says: “The Word gives life to souls; but the Word made flesh gives life to bodies.” For the resurrection of Christ and the mysteries which Christ fulfilled in his flesh are the cause of the future resurrection of bodies: “God, who is rich in mercy, has brought us to life in Christ” (Eph 2:5); “If it is preached that Christ rose from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor 15:12). The first life-giving power he has from eternity; and he indicated this when he said: “The Father shows him everything that he does” (above 4:20), all of which he shows to his flesh.
sed alia ex tempore, et quantum ad hoc dicit: et maiora his demonstrabit ei, idest demonstratur potestas eius in hoc quod maiora faciet, suscitando mortuos: quosdam quidem hic, sicut Lazarum, puellam et unicum matris; omnes tandem in die iudicii. The other life-giving power he has in time, and concerning this he says: he will show him even greater works than these, i.e., his power will be shown by the fact that he will do greater works, by raising the dead. He will raise some of the dead here: as Lazarus, the young girl, and the mother’s only son; and finally he will raise all on the day of judgment.
Tertio modo ut referatur ad Christum secundum naturam divinam, secundum illum modum quo in Scriptura dici consuetum est, tunc aliquid fieri quando innotescit; sicut illud Matth. ult., 18: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Cum enim Christus ab aeterno habuerit potestatem plenissimam, quia quaecumque pater facit, similiter et filius facit, dicit tamen, post resurrectionem domini potestatem datam esse: non quia tunc tantum eam recepit, sed quia per resurrectionis gloriam tunc maxime innotuit. Secundum hoc ergo dicit sibi potestatem dari, secundum quod eam exequitur in opere, ut dicatur: et maiora demonstrabit ei opera; idest, sibi data per executionem ostendet: et hoc vobis mirantibus, quando scilicet qui vobis videtur ut homo tantum, apparebit virtutis divinae et Deus. 760 A third explanation refers this showing to Christ in his divine nature, according to the custom of Scripture in saying that a thing is beginning to take place when it is beginning to be known. For example: “All power has been given to me, in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18); for although Christ had the complete fulness of power from eternity (because “whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise”), he still speaks of this power as being given to him after the resurrection, not because he was then receiving it for the first time, but because it was through the glory of the resurrection that it became most known. In this interpretation, then, he says that power is given to him insofar as he exercises it in some work. As if to say: he will show him even greater works than these, i.e., he will show by his works what has been given to him. And this will come about when you are amazed, i.e., when the one who seems to you to be a mere man is revealed to be a person of divine power and as God.
Est autem verbum demonstrationis accipiendum ut verbum visionis, secundum quod supra expositum est. We could also take the word show as referring to an act of seeing, as was explained above [750].
Consequenter cum dicit sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos (...) sic et filius, explicat in speciali potestatem vivificativam filii, ostendens quae sunt illa maiora quae pater filio demonstrabit. Ubi sciendum est quod divina virtus in veteri testamento ex hoc praecipue commendatur quod Deus est auctor vitae; I Reg. II, 6: dominus mortificat, et vivificat. Et Deut. c. XXXII, 39: ego occidam, et ego vivere faciam. Quam quidem virtutem sicut habet pater, sic habet et filius, et ideo dicit sicut pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius quos vult vivificat; quasi dicat: haec sunt maiora quae pater filio demonstrabit, scilicet ut mortuos vivificet. Plane maiora sunt ista valde: quia plus est ut resurgat mortuus, quam ut convalescat aegrotus. Sic ergo filius quos vult vivificat, et primam vitam viventibus dando, et mortuos suscitando. 761 Now he explains in more detail the life-giving power of the Son by indicating those greater works which the Father will show the Son (v 21). Here we should point out that in the Old Testament the divine power is particularly emphasized by the fact that God is the author of life: “The Lord kills, and brings to life” (1 Sm 2:6); “1 will kill, and bring to life again” (Dt 32:39). Now just as the Father has this power, so also does the Son; hence he says, For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes. As if to say: These are those greater works that the Father will show the Son, that is, he will give life to the dead. Such works are obviously greater, for it is greater to raise the dead than for a sick man to become well. Thus the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes, i.e., by giving initial life to the living, and by raising the dead.
Nec tamen putemus alios a patre suscitari et alios a filio, sed eosdem quos pater suscitat et vivificat, filius suscitat et vivificat: quia pater, sicut omnia operatur per filium, qui est virtus eius, ita et omnes vivificat per filium, qui est vita, ut dicit infra XIV, 6: ego sum via, veritas et vita. We should not think that some are raised up by the Father and others by the Son. Rather, the same ones who are raised and vivified by the Father, are raised and vivified by the Son also: because just as the Father does all things through the Son, who is his power, so he also gives life to all through the Son, who is life, as he says below: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (14:6).
Non tamen per filium suscitat et vivificat mortuos sicut per instrumentum, quia secundum hoc filius non esset constitutus in suae potestatis arbitrio. Et ideo ut hoc excludat, dicit: filius quos vult vivificat; idest, in suae potestatis arbitrio est vivificare quod vult. Nam non aliud vult filius quam pater: sicut enim est illis una substantia, sic est illis una voluntas; unde Matth.: c. XX, 15, dicit: an non licet mihi quod volo facere? The Father does not raise up and give life through the Son as through an instrument, because then the Son would not have freedom of power. And so to exclude this he says, the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes, i.e., it lies in the freedom of his power to grant life to whom he wills. For the Son does not will anything different than the Father wills: for just as they are one substance, so they have one will; hence Matthew (20:15) says: “Is it not lawful for me to do as I will?”
Consequenter cum dicit neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, assignat rationem dicti, manifestans suam potestatem. Sed attendendum est, quod ex hoc loco usque ad finem sunt duae expositiones: una est Augustini, alia Hilarii et Chrysostomi. 762 Then when he says, The Father himself judges no one, he gives the reason for what was said above, and indicates his own power. It should be remarked that there are two expositions for the present passages: one is given by Augustine, and the other by Hilary and Chrysostom.
Secundum Augustinum quidem exponitur sic. Dixerat dominus supra, quod sicut pater suscitat mortuos ita et filius. Sed ne intelligeres illam mortuorum resuscitationem tantum qua aliquos ad hanc vitam resuscitavit ad miraculi ostensionem et non illam qua resuscitat ad vitam aeternam, ideo ducit eos ad altiorem considerationem alterius, scilicet resurrectionis quae erit in futuro iudicio. Unde et specialiter de iudicio mentionem facit, dicens neque enim pater iudicat quemquam. Augustine’s explanation is this. The Lord had said that just as the Father raises the dead, so also does the Son. But so that we do not think that this refers only to those miracles the Son performs in raising the dead to this life, and not to the Son’s raising to eternal life, he leads them to the deeper consideration of the resurrection to occur at the future judgment. Thus he refers explicitly to the judgment, saying, The Father himself judges no one.
Potest et aliter, secundum eumdem, sub eodem sensu continuari, ut secundum hoc quod dixit sicut pater resuscitat mortuos, sic et filius etc., referatur ad resurrectionem animarum, quam facit filius inquantum est verbum; hoc vero quod dicit neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, referatur ad resurrectionem corporum, quam facit inquantum verbum caro factum est. Resurrectio enim animarum fit per personam patris et filii; unde et simul nominat patrem et filium, dicens sicut pater suscitat (...) sic et filius. Resurrectio vero corporum per dispensationem humanitatis patri non coaeternam: et ideo soli filio iudicium attribuit. Another explanation by Augustine, in which the same meaning is maintained, is that the earlier statement, just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son, should be referred to the resurrection of souls, which the Son causes inasmuch as he is the Word; but the text, The Father himself judges no one, should be referred to the resurrection of bodies, which the Son causes inasmuch as he is the Word made flesh. For the resurrection of souls is accomplished through the person of the Father and of the Son; and for this reason he mentions the Father and Son together, saying, just as the Father raises the dead... so the Son. But the resurrection of bodies is accomplished through the humanity of the Son, according to which he is not coeternal with the Father. Consequently, he attributes judgment solely to the Son.
Sed attende mirabilem varietatem verborum: nam primo proponitur nobis pater operans et filius vacans, scilicet cum dicitur: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem; hic vero e converso proponitur filius operans, et pater vacans: neque enim pater iudicat quemquam; sed omne iudicium dedit filio et cetera. In quo datur intelligi, quod alio modo loquitur hic et alio modo ibi. Nam ibi loquitur de operatione quae est patris et filii, unde dicit quod a se non facit quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem; hic vero loquitur de operatione qua filius secundum quod homo iudicat et non pater: unde dicit quod omne iudicium dedit filio. Nam pater in iudicio non apparebit; quia secundum iustitiam Deus in propria natura iudicandis omnibus apparere non potest: quia cum visio divina sit beatitudo nostra, si mali Deum in propria natura viderent, iam essent beati. Apparebit ergo solus filius, qui solus habet naturam assumptam. Ipse ergo solus iudicat, qui solus omnibus apparebit; sed tamen auctoritate patris; Act. X, 42: hic est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum. Et in Ps. LXXI, 1: Deus, iudicium tuum regi da. 763 Note the wonderful variety of expressions. The Father is first presented as acting and the Son as resting, when it says: “the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing” (5:19); but here, on the contrary, the Son is presented as acting and the Father as resting: The Father himself judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son. We can see from this that he is speaking from different points of view at different times. At first, he was speaking of an action which belongs to the Father and the Son; thus he says that “the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing”; but here he is speaking of an action by which the Son, as man, judges, and the Father does not: thus he says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son. For the Father will not appear at the judgment because, in accord with what is just, God cannot appear in his divine nature before all who are to be judged: for since our happiness consists in the vision of God, if the wicked were to see God in his own nature, they would be enjoying happiness. Therefore, only the Son will appear, who alone has an assumed nature. Therefore, he alone will judge who alone will appear to all. Yet he will judge with the authority of the Father: “He is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and of the dead” (Acts 10:42); and in the Psalm (71:1) we read: “O Lord, give your judgment to the king.”
Consequenter cum dicit ut omnes honorificent filium, ponit effectum qui provenit ex potestate filii, et primo ponit fructum consequentiae; secundo excludit contradictionem, ibi qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. 764 Then when he says, so that all men may honor the Son, he gives the effect which results from the power of the Son. First, he gives the effect. Secondly, he excludes an objection (v 23b).
Dicit ergo: ideo pater omne iudicium dedit filio, secundum humanam naturam, quia in incarnatione se filius exinanivit formam servi accipiens, in qua inhonoratus est ab hominibus, secundum illud infra VIII, 49: ego honorifico patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me. Ideo ergo in ipsa natura assumpta datum est ei iudicium, ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem. Tunc enim videbunt filium hominis venientem cum potestate magna et maiestate: Lc. XXI, 27. Et Apoc. VII, 11: ceciderunt in facies suas, et adoraverunt, dicentes: benedictio, et claritas, et sapientia, et gratiarum actio, honor, virtus et fortitudo Deo nostro. 765 He says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, according to his human nature, because in the incarnation the Son emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, under which form he was dishonored by men, as is said below (8:49): “I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me.” Therefore, judgment was given to the Son in his assumed nature in order that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. For on that day “they will see the Son of Man coming with great power and glory” (Lk 21:27); “They fell on their faces and worshipped, saying: ‘Blessing and glory, and wisdom and thanks, and honor, power and strength, to our God’” (Rv 7:11).
Sed posset aliquis dicere: volo honorificare patrem, et non curare de filio. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Aliud enim est honorare Deum ratione qua Deus est, aliud honorare patrem. Nam bene potest aliquis honorare Deum inquantum creator, omnipotens et incommutabilis, absque hoc quod honoret et filium. Sed honorare Deum ut patrem nullus potest quin honorificet filium: nam pater dici non potest si filium non habet. Sed si inhonoras filium dividendo eius virtutem, inhonoras et patrem: ibi enim tollis virtutem patri, ubi minorem das filio. 766 Someone might say: I am willing to honor the Father, but do not care about the Son. This cannot be, because Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. For it is one thing to honor God precisely as God, and another to honor the Father. For someone may well honor God as the omnipotent and immutable Creator without honoring the Son. But no one can honor God as Father without honoring the Son; for he cannot be called Father if he does not have a Son. But if you dishonor the Son by diminishing his power, this also dishonors the Father; because where you give less to the Son, you are taking away from the power of the Father.
Vel aliter, secundum eumdem: Christo debetur duplex honor: scilicet secundum divinitatem, secundum quam debetur ei honor aequalis patri; et quantum ad hoc dicit ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem: alius debetur ei secundum humanitatem, sed non aequalis patri; et de isto dicit qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Unde ibi signanter dicitur sicut; hic autem non dicit sicut, sed simpliciter dicit filium esse honorandum; Lc. X, 16: qui vos spernit, me spernit; qui autem me spernit, spernit eum qui misit me. 767 Another explanation, given by Augustine, is this. A twofold honor is due to Christ. One, according to his divinity, in regard to which he is owed an honor equal to that given the Father; and with respect to this he says, that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Another honor is due the Son according to his humanity, but not one equal to that given the Father; and with respect to this he says, Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Thus in the first case he significantly used “as”; but now, the second time, he does not say “as,” but states absolutely that the Son should be honored: “He who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me,” as we read in Luke (10:16).
Secundum autem Hilarium et Chrysostomum, exponitur magis ad litteram, quamvis parum mutetur, hoc modo. Dominus supra dicit: filius quos vult vivificat. Quicumque aliquid facit pro libero voluntatis arbitrio, agit ex proprio iudicio. Supra vero dictum est quod omnia quaecumque facit pater haec et filius similiter facit. Ergo filius de omnibus habet liberum voluntatis arbitrium, quia ex proprio iudicio procedit. Et ideo statim facit mentionem de iudicio, dicens neque pater iudicat quemquam, seorsum scilicet a filio. Et hoc modo loquendi usus est dominus infra XII, 47: ego non iudico vos, scilicet solum, sed sermo quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit vos in novissimo. Sed omne iudicium dedit filio, sicut et dedit ei omnia. Sicut enim dedit ei vitam, et genuit eum viventem, ita dedit ei omne iudicium, idest genuit eum iudicem; infra ibid., 30: sicut audio iudico; idest, sicut habeo esse a patre, ita et iudicium. Ratio huius est, quia filius nihil aliud est, ut dictum est supra, quam conceptus paternae sapientiae; unusquisque autem per conceptum suae sapientiae iudicat: unde sicut pater omnia per filium facit, ita et omnia per ipsum iudicat. Et fructus huius est ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem; idest, exhibeant ei cultum latriae, sicut patri. Cetera vero non mutantur. 768 Hilary and Chrysostom give a more literal explanation, but it is only slightly different. They explain it this way. Our Lord said above, the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes. Now whoever does anything according to the free decision of his will acts because of his own judgment. But it was stated above that “whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (5:19). Therefore, the Son enjoys a free decision of his own will in all things, since he acts because of his own judgment. Thus he immediately mentions judgment, saying that the Father himself judges no one, i.e., without or apart from the Son. Our Lord used this way of speaking below (12:47): “I do not judge him,” i.e., I alone, “but the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.” But he has given all judgment to the Son, as he has given all things to him. For as he has given him life and begotten him as living, so he has given him all judgment, i.e., begotten him as judge: “I judge only as I hear it” (below 5:30), i.e., just as I have being (esse) from the Father, so also judgment. The reason for this is that the Son is nothing other than the conception of the paternal wisdom, as was said. But each one judges by the concept of his wisdom. Hence, just as the Father does all things through the Son, so he judges all things through him. And the fruit of this is that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father, i.e., that they may render to him the cult of “latria” as they do the Father. The rest does not change.
Sed attendenda est, secundum Hilarium, mirabilis connexio verborum, ut errores contra aeternam generationem confutentur. Duae namque haereses contra ipsam generationem aeternam exortae fuerunt. Una Arii dicentis filium minorem patre; quod est contra aequalitatem et unitatem. Alia Sabellii dicentis non esse distinctionem personarum in divinis; quod est contra originem. 769 Hilary calls our attention to the remarkable relationship of the passages so that the errors concerning eternal generation can be refuted. Two heresies have arisen concerning this eternal generation. One was that of Arius, who said that the Son is less than the Father; and this is contrary to their equality and unity. The other was that of Sabellius, who said that that there is no distinction of persons in the divinity; and this is contrary to their origin.
