6

Lectio 1 LECTURE 1

1 μετὰ ταῦτα ἀπῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας τῆς Τιβεριάδος. 2 ἠκολούθει δὲ αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, ὅτι ἐθεώρουν τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων. 3 ἀνῆλθεν δὲ εἰς τὸ ὄρος Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐκάθητο μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ. 4 ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 5 ἐπάρας οὖν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ θεασάμενος ὅτι πολὺς ὄχλος ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγει πρὸς Φίλιππον,

πόθεν ἀγοράσωμεν ἄρτους ἵνα φάγωσιν οὗτοι;
6 τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν πειράζων αὐτόν, αὐτὸς γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἔμελλεν ποιεῖν. 7 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ [ὁ] Φίλιππος, διακοσίων δηναρίων ἄρτοι οὐκ ἀρκοῦσιν αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἕκαστος βραχύ [τι] λάβῃ. 8 λέγει αὐτῷ εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου, 9 ἔστιν παιδάριον ὧδε ὃς ἔχει πέντε ἄρτους κριθίνους καὶ δύο ὀψάρια: ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους; 10 εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
ποιήσατε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀναπεσεῖν.
ἦν δὲ χόρτος πολὺς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ. ἀνέπεσαν οὖν οἱ ἄνδρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὡς πεντακισχίλιοι. 11 ἔλαβεν οὖν τοὺς ἄρτους ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εὐχαριστήσας διέδωκεν τοῖς ἀνακειμένοις, ὁμοίως καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀψαρίων ὅσον ἤθελον. 12 ὡς δὲ ἐνεπλήσθησαν λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ,
συναγάγετε τὰ περισσεύσαντα κλάσματα,
ἵνα μή τι ἀπόληται.
13 συνήγαγον οὖν, καὶ ἐγέμισαν δώδεκα κοφίνους κλασμάτων ἐκ τῶν πέντε ἄρτων τῶν κριθίνων ἃ ἐπερίσσευσαν τοῖς βεβρωκόσιν.

1 After this Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee, which is that of Tiberias. 2 And a great multitude followed him because they saw the miracles he worked on those who were sick. 3 Jesus therefore went up a mountain, and there sat down with his disciples. 4 Now the Passover was near, a festival day of the Jews. 5 Then, when Jesus lifted his eyes and saw that a great multitude had come to him, he said to Philip,

“Where shall we buy bread that these may eat?”
6 He said this, however, to test him, for he knew what he would do. 7 Philip replied, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice for each to have a little bit.” 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him, 9 “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fishes, but what are these for so many?” 10 Jesus then said,
“Make the people recline.”
There was much grass in the place. Therefore the men reclined, in number about five thousand. 11 Jesus then took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he distributed it to those reclining; he did likewise with the fish, as much as they wanted. 12 When they had their fill, he said to his disciples,
“Gather up the fragments that are left over,
lest they be wasted.”
13 They therefore gathered and filled twelve baskets with the leftovers, from the five barley loaves and the two fishes, that remained after all had eaten.

Posita doctrina de vita spirituali qua Christus regeneratos vivificat, consequenter Evangelista agit de spirituali nutrimento quo Christus vivificatos sustentat, et primo ponit visibile miraculum, quod fecit Christus exhibendo nutrimentum corporale; secundo agit de nutrimento spirituali, ibi respondit eis Iesus, et dixit: amen, amen dico vobis, quaeritis me, non quia et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit miraculum visibile de nutrimento corporali; secundo ostendit effectum miraculi, ibi illi ergo homines cum vidissent et cetera. Circa miraculum duo ponit: scilicet eius circumstantias, et eius patrationem, ibi et cum sublevasset oculos Iesus. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit multitudinem quam pavit; secundo determinat locum ubi pavit, ibi subiit ergo in montem Iesus; tertio tempus quando pavit, ibi erat autem proximum Pascha et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo determinat locum quo multitudo eum sequitur; secundo turbam sequentem; tertio causam sequelae assignat. 838 The Evangelist has presented the teaching of Christ on the spiritual life, by which he gives life to those who are born again. He now tells us of the spiritual food by which Christ sustains those to whom he has given life. First, he describes a visible miracle, in which Christ furnished bodily food. Secondly, he considers spiritual food (6:26). He does two things about the first. First, he describes the visible miracle. Secondly, he shows the effect this miracle had (6:14). He tells us two things about this miracle. First, its circumstances, secondly, about its actual accomplishment (v 5). As to the first he does three things. First he describes the crowd that Jesus fed, secondly, the place; thirdly, the time (v 4). As to the first he does three things. First, he identifies the place where the crowd followed Jesus; secondly, the people who followed him; and thirdly, he tells why they followed him.
Quo autem turba dominum sequeretur, insinuat Evangelista cum dicit post haec abiit Iesus trans mare Galilaeae; idest, post mystica verba quae dominus de sua potestate dixerat. Mare autem istud Galilaeae frequenter in Scriptura et in diversis locis nominatur. Quia autem istud mare non est salsum, sed est quaedam congregatio aquarum ex influxu Iordanis, ideo a Luca dicitur stagnum, ut habetur Lc. V, 1; quia vero secundum proprietatem Hebraici idiomatis, omnes congregationes aquarum vocantur maria, secundum illud Gen. I, 10: congregationesque aquarum appellavit maria, ideo dicitur mare. Sed Genesareth cognominatur a natura loci: nam multum fluctuat ex reverberatione ventorum, qui ex ipsis aquae resolutionibus generantur: unde Genesareth in Graeco, idem est quod auram generans. Denominatur etiam Galilaeae a Galilaea provincia, in qua est. Tiberiadis vero a civitate sic dicta, quae erat ex una parte ipsius maris, ex opposito habens civitatem Capharnaum ex alia parte, quae prius vocabatur Zenereth, sed postea ab Herode tetrarcha instaurata in honorem Tiberii Caesaris, Tiberias appellata fuit. 839 The Evangelist describes the place to which the crowd followed our Lord when he says, After this Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee, i.e., after the mysterious words Jesus had spoken concerning his power. This Sea of Galilee is mentioned frequently in various places in Scripture. Luke calls it a lake (Lk 5:1) because its water is not salty, but was formed from the waters flowing in from the Jordan. Yet it is still called a “Sea,” because in Hebrew all bodies of water are called “seas”: “God called the waters ‘seas’” (Gn 1:10). It is also called Gennesaret because of the character of its location: for this water is tossed about a great deal, being buffeted by the winds that come from the vapors rising from its surface. Thus in Greek the word “Gennesaret” means “wind forming.” It is called the Sea of Galilee from the province of Galilee in which it is located. Again, it is called the Sea of Tiberias from the city of Tiberias: this city was situated on one side of the sea, facing Capernaum on the opposite side. The city of Tiberias was formerly called Chinnereth, but later, when it was rebuilt by Herod the Tetrarch, it was renamed as Tiberias in honor of Tiberius Caesar.
Ratio autem litteralis quare Iesus abiit trans mare, assignatur a Chrysostomo, ut Christus cederet furori et turbationi Iudaeorum, quam conceperant contra Christum propter ea quae de se supra dixerat. Unde, ut ipse dicit, sicut iacula cum in durum aliquod incidunt gravius feriunt, quae autem non habuerint aliquod obvians, dissolvuntur cito immissa, et quiescunt; ita et cum audacibus hominibus impetuose et resistendo incesserimus, saeviunt magis; si autem eis cesserimus, facile mollimus eorum insaniam. Propterea Christus furorem Iudaeorum ex praemissis sermonibus natum, secedendo trans mare, mitigavit; dans nobis in hoc exemplum simile faciendi. Eccli. VIII, 14: ne stes contra faciem contumeliosi. 840 The literal reason why Jesus crossed the sea is given by Chrysostom: to give ground to the anger and agitation which the Jews felt against Christ because of the things he had said about them. As Chrysostom says: just as darts strike a hard object with great force if they meet it, but pass on and soon come to rest if nothing is in their way, so also the anger of defiant men increases when they are resisted, but if we yield a little, it is easy to keep their fury within bounds. So Christ, by going to the other side of the sea, was able to soften the anger of the Jews, caused by what he had said. He thus gives us an example to act in the same way: “Do not be provoked by one who speaks evil of you” (Sir 8:14).
Mystice autem per mare, praesens saeculum turbidum designatur; Ps. CIII, v. 25: hoc mare magnum et spatiosum manibus. Hoc mare transiit dominus quando mare mortalitatis et poenalitatis assumpsit nascendo, calcavit moriendo et transiens resurgendo, in gloriam resurrectionis pervenit. De isto transitu dicitur infra XIII, 1: sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad patrem. Eum transeuntem secutae sunt, credendo et imitando, turbae multae, ex utroque populo collectae; Is. LX, 5: tunc mirabitur et dilatabitur cor tuum, quando conversa fuerit ad te multitudo maris; Ps. VII, 7: exsurge, domine in praecepto quod mandasti, et synagoga populorum circumdabit te. 841 In the mystical sense, the sea signifies this present troubled world: “This great sea, stretching wide” (Ps 103:25). Our Lord crossed over this sea when he assumed the sea of punishment and death by being born, trod it under foot by dying, and then crossing over it by his rising, arrived at the glory of his resurrection. We read of this crossing: “Jesus knew that his time had come to leave this world for the Father” (below 13:1). A great crowd, composed of both peoples, has followed him in this crossing, by believing in him and imitating him: “Your heart will be full of wonder and joy, when the riches of the sea will be given to you” (Is 60:5); “Rise up, O Lord, you who demand that justice be done; and the people will gather round you” (Ps 7:7).
Describitur ergo turba sequens copiosa, quia sequebatur eum multitudo magna. 842 The crowd that followed him is described as large, And a great multitude followed him.
Causa autem propter quam sequebatur, est operatio miraculorum; unde dicit quia videbant signa quae faciebat super his qui infirmabantur. Sciendum est, quod quidam sequebantur eum propter doctrinam eius, qui scilicet melius erant dispositi; alii vero imperfectiores sequebantur eum propter admirationem signorum visibilium, grossioris mentis existentes. Signa enim, ut dicitur I Cor. XIV, 22, non sunt data fidelibus, sed infidelibus. Aliqui etiam propter devotionem et fidem eum sequebantur, scilicet illi quos corpore sanaverat: sic enim a domino sanabantur in corpore ut etiam perfecte sanarentur in anima; Deut. XXXII, 4: Dei perfecta sunt opera. Et hoc patet, quia paralytico (supra VIII, 11), signanter dixit: vade, et amplius noli peccare; et Matth. IX, 2: fili, remittuntur tibi peccata; quae magis ad sanitatem animae pertinent quam corporis. 843 The reason why they followed him is because he was performing miracles, hence he says, because they saw the miracles he worked on those who were sick. We should point out that some followed Christ because of his teachings, that is, those who were better disposed. But there were others, i.e., those who were less perfect and less perceptive, who followed him because they were attracted by visible miracles; “Signs were given to unbelievers, not to believers” (1 Cor 14:22). Still others followed him out of devotion and faith, those, namely, whom he had cured of some bodily defect: for our Lord had so healed their body that they were also completely healed in soul: “The works of God are perfect” (Dt 32:4). This is clear, because he expressly said to the paralytic, “Do not sin again” (above 5:14), and in Matthew (9:2) he says, “Son, your sins are forgiven”; and these remarks concern the health of the soul rather than that of the body.
Notandum autem quod cum Evangelista non fecerit mentionem, nisi de tribus miraculis, scilicet de nuptiis, de filio reguli, et paralytico, hic tamen indeterminate dicit signa quae faciebat, ut det intelligere, quia Christus multa alia signa fecit, ut dicitur infra ult., 25, de quibus in hoc libro mentionem non facit. Intendebat enim specialiter ad manifestandum Christi doctrinam. 844 We might remark that although the Evangelist had mentioned only three miracles (the one at the marriage reception, the son of the official, and the paralytic), he says here in a general way, the miracles he worked. He does this to indicate that Christ worked many other miracles that are not mentioned in this book, as he will say below (21:25). For his main object was to present the teaching of Christ.
Consequenter determinat locum miraculi, qui est mons; unde dicit subiit ergo in montem, idest latenter ascendit Iesus, et ibi sedebat cum discipulis suis. Et quidem mons satis est congruus locus refectioni: per montem enim signatur perfectio iustitiae, secundum illud Ps. XXXV, 7: iustitia tua sicut montes Dei. Quia ergo haec terrena non satiant, immo qui biberit ex aqua hac sitiet iterum, ut dicitur supra II, 13, spiritualia vero satiat; ideo dominus ad altiora cum discipulis ascendit, ut ostendat in spiritualibus satietatem et perfectionem iustitiae inveniri: de quo monte dicitur in Ps. LXVII, 16: mons Dei, mons pinguis. Unde et ibi doctoris exercebat officium, sedens cum discipulis suis: ipse enim est qui docet omnem hominem scientiam. 845 Then he gives the location of the miracle, on a mountain; hence he says: Jesus therefore went up a mountain, i.e., privately, and there sat down with his disciples. Now a mountain is a place well suited for refreshment, for according to the Psalm a mountain signifies the perfection of justice: “Your justice is like the mountains of God” (Ps 35:7). And so, because we cannot be satisfied by earthly things—indeed, “Whoever drinks this water will be thirsty again” (above 4:13)—but spiritual things will satisfy us, our Lord leads his disciples to a higher place to show that full satisfaction and the perfection of justice are found in spiritual realities. We read of this mountain: “The mountain of God is a rich mountain” (Ps 67:16). Thus he also exercised his office of teacher there, sitting with his disciples; for he is the one who teaches every man.
Consequenter describitur tempus, cum dicit erat autem proximum Pascha, quod quidem tempus congruit refectioni. Pascha enim interpretatur transitus: Ex. XII, 11: est enim phase, idest transitus domini, ut det intelligere quod quisquis pane divini verbi et corpore et sanguine domini desiderat refici, debet transire de vitiis ad virtutes. I Cor. V, v. 7: Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, itaque epulemur in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis. Eccli. XXIV, 26, dicit divina sapientia: transite ad me, omnes, qui concupiscitis me. 846 The time is mentioned when he says, Now the Passover was near. This time was also well suited for their refreshment, for “Passover” means “passage”: “It is the Passover of the Lord, that is, his passage” (Ex 12:11). We understand from this that anyone who desires to be refreshed by the bread of the divine Word and by the body and blood of’ the Lord, must pass from vices to virtues: “Our Passover, Christ, has been sacrificed, and so let us feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:7). And again, divine Wisdom says: “Pass over to me, all who desire me” (Sir 24-26).
Hoc autem est secundum Pascha, de quo Evangelista mentionem facit: ad quod quidem, iuxta legis praeceptum, quod habetur Ex. XXIII, 17, dominus non ascendit in Ierusalem. Cuius ratio est, quia Christus Deus erat et homo: et inquantum homo suberat quidem legi; inquantum Deus supra legem erat. Ut ergo se hominem ostenderet, servabat aliquando legem; ut vero Deum, legem solvebat. Unde et per hoc quod non ivit, dedit intelligere quod paulatim et in brevi legalia cessarent. This is the second Passover the Evangelist has mentioned. However, our Lord did not go to Jerusalem this time, as the law commanded. The reason for this being that Christ was both God and man: as man he was subject to the law, but as God he was above the law. So, he observed the law on certain occasions to show that he was a man, but he also disregarded the law at other times to show that he was God. Further, by not going he indicated that the ceremonies of the law would end gradually and in a short time.
Consequenter agit de patratione miraculi, cum dicit cum sublevasset ergo oculos Iesus, et vidisset etc., et primo ostenditur necessitas patrandi miraculi; secundo subditur ipsa patratio, ibi dicit ergo Iesus: facite homines discumbere et cetera. Necessitas autem miraculi fiendi sumitur ex interrogatione domini, et responsione discipulorum, et ideo primo ponitur domini interrogatio; secundo discipulorum responsio, ibi respondit ei Philippus et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur interrogandi occasio; secundo subditur Christi interrogatio; et tertio aperitur interrogantis intentio. 847 Then he considers the miracle itself (v 5). First, why it was needed. Secondly, its accomplishment. We can see the need for this miracle from our Lord’s question to his disciple, and the disciple’s answer. First, our Lord’s question is given; and then the answer of his disciple (v 7). He does three things about the first. First, the occasion for the question is given; secondly, we have the-question itself (v 5b); thirdly, we are told why Christ asked this question (v 6).
Occasio autem interrogandi fuit visio multitudinis ad Christum venientis. Et ideo dicit cum sublevasset oculos Iesus, existens in monte cum discipulis quasi perfectioribus, et vidisset et cetera. In quo duo circa dominum sunt consideranda. Unum, ut discamus Christi maturitatem oculos non erigentis huc atque illuc, sed pudice sedentis et attente cum discipulis suis: contra quod dicitur Prov. XXX, 13: generatio cuius sublimes sunt oculi, et palpebrae eius in alta surrectae; et Eccli. XIX, 26: ex visu cognoscitur vir. Secundum, ut discamus, quod neque otiose sedebat cum discipulis suis; sed attente eos docens, et ad seipsum corda eorum convertens, discipulos quos docebat intuebatur; Lc. c. VI, 20: et ipse elevatis oculis in discipulos suos, dicebat et cetera. Et ideo dicitur cum sublevasset oculos Iesus et cetera. Mystice autem oculi domini sunt dona spiritualia, quae cum electis suis misericorditer concedit, tunc in eos oculos suos sublevat, idest respectum pietatis impendit. Hoc petebat Ps. LXXXV, 16, dicens: respice in me, domine, et miserere mei. 848 The occasion for Christ’s question was his sight of the crowd coming to him. Hence he says, Then, when Jesus, on the mountain with his disciples, i.e., with those who were more perfect, lifted his eyes and saw that a great multitude had come to him. Here we should note two things about Christ. First, his maturity: for he is not distracted by what does not concern him, but is appropriately concerned with his disciples. He is not like those spoken of in Proverbs (30:13): “A generation whose eyes are proud.” And, “A man’s dress, and laughter, and his walk, show what he is” (Sir 19:27). Secondly, we should note that Christ did not sit there with his disciples out of laziness; he was looking right at them, teaching them carefully and attracting their hearts to himself: “Then he lifted his eyes to his disciples” (Lk 6:20). Thus we read: Then, when Jesus lifted his eyes. In the mystical sense, our Lord’s eyes are his spiritual gifts; and he lifts his eyes on the elect, i.e., looks at them with compassion, when he mercifully grants these gifts to them: This is what the Psalm asks for: “Look upon me, O Lord, and have mercy on me” (Ps 85:16).
Interrogatio vero est de refectione multitudinis; unde dixit ad Philippum: unde ememus panes, ut manducent hi? Unum supponit, et aliud quaerit. Supponit quidem penuriam, quia non habebant unde tantae multitudini cibum praeberent; quaerit autem modum inveniendi, cum dicit unde ememus panes, ut manducent hi? 849 Our Lord’s question concerns the feeding of the crowd; so he said to Philip: Where shall we buy bread that these may eat? He assumes one thing and asks about another. He assumes their poverty, because they did not have food to offer this great crowd; and he asks how they might obtain it, saying, Where shall we buy bread that these may eat?
Ubi notandum, quod omnis doctor necesse habet spiritualiter pascere turbam ad se venientem. Et quia nullus homo habet ex se unde pascat eam, ideo oportet quod aliunde emat labore, studio, assiduitate orationum; Is. LV, 1: qui non habetis argentum, properate, et emite absque ulla commutatione vinum et lac. Et iterum: quare appenditis argentum vestrum, idest eloquentiam, et non in panibus, idest, non in vera sapientia, quae reficit (Eccli. XV, 5: cibavit illum pane vitae et intellectus, et laborem vestrum non in saturitate) addiscendo ea quae non satiant, sed magis evacuant? Here we should note that every teacher is obliged to possess the means of feeding spiritually the people who come to him. And since no man possesses of himself the resources to feed them, he must acquire them elsewhere by his labor, study, and persistent prayer: “Hurry, you who have no money, and acquire without cost wine and milk” (Is 55:1). And there follows: “Why do you spend your money,” i.e., your eloquence, “for what is not bread,” i.e., not the true wisdom which refreshes—“Wisdom will feed him with the bread of life and understanding” (Si 15:5)—“and why do you work for what does not satisfy you,” i.e., by learning things that drain you instead of filling you?
Intentio autem interrogantis aperitur cum dicit hoc autem dicebat tentans eum et cetera. Ubi Evangelista unam dubitationem excludens, ducit in aliam. Potuisset enim dubitari quod dominus Philippum quasi ignorans interrogasset; sed hoc excludit dicens ipse enim sciebat quid esset facturus. Sed cum tentare videatur etiam ignorantis esse, cum idem sit quod experimentum sumere, videtur quod Evangelista in aliam dubitationem inducat cum dicit tentans eum. 850 Our Lord’s intention is given when he says, He said this, however, to test him. Here the Evangelist raises one difficutly in answering another. For we could wonder,why our Lord asked Philip what to do, as though our Lord himself did not know. The Evangelist settles this when he says, for he knew what he would do. But it seems that the Evangelist raises another difficulty when he says, to test him. For to test is to try out; and this seems to imply ignorance.
Sed dicendum, quod diversimode aliquis tentat aliquem, ut experimentum de eo sumat: aliter enim tentat homo, quia ut addiscat; aliter Diabolus, quia ut decipiat; I Petr. V, v. 8: adversarius vester Diabolus tamquam leo rugiens, circuit quaerens quem devoret. Deus vero et Christus tentat quidem non ut addiscat, quia ipse est qui scrutatur corda et renes; non ut decipiat, quia ipse neminem tentat, ut dicitur Iac. I, 13; sed tentat ut aliis experimentum de tentato tribuat. Sic tentavit Deus Abraham; Gen. XXII, 1: tentavit Deus Abraham etc., et sequitur: nunc cognovi quod timeas dominum: idest, cognoscere feci quod timeas dominum. Ita ex hoc Philippum tentat ut insinuaret aliis suam responsionem, inducens per hoc eos in certissimam futuri signi cognitionem. I answer that one can test another in various ways in order to try him out. One man tests another in order to learn; the devil tests a man in order to ensnare him: “Your enemy, the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he can devour” (1 Pt 5:8). But Christ (and God) does not test us in order to learn, because he sees into our hearts; nor in order to ensnare us, for as we read in James (1:13): “God does not test [i.e., tempt] anyone.” But he does test us that others might learn something from the one tested. This is the way God tested Abraham: “God tested Abraham” (Gn 22:1); and then it says (v 12): “Now I know that you fear God,” i.e., I have made it known that you fear the Lord. He tests Philip in the same way: so that those who hear his answer might be very certain about the miracle to come.
Consequenter ponitur responsio discipulorum, cum dicit respondit ei Philippus, et primo responsio Philippi; secundo responsio Andreae, ibi dicit ei unus ex discipulis eius et cetera. 851 Now we have the answer of the disciples. First, the answer of Philip; then that of Andrew (v 8).
Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod Philippus inter alios magis tardus et rudis erat, et ideo inter alios frequentius dominum interrogabat; infra XIV, 8: domine, ostende nobis patrem, et sufficit nobis. Sed in interrogatione istorum duorum, quantum ad litteram pertinet, Andreas melius dispositus erat quam Philippus, quia nullam intentionem et dispositionem habere videtur ad miraculum fiendum. Et ideo illum modum inducit quo omnes homines illos pascere possent, scilicet per pecuniam, dicens ducentorum denariorum panes non sufficiunt eis: quos nos non habemus, et ideo non possumus eis dare ad manducandum. In quo Christi paupertas insinuatur, qui nec ducentos denarios habebat. 852 With respect to the first, note that Philip was slower in learning than the others, and so he asks our Lord more questions: “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us” (below 14:8). Here, according to the literal sense, Andrew is better disposed than Philip, for Philip does not seem to have any understanding or anticipation of the corning miracle. And so he suggests that money is the way by which they could feed all the people, saying: Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice for each to have a little bit. And since we do not have that much, we cannot feed them. Here we see the poverty of Christ, for he did not even have two hundred denarii.
Andreas vero videtur habere respectum ad miraculum fiendum. Fortassis enim in memoria habebat signum quod Eliseus de panibus hordeaceis fecerat, quando pavit de viginti panibus centum viros, ut legitur IV Reg. IV, 42 ss., et ideo dicit est puer unus hic qui habet quinque panes hordeaceos. Sed tamen opinatus est quod Christus non esset facturus maius miraculum quam Eliseus. Aestimabat enim quod de paucioribus panibus pauciora, et de pluribus plura miraculose fierent (quamvis ei qui subiecta materia non indiget, similiter facile sit de pluribus et de paucioribus pascere turbas), et ideo subdit sed haec quid sunt inter tantos? Quasi dicat: si etiam multiplicentur sicut Eliseus multiplicavit, non sufficit. 853 Andrew, however, seems to sense that a miracle is going to take place. Perhaps he recalled the miracle performed by Elisha with the barley loaves, when he fed a hundred men with twenty loaves (2 Kgs 4:42). And so he says, There is a boy here who has five barley loaves. Still, he did not suspect that Christ was going to perform a greater miracle than Elisha: for he thought that fewer loaves would be miraculously produced from fewer, and more from a larger number. But in truth, he who does not need any material to work with could feed a crowd as easily with few or many loaves. So Andrew continues: but what are these for so many? As if to say: Even if you increased them in the measure that Elisha did, it still would not be enough.
Mystice refectio spiritualis per sapientiam significatur. Una autem sapientia est quam docuit Christus, qui est vera sapientia; I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Sed ante adventum Christi duplex doctrina erat. Una humana quam habebant philosophi, alia legis scriptae. De prima ergo mentionem facit Philippus et ideo utitur nomine emptionis, dicens ducentorum denariorum panes non sufficiunt eis. Nam sapientia humana per acquisitionem habetur. Centenarius numerus perfectionem importat. Unde ducenti duplicem perfectionem insinuant necessarium huic sapientiae; nam ad eius perfectionem duplici via pervenitur: scilicet per experimentum et per contemplationem. Dicit ergo ducentorum denariorum panes non sufficiunt eis, quia quidquid humana ratio potest experiri et cogitare de veritate, non sufficit ad perfectam satietatem sapientiae; Ier. IX, 23: non glorietur sapiens in sapientia sua, et non glorietur fortis in fortitudine sua, et non glorietur dives in divitiis suis; sed in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, scire et nosse me. Nam nullius philosophi tanta fuit sapientia ut per eam homines ab errore revocari possent, quin potius multos ad errorem inducunt. 854 In the mystical sense, wisdom is a symbol for spiritual refreshment. One kind of wisdom was taught by Christ, the true wisdom: “Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). Before Christ came, there were two other teachings or doctrines: one was the human teachings of the philosophers; the other was the teachings found in the written law. Philip mentions the first of these when he speaks of buying: Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice, for human wisdom must be acquired. Now the number one hundred implies perfection. Thus two hundred suggests the twofold perfection necessary for this wisdom: for there Ire two ways one arrives at the perfection of human wisdom, by experience and by contemplation. So he says, Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice, because no matter what human reason can experience and contemplate of the truth, it is not enough to completely satisfy our desire for wisdom: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, nor the strong man in his strength, nor the rich man in his riches. But let him who glories glory in this: that he knows and understands me” (Jer 9:23). For the wisdom of no philosopher has been so great that it could keep men from error; rather, the philosophers have led many into error.
De secunda vero mentionem facit Andreas; et ideo noluit quod alii panes emerentur, sed de habitis turba reficeretur, scilicet de his quae lex continebat; unde melius dispositus erat quam Philippus; et ideo dicit est puer unus hic qui habet quinque panes hordeaceos. Puer iste potest dici Moyses propter imperfectionem status legis: Hebr. VII, 19: neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex: vel populus Iudaeorum, qui sub elementis mundi serviebat, ut dicitur Gal. IV, 3. It is Andrew who mentions the second kind of teaching [thai of the law]. He does not want to buy other bread, but to feed the crowd with the loaves of bread they had, that is, those contained in the law. And so he was better disposed than Philip. So he says: There is a boy here who has five barley loaves. This boy can symbolize Moses, because of the imperfection found in the state of the law: “The law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19); or the Jewish people, who were serving under the elements of this world (Gal 4:3).
Puer ergo iste quinque panes habet, idest doctrinam legis: vel quia in quinque libris Moysi contenta est, supra I, 17: lex per Moysen data est: vel quia data est hominibus vacantibus sensibilibus, quae per quinque sensus exprimuntur: qui sunt hordeacei: quia lex ipsa data erat ut in ea vitale alimentum corporalibus sacramentis obtegeretur: hordei enim medulla, tenacissima palea tegitur: vel quia populus Iudaeorum nondum expoliatus erat carnali desiderio, sed tamquam palea cordi eius inhaerebat: nam in veteri testamento exterius duritiam experiebantur, propter caeremoniales observantias; Actor. XV, 10: hoc est onus quod nec nos, nec patres nostri portare potuerunt. Et ipsi Iudaei corporalibus dediti, spiritualem sensum legis non capiebant; II ad Cor. III, 15: velamen positum est supra corda ipsorum. This boy had five loaves, that is, the teaching of the law: either because this teaching was contained in the five books of Moses, “The law was given through Moses” (above 1:17); or because it was given to men absorbed in sensible things, which are made known through the five senses. These loaves were of barley because the law was given in such a way that what was life-giving in it was concealed under physical signs: for the kernel in barley is covered with a very firm husk. Or, the loaves were of barley because the Jewish people had not yet been rubbed free of carnal desire, but it still covered their hearts like a husk: for in the Old Testament they outwardly experienced hardships because of their ceremonial observances: “A yoke, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10). Further, the Jews were engrossed in material things and did not understand the spiritual meaning of the law: “A veil is over their hearts” (2 Cor 3:15).
Per pisces autem duos qui saporem suavem pani dabant, intelligitur doctrina Psalmorum et prophetarum: et sic vetus lex non solum habebat panes, scilicet libros quinque Moysi; sed etiam duos pisces, scilicet prophetas et Psalmos. Unde Scriptura veteris testamenti per haec tria dividitur, Lc. ult., 44: quae scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et Psalmis de me. Vel per duos pisces, secundum Augustinum, duae personae significantur: scilicet regia et sacerdotalis, quibus populus ille regebatur; quae tamen duae personae Christum praefigurabant, qui fuit verus rex et sacerdos. The two fishes, which gave a pleasant flavor to the bread, indicate the teachings of the Psalms and the prophets. Thus the old law not only had five loaves, i.e., the five books of Moses, but also two fishes, that is, the Psalms and the prophets. So the Old Testament writings are divided into these three: “The things written about me in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the Psalms” (Lk 24:44). Or, according to Augustine, the two fishes signify the priests and kings who ruled the Jews; and they prefigured Christ, who was the true king and priest.
Sed haec quid sunt inter tantos? Quia per ea non potuit humanum genus ad cognitionem veritatis perfecte duci: licet enim Deus in Iudaea notus esset, gentes tamen eum ignorabant. But what are these for so many? for they could not bring man to a complete knowledge of the truth: for although God was known in Judea, the Gentiles did not know him.
Consequenter cum dicitur dixit ergo Iesus, agitur de patratione miraculi, et primo ponitur hominum dispositio; secundo eorum refectio, ibi accepit ergo Iesus panes etc.; tertio fragmentorum collectio, ibi ut autem impleti sunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur mandatum de dispositione turbarum; secundo opportunitas dispositionis; et tertio numerus dispositorum. 855 Next (v 10), the miracle is presented. First, we see the people arranged; secondly, the miracle itself; and thirdly, the gathering of the leftovers. He does two things about the first. First, he shows Christ directing the disciples to have the people recline; secondly, why this was appropriate; and thirdly, he tells us the number of people present.
Mandatum autem fuit domini ad discipulos, ut disponerent turbam ad comedendum; unde dicit Iesus facite homines discumbere, idest sedere ad comedendum. Nam, sicut dictum est supra II, antiquitus homines lectis accumbentes prandebant, unde inolevit consuetudo, ut qui sedent ad manducandum, dicantur discumbere. Per quod mystice significatur quies, quae necessaria est ad perfectionem sapientiae; Eccli. XXXVIII, 25: qui minoratur actu, perficiet sapientiam. Quae dispositio fit per discipulos, quia per eos ad nos cognitio veritatis derivata est; Ps. LXXI, 3: suscipiant montes pacem populo. 856 Our Lord told his disciples to arrange the people so that they could eat; thus Jesus says, Make the people recline, i.e., to eat. For as mentioned before, in former times people took their meals lying on couches; consequently, it was the custom to say of those who sat down to eat that they were reclining. In the mystical sense, this indicates that rest which is necessary for the perfection of wisdom. Again, the people are prepared by the disciples because it is through the disciples that the knowledge of the truth has come to us: “Let the mountains receive peace for the people” (Ps 71:3).
Opportunitas autem dispositionis captatur ex loco erat autem foenum multum in loco, quod, ad litteram, commodum est discumbentibus. Mystice autem per foenum caro significatur, Is. XL, 6: omnis caro foenum, et secundum hoc potest ad duo referri. Competit doctrinae veteris testamenti, quae dabatur quiescenti in carnalibus, et populo carnaliter sapienti; Is. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis; Deut. XXXIII, 28: oculus Iacob in terra frumenti, vini et olei. Vel competit percipienti veram sapientiam, ad quam veniri non potest nisi calcatis carnalibus; Rom. XII, 2: nolite conformari huic saeculo. 857 The character of the place shows why it was convenient that they recline, for There was much grass in the place. This is the literal meaning. In the mystical sense, grass indicates the flesh: “All flesh is grass” (Is 40:6). In this sense it can refer to two things. First, to the teachings of the Old Testament, which were given to a people resting in things of the flesh and wise according to the flesh: “If you are willing, and listen to me, you will eat the good things of the land” (Is 1:19); “The posterity of Jacob dwells in a land of grain, wine and oil” (Dt 33:28). Or, it can refer to one who perceives true wisdom, which cannot be attained without first abandoning the things of the flesh: “Do not imitate this world” (Rom 12:2).
Numerus autem erat magnus; unde dicit discubuerunt ergo viri, numero quasi quinque millia. Viros tantum Evangelista enumerat, legalem consuetudinem sequens, in qua Moyses a viginti annis et supra, populum numeravit, nulla mentione de mulieribus facta, ut dicitur Num. I. Quod ideo Evangelista fecit, quia isti soli sunt capaces doctrinae perfectae; I Cor. II, 6: sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos; Hebr. V, 14: perfectorum est solidus cibus. 858 There was a great number of people; thus he says, the men reclined, in number about five thousand. The Evangelist counted only the men, according to the custom in the law, for as mentioned in Numbers (1:3), Moses counted the people who were twenty years and older, without including the women. The Evangelist does the same, because only men can be completely instructed: “We speak wisdom to those who are mature” (1 Cor 2:6); “Solid food is for the mature” (Heb 5:14).
Consequenter cum dicit accepit ergo Iesus panes, agit de refectione, et primo insinuatur reficientis affectus; secundo materia refectionis; et tertio perfecta satietas. In affectu autem Iesu reficientis primo quidem attenditur humilitas; secundo vero gratiarum actio. 859 Then (v 11), the Evangelist presents the feeding of the crowd. First, we see the attitude of Christ; secondly, the food used; thirldy, that the people were satisfied. As to the attitude of Jesus, both his humility and his giving of thanks are mentioned.
Humilitas quidem, quia accepit panes, et distribuit. Et quidem Christus facturus miraculum poterat panibus ex nihilo creatis pascere turbas. Sed dispensatione panes praeexistentes multiplicavit ad refectionem turbarum. Primo quidem ut ostenderet sensibilia a Diabolo non esse, sicut Manichaei errantes dicunt. Nam si hoc verum esset, dominus non uteretur rebus sensibilibus ad opus divinae laudis, et praecipue cum ipse venerit, ut dissolvat opera Diaboli, ut dicitur I Io. III, 8. Secundo ut ostendat falsum esse quod ipsi dicunt, scilicet doctrinam veteris testamenti non esse a Deo, sed a Diabolo. Ut ergo ostenderet non esse doctrinam aliam novi testamenti quam quae praefigurabatur et continebatur in doctrina veteris testamenti, praeexistentes panes multiplicavit, innuens quod ipse est qui legem perfecit et implevit; Matth. V, 17: non veni solvere legem. 860 We see his humility because he took the bread and gave it to the people. Now although in this miracle Christ could have fed the people with bread created from nothing, he chose to do so by multiplying bread that already existed. He did this, first, to show that sensible things do not come from the devil, as the Manichean error maintains. For if this were so, our Lord would not have used sensible things to praise God, especially since “The Son of God appeared to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8). He did it, secondly, to show that they are also wrong in claiming that the teachings of the Old Testament are not from God but from the devil. Thus, to show that the doctrine of the New Testament is none other than that which was prefigured and contained in the teachings of the Old Testament, he multiplied bread that already existed, implying by this that he is the one who fulfills the law and brings it to perfection: “I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it,” as we read in Matthew (5:17).
Gratiarum autem actio, quia gratias egit, ut ostendat se ab alio habere, scilicet a patre, quidquid habet: in quo ostendit nobis exemplum simile faciendi. Specialiter tamen gratias egit, ut det nobis exemplum, cum comestionem incipimus, gratias debere agere Deo; I Tim. IV, 4: nihil reiiciendum quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur; Ps. XXI, 27: edent pauperes, et saturabuntur, et laudabunt dominum. Item ut ostendat quod non propter se orabat, sed propter turbam, quae praesens erat, et oportebat ei suadere quod a Deo venerat. Et ideo cum coram multis miraculum facit, orat, ut ostendat se Deo non esse contrarium, sed secundum voluntatem eius operari. 861 We see that he gave thanks, when he had given thanks. He did this to show that whatever he had, he had from another, that is, from his Father. This is an example for us to do the same. More particularly, he gave thanks to teach us that we should thank God when we begin a meal: “Nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim 4:4); “The poor will eat and be satisfied; and they will praise the Lord” (Ps 21:27). Again, he gave thanks to teach us that he was not praying for himself, but for the people who were there, for he had to convince them that he had come from God. Accordingly, he prays before he works this miracle before them, in order to show them that he is not acting against God, but according to God’s will.
Dicitur tamen in Marco, quod Christus per apostolos distribuit panes turbis. Sed hic dicitur quod ipse distribuit, quia ipse videtur fecisse quod per alios fecit. Sed utrumque, secundum mysterium, verum est, quia ipse solus interius reficit, et alii exterius et ut ministri reficiunt. We read in Mark (6:41) that Christ had the apostles distribute the bread to the people. It says here that he distributed it because in a way he himself does what he does by means of others. In the mystical sense, both statements are true: for Christ alone refreshes from within, and others, as his ministers, refresh from without.
Materia autem refectionis fuit panis et piscis, de quibus satis dictum est supra. 862 Their food was bread and fish, about which enough has been said above.
Satietas vero refectionis perfecta fuit, quia quantum volebant. Solus enim Christus est qui pascit animam inanem, et animam esurientem replet bonis; Ps. XVI, 15: satiabor cum apparuerit gloria tua. Alii vero, quasi ex mensura habentes gratiam, miracula faciunt; Christus vero absoluta virtute, cum multa superabundantia omnia operabatur: unde dicitur quod impleti sunt. Finally, those who ate were completely satisfied, because they took as much as they wanted. For Christ is the only one who feeds an empty soul and fills a hungry soul with good things: “I will be satisfied when your glory appears” (Ps 16:15). Others perform miracles through having grace in a partial manner; Christ, on the other hand, does so with unlimited power, since he does all things superabundantly. Hence it says that the people had their fill.
Consequenter cum dicit ut autem impleti sunt, dixit discipulis suis etc., agitur de fragmentorum collectione, et primo ponitur mandatum domini; secundo executio discipulorum, ibi collegerunt et cetera. 863 Now we see the leftovers collected (v 12). First, Christ gives the order; secondly, his disciples obey.
Dicit ergo ut autem impleti sunt, dixit discipulis suis: colligite quae superaverunt fragmenta. Quod quidem dominus non ad superfluam ostentationem fecit; sed ut ostenderet factum miraculum non esse phantasticum, per hoc quod collectae reliquiae diu servatae sunt, et aliis in cibum fuerunt. Voluit etiam per hoc, miraculum illud firmius discipulorum cordibus inhaerere, quibus et fragmenta portanda praecepit; quoniam eos maxime erudire volebat qui orbis terrarum debebant esse magistri. 864 The Evangelist says that after the people had eaten their fill, Christ said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that are left over. This was not pretentious display on our Lord’s part; he did it to show that the miracle he accomplished was not imaginary, since the collected leftovers kept for some time and provided food for others. Again, he wanted to impress this miracle more firmly on the hearts of his disciples, whom he had carry the leftovers: for most of all he wanted to teach his disciples, who were destined to be the teachers of the entire world.
Sed discipuli fideliter exequuntur; unde sequitur collegerunt ergo et cetera. Ubi notandum est, quod non quantaecumque reliquiae supersunt, neque ad casum, sed secundum certitudinem: quia neque plus neque minus, sed quantum voluit fecit superfluum esse. Cuius signum est quod cophinus cuiuslibet apostoli plenus fuit. Cophinus autem vas est rusticano officio deputatum. Duodecim ergo cophini significant duodecim apostolos et eorum imitatores, qui licet in praesenti sint contemptibiles, spiritualium tamen sacramentorum divitiis sunt interius referti: qui duodecim esse dicuntur, quia fides sanctae Trinitatis per eos praedicanda erat in quatuor partibus mundi. 865 His disciples obeyed him faithfully; hence he says, They therefore gathered and filled twelve baskets with the leftovers. Here we should note that the amount of food that remained was not left to chance, but was according to plan: for as much as Christ willed was left over, no more and no less. This is shown by the fact that the basket of each apostle was filled. Now a basket is reserved for the work of peasants. Therefore, the twelve baskets signify the twelve apostles and those who imitate them, who, although they are looked down upon in this present life, are nevertheless filled with the riches of spiritual sacraments. There are twelve because they were to preach the faith of the Holy Trinity to the four parts of the world.

Lectio 2 LECTURE 2

14 οἱ οὖν ἄνθρωποι ἰδόντες ὃ ἐποίησεν σημεῖον ἔλεγον ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 15 Ἰησοῦς οὖν γνοὺς ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἁρπάζειν αὐτὸν ἵνα ποιήσωσιν βασιλέα ἀνεχώρησεν πάλιν εἰς τὸ ὄρος αὐτὸς μόνος. 16 ὡς δὲ ὀψία ἐγένετο κατέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, 17 καὶ ἐμβάντες εἰς πλοῖον ἤρχοντο πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει καὶ οὔπω ἐληλύθει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, 18 ἥ τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος διεγείρετο. 19 ἐληλακότες οὖν ὡς σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ τριάκοντα θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ πλοίου γινόμενον, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν. 20 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς, ἐγώ εἰμι,

μὴ φοβεῖσθε.
21 ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο τὸ πλοῖον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον.

14 Now when these people saw that Jesus had worked a miracle, they said: “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 So Jesus, knowing that they would come to seize him and make him king, fled again into the mountains, alone. 16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea. 17 After they got into the boat, they set out across the sea to Capernaum. It was already dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. 18 The sea became rough, agitated by a great wind. 19 After they had rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia [three or four miles], they saw Jesus walking on the water, coming toward the boat, and they were afraid. 20 But he said to them:

“It is I. Do not be afraid.”
21 They then wanted to take him into the boat; and suddenly the boat was on the land toward which they were going.