Et ideo ubicumque facit mentionem de unitate et aequalitate, statim addit et distinctionem personarum secundum originem, et e converso. Unde, quia innuit originem personarum, dicens: non potest filius a seipso facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, ne crederes inaequalitatem, statim subiungit: quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit. Et, e converso, cum innuit aequalitatem, dicens: sicut pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, ita et filius quos vult vivificat, ne discredas originem et filium genitum, subiungit: neque enim pater iudicat quemquam; sed omne iudicium dedit filio. Eodem modo cum insinuat aequalitatem personarum, dicens ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem, statim subiungit de missione, in qua demonstratur origo, dicens qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem, qui misit illum, non per separationem a seipso. Missionem audi, infra VIII, 29: qui misit me, mecum est, et non reliquit me solum. So, whenever he mentions the unity and equality [of the Father and Son], he immediately also adds their distinction as persons according to origin, and conversely. Thus, because he mentions the origin of the persons when he says, “the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing” (5:19), then, so we do not think this involves inequality, he at once adds: “for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.” Conversely, when he states their equality by saying: For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes, then, so that we do not deny that the Son has an origin and is begotten, he adds, the Father himself judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son. Similarly, when he mentions the equality of the persons by saying. so that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. he immediately adds something about a “mission,” which indicates an origin, saying: Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him, but not in such a way that involves a separation. Christ mentions such mission below (8:29) in saying: “He who sent me is with me, and he has not left me alone.”
Supra ostendit dominus se habere virtutem vivificativam; hic ostendit modum quo aliquis ab ipso vitam participare potest, et primo ponit modum, quomodo aliquis per ipsum vitam participet; secundo huiusmodi adimpletionem praenuntiat, ibi amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora. 770 Above, our Lord showed that he had life-giving power; here he shows how someone can share in this life coming from him. First, he tells how one can share in this life through him. Secondly, he predicts its fulfillment (v 25).
Circa primum considerandum est, quod sunt quatuor gradus vitae. Unus quidem invenitur in plantis, quae nutriuntur, augentur et generantur et generant; alius in animalibus, quae tantum sentiunt; alius vero in his quae moventur, quae sunt animalia perfecta; ulterius vero est aliud genus vitae in his quae intelligunt. Tot ergo existentibus gradibus vitae, impossibile est vel vitam quae est in plantis, vel eam quae est in sensu, aut eam quae est ex motu, esse primam vitam. Nam prima vita debet esse per se vita, non participata. Nulla autem vita potest esse talis nisi sola vita intellectualis, aliae autem tres communes sunt corporali et spirituali creaturae; corpus autem quod vivit, non est ipsa vita; sed vitam participans: et ideo vita intellectualis est prima vita, quae est vita spiritualis, quae immediate percipitur a primo vitae principio, unde dicitur vita sapientiae. Et propter hoc in Scripturis vita attribuitur sapientiae. Prov. VIII, 35: qui me invenerit, inveniet vitam, et hauriet salutem a domino. Sic ergo vitam a Christo, qui est Dei sapientia, participamus, inquantum anima nostra ab ipso sapientiam percipit. 771 With respect to the first, we should point out that there are four grades of life. One is found in plants, which take nourishment, grow, reproduce, and are reproduced. Another is in animals which only sense. Another in living things that move, that is, the perfect animals. Finally, there is another form of life which is present in those who understand. Now among those grades of life that exist, it is impossible that the foremost life be that found in plants, or in those with sensation, or even in those with motion. For the first and foremost life must be that which is per se, not that which is participated. This can be none other than intellectual life, for the other three forms are common to a corporal and spiritual creature [as man]. Indeed, a body that lives is not life itself, but one participating in life. Hence intellectual life is the first and foremost life, which is the spiritual life, that is immediately received from the first principle of life, whence it is called the life of wisdom. For this reason in the Scriptures life is attributed to wisdom: “He who finds me finds life, and has salvation from the Lord” (Prv 8:35). Therefore we share life from Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, insofar as our soul receives wisdom from him.
Haec autem vita intellectualis perficitur in vera cognitione divinae sapientiae, quae est vita aeterna. Infra XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Sed ad nullam sapientiam potest homo pervenire nisi per fidem: unde in scientiis nullus ad sapientiam pervenit, nisi prius fidem adhibeat dictis a magistro. Si ergo nos volumus ad illam vitam sapientiae pervenire, oportet nos per fidem credere ea quae ab illa nobis proponuntur. Ad Hebr. XI, 6: oportet accedentem ad Deum credere quia est, et inquirentibus se remunerator sit. Is. XXVIII, 16, secundum aliam litteram: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Now this intellectual life is made perfect by the true knowledge of divine Wisdom, which is eternal life: “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (below 17:3). But no one can arrive at any wisdom except by faith. Hence it is that in the sciences, no one acquires wisdom unless he first believes what is said by his teacher. Therefore, if we wish to acquire this life of wisdom, we must believe through faith the things that are proposed to us by it. “He who comes to God must believe that he is and rewards those who seek him” (Heb 11:6); “If you do not believe, you will not understand,” as we read in another version of Isaiah (28:16).
Et ideo dominus congrue modum perveniendi ad vitam ostendit esse per fidem, dicens qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam. Et primo ponit meritum fidei; secundo subdit praemium eius, ibi habet vitam aeternam. 772 Thus, our Lord fittingly shows that the way of obtaining life is through faith, saying, whoever hears my voice and believes in him who sent me, possesses eternal life. First, he mentions the merit of faith. Secondly, the reward of’ faith, eternal life.
Circa meritum fidei primo ponit illud per quod fides introducitur; secundo illud cui fides innititur. 773 Concerning the merit of faith, he first indicates how faith is brought to us; and secondly, the foundation of faith, that on which it rests.
Introducitur quidem fides per verbum hominis; Rom. X, 17: fides ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Christi. Innititur autem fides non verbo hominis sed ipsi Deo; Gen. c. XV, 6: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam; Eccli. II, 8: qui timetis Deum, credite illi. Sic nos introducit per verbum hominis ad credendum, non ipsi homini qui loquitur, sed Deo cuius verba loquitur; I Thess. II, 13: cum accepissetis a nobis verbum auditus Dei, accepistis illud non sicut verbum hominum, sed, sicut vere est, verbum Dei. Et haec duo dominus ponit. Primo illud per quod fides introducitur; unde dicit qui verbum meum audit, quod introducit ad fidem. Secundo illud cui innititur, cum dicit et credit ei qui misit me, non mihi, sed illi in cuius virtute loquor. Faith comes to us through the words of men: “Faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). But faith does not rest on man’s word, but on God himself: “Abram believed God, who counted this as his justification” (Gn 15:6); “You who fear the Lord, believe in him” (Sir 2:8). Thus we are lead to believe through the words of men, not in the man himself who speaks, but in God, whose words he speaks: “When you heard the word we brought you as God’s word, you did not receive it as the word of men, but, as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thes 2:13). Our Lord mentions these two things. First, how faith is brought to us, when he says, whoever hears my voice [literally, word], which leads to faith. Secondly, he mentions that on which faith rests, saying, and believes in him who sent me, i.e., not in me, but in him in virtue of whom I speak.
Quae quidem verba possunt competere Christo secundum quod homo inquantum per verbum eius humanum homines conversi sunt ad fidem; et secundum quod Deus, inquantum Christus est verbum Dei. Cum enim Christus sit verbum Dei, manifestum est quod audientes Christum audiebant verbum Dei et per consequens credebant Deo. Et hoc est quod dicit: qui audit verbum meum, idest me verbum Dei, et credit ei, idest patri cuius sum verbum. This text can apply to Christ, as man, insofar as it is through Christ’s human words that men were converted to the faith. And it can apply to Christ, as God, insofar as Christ is the Word of God. For since Christ is the Word of God, it is clear that those who heard Christ were hearing the Word of God, and as a consequence, were believing in God. And this is what he says: whoever hears my word, i.e., me, the Word of God, and believes in him, i.e., the Father, whose Word I am.
Praemium autem fidei ponit cum subdit habet vitam aeternam. Et ponit tria quae nos habebimus in gloria, sed ordine retrogrado. Primo enim consequemur resurrectionem ex mortuis; secundo liberationem a futuro iudicio; tertio vitam aeternam: quia, ut dicitur Matth. XXV, 46 post iudicium ibunt iusti in vitam aeternam. Et haec tria ponit ad fidei praemium pertinere: et primo tertium tamquam magis desideratum. 774 Then when he says, possesses eternal life, he mentions the reward of faith, and states three things we will possess in the state of glory; but they are mentioned in reverse order. First, there will be the resurrection from the dead. Secondly, we will have freedom from the future judgment. Thirdly, we will enjoy everlasting life, for as we read in Matthew (c 25), the just will enter into everlasting life. He mentions these three as belonging to the reward of faith; and the third was mentioned first since it is desired more than the others.
Unde dicit qui credit, scilicet per fidem, habet vitam aeternam, quae consistit in plena Dei visione. Et dignum est ut qui credit propter Deum his quae non videt, perducatur ad plenam eorum visionem; infra c. XX, 31: haec scripta sunt ut credatis (...) et ut credentes vitam habeatis in nomine eius. 775 So he says, whoever believes, i.e., through faith, possesses eternal life, which consists in the full vision of God. And it is fitting that one who believes on account of God certain things that he does not see, should be brought to the full vision of these things: “These things are written that you may believe... and that believing you may have life in his name” (below 20:31).
Secundo ponit secundum, cum dicit et in iudicium non veniet. Sed contra hoc est quod apostolus dicit II Cor. V, 10: omnes nos astare oportet ante tribunal Christi, etiam ipsos apostolos: ergo qui credit, in iudicium veniet. Sed dicendum, quod duplex est iudicium. Scilicet condemnationis, et in isto non venient qui fide formata in Deum credunt: de quo dicebat Ps. CXLII, 2: non intres in iudicium cum servo tuo, quia non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens; supra III, 18: qui credit non iudicatur. Est etiam iudicium discretionis vel discussionis, et ad istud oportet nos omnes ante tribunal Christi exhibere, ut dicit apostolus; et de isto dicitur in Ps. XLII: iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam. 776 He mentions the second when he says, and he will not encounter judgment. But the Apostle says something which contradicts this: “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor 5:10), even the apostles. Therefore, even one who does believe will encounter judgment. I answer that there are two kinds of judgment. One is a judgment of condemnation, and no one encounters that judgment if he believes in God with a faith that is united with love [ a “formed faith”]. We read about this judgment: “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no living man is just in your sight”; and it was said above (3:18): “Whoever believes is not judged.” There is also a judgment of separation and examination; and, as the Apostle says, all must present themselves before the tribunal of Christ for this judgment. Of this judgment we read: “Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from those people who are not holy” (Ps 42:1).
Tertio ponit praemium, cum dicit sed transit a morte in vitam, vel transiet, secundum aliam litteram. Quod quidem potest exponi dupliciter. Primo ut referatur ad resurrectionem animae et sic planus est sensus quasi dicat: non solum per fidem adipiscitur vitam aeternam et liberatur a iudicio, sed etiam remissionem peccatorum consequitur. Unde dicit sed transit de infidelitate ad fidem, de iniustitia ad iustitiam; I Io. III, 14: nos scimus quoniam translati sumus de morte ad vitam. 777 Thirdly, he mentions a reward when he says, but has passed from death to life, or “will pass,” as another version says. This statement can be explained in two ways. First, it can refer to the resurrection of the soul. In this case the obvious meaning is that he is saying: Through faith we attain not only to eternal life and freedom from judgment, but also to the forgiveness of our sins as well. Hence he says, but has passed, from unbelief to belief, from injustice to justice: “We know that we have passed from death to life” (1 Jn 3:14).
Secundo ut referatur ad resurrectionem corporum; et tunc est expositivum huius quod dicit habet vitam aeternam. Posset enim ex hoc aliquis credere quod qui credit in Deum, numquam moreretur, sed viveret in aeternum; quod esse non potest, quia omnes homines solvere oportet debitum primae praevaricationis, secundum illud Ps. LXXXVIII, 49: quis est homo qui vivet, et non videbit mortem? Et ideo non est intelligendum, eum qui credit sic habere vitam aeternam, quasi numquam moriturus; sed quia de hac vita transiet per mortem in vitam, idest per mortem corporis reparabitur in vitam aeternam. Secondly, this statement can be explained as referring to the resurrection of the body. Then it is an elaboration of the phrase, possesses eternal life. For some might think from what was said, that whoever believes in God will never die, but live forever. But this is impossible, because all men must pay the debt incurred by the. first sin, according to: “Where is the man who lives, and will not see death?” (Ps 88:49). Consequently, we should not think that one who believes has eternal life in such a way as never to die; rather, he will pass from thi’s life, through death, to life, i.e., through the death of the body he will be revived to eternal life.
Vel transiet quantum ad causam: quia quando homo credit, iam habet meritum gloriosae resurrectionis; Is. XXVI, 19: vivent mortui tui, interfecti tui resurgent. Et tunc soluti a morte veteris hominis suscipiemus vitam novi hominis, scilicet Christi. Amen, amen dico vobis et cetera. Quia possent aliqui dubitare utrum aliqui de morte ad vitam transirent, ideo dominus praenuntiat huiusmodi adimpletionem dicens: dico quod transiet de morte in vitam, et hoc iam ante impletur. Or, “will pass,” might refer to the cause [of one’s resurrection] for when a person believes, he already has the merit for a glorious resurrection: “Your dead will live, your slain will rise” (Is 26:19). And then, once released from the death of the old man, we will receive the life of the new man, that is, Christ.
Et hoc est quod dicit: amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora, non fatali necessitate subiecta, sed a Deo praeordinata; I Io. II, 18: novissima hora est. Et ne credatur distare subiungit et nunc est (Rom. XIII, 11: hora est iam nos de somno surgere), hora scilicet nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent. 778 Amen, amen, I say to you... Since some might doubt if any would pass from death to life, our Lord predicts that this will happen, saying: I say that he [who believes] “will pass from death to life”; and I say it before it actually occurs. And this is what he states, saying: Amen, amen, I say to you, the hour is coming, not determined by a necessity of fate, but by God’s decree: “It is the last hour” (1 Jn 2:18). And so that we do not think that it is far off, he adds, and is now here “it is now the time for us to rise from sleep” (Rom 13:11)—i.e., the hour is now here when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear it will live.
Quod potest dupliciter exponi. Uno modo ut referatur ad resurrectionem corporis et dicatur venit hora, et nunc est etc., quasi dicat: verum est quod omnes finaliter resurgent, sed etiam nunc est hora, quando aliqui, quos resuscitaturus erat dominus, audient vocem eius. Sic audivit Lazarus quando dictum est ei, veni foras, ut dicitur infra XI, 43; sic audivit filia archisynagogi, ut dicitur Matth. IX, 18 et filius viduae, ut habetur Lc. VII, 12. Et ideo, dicit signanter et nunc est, quia per me iam incipiunt mortui resuscitari. 779 This can be explained in two ways. In one way as referring to the resurrection of the body, and so it is said that the hour is coming, and is now here, as if he had said: It is true that eventually all will rise, but even now is the hour when some, whom the Lord was about to resuscitate, shall hear the voice of the Son of God. This is the way Lazarus heard it when it was said to him, “Come forth,” as we read below (11:43); and in this way the daughter of the leader of the synagogue heard it (Mt 9:18); and the widow’s son (Lk 7:12). Therefore, he says significantly, and is now here, because through me the dead already are beginning to be raised.
Alio modo, secundum Augustinum, ut hoc quod dicit nunc est, referatur ad resurrectionem animae. Nam, sicut dictum est supra, duplex est resurrectio: scilicet corporum, quae erit; et hoc nondum est sed erit in iudicio futuro; alia est animarum, de morte infidelitatis ad vitam fidei, et iniustitiae ad iustitiam; et hoc iam nunc est. Et ideo dicit venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui, scilicet infideles et peccatores, audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent, secundum veram fidem. Another explanation is given by Augustine, according to which and is now here refers to the resurrection of the soul. For as was said above, resurrection is of two kinds: the resurrection of bodies, which will happen in the future; this does not take place now, but will occur at the future judgment. The other is the resurrection of souls from the death of unbelief to the life of faith, and from the life of injustice to that of justice; and this is now here. Hence he says, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead, i.e., unbelievers and sinners, shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear it will live, according to the true faith.