Posito signo visibili de nutrimento corporali, hic ponitur effectus signi in turbis triplex. Primo quantum ad fidei confessionem; secundo quantum ad intentatam honoris exhibitionem, ibi Iesus ergo cum cognovisset etc.; tertio quantum ad diligentem inquisitionem, ibi ut autem sero factum est et cetera. 866 Above, the Evangelist told us of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Now he shows the threefold effect this miracle had on the people. First, its effect on their faith; secondly, on their plans to honor Jesus; thirdly, how it led them (and the disciples) to search for Jesus.
Sciendum est circa primum, quod quasi ex ore Iudaeorum dictum est in Ps. LXXIII, 9: signa nostra non vidimus, iam non est propheta. Erat autem olim consuetudo ut prophetae multa signa facerent, unde, deficientibus signis, videbatur prophetia cessasse. Cum vero signa vident, redditam sibi prophetiam confitentur. Unde iam tantum de viso miraculo profecerant, quod dominum prophetam dicebant. Dicitur ergo illi homines, qui satiati fuerant ex quinque panibus, cum vidissent quod Iesus fecerat signum, dicebant, quia hic est vere propheta. Sed tamen nondum ad perfectam fidem pervenerant, quia eum prophetam credebant qui etiam est dominus prophetarum. Nec tamen ex toto falluntur, quia etiam ipse dominus se prophetam nominat. 867 With respect to the first, we should note that the Jews said in the Psalm: “We have not seen our signs; there is now no prophet” (Ps 73:9). For it was customary in earlier days for the prophets to work omany signs; so, when these signs were absent, prophecy se emed to have ended. But when the Jews.see such signs, they believe that prophecy is returning. Accordingly, the people were so impressed by this miracle they just saw that they called our Lord a prophet. Thus we read, Now when these people, who had been filled with the five loaves, saw that Jesus had worked a miracle, they said: This is truly the Prophet. However, they did not yet have perfect faith, for they believed that Jesus was only a prophet, while he was also the Lord of the prophets. Yet, they were not entirely wrong, because our Lord called himself a prophet.
Sciendum est autem, quod propheta dicitur videns. I Reg. IX, 9: qui nunc dicitur propheta, olim vocabatur videns. Visio autem ad vim cognoscitivam pertinet. In Christo autem fuit triplex cognitio. Scilicet sensitiva: et secundum hanc habuit aliquam similitudinem cum prophetis, inquantum in imaginatione Christi formari poterant aliquae species sensibiles, quibus futura vel occulta praesentarentur, praecipue propter passibilitatem, quae sibi conveniebat propter statum viatoris. Item cognitio intellectiva: et quantum ad hanc non habet similitudinem cum prophetis; sed etiam est supra Angelos, quia erat comprehensor excellentius quam aliqua creatura. Item cognitio divina: et quantum ad hanc fuit prophetarum et Angelorum inspirator, cum omnis cognitio causetur per participationem verbi divini. 868 Here we should remark that a prophet is called a seer: “He who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer” (I Sm 9:9). Further, seeing pertains to the cognitive power. Now in Christ there were three kinds of knowledge. First of all, there was sense knowledge. And in this respect he had some similarity to the prophets, insofar as sensible species could be formed in the imagination of Christ to present future or hidden events. This was especially due to his passibility, which was appropriate to his state as a “wayfarer.” Secondly, Christ had intellectual knowledge; and in this he was not like the prophets, but was even superior to all the angels: for he was a “comprehensor” in a more excellent way than any creature. Again, Christ had divine knowledge, and in this way he was the one who inspired the prophets and the angels, since all knowledge is caused by a participation in the divine Word.
Videntur tamen in Christo excellentiam prophetiae cognoscere in hoc quod dicunt vere propheta. Licet enim multi prophetae inter Iudaeos fuerint, unus tamen expectabatur, in eis praecipuus, secundum illud Deut. XVIII, v. 15: prophetam suscitabit vobis dominus: et de hoc loquuntur; unde signanter dicit qui venturus est in mundum. Still, these people seemed to realize that Christ was a superior prophet, for they said: This is truly the Prophet. For although there had been many prophets among the Jews, they were waiting for a particular one, according to: “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you” (Dt 18:15). This is the one they are speaking of here; thus it continues: who is to come into the world.
Deinde cum dicit Iesus ergo cum cognovisset, etc., ponitur secundus effectus quantum ad intentatam honoris exhibitionem, quam tamen Christus refugit. Et ideo primo ponitur conatus plebis; secundo fuga Christi. 869 Next, we see the second effect of Christ’s miracle: the honor the people planned for Christ, which he refused. First, we have the attempt by the people; secondly, Christ’s flight from them.
Conatus quidem, cum dicitur ut raperent eum, et facerent eum regem. Illud enim rapi dicitur quod praeter voluntatem et opportunitatem accipitur. Verum autem erat quod dispositio Dei patris ab aeterno fuerat de regno Christi manifestando, sed manifestatio haec nondum opportuna erat secundum tempus; nam venerat tunc, sed non regnare, quomodo regnans est in eo quod dicimus Matth. VI, 10: adveniat regnum tuum, ubi regnabit etiam secundum illud quod homo factus est. Et ideo huic manifestationi aliud tempus est ordinatum, quando scilicet erit aperta claritas sanctorum eius, post iudicium ab eo factum. De ista manifestatione quaerebant discipuli, Act. I, 6: domine, si in tempore hoc restitues regnum Israel? 870 The attempt of the people is mentioned when he says, they would come to seize him and make him king. A person or thing is seized if it is taken in a way that one does not will or is not opportune. Now it is true that God’s plan from all eternity had been to establish the kingdom of Christ; but the time for this was not then opportune. Christ had come then, but not to reign in the way we ask for his reign when we say, “Your kingdom come” (Mt 6:10); at that time he will reign even as man. Another time was reserved for this: after the judgment of Christ, when the saints will appear in glory. It was about this kingdom the disciples asked when they said: “Lord, will you restore the kingdom to Israel at this time?” (Acts 1:6).
Credentes ergo turbae eum regnaturum venisse, volebant eum facere regem. Cuius ratio est, quia homines frequenter talem in dominum volunt qui eos in temporalibus pascat. Unde quia Christus paverat eos, eum regem facere voluerunt; Is. III, 6: vestimentum tibi est: esto princeps noster. Unde Chrysostomus dicit: vide quanta est gulae virtus. Non eis ultra cura est sabbati transgressionis, nec ultra zelant pro Deo, sed omnia remota sunt, ventre repleto: sed et propheta iam erat apud eos, et regem eum inthronizare volebant. So the people, thinking he had come to reign, wanted to make him their king. The reason for this is that men often want as their ruler someone who will provide them with temporal things. Thus, because our Lord had fed them, they were willing to make him their king: “You have a mantle, be our ruler” (Is 3:6). Chrysostom says: “See the power of gluttony. They are no longer concerned about his breaking the Sabbath; they are no longer zealous for God. All these things are set in the background now that their bellies are full. Now he is regarded as a prophet among them, and they want to set him on the royal throne as their king.”
Fuga autem Christi ponitur, cum dicit fugit iterum in montem ipse solus. Ubi datur intelligi, quod dominus videns turbas, de monte descenderat, et circa inferiora loca paverat turbas: nisi enim de monte descendisset, non diceretur iterum fugere in montem. 871 We see Christ’s flight when he says that he fled again into the mountains, alone. We can see from this that when our Lord had first seen the crowd of people he came down from the mountain and fed them in the valley, for we would not read that he went again into the mountains if he had not come down from them.
Sed cum ipse sit vere rex, quare fugit? Ad quod triplex ratio assignatur. Una, quia derogasset dignitati eius, si regnum ab homine recepisset, qui sic rex erat ut eius participatione reges omnes essent; Prov. VIII, 15: per me reges regnant. Alia ratio, quia praeiudicasset suae doctrinae, si claritatem aut robur ab hominibus accepisset. Sic enim operabatur et docebat ut totum virtuti divinae ascriberetur, et non favori humano; supra V, 41: claritatem ab hominibus non accipio. Tertia ratio est, ut erudiret nos mundanas dignitates contemnere; infra XIII, 15: exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis; Eccli. VII, 4: noli quaerere ab homine ducatum. Sic ergo gloriam mundi recusavit, ut tamen poenam sponte subiret, secundum illud Hebr. XII, 2: proposito sibi gaudio sustinuit crucem, confusione contempta. Why did Christ flee from the people, since he really is a king? There are three reasons for this. First, because it would have detracted from his dignity to have accepted a kingdom from men: for he is so great a king that all other kings are kings by participating in his kingship: “It is by me that kings rule” (Prv 8:15). Another reason is that it would have been hanuful to his teaching if he had accepted this dignity and support from men; for he had worked and taught in such a way that everything was attributed to divine power and not to the influence of men: “Praise from men I do not need” (above 5:41). The third reason was to teach us to despise the dignities of this world: “I have given you an example that as I have done to you, so you should do also” (below 13:15); “Do not seek dignity from men” (Sir 7:4). And so, he refused the glory of this world, but still endured its punishment of his own will: “Jesus endured the cross, despising the shame, for the joy set before him” (Heb 12:2).
Sed huic videtur contrarium quod dicitur Mt. XIV, 23, scilicet quod ascendit solus in montem orare. Sed, secundum Augustinum, haec non sunt contraria, quia causa fugiendi coniuncta est causae orandi. Tunc enim docet nos dominus magnam causam esse orandi, cum imminet causa fugiendi. 872 Matthew seems to conflict with this, for he says that “Jesus went up the mountain alone, to pray” (Mt 14:23). However, in the opinion of Augustine, there is no conflict here, because he had reason both to flee and to pray. For our Lord is teaching us that when a reason for flight draws near, there is great reason to pray.
Mystice autem tunc ascendit in montem quando turbae refectae paratae erant ei subiici, quia tunc ascendit in caelum quando populi parati erant se veritati fidei subiicere, secundum illud Ps. VII, 8: synagoga populorum circumdabit te; et propter hanc in altum regredere; idest, ut circumdet te synagoga populorum, regredere in altum. In the mystical sense, Christ went up into the mountain when the people he had fed were ready to subject themselves to him, because he went up into heaven when the people were ready to subject themselves to the truth of the faith, according to: “A congregation of people will surround you. Return above for their sakes,” i.e., return on high so a congregation of people may surround you (Ps 7:8).
Sed dictum est fugit, ut signaret quod non potuit intelligi altitudo eius: quod enim non intelligimus, dicimus a nobis fugere. He says that Christ fled, to indicate that the people could not understand his grandeur: for if we do not understand something, we say that it flees or eludes us.
Hic agitur de tertio effectu, scilicet de diligenti inquisitione, et primo quantum ad discipulos; secundo vero quantum ad turbas, ibi altera autem die et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit studium discipulorum; secundo explicat, ibi et tenebrae iam factae erant et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describit descensum discipulorum ad mare; secundo transitum maris, ibi et cum ascendissent navim, et cetera. 873 Now he considers the third effect of Christ’s miracle, the search for Christ. First, by his disciples; secondly, by the people. As to the first, he does two things. First, he tells of the eagerness of the disciples; and secondly, enlarges upon this (v 17b). He does two things about the first. First, he tells that they went down to the shore. Secondly, he tells of their journey across the sea (v 17).
Sciendum ergo circa primum, quod Christus ascendit montem nescientibus discipulis, unde expectaverunt usque ad vesperam, eum venturum esse putantes ad se. Facta autem vespera, non ultra sustinent eum non inquirere: tantus eos detinebat amor. Et ideo dicit ut autem sero factum est, descenderunt discipuli eius ad mare, requirentes eum. 874 Note, about the first, that Christ went up into the mountain without the knowledge of his disciples. So, they waited there until evening came, for they expected that he would come back to them. But their love was so great that when evening came they just had to go looking for him. Thus he says, When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, looking for Jesus.
Mystice autem per sero, dominica passio, seu ascensio designatur: quamdiu enim Christus praesentia corporali cum discipulis fuit, nulla eos deprimebat turbatio, amaritudo nulla vexabat; Mt. IX, 15: non possunt filii sponsi lugere quamdiu sponsus est cum illis. Sed Christo recedente ab eis, descendunt ad mare, idest ad turbationes saeculi; Ps. CIII, 25: hoc mare magnum. In the mystical sense, “evening” signifies our Lord’s passion or his ascension. For as long as the disciples enjoyed Christ’s physical presence, no trouble disturbed them and no bitterness vexed them: “Can the friends of the groom mourn as long as the groom is with them?” (Mt 9:15). But when Christ was away, then they “went down to the sea,” to the troubles of this world: “This great sea, stretching wide” (Ps 103:25).
Sed quia amor quo igniti erant, non sinebat eos diutius domini praesentia carere, ideo subdit eorum transitum, cum dicit et cum ascendissent navim, venerunt trans mare in Capharnaum. 875 He adds that they crossed, saying, After they got into the boat, they set out across the sea to Capernaum, for the love that burned within them could not endure our Lord’s absence for very long.
Consequenter cum dicit et tenebrae iam factae erant etc., explicat quod summatim posuerat, et primo de perventione ad mare; secundo de transitu, ibi mare autem, vento magno flante, exurgebat. 876 Now (17b), he enlarges upon what he had already said in summary fashion. First, on their going down to the sea; secondly, on their crossing (v 18).
Quantum ad primum dicit tenebrae iam factae erant, et non venerat ad eos Iesus: quod non sine causa Evangelista exprimit, ut per hoc ferventem eorum ostendat amorem. Non enim vespera nec nox eos detinuit. 877 As to the first, he says, It was already dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The Evangelist does not tell us this without a reason, for it shows the intensity of their love, since not even night or evening could stop them.
Mystice autem tenebrae, caritatis defectum designant; lux enim caritas est, secundum illud I Io. II, 10: qui diligit fratrem suum, in lumine est. Tenebrae ergo in nobis sunt quando non venit ad nos Iesus lux vera, ut dicitur supra I, in cuius praesentia omnes tenebrae propulsantur. In the mystical sense, the “dark” signifies the absence of love; for light is love, according to: “He who loves his brother dwells in the light” (1 Jn 2:10). Accordingly, there is darkness in us when Jesus, “the true light” (above 1:9) does not come to us, because his presence repells all darkness.
Subtraxit autem Christus se tamdiu discipulis, primo quidem ut sentirent quid esset eius absentia; quod quidem experti sunt in tempestate maris. Ier. II, 19: scito, et vide quia malum et amarum est dereliquisse te dominum. Secundo ut diligentius quaererent; Cant. V, 17: quo abiit dilectus tuus, o pulcherrima mulierum? (...). Et quaeremus eum tecum. Quantum ad transitum dicit mare autem, vento magno flante, exurgebat. Jesus left his disciples alone for this length of time so that they might experience his absence; and they did indeed experience it during the storm at sea: “Know and realize, that it is evil and bitter for you to have left the Lord” (Jer 2:19). He left them, in the second place, so that they might look for him more earnestly: “Where has your beloved gone, most beautiful of women? We will search for him with you” (Sg 5:17).
Et primo ponitur maris tempestas; secundo Christi apparitio et tempus apparitionis, ibi et cum remigassent etc.; tertio apparitionis effectus, ibi et timuerunt et cetera. 878 As for their crossing, first we see the storm at sea; then Christ coming to them, and the time; and thirdly, the effect this had.
Tempestas autem in mari causabatur a flatu exorti venti; et ideo dicit mare autem, vento magno flante, exurgebat, in altum. Per ventum illum figuratur tentatio et persecutio quae futura est Ecclesiae propter defectum caritatis. Nam, sicut Augustinus dicit, unde caritas refrigescit, inde fluctus augentur, et turbatur navis. Nec tamen venti illi et tempestas et fluctus et tenebrae id agebant ut vel navis non promoveretur, vel soluta frangeretur, quia qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit, Mt. XXIV, 13; et ibid. c. VII, 27: flaverunt venti, et irruerunt flumina et non cecidit domus. 879 The storm was caused by a rising wind; thus he says: The sea became rough, agitated by a great wind. This wind is a symbol for the trials and persecutions which would afflict the Church due to a lack of love. For as Augustine says, when love grows cold, the waves of the sea begin to swell and danger threatens the boat. Still, these winds and the storm, with its waves and darkness, did not stop (lie progress of’ the boat or so batter it that it broke apart: “He who perseveres to the end will be saved” (Mt 24:13); and again: “And the rains fell. and the floods came, and the house did not collapse,” as we read in Matthew (7:25).
Apparitio autem Christi non fuit statim a principio tempestatis, sed post aliquod spatium; et ideo dicit cum remigassent ergo quasi stadia vigintiquinque aut triginta, vident Iesum. Et hoc ideo ut daretur intelligi, quia dominus patitur nos ad tempus tribulari, ut virtus nostra probetur; finaliter tamen in necessitate non deserit, sed nobis proximus fit; I Cor. X, 13: fidelis Deus, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis; sed faciet etiam cum tentatione proventum, ut possitis sustinere. 880 Christ did not appear to them when the storm first began, but only some time later; thus he says, After they had rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia, they saw Jesus. We see from this that our Lord allows us to be troubled for a while so our virtue may be tested; but he does not desert us in the end, but comes very close to us: “God is faithful, and will not allow you to be tested beyond your strength” (1 Cor 10:13).
Secundum Augustinum vigintiquinque stadia, quae remigant, sunt quinque libri Moysi. Nam huiusmodi numerus est quadratus, de hoc numero quinque consurgens in multiplicatione sui in seipsum: quinquies enim quinque sunt vigintiquinque; numerus autem multiplicatus retinet significationem suae radicis: unde sicut per quinque signatur vetus lex, ita per vigintiquinque signatur perfectio novi testamenti. Per triginta autem signatur perfectio novi testamenti, quae deerat legi: nam si ipsa quinque multiplicentur per sex, qui est numerus perfectus, consurgit numerus terdenarius. Ad eos ergo qui remigant vigintiquinque aut triginta stadia, idest qui implent legem, vel perfectionem evangelicam, venit Iesus, calcans omnes tumores mundi, altitudines saeculi praesentis. Ps. LXXXVIII, 10: tu dominaris potestati maris, motum autem fluctuum eius tu mitigas. Et tunc videbimus Christum proximum navi, quia divinum auxilium approximat. Ps. CXLIV, 18: prope est dominus omnibus timentibus eum. Apparet ergo quod qui recte Christum quaerunt, eum habent praesentem. Isti autem ferventissime Christum desiderabant: quod patet ex temporis tenebrositate, ex maris tempestate et ex distantia portus, quibus non obstantibus ad eum ire conabantur. Et ideo Christus adfuit eis. According to Augustine, the twenty-five stadia they rowed are the five books of Moses. For twenty-five is the square of five, since five times five is twenty-five. But a number that is multiplied in this way keeps the meaning of its root. Thus, just as five signifies the old law, so twenty-five signifies the perfection of the New Testament. Thirty, however, signifies that perfection of the New Testament which was lacking in the law: for thirty is the result of multiplying five by six, which is a perfect number. So, Jesus comes to those who row twenty-five or thirty stadia, i.e., to those who fulfill the law or the perfection taught by the Gospel; and he comes treading under foot all the waves of pride and the dignities of this present world: “You rule the might of the sea and calm its waves” (Ps 88:10). And then we will see Christ near our boat, because divine help is close: “The Lord is near to all who fear him” (Ps 144:18). Thus it is clear that Christ is near to all those who seek him rightly. Now the Apostles loved Christ very keenly: this is obvious because they tried to go to him despite the darkness, the stormy sea, and the distance to shore. Consequently, Christ was with them.
Effectus autem apparitionis ponitur cum dicit et timuerunt. Ille autem dixit eis: ego sum, nolite timere, et primo ponitur effectus interior; secundo exterior, ibi et statim navis fuit ad terram. 881 Now we see the effect of Christ’s appearance. First, the interior effect; secondly, the exterior effect (v 2 1 b).
Effectus autem interior fuit timor; et ideo ponitur discipulorum timor conceptus ex subita Christi apparitione, cum dicit et timuerunt, bono timore, quia causatum ex humilitate; Rom. XI, 20: noli altum sapere, sed time. Vel malo timore, quia, ut dicitur Mt. c. XIV, 26, aestimabant eum phantasma esse. Ps. XIII, 5: trepidaverunt timore ubi non erat timor. Quoniam timor praecipue carnalibus competit, qui spiritualia expavescunt. 882 The interior effect of Christ’s appearance was fear; and he mentions the fear of the disciples at the sudden appearance of Christ when he says, and they were afraid. This was a good fear, because it was the effect of humility: “Do not be proud; rather fear” (Rom 11:20); or it was an evil fear, because “they thought it was a ghost” (Mk 6:49); “They trembled with fear” (Ps 13:5): for fear is especially appropriate to the carnal, because they are afraid of spiritual things.
Secundo ponitur Christi confortatio contra duplex periculum. Scilicet contra periculum fidei in intellectu, et quantum ad hoc dicit ego sum, quasi dubitationem omnem repellens; Lc. ult., 39: videte manus meas et pedes meos, quia ego ipse sum. Secundo contra periculum timoris in affectu; et quantum ad hoc dicit nolite timere; Ier. I, 8: ne timeas a facie eorum; Ps. XXVI, 1: dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea, quem timebo? Secondly, we see Christ encouraging them against two dangers. First, they are encouraged against the danger to the faith in their intellect when he says, It is 1, to eliminate their doubts: “Look at my hands and my feet! It is really me” (Lk 24:39). Secondly, Christ encourages them against the danger of fear in their emotions, saying, Do not be afraid: “Do not be afraid when they are present” (Jer 1:8); “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear” (Ps 26:1).
Tertio ponitur discipulorum assecutio, quia voluerunt eum accipere in navim: quo significatur quod quando timor servilis excluditur a cordibus nostris, tunc recipimus Christum, amando et contemplando. Apoc. III, 20: ego sto ad ostium et pulso: si quis aperuerit mihi, intrabo. Thirdly, we see the reaction of the disciples, for They then wanted to take him into the boat. This signifies that we receive Christ by love and contemplation after servile fear has been taken out of our hearts: “I stand at the door and knock. If any one opens it for me, I will enter” (Rv 3:20).
Effectus autem exterior fuit quantum ad duo. Primo, quia sedata est tempestas; secundo, quia statim navis fuit ad terram, cum multum ab ea distaret: non enim fallacem, sed tranquillam praebuit eis navigationem; et volens maius miraculum operari, navem non ascendit. Sic ergo triplex hic concurrit miraculum: scilicet ambulatio supra mare, subita tempestatis cessatio, et distantis navis ad portum deductio: ut discamus, quod fideles in quibus est Christus, tumorem mundi premunt, fluctus tribulationum calcant, et velociter ad terram viventium transeunt, secundum illud Ps. c. CXLII, 10: spiritus tuus bonus deducet me in terram. 883 There were two exterior effects: the storm abated, and their boat suddenly landed, although it had just been at a distance from the shore, for our Lord gave them a calm journey, without danger. He himself did not enter the boat because he wished to accomplish a greater miracle. So here we have three miracles: the walking on the sea, the quick calming of the storm, and the sudden arrival of the boat on the land although it had been far away. We learn from this that the faithful, in whom Christ is present, put down the swelling pride of this world, tread under their feet its waves of tribulation, and cross quickly to the land of the living: “Your good spirit will lead me to land” (Ps 142:10).
Sed hic est multiplex quaestio. Una est circa litteram, in qua videtur Matthaei contrarium dicere: nam, Mt. XIV, 22, dicitur quod discipuli venerunt ad mare de mandato domini; hic autem, quod descenderunt quaerentes eum. Alia quaestio est, quod Matthaeus ibidem dicit, quod discipuli mare transfretantes venerunt in terram Genesareth; hic autem dicitur, quod venerunt Capharnaum. Tertia quaestio est, quod Matthaeus dicit quod Christus intravit navem; hic autem, quod non. 884 There are a number of difficulties here. The first concerns the literal sense: Matthew (14:22) seems to conflict with our present account for he says that the disciples were told by Christ to go the shore, while here it says the disciples went there to search for him. Another difficulty is that Matthew (14:34) says that the disciples crossed over to Gennesaret, while we read here that they came to Capernaum. The third difficulty is that Matthew (14:32) says that Christ got into the boat, but here he did not.
Sed de his tribus breviter expediens se Chrysostomus dicit, istud non fuisse idem miraculum cum illo Matthaei. Nam, ut ipse dicit, Christus frequenter huiusmodi miraculum fecit ambulans supra mare, non tamen coram turbis, sed coram discipulis suis, ne turbae crederent eum non verum corpus habere. Secundum Augustinum autem dicitur, et verius, idem miraculum fuisse quod hic Ioannes narrat, et ibi Matthaeus. Et ideo ad primam quaestionem respondens dicit, quod non refert quod dicit Matthaeus eos praecepto Christi ad mare descendisse. Potuit enim esse quod dominus hoc eis mandasset, et ipsi descenderint credentes Christum cum eis navigaturum: unde expectarent eum usque ad noctem. Et quia Christus non venit, tunc ipsi transierunt mare. Chrysostom settles these difficulties quite briefly by saying that the two accounts do not deal with the same miracle. For, as he says, Christ frequently miraculously walked upon the sea in front of his disciples, but not for the people, lest they think he did not have a real body. But, according to Augustine, and this is the better opinion, John and Matthew are describing the same miracle. Augustine answers the first difficulty by saying it makes no difference that Matthew says the disciples went down to the shore because our Lord told them to. For it is possible that our Lord did so, and they went believing that he would sail with them. And that is why they waited until night, and when Christ did not come, they crossed by themselves.
Ad secundam quaestionem est duplex responsio. Una est, quia Capharnaum et Genesareth ex eodem littore sunt, et vicinae. Et forte discipuli pervenerunt trans mare in confinio utriusque, ideo Matthaeus nominat unam, et Ioannes aliam. Vel potest dici, quod Matthaeus non dicit quod statim venerunt in Genesareth, et ideo forte primo venerunt Capharnaum, et postea in Genesareth et cetera. There are two answers to the second difficulty. One is that Capernaum and Gennesaret are neighboring towns on the same shore. And perhaps the disciples landed at a place near both, so that Matthew mentions one and John the other. Or, it might be said that Matthew does not say that they came to Gennesaret immediately, they could have come first to Capernaurn and then to Gennesaret. [The answer to the third difficulty is not given.]

Lectio 3 LECTURE 3

22 τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἑστηκὼς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶδον ὅτι πλοιάριον ἄλλο οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ εἰ μὴ ἕν, καὶ ὅτι οὐ συνεισῆλθεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἀλλὰ μόνοι οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον: 23 ἄλλα ἦλθεν πλοιά[ρια] ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς τοῦ τόπου ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου. 24 ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν ὁ ὄχλος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ οὐδὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, ἐνέβησαν αὐτοὶ εἰς τὰ πλοιάρια καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ ζητοῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν. 25 καὶ εὑρόντες αὐτὸν πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶπον αὐτῷ, ῥαββί, πότε ὧδε γέγονας; 26 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν,

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
ζητεῖτέ με οὐχ ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα
ἀλλ' ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε.
27 ἐργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυμένην ἀλλὰ
τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν μένουσαν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον,
ἣν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑμῖν δώσει:
τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ θεός.
28 εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν, τί ποιῶμεν ἵνα ἐργαζώμεθα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ; 29 ἀπεκρίθη [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,
τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ,
ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.
30 εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ, τί οὖν ποιεῖς σὺ σημεῖον, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμέν σοι; τί ἐργάζῃ; 31 οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν τὸ μάννα ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καθώς ἐστιν γεγραμμένον, ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν.