Sed duo mirabilia in his verbis implicari videntur. Unum, cum dicit mortuos audire; aliud cum subdit, eos per auditum reviviscere, quasi prior sit auditus quam vita, cum tamen auditus sit quidam actus vitae. Sed si hoc referamus ad resurrectionem, verum est quod mortui audient, idest obedient voci filii Dei. Vox enim expressiva est interioris conceptus. Tota autem natura ad nutum obedit voluntati divinae; Rom. IV, 17: vocat ea quae non sunt, tamquam ea quae sunt. Secundum hoc ergo ligna, lapides et omnia, non solum ossa arida, sed et cineres corporum mortuorum audient vocem filii Dei, inquantum ad nutum ei obedient. Et hoc non convenit Christo inquantum est filius hominis sed inquantum est filius Dei, quia verbo Dei omnia obediunt. Et ideo signanter dicit filii Dei; Matth. VIII, 27: qualis est hic, quia mare et venti obediunt ei? 780 This passage seems to imply two strange occurrences. One, when he says that the dead will hear. The other, when he adds that it is through hearing that they will come to life again, as though hearing comes before life, whereas hearing is a certain function of life. However, if we refer this to the resurrection, it is true that the dead will hear, i.e., obey the voice of the Son of God. For the voice expresses the interior concept. Now all nature obeys the slightest command of the divine will: “He calls into existence what does not exist” (Rom 4:17). According to this, then, wood, stones, all things, not just the dry bones but also the dust of dead bodies, shall hear the voice of the Son of God so far as they obey his slightest will. And this belongs to Christ, not insofar as he is the Son of Man, but insofar as he is the Son of God, because all things obey the Word of God. And so he significantly says, of the Son of God; “What kind of man is this, for the sea and winds obey him?” (Mt 8:27).
Si vero referatur ad resurrectionem animarum, rationem habet quod dicitur: nam vox filii Dei, qua interius per inspirationem vel exterius per praedicationem suam et aliorum, corda fidelium movet, habet vim vivificativam, infra VI, 64: verba quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt, et sic vivificat mortuos, dum iustificat impios. Et quia auditus est via ad vitam vel naturae per obedientiam, ad reparationem scilicet naturae, vel auditus fidei ad reparationem vitae et iustitiae, ideo dicit et qui audierint, per obedientiam quantum ad resurrectionem corporum, vel per fidem quantum ad resurrectionem animarum, vivent, in corpore in aeterna vita et in iustitia in vita gratiae et cetera. If this statement (25b) is understood as referring to the resurrection of souls, then the reason for it is this: the voice of the Son of God has a life-giving power, that voice by which he moves the hearts of the faithful interiorly by inspiration, or exteriorly by his preaching and that of others: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (below 6:64). And so he gives life to the dead when he justifies the wicked. And since hearing is the way to life, either of nature through obedience, namely, by repairing nature, or the hearing of faith by repairing life and justice, he therefore says, and those who hear it, by obedience as to the resurrection of the body, or by faith as to the resurrection of souls, will live, in the body in eternal life, and injustice in the life of grace.

Lectio 5 LECTURE 5

26 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ: 27 καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν. 28 μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο, ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα ἐν ᾗ πάντες οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις ἀκούσουσιν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ 29 καὶ ἐκπορεύσονται, οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς, οἱ δὲ τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν κρίσεως. 30 οὐ δύναμαι ἐγὼ ποιεῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ οὐδέν: καθὼς ἀκούω κρίνω, καὶ ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ δικαία ἐστίν, ὅτι οὐ ζητῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με. —

26 “Indeed, just as the Father possesses life in himself, so he has given it to the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he [the Father] gave him the power to pass judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be surprised at this, since the hour is coming when all those buried in tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God. 29 And those who have done well will come forth to a resurrection of life; those who have done evil will come forth to a resurrection of judgment [i.e., condemnation]. 30 I cannot do anything of myself, but I judge only as I hear it; and my judgment is just, because I am not seeking my own will, but the will of him who sent me.”

Supra ostendit dominus se habere potestatem vivificativam et iudiciariam, et explicavit utramque per effectum, hic manifestat quomodo utraque potestas sibi competat, et primo ostendit hoc de potestate vivificativa; secundo de potestate iudiciaria, ibi et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere. 781 Above, our Lord showed that he had the power to give life and to judge; and he explained each by its effect. Here he shows how each of these powers belongs to him. First, he shows this with respect to his life-giving power. Secondly, with respect to his power to judge (v 27).
Dicit ergo primo: dico quod sicut pater suscitat mortuos ita et ego, et qui audit verbum meum, habet vitam aeternam: et hoc ideo habeo, quia sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic et filio dedit habere vitam in semetipso. 782 So he says, first: I say that as the Father raises the dead, so I do also; and anyone who hears my word has eternal life. And I possess this because, just as the Father possesses life in himself, so he has given it to the Son to have life in himself.
Circa quod sciendum est, quod aliqui vivunt, sed non habent vitam in semetipsis sicut Paulus Gal. II, 20: quod autem nunc vivo, in fide filii Dei vivo. Et iterum: vivo ego, iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus. Vivebat ergo, sed non in semetipso, sed in alio per quem vivebat; sicut et corpus vivit, sed non habet vitam in semetipso, sed in anima per quam vivit. Illud ergo in semetipso vitam habet, quod habet vitam essentialem non participatam, idest quod ipsum est vita. In quolibet autem genere rerum, quod est per essentiam, est causa eorum quae sunt per participationem, sicut ignis est causa omnium ignitorum. Quod ergo est per essentiam vita, est causa et principium omnis vitae in viventibus. Et ideo ad hoc quod aliquod sit principium vitae requiritur quod sit per essentiam vita. Et ideo congrue manifestat dominus se totius vitae principium, dicens se habere vitam in semetipso, idest per essentiam, cum dicit sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, idest sicut est vivens per essentiam, ita et filius. Ideo sicut pater est causa vitae, ita filius suus. Apropos of this, we should note that some who live do not have life in themselves: as Paul, “I am living by faith in the Son of God” (Gal 2:20); and again in the same place: “it is not I who now live, but Christ lives in me.” Thus he lived, yet not in himself, but in another through whom he lived: as a body lives, although it does not have life in itself, but in a soul through which it lives. So that has life in itself which has an essential, non-participated life, i.e., that which is itself life. Now in every genus of things, that which is something through its essence is the cause of those things that are it by participation, as fire is the cause of all things afire. And so, that which is life through its essence, is the cause and principle of all life in living things. Accordingly, if something is to be a principle of life, it must be life through its essence. And so our Lord fittingly shows that he is the principle of all life by saying that he has life in himself, i.e., through his essence, when he says: just as the Father possesses life in himself, i.e., as he is living through his essence, so does the Son. Therefore, as the Father is the cause of life, so also is his Son.
Ostendit autem aequalitatem filii ad patrem, cum dicit sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso; et distinctionem, cum dicit dedit filio. Sunt enim aequales in vita pater et filius; sed distinguuntur, quia pater dat, filius accipit. Nec est intelligendum, quod filius a patre dante accipiat vitam, quasi praeexistat eam non habens, sicut in istis inferioribus materia prima existens accipit formam, et subiectum subiicitur accidenti: quia nihil in filio praeexistens est acceptioni vitae. Nam, sicut Hilarius dicit, filius nihil habet nisi natum, idest quod per nativitatem accepit. Et cum sit ipsa vita, ideo intelligendum est dedit filio vitam, idest, produxit filium vitam. Sicut si dicatur: mens dat verbo vitam, non quasi verbum praeexistat et postea vitam recipiat, sed quia produxit verbum in eadem vita qua ipsa vivit. Further, he shows the equality of the Son to the Father when he says, as the Father possesses life in himself; and he shows their distinction when he says, he has given it to the Son. For the Father and the Son are equal in life; but they are distinct, because the Father gives, and the Son receives. However, we should not understand this to mean that the Son receives life from the Father as if the Son first existed without having life, as in lower things a first matter, already existing, receives a form, and as a subject receives accidents: because in the Son there is nothing that exists prior to the reception of life. For as Hilary says: “the Son has nothing unless it is begotten,” i.e., nothing but what he receives through his birth. And since the Father is life itself, the meaning of, he has given it to the Son to have life in himself, is that the Father produced the Son as living. As if one were to say: the mind gives life to the word, not as though the word existed and then receives life, but because the mind produces the word in the same life by which it lives.
Destruuntur autem per haec verba tres errores, secundum Hilarium. Primo Arianorum, qui dicentes filium minorem patre, coacti sunt per hoc quod supra dictum est quaecumque pater fecerit, haec et filius facit, dicere, quod filius sit aequalis patri in virtute; sed tamen adhuc negant eum esse aequalem sibi in natura. Sed ecce quod etiam in hoc confutantur, per hoc quod dicitur sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio vitam habere in semetipso. Nam cum vita pertineat ad naturam, si filius habet vitam in semetipso sicut et pater, manifestum est quod tenet in se originis suae indivisibilem et aequalem cum patre naturam. 783 According to Hilary, this passage destroys three heresies. First, that of the Arians, who said that the Son is inferior to the Father. They were forced by what was stated earlier, that is, “For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (5:19), to say that the Son is equal to the Father in power; but they still denied that the Son is equal to the Father in nature. But now, this too is refuted by this statement, namely, just as the Father possesses life in himself, so he has given it to the Son to have life in himself. For since life pertains to the nature, if the Son has life in himself as does the Father, it is clear that he has in himself, by his very origin, a nature indivisible from and equal to that of the Father.
Secundus error eorum, quantum ad hoc quod negabant filii coaeternitatem ad patrem, dicentes, filium ex tempore incepisse: quod destruitur inquantum dicit filius vitam habet in semetipso. Nam in omnibus viventibus quorum generatio est in tempore, semper est invenire aliquid quod aliquando fuit non vivens; sed in filio quidquid est, est ipsa vita et ideo sic accepit ipsam vitam, quod vitam habet in semetipso, ut semper fuerit vivens. The second error is also Arian: their denial that the Son is coeternal with the Father, when they say that the Son began to exist in time. This is destroyed when he says, the Son has life in himself. For in all living things whose generation occurs in time, it is always possible to find something that at some time or other was not living. But in the Son, whatever is, is life itself. Consequently, he so received life itself that he has life in himself, so as always to have been living.
Tertio per hoc quod dicit dedit, destruitur error Sabellii negantis distinctionem personarum. Si enim pater vitam dedit filio, manifestum est quod alius est pater qui dedit, et alius filius qui accepit. Thirdly, by saying, he has given, he destroys the error of Sabellius, who denied the distinction of persons. For if the Father gave life to the Son, it is obvious that the Father, who gave it, is other than the Son, who received it.
Consequenter cum dicit et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, manifestat se habere iudiciariam potestatem, et primo manifestat suam potestatem iudiciariam; secundo rationem dictorum assignat, ibi non possum ego a me facere quidquam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit potestatis iudiciariae originem; secundo ostendit iudicii aequitatem, ibi et procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae. 784 Then (v 27), he makes it clear that he has the power to judge. First, he reveals his judiciary power. Secondly, he gives a reason for what he has said (v 30). As to the first he does two things. First, he indicates the origin of his judiciary power. Secondly, he shows that his judgment is just (v 29).
Circa primum notandum est, quod hoc quod dicit potestatem dedit ei, potest legi dupliciter. Uno modo secundum Chrysostomum, alio modo secundum Augustinum. 785 With regard to the first, we should note that his statement, he [the Father] gave him the power, can be understood in two ways. One way is that of Augustine; the other is that of Chrysostom.
Si autem legatur secundum Chrysostomum, tunc haec pars dividitur in duas. Primo proponit iudiciariae potestatis derivationem; secundo excludit dubitationem, ibi quia filius hominis est. 786 If we understand it as Chrysostom does, then this section is divided into two parts. First, he reveals the origin of his judiciary power. Secondly, he settles a difficulty (v 27b).
Sciendum est autem, quod haec littera sic punctatur secundum Chrysostomum: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, postea resumitur quia filius hominis est, nolite mirari hoc. Et huius punctationis ratio est, quia Paulus Samosatenus, quidam antiquus haereticus, qui sicut et Photinus dicebat Christum purum hominem esse, et initium sumpsisse ex virgine, punctabat sic: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est, et postea resumitur: nolite mirari hoc, quia venit hora etc., quasi intelligens per hoc quod ideo necesse fuit dari potestatem iudiciariam Christo, quia filius hominis est, idest purus homo, cui ex se non convenit iudicare homines. Et ideo oportet quod si iudicat alios, sibi detur potestas iudicandi. Chrysostom punctuates this section in the following way. He gave him the power to pass judgment. And then a new sentence begins: Because he is the Son of Man, do not be surprised at this. The reason for this punctuation is that Paul of Samosata, an early heretic, who like Photius said that Christ was only a man and took his origin from the Virgin, punctuated it as: He gave him the power to pass judgment because he is the Son of Man. And then he began a new sentence: Do not be surprised at this, since the hour is coming. It was as if he thought that it was necessary for judiciary power to be given to Christ because he is the Son of Man, that is, a mere man, who, of himself, cannot judge men. And so, if Christ is to judge others, he must be given the power to judge.
Sed hoc, secundum Chrysostomum, non potest stare, quia nullam convenientiam habet quod dicitur. Si enim ideo suscepit potestatem iudiciariam, quia homo est, tunc pari ratione, cum cuilibet homini conveniat iudiciaria potestas per humanam naturam, non plus competet Christo quam aliis hominibus. Non ergo sic legendum est; sed dicendum, quod quia est ineffabilis Dei filius, propterea et iudex est. Et hoc est quod dicit: non solum dedit ei pater quod vivificat; sed etiam potestatem dedit ei, per aeternam generationem, iudicium facere, sicut per eam dedit ei vitam habere in semetipso; Act. X, 42: hic est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum. But this, according to Chrysostom, cannot stand, because it is not at all in agreement with what is stated. For if it is because he is a man that he receives judiciary power, then for the same reason, since it would belong to every man to have judiciary power in virtue of his human nature, it would not belong to Christ any more than to other men. So we should not understand it this way. Rather, we should say that because Christ is the ineffable Son of God, he is on that account also judge. And this is what he says: The Father not only give him the power to give life, but also he gave him the power, through eternal generation, to pass judgment, just as he gave him, through eternal generation, to have life in himself: “He is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and of the dead,” as we read in Acts (10:42).
Dubitationem excludit cum dicit nolite mirari hoc: et primo movet eam; secundo excludit, ibi, quia venit hora et cetera. He settles a difficulty when he says, Do not be surprised at this. First, he mentions the difficulty. Secondly, he clears it up.