22 On the next day, the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no second boat there, but only one, and that Jesus had not gone into the boat, but only his disciples had gone. 23 But other boats arrived from Tiberias, near the place where they had eaten the bread, after having given thanks to God. 24 When therefore the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they got into the boats and set off for Capernaum, looking for Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said: “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus replied and said:

“Amen, amen, I say to you:
you seek me not because you have seen miracles,
but because you have eaten of the bread
and have been filled.
27 Do not work for the food that perishes,
but for that which endures to eternal life,
which the Son of Man will give you,
for on him has God the Father set his seal.”
28 Then they said to him: “What must we do that we may perform the works of God?” 29 Jesus replied and said to them:
“This is the work of God,
that you believe in him whom he sent.”
30 They then said to him: “What sign then are you going to give that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

Postquam Evangelista posuit quomodo discipuli inquisierunt Christum hic consequenter agit de turbis eum quaerentibus, et primo ponitur motivum ad inquirendum; secundo inquirendi opportunitas, ibi aliae vero supervenerunt naves etc.; tertio ponitur ipsa inquisitio, ibi cum ergo vidisset turba et cetera. 885 After having described how the disciples searched for Christ, the Evangelist now shows the people looking for him. First, he states their motive; secondly, the occasion; and thirdly, the search itself (v 24).
Movit autem ad inquirendum Christum turbas miraculum praecedens, scilicet quod absque vehiculo mare transierit. Quod quidem innotuit eis, eo quod de sero non erat in littore, quod erat iuxta locum ubi fecerat miraculum de panibus, ubi una navis tantum erat, quae quidem navis cum discipulis ad aliam partem transfretavit absque Christo. Unde cum de mane non invenissent Christum ex eadem parte ex qua fuerat praecedenti die, sed iam erat ex alia parte, nec habuisset aliquam aliam navem in qua transiret, suspicati sunt quod supra mare ambulans transivisset. Et hoc est quod dicit altera die, ab ea qua fecerat miraculum de panibus, turba quae stabat trans mare, ubi miraculum fecerat vidit quod navicula alia non erat ibi nisi una, quia in praecedenti die non fuerat nisi illa tantum, et vidit quia non introisset cum discipulis suis Iesus in navim et cetera. Per hanc unam navem significatur Ecclesia, quae est una, unitate fidei et sacramentorum; Ephes. IV, 5: una fides, unum Baptisma. Per hoc autem quod Iesus non est cum discipulis, significatur corporalis separatio Christi ab eis in ascensione; Mc. ult., 19: dominus quidem Iesus postquam locutus est eis, assumptus est in caelum. 886 The crowd of people was looking for Christ because of the miracle mentioned above, that is, because he had crossed the sea without using any boat. They realized this because the other evening he had not been on the shore near where he had performed the miracle of the bread, and where there had been only one boat which had left for the opposite shore with the disciples, but without Christ. So that morning, when they could not find Christ on this side, since he was already on the other side although there was no other boat he could have used, they suspected that he had crossed by walking upon the sea. And this is what he says: On the next day, following the one on which he had worked the miracle of the bread, the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea, where he had performed this miracle, saw that there was no second boat there, but only one, because the day before that was the only one there, and they had seen that Jesus had not gone into the boat, but only his disciples had gone. This one ship signifies the Church, which is one by its unity of faith and sacraments: “One faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). Again, our Lord’s absence from his disciples signifies his physical absence from them at the ascension: “After the Lord Jesus spoke to them, he was taken up into heaven” (Mk 16:19).
Opportunitas autem inquirendi datur ex adventu aliarum navium ab alia parte maris, cum quibus poterant transire ad quaerendum Christum; et ideo dicit aliae vero naves supervenerunt, ex alia parte, scilicet a Tiberiade, iuxta locum ubi manducaverunt panes et cetera. 887 It was the arrival of other boats from the opposite side of the sea that gave the people the opportunity to look for Christ; they could cross on these and search for him. He says: But other boats arrived, from the other side, that is, from Tiberias, near the place where they had eaten the bread, after having given thanks to God.
Per istas alias naves quae supervenerunt, significantur conventicula haereticorum et eorum qui quae sua sunt, quaerunt, et non quae Iesu Christi; infra: quaeritis me, quia manducastis ex panibus meis; et quae sunt separatae vel fide quantum ad haereticos, vel caritate carentes quantum ad carnales, qui non sunt proprie in Ecclesia, sed tamen sunt iuxta eam, inquantum simulatam fidem praetendunt, et speciem sanctitatis habent; secundum illud II Tim. III, 5: habentes quidem speciem pietatis, virtutem autem eius abnegantes. Et II Cor. XI, 14: non est mirum si ministri Satanae transformant se. These other boats signify the various sects of heretics and of those who seek their own profit, and not the good of Jesus Christ: “You seek me... because you have eaten of the bread and have been filled” (v 26). These groups are either separated in faith, as are the heretics, or in the love of charity, as are the carnal, who are not properly in the Church, but next to it, insofar as they have a feigned faith and the appearance of holiness: “They have the appearance of devotion, but deny its power” (2 Tim 3:5); “Do not be surprised if the ministers of Satan disguise themselves” (2 Cor 11:14).
Sed inquisitio fuit studiosa; unde dicit cum ergo vidisset turba etc., et primo ostendit quomodo inquirit turba Christum; secundo quomodo inventum interrogat. 888 The people were eager to find Christ. First, he shows how they looked for him; secondly, how they questioned him after they found him (v 25).
Dicit ergo primo, quod cum vidisset turba quod Iesus non erat ibi, nec discipuli eius, ascenderunt in naviculas, quae venerant a Tiberiade, quaerentes eum: quod est laudabile; Is. LV, 6: quaerite dominum dum inveniri potest; et Ps. LXVIII, 33: quaerite dominum, et vivet anima vestra. 889 He says, When the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they got into the boats, which had come from Tiberias, looking for Jesus; and this is praiseworthy: “Search for the Lord while he can be found” (Is 55:6); “Seek the Lord, and your soul will have life” (Ps 68:33).
Sed inventum interrogant, unde dixit et cum turbae invenissent eum, scilicet Christum, trans mare, dixerunt ei: Rabbi, quando huc venisti? Sed haec quaestio dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo ut quaerant tantum de tempore; et tunc, secundum Chrysostomum exprobranda est eorum ruditas, quia post tantum miraculum non quaerunt de modo transeundi, qualiter scilicet sine navi transisset; sed tantum de tempore transitus. Vel potest dici, quod per hoc quod dicunt quando, non solum quaerunt de tempore, sed etiam de aliis circumstantiis quae concurrerunt ad transitum miraculosum. 890 Once they found him, they questioned him. When they, the people, found him, Christ, on the other side of the sea, they asked him: Rabbi, when did you come here? This can be understood in two ways. In the first way, they were asking about the time only. And then, Chrysostom says, they should be rebuked for their rudeness, because, after such a miracle, they did not ask how he crossed without a boat, but only when he did so. Or, it can be said that by asking when, they wanted to know not just the time, but the other circumstances connected with this miraculous crossing.
Sed attende, quod supra post refectionem volebant eum facere regem; nunc vero eum praesentem habent, nec eum regem facere volunt. Cuius ratio est, quia ipsi volebant eum facere regem concitati a passione laetitiae causatae a refectione. Passiones autem huiusmodi cito transeunt, et ideo ea quae secundum ipsas passiones disponuntur, transitoria sunt: quae vero ratione disponuntur, magis permanent; Eccli. XXVII, 12: homo sapiens in sapientia sua permanet sicut sol; stultus autem ut luna mutatur; Prov. XI, 18: impius facit opus instabile. 891 Note that now, after they have found Christ, they do not wish do make him their king, while before, after he had fed them, they did. They wanted to make him their king then because they were emotionally excited with the joy of their meal; but such emotions quickly pass. So it is that things that we plan according to our emotions do not last; but matters that we arrange by our reason last longer: “A wise man continues on in his wisdom like the sun; a fool changes like the moon” (Sir 27:12); “The work of the wicked will not last” (Prv 11:18)
Consequenter cum dicit respondit eis Iesus etc., agit dominus de cibo spirituali; et primo proponit veritatem de spirituali; secundo contradictionem excludit, ibi murmurabant ergo Iudaei de illo. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit veritatem spiritualis cibi; secundo insinuat eius originem, ibi dixerunt ergo ei: quod ergo tu facis signum? etc.; tertio docet modum capiendi ipsum cibum, ibi dixerunt ergo ad eum: domine, semper da nobis panem hunc. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit cibum spiritualem, et eius virtutem; secundo manifestat eum quis sit, ibi dixerunt ergo ad eum: quid faciemus ut operemur opera Dei? Circa primum duo facit. Primo arguit perversam eorum cupiditatem; secundo hortatur ad veritatem, ibi operamini et cetera. 892 Then (v 26), our Lord begins to mention a food that is spiritual. First, he states a truth about this spiritual food. In the second place, he clears up a misunderstanding (6:41). As to the first he does three things. First, he presents a truth about this spiritual food; secondly, he mentions its origin; and thirdly, he tells them how this spiritual food is to be acquired (6:34). He does two things about the first. First, he explains this spiritual food and its power; in the second place, he tells what this food is (v 28). As to the first, he does two things. First, he rebukes them for their disordered desires; in the second place, he urges them to accept the truth (v 27).
Dicit ergo amen, amen dico vobis, licet ostendatis vos quasi devotos, tamen quaeritis me, non quia vidistis signa, sed quia manducastis ex panibus, et saturati estis; quasi dicat: propter carnem me quaeritis, non propter spiritum, quia scilicet ut iterum pascamini. Et, sicut Augustinus dicit, locum istorum tenent qui quaerunt Iesum, non propter seipsum, sed ut aliqua commoda saecularia consequantur; sicut sunt illi qui negotia habentes, ad praelatos et clericos accedunt, non propter Christum, sed ut eorum intercessione promoveantur apud magnates; sicut sunt illi qui ad Ecclesias confugiunt, non propter Iesum, sed quia a potentioribus premuntur; sicut etiam sunt illi qui ad sacros ordines ad dominum appropinquantes, non eisdem merita virtutum, sed subsidia vitae praesentis inquirunt, scilicet divitias et honores, ut Gregorius dicit XXIII Moral. Et hoc patet: nam facere signa, virtutis divinae est; sed manducare panem multiplicatum, est temporale. Quia ergo non veniunt ad Christum propter virtutem quam in eo vident, sed propter hoc quod ex panibus manducant, non Christo serviunt, sed suo ventri, ut dicitur Phil. III et Ps. XLVIII, v. 19: confitebitur tibi cum benefeceris ei. 893 He says, Amen, amen, I say to you, that although you seem to be devout, you seek me not because you have seen miracles, but because you have eaten of the bread and have been filled. As if to say: You seek me, not for the sake of the spirit, but for the sake of the flesh, because you hope for more food. As Augustine says, these people represent those who seek Jesus not for himself, but in order to gain certain worldly advantages: as those engaged in some business call on clerics and prelates, not for the sake of Christ, but so that through their intervention they might be advanced into the ranks of those who are important; and like those who hurry to the churches, not for Christ, but because they have been urged to do so by those who are more powerful; and like those who approach our Lord for sacred orders not because they desire the merits of the virtues, but because they are looking for the satisfactions of this present life, as wealth and praise, as Gregory says in his Moralia. This is obvious: for to perform miracles is a work of divine power, but to eat loaves of bread which have been multiplied is temporal. Accordingly, those who do not come to Christ because of the power they see in him, but because they eat his bread, are not serving Christ but their own stomachs, as we see from Philippians (3:19); and again, “He will praise you when you are good to him,” as we read in the Psalm (48:19).
Ad veritatem eos reducit proponendo eis spiritualem cibum, dicens operamini non cibum qui perit, sed qui manet in vitam aeternam, et primo proponit eius virtutem; secundo eius auctoritatem, ibi quem filius hominis dedit vobis. 894 He leads them back to the truth by calling their attention to spiritual food, saying, Do not work for the food that perishes, but for that which endures to eternal life. First, he mentions its power; secondly, that it comes from him, which the Son of Man will give you.
Virtus illius cibi consideratur in hoc quod non perit. Unde sciendum est circa hoc, quod corporalia sunt quaedam similitudines spiritualium, utpote ab eis causata et derivata, et ideo imitantur ipsa spiritualia aliquo modo. Unde sicut corpus sustentatur cibo, ita illud quo sustentatur spiritus, dicitur eius cibus, quidquid sit illud. Illud autem quo sustentatur corpus, cum transeat in corporis naturam, corruptibile est; sed cibus quo sustentatur spiritus, est incorruptibilis, quia non mutatur in ipsum spiritum, sed potius e converso spiritus in cibum. Unde dictum est, Augustini: cibus sum grandium: cresce, et manducabis me. Nec tu me mutabis in te, ut cibum carnis tuae, sed mutaberis in me: ut dicitur Lib. confessionum. 895 The power of this food is seen in the fact that it does not perish. In this respect we should point out that material things are likenesses of spiritual things, since they are caused and produced by them; and consequently they resemble spiritual things in some way. Now just as the body is sustained by food, so that which sustains the spirit is called its food, whatever it might be. The food that sustains the body is perishable, since it is converted into the nature of the body; but the food that sustains the spirit is not perishable, because it is not converted into the spirit; rather, the spirit is converted into its food. Hence Augustine says in his Confessions: “I am the food of the great; grow and you will eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do bodily food, but you will be changed into me.”
Et ideo dicit dominus operamini; idest, operando quaerite, seu operibus mereamini non cibum qui perit, scilicet corporalem; I Cor. c. VI, 13: esca ventri, et venter escis, Deus autem et hunc et hanc destruet quia non semper erit usus ciborum; sed illum cibum operamini, scilicet spiritualem, qui manet in vitam aeternam; qui quidem cibus est ipse Deus, inquantum est veritas contemplanda, et bonitas amanda, quibus reficitur spiritus; Prov. c. IX, 5: comedite panem meum; Eccli. XV, v. 3: cibavit illum pane vitae et intellectus. Item ipsa obedientia divinorum mandatorum; supra IV, 34: meus cibus est ut faciam voluntatem eius qui misit me. Item ipse etiam Christus. Infra eodem: ego sum panis vitae; item: caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Et hoc inquantum est coniuncta verbo Dei, quod est cibus quo Angeli vivunt. Similem autem differentiam assignavit supra c. IV, 13, de potu corporali et potu spirituali, cum dixit: qui biberit ex aqua hac, sitiet iterum: qui autem biberit ex aqua quam ego dabo ei, non sitiet in aeternum, quam hic assignat inter cibum corporalem et spiritualem. Cuius ratio est, quia corporalia sunt corruptibilia, spiritualia vero, et maxime Deus, sunt aeterna. So our Lord says: work, i.e., seek by your work, or merit by your works, not for the food that perishes, i.e., bodily food: “Food is for the stomach, and the stomach for food, but God will destroy both” (1 Cor 6:13), because we will not always need food; but work for that which, that is, the spiritual food, endures to eternal life. This food is God himself, insofar as he is the Truth which is to be contemplated and the Goodness which is to be loved, which nourish the spirit: “Eat my bread” (Prv 9:5); “Wisdom will feed him with the bread of life and understanding” (Sir 15:5). Again, this food is the obedience to the divine commands: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me” (above 4:34). Also, it is Christ himself: “I am the bread of life” (6:35); “My flesh truly is food and my blood truly is drink” (6:56): and this is so insofar as the flesh of Christ is joined to the Word of God, which is the food by which the angels live. The difference between bodily and spiritual food which he gives here, is like the one he gave before between bodily and spiritual drink: “Whoever drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water that I give, will never be thirsty again” (4:13). The reason for this is that bodily things are perishable, while spiritual things, and especially God, are eternal.
Sed sciendum est, secundum Augustinum in libro de operibus monachorum, quod ex hoc verbo, scilicet operamini non cibum qui perit, quidam monachi erroris causam sumpserunt, dicentes, spirituales viros non debere aliquid corporaliter operari. Sed hic intellectus est falsus, quia Paulus, qui maxime spiritualis fuit, propriis manibus laboravit, ut habetur Ephes. IV, 28, ubi ipse dicit: qui furabatur, iam non furetur; magis autem laboret manibus suis. Ergo est verus intellectus, ut opus nostrum, idest principale studium et intentionem nostram dirigamus ad quaerendum cibum qui ducit ad vitam aeternam, scilicet bona spiritualia. Ad temporalia autem non debemus principaliter attendere, sed accessorie, idest solum ea procurare ratione corporis corruptibilis, quod sustentari oportet quamdiu in hac vita vivimus. Unde contra hoc signanter dicit apostolus, II Thess. III, 10: qui non laborat non manducet; quasi diceret: qui dicunt quod nihil corporale est operandum, quia comestio est quid corporale, tales non debent comedere. 896 We should note that according to Augustine, in his work, On the Labor of Monks, that certain monks misunderstood our Lord’s saying, Do not work for the food that perishes, and claimed that spiritual men should not perform physical work. But this interpretation is false because Paul, who was most spiritual, worked with his hands: as we read in Ephesians, there he says (4:28): “Let him who stole, steal no longer, rather let him work with his hands.” The correct interpretation, therefore, is that we should direct our work, i.e., our main interest and intention, to seeking the food that leads to eternal life, that is, spiritual goods. In regard to temporal goods, they should not be our principal aim but a subordinate one, that is, they are to be acquired only because of our mortal body, which has to be nourished as long as we are living this present life. So the Apostle speaks against this opinion, saying: “If any one will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thes 3:10); as if to say: those who maintain that physical work is not to be done should not eat, since eating is physical.
Consequenter cum dicit quem filius hominis dabit vobis, ponit spiritualis cibi datorem: et primo ponit auctorem huius cibi; secundo manifestat unde habeat auctoritatem cibandi. Auctor autem et dator cibi spiritualis est Christus; et ideo dicit quem, scilicet cibum qui non perit, filius hominis dabit vobis. Si dixisset filius Dei, non fuisset visum mirum; sed hoc quod filius hominis dat eum, magis elevat ad attentionem. Spiritualiter tamen ideo filius hominis dat, quia natura humana infirma per peccatum fastidiebat spiritualem cibum, nec poterat ipsum in sua spiritualitate sumere: unde oportuit quod filius Dei carnem sumeret, et per eam nos reficeret; Ps. XXII, 5: parasti in conspectu meo mensam. 897 Next (v 27), he mentions the one who gives this spiritual food. First, we see the author of this food; secondly, the source of his authority to give us this food. Christ is the author of this spiritual food, and the one who gives it to us. Thus he says, which, that is, the food that does not perish, the Son of Man will give you. If he had said, “the Son of God,” it would not have been unexpected; but he captures their attention by saying that the Son of Man gives this food. Yet the Son of Man gives this food in a spiritual way, because human nature, weakened by sin, found spiritual food distasteful, and was not able to take it in its spirituality. Thus it was necessary for the Son of Man to assume flesh and nourish us with it: “You have prepared a table before me” (Ps 22:5).
Unde autem habeat auctoritatem dandi, subdit cum dicit hunc enim pater signavit Deus; quasi dicat: quod filius hominis dabit, hoc non habet nisi inquantum singularitate et eminentia plenitudinis gratiae praecellit omnes filios hominum; unde dicit hunc, scilicet filium hominis, pater signavit: idest, signanter distinxit a ceteris; Ps. XLIV, 8: unxit te Deus Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. 898 He adds the source of his authority to give us this food when he says, for on him has God the Father set his seal. As if to say: the Son of Man will give us this food because he surpasses all the sons of men by his unique and preeminent fulness of grace. Thus he says, on him, i.e., on the Son of Man, has God the Father set his seal, i.e., he has significantly distinguished him from others: “God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows” (Ps 44:8).
Vel, secundum Hilarium signavit, idest sigillavit. Quando autem sigillum in cera imprimitur, cera retinet totam figuram sigilli, sicut et filius totam figuram patris accepit. Est autem duplex receptio quam filius recepit a patre. Una aeterna; et de hac non intelligitur quod hic dicitur signavit, quia in sigillatione aliud est natura recipiens, et aliud imprimens. Sed hoc intelligitur de mysterio incarnationis, quia in natura humana Deus pater impressit verbum, qui est splendor et figura substantiae eius: ut dicitur Hebr. I, 3. Hilary explains it this way. God set his seal, i.e., impressed with a seal. For when a seal is impressed on wax, the wax retains the entire figure of the seal, just as the Son has received the entire figure of the Father. Now the Son receives from the Father in two ways. One of these ways is eternal, and set his seal does not refer to this way, because when something is sealed the nature receiving the seal is not the same as the nature impressing the seal. Rather, these words should be understood as referring to the mystery of the incarnation, because God the Father has impressed his Word on human nature; this Word who is “the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance” (Heb 1:3).
Vel secundum Chrysostomum signavit, idest, ad hoc specialiter eum Deus pater instruit ut daret vitam aeternam mundo; infra X, 10: ego veni ut vitam habeant et cetera. Sic enim quando aliquis eligitur ad aliquod magnum officium peragendum, dicitur signari ad illud officium; Lc. X, 1: post haec designavit dominus et alios septuaginta discipulos et cetera. Chrysostom explains it this way. God the Father has set his seal, i.e., God the Father specifically chose Christ to give eternal life to the world: “I came that they may have life” (below 10:10). For when someone is chosen to perform some great task, he is said to be sealed for that task: “After this, the Lord appointed (designo, appoint; signo, seal, mark) seventy other disciples” (Lk 10:1).
Vel signavit, idest manifestavit per vocem in Baptismo, et per opera, ut dictum est supra, V. Consequenter cum dicit dixerunt ergo ad eum: quid faciemus ut operemur opera Dei? Or, it could be said that God the Father set his seal, i.e., Christ was made known by the Father, by his voice at Christ’s baptism, and by his works, as we saw in the fifth chapter.
Manifestat quid sit cibus spiritualis, et primo ponitur quaestio Iudaeorum; secundo subditur responsio Iesu Christi, ibi respondit Iesus et cetera. 899 Next (v 28), we see the nature of spiritual food. First, the Jews pose their question; in the second place, we have the answer of Jesus Christ (v 29).
Circa primum sciendum est, quod Iudaei instructi ex lege, credebant nihil aeternum esse nisi Deum. Unde, cum dixisset quod cibus spiritualis permaneat in vitam aeternam, intellexerunt cibum illum esse aliquid divinum. Et ideo quaerentes, non de cibo, sed de opere Dei mentionem faciunt, cum dicunt quid faciemus ut operemur opera Dei? In quo non longe erant a veritate, cum nihil aliud sit cibus spiritualis quam operari opera Dei; Lc. c. XVIII, 18: quid faciendo vitam aeternam possidebo? 900 Concerning the first, we should note that the Jews, since they had been taught by the law, believed that only God was eternal. So when Christ said that his food would endure to eternal life, they understood that it would be a divine food. Thus when they question Christ, they do not mention this food, but rather the work of God, saying: What must we do that we may perform the works of God? Indeed, they were not far from the truth, since spiritual food is nothing else than performing and accomplishing the works of God: “What shall I do to gain eternal life?” (Lk 18:18).
Responsio domini ponitur, cum dicit hoc est opus Dei ut credatis in illum et cetera. Ubi considerandum est, quod apostolus, Rom. IV, distinguit fidem ab operibus, dicens, quod Abraham non est iustificatus ex operibus, sed ex fide. Quid est ergo quod hic dominus dicit, ipsam fidem, seu credere, esse opus Dei? Sed ad hoc est duplex responsio. Una, quod apostolus non distinguit fidem ab operibus simpliciter, sed ab exterioribus. Sunt enim quaedam opera exteriora, quae exercentur corporalibus membris, quae quia magis nota sunt, secundum communem usum opera dicuntur; alia vero sunt interiora, quae exercentur in ipsa anima, quae non sunt nota nisi sapientibus, et quae convertuntur ad cor. 901 The Lord’s answer is given when he says: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he sent. Here we should reflect that in Romans (4:2), the Apostle distinguished faith from works, saying that Abraham was justified by his faith, not by his works. If this is so, why does our Lord say here that to have faith, i.e., to believe, is a work of God? There are two answers to this. One is that the Apostle is not distinguishing faith from absolutely all works, but only from external works. External works, being performed by our body, are more noticeable, and so the word “works” ordinarily refers to them. But there are other works, interior works, performed within the soul, and these are known only to the wise and those converted in heart.
Alio modo dicitur, quod ipsum credere potest computari inter opera exteriora, non quod fides sit ipsa opera, sed eorum principium; From another point of view, we can say that to believe can be regarded as included in our external works, not in the sense that it is an external work, but because it is the source of these works.
unde et signanter dicit ut credatis in illum. Differt enim dicere credere Deum, sic enim designo obiectum; et credere Deo, quia sic designo testem; et credere in Deum, quia sic designo finem: ut sic Deus possit haberi ut obiectum fidei, ut testis, et ut finis; sed aliter et aliter. Quia obiectum fidei potest esse creatura, credo enim caelum esse creatum; similiter et creatura potest esse testis fidei, credo enim Paulo, seu cuicumque sanctorum; sed fidei finis non potest esse nisi Deus: nam mens nostra solum in Deum fertur sicut in finem. Finis autem cum habeat rationem boni, est obiectum amoris; et ideo credere in Deum ut in finem, est proprium fidei formatae per caritatem: quae quidem fides sic formata, est principium omnium bonorum operum; et intantum ipsum credere dicitur opus Dei. Thus he significantly says: that you believe in him (in illum) . Now it is one thing to say: “I believe in God,” (credere Deum), for this indicates the object. It is another thing to say: “I believe God,” (credere Deo), for this indicates the one who testifies. And it is still another thing to say: “I believe in God,” (in Deum), for this indicates the end. Thus God can be regarded as the object of faith, as the one who testifies, and as the end, but in different ways. For the object of faith can be a creature, as when I believe in the creation of the heavens. Again, a creature can he one who testifies, for I believe Paul (credo Paulo) or any of the saints. But only God can be the end of faith, for our mind is directed to God alone as its end. Now the end, since it has the character of a good, is the object of love. Thus, to believe in God (in Deum) as in an end is proper to faith living through the love of charity. Faith, living in this way, is the principle of all our good works; and in this sense to believe is said to be a work of God.
Sed si fides est opus Dei, quomodo homines faciunt opera Dei? Sed hoc solvitur per Is. XXVI, 12, cum dicit: omnia opera nostra operatus est in nobis. Nam hoc idem quod credimus, et quidquid operamur boni, est in nobis a Deo; Phil. II, v. 13: ipse est qui operatur in nobis et velle, et perficere. Et ideo signanter dicit, credere esse opus Dei, ut ostendat fidem esse donum Dei, ut dicitur Eph. II, 8. 902 But if faith is a work of God, how do men do the works of God? Isaiah (26:12) gives us the answer when he says: “You have accomplished all our works for us.” For the fact that we believe, and any good we do, is from God: “It is God who is working in us, both to will and to accomplish” (Phil 2:13). Thus he explicitly says that to believe is a work of God in order to show us that faith is a gift of God, as Ephesians (2:8) maintains.
Consequenter cum dicit dixerunt ergo ei: quod ergo tu facis signum? Agitur de origine cibi, et primo ponitur quaestio Iudaeorum; secundo responsio Christi, ibi amen, amen dico vobis, non Moyses dedit vobis panem de caelo. Circa primum tria faciunt. Primo petunt signum; secundo determinant ipsum; tertio inducunt Scripturae testimonium. 903 Next, we see the origin of this food. First, we have the question asked by the Jews; secondly, the answer of Christ (v 32). Three things are done about the first: first, the Jews look for a sign; secondly, they decide what it should be; and thirdly, they bring in what is narrated in Scripture.
Signum autem petunt proponendo quaestionem; unde dixerunt illi: quod tu facis signum, ut videamus, et credamus tibi? Haec autem quaestio aliter inducitur ab Augustino, et aliter a Chrysostomo. Chrysostomus enim dicit, quod dominus invitaverat eos ad fidem. Argumenta autem ad fidem inducentia sunt miracula; I Cor. XIV, 22: signa data sunt infidelibus. Et ideo ad hoc quaerunt signum quo credant: mos enim est Iudaeis signa petere; I Cor. I, 22: quoniam Iudaei signa quaerunt. Unde dicit quod ergo signum tu facis? 904 They look for a sign by asking Christ: What sign then are you going to give that we may see and believe you? This question is explained differently by Augustine and by Chrysostom. Chrysostom says that our Lord was leading them to the faith. But the evidence that leads one to the faith are miracles: “Signs were given to unbelievers” (1 Cor 14:22). And so the Jews were looking for a sign in order to believe, for it is their custom to seek such signs: “For Jews demand signs” (1 Cor 14:22). So they say: What sign then are you going to give?
Sed hoc ridiculosum videtur, quod propter hoc quaerant aliqua miracula, quia statim fecerat aliqua multiplicando panes, et ambulando supra mare, quae in praesentia extiterant, quibus credere possent. Sed hoc ideo dicunt, ut provocent dominum, et inducant ut semper eos pasceret. Quod patet, quia nullam mentionem faciunt de alio signo, nisi de eo quod factum est in eorum parentibus per Moysen quadraginta annis, ut quasi per hoc petant quod semper eos pascat; unde dicunt patres nostri manducaverunt manna in deserto. Nec dicunt: Deus pavit patres nostros manna, ne videantur velle aequare eum Deo. Similiter non dicunt, Moyses pavit eos, ne videantur Moysen praeferre Christo, quasi in hoc eum allicere volentes, ut continue eos pascat. De cibo illo dicitur Ex. XVI, et in Ps. c. LXXVII, 25: panem Angelorum manducavit homo. But it seems foolish to ask for a miracle for this reason, for Christ had just performed some in their presence which could lead them to believe, as multiplying the bread and walking on the water. What they were asking was that our Lord always provide them with food. This is clear because the only sign they mention is the one given by Moses to their ancestors for forty years, and they ask in this way that Christ always provide food for them. Thus they say: Our fathers ate manna in the desert. They did not say that God provided their ancestors with the manna, so that they would not seem to be making Christ equal to God. Again, they did not say that Moses fed their ancestors, so they would not seem to be preferring Moses to Christ, trying in this way to influence our Lord. We read of this food: “Man ate the bread of angels” (Ps 77:25).
Augustinus autem dicit, quod dominus dixit se daturum eis cibum qui permanet in vitam aeternam; unde quasi videtur se Moysi praeferre. Iudaei autem Moysen reputabant maiorem Christo; unde dicebant, infra c. IX, 29: nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus; hunc autem nescimus unde sit. Unde requirebant quod Christus faceret aliqua maiora quam Moyses fecerit; et ideo reducunt in memoriam ea quae Moyses fecit, dicentes: patres nostri manducaverunt manna in deserto; quasi diceret: hoc quod dicis de te, maius est quam illud quod fecit Moyses: quia promittis cibum qui non perit; sed manna quod dabat Moyses si servabatur in alium diem, vermibus scaturiebat. Si ergo vis ut credamus tibi, facias aliquid maius Moyse: nam quod fecisti non est maius, quia satiasti quinque millia hominum, sed quinque panibus hordeaceis, et semel tantum; ille vero totum populum satiavit manna de caelo annis quadraginta, et hoc in deserto, sicut scriptum est in Ps. LXXVII, 24: panem de caelo dedit eis manducare. 905 According to Augustine, however, our Lord had said that he would give them food that would endure to eternal life. Thus, he seemed to put himself above Moses. The Jews, on the other hand, considered Moses greater than Christ; so they said: “We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know where this man is from” (below 9:29). Accordingly, they required Christ to accomplish greater things than Moses; and so they recall what Moses did, saying: Our Fathers ate manna in the desert. As if to say: What you say about yourself is greater than what Moses did, for you are promising a food that does not perish, while the manna that Moses gave became wormy if saved for the next day. Therefore, if we are to believe you, do something greater than Moses did. Although you have fed five thousand men once with five barley loaves, this is not greater than what Moses did, for he fed all the people with manna from heaven for forty years, and in the desert too: “He gave them the bread of heaven” (Ps 77:24).