Dubitatio autem oriebatur in cordibus Iudaeorum, quia aestimantes Christum nihil plus esse quam purum hominem, ea vero, quae dicebantur de eo, erant supra hominem, et etiam supra Angelum, mirabantur cum audirent. Et ideo dicit nolite mirari hoc, scilicet quod dixi, quod filius vivificat mortuos et habet iudiciariam potestatem, propter hoc quia filius hominis est. Et de hoc mirabantur, quia purum hominem aestimantes, videbant in eo facta divina; Matth. VIII, 27: mirabantur omnes dicentes: qualis est hic, quia venti et mare obediunt ei? Et subdit causam quare non mirentur, quia scilicet ipse idem qui est filius hominis, est filius Dei. Et licet, secundum Chrysostomum, non exprimatur ista propositio, scilicet quod idem est filius hominis qui est filius Dei, ponit tamen dominus illud ex quo propositio illa de necessitate sequitur: sicut videmus, quod syllogizantes in doctrinis frequenter non proponunt intentum principaliter, sed illud ex quo de necessitate sequitur. Et ideo dominus non dicit quod ipse est filius Dei, sed quod filius hominis talis est quod ad vocem eius suscitantur omnes mortui: ex quo necessario sequitur quod sit filius Dei, nam suscitare mortuos est opus proprium Dei. Et ideo dicit nolite mirari, quia venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Sed non dicit et nunc est, ut supra dixit; neque quia ista hora nunc non est. Similiter hic dicit omnes, quod non dixerat supra: quia in prima resurrectione aliquos tantum resuscitavit, scilicet Lazarum, filium viduae, et puellam; sed tunc in futura resurrectione, quae erit tempore iudicii, omnes audient vocem filii Dei, et resurgent; Ezech. c. XXXVII, 12: aperiam tumulos vestros, et educam vos de sepulcris vestris. 787 The difficulty arose in the minds of the Jews and they were surprised because while they thought that Christ was no more than a man, he was saying things about himself that surpassed man and even the angels. So he says, Do not be surprised at this, that is, that I have said that the Son gives life to the dead and has the power to judge precisely because he is the Son of Man. They were surprised because, although they thought he was only a man, they saw that he accomplished divine effects: “What kind of man is this, for the sea and winds obey him?” (Mt 8:27). And he gives a reason why they should not be surprised, which is, because he who is the Son of Man is the Son of God. Although, as Chrysostom says, is it not said explicitly that the Son of Man is the Son of God, our Lord lays down the premises from which this statement necessarily follows: just as we notice that those who use syllogisms in their teaching do not express their main conclusion, but only that from which it follows with necessity. So our Lord does not say that he is the Son of God, but that the Son of Man is such that at his voice all the dead will rise. From this it necessarily follows that he is the Son of God: for it is a proper effect of God to raise the dead. Thus he says, Do not be surprised at this, since the hour is coming when all those buried in tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God. But he does not say of this hour, as he said above, “and is now here” (5:25). Again, here he says, all, which he did not say above: because at the first resurrection he raised only some, as Lazarus, the widow’s son and the young girl; but at the future resurrection, at the time of judgment, all will hear the voice of the Son of God, and will rise. “I will open your graves, and lead you out of your tombs” (Ez 37:12).
Secundum autem Augustinus, loquitur sic punctando: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est, et postea subditur nolite mirari hoc. Et secundum hoc dividitur in duas partes. In prima enim tangitur collatio iudiciariae potestatis facta filio hominis; secundo manifestatur per maioris potestatis collationem, ibi nolite mirari hoc. 788 Augustine punctuates this passage in the following way. And he gave him the power to pass judgment because he is the Son of Man. And then a new sentence follows: Do not be surprised at this. In this interpretation there are two parts. The first concerns the power to judge granted to the Son of Man. In the second, the granting of an even greater power is made clear, at Do not be surprised at this.
Circa primum sciendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod supra locutus est de resurrectione animarum, quae fit per filium Dei; hic vero loquitur de resurrectione corporum, quae fit per filium hominis. Et quia universalis resurrectio corporum futura est tempore iudicii, ideo hic praemittit de iudicio, dicens: potestatem dedit ei, scilicet Christo, iudicium facere, et hoc quia filius hominis est, idest secundum humanam naturam. Unde et post resurrectionem dicit, Matth. ult., c. 18: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. 789 As to the first we should note that, according to the mind of Augustine, he spoke above of the resurrection of souls, which is accomplished through the Son of God, but here he is speaking of the resurrection of bodies, which is accomplished through the Son of Man. And because the general resurrection of bodies will take place at the time of judgment, he mentions the judgment first, in saying, And he [the Father] gave him, i.e., Christ, the power to pass Judgment, and this, because he is the Son of Man, i.e., according to his human nature. Thus it is also after the resurrection that he says in Matthew (28:18): “All power has been given to me, in heaven and on earth.”
Est autem data iudiciaria potestas Christo secundum quod homo, propter tria. Primo ut ab omnibus videretur: necesse est enim iudicem a iudicandis videri. Iudicabuntur autem boni et mali, et boni quidem Christum videbunt secundum divinitatem et humanitatem; mali autem eum secundum divinitatem videre non poterunt, quia haec visio est beatitudo sanctorum, nec videtur nisi a mundis corde, ut dicitur Matth. V, 8: beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Et ideo ut videatur in iudicio non solum a bonis, sed etiam a malis, iudicabit in forma humana; Apoc. I, 7: videbit eum omnis oculus, et qui eum pupugerunt. There are three reasons why judiciary power has been given to Christ as man. First, in order that he might be seen by all: for it is necessary that a judge be seen by all who are to be judged. Now both the good and the wicked will be judged. And the good will see Christ in his divinity and in his humanity; while the wicked will not be able to see him in his divinity, because this vision is the happiness of the saints and is seen only by the pure in heart: “Happy are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Mt 5:8). And so, in order that Christ can be seen at the judgment not only by the good, but also by the wicked, he will judge in human form: “Every eye will see him, and all who pierced him” (Rv 1:7).
Secundo, quia per humilitatem passionis promeruit gloriam exaltationis. Unde sicut ille qui mortuus est, resurrexit, ita forma illa iudicabit quae iudicata est, et sedebit iudex in iudicio hominum qui stetit sub iudice homine; damnabit vere reos qui factus est falso reus, ut dicit Augustinus libro de verbis domini. Iob XXXVI, c. 17: causa tua quasi impii iudicata est; sed iudicium causamque recipies. Secondly, the power to judge was given to Christ as man because by the self-abasement of his passion he merited the glory of an exaltation. Thus, just as he who died arose, so that [human] form which was judged, will judge, and he who stood before a human judge will preside at the judgment of men. He who was falsely found guilty will condemn the truly guilty, as Augustine remarks in his work, The Sayings of the Lord. “Your cause has been judged as that of the wicked; but cause and judgment you will recover” (Jb 3 6.17).
Tertio ad insinuandum iudicis clementiam. Quod homo iudicetur a Deo, videtur valde terribile: horrendum est enim incidere in manus Dei viventis, ut dicitur Hebr. X, 31; sed quod homo iudicem habeat hominem, confidentiam praebet: et ideo ut iudicis experiaris clementiam, hominem habebis iudicem; Hebr. IV, 15: non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris. Thirdly, Christas man was given judiciary power to suggest the compassion of the judge. For it is very terrifying for a man to be judged by God: “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:31); but it produces confidence for a man to have another man as his judge. Accordingly, so you can experience the compassion of your judge, you will have a man as judge: “We do not have a high priest who cannot have compassion on our weakness” (Heb 4:15).
Sic ergo dedit potestatem Christo, iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Thus, he gave him, Christ, the power to pass judgment because he is the Son of Man.
Sed hoc quidem nolite mirari, quia maiorem potestatem contulit ei, scilicet resuscitandi mortuos; unde dicit: quia venit hora, scilicet novissima, quae erit in fine mundi; Ez. VII, 7: venit tempus, prope est dies occisionis; in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt audient vocem filii Dei. Supra autem non dixit omnes, quia ibi loquebatur de resurrectione spirituali, secundum quam non omnes in primo adventu resurrexerunt; quia II Thess. III, 2, dicitur: non enim omnium est fides. Hic vero loquitur de resurrectione corporum secundum quam omnes resurgemus, I Cor. XV, 20 ss. sed addit qui in monumentis sunt, quod supra non dixerat: quia animae non sunt in monumentis, sed corpora, quorum tunc resurrectio erit. 790 Do not be surprised at this, for he has given him a greater power, that is, the power to raise the dead. Thus he says, since the hour is coming, that is, the last hour at the end of the world: “The time has come, the day of slaughter is near” (Ez 7:7), when all those buried in tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God. Above he did not say “all,” because there he was speaking of the spiritual resurrection, in which all did not rise at his first coming, for we read: “All do not have faith” (2 Thes 3:2). But here he is speaking of the resurrection of the body, and all will rise in this way, as we read in 1 Corinthians (15:20). He adds, those buried in tombs, which he had not mentioned above, because only bodies, not souls, are in tombs, and it is the resurrection of bodies that will then take place.
Omnes ergo qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Vox ista erit sensibile signum filii Dei, ad quam omnes suscitabuntur; I Thess. IV, 15: dominus veniet in iussu Archangeli, et in tuba Dei. Et simile habetur I Cor. XV, 52, Matth. XXV, 6: media nocte clamor factus est. Quae quidem vox habebit virtutem ex divinitate Christi; Ps. LXVII, 34: dabit voci suae vocem virtutis. All those buried in tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God. This voice will be a sense perceptible sign of the Son of God, at whose sound all will be raised: “The Lord will come with the cry of the archangel and with the trumpet of God” (1 Thes 4:15); we find the same in 1 Corinthians (15:52) and in Matthew (25:6): “There was a cry at midnight.” This voice will derive its power from the divinity of Christ: “He will make his voice a powerful voice,” as the Psalm (67:34) says.
Quia ergo Augustinus dicit, quod resurrectio corporum fit per verbum carnem factum, resurrectio animarum per verbum, ut dictum est supra; ideo quaerendum est quomodo hoc intelligatur. Aut enim subintelligitur de causa prima, aut de causa meritoria. Si quidem de causa prima, constat quod divinitas Christi est causa corporalis et spiritualis resurrectionis, idest corporum et animarum, secundum illud Deut. XXXII, 39: ego occidam, et ego vivere faciam. Si vero de causa meritoria, tunc humanitas Christi est causa utriusque resurrectionis: quia per mysteria quae in carne Christi completa sunt, reparamur non solum quantum ad corpora ad vitam incorruptibilem, sed etiam quantum ad animas ad vitam spiritualem; Rom. IV, 25: traditus est propter nostras iniquitates, et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram. Non ergo videtur verum quod dicit Augustinus. 791 As we saw, Augustine says that the resurrection of the body will be accomplished through the Word made flesh, but the resurrection of the soul is accomplished through the Word. One may wonder how to understand this: whether we are talking about a first cause or a meritorious cause. If we are referring to a first cause, then it is clear that the divinity of Christ is the cause of the corporal and spiritual resurrection, i.e., of the resurrection of bodies and of souls, according to: “I will kill, and I will bring to life again” (Dt 32:39). But if we are referring to a meritorious cause, then it is the humanity of Christ which is the cause of both resurrections: because through the mysteries accomplished in the flesh of Christ we are restored not only to an incorruptible life in our bodies, but also to a spiritual life in our souls: “He was put to death on account of our sins, and he rose for our justification” (Rom 4:25). Accordingly, what Augustine says does not seem to be true.
Sed dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur de causa exemplari et de causa qua illud quod vivificatur, conformatur vivificatori: nam omne illud quod per aliud vivit, conformatur ei per quod vivit. Resurrectio autem animarum non est per hoc quod animae conformantur humanitati Christi, sed verbo, quia vita animae est per solum verbum; et ideo dicit animarum resurrectionem fieri per verbum. Resurrectio vero corporum erit per hoc quod corpora nostra conformabuntur corpori Christi per vitam gloriae, videlicet per claritatem corporum; secundum illud Phil. III, v. 21: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, configuratum corpori claritatis suae. Et secundum hoc dicit resurrectionem corporum fieri per verbum carnem factum. I answer that Augustine is speaking of the exemplary cause and of that cause by which that which is brought to life is made conformable to that which brings it to life: for everything that lives through another is conformed to that through which it lives. Now the resurrection of souls does not consist in souls being conformed to the humanity of Christ, but to the Word, because the life of the soul is through the Word alone; and so he says that the resurrection of souls takes place through the Word. But the resurrection of the body will consist in our bodies being conformed to the body of Christ through the life of glory, that is, through the glory of our bodies, according to: “He will change our lowly body so it is like his glorious body” (Phil 3:2 1). And it is from this point of view that he says that the resurrection of the body will take place through the Word made flesh.
Consequenter cum dicit et procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae, ostendit aequalitatem iudicii, quia boni praemiabuntur, unde dicit procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectione vitae, idest ad hoc quod vivant in aeterna gloria, mali autem damnabuntur; unde dicit qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii; idest, resurgent in condemnationem; Matth. XXV, 46: ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, scilicet mali, iusti autem in vitam aeternam; Dan. XII, 2: multi ex his qui in terrae pulvere dormierant, resurgent: quidam quidem ad vitam, alii autem ad opprobrium sempiternum, ut videant semper. 792 Then (v 29), he shows the justness of his judgment: because the good will be rewarded, and so he says, And those who have done well will come forth to a resurrection of life, i.e., to living in eternal glory; but the wicked will be damned, and so he says, those who have done evil will come forth to a resurrection of judgment [i.e., condemnation], i.e., they will rise for condemnation: “These,” the wicked, “will go into everlasting punishment; but the just will go to eternal life” (Mt 25:46); “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to an everlasting life, and others to everlasting shame” (Dn 12:2).
Et nota, quod supra loquens de resurrectione animarum, dicit: qui audierint vivent, hic vero dicit quod procedent; et hoc propter malos, qui vadunt in condemnationem: nam vita eorum non est dicenda vita, sed potius mors aeterna. Similiter etiam supra fecit mentionem de fide tantum, dicens: qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, et in iudicium non venit; hic ne credas solam fidem sine operibus ad salutem sufficere, facit mentionem de omnibus operibus, dicens qui bona fecerunt, procedent in resurrectionem vitae; quasi dicat: non qui credit tantum, sed qui cum fide bona operatur, procedit in resurrectionem vitae; Iac. II, 26: fides sine operibus mortua est. 793 Note than when he was speaking above of the resurrection of souls, he said, “those who hear it,” the voice of the Son of God, “will live” (5:25); but here he says, will come forth. He says this because of the wicked, who will be condemned: for their life should not be called a life, but rather an eternal death. Again, above he mentioned only faith, saying, “Whoever hears my voice and believes in him who sent me, possesses eternal life; and he will not encounter judgment” (5:24). But here he mentions works, so that we do not think that faith alone, without works, is sufficient for salvation, saying: And those who have done well will come forth to a resurrection of life. As if to say: Those will come forth to a resurrection of life who do not just believe, but who have accomplished good works along with their faith: “Faith without works is dead,” as we see from James (2:26).
Consequenter cum dicit non possum ego a me ipso facere quidquam, assignat rationem praemissorum. Duo autem praemiserat, scilicet originem potestatis, et aequitatem iudicii; et ideo utriusque causam assignat. Primo de primo. Secundo de secundo, ibi et iudicium meum iustum est. 794 Then when he says, I cannot do anything of myself, he gives the reason for what he has just said. Now he had spoken of two things: the origin of his power, and the justness of his judgment. Consequently, he mentions the reason for each.
Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod hoc quod dicit non possum ego a meipso facere quidquam, potest dupliciter legi, etiam secundum Augustinum. Primo ut referatur ad filium hominis hoc modo: tu dicis quod habes potestatem resuscitandi mortuos, quia filius hominis es, sed numquid hoc est tibi inquantum tu es filius hominis? Non, quia non possum ego a meipso facere quidquam; sed sicut audio, iudico. Non dicit, sicut video, secundum quod supra dixerat: filius non potest a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, sed dicit sicut audio: nam audire idem est in hoc loco quod obedire. Obedire autem pertinet ad illum cui fit imperium. Imperare autem pertinet ad superiorem. Et ideo, quia Christus inquantum homo minor est patre, dicit sicut audio; idest, secundum quod inspiratur a Deo in anima mea. De ipso auditu dicit Ps. LXXXIV, 9: audiam quid loquatur in me dominus Deus. Supra autem, quia loquebatur de se secundum quod est verbum Dei, dixit viderit. 795 The first point, when he says, I cannot do anything of myself, can be understood in two ways, even according to Augustine. First, as referring to the Son of Man in this manner: You say that you have the power to raise the dead because you are the Son of Man. But do you have this power precisely because you are the Son of Man? No, because I cannot do anything of myself, but I judge only as I hear it. He does not say, “as I see,” as he said above; “The Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing” (5:19). But he does say, as I hear it: for in this context “to hear” is the same as “to obey.” Now to obey belongs to one who receives a command, while to command pertains to one who is superior. Accordingly, because Christ, as man, is inferior to the Father, he says, as I hear it, i.e., as infused into my soul by God. We read of this kind of hearing in Psalm 84 (v 9): “1 will hear what the Lord God says in me.” But above he said “sees,” because he was then speaking of himself as the Word of God.
Consequenter cum dicit et iudicium meum iustum est, manifestat aequitatem iudicii. Dixerat enim: et procedent qui bona fecerunt in resurrectionem vitae, sed posset aliquis dicere: numquid faciet gratiam aliquibus minus puniendo, et plus remunerando? Ideo respondet quod non, dicens: quia iudicium meum verum est. Cuius ratio est quia non quaero voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me. In domino enim Iesu Christo sunt duae voluntates. Una divina quam habet eamdem cum patre; alia humana, quae est sibi propria, sicut est proprium eius esse hominem. Voluntas humana fertur in bonum proprium; sed in Christo per rectitudinem rationis regebatur et regulabatur, ut semper in omnibus voluntati divinae conformaretur; et ideo dicit: non quaero implere voluntatem meam propriam, quae, quantum in se est, inclinatur ad bonum proprium, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me, patris; Ps. XXXIX, 9: ut facerem voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, volui; Matth. XXVI, 39: non quod ego volo, sed quod tu vis. 796 Then when he says, and my judgment is just, he shows the justness of his judgment. For he had said: “Those who have done well will come forth to a resurrection of life.” But some might say: Will he be partial and uneven when he punishes and rewards? So he answers: No, saying: my judgment is just; and the reason is because I am not seeking my own will, but the will of him who sent me. For there are two wills in our Lord Jesus Christ: one is a divine will, which is the same as the will of the Father; the other is a human will, which is proper to himself, just as it is proper to him to be a man. A human will is borne to its own good; but in Christ it was ruled and regulated by right reason, so that it would always be conformed in all things to the divine will. Accordingly he says: I am not seeking my own will, which as such is inclined to its own good, but the will of him who sent me, that is, the Father: “I have desired to do your will, my God” (Ps 39:9); “Not as I will, but as you will” (Mt 26:39).
Et si quidem diligenter attenditur, dominus veram rationem assignat iusti iudicii, dicens quia non quaero voluntatem meam: non enim iudicium alicuius est iniustum, quando procedit ab eo secundum regulam legis; voluntas autem divina regula est, et lex voluntatis creatae: et ideo voluntas creata, et ratio quae regulatur secundum regulam divinae voluntatis, iusta est, et iudicium eius iustum. If this is carefully considered, the Lord is assigning the true nature of a just judgment, saying: because I am not seeking my own will. For one’s judgment is just when it is passed according to the norm of law. But the divine will is the norm and the law of the created will. And so, the created will, and the reason, which is regulated according to the norm of the divine will, is just, and its judgment is just.
Secundo vero exponitur ut referatur ad filium Dei, et manet eadem divisio quae prius posita est. Dixit ergo Christus inquantum verbum manifestans originem suae potestatis: non possum ego a me facere quidquam, eo modo sicut supra dixit: non potest filius a se facere quidquam; nam suum facere, et suum posse, est suum esse; esse autem est ei ab alio, scilicet a patre: et ideo, sicut non est a se, ita a se non potest facere quidquam; infra VIII, 28: a meipso facio nihil. 797 Secondly, it is explained as referring to the Son of God; and then the aforesaid division still remains the same. Thus Christ, as the Divine Word showing the origin of his power, says: I cannot do anything of myself, in the way he said above, “the Son cannot do anything of himself” (5:19). For his very doing and his power are his being (esse); but being (esse) in him is from another, that is, from his Father. And so, just as he is not of himself (a se), so of himself he cannot do anything: “I do nothing of myself” (below 8:28).
Hoc autem quod dicit sed sicut audio, iudico, eodem modo exponendum est sicut illud supra nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Nos enim scientiam, seu cognitionem aliquam accipimus per visum et per auditum (isti enim duo sensus maxime serviunt disciplinae), sed quia in nobis alius est visus, alius auditus; ideo aliter accipimus scientiam per visum, quia inveniendo; aliter per auditum, quia addiscendo. In filio vero Dei idem est auditus et visus; et ideo sive dicatur audit, sive vidit, idem significat secundum acceptionem scientiae. Et quia iudicium in qualibet natura intellectuali ex scientia procedit, signanter dicit sicut audio, iudico; idest, sicut cognitionem simul cum esse a patre accepi, sic iudico; infra XV, 15: omnia quae audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis. His statement, I judge only as I hear it, is explained as his previous statement, “only what he sees the Father doing” (above 5:19). For we acquire science or any knowledge through sight and hearing (for these two senses are those most used in learning). But because sight and hearing are different is us, we acquire knowledge in one way through sight, that is, by discovering things, and in a different way through hearing, that is, by being taught. But in the Son of God, sight and hearing are the same; thus, when he says either “sees” or “hears,” the meaning is the same so far as the acquisition of knowledge is concerned. And because judgment in any intelletual nature comes from knowledge, he says significantly, I judge only as I hear it, i.e., as I have acquired knowledge together with heing from the Father, so I judge: “Everything I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (below 15:15).
Manifestans vero iudicii aequitatem, dicit et iudicium meum verum est. Cuius ratio est, quia non quaero voluntatem meam. Sed numquid non est eadem voluntas patris et filii? Sed dicendum, quod eadem quidem voluntas est utriusque, sed tamen pater non habet voluntatem ab alio, filius vero habet ab alio, scilicet a patre. Sic ergo filius implet voluntatem suam ut alterius, idest ab alio habens; pater vero ut suam, idest non habens ab alio: et ideo dicit non quaero voluntatem meam, quae sit mihi originaliter a me ipso, sed quae est mihi ab alio, scilicet a patre. 798 Showing the justness of his judgment he says: and my judgment is just: the reason being, because I am not seeking my own will. But do not the Father and the Son have the same will? I answer that the Father and the Son do have the same will, but the Father does not have his will from another, whereas the Son does have his will from another, i.e., from the Father. Thus the Son accomplishes his own will as from another, i.e., as having it from another; but the Father accomplishes his will as his own, i.e., not having it from another. Thus he says: I am not seeking my own will, that is, such as would be mine if it originated from myself, but my will, as being from another, that is from the Father.

Lectio 6 LECTURE 6

31 ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ,
ἡ μαρτυρία μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής:
32 ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ,
καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ.
33 ὑμεῖς ἀπεστάλκατε πρὸς Ἰωάννην,
καὶ μεμαρτύρηκεν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ:
34 ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω,
ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε.
35 ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων,
ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλλιαθῆναι πρὸς ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ.
36 ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου:
τὰ γὰρ ἔργα ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτά, αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιῶ,
μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν:
37 καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ ἐκεῖνος μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ ἐμοῦ.
οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ πώποτε ἀκηκόατε οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε,
38 καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα,
ὅτι ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε.
39 ἐραυνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν:
καὶ ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ:
40 καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε.

31 “If I were to bear witness to myself,
my testimony would not be valid.
32 But there is someone else who testifies
on my behalf, and I know that the witness
he bears on my behalf is true.
33 You sent [messengers] to John;
and he bore witness to the truth.
34 I myself do not need proof from men;
but I say this in order that you may be saved.
35 He was a lamp, blazing and burning brightly.
And for a while you yourselves exulted in his light.
36 But I have testimony that is greater than that of John.
The very works which my Father has given me
to perform—those works that I myself perform—
they bear witness to me that the Father sent me.
37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has himself
given testimony on my behalf,
but you have neither heard his voice,
nor seen his image;
38 and you do not have his word abiding in your hearts,
for you do not believe in him whom he has sent.
39 Search the Scriptures,
since you think you have eternal life in them;
they too bear witness to me.
40 Yet you are unwilling to come to me
in order to possess that life.”

Posita doctrina circa potestatem filii vivificativam, hic consequenter confirmat eam, et primo confirmat quae de excellentia potestatis suae dixerat, per multiplex testimonium; secundo redarguit eorum tarditatem ad credendum, ibi claritatem ab hominibus non accipio et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit necessitatem inducendi testimonium; secundo inducit ipsa testimonia, ibi alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me. 799 Having given us the teaching on the life-giving power of the Son, he now confirms it. First, he confirms, with several testimonies, what he had said about the excellence of his power. In the second place, he reproves them because of their slowness to believe (v 41). He does two things about the first. First, he states why there was a need to resort to such testimonies. Secondly, he invokes the testimonies (v 32).
Necessitas testimonii inducendi erat ex parte Iudaeorum qui ei non credebant; et propter hoc dicit si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum. Sed admirationis praebet materiam quod dicitur. Nam sicut dominus de se, infra XIV, v. 6 dicit, ipse est veritas: quomodo ergo testimonium eius non est verum? Si veritas est, cui credetur si veritati non creditur? Et ideo dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod dominus hic de se loquitur secundum aliorum opinionem, ut sit sensus: si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum, quantum ad vestram reputationem, qui non accipitis illud quod de me dico, nisi per aliud testimonium confirmetur; infra VIII, 13: tu de teipso testimonium dicis: testimonium tuum non est verum. 800 The need to appeal to testimony arose because the Jews did not believe in him; for this reason he says: If I were to bear witness to myself, my testimony would not be valid (verum, valid, true). Some may find this statement puzzling: for if our Lord says of himself, “I am the truth” (below 14:6), how can his testimony not be valid? If he is the truth, in whom shall one believe if the truth itself is not believed in? We may answer, according to Chrysostom, that our Lord is speaking here of himself from the point of view of the opinion of others, so that his meaning is: If I were to bear witness to myself, my testimony would not be valid so far as your outlook is concerned, because you do not accept what I say about myself unless it is confirmed by other testimony: “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not valid” (below 8:13).
Consequenter cum dicit alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me, inducit testimonia, et primo testimonium humanum; secundo testimonium divinum, ibi ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit testimonium Ioannis; secundo rationem testimonii assignat, ibi ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit testimonium; secundo commendat eius testimonium, ibi scio quia verum est testimonium eius. Testem inducit dicens alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me. 801 Next, he presents these testimonies: first, a human testimony; secondly, a divine testimony. He does two things about the first. First, he mentions the testimony of John; secondly, he tells why this testimony was given (v 34). With respect to the first he does two things. First, he brings in the testimony; secondly, he commends it (v 32).
Iste alius, secundum Chrysostomum, est Ioannes Baptista, de quo dicitur supra I, 6: fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Ioannes: hic venit in testimonium ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. 802 He brings on the witness when he says: But there is someone else who testifies on my behalf. This is, in the opinion of Chrysostom, John the Baptist, of whom we read above: “There was a man sent by God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the light” (1:6).
Testificationem autem commendat cum dicit et scio quia verum est testimonium eius. Et hoc a duobus. Primo a veritate; secundo ab auctoritate: quia fuit ab eis requisitum, ibi vos misistis ad Ioannem. 803 He commends John’s testimony on two grounds: first, because of its truth; secondly, because of its authority, for the Jews had sought it (v 33).
A veritate quidem commendat eius testimonium, dicens et scio, idest pro certo experior, quia verum est testimonium eius, scilicet Ioannis, quod perhibet de me. Sic enim pater eius Zacharias prophetavit de eo, Lc. I, 76: praeibis enim ante faciem domini parare vias eius, ad dandam scientiam salutis plebi eius. Constat autem quod testimonium mendax non est salutiferum, sed mortiferum: quia mendacium est causa mortis; Sap. 2, 11: os quod mentitur occidit animam. Si ergo testimonium Ioannis est ad dandam scientiam salutis plebi eius, verum est testimonium eius. 804 He commends his testimony because of its truth, saying: And I know, from certain experience, that the witness he, that is, John, bears on my behalf is true. His father, Zechariah, had prophesied this of him: “You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way, to give his people a knowledge of salvation” (Lk 1:76). Now it is obvious that false testimony is not a testimony that saves, because lying is a cause of death: “A lying mouth kills the soul” (Wis 1:11). Therefore, if John’s testimony was for the purpose of giving knowledge of salvation to his people, his testimony is true.
Sed secundum Glossam aliter: si testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum. Supra Christus locutus est de se secundum quod Deus, hic vero loquitur secundum quod homo. Et est sensus: si ego, homo scilicet, testimonium de me perhibeo, scilicet absque Deo, idest quod Deus pater non perhibeat; tunc sequitur quod testimonium meum non est verum: nam verbum humanum nisi a Deo fulciatur, nihil veritatis habet, secundum illud Rom. c. III, 4: est autem Deus verax, omnis autem homo mendax. Unde si intelligamus Christum ut hominem a deitate separatum et ei non conformem, et in essentia eius mendacium invenitur et in verbis; infra VIII, v. 14: si ego testimonium perhibeo de me ipso, verum testimonium meum; infra: quia solus non sum; sed ego, et qui misit me pater. Et ideo quia non erat solus, sed cum patre, verum est testimonium eius. 805 The Gloss has a different explanation of this: If I were to bear witness to myself, my testimony would not be valid. For above, Christ was referring to himself as God, but here he is referring to himself as a man. And the meaning is: If I, namely, a man, were to bear witness to myself, i.e., apart from God, that is, which God the Father does not certify, then it follows that my testimony would not be valid, for human speech has no truth unless it is supported by God, according to: “God is true, but every man is a liar” (Rom 3:4). Thus, if we take Christ as a man separated from the Deity and not in conformity with it, we find a lie both in his essence and in his words: “Although I bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (below 8:14); “I am not alone, because the Father is with me” (below 16:32). And so, because he was not alone but with the Father, his testimony is true.
Unde ut ostendat testimonium eius veritatem non habere ex eius humanitate secundum se, sed inquantum est coniuncta divinitati et verbo Dei, dicit sed alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me: non Ioannes, sed pater, secundum istam expositionem: quia si testimonium Christi hominis de se non est verum et efficax, multo minus esset efficax testimonium Ioannis. Non ergo certificatur testimonio Ioannis, sed testimonio patris: unde iste alius qui testimonium perhibet, intelligitur pater. Et scio quia verum est testimonium eius, nam ipse veritas est; I Io. I, v. 5: Deus lux est, idest veritas, et tenebrae, mendacii, in eo non sunt ullae. Accordingly, to show that his testimony is true, not in virute of his humanity considered in itself, but in so far as it is united to his divinity and to the Word of God, he says, But there is someone else who testifies on my behalf: not John, but the Father, according to this explanation. Because if the testimony of Christ as man is not of itself true and productive, much less is the testimony of John. Therefore, the testimony of Christ is not verified by the testimony of John, but by the testimony of the Father. So this someone else who testifies is understood to be the Father. And I know that the witness he bears on my behalf is true, for he is truth: “God is light, “‘ i.e., truth, “and in him there is no darkness,” i.e., lie (1 Jn 1:5).
Sed prima expositio, quae Chrysostomi est, magis est litteralis. The first explanation, which is that given by Chrysostom, is nearer to the letter of the text.
Commendat etiam testimonium Ioannis ab auctoritate, quia fuit requisitum a Iudaeis, cum dicit vos misistis ad Ioannem; quasi diceret: scio quia verum est testimonium eius nec vos debetis illud repudiare, quia propter magnam auctoritatem qua erat apud vos Ioannes requisivistis ab eo testimonium de me; quod non fecissetis, si eum dignum fide non opinaremini. Supra I, 19: miserunt Iudaei ab Ierosolymis sacerdotes et Levitas ad Ioannem. Et Ioannes tunc testimonium perhibuit, non sibi, sed veritati, idest mihi. Sicut amicus veritatis veritati Christo testimonium perhibuit; supra I, 20: confessus est, et non negavit: confessus est, quia non sum ego Christus. 806 He also commends the testimony of John by reason of its authority, because it was sought after by the Jews, saying: You sent [messengers] to John. As if to say: I know that his testimony is true and you should not reject it, because the great authority John enjoyed among you led you to seek his testimony about me; and you would not have done this if you did not think that he was worthy of belief: “The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to him” (above 1:19). And on this occasion, John bore witness, not to himself, but to the truth, i.e., to me. As a friend of the truth, he bore testimony to the truth, which is Christ: “He declared openly, and did not deny, and stated clearly, ‘I am not the Messiah’” (above 1:20).
Consequenter cum dicit ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio, assignat rationem testimonii Ioannis inducti, et primo excludit rationem opinatam; secundo asserit veram, ibi sed hoc dico ut vos salvi sitis. 807 Then (v 34), he gives the reason why an appeal was made to the testimony of John. First, he excludes a supposed reason. Next, he presents the true reason (v 34b).