Lectio 4 LECTURE 4

32 εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ,
ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου δίδωσιν ὑμῖν
τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν:
33 ὁ γὰρ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν
ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
καὶ ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ.
34 εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν, κύριε, πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον. 35 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς:
ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρός ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ,
καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε.
36 ἀλλ' εἶπον ὑμῖν ὅτι καὶ ἑωράκατέ [με]
καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε.
37 πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει,
καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω,
38 ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν
ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με:
39 τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με,
ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ
ἀλλὰ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
40 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου,
ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν
ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον,
καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

32 Jesus therefore said to them:

“Amen, amen, I say to you:
Moses did not give you bread from heaven,
but my Father gives you true bread from heaven.
33 For the true bread is that which descends
from heaven, and gives life to the world.”
34 They then said to him: “Lord, give us this bread always.” 35 But Jesus said to them:
“I am the bread of life.
Whoever comes to me shall not hunger;
and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
36 But I have told you that you have both seen me
and do not believe.
37 All that the Father gives me shall come to me;
and the one who comes to me I will not cast out,
38 because I have come down from heaven,
not to do my own will,
but the will of him who sent me.
39 Now it is the will of him who sent me, the Father,
that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing,
but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, who sent me,
that every one who sees the Son and believes in him,
should have eternal life.
And I will raise him up on the last day.”

Posita Iudaeorum interrogatione, hic ponitur responsio Christi. Et primo ostendit originem cibi spiritualis; secundo probat eam, ibi panis enim verus est qui de caelo descendit. 906 Having told us the question the Jews had asked Christ, the Evangelist now gives his answer. First, Christ tells us of the origin of this spiritual food; secondly, he proves what he has just said (v 33).
Circa primum sciendum est, quod Iudaei duo proposuerant Christo circa originem cibi corporalis, quem patres eorum habuerunt; scilicet datorem, qui fuit Moyses, et locum, quia de caelo; et ideo dominus circa originem cibi spiritualis haec duo removens, ponit alium esse datorem cibi spiritualis, et alium locum. Unde dicit, removendo praedicta, amen, amen dico vobis, non Moyses dedit vobis panem de caelo. 907 Concerning the first, we should note that the Jews had mentioned two things to Christ concerning the bodily food which had been given to their ancestors: the one who gave this food, Moses, and the place, that is, from heaven. Accordingly, when our Lord tells them about the origin of spiritual food, he does not mention these two, for he says that there is another who gives this food and another place. He says: Amen, amen, I say to you: Moses did not give you bread from heaven. There is another who gives to you, that is, my Father; and he gives, not, just bodily bread, but the true bread from heaven.
Alius est qui dat, quia pater meus, non panem corporalem, sed panem verum de caelo. Sed contra. Numquid non vere panis fuit quem habuerunt patres in deserto? Respondeo. Si accipiatur verum secundum quod dividitur contra falsum, sic panis ille verus fuit, non enim falsum erat miraculum de manna; si autem accipiatur verum, prout veritas dividitur contra figuram, sic panis ille non fuit verus, sed figura panis spiritualis, scilicet domini nostri Iesu Christi, quem ipsum manna significabat, ut dicit apostolus, I Cor. c. X, 3: omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt. 908 But was it not true bread that their ancestors had in the desert? I answer that if you understand “true” as contrasted with “false,” then they had true bread, for the miracle of the manna was a true miracle. But if “true” is contrasted with “symbolic,” then that bread was not true, but was a symbol of spiritual bread, that is, of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom that manna signified, as the Apostle says: “All ate the same spiritual food” (1 Cor 10:3).
Item contra hoc quod dicit non dedit vobis panem de caelo, est quod dicitur in Ps. LXXVII, 24: panem caeli dedit eis. Respondeo. Caelum accipitur tripliciter. Quandoque pro aere; Mt. XIII, 4: volucres caeli comederunt illud; et in Ps. XVII, 14: intonuit de caelo dominus. Quandoque pro caelo sidereo, secundum illud Ps. CXIII, 16: caelum caeli domino; et Mt. XXIV, 29: stellae cadent de caelo. Quandoque vero pro ipsis spiritualibus bonis; Mt. V, 12: gaudete et exultate, quia merces vestra multa est in caelo. Manna ergo de caelo fuit non sidereo seu spirituali, sed aereo. Vel dicitur de caelo inquantum erat figura veri panis caelestis domini nostri Iesu Christi. 909 When the Psalm (77:24) says, “He gave them the bread of heaven,” this seems to conflict with, Moses did not give you bread from heaven. I answer that the word “heaven” can be understood in three ways. Sometimes it can mean the air, as in “The birds of heaven ate them” (Mt 13:4); and also in, “The Lord thundered from heaven” (Ps 14:14). Sometimes “heaven” means the starry sky; as in, “The highest heaven is the Lord’s” (Ps 113:16), and in, “The stars will fall from heaven” (Mt 24:19). Thirdly, it can signify goods of a spiritual nature, as in “Rejoice and be glad, because your reward is great in heaven” (Mt 5:12). So the manna was from heaven, not the heaven of the stars or of spiritual food, but from the air. Or, the manna was said to be from heaven insofar as it was a symbol of the true bread from heaven, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Consequenter cum dicit panis enim verus est qui de caelo descendit, et dat vitam mundo, probat quod sit de caelo et per effectum eius. Verum enim caelum est spiritualis naturae, cui per se convenit vita, et ideo per se vivificat; infra: spiritus est qui vivificat. Ipse autem Deus est auctor vitae. Ex hoc ergo cognoscitur quod panis iste spiritualis est de caelo, cum faciat proprium effectum, si dat vitam. Nam panis ille corporalis vitam non dabat, quia omnes qui manna manducaverunt, mortui sunt; iste autem dat vitam, et ideo dicit panis verus est, et non figuralis, qui de caelo descendit. Et hoc patet, quia dat vitam mundo. Nam Christus, qui est verus panis, quos vult vivificat; infra X, 10: ego veni ut vitam habeant et cetera. Ipse etiam de caelo descendit; supra III, 13: nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis qui est in caelo. Sic ergo Christus verus panis, vitam dat mundo ratione suae divinitatis, et descendit de caelo ratione humanae naturae. Nam, ut supra III dictum est, descendisse de caelo dicitur assumendo humanam naturam; Phil. II, 7: exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens. Dixerunt ergo, et cetera. 910 When he says, For the true bread is that which descends from heaven, and gives life to the world, he proves that it is from heaven by its effect. For the true heaven is spiritual in nature, and has life by its own essence; therefore, of itself, it gives life: “It is the spirit that gives life” (below 6:64). Now God himself is the author of life. Therefore, we know that this spiritual bread is from heaven when it produces its proper effect, if it gives life. That bodily bread used by the Jews did not give life, since all who ate the manna died. But this [spiritual] bread does give life, so he says: the true bread, not that symbolic bread, is that which descends from heaven. This is clear, because it gives life to the world: for Christ, who is the true bread, gives life to whom he wills: “I came that they may have life” (below 10:10). He also descended from heaven: “No one has gone up to heaven except the One who came down from heaven” (above 3:13). Thus Christ, the true bread, gives life to the world by reason of his divinity; and he descends from heaven by reason of his human nature, for as we said on the prior text, he came down from heaven by assuming human nature: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7).
Hic agitur de adeptione cibi spiritualis, et primo ponitur petitio ipsius cibi; secundo ponitur expositio, ibi dixit autem eis Iesus: ego sum panis vitae, ubi ostendit modum adeptionis. 911 Now he considers the acquisition of this spiritual food. First, we see the Jews asking for it; secondly, he shows the way it is acquired (v 3 5).
Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod Iudaei verba domini carnaliter intelligebant; et ideo quia in desiderio carnalium erant, cibum carnalem petunt a Christo; unde dixerunt ad eum domine, semper da nobis hunc panem, qui reficiat hoc modo. Et Samaritana verbum de aqua spirituali carnaliter intelligebat, et indigentia carere volens dixit: domine, da mihi hanc aquam. Et licet isti verba domini carnaliter de cibo intelligant, et carnaliter petant; tamen eorum petitio spiritualiter intellecta, nobis competit; Mt. VI, 11: panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie: quia non possumus sine hoc pane vivere. 912 We should note with respect to the first, that the Jews understood what Christ said in a material way; and so, because they desired material things, they were looking for material bread from Christ. Hence they said to him, Lord, give us this bread always, which physically nourishes us. The Samaritan woman also understood what our Lord said about spiritual water in a material way, and wishing to slake her thirst, said, “Give me this water” (above 4:15). And although these people understood what our Lord said about food in a material way, and asked for it this way, we are expected to ask for it as understood in a spiritual way: “Give us this day our daily bread” (Mt 6:11), because we cannot live without this bread.
Consequenter cum dicit dixit autem eis Iesus: ego sum panis vitae, ostendit modum adeptionis, ostendens primo quid sit iste panis; secundo quomodo acquiratur, ibi omne quod dat mihi pater, ad me veniet. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit expositionem panis praedicti; secundo expositionis rationem assignat, ibi qui venit ad me, non esuriet; tertio exponendi necessitatem manifestat, ibi sed dixi vobis et cetera. 913 Then, he shows how this bread is acquired. First, he shows what this bread is; secondly, how to obtain it (v 37). Concerning the first, he does three things. First, he explains what this bread is, I am the bread of life; secondly, he gives the reason for this, Whoever comes to me shall not hunger; thirdly, he shows why this had to be explained (v 36).
Dixit ergo eis Iesus ego sum panis vitae: nam, sicut supra dictum est, verbum sapientiae est specialis cibus mentis, quia eo mens sustentatur; Eccli. XV, 3: cibavit illum pane vitae et intellectus. Dicitur autem panis sapientiae esse panis vitae, ad differentiam panis corporalis, qui est panis mortis, qui non competit nisi ad restaurandum defectum mortalitatis, unde et solum in hac vita mortali necessarius est. Sed panis sapientiae divinae est per se vivificativus, nec habet mortem contrariam. Item panis corporalis non dat vitam, sed tantum praeexistentem sustentat ad tempus; sed panis spiritualis ita vivificat quod dat vitam, nam anima incipit vivere per hoc quod adhaeret verbo Dei; Ps. XXXV, 10: apud te est fons vitae. Quia ergo omne verbum sapientiae derivatur a verbo Dei unigenito, Eccli. I, 5: fons sapientiae unigenitus Dei, residens in excelso, ideo ipsum Dei verbum principaliter dicitur panis vitae; et ideo Christus dicit ego sum panis vitae. Et quia caro Christi ipsi verbo Dei unita est, habet etiam quod sit vivificativa, unde et corpus, sacramentaliter sumptum, vivificativum est: nam per mysteria quae Christus in carne sua complevit, dat vitam mundo; et sic caro Christi, propter domini verbum, panis est, non consuetae vitae, sed illius quae morte non reseratur. Et ideo caro Christi dicitur panis; Gen. penult., 20: Aser, pinguis panis eius. 914 Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life, for as we saw above, the word of wisdom is the proper food of the mind, because the mind is sustained by it: “He fed him with the bread of life and understanding” (Sir 15:3). Now the bread of wisdom is called the bread of life to distinguish it from material bread, which is the bread of death, and which serves only to restore what has been lost by a mortal organism; hence material bread is necessary only during this mortal life. But the bread of divine wisdom is life-giving of itself, and no death can affect it. Again, material bread does not give life, but only sustains for a time a life that already exists. But spiritual bread actually gives life: for the soul begins to live because it adheres to the word of God: “For with you is the fountain of life,” as we see in the Psalm (35:10). Therefore, since every word of wisdom is derived from the Only Begotten Word of God—The fountain of wisdom is the Only Begotten of God” (Sir 1:5)—this Word of God is especially called the bread of life. Thus Christ says, I am the bread of life. And because the flesh of Christ is united to the Word of God, it also is life-giving. Thus, too, his body, sacramentally received, is life-giving: for Christ gives life to the world through the mysteries which he accomplished in his flesh. Consequently, the flesh of Christ, because of the Word of the Lord, is not the bread of ordinary life, but of that life which does not die. And so the flesh of Christ is called bread: “The bread of Asher is rich” (Gn 49:20).
Significatur etiam per manna, I Cor. X, 1 ss. Manna interpretatur quid est hoc? Quia Iudaei illud videntes admirabantur, dicentes unus ad alium quid est hoc? Sed nihil est admirabilius quam filius Dei homo factus, ita ut cuilibet contingat quaerere quid est hoc? Idest, quomodo filius Dei, filius hominis est; quomodo ex duabus naturis fit una persona Christi? Is. IX, 6: vocabitur nomen eius admirabilis. Est etiam mirabile quomodo Christus sit sub sacramento. His flesh was also signified by the manna. “Manna” means “What is this?” because when the Jews saw it they wondered, and asked each other what it was. But nothing is more a source of wonder than the Son of God made man, so that everyone can fittingly ask, “What is this?” That is, how can the Son of God be the Son of Man? How can Christ be one person with two natures? “His name will be called Wonderful” (Is 9:6). It is also a cause for wonder how Christ can be present in the sacrament.
Consequenter cum dicit qui venit ad me, non esuriet, assignat rationem expositionis, et hoc ex effectu istius panis. Panis enim corporalis comestus non in perpetuum famem aufert, cum corrumpatur et deficiat; et ideo exigitur ad nutrimentum; panis autem spiritualis dans per se vitam, numquam corrumpitur; et ideo homo semel comedens, numquam esurit. Et ideo dicit qui venit ad me, non esuriet; et qui credit in me, non sitiet in aeternum. 915 Next (v 35), he gives the reason for this from the effect of this [spiritual] bread. When material bread is eaten, it does not permanently take away our hunger, since it must be destroyed in order to build us up; and this is necessary if we are to be nourished. But spiritual bread, which gives life of itself, is never destroyed; consequently, a person who eats it once never hungers again. Thus he says: Whoever comes to me shall not hunger; and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Hoc autem quod dicit, scilicet qui venit et qui credit, non esuriet nec sitiet, non differunt, secundum Augustinum, quia idem est venire ad eum, et credere in eum: quia ad Deum venimus non passibus corporis, sed mentis, quorum primus est fides. Idem est etiam comedere et bibere: utroque enim significatur aeterna satietas, ubi nulla est egestas. Mt. V, 6: beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur: ut sit idem cibus sustentans, et potus refrigerans. According to Augustine, it is the same thing to say, whoever comes, as to say, whoever believes: since it is the same to come to Christ and to believe in him, for we do not come to God with bodily steps, but with those of the mind, the first of which is faith. To eat and to drink are also the same: for each signifies that eternal fulness where there is no want: “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for what is right, for they will be filled” (Mt 5:6); so that food which sustains and that drink which refreshes are one and the same.
Causa autem quare temporalia non auferunt sitim in perpetuum, una quidem est, quia non simul sumuntur, sed paulatim, et quasi cum motu, et ideo semper restat aliquid sumendum; et propter hoc, sicut consurgit delectatio et satietas ex iam sumpto, ita et desiderium restat ex sumendo. Alia vero est, quia corrumpuntur, unde remanet memoria ex corrupto, et generatur iterato desiderium eorum. Spiritualia vero et simul sumuntur, et non corrumpuntur nec deficiunt; et ideo eorum satietas manet in perpetuum. Apoc. VII, 16: non esurient neque sitient. Ps. XV, 10: adimplebis me laetitia cum vultu tuo, delectationes in dextera tua, idest in spiritualibus bonis, usque in finem. One reason why temporal things do not take away our thirst permanently is that they are not consumed altogether, but only bit by bit, and with motion, so that there is always still more to be consumed. For this reason, just as there is enjoyment and satisfaction from what has been consumed, so there is a desire for what is still to come. Another reason is that they are destroyed; hence the recollection of them remains and generates a repeated longing for those things. Spiritual things, on the other hand, are taken all at once, and they are not destroyed, nor do they run out; and consequently the fulness they produce remains forever: “They will neither hunger nor thirst” (Rv 7:16); “Your face will fill me with joy; the delights in your right hand (i.e., in spiritual goods) will last forever,” as the Psalm (16:11) says.
Consequenter cum dicit sed dixi vobis etc., ponitur exponendi necessitas. Posset enim aliquis dicere: nos quaesivimus panem; sed tu non respondes: dabo vobis illum vel non dabo; sed potius dicis: ego sum panis vitae; et ideo non videtur bona responsio tua. Sed quod bona sit, ostendit dominus dicens dixi vobis quia et vidistis me, et non credidistis: quod idem est ac si aliquis haberet panem coram se, ignorans illum et dicatur ei: ecce panis coram te est. Et ideo dicit dixi vobis (ego sum panis vivus) et vidistis me, et non credidistis; idest, desideratis panem, et habetis illum coram vobis; et tamen non sumitis, quia non creditis. In quo eorum incredulitatem improperat eis; infra XV, 24: sed viderunt, et oderunt me et patrem meum. 916 Then (v 36), we see why Christ had to explain these things. For someone could say: We asked for bread; but you did not answer, “I will give it to you,” or “I will not.” Rather, you say, I am the bread of life; and so your answer does not seem to be appropriate. But our Lord shows that it is a good answer, saying, I have told you that you have both seen me and do not believe. This is the same as a person having bread right in front of him without his knowing it, and then being told: Look! The bread is right before you. And so Christ says: I have told you (I am the bread of life) that you have both seen me and do not believe, i.e., you want bread, and it is right before you; and yet you do not take it because you do not believe. In saying this he is censuring them for their unbelief: “They have seen and hated both me and my Father” (below 15:24).
Consequenter cum dicit omne quod dat mihi pater, ad me veniet, ostendit quomodo acquiratur, et primo ponit modum acquirendi; secundo fidem perventionis, ibi et eum qui venit ad me, non eiiciam foras; tertio manifestat quod dicit, ibi quia descendi de caelo et cetera. 917 Then (v 37), he shows how this bread is acquired. First, he mentions the way to acquire it; secondly, the end attained by those who come to him (v 37b); thirdly, he enlarges on this (v 38).
Sciendum est circa primum, quod ipsum credere nostrum est nobis ex dono Dei. Eph. II, 8: gratia salvati estis, et non ex vobis, Dei enim donum est; Phil. I, 29: vobis datum est ut non solum in illum credatis, sed ut etiam pro illo patiamini. Dicitur autem quandoque Deus pater dare filio homines credentes, sicut hic omne quod dat mihi pater, ad me veniet. Quandoque filius dat patri, sicut illud I Cor. XV, 24: cum tradiderit regnum Deo et patri. Ex quo intelligimus quod sicut pater dans non adimit sibi regnum, ita nec filius. Pater autem filio dat, inquantum facit hominem verbo suo adhaerere. I Cor. I, v. 9: per quem, scilicet patrem, vocati estis in societatem filii eius. Filius vero tradit patri, inquantum verbum est manifestativum ipsius patris. Infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus. Sic ergo dicit omne quod dat mihi pater, ad me veniet; idest, qui in me credunt, quos pater mihi facit adhaerere ex dono suo. 918 Concerning the first, we should note that the very fact that we believe is a gift of God to us: “You are saved by grace, through faith; and this is not due to yourself, for it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8); “It has been granted to you not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him” (Phil 1:29). Sometimes, God the Father is said to give those who believe to the Son, as here: All that the Father gives me shall come to me. At other times, the Son is said to give them to the Father, as in 1 Corinthians (15~24): “He will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father.” We can see from this that just as the Father does not deprive himself of the kingdom in giving to the Son, neither does the Son in giving to the Father. The Father gives to the Son insofar as the Father makes a person adhere to his Word: “Through whom (that is, the Father) you have been called into the fellowship of his Son” (1 Cor 1:9). The Son, on the other hand, gives to the Father insofar as the Word makes the Father known: “I have made known your name to those you have given me” (below 17:6). Thus Christ says: All that the Father gives me shall come to me, i.e., those who believe in me, whom the Father makes adhere to me by his gift.
Sed diceret forte aliquis, quod non necessarium est quod aliquis dono Dei utatur: multi enim recipiunt donum Dei, qui non utuntur eo. Quomodo ergo dicit omne quod dat mihi pater, ad me veniet? Ad quod dicendum est, quod in datione ista non solum intelligitur habitus, qui est fides et huiusmodi, sed etiam interior instinctus ad credendum. Quidquid autem facit ad salutem, totum est ex dono Dei. 9 19 Perhaps some might say that it is not necessary for one to use God’s gift: for many receive God’s gift and do not use it. So how can he say: All that the Father gives me shall come to me? We must say to this that in this giving we have to include not only the habit, which is faith, but also the interior impulse to believe. So, everything which contributes to salvation is a gift of God.
Sed restat quaestio: quia si omne quod dat pater Christo, ad eum vadit, ut ipse dicit, illi soli ad Deum vadunt quos pater dat ei; non ergo debet imputari illis qui non vadunt, cum non dentur ei. Ad quod dicendum, quod non imputatur eis, si absque auxilio Dei ad fidem venire non possunt, sed hoc ei imputatur qui non venit, quia impedimentum praestat quod non veniat, avertens se a salute, cuius via quantum in se est, omnibus est aperta. 920 There is another question. If everything which the Father gives to Christ comes to him, as he says, then only those come to God whom the Father gives him. Thus, those who do not come are not responsible, since they are not given to him. I answer that they are not responsible if they cannot come to the faith without the help of God. But those who do not come are responsible, because they create an obstacle to their own coming by turning away from salvation, the way to which is of itself open to all.
Finis autem perventionis ponitur cum dicit et eum qui venit ad me non eiiciam foras. Posset enim aliquis dicere: veniemus ad te; sed tu non recipies nos. Et ideo dicit, hoc excludens, eum qui venit ad me, passibus fidei et bonis operationibus, non eiiciam foras, in quo dat intelligere, esse se intus: illud est enim intus unde exitur foras. Attendamus ergo quid sit istud intrinsecum, et quomodo inde eiiciantur. 921 Then (v 37b), the end attained by those who come is mentioned. For some might say, “We will come to you, but you will not receive us.” To exclude this he says, the one who comes to me, by steps of faith and by good works, I will not cast out. By this he lets us understand that he is already within, for one must be within before one can be sent out. Let us consider, therefore, what is interior, and how one is cast out from it.
Sciendum quidem igitur est, quod omnia visibilia cum dicantur esse quasi quaedam exteriora respectu spiritualium, quanto aliquid est magis spirituale, tanto magis est intrinsecum. Ergo duplex est intrinsecum. Unum est profundissimum, scilicet gaudium vitae aeternae, quod, secundum Augustinum, est magis penetrale et dulce secretum sine taedio, sine amaritudine malarum cogitationum, sine interpellatione tentationum et dolorum; de quo dicitur Matth. XXV, 21: intra in gaudium domini tui. Et Ps. XXX, 21: abscondes eos in abscondito faciei tuae; idest, in plena visione tuae essentiae. Et ab hoc intrinseco nullus eiicietur. Apoc. III, 12: qui vicerit faciam illum columnam in templo Dei vivi, et foras non egredietur amplius, quia ut dicitur Matth. c. XXV, 46, ibunt iusti in vitam aeternam. Aliud intrinsecum est rectitudo conscientiae, quae est spirituale gaudium; et de hoc dicitur Sap. VIII, 16: intrans in domum meam, conquiescam. Et Cant. I, 3: introduxit me rex in cellaria sua. Et de isto aliqui eiiciuntur. We should point out that since all visible things are said to be exterior with respect to spiritual things, then the more spiritual something is the more interior it is. What is interior is twofold. The first is the most profound, and is the joy of eternal life. According to Augustine, this is a sweet and most interior retreat, without any weariness, without the bitterness of evil thoughts, and uninterrupted by temptations and sorrows. We read of this: “Share the joy of your Lord” (Mt 25:21); and, “You will hide them in the secret of your face,” that is, in the full vision of your essence (Ps 30:2 1). From this interior no one is cast out: “He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of the living God; and he will no longer leave it” (Rv 3:12), because “the just will go to everlasting life,” as we see from Matthew (25:46). The other interior is that of an upright conscience; and this is a spiritual joy. We read of this: “When I enter into my house I will enjoy repose” (Wis 8:16); and “The king has brought me into his storerooms” (Sg 1:3). It is from this interior, that some are cast out.
Et ideo quod dominus dicit non eiiciam foras, potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, ut illi dicantur ad ipsum venire qui sunt dati ei a patre per aeternam praedestinationem; et de illis dicit eum qui venit ad me, praedestinatus a patre, non eiiciam foras; Rom. XI, v. 2: non repulit Deus plebem suam quam elegit. Alio modo, quia illi qui egrediuntur, non tamquam a Christo eiecti egrediantur, sed causa eiectionis sit ex parte ipsorum, qui per infidelitatem et peccata, a secreto rectae conscientiae recedunt. Et sic dicitur non eiiciam ego foras, sed ipsi se eiiciunt; Ier. XXIII, 33: vos estis onus, proiiciam vos, dicit dominus. Et hoc modo eiectus est foras qui ad nuptias intraverat non habens vestem nuptialem, ut dicitur Matth. XXII, 11 ss. So, when our Lord says, the one who comes to me I will not cast out, we can understand this in two ways. In one way, those who come to him are those who have been given to him by the Father through eternal predestination. Of these he says: the one who comes to me, predestined by the Father, I will not cast out: “God has not rejected his people, the people he chose” (Rom 11:2). In a second way, those who do go out are not cast out by Christ, rather, they cast themselves out, because through their unbelief and sins they abandon the sanctuary of an upright conscience. Thus we read: I will not cast out such; but they do cast themselves out: “You are the burden, and I will cast you aside, says the Lord” (Jer 23:33). It was in this way that the man who came to the wedding feast without wedding clothes was cast out (Mt 22:13).
Rationem autem praemissorum assignat, cum dicit quia descendi de caelo etc., et primo ponit propositum de implenda voluntate patris; secundo manifestat quae sit voluntas patris, ibi haec est voluntas eius qui misit me patris; tertio ostendit finalem voluntatis impletionem, ibi et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. 922 Next (v 3 8), he gives the reason for what he just said. First, he mentions his intention to accomplish the will of the Father; secondly, he states what the will of the Father is (v 39); and thirdly, he shows the final accomplishment of this will (v 40b).
Circa primum sciendum est, quod littera ista potest legi dupliciter. Uno modo secundum Augustinum, alio modo secundum Chrysostomum. Secundum Augustinum quidem sic: eum qui venit ad me, non eiiciam foras, et hoc ideo, quia ille venit ad me qui meam humilitatem imitatur. Matth. XI, 28, cum diceret dominus: venite ad me, omnes, qui laboratis, consequenter subdit: discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde. Vera autem filii Dei mititas in hoc est, quia voluntatem suam supposuit voluntati patris. Et ideo dicit non eiiciam, quia descendi de caelo non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me. Propterea anima a Deo exiit, quia superba erat; et ideo necesse est humilitate regredi veniendo ad Christum per imitationem suae humilitatis, quae in hoc est quod non facit voluntatem suam solum, sed Dei patris. 923 Concerning the first, we should note that this passage can be read in two ways: either as Augustine does, or following the interpretation of Chrysostom. Augustine understands it this way: the one who comes to me I will not cast out; and this is because the one who comes to me imitates my humility. In Matthew (11:29), after our Lord said, “Come to me, all you who labor,” he added, “Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart.” Now the true gentleness of the Son of God consists in the fact that he submitted his will to the will of the Father. Thus he says, the one who comes to me I will not cast out, because I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. Since a soul abandons God because of its pride, it must return in humility, coming to Christ by imitating his humility; and this humility of Christ was in not doing his own will, but the will of God the Father.
Sciendum est autem, quod in Christo fuit duplex voluntas. Una secundum humanam naturam, quae est sibi propria, et natura, et voluntate patris; alia secundum naturam divinam, quae est eadem cum voluntate patris. Voluntatem ergo suam, scilicet humanam, ordinavit sub voluntate divina, quia obedientiam suam sub effectu paternae voluntatis ostendit ipse, volens voluntatem patris explere. Ps. XXXIX, 9: ut faciam voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, volui. Hanc voluntatem fieri in nobis petimus cum dicimus, Matth. VI, 10: fiat voluntas tua. Illi ergo non eiiciuntur foras, qui non faciunt voluntatem suam, sed voluntatem Dei. Nam Diabolus volens facere voluntatem suam, quod est superbiae, eiectus est de caelo, et primus homo de Paradiso. Here we should note that there were two wills in Christ. One pertains to his human nature, and this will is proper to him, both by nature and by the will of the Father. His other will pertains to his divine nature, and this will is the same as the will of the Father. Christ subordinated his own will, that is, his human will, to the divine will, because, wishing to accomplish the will of the Father, he was obedient to the Father’s will: “My God, I desired to do your will” (Ps 39:9). We ask that this will be accomplished in our regard when we say, “Your will be done” (Mt 6:10). Thus, those who do the will of God, not their own will, are not cast out. The devil, who wanted to do his own will out of pride, was cast from heaven; and so too the first man was expelled from paradise.
Secundum Chrysostomum vero sic. Ideo non eiicio foras eum qui venit ad me, quia ad hoc veni, ut impleam voluntatem patris de salute hominum. Si ergo pro salute hominum incarnatus sum, quomodo debeo eos eiicere? Et hoc est quod dicit: ideo non eiicio, quia descendi de caelo non ut faciam voluntatem meam, scilicet humanam, ut proprium mihi acquiram; sed voluntatem eius qui misit me, patris, qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri, ut dicitur I Tim. II, 4. Et ideo, quantum est ex me, nullum eiicio. Rom. V, 10: si enim, cum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem filii eius, multo magis, reconciliati, salvi erimus in vita ipsius. Chrysostom explains the passage this way. The reason I do not cast out one who comes to me is because I have come to accomplish the will of the Father concerning the salvation of men. So, if I have become incarnate for the salvation of men, how can I cast them out? And this is what he says: I will not cast out one who comes, because I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, my human will, so as to obtain my own benefit, but the will of him who sent me, that is, the Father, “He desires the salvation of all men” (1 Tim 2:4). And therefore, so far as I am concerned, I do not cast out any person: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, now much more, having been reconciled, we will be saved by his life” (Rom 5:10).
Quae autem sit voluntas patris, exponit primo, cum dicit haec est enim voluntas eius qui misit me patris etc.; secundo rationem assignat, ibi haec est enim voluntas patris mei et cetera. 924 Then (v 39), he shows what the Father wills; and next, why he wills it (v 40).
Dixit ergo: non eiiciam foras eos qui ad me veniunt, quia carnem assumpsi ut faciam voluntatem patris. Voluntas autem eius qui misit me patris, haec est, scilicet ut non eiiciam foras; et ideo non eiiciam. I Thess. c. IV, 3: haec est voluntas Dei, sanctificatio vestra. Et ideo dicit ut omne quod dedit mihi, pater non perdam ex eo; idest, ut nihil perdam, quousque perveniat ad resurrectionem futuram, in qua aliqui perdentur, non tamen de illis qui dati sunt ei per aeternam praedestinationem, sed impii; Ps. I, 6: iter impiorum peribit. Illi vero qui usque tunc conservantur, non perdentur. 925 He says: I will not cast out those who come to me, because I have taken flesh in order to do the will of the Father: Now it is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that those who come to me I will not cast out; and so I will not cast them out. “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thes 4:3). Therefore he says that it is the will of the Father that of all that he, the Father, has given me I should lose nothing, i.e., that I should lose nothing until the time of the resurrection. At this time some will be lost, the wicked; but none of those given to Christ through eternal predestination will be among them: “The way of the wicked will perish” (Ps 1:7). Those, on the other hand, who are preserved until then, will not be lost.
Per hoc autem quod dicit non perdam, non est intelligendum quod indigeat eorum, aut quod detrimentum sit ei, si pereunt. Sed dicit hoc propter affectum suum ad salutem illorum, et bonum illorum, quod reputat suum. Now when he says, lose, we should not understand this as implying that he needs such people or that he is damaged if they perish. Rather, he says this because he desires their salvation and what is good for them, which he regards as his own good.
Sed contra est quod dicitur infra c. XVII, 12: nemo ex eis, scilicet quos dedisti mihi, periit, nisi filius perditionis. Ergo aliqui eorum qui dati sunt ei per aeternam praedestinationem, perduntur. Non est ergo verum hoc quod dicit non perdam ex eo. Sed dicendum est, quod ex illis qui dati sunt ei per praesentem iustitiam perduntur; non autem de illis qui dati sunt per aeternam praedestinationem. 926 What John later reports Christ as saying seems to conflict with this: “None of them,” that is, of those you have given me, “have been lost except the son of perdition” (below 17:12). Thus, some of those given to Christ through eternal predestination are lost. Accordingly, what he says here, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, is not true. We must say to this that some are lost from among those given to Christ through a present justification; but none are lost from among those given to him through eternal predestination.
Rationem autem divinae voluntatis ponit cum dicit haec est autem voluntas patris mei et cetera. Ratio quare pater vult quod non perdam ex eo quod dedit mihi, est quia voluntas patris est vivificare spiritualiter homines, quia ipse est fons vitae. Et quia aeternus est, quantum est de se, voluntatis eius est, ut omnis qui venit ad me habeat vitam aeternam. Et hoc est quod dicit haec est voluntas patris qui misit me, ut omnis qui videt filium, et credit in eum, habeat vitam aeternam. Sed attendendum est quod supra V, 24, dixit: qui videt filium, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, hic vero dicit qui credit in eum: ut det intelligere eamdem divinitatem patris et filii, cuius visio per essentiam est ultimus finis noster, et obiectum fidei. Quod vero dicit videt, non intelligitur de visione per essentiam, quam praecedit fides, sed de visione corporali Christi, quae inducit ad fidem. Et ideo signanter dicit qui videt filium, et credit in eum; supra V, 24: qui credit in eum (...) non iudicatur, sed transiet a morte in vitam; infra XX, 31: haec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis quoniam Iesus Christus est filius Dei, ut credentes vitam habeatis in nomine eius. 927 Now he gives the reason for the divine will (v 40). The reason why the Father wills that I lose nothing of all that he has given me is that the Father wills to bring men to life spiritually, because he is the fountain of life. And since the Father is eternal, he wills, absolutely speaking, that every one who comes to me should have eternal life. And this is what he says: For this is the will of my Father, who sent me, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him, should have eternal life. Note that he said above: “Whoever hears my voice and believes in him who sent me, possesses eternal life” (above 5:24), while here he says: every one who sees the Son and believes in him. We can understand from this that the Father and the Son have the same divine nature; and it is the vision of this, through its essence, that is our ultimate end and the object of our faith. When he says here, sees the Son, he is referring to the physical sight of Christ which leads to faith, and not to this vision through essence which faith precedes. Thus he expressly says, every one who sees the Son and believes in him: “Whoever believes in him... will not encounter judgment, but has passed from death to life” (above 5:24); “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (below 20:3 1).
Haec autem patris voluntas similiter implebitur, et ideo subdit, et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die: quia ita vult ut non solum in anima, sed etiam in corpore habeat vitam aeternam (Dan. XII, 2: de his qui in pulvere dormiunt evigilabunt alii in vitam aeternam, alii vero in opprobrium sempiternum) sicut et Christus resurrexit; Rom. c. VI, 9: Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur et cetera. 928 This will of the Father will also be accomplished. So he adds: And I will raise him up on the last day, for he wills that we have eternal life not just in our soul alone, but also in our body, as Christ did at his resurrection: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to an everlasting life, and others to everlasting shame” (Dn 12:2); “Christ, having risen from the dead, will not die again” (Rom 6:9).

Lectio 5 LECTURE 5

41 ἐγόγγυζον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι εἶπεν, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, 42 καὶ ἔλεγον, οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ, οὗ ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα; πῶς νῦν λέγει ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβέβηκα; 43 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,

μὴ γογγύζετε μετ' ἀλλήλων.
44 οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με
ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν,
κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
45 ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις,
καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ θεοῦ:
πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν
ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμέ.
46 οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις
εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ,
οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα.

41 The Jews therefore grumbled about him because he had said, “I am the living bread that has come down from heaven.” 42 And they said: “Is he not the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? How then can he say that he has come down from heaven?” 43 Jesus responded and said to them:

“Stop grumbling among yourselves.
44 No one can come to me
unless the Father, who sent me, draws him.
And I will raise him up on the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets;
‘They shall all be taught by God.’
Every one who has heard the Father and has learned,
comes to me.
46 Not that any one has seen the Father,
except the one who is from God—
he has seen the Father.”