Ratio autem inducti testimonii posset ab aliquo credi esse certificatio de Christo, propter eius insufficentiam; et ideo hanc excludit dicens ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio. Ubi sciendum est, quod in scientiis aliquando probatur aliquid per minus notum secundum se, sed magis notum quoad nos; aliquando per aliquid magis notum secundum se et simpliciter. Sicut in hoc loco debebat quidem probari quod Christus esset Deus: et licet veritas Christi esset magis nota secundum se et simpliciter, nihilominus tamen probatur testimonio Ioannis, quod quantum ad Iudaeos magis notum erat. Et ideo Christus secundum se testimonio Ioannis non indigebat, et hoc est quod dicit testimonium ab homine non accipio. 808 Someone might think that John’s testimony was brought in to assure them about Christ, on the ground that Christ’s own testimony was not sufficient. He excludes this reason when he says, I myself do not need proof from men. Here we should note that sometimes in the sciences a thing is proved by something else which is more evident to us, but which is less evident in itself; and at other times a thing is proved by something else which is more evident in itself and absolutely. Now, in this case, the issue is to prove that Christ is God. And, although the truth of Christ is, in itself and absolutely, more evident, yet it is proved by the testimony of John, which was better known to the Jews. So Christ, of himself, did not have any need of John’s testimony; and this is what he says: I myself do not need proof from men.
Sed contra hoc videtur, quia Is. c. XLIII, 10: vos testes mei, dicit dominus; Act. I, 8: eritis mihi testes in omni Iudaea et Samaria, et usque ad ultimum terrae. Quomodo ergo dicit hic testimonium ab homine non accipio? 809 But this seems to conflict with: “You are my witnesses, said the Lord” (Is 40:10); and with “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of Judea and Samaria, and to the remotest part of the world” (Acts 1:8). So how can he say: I myself do not need proof from men.
Sed dicendum, quod hoc dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo ut sit sensus non accipio ab homine testimonium, quasi sim illo tantum contentus; sed habeo maius testimonium, scilicet divinum; I Cor. IV, 3: mihi autem pro minimo est ut a vobis iudicer; Ier. XVII, 16: diem hominis, idest claritatem humanam, non desideravit: tu scis. This can be understood in two ways. In the first way, the sense is: I myself do not need proof from men, as relying on it alone; but I have stronger testimony, that is, divine testimony: “For me, it does not matter much if I am judged by you” (1 Cor 4:3); “You know that I have not desired the day of man,” i.e., human glory (Jer 17:16).
Alio modo testimonium ab homine non accipio, inquantum scilicet testificans est homo, sed inquantum est illustratus a Deo ad testificandum; supra I, 6: fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Ioannes; I Thess. II, 6: non quaerentes ab hominibus gloriam; infra VIII, v. 50: ego gloriam meam non quaero. Sic ergo accipio testimonium Ioannis, non inquantum fuit homo, sed inquantum missus et illustratus a Deo ad testificandum. Another interpretation is: I myself do not need proof from men, insofar as the one giving witness is a man, but insofar as he is enlightened by God in order to testify: “There was a man sent by God, whose name was John” (above 1:6); “We did not seek glory from men” (1 Thes 2:6); “1 do not seek my own glory” (below 8:50). And so I receive the testimony of John not just as a man, but insofar as he was sent and enlightened by God in order to testify.
Tertio modo, et melius, ego testimonium non accipio ab homine, idest, testimonio humano; quantum ex me est, auctoritatem non accipio ab aliquo, sed a Deo, qui demonstrat me clarum. A third explanation, and a better one, is: I myself do not need proof from men, i.e., human testimony. As far as I am concerned, I receive my authority from no one but God, who proves that I am great.
Consequenter cum dicit sed haec dico ut vos salvi sitis, asserit rationem veram, quae erat ipsorum salus: et primo ponit rationem; secundo exponit eam. Ratio vero inducti testimonii erat, ut Iudaei credentes Christo, testimonio Ioannis salvarentur; et ideo dicit: non accipio testimonium Ioannis propter me, sed haec dico ut salvi sitis; I Tim. II, 4: vult omnes homines salvos fieri; et ibid. I, 15: Christus Iesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere. 810 Next (v 34b), he gives the real reason for appealing to John’s testimony. First, he states the reason. Secondly, he explains it. The reason for appealing to this testimony was so that the Jews might be saved by believing in Christ, and this because of John’s testimony. Thus he says: I do not need John’s testimony for my sake, but I say this in order that you may be saved: “He desires the salvation of’ all men” (1 Tim 2:4). “Christ came into this world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).
Et exponit quod dicit salvi sitis: quia scilicet induco testimonium a vobis acceptatum. Et ideo cum dicit ille erat lucerna ardens et lucens, ponit Ioannis acceptationem: et primo ponit quod Ioannes fuit testis secundum se acceptus; secundo quomodo fuit acceptatus apud eos, ibi vos autem voluistis ad horam exultare in luce eius. 811 He explains his statement, in order that you may be saved: that is, because I am appealing to testimony you have accepted. And so he mentions that John was accepted by them: He was a lamp, blazing and burning brightly. First, he states that John was a witness accepted on his own merits. Secondly, he mentions to what degree he was accepted by them (v 35b).
Quod autem Ioannes fuerit secundum se acceptus testis, ostendit per tria quae eum perficiebant. Primum pertinet ad conditionem naturae et hoc cum dicit ille erat lucerna; secundum pertinet ad perfectionem affectus, quia ardens; tertium ad perfectionem intellectus, quia lucens. 812 Three things perfected John and show that he was a witness accepted in his own right. The first concerns the condition of his nature, and he refers to this when he says, He was a lamp. The second concerns the perfection of his love, because he was a blazing lamp. The third is related to the perfection of his understanding, because he was a lamp that was burning brightly.
Erat ergo in natura perfectus, quia lucerna, idest, illustratus gratia, et illustratus luce verbi Dei. Differt enim lucerna a luce: nam lux est quae per seipsam lucet; lucerna vero quae non per se lucet, sed per participationem lucet. Lux autem vera Christus est, ut dicitur supra I, 9: erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem. Ioannes autem lux non erat, ut ibidem dicitur, sed lucerna, quia illustratus erat, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, ducendo ad Christum: de qua lucerna dicitur in Ps. CXXXI, 17: paravi lucernam Christo meo. John was perfect in his nature because he was a lamp, i.e., enriched by grace and illumined by the light of the Word of God. Now a lamp differs from a light: for a light radiates light of itself, but a lamp does not give light of itself, but by participating in the light. Now the true light is Christ: “He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world” (above 1:9). John, however, was not a light, as we read in the same place, but a lamp, because he was enlightened “in order to bear witness to the light” (above 1:8), by leading men to Christ. We read of this lamp: “I have prepared a lamp for my anointed” (Ps 131:17).
Sed erat in eo affectus ardens et fervens, unde dicit ardens. Nam aliqui sunt lucernae solum quantum ad officium, sed quantum ad affectum sunt extinctae: nam sicut lucerna lucere non potest nisi igne accendatur, ita lucerna spiritualis non lucet nisi prius ardeat et inflammetur igne caritatis. Et ideo ardor praemittitur illustrationi, quia per ardorem caritatis datur cognitio veritatis; infra XIV, 23: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, et pater meus diliget eum: et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus; infra XV, 15: vos autem dixi amicos, quia omnia quae audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis. Eccli. II, 20: qui timetis Deum, diligite illum, et illuminabuntur corda vestra. Further, he was blazing and impassioned in his affections, so he says, blazing. For some people are lamps only as to their office or rank, but they are snuffed out in their affections: for as a lamp cannot give light unless there is a fire blazing within it, so a spiritual lamp does not give any light unless it is first set ablaze and burns with the fire of love. Therefore, to be ablaze comes first, and the giving of light depends on it, because knowledge of the truth is given due to the blazing of love: “If any one loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him” (below 14:23); and “I have called you friends, because everything I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (below 15:15); “You who fear the Lord, love him, and your hearts will be enlightened” (Sir 2:20).
Nam ignis duo habet: scilicet quod ardet et splendet. Ardor autem ignis significat dilectionem propter tria. Primo quidem, quia ignis inter omnia corpora est magis activus: sic et ardor caritatis, intantum quod nihil eius impetum ferre potest, secundum illud II Cor. V, v. 14: caritas Christi urget nos. Secundo, quia sicut ignis per hoc quod est maxime sensitivus, facit multum aestuare, ita et caritas aestum causat quousque homo consequatur intentum; Cant. ult., 6: lampades eius lampades ignis atque flammarum. Tertio sicut ignis est sursum ductivus, ita et caritas, intantum quod coniungit nos Deo; I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. The two characteristics of fire are that it both blazes and shines. Its blazing signifies love for three reasons. First, because fire is the most active of all bodies; so too is the warmth of love (charity), so much so that nothing can withstand its force: “The love of Christ spurs us on” (2 Cor 5:14). Secondly, because just as fire, because it is very volatile, causes great unrest, so also this love of charity makes a person restless until he achieves his objective: “Its light is fire and flame” (Sg 8:6). Thirdly, just as fire is inclined to move upward, so too is charity; so much so that it joins us to God: “He who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1Jn 4:16).
Erat etiam intellectus lucens. Primo quidem per veritatis cognitionem interius; Is. c. LVIII, 11: implebit splendoribus idest, splendere faciet. Secundo per praedicationem exterius; Phili II, 15: inter quos lucetis tamquam luminaria in mundo, verbum vitae continentes. Tertio per bonorum operum manifestationem; Matth. V, 16: sic luceat lux vestra coram hominibus, ut videant opera vestra bona. Finally, John had an intellect that was burning brightly. First, it was bright within, because of his knowledge of the truth: “The Lord will fill your soul with brightness,” i.e., he will make it shine (Is 58:11). Secondly, it was bright without, because of his preaching: “You will shine in the world among them like stars, containing the word of life” (Phil 2:15). Thirdly, it was bright because it manifested good works: “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works” (Mt 5:16).
Quia ergo sic Ioannes acceptabilis erat secundum se, quia erat lucerna non extincta, sed ardens, non tenebrosa, sed lucens; dignus est quod et apud vos acceptaretur. Quod quidem ita fuit, quia vos voluistis exultare ad horam in luce eius. Et congrue exultationem luci adiungit: quia in illo homo exultat in quo maxime delectatur; nihil autem est in rebus corporalibus delectabilius luce, secundum illud Eccle. XI, 7: delectabile est oculis videre solem. Dicit autem voluistis exultare, quiescendo et ponendo in eo finem, credendo eum Christum; sed tamen ad horam, quia in hoc fuistis instabiles: nam videntes Ioannem homines ad alium, non ad se, ducere, aversi estis ab eo. Unde dicitur Matth. XXI, 32 quod Iudaei non crediderunt in Ioannem. Sunt enim de illis de quibus dicitur Matth. XIII, quia ad tempus credunt. 813 And so, because John was of himself so acceptable—for he was a lamp, not smothered out but blazing, not dark but burning brightly—he deserved to be accepted by you, as indeed he was, because for a time you yourselves exulted in his light. He fittingly links their exulting or rejoicing with light; because a man rejoices most is that which most pleases him. And among physical things nothing is more pleasant than light, according to: “It is a delight for the eyes to see the sun” (Sir 11:7). He says, you yourselves exulted in his light, i.e., you rested in John and put your end in him, thinking that he was the Messiah. But you did this only for a time, because you wavered on this; for when you saw that John was leading men to another, and not to himself, you turned away from him. Thus we read in Matthew (21:32) that the Jews did not believe in John. They belonged to that group referred to by Matthew (13:21) as believing “for a while.”
Consequenter cum dicit ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne, ponit testimonium divinum, et primo inducit eius magnitudinem; secundo prosequitur de ipso, ibi opera quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea et cetera. 814 Then (v 36), he presents the divine testimony. First, he mentions its greatness; and then he continues on to describe it.
Dicit ergo primo: dico quod ego quantum est ex me, non accipio ab homine testimonium, sed propter vos; nam ego habeo testimonium maius Ioanne, scilicet Dei, quod est maius testimonium quam Ioannis; I Io. ult., 9: si testimonium hominum accipimus, testimonium Dei maius est. Maius, inquam, propter maiorem auctoritatem, maiorem cognitionem, et infallibiliorem veritatem: nam Deus mentiri non potest. Non est Deus ut homo, ut mentiatur: Num. XXIII, 19. Testimonium autem prosequitur cum dicit opera enim quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea et cetera. 815 He says: I do not need proof from men for my sake, but for your sake, for I have testimony that is greater than that of John, that is, the testimony of God, which is greater than the testimony of John: “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater” (1 Jn 5:9), It is greater, I say, because of its greater authority, greater knowledge, and infallible truth, for God cannot deceive: “God is not like man, a liar” (Nm 23:19).
Tripliciter autem testificatus est Deus de Christo: scilicet per opera, per seipsum et per Scripturas, et ideo primo ponit modum testificandi quantum ad opera miraculorum; secundo modum testificandi per seipsum, ibi et qui misit me pater, ipse testimonium perhibuit; tertio per Scripturas, ibi scrutamini Scripturas et cetera. 816 God bore witness to Christ in three ways: by works, by himself, and by the Scriptures. First, he mentions his witness as given by the working of miracles; secondly, the way God gave witness by himself (v 37); thirdly, the witness given through the Scriptures (v 39).
Dicit ergo primo: habeo aliud testimonium maius Ioanne; et hoc quantum ad opera, quia opera miraculorum quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea. Sciendum est enim, quod naturale est homini virtutem et naturas rerum ex earum actionibus cognoscere: et ideo convenienter dominus per opera quae ipse facit, dicit se posse cognosci qualis sit. Cum ergo ipse propria virtute divina faceret, credendum erat in eo esse virtutem divinam; infra XV, 24: si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent, scilicet infidelitatis. Et ideo ad sui cognitionem per opera sua ducit, dicens opera quae dedit mihi, in verbo, pater, per aeternam generationem dando mihi virtutem sibi aequalem. Vel dedit mihi, in conceptione, dando ut sim una persona Dei et hominis, ut perficiam ea idest, ut propria virtute faciam: quod dicit ad differentiam aliorum qui miracula faciunt non propria virtute, sed impetrando a Deo. Unde Petrus dicebat Act. III, 6: in nomine Iesu Christi Nazareni surge. Et ideo ipsi non perficiunt, sed Deus; Christus vero propria virtute ea perficiebat; infra XI, 43: Lazare, veni foras. Et ideo opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me; infra X, 38. Si mihi non creditis, saltem operibus credite. Quod autem opera miraculorum sint testimonia Dei, dicitur Mc. ult., 20: domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis. 817 He says first: I have testimony that is greater than that of John, that is, my works, i.e., the working of miracles, the very works which my Father has given me to perform. We should point out that it is natural for man to learn of the power and natures of things from their actions, and therefore our Lord fittingly says that the sort of person he is can be learned through the works he does. So, since he performed divine works by his own power, we should believe that he has divine power within him: “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin,” that is, the sin of unbelief (below 15:24). And so he leads them to a knowledge of himself by appealing to his works, saying, the very works which my Father has given me in the Word, through an eternal generation, by giving me a power equal to his own. Or we could say, the very works which my Father has given me, in my conception, by making me one person who is both God and man, to perform, i.e., to perform them by my own power. He says this to distinguish himself from those who do not perforrn miracles by their own power but have to obtain it as a favor from God; thus Peter says: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth: stand up” (Acts 3:6). Thus it was God, and not themselves, who accomplished these works; but Christ accomplished them by his own power: “Lazarus, come forth,” as John reports below (11:43). Accordingly, those works that I myself perform—they bear witness to me; “If you do not believe me, at least believe my works” (below 10:38). We see from Mark (16:20) that God bears witness by the working of miracles: “The Lord worked with them and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.”
Consequenter cum dicit et qui misit me pater, ipse testimonium perhibuit de me, ponit secundum modum testificandi per ipsum Deum, et primo ponit ipsum modum; secundo ostendit eos huiusmodi non esse capaces, ibi neque vocem eius unquam audistis et cetera. 818 Then (v 37), he presents the second way God bore witness to Christ, namely, by himself. First, he mentions the way; secondly, he shows that they were not able to receive this testimony.