Posita doctrina Christi, hic excluditur contradictio praedictae doctrinae, et primo quantum ad turbas murmurantes; secundo quantum ad discipulos dubitantes, ibi multi ergo audientes ex discipulis eius dixerunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo exprimit murmur turbarum de origine spiritualis cibi; secundo mitigat eorum litigium de cibi spiritualis manducatione, ibi litigabant ergo Iudaei. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur murmur turbarum; secundo repressio murmuris, ibi respondit ergo Iesus, et dixit eis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur occasio murmuris; secundo ponuntur murmurantium verba, ibi nonne iste est filius Ioseph? 929 Those opinions that conflict with the above teaching of Christ are now rejected. First, those of’ the people, who were discontented; secondly, those of the disciples, who were in a state of doubt (v 61). He does two things about the first. First, we see the people grumble about the origin of this spiritual food; secondly, we see Christ check the dispute which arose over the eating of this spiritual food (v 53). As to the first he does two things. First, he mentions the grumbling of the people; secondly, how it was checked (v 43). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows the occasion for this complaining; secondly, what those complaining said (v 42).
Concludit ergo ex praemissis verbis Christi, quod quidam de quodam dictorum verborum murmurabant, quia scilicet dixerat: ego sum panis vivus, qui de caelo descendi; quem quidem spiritualem panem non capiebant nec desiderabant. Et ideo murmurabant, quia in spiritualibus mentem fundatam non habebant, et huius rei antiquam consuetudinem habebant, secundum illud Ps. CV, 25: murmuraverunt in tabernaculis; et I Cor. X, 10: neque murmuraveritis, sicut quidam eorum murmuraverunt. Ideo autem, ut Chrysostomus dicit, usque huc non murmurabant, quia semper sperabant se consecuturos corporalem escam: qua spe subtracta, statim murmurare incipiunt, licet aliam causam praetendant. Non autem manifeste contradicunt propter reverentiam quam adhuc habebant ad ipsum, ex memoria praecedentis miraculi. 930 He continues that some of the people were grumbling over what Christ had said, that is, because Christ had said, I am the living bread that has come down from heaven, a spiritual bread they did not understand or desire. And so they grumbled because their minds were not fixed on spiritual things. They were following in this case the custom of their ancestors: “They grumbled in their tents” (Ps 105:25); “Do not grumble, as some of them did” (1 Cor 10:10). As Chrysostom says, they had not complained till now because they still hoped to obtain material food; but as soon as they lost that hope, they began to grumble, although they pretended that it was for a different reason. Yet they did not contradict him openly due to the respect they had for him arising from his previous miracle.
Verba autem murmurantium ponit cum dicit nonne hic est filius Ioseph? Quia enim carnales erant, carnalem Christi generationem solam considerabant, ex qua impediebantur ne cognoscerent spiritualem et aeternam; et ideo de sola carnali loquuntur, secundum illud supra III, 31: qui de terra est, de terra loquitur, et spiritualem non capiunt; unde subdunt quomodo ergo dicit hic, quia de caelo descendi? Vocant autem eum filium Ioseph propter reputationem: quia nutritius eius erat, secundum illud Lc. III, 23: ut putabatur filius Ioseph. 931 He says those who complained said: Is he not the son of Joseph? For since they were earthly minded, they only considered Christ’s physical generation, which hindered them from recognizing his spiritual and eternal generation. And so we see them speaking only of earthly things, “He who is of earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things” (above 3:3 1), and not understanding what is spiritual. Thus they said: How then can he say that he has come down from heaven? They called him the son of Joseph as this was the general opinion, for Joseph was his foster father: “the son of Joseph (as was supposed)” (Lk 3:23).
Murmurationis autem repressio ponitur cum dicit respondit ergo Iesus, et dixit eis, et primo reprimit ipsorum murmur; secundo satisfacit dubitationi, ibi amen, amen dico vobis: qui credit in me, habet vitam aeternam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo cohibet eorum murmur; secundo assignat causam murmuris eorum, ibi nemo potest venire ad me et cetera. 932 Next (v 43), the grumbling of the people is checked. First, Christ stops this complaining; secondly, he clears up their difficulty (v 47). As to the first he does two things. First, he checks their complaining, secondly, he tells why they were doing it (v 44).
Cognoscens ergo Iesus eorum murmur, respondit; et comprimens ipsum murmur eorum, dixit eis nolite murmurare et cetera. Hoc namque est salubre documentum: qui enim murmurat, ostendit mentem suam in Deo non esse firmatam, et ideo dicitur Sap. c. I, 11: custodite vos a murmuratione, quia nihil prodest. 933 Jesus noticed that they were grumbling and checked them, saying, Stop grumbling among yourselves. This was good advice, for those who complain show that their minds are not firmly fixed on God; and so we read in Wisdom (1:11): “Keep yourselves from grumbling, for it does no good.”
Causa autem murmuris est infidelitas eorum; et ideo hanc ostendit dicens nemo potest venire ad me etc., ubi primo ostendit necessariam esse patris attractionem ad hoc ut veniatur ad Christum; secundo ostendit modum attrahendi, ibi est scriptum in prophetis et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit humanae facultatis defectum; secundo divini auxilii subsidium; tertio auxilii finem, seu fructum. 934 The reason for their grumbling was their unbelief, and he shows this when he says, No one can come to me.... First, he shows that if one is to come to Christ, he has to be drawn by the Father. Secondly, he shows the way one is drawn (v 45). As to the first he does three things. First, he mentions that coming to Christ surpasses human ability; secondly, the divine help we receive for this; and thirdly, the end or fruit of this help.
Est ergo humana facultas deficiens ad veniendum ad Christum per fidem; et ideo dicit nemo potest venire ad me. Secundo divinum auxilium est efficax ad subveniendum, unde subdit nisi pater, qui misit me, traxerit eum. Sed finis, seu fructus est optimus; unde sequitur et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. That we should come to Christ through faith surpasses our human ability; thus he says, No one can come to me. Secondly, divine help is effective in helping us to this; thus he says, unless the Father, who sent me, draws him. The end or fruit of this help is the very best, so he adds, And I will raise him up on the last day.
Dicit ergo primo: non est mirum si murmuratis, quia nondum estis tracti a patre ad me. Nam nemo potest ad me venire, in me credendo, nisi pater, qui misit me, traxerit eum. 935 He says first: It is not unexpected that you are grumbling, because my Father had not yet drawn you to me, for No one can come to me, by believing in me, unless the Father, who sent me, draws him.
Sed hic est triplex quaestio. Prima est de hoc quod dicit nisi pater traxerit eum. Cum enim ad Christum veniamus credendo, sicut supra eodem dictum est, venire ad Christum est credere in eum; credere autem nullus potest nisi volens. Cum ergo tractio importet violentiam quamdam, ergo qui tractus venit ad Christum, cogitur. There are three questions here. The first is about his saying: unless the Father draws him. For since we come to Christ by believing, then, as we said above, to come to Christ is to believe in him. But no one can believe unless he wills to. Therefore, since to be drawn implies some kind of compulsion, one who comes to Christ by being drawn is compelled.
Respondeo dicendum, quod hoc quod hic dicitur de hac tractione patris, non importat coactionem, cum non omne trahens faciat violentiam. Sic ergo multipliciter pater trahit ad filium, secundum multiplicem modum trahendi absque violentia in hominibus. Nam aliquis homo trahit aliquem persuadendo ratione; et hoc modo pater trahit homines ad filium, demonstrando eum esse filium suum; et hoc dupliciter: vel per internam revelationem; Matth. XVI, 17: beatus es, Simon Bariona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, scilicet Christum esse filium Dei vivi, sed pater meus; vel per miraculorum operationem, quam habet a patre; supra V, 36: opera quae dedit mihi pater, ipsa testimonium perhibent de me. I answer that what we read here about the Father drawing us does not imply coercion, because there are some ways of being drawn that do not involve compulsion. Consequently, the Father draws men to the Son in many ways, using the different ways in which we can be drawn without compulsion. One person may draw another by persuading him with a reason. The Father draws us to his Son in this way by showing us that he is his Son. He does this in two ways. First, by an interior revelation, as in: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you (that is, that Christ is the Son of the living God), but it was done so by my Father” (Mt 16:17). Secondly, it can be done through miracles, which the Son has the power to do from the Father: “The very works which my Father has given me to perform... they bear witness to me” (above 5:36).
Item aliquis trahit alium alliciendo; Prov. VII, 21: blanditiis labiorum suorum protraxit eum. Et hoc modo illi qui attendunt ad Iesum propter auctoritatem paternae maiestatis, trahuntur a patre. Quicumque enim credit in Christum propter hoc quod credit eum filium Dei, hunc pater trahit ad filium, idest paterna maiestas. Hoc modo non trahitur Arius qui Christum non verum Dei filium, nec de substantia patris genitum credebat. Non sic tractus est Photinus, Christum purum hominem dogmatizans. Sic ergo trahuntur a patre, sua maiestate allecti; sed trahuntur etiam a filio, admirabili delectatione et amore veritatis, quae est ipse filius Dei. Si enim, ut dicit Augustinus, trahit sua quemque voluptas, quanto fortius debet homo trahi ad Christum, si delectatur veritate, beatitudine, iustitia, sempiterna vita, quod totum est Christus? Ab isto ergo si trahendi sumus, trahamur per dilectionem veritatis; secundum illud Ps. XXXVI, 4: delectare in domino, et dabit tibi petitiones cordis tui. Hinc sponsa dicebat, Cant. I, 3: trahe me post te; curremus in odorem unguentorum tuorum. Again, one person draws another by attracting or captivating him: “She captivated him with her flattery” (Prv 7:21). This is the way the Father draws those who are devoted to Jesus on account of the authority of the paternal greatness. For the Father, i.e., the paternal greatness, draws those who believe in Christ because they believe that he is the Son of God. Arius—who did not believe that Christ was the true Son of God, nor begotten of the substance of the Father—was not drawn in this way. Neither was Photinus—who dogmatized that Christ was a mere man. So, this is the way those who are captivated by his greatness are drawn by the Father. But they are also drawn by the Son, through a wonderful joy and love of the truth, which is the very Son of God himself. For if, as Augustine says, each of us is drawn by his own pleasure, how much more strongly ought we to be drawn to Christ if we find our pleasure in truth, happiness, justice, eternal life: all of which Christ is! Therefore, if we would be drawn by him, let us be drawn through love for the truth, according to: “Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Ps 36:4). And so in the Song of Solomon, the bride says: “Draw me after you, and we will run to the fragrance of your perfume” (1:4).
Sed quia non solum revelatio exterior, vel obiectum, virtutem attrahendi habet, sed etiam interior instinctus impellens et movens ad credendum, ideo trahit multos pater ad filium per instinctum divinae operationis moventis interius cor hominis ad credendum; Phil. II, 13: Deus est qui operatur in nobis velle et perficere; Oseae XI, 4: in funiculis Adam traham eos in vinculis caritatis; Prov. c. XXI, 1: cor regis in manu domini: quocumque voluerit inclinabit illud. An external revelation or an object are not the only things that draw us. There is also an interior impulse that incites and moves us to believe. And so the Father draws many to the Son by the impulse of a divine action, moving a person’s heart from within to believe: “It is God who is working in us, both to will and to accomplish” (Phil 2:13); “1 will draw them with the cords of Adam, with bands of love” (Hos 11:4); “The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wills” (Prv 2 1:1).
Secunda quaestio est: quia cum dicatur quod filius trahit ad patrem, Matth. c. XI, 27: nemo novit patrem nisi filius, et cui voluerit filius revelare; et infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus quos dedisti mihi: quomodo hic dicitur, quod pater trahit ad filium? Sed dicendum, quod ad hoc potest dupliciter responderi: nam de Christo possumus loqui aut secundum quod est homo aut secundum quod est Deus. Secundum autem quod homo, Christus est via; infra XIV, 6: ego sum via: et secundum quod est Christus, ducit ad patrem, sicut via ad terminum seu finem. Pater vero trahit ad Christum hominem inquantum dat nobis suam virtutem, ut credamus in Christum; Eph. II, 8: gratia salvati estis, et hoc non ex vobis, Dei enim donum est. Inquantum est Christus, est verbum Dei, et manifestativum patris. Sic filius trahit ad patrem. Pater autem trahit ad filium inquantum manifestat ipsum. 936 The second problem is this. We read that it is the Son who draws us to the Father: “No one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:26); “1 have made your name known to those you have given me” (below 17:6). So how can it say here that it is the Father who draws us to the Son? This can be answered in two ways: for we can speak of Christ either as a man, or as God. As man, Christ is the way: “I am the way” (below 14:6); and as the Christ, he leads us to the Father, as a way or road leads to its end. The Father draws us to Christ as man insofar as he gives us his own power so that we may believe in Christ: “You are saved by grace, through faith; and this is not due to yourself, for it is the gift of God”’ (Eph 2:8). Insofar as he is Christ, he is the Word of God and manifests the Father. It is in this way that the Son draws us to the Father. But the Father draws us to the Son insofar as he manifests the Son.
Tertia quaestio est de hoc quod dicit, quod nemo venire potest nisi tractus a patre: quia secundum hoc, si nullus veniat ad Christum, non imputatur ei, sed ei qui non trahit eos. Respondeo dicendum, quod vere nullus venire potest nisi tractus a patre: nam sicut grave per naturam non potest per se sursum ferri nisi trahatur ab alio, ita cor humanum ex se ad inferiora tendens, non potest sursum elevari nisi tractus. Si vero non elevatur, non est defectus ex parte trahentis, qui quantum in se est, nulli deficit; sed est propter impedimentum eius qui non trahitur. 937 The third problem concerns his saying that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. For according to this, if one does not come to Christ, it is not because of himself, but is due to the one who does not draw him. I answer and say that, in truth, no one can come unless drawn by the Father. For just as a heavy object by its nature cannot rise up, but has to be lifted by someone else, so the human heart, which tends of itself to lower things, cannot rise to what is above unless it is drawn or lifted. And if it does not rise up, this is not due to the failure of the one lifting it, who, so far as lies in him, fails no one; rather, it is due to an obstacle in the one who is not drawn or lifted up.
Aliter autem, quantum ad hoc pertinet, possumus loqui de hominibus in statu naturae integrae, et aliter in statu naturae corruptae; nam in natura integra non erat aliquod impedimentum prohibens ab hac tractione, unde tunc omnes homines huius tractionis poterant esse participes. Sed in natura corrupta omnes per impedimentum peccati aequaliter prohibentur ab hac tractione; et ideo omnes indigent trahi. Deus autem omnibus ad trahendum manum porrigit quantum in se est, et, quod plus est, non solum attrahit manum recipientis, sed etiam aversos a se convertit, secundum illud Thren. ult., 21: converte nos, domine, et convertemur: et in Ps. LXXXIV, 7, secundum aliam litteram: Deus, tu convertens vivificabis nos. Ex quo ergo Deus paratus est dare omnibus gratiam, et ad se trahere, non imputatur ei, si aliquis non accipiat, sed ei qui non accipit. In this matter we can distinguish between those in the state of integral nature, and those in the state of fallen nature. In the state of integral nature, there was no obstacle to being drawn up, and thus all could share in it. But in the state of fallen nature, all are equally held back from this drawing by the obstacle of sin; and so, all need to be drawn. God, in so far as it depends on him, extends his hand to every one, to draw every one; and what is more, he not only draws those who receive him by the hand, but even converts those who are turned away from him, according to: “Convert us, O Lord, to yourself, and we will be converted” (Lam 5:21); and “You will turn, O God, and bring us to life,” as one version of the Psalm (84:7) puts it. Therefore, since God is ready to give grace to all, and draw them to himself, it is not due to him if someone does not accept; rather, it is due to the person who does not accept.
Quare autem non omnes aversos trahit, sed aliquos, licet sint omnes aequaliter aversi: ratio quidem in generali potest assignari, ut scilicet in illis qui non trahuntur, appareat et refulgeat ordo divinae iustitiae; in illis autem qui trahuntur, immensitas divinae misericordiae. Quare autem in speciali trahat hunc, et illum non trahat, non est ratio aliqua, nisi beneplacitum voluntatis divinae. Unde dicit Augustinus: quem trahat et quem non trahat, quare illum trahat et illum non trahat, noli velle iudicare, si non vis errare. Sed accipe, et intellige: nondum traheris, ora ut traharis. Hoc etiam ostendi potest per exemplum. Nam assignari potest ratio quare artifex ponit aliquos lapides inferius, et aliquos superius, et aliquos ex lateribus, ex dispositione domus, cuius complementum hoc exigit. Sed quare hos lapides hic ponat et hos ibi, dependet a sua simplici voluntate. Et inde est quod prima ratio dispositionis refertur ad voluntatem artificis. Sic ergo Deus ad complementum universi quosdam quidem trahit, ut in eis appareat sua misericordia; quosdam vero non trahit, ut ostendatur in eis sua iustitia. Sed hos trahit, illos non trahit secundum suum beneplacitum voluntatis. Similiter etiam quare in Ecclesia aliquos fecit apostolos, alios confessores, alios martyres, ratio est propter Ecclesiae decorem et complementum. Sed quare Petrum fecit apostolum, Stephanum martyrem et Nicolaum confessorem, non est alia ratio nisi voluntas sua. Sic ergo patet humanae facultatis defectus, et auxilii divini subsidium. 938 A general reason can be given why God does not draw all who are turned away from him, but certain ones, even though all are equally turned away. The reason is so that the order of divine justice may appear and shine forth in those who are not drawn, while the immensity of the divine mercy may appear and shine in those who are drawn. But as to why in particular he draws this person and does not draw that person, there is no reason except the pleasure of the divine will. So Augustine says: “Whom he draws and whom he does not draw, why he draws one and does not draw another, do not desire to judge if you do not wish to err. But accept and understand: If you are not yet drawn, then pray that you may be drawn.” We can illustrate this by an example. One can give as the reason why a builder puts some stones at the bottom, and others at the top and sides, that it is the arrangement of the house, whose completion requires this. But why he puts these particular stones here, and those over there, this depends on his mere will. Thus it is that the prime reason for the arrangement is referred to the will of the builder. So God, for the completion of the universe, draws certain ones in order that his mercy may appear in them; and others he does not draw in order that his justice may be shown in them. But that he draws these and does not draw those, depends on the pleasure of his will. In the same way, the reason why in his Church he made some apostles, some confessors, and others martyrs, is for the beauty and completion of the Church. But why he made Peter an apostle, and Stephen a martyr, and Nicholas a confessor, the only reason is his will. We are now clear on the limitations of our human ability, and the assistance given to us by divine help.
Sequitur auxilii finis et fructus, cum dicit et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die, etiam inquantum homo: nam per ea quae Christus in carne sua gessit, consequimur resurrectionis fructum; I Cor. XV, 21: sicut per hominem mors, ita et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. Ego, ergo, secundum quod homo, resuscitabo eum, non solum ad vitam naturae, sed etiam ad vitam gloriae, et hoc in novissimo die. Tenet enim fides Catholica, quod status mundi innovabitur; Apoc. XXI, 1: vidi caelum novum et terram novam. Et inter alia quae ad hanc innovationem concurrent, credimus caeli motum cessare, et per consequens tempus; Apoc. X, 5: et Angelus quem vidi stantem super mare et super terram, levavit manum suam ad caelum. Et infra: quia tempus non erit amplius. Quia ergo cessante tempore in resurrectione, cessabit etiam nox et dies, secundum illud Zac. XIV, 7: erit dies una, quae nota est domino, non dies neque nox; ideo dicit resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. 939 He follows with the end and fruit of this help when he says, And I will raise him tip on the last day, even as man; for we obtain the fruit of the resurrection through those things which Christ did in his flesh: “For as death came through a man, so the resurrection of the dead has come through a man” (1 Cor 15:21). So I, as man, will raise him up, not only to a natural life, but even too the life of glory; and this on the last day. For the Catholic Faith teaches that the world will be made new: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth” (Rv 2 1:1), and that among the changes accompanying this renewal we believe that the motion of the heavens will stop, and consequently, time. “And the angel I saw standing on the sea and on the land, raised his hand to heaven” (Rv 10:5), and then it says that he swore that “time will be no more” (v 6). Since at the resurrection time will stop, so also will night and day, according to “There will be one day, known to the Lord, not day and night” (Zec 14:7). This is the reason he says, And I will raise him up on the last day.
Quare autem usque tunc caeli motus duret, et tempus, non minus vel amplius, sciendum est, quia illud quod est propter aliud, diversimode disponitur secundum diversam dispositionem eius propter quod est. Omnia autem corporalia propter hominem facta sunt; et ideo secundum diversam dispositionem hominis diversimode ea disponi oportet. Quia ergo in hominibus quando resurgent, inchoabitur status incorruptionis, secundum illud I Cor. XV, 54: mortale hoc induet incorruptionem, ideo cessabit tunc etiam corruptio in rebus; unde cessabit motus caeli, qui est causa generationis et corruptionis in rebus corporalibus; Rom. VIII, 21: ipsa creatura liberabitur a servitute corruptionis in libertatem filiorum Dei. 940 As to the question why the motion of the heavens and time itself will continue until then, and not end before or after, we should note that whatever exists for something else is differently disposed according to the different states of that for which it exists. But all physical things have been made for man; consequently, they should be disposed according to the different states of man. So, because the state of incorruptibility will begin in men when they arise—according to “What is mortal will put on incorruption,” as it says in 1 Corinthians (15:54)—the corruption of things will also stop then. Consequently, the motion of the heavens, which is the cause of the generation and corruption of material things, will stop. “Creation itself will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8:21).
Sic ergo patet quod ad fidem necessaria est nobis attractio patris. So, it is clear that the Father must draw us if we are to have faith.
Consequenter cum dicit est scriptum in prophetis etc., determinat modum attrahendi, et primo ponit attrahendi modum; secundo attractionis efficaciam, ibi omnis qui audivit a patre, et didicit, venit ad me; tertio excludit opinatum modum attractionis, ibi non quia patrem vidit quisquam. 941 Then (v 45), he considers the way we are drawn. First, he states the way; secondly, its effectiveness (v 45b); and thirdly, he excludes a certain way of being drawn (v 46).
Modus autem attrahendi est congruus, quia trahit revelando et docendo; et hoc est quod dicit scriptum est in prophetis: erunt omnes docibiles Dei et cetera. Beda dicit hoc esse scriptum in Ioel; sed non videtur expresse ibi esse, licet aliquid consonum dicitur; et Ioel. II, 22: filii Sion, exultate in domino Deo vestro, quia dabit vobis doctorem iustitiae. Ideo autem, secundum Bedam, dicit in prophetis, ut det intelligere quod sensus iste potest colligi ex diversis dictis prophetarum. Sed expressius videtur hoc dici Is. LIV, 13: ponam filios tuos universos doctos a domino. Dicitur etiam Ier. III, 15: dabo vobis pastores iuxta cor meum, qui pascent vos scientia et doctrina. 942 The manner in which we are drawn is appropriate, for God draws us by revealing and teaching; and this is what he says: It is written in the prophets: They shall all be taught by God. Bede says that this comes from Joel. But it does not seem to be there explicitly, although there is something like it in: “O children oi Zion, rejoice and be joyful in the Lord your God, because he will give you a teacher of justice” (JI 2:23). Again, according to Bede, he says, in the prophets, so that we might understand that the same meaning can be gathered from various statements of the prophets. But it is Isaiah who seems to state this more explicitly: “All your children will be taught by the Lord” (is 54:13). We also read: “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, and they will feed you with knowledge and doctrine” (Jer 3:15).
Hoc autem quod dicit erunt omnes, potest tripliciter intelligi. Uno modo ut ly omnes supponat pro omnibus hominibus mundi; alio modo ut supponat pro omnibus qui sunt in Ecclesia Christi; tertio modo pro omnibus qui erunt in regno caelorum. 943 They shall all be taught by God, can be understood in three ways. In one way, so that all stands for all the people in the world; in another way, so that it stands for all who are in the Church of Christ, and in a third way, so it means all who will be in the kingdom of heaven.
Si autem dicatur primo modo, videtur non esse verum; nam statim subdit omnis qui audivit a patre et didicit, venit ad me. Si ergo omnes de mundo erunt docibiles, ergo omnes venient ad Christum. Sed hoc est falsum, quia non omnium est fides. Sed ad hoc tripliciter respondetur. Nam, secundum Chrysostomum, primo modo dicendum, hoc dictum esse de pluribus erunt, inquit, omnes, idest plurimi; secundum quem modum dicitur Matth. VIII, 11: multi venient ab oriente et occidente, et cetera. Secundo, quod omnes, quantum est ex Deo, erunt docibiles; sed quod aliqui non doceantur, est ex parte eorum. Sol enim quantum est de se, omnes illuminat; potest autem ab aliquibus non videri, si claudant oculos, vel si sint caeci. Et hoc modo dicit apostolus, I Tim. II, 4: vult omnes homines salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire. Tertio modo, secundum Augustinum, quod haec est accommoda distributio, ut dicatur omnes erunt docibiles Dei; idest omnes qui docentur, a Deo docentur, sicut loquimur de aliquo litterarum magistro. Dicimus enim, si est in civitate: solus iste docet omnes pueros de civitate, quia nullus docetur in ea nisi ab illo. Et hoc modo dicitur supra I, 9: erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. If we understand it in the first way, it does not seem to be true, for he immediately adds, Every one who has heard the Father and has learned, comes to me. Therefore, if every one in the world is taught [by God], then every one will come to Christ. But this is false, for not every one has faith. There are three answers to this. First, one could say, as Chrysostom does, that he is speaking of the majority: all, i.e., very many shall be taught, just as we find in Matthew: “Many will come from the East and the West” (Mt 8:11). Secondly, it could mean, all, so far as God is concerned, shall be taught, but if some are not taught, that is due to themselves. For the sun, on its part, shines on all, but some are unable to see it if they close their eyes, or are blind. From this point of view, the Apostle says: “He desires the salvation of all men, and that all come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). Thirdly, we could say, with Augustine, that we must make a restricted application, so that They shall all be taught by God, means that all who are taught, are taught by God. It is just as we might speak of a teacher of the liberal arts who is working in a city: he alone teaches all the boys of the city, because no one there is taught by anyone else. It is in this sense that it was said above: “He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world” (1:9).
Si autem exponatur de illis qui sunt in Ecclesia congregati, dicitur erunt omnes, scilicet qui sunt in Ecclesia, docibiles Deo; nam Is. LIV, 13, dicitur: ponam universos filios doctos a domino in quo quidem ostenditur sublimitas fidei Christianae, quae non inhaeret doctrinae humanae, sed doctrinae Dei. Doctrina enim veteris testamenti data fuit per prophetas; sed doctrina novi testamenti est per ipsum filium Dei; Hebr. I, 1: multifarie multisque modis, idest in veteri testamento, Deus loquens patribus in prophetis, novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio; et ibid. II, 3: quae cum initium accepisset enarrari per dominum, ab eis qui audierunt, in nos confirmata est. Sic ergo omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia, sunt docti non ab apostolis, non a prophetis, sed ab ipso Deo. Et, secundum Augustinum, hoc ipsum quod ab homine docemur, est ex Deo, qui docet interius; Matth. c. XXIII, 10: unus est magister vester Christus. Nam intelligentia, quae necessaria est praecipue ad doctrinam, est nobis a Deo. 944 If we explain these words as referring to those who are gathered into the Church, it says: They shall all, all who are in the Church, be taught by God. For we read: “All your children will be taught by the Lord” (Is 54:13). This shows the sublimity of the Christian faith, which does not depend on human teachings, but on the teaching of God. For the teaching of the Old Testament was given through the prophets; but the teaching of the New Testament is given through the Son of God himself. “In many and various ways (i.e., in the Old Testament) God spoke to our fathers through the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son” (Heb 1:1); and again in (2:3): “It was first announced by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him.” Thus, all who are in the Church are taught, not by the apostles nor by the prophets, but by God himself. Further, according to Augustine, what we are taught by men is from God, who teaches from within: “You have one teacher, the Christ” (Mt 23:10). For understanding, which we especially need for such teaching, is from God.
Si autem exponatur de his qui sunt in regno caelorum etc., tunc omnes erunt docibiles Deo, quia eius essentiam immediate videbunt; I Io. III, 2: videbimus eum sicuti est. 945 If we explain these words as applying to those who are in the kingdom of heaven, then They shall all be taught by God, because they will see his essence without any intermediary: “We shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).
Attractio autem patris efficacissima est: quia omnis qui audivit a patre, et didicit, venit ad me. Ubi duo ponit: unum scilicet quod pertinet ad donum Dei, cum dicit audivit, scilicet Deo revelante; aliud quod pertinet ad liberum arbitrium, cum dicit et didicit, scilicet per assensum; et ista duo necessaria sunt in omni doctrina fidei. Omnis qui audivit a patre, docente et manifestante, et didicit, praebendo assensum, venit ad me; 946 This drawing by the Father is most effective, because, Every one who has heard the Father and has learned, comes to me. Here he mentions two things: first, what relates to a gift of God, when he says, has heard, that is, through God, who reveals; the other relates to a free judgment, when he says, and has learned, that is, by an assent. These two are necessary for every teaching of faith. Every one who has heard the Father, teaching and making known, and has learned, by giving assent, comes to me.
venit, inquam, tripliciter: per cognitionem veritatis, per amoris affectum et per operis imitationem. Et in quolibet oportet quod audiat et discat. Nam qui venit per cognitionem veritatis, oportet eum audire, Deo inspirante, secundum illud Ps. LXXXIV, 9: audiam quid loquatur in me dominus Deus, et addiscere per affectum, ut dictum est. Qui vero venit per amorem et desiderium, ut dicitur infra VII, 37: si quis sitit, veniat ad me, et bibat, et hunc oportet audire verbum patris, et capere illud, ad hoc ut addiscat, et afficiatur. Ille enim discit verbum qui capit illud secundum rationem dicentis; verbum autem Dei patris est spirans amorem: qui ergo capit illud cum fervore amoris, discit; Sap. VII, 27: in animas sanctas se transfert, prophetas et amicos Dei constituit. Per operis autem imitationem itur ad Christum, secundum illud Matth. XI, 28: venite ad me, omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos. Et hoc etiam modo quicumque discit, venit ad Christum: nam sicut conclusio se habet in scibilibus, ita et operatio in operabilibus. In scientiis autem quicumque perfecte discit, venit ad conclusionem: ergo in operabilibus qui perfecte verba discit, venit ad rectam operationem; Is. l, 5: dominus aperuit mihi aurem; ego autem non contradico. He comes in three ways: through a knowledge of the truth; through the affection of love; and through imitative action. And in each way it is necessary that one hear and learn. The one who comes through a knowledge of the truth must hear, when God speaks within: “I will hear what the Lord God will speak within me” (Ps 84:9); and he must learn, through affection, as was said. The one who comes through love and desire—“If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink” (below 7:37)—must hear the word of the Father and grasp it, in order to learn and be moved in his affections. For that person learns the word who grasps it according to the meaning of the speaker. But the Word of the Father breathes forth love. Therefore, the one who grasps it with eager love, learns. “Wisdom goes into holy souls, and makes them prophets and friends of God” (Wis 7:27). One comes to Christ through imitative action, according to: “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you” (Mt 11:28). And whoever learns even in this way comes to Christ: for as the conclusion is to things knowable, so is action to things performable. Now whoever learns perfectly in the sciences arrives at the conclusion; therefore, as regards things that are performable, whoever learns the words perfectly arrives at the right action: “The Lord has opened my ear; and I do not resist” (Is 50:5).
Sed quia aliqui possent opinari quod omnes homines visibiliter a patre audirent et addiscerent, ideo ut hoc dominus excludat, subdit non quia patrem vidit quisquam, idest, aliquis homo vivens in hac vita non vidit patrem in sua essentia, secundum illud Ex. XXXIII, 20: non videbit me homo, et vivet, nisi is, scilicet filius, qui est a Deo, hic vidit patrem, suum per essentiam. Vel quisquam non vidit patrem, visione comprehensionis, qua visione nec homo nec Angelus eum vidit unquam, nec videre potest, nisi is qui est ex Deo, idest filius; Matth. XI, v. 27: nemo novit patrem nisi filius. 947 To correct the thought that some might have that every one will hear and learn from the Father through a vision, he adds: Not that any one has seen the Father, that is, a person living in this life does not see the Father in his essence, according to: “Man will not see me and live” (Ex 33:20), except the one, that is the Son, who is from God—he has seen the Father, through his essence. Or, Not that any one has seen the Father, with a comprehensive vision: neither man nor angel has ever seen or can see in this way; except the one who is from God, i.e., the Son: “No one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt 11:27).
Cuius quidem ratio est, quia cum omnis visio sive cognitio fiat per aliquam similitudinem, secundum modum similitudinis, quem habent creaturae ad Deum, secundum hoc habent cognitionem ipsius. Unde et philosophi dicunt, quod intelligentiae cognoscunt primam causam, secundum hanc quam habent similitudinem eius. Omnis autem creatura participat quidem aliquam similitudinem Dei, sed in infinitum distantem a similitudine suae naturae et ideo nulla creatura potest ipsum cognoscere perfecte et totaliter, prout est in sua natura. Filius autem, quia perfecte totam naturam patris accepit per aeternam generationem, ideo totaliter videt et comprehendit. The reason for this, of course, is that all vision or knowledge comes about through a likeness: creatures have a knowledge of God according to the way they have a likeness to him. Thus the philosophers say that the intelligences know the First Cause according to this likeness which they have to it. Now every creature possesses some likeness to God, but it is infinitely distant from a likeness to his nature, and so no creature can know him perfectly and totally, as he is in his own nature. The Son, however, because he has received the entire nature of the Father perfectly, through an eternal generation, sees and comprehends totally.
Sed attendendum ad congruum ordinem loquendi. Nam supra cum loqueretur de cognitione aliorum, usus est verbo auditus; hic vero cum loquitur de cognitione filii, utitur verbo visionis: nam cognitio quae est per visum, est immediata et aperta; ea vero quae est per auditum, fit mediante eo qui vidit. Sic et nos cognitionem quam habemus de patre, accepimus a filio, qui vidit: ut sic nullus patrem cognoscat nisi per Christum, qui eum manifestat, et nullus ad filium veniat, nisi a patre manifestante audierit. 948 Note how the words used are appropriate: for above, when he was speaking of the knowledge others have, he used the word “heard”; but now, in speaking of the Son’s knowledge, he uses the word “seen,” for knowledge which comes through seeing is direct and open, while that which comes through hearing comes through one who has seen. And so we have received the knowledge we have about the Father from the Son, who saw him. Thus, no one can know the Father except through Christ, who makes him known; and no one can come to the Son unless he has heard from the Father, who makes the Son known.

Lectio 6 LECTURE 6

47 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,

ὁ πιστεύων ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
48 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς.
49 οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τὸ μάννα
καὶ ἀπέθανον:
50 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων
ἵνα τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ.
51 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν
ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς:
ἐάν τις φάγῃ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ἄρτου
ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα:
καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω
ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς.

47 “Amen, amen, I say to you:

Whoever believes in me has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert,
and they are dead.
50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven,
so that if anyone eats of this [bread]
he will not die.
51 I am the living bread
that has come down from heaven.
52 If anyone eats of this bread,
he will live forever.
And the bread which I will give is my flesh,
for the life of the world.”

Represso Iudaeorum murmure, consequenter dominus satisfacit dubitationi quae orta erat in cordibus Iudaeorum de verbo quod dixerat, scilicet ego sum panis, qui de caelo descendi, ubi intendit probare hoc verum esse de se: et argumentatur sic. Ille panis descendit de caelo qui dat vitam mundo; sed ego sum panis dans vitam mundo: ergo ego sum panis qui de caelo descendi et cetera. Circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit quasi minorem suae rationis, scilicet ego sum panis vitae; secundo ponit maiorem, scilicet quod panis qui de caelo descendit, debet dare vitam, ibi patres vestri manducaverunt manna in deserto, et mortui sunt; tertio ponit conclusionem, ibi ego sum panis vivus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo manifestat suum propositum; secundo intentum quasi probatum inducit, ibi ego sum panis vitae. 949 After our Lord quieted the grumbling of the Jews, he now clears up the doubt they had because of his saying, “I am the bread that has come down from heaven.” he intends to show here that this is true. This is the way he reasons: The bread which gives life to the world descended from heaven; but I am the bread that gives life to the world: therefore, I am the bread which descended from heaven. He does three things concerning this. First, he presents the minor premise of his reasoning, that is, I am the bread of life. In the second place, he gives the major premise, that is, that the bread that descended from heaven ought to give life (v 49). Thirdly, we have the conclusion (v 5 1). As to the first he does two things. First, he states his point; secondly, he expresses it as practically proved (v 48).
Propositum suum est ostendere quod sit panis vitae. Panis autem vivificat inquantum sumitur. Constat autem quod qui credit in Christum, sumit eum intra seipsum, secundum illud Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus nostris. Si ergo ille qui credit in Christum habet vitam, manifestum est quod manducando hunc panem vivificatur: ergo iste panis est panis vitae. Et hoc est quod dicit amen, amen dico vobis, qui credit in me, fide scilicet formata, quae non solum perficit intellectum, sed etiam affectum (non enim tenditur in rem creditam nisi ametur) habet vitam aeternam. 950 His intention is to show that he is the bread of life. Bread is life-giving insofar as it is taken. Now one who believes in Christ takes him within himself, according to: “Christ dwells in our hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17). Therefore, if he who believes in Christ has life, it is clear that he is brought to life by eating this bread. Thus, this bread is the bread of life. And this is what he says: Amen, amen, I say to you: Whoever believes in me, with a faith made living by love, which not only perfects the intellect but the affections as well (for we do not tend to the things we believe in unless we love them), has eternal life.
Christus autem est in nobis dupliciter: scilicet in intellectu per fidem, inquantum fides est; et in affectu per caritatem, quae informat fidem: I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Qui ergo credit sic in Christum ut in eum tendat, habet ipsum in affectu et in intellectu: et si addamus, quod Christus est vita aeterna, ut dicitur I Io. ult., c. 20: ut simus in vero filio eius Iesu Christo: hic est verus Deus et vita aeterna; et supra I, 4: in ipso vita erat, possumus inferre, quod quicumque credit in Christum, habet vitam aeternam. Habet, inquam, in causa et in spe, quandoque habiturus in re. Now Christ is within us in two ways: in our intellect through faith, so far as it is faith; and in our affections through love, which informs or gives life to our faith: “He who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him” (1 Jn 4:16). So he who believes in Christ so that he tends to him, possesses Christ in his affections and in his intellect. And if we add that Christ is eternal life, as stated in “that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 Jn 5:20), and in “In him was life” (above 1:4), we can infer that whoever believes in Christ has eternal life. He has it, I say, in its Cause and in hope, and he will have it at some time in reality.
Manifestato proposito, inducit intentum, cum dicit ego sum panis vitae idest dans vitam, ut evidenter sequitur ex praemissis. De isto pane Gen. penult., v. 20: Aser, pinguis panis eius, praebebit delicias, scilicet vitae aeternae, regibus. 951 Having stated his position, he expresses it as, I am the bread of life, which gives life, as clearly follows from the above. We read of this bread: “The bread of Asher will be rich, he will furnish choice morsels,” of eternal life, “to kings” (Gn 49:20).
Consequenter cum dicit patres vestri manducaverunt manna in deserto, et mortui sunt, ponit maiorem: scilicet quod dare vitam sit effectus panis de caelo descendentis. Et primo praemittit manifestationem propositi; secundo ponit intentum, ibi hic est panis de caelo descendens. 952 Then when he says, Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they are dead, he gives the major premise, namely, the bread that descended from heaven ought to have the effect of giving life. First, he explains this; secondly, he draws his point (v 50).
Propositum autem suum manifestat per contrarium. Dictum est enim supra, quod Moyses non dedit Iudaeis panem de caelo nisi aereo; omnis autem panis qui non est de vero caelo, non potest vitam sufficientem dare: ergo hoc est proprium panis caelestis quod det vitam. Et ideo panis Moysi, unde vos superbitis, non dat vitam: et hoc probat cum dicit patres vestri manducaverunt manna in deserto, et mortui sunt. 953 He explains his meaning through a contrasting situation. It was said above (909) that Moses gave the Jews bread from heaven, in the sense of from the air. But bread that does not come from the true heaven cannot give adequate life. Therefore, it is proper to the heavenly bread to give life. So, the bread given by Moses, in which you take pride, does not give life. And he proves this when he says, Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they are dead.
Ubi primo exprobrat eorum vitium, cum dicit patres vestri etc., quorum scilicet estis filii non solum secundum carnis originem, sed etiam secundum operum imitationem, quia estis murmuratores, sicut et ipsi murmuraverunt in tabernaculis suis, ut dicitur in Ps. CV, v. 25: et ideo dicebat eis, Matth. XXIII, 32: implete mensuram patrum vestrorum. Unde sicut Augustinus dicit, de nulla re magis Deum offendisse populus dictus est, quam contra Deum murmurando. In this statement he first reproaches them for their faults, when he says, Your fathers, whose sons you are, not only according to the flesh, but also by imitating their actions, because you are grumblers just as “they grumbled in their tents” (Ps 105:25); this was why he said to them: “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers,” as we read in Matthew (23:32). As Augustine says, this people is said to have offended God in no matter more than by grumbling against God.
Secundo insinuat breve temporis spatium, cum dicit in deserto: non enim longum tempus fuit quo manna eis datum fuit, neque simul cum eis venit in terram promissionis, sed tantum in deserto, ut dicitur Iosue V, 12. Iste autem panis in perpetuum conservat et reficit. Tertio manifestat cibi defectum, quia non conservabat vitam indeficientem; unde dicit et mortui sunt. Nam, sicut habetur Iosue V, omnes qui murmuraverunt, praeter Iosue et Caleb, mortui sunt in deserto. Unde, et haec fuit causa secundae circumcisionis, scilicet quod omnis populus qui egressus est ex Aegypto mortui sunt in deserto, ut ibidem dicitur. Secondly, he mentions for how short a time this was done, saying, in the desert: for they were not given manna for a long period of time; and they had it only while in the desert, and not when they entered the promised land (Jos 5). But the other bread [from the true heaven] preserves and nourishes one forever. Thirdly, he states an inadequacy in that bread, that is, it did not preserve life without end; so he says, and they are dead. For we read in Joshua (c 5) that all who grumbled, except Joshua and Caleb, died in the desert. This was the reason for the second circumcision, as we see here, because all who had left Egypt died in the desert.
Sed quaeritur de qua morte Deus hic loquitur. Nam si loquitur de morte corporali, nulla differentia erit inter panem illum qui fuit in deserto, et panem nostrum qui de caelo descendit: quia, etiam Christiani qui sumunt istum, corporaliter moriuntur. Si vero loquitur de morte spirituali, manifestum est quod hic et ibi quidam spiritualiter moriuntur, et quidam non. Nam Moyses, et multi qui Deo placuerunt, mortui non sunt, licet alii mortui sint. Similiter et qui istum panem indigne sumunt, moriuntur spiritualiter; I Cor. c. XI, 29: qui enim manducat et bibit indigne, iudicium sibi manducat et bibit. 954 One might wonder what kind of death God is speaking of here. If he is speaking of physical death, there will be no difference between the bread the Jews had in the desert and our bread, which came down from heaven, because even Christians who share the latter bread die physically. But if he is speaking of spiritual death, it is clear that both then among the Jews and now among the Christians, some die spiritually and others do not. For Moses and many others who were pleasing to God did not die, while others did. Also, those who eat this bread [of the Christians] unworthily, die spiritually: “He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor 11:29).
Ad quod dicendum est, quod cibus ille cum cibo nostro spirituali convenit. Conveniunt quidem quantum ad hoc quod uterque idem significat: nam et ille et iste Christum signat, propter quod dicitur idem cibus; I Cor. X, 3: omnes eamdem escam manducaverunt. Eamdem dicit, quia utraque est figura spiritualis escae. Sed differunt, quia ille figurabat tantum, sed panis iste continet quod figurat, scilicet ipsum Christum. Dicendum ergo, quod uterque ciborum istorum potest dupliciter sumi: vel quantum ad signum tantum, idest quod sumatur ut cibus tantum, non intellecto significato; et per hoc non tollitur mors spiritualis, seu corporalis. Vel quod sumatur quantum ad utrumque, idest quod ita sumatur cibus visibilis ut intelligatur cibus spiritualis, et spiritualiter gustetur, ut spiritualiter satiet: et hoc modo illi qui spiritualiter manducaverunt manna, mortui non sunt spiritualiter. Sed et qui Eucharistiam spiritualiter manducant, et absque peccato spiritualiter vivunt nunc, et corporaliter vivent in aeternum. Habet ergo plus cibus noster cibo illorum, quia in se continet quod figurat. We may answer this by saying that the food of the Jews has some features in common with our spiritual food. They are alike in the fact that each signifies the same thing: for both signify Christ. Thus they are called the same food: “All ate the same spiritual food” (1 Cor 10:3). He calls them the same because each is a symbol of the spiritual food. But they are different because one [the manna] was only a symbol; while the other [the bread of the Christians] contains that of which it is the symbol, that is, Christ himself. Thus we should say that each of these foods can be taken in two ways. First, as a sign only, i.e., so that each is taken as food only, and without understanding what is signified; and taken in this way, they do not take away either physical or spiritual death. Secondly, they may be taken in both ways, i.e., the visible food is taken in such a way that spiritual food is understood and spiritually tasted, in order that it may satisfy spiritually. In this way, those who ate the manna spiritually did not die spiritually. But those who eat the Eucharist spiritually, both live spiritually now without sin, and will live physically forever. Thus, our food is greater than their food, because it contains in itself that of which it is the symbol.
Manifestato ergo proposito, inducit intentum; unde dicit hic est panis de caelo descendens. Et secundum Glossam hic dicit demonstrando seipsum. Sed hic non est intellectus domini, quia cum statim subdat ego sum panis vivus qui de caelo descendi, esset verborum inculcatio. Dicendum est ergo, quod dominus hoc intendit, ut scilicet dicat illum panem de caelo descendere qui hoc potest facere, scilicet dare vitam; sed ego sum talis: ergo ego sum panis de caelo descendens. Ideo autem de caelo descendens dat vitam indeficientem, quia omnis cibus nutrit secundum proprietatem suae naturae; caelestia autem incorruptibilia sunt: et ideo quia cibus ille caelestis est, non corrumpitur, quod quamdiu manet vivificat. Qui ergo manducaverit ex ipso, non morietur. Sicut si aliquis cibus corporalis numquam corrumperetur, dans nutrimentum, semper vivificaret. Et ideo panis iste significatus est per lignum vitae quod erat in medio Paradisi, quodammodo dans vitam in perpetuum, secundum illud Gen. III, 22: nunc ergo ne forte mittat manum suam, et sumat de ligno vitae, et comedat, et vivat in aeternum. Si ergo iste sit effectus huius panis, ut scilicet qui manducat ex eo non moriatur; et ego sum talis: ergo et cetera. Ego sum panis vivus et cetera. 955 Having presented the argument, he draws the conclusion: This is the bread that comes, down from heaven. He says, This, the Gloss says, to indicate himself. But our Lord does not understand it this way as it would be superfluous, since he immediately adds, I am the living bread that has come down from heaven. So we should say that our Lord wants to say that the bread which can do this, i.e., give life, comes from heaven; but I am that bread: thus, I am that bread that comes down from heaven. Now the reason why that bread which comes down from heaven gives a life which never ends is that all food nourishes according to the properties of its nature; but heavenly things are incorruptible: consequently, since this food is heavenly, it is not corrupted, and as long as it lasts, it gives life. So, he who eats it, will not die. Just as if there were some bodily food which never corrupted, then in nourishing it would always be life-giving. This bread was signified by the tree of life in the midst of Paradise, which somehow gave life without end: “He must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (Gn 3:22). So if the effect of this bread is that anyone who eats it will not die, and I am such, then [anyone who eats of me will not die].
Circa hoc ergo duo facit. Primo loquitur de seipso communiter; secundo specialiter, ibi et panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est. Circa primum duo facit. Primo concludit originem sui ipsius. Secundo ostendit eius virtutem, ibi si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in aeternum. 956 He does two things concerning this. First, he speaks of himself in general; secondly, in particular, And the bread which I will give is my flesh. In regard to the first, he does two things: first, he mentions his origin; secondly his power (v 52).
Dixit ergo ego sum panis vivus, et ideo possum vitam dare. Panis enim corporalis non in perpetuum vivificat, quia non habet in se vitam; sed vivificat alteratus et conversus in nutrimentum virtute viventis. Qui de caelo descendi: hoc expositum est supra c. III, quomodo scilicet descenderit. Et per hoc excluduntur haereses dicentium Christum purum hominem, quia secundum hoc non descendisset de caelo. 957 He said, I am the living bread; consequently, I can give life. Material bread does not give life forever, because it does not have life in itself; but it gives life by being changed and converted into nourishment by the energy of a living organism. That has come down from heaven: it was explained before [4671 how the Word came down. This refuted those heresies which taught that Christ was a mere man, because according to them, he would not have come down from heaven.
Virtus autem eius est dare vitam aeternam; et ideo dicit si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, spiritualiter scilicet, vivet, non tantum in praesenti per fidem et iustitiam, sed in aeternum; infra LI, 26: omnis qui vivit et credit in me, non morietur in aeternum. 958 He has the power to give eternal life; thus he says, If anyone eats of this bread, i.e., spiritually, he will live, not only in the present through faith and justice, but forever. “Everyone who lives and believes in me, will never die” (below 11:26).
Consequenter loquitur de corpore, cum dicit et panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est. Dixerat enim, quod erat panis vivus, et ne intelligatur quod hoc ei esset inquantum est verbum, vel secundum animam tantum; ideo ostendit quod etiam caro sua vivificativa est: est enim organum divinitatis suae; unde, cum instrumentum agat virtute agentis, sicut divinitas Christi vivificativa est, ita ut Damascenus dicit et caro virtute verbi adiuncti vivificat: unde Christus tactu suo sanabat infirmos. Sic ergo quod dixit supra, ego sum panis vivus, pertinet ad virtutem verbi; hic vero quod subdit pertinet ad communionem sui corporis, scilicet ad Eucharistiae sacramentum. 959 He then speaks of his body when he says, And the bread which I will give is my flesh. For he had said that he was the living bread; and so that we do not think that he is such so far as he is the Word or in his soul alone, he shows that even his flesh is life-giving, for it is an instrument of his divinity. Thus, since an instrument acts by virtue of the agent, then just as the divinity of Christ is life-giving, so too his flesh gives life (as Damascene says) because of the Word to which it is united. Thus Christ healed the sick by his touch. So what he said above, I am the living bread