Dicit ergo: non solum opera quae dedit mihi pater, testimonium perhibent de me, sed ipse qui misit me, pater, testimonium perhibuit de me, in Iordane, quando fuit baptizatus, ut habetur Matth. IV, 5, et in monte, quando transfiguratus est, ut dicitur Matth. XVII, 5. Utrobique enim vox patris audita est: hic est filius meus dilectus. Et ideo credendum est ei, sicut vero et naturali filio Dei; I Io. ult., 9: hoc testimonium Dei, quod maius est, quia testificatus est de filio suo. Et sic, qui non credit eum esse filium Dei, non credit Dei testimonio. 819 He says: It is not only the works which my Father has given me to perform that bear witness to me, but the Father who sent me has himself given testimony on my behalf: in the Jordan, when Christ was baptized (Mt 3:17); and on the mountain, when Christ was transfigured (Mt 17:5). For on both these occasions the voice of the Father was heard: “This is my beloved Son.” And so they should believe in Christ, as the true and natural Son of God: “This is the testimony of God: he has borne witness to his Son” (1 Jn 5:9). Consequently, anyone who does not believe that he is the Son of God, does not believe in the testimony of God.
Sed posset aliquis dicere, quod Deus etiam aliis testimonium perhibuit per seipsum, sicut Moysi in monte, cum quo locutus est, cunctis audientibus; testimonium vero numquam audivimus, et ideo dicit dominus, quod neque vocem eius unquam audistis et cetera. Sed contra Deut. IV, 33, dicitur: si factum est aliquando res huiuscemodi, ut audiret populus vocem domini Dei loquentis de medio ignis, sicut tu audisti et vidisti. Quid est ergo quod nunc dicit Christus neque vocem eius unquam audistis? 820 Someone could say that God also gave testimony to others by himself: for example, to Moses, on the mountain, with whom God spoke while others were present. We, however, never heard his testimony, as the Lord says: you have neither heard his voice. On the other hand, we read in Deuteronomy (4:33): Did it ever happen before that the people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of fire, as you heard, and have lived?” Then how can Christ say: you have neither heard his voice?
Respondeo, secundum Chrysostomum, quod dominus eos in philosophica consideratione constituens, vult ostendere, quod Deus testificatur alicui dupliciter, scilicet sensibiliter et intelligibiliter. Sensibiliter quidem, sicut per vocem sensibilem tantum; et hoc modo testificatus fuit Moysi in monte Sinai; Deut. IV, 12: vocem eius audistis, et formam penitus non vidistis. Item per sensibilem speciem, sicut apparuit Abrahae Gen. XXVI, et Is. VI, 1: vidi dominum sedentem supra solium excelsum et elevatum. Sed tamen in istis visionibus nec vox corporalis nec figura Dei est sicut cuiusdam animalis, sed effective, inquantum a Deo formatur: nam cum Deus sit spiritus, neque vocem sensibilem de se emittit, nec figurari potest. Intelligibiliter autem testificatur inspirando in cordibus aliquorum quod credere debeant et tenere; Ps. LXXXIV, 9: audiam quid loquatur in me dominus Deus; Osee II, v. 4: ducam eam in solitudinem, et ibi loquar ad cor eius. I reply, according to Chrysostom, that the Lord wishes to show those established in a philosophical frame of mind that God gives testimony to someone in two ways, namely, sensibly and intelligibly. Sensibly, as by a sensible voice only; and in this way he gave witness to Moses on Mount Sinai: “You heard his voice, and saw no form at all” (Dt 4:12). Likewise, he gives testimony by a sensible form, as he appeared to Abraham (Gn 26), and to Isaiah: “I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne” (Is 6:1). However, in these visions, neither the audible voice nor the visible figure were like anything in the animal kingdom, except efficiently, in the sense that these were formed by God. For since God is a spirit, he neither emits audible sounds nor can he be portrayed as a figure. But he does bear testimony in an intelligible manner by inspiring in the hearts of certain persons what they ought to believe and to hold: “I will hear what the Lord God will speak within me” (Ps 84:9); “I will lead her into the wilderness and there I will speak to her heart,” as we read in Hosea (2:14).
Primo ergo testificationis capaces fuistis: nec mirum, quia non fuerunt Dei nisi effective, ut dictum est, voces illae et species. Sed non intelligibilis illius vocis. Neque vocem eius unquam audistis etc., idest participes eius non fuistis; infra VI, 45: omnis qui audit a patre et didicit, venit ad me. Sed vos non venitis ad me; ergo non audistis vocem eius, nec vidistis speciem eius; idest non habuistis istud testimonium intelligibile, et ideo subdit et verbum eius non habetis in vobis manens; idest, non habetis verbum interius inspiratum. Et haec ratio est, quia quem misit ille, idest pater, huic vos non creditis. Verbum enim Dei ducit ad Christum: nam ipse Christus est naturale Dei verbum. Omne autem verbum a Deo inspiratum, est quaedam participata similitudo illius. Cum ergo omnis similitudo participata ducat in suum principium, manifestum est quod omne verbum inspiratum a Deo ducit ad Christum. Et ideo, quia vos non ducimini ad me, non habetis verbum Dei, inspiratum, in vobis manens; infra: qui non credit in filium Dei, non habet vitam in se manentem. Et dicit manens, quia cum nullus sit quin aliquam veritatem habeat a Deo, illi tantum habent veritatem, et verbum in ipsis manens, quibus intantum cognitio proficit ut perducantur ad veri et naturalis verbi cognitionem. Now you were able to receive the testimony given in the first of these ways; and this is not surprising, because they were the words and image of God only efficiently, as was said. But they were not able to receive the testimony given in that intelligible voice; so he says: you have neither heard his voice, i.e., you were not among those who shared in it. “Everyone who has heard the Father and has learned, comes to me” (below 6:45). But you do not come to me. Therefore, you have neither heard his voice nor seen his image, i.e., you do not have his intelligible testimony. Hence he adds: and you do not have his word abiding in your hearts, i.e., you do not have his word that is inwardly inspired. And the reason is, for you do not believe in him whom he, the Father, has sent. For the word of God leads to Christ, since Christ himself is the natural Word of God. But every word inspired by God is a certain participated likeness of that Word. Therefore, since every participated likeness leads to its original, it is clear that every word inspired by God leads to Christ. And so, because you are not led to me, you do not have his word, i.e., the inspired word of God, abiding in your hearts. “He who does not believe in the Son of God does not have life abiding in him,” as it says below (sic). He says abiding, because although there is no one who does not have some truth from God, they alone have the truth and the word abiding in them whose knowledge has progressed to the point where they have reached a knowledge of the true and natural Word.
Vel per hoc quod dicit neque vocem eius unquam audistis, ostenditur triplex modus quo a Deo aliquid revelatur alicui. Quia vel per vocem sensibilem, et sic testificatus est Christo in Iordane et in monte, ut dictum est II Petri I, 16: speculatores facti illius magnitudinis, voce lapsa de caelo a magnifica gloria. Et hanc Iudaei non audierunt. Vel per visionem suae essentiae; et hanc revelat beatis. Et hanc speciem ipsi non viderunt, quia II Cor. V, 6: quamdiu sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a domino et cetera. Vel per interius verbum inspirando; et hoc etiam ipsi non habebant. 821 Or we could say that, you have neither heard his voice, can be taken as showing the three ways in which God reveals things. This is done either by a sensible voice, as he bore witness to Christ in the Jordan and on the mountain, as in 2 Peter (1:16): “We were eyewitnesses of his greatness. For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when a voice came from the heavens.” And the Jews did not hear this. Or, God reveals things through a vision of his essence, which he reveals to the blessed. And they did not see this, because “while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord” (2 Cor 5:6). Thirdly, it is accomplished by an interior word through an inspiration; and the Jews did not have this either.
Consequenter cum dicit scrutamini Scripturas, ponit tertium modum quo Deus testificatus est Christo per Scripturas, et primo inducit Scripturarum testimonium; secundo ostendit eos fructu huius testimonii non esse capaces, ibi et non vultis venire ad me et cetera. 822 Then when he says, Search the Scriptures, he gives the third way in which God bore witness to Christ, through the Scriptures. First, he mentions the testimony of the Scriptures. Secondly, he shows that they were not able to gather the fruit of this testimony (v 40).
Dicit ergo scrutamini Scripturas, quasi dicat: vos non habetis verbum Dei in cordibus vestris, sed in Scripturis; et ideo oportet vos illud alibi quaerere. Et ideo scrutamini Scripturas; scilicet veteris testamenti. Nam fides Christi in veteri testamento continebatur, sed non in superficie, quia in profundo obumbrata figura latebat; II Cor. III, 15: usque in hodiernum diem ipsum velamen habentes. Et ideo signanter dicit scrutamini, quasi in profundum quaeratis; Prov. II, 4: si quaesieris eam quasi pecuniam, et sicut thesauros effoderis illam, tunc intelliges timorem domini, et scientiam Dei invenies; Ps. CXVIII, 69: da mihi intellectum, et scrutabor mandata tua. 823 He says: Search the Scriptures. As if to say: You do not have the word of God in your hearts, but in the Scriptures; therefore, you must seek for it elsewhere than in your hearts. Hence, Search the Scriptures, that is, the Old Testament, for the faith of Christ was contained in the Old Testament, but not on the surface, for it lay hidden in its depths, under shadowy symbols: “Even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil is over their hearts” (2 Cor 3:15). Thus he significantly says, Search, probe into the depths: “If you search for her [wisdom] like money, and dig for her like a treasure, you will understand the fear of the Lord and will find the knowledge of God” (Prv 2:4); “Give me understanding and I will search your commandments” (Ps 118:34).
Ratio autem scrutinii ex vestra opinione sumitur quia putatis in eis, scilicet Scripturis, vitam aeternam habere, ex hoc quod dicitur Ez. XVIII, 19: qui fecerit iudicia mea, vita vivet. Sed estis decepti; quia licet praecepta veteris legis vitalia sint, non tamen vitam habent in seipsis; sed intantum dicuntur vitalia inquantum ducunt ad me Christum; cum tamen vos utamini eis tamquam in se vitam habentibus: quod decepit vos. Nam illae, scilicet Scripturae, sunt quae testimonium perhibent de me; idest, intantum vitalia sunt inquantum ad meam cognitionem ducunt. Vel apertis prophetiis, sicut Is. VII, 14: ecce virgo concipiet, et iterum Deut. XVIII, v. 15: prophetam suscitabit vobis dominus Deus et cetera. Unde dicitur Actor. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. Vel operationibus prophetarum mysticis: unde dicitur Oseae XII, 10: in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum. Vel in sacramentis et figuris; sicut est immolatio agni, et alia figuralia sacramenta legis; Hebr. X, 1: umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum et cetera. Et ideo, quia Scripturae veteris testamenti multipliciter testimonium perhibent de Christo, dicit apostolus, Rom. I, 2: quod ante promiserat per prophetas in Scripturis sanctis de filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. The reason why you should search them I take from your own opinion, because you think you have eternal life in them, since we read in Ezekiel (18:19): “He who has kept my commands will live.” But you are mistaken; because although the precepts of the old law are living, they do not contain life in themselves. They are said to be living only to the extent that they lead to me, the Christ. Yet you use them as though they contained life in themselves, and in this you are mistaken, for they bear witness to me, i.e., they are living to the extent that they lead to a knowledge of me. And they lead to a knowledge of me either by plain prophecies, as in Isaiah (7:14): “A virgin will conceive.” or in Deuteronomy (18:15): “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you.”; and so Acts (10:43) says: “All the prophets bear witness to him.” The Scriptures also lead to a knowledge of Christ through the symbolic actions of the prophets; thus we read: “I have used resemblances in the ministry of the prophets” (Hos 12:10). Knowledge of Christ is also given in their sacraments and figures, as in the immolation of’ the lamb, and other symbolic sacraments of the law: “The law has only a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb 10:1). And so, because “the Scriptures of the Old Testament gave much testimony about Christ, the Apostle says: “He promised the Good News before, through his prophets in the holy Scriptures; the Good News of his Son, a descendant of David in his human nature” (Rom 1:2).
Sed fructum quem in Scripturis putatis habere, scilicet vitam aeternam, consequi non poteritis, quia testimoniis Scripturae de me non credentes, non vultis venire ad me; idest, non vultis credere mihi, in quem est fructus illarum Scripturarum, ut in me vitam habeatis, quam ego do credentibus in me; infra X, 28: ego vitam aeternam do eis; Eccli. IV, 12: sapientia filiis suis vitam inspirat; Prov. VIII, 35: qui me invenerit inveniet vitam, et hauriet salutem a domino. 824 The fruit which you think you have in the Scriptures, that is, eternal life, you will not be able to obtain, because in not believing the testimonies of the Scriptures about me, you are unwilling to come to me, i.e., you do not wish to believe in me, in whom the fruit of these Scriptures exists, in order to possess that life in me, the life which I give to those who believe in me: “I give them eternal life” (below 10:28); “Wisdom infuses life into her children” (Sir 4:12); “He who finds me will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord” (Prv 8:35).

Lectio 7 LECTURE 7

41 δόξαν παρὰ ἀνθρώπων οὐ λαμβάνω,
42 ἀλλὰ ἔγνωκα ὑμᾶς ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
43 ἐγὼ ἐλήλυθα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετέ με:
ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τῷ ἰδίῳ, ἐκεῖνον λήμψεσθε.
44 πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεῦσαι,
δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε;
45 μὴ δοκεῖτε ὅτι ἐγὼ κατηγορήσω ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα:
ἔστιν ὁ κατηγορῶν ὑμῶν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε.
46 εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε Μωϋσεῖ,
ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐμοί, περὶ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψεν.
47 εἰ δὲ τοῖς ἐκείνου γράμμασιν οὐ πιστεύετε,
πῶς τοῖς ἐμοῖς ῥήμασιν πιστεύσετε;

41 “Praise from men I do not need,
42 but I know you,
and you do not have the love of God in your hearts.
43 I have come in my Father’s name,
and yet you do not accept me.
If someone else came in his own name,
you would be accepting him.
44 How can people like you believe,
when you crave praise from each other,
and yet not even ask for that one praise
which is from God alone?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you
before my Father.
The one who accuses you is Moses,
in whom you place your trust.
46 If you believed Moses,
you would perhaps believe me as well,
for it was about me that he wrote.
47 But if you do not believe in his written statements,
how will you believe in my spoken words?”

Postquam Deus excellentiam suae potestatis confirmavit testimoniis hominum, Dei et Scripturarum, hic consequenter eorum tarditatem ad credendum redarguit. Duplici autem occasione Iudaei persequebantur Christum: propter solutionem sabbati, in quo videbatur contrarius legi; et quia dicebat se Dei filium, in quo videbatur contrarius Deo. Unde propter reverentiam quam habebant ad Deum, et propter zelum quem habebant ad legem Moysi, persequebantur. Et ideo dominus intendit ostendere quod non propter hoc eum persequebantur, sed propter contrarium. 825 After God confirmed the greatness of his power by the testimonies of men, of’God, and of’ the Scriptures, he here rebukes the Jews for being slow to believe. Now the Jews persecuted Christ on two grounds: for breaking the Sabbath, by which he seemed to go against the law, and for saying that he is the Son of God, by which he seemed to go against God. Thus they persecuted him on account of their reverence for God and their zeal for the law. And so our Lord wishes to show that their persecution of him was really inspired not by these motives, but by contrary reasons.
Unde primo ostendit irreverentiam ipsorum ad Deum esse causam incredulitatis ipsorum; secundo quod irreverentia, quam habebant ad Moysen, fuit causa incredulitatis ipsorum, ibi nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sum vos apud patrem. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit irreverentiam ipsorum ad Deum; secundo ostendit quod hoc sit causa incredulitatis ipsorum, ibi quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis? Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit eorum indevotionem ad Deum; secundo manifestat eam per signum, ibi ego veni in nomine patris mei. Circa primum duo facit. Primo excludit intentionem opinatam, quae ex verbis praemissis accipi posset; secundo asserit veram, ibi sed cognovi vos et cetera. He first shows that the cause of their unbelief was their lack of reverence for God. Secondly, that another cause of their unbelief was their lack of reverence for Moses (v 45). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows their irreverence for God. Secondly, he shows that this is the cause of their unbelief (v 44). Concerning the first he does two things. First, he mentions their lack of reverence for God. Secondly, he makes this obvious by a sign (v 43). With respect to the first he does two things. First, he rejects what they might have assumed to be his intention, from what he had said before. Secondly, he presents his real intention (v 42).
Intentio opinata est, quod quia dominus supra commemoraverat tot testimonia de seipso, scilicet Ioannis, Dei, et operum suorum, et Scripturarum, posset opinari a Iudaeis quod hoc fecerit quasi quaerens humanam gloriam. Contra hoc dicit claritatem ab hominibus non accipio; idest, laudem humanam non quaero. Non enim veni ut exemplum darem quaerendi gloriam hominum; I Thess. II, 6: neque quaerentes ab hominibus gloriam: Deus testis est. Vel claritatem ab hominibus non accipio, idest, claritate humana non indigeo, quia ab aeterno claritatem habeo apud patrem; infra XVII, 5: clarifica me pater, claritate quam habui antequam mundus fieret. Non enim veni clarificari ab hominibus, sed potius eos clarificare, cum a me omnis claritas procedat. Sap. c. VIII, 10: habebo per hanc sapientiam claritatem. Dicitur autem Deus clarificari et gloriari ab hominibus, secundum illud Eccli. XLIII, v. 32: glorificantes Deum quantumcumque potestis, praevalebit adhuc, non ut ipse propter hoc gloriosior fiat, sed inquantum gloriosus apparet in nobis. 826 The Jews might have assumed that Christ was seeking some kind of praise from men, since he had reminded them of so many witnesses to himself, as John, God, his own works, and the testimony of the Scriptures. Against this thought he says, Praise from men I do not need, i.e., I do not seek praise from men; for I have not come to be an example of one seeking human glory: “We did not seek glory from men” (1 Thes 2:6). Or, Praise from men I do not need, i.e., I do not need human praise, because from eternity I have glory with the Father: “Glorify me, Father, with the glory I had before the world was made” (below 17:5). For I have not come to be glorified by men, but rather to glorify them, since all glory proceeds from me (Wis 7:25) [“Wisdom is a pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God.”] It is through this wisdom that I have glory. God is said to be praised and glorified by men—“Glorify the Lord as much as you are able; he will still surpass even that” (Sir 43:30)—not that he might become by this more glorious, but so that he might appear glorious among us.
Non est ergo haec causa propositorum testimoniorum, sed alia est: quia cognovi, idest cognoscere feci, quia non habetis dilectionem Dei in vobis, quam habere vos fingitis, unde non propter Dei amorem me persequimini. Nam tunc propter Deum me persequeremini, si Deus et Scriptura non mihi testimonium perhiberent; sed ipse Deus mihi testatur et per opera, et per Scripturas, et per seipsum, ut dictum est; et ideo si Deum amaretis, oporteret ut sicut me abiicitis, ita ad me veniretis. Non ergo diligitis Deum. 827 Thus Christ presented the various testimonies to himself not for the reason they thought, but for another one: because I know you, i.e., I have made known about you, that you do not have the love of God in your hearts, although you pretend to have it. And so you are not persecuting me because of your love for God. You would be persecuting me for the love of God if God and the Scriptures did not bear witness to me; but God himself bears. witness to me by himself, his works and in the Scriptures, as has been said. Consequently, if you truly loved God, then so far from rejecting me, you would come to me. You, therefore, do not love God.
Vel aliter sed cognovi vos, quasi dicat: non induxi huiusmodi testimonia, indigens vestra clarificatione; sed scio, et condoleo vobis errantibus, qui non diligitis Deum, et volo vos reducere ad viam veritatis; infra XV, 24: nunc autem et viderunt, et oderunt et me et patrem; Ps. LXXIII, 23: superbia eorum, qui te oderunt, ascendit semper. Another interpretation would be this. It is as though he were saying: I have not brought in these witnesses because I wanted your praise; but I know you do not love God and your waywardness makes me sad, and I want to lead you back to the way of truth: “Now they have seen and hated both me and my Father” (below 15:24); “The pride of those who hate you continuously rises,” as the Psalm (73:23) says.
Sed sciendum, quod Deus in seipso a nullo potest haberi odio, nec secundum omnes effectus suos, cum omne bonum, quod est in rebus, sit a Deo, et impossibile sit quod aliquis habeat odium omnis boni, quin ad minus esse et vivere diligat. Sed tamen aliquem effectum Dei odio aliquis habet, inquantum suo appetitui contrariatur, ut poenam, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Et secundum hoc dicitur habere Deum odio. 828 Here we should point out that God cannot be hated in himself by anyone, nor can he be hated with respect to all his effects, since every good in things comes from God, and it is impossible for anyone to hate all good, for he will at least love existence and life. But someone may hate some effect of God, insofar as this is opposed to what he desires: for example, he might hate punishment, and things of that sort. It is from this point of view that God is said to be hated.
Signum autem quod dilectionem Dei non habent, ponit cum dicit ego veni in nomine patris mei, et non accepistis me, et primo ponit unum signum de praesenti; secundo aliud de futuro, ibi si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis. 829 Then (v 43), he gives a sign that they do not love God. First, a present sign; secondly, a future sign (v 43b).
Signum de praesenti sumitur ex eius adventu; et ideo dicit ego veni in nomine patris mei, quasi diceret: manifeste apparet quod dico, nam si aliquis diligit dominum suum, manifestum est quod honorat et recipit eum qui venit ex parte sua, et honorem eius quaerit; sed ego veni in nomine patris mei, manifestando nomen eius mundo; infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus quos dedisti mihi, et vos non accepistis me, ergo non diligitis eum. Dicitur autem filius manifestare patrem suum hominibus, quia licet pater inquantum Deus, notus esset, secundum illud Ps. LXXV, v. 1: notus in Iudaea Deus, tamen inquantum est naturalis pater filii, non erat notus ante adventum Christi: et ideo Salomon quaerebat, Prov. XXX, 4: quod nomen eius, et quod nomen filii eius nosti? 830 The present sign concerns his own coming; so he says, I have come in my Father’s name. As if to say: What I say is obvious, for if one loves his Lord, it is clear that he will honor and receive one who comes from him, and seek to honor him. But I have come in my Father’s name, and I make his name known to the world: “I have made your name known to those you have given me” (below 17:6), and yet you do not accept me. Therefore, you do not love him. The Son is said to make his Father known to men because, although the Father, as God, was known—“God is known in Judah” (Ps 75:1)—yet he was not known as the natural Father of the Son before Christ came. Thus Solomon asked: “What is his name? And what is the name of his son?” Prv 30:4).
Signum de futuro sumitur ex adventu Antichristi. Possent autem Iudaei dicere: licet tu venias in nomine eius, ideo tamen non te recepimus, quia nullum volumus recipere nisi ipsum Deum patrem. Sed contra hoc dicit dominus, quod hoc non potest esse, quia vos recipietis alium, qui non veniet in nomine patris, sed in nomine sui ipsius; et, quod plus est veniet in nomine, non patris, sed suo: quia non quaeret gloriam patris, sed suam propriam; nec patri attribuet quae faciet, sed sibi, II Thess. II, 4: qui adversatur et extollitur supra omne quod dicitur aut quod colitur Deus. Et illum accipietis, unde ibidem subditur: mittet Deus illis operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio. Et hoc ideo, quia doctrinam veritatis non receperunt, ut salvi fierent; unde dicit Glossa: quia Iudaei noluerunt accipere Christum, poena peccati huius congrue erit ut recipiant Antichristum: ut qui noluerunt credere veritati, credant mendacio. 831 The future sign concerns the coming of the Antichrist. For the Jews could say: Although you come in his name, we have not accepted you, because we will not accept anyone but God the Father. The Lord speaks against this, and says that it cannot be, because you will accept another, who will come, not in the Father’s name, but in his own name; and what is more, he will come, not in the name of the Father, but in his own name, precisely because he will not seek the glory of the Father but his own. And whatever he does, he will attribute it, not to the Father, but to himself: “who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or is worshipped” (2 Thes 2:4). You would be accepting him; and so the Apostle continues in the same letter: “God will send them a misleading influence so that they might believe what is false” (2 Thes 2:11). And this, because they did not accept the true teaching, that they might be saved. So the Gloss says: “Because the Jews were unwilling to accept Christ, the penalty for this sin will be, fittingly enough, that they will receive the Antichrist; with the result that those who were unwilling to believe the truth, will believe a lie.”
Sed secundum Augustinum, potest hoc intelligi de haereticis et falsis doctoribus, qui doctrinam ex corde suo proferunt, et non ex ore Dei; qui nomen suum laudant, et nomen Dei contemnunt: de quibus dicitur I Io. II, 18: audistis quia Antichristus venit; et nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt. Manifestum est ergo quod persecutio qua me persequimini, non est ex dilectione Dei, sed ex odio et livore ad eum procedit: et ex hoc eorum incredulitas causabatur. According to Augustine, however, we can understand this text as applying to heretics and false teachers: who spread a teaching that comes from their own hearts and not from the mouth of God, and who praise themselves and despise the name of God. Of such persons it is written: “You have heard that the Antichrist is coming; and now many antichrists have appeared” (1 Jn 2:18). So it is clear that your persecution of me does not spring from your love for God, but from your hatred and envy of him. And this was the reason why they did not believe.
Et ideo concludit quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis? Idest gloriam humanam, et eam quae a solo Deo est, non quaeritis? Quae est vera gloria. Ideo autem credere non poterant in Christum, quia cum superba mens eorum gloriam et laudem appeteret, se super alios efferri reputabant in gloriam, et dedecus in Christum credere qui abiectus videbatur et pauper; et ideo ei credere non poterant. Sed ille in eum credere potest qui cor habens humile, solius Dei gloriam quaerit, et ei placere appetit. Et ideo, sicut infra XII, 42, dicitur: multi ex principibus crediderunt in eum; sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur, ut de synagoga non eiicerentur. Ex quo apparet quod multum periculosa est inanis gloria. Unde dicit Tullius: cavenda est homini gloria, quae aufert omnem libertatem, pro qua magnanimis viris omnis debet esse contentio. Et ideo dicit Glossa: magnum vitium est iactantia et humanae laudis ambitio, quae de se vult aestimari quae de se non habet. 832 He concludes: How can people like you believe, when you crave praise from each other, i.e., human praise, and yet not even ask for that one praise which is from God alone? which is true glory. The reason they could not believe in Christ was that, since their proud minds were craving their own glory and praise, they considered themselves superior to others in glory, and regarded it as a disgrace to believe in Christ, who seemed common and poor. And this was why they could not believe in him. The one who can believe in Christ is the person of humble heart, who seeks the glory of God alone, and who strives to please him. And so we read: “Many of the leaders believed in him; but they did not admit it because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue” (below 12:42). We can see from this just how dangerous vainglory is. For this reason Cicero says: “Let a man beware of that glory that robs him of all freedom; that freedom for which a man of great spirit should risk everything.” And the Gloss says: “It is a great vice to boast and to strive for human praise: to desire that others think you have what you really do not have.”
Consequenter cum dicit nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sum vos, ostendit quod non habent zelum ad Moysen, et primo ostendit quomodo Moyses erat eis contrarius; secundo rationem contrarietatis assignat, ibi si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi. Circa primum duo facit. Primo removet opinatum zelum; secundo asserit verum, ibi est qui accusat vos Moyses. 833 Then (v 45), he shows that they do not have zeal for Moses. First, how Moses was against them. Secondly, he gives the reason for this opposition (v 46). As to the first he does two things First, he rejects their false zeal; secondly, he shows them true zeal, The one who accuses you is Moses.
Quantum ad primum dicit nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sum vos apud patrem. Cuius quidem dicti est triplex ratio. Una, quod filius Dei non venit in mundum ut condemnet mundum, sed ut salvet; et ideo dicit nolite putare quod venerim ad condemnandum, sed ad liberandum; supra III, v. 17: non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, idest ut condemnet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Et ideo sanguis Christi non clamat accusationem, sed remissionem, Hebr. XII, v. 24: habemus sanguinem Christi melius clamantem quam Abel, qui clamat accusando; Rom. VIII, 33: quis accusabit adversus electos Dei? Christus est qui iustificat, quis est qui condemnet? Secundo modo nolite putare quod ego accusaturus sum vos apud patrem, quia non ero accusator, sed iudex. Supra eodem: pater omne iudicium dedit filio. Tertio modo nolite putare quod ego, tantum scilicet, accusaturus sum vos apud patrem de hoc quod facitis mihi; sed etiam Moyses accusabit vos de hoc quod non creditis ei in his quae de me dixit. 834 As to the first he says: Do not think that I will accuse you before my Father. There are three reasons for his saying this. First, the Son of God did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to save it. So he says, Do not think that I have come to condemn, I have come to free: “God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world,” that is, to condemn the world, “but that the world might be saved through him” (above 3:17). And so the blood of Christ cries out, not to accuse, but to forgive: “We have the blood of Christ, crying out better than that of Abel” (Heb 12:24), whose blood cried out to accuse; “Who will accuse God’s elect? It is Christ who justifies. Who is it, then, who will condemn?” (Rom 8:33). As to his second reason for saying this, he says: Do not think that I will accuse you before my Father, because I will not be the one to accuse you, but to judge you: “The Father has given all judgment to the Son” (above 5:22). The third reason is: Do not think that I, i.e., I alone, will accuse you before my Father for what you are doing to me; for even Moses will accuse you for not believing him in the things he said of me.
Et ideo subdit est qui accusat vos Moyses, in quo speratis, quia creditis per praecepta eius salvari. Accusat autem eos Moyses dupliciter. Materialiter, quia ex hoc quod praetergressi sunt mandata eius, sunt accusandi; Rom. II, 12: quicumque in lege peccaverunt, per legem iudicabuntur. Item accusat eos, quia Moyses et alii sancti potestatem habebunt in iudicio; Ps. XLIX, 6: gladii ancipites in manibus eorum et cetera. 835 Consequently he adds: The one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you place your trust, because you believe you are saved through his precepts. Moses accuses them in two ways. Materially, because they deserved to be accused for transgressing his commands: “Those who have sinned under the law, will be judged by the law” (Rom 2:12). Again, Moses accuses them because he and the other saints will have authority in the judgment: “The two-edged swords will be in their hands” (Ps 149:6).
Rationem contrarietatis ponit dicens si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi, ut patet Deut. XVIII, 15: prophetam suscitabit Deus de gente tua et de fratribus tuis sicut me: ipsum audies, et in omnibus sacrificiis, quae erant figura Christi. Et dicit forsitan, ad designandum voluntatem liberi arbitrii: non quod in Deo sit aliquod dubium. 836 He presents the reason for this opposition when he says: If you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me as well, as is clear from “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you, from your nation and your brothers; he will be like me: you will listen to him” (Dt 18:15), and from all the sacrifices, which were a symbol of Christ. He says, perhaps, to indicate that their will acts from a free judgment, and not to imply that there is any doubt on the part of God.
Consequenter cum dicit si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis? Ponit signum huius contrarietatis sumptum a maiori, negando per comparationem ad duo. Primo personae ad personam: licet enim Christus simpliciter maior esset Moyse, tamen in reputatione Iudaeorum Moyses erat maior, et ideo dicit si non creditis Moysi, nec mihi credetis. Secundo per comparationem ad modum tradendi: quia Moyses praecepta dedit in scriptis, quae possunt diutius meditari, nec tradi oblivioni de facili; et ideo magis obligant ad credendum. Christus vero tradidit verbis; et quantum ad hoc dicit si non creditis litteris illius, quarum libros apud vos habetis, quomodo credetis verbis meis? 837 Then when he says, But if you do not believe in his written statements, how will you believe in my spoken words? he gives a sign of this opposition. He does this by comparing two things, and then denying of the lesser of them what is denied of the greater. First, there is a comparison between Moses and Christ: for although Christ, absolutely speaking, is greater than Moses, Moses was the greater in reputation among the Jews. Thus he says: If you do not believe Moses, you will not believe me either. Secondly, he compares the way in which they presented their teaching: Moses gave his precepts in a written form; and so they can be studied for a long time, and are not easily forgotten. Hence they impose a stronger obligation to believe. But Christ presented his teachings in spoken words. Thus he says, But if you do not believe in his written statements, which you have preserved in your books, how will you believe in my spoken words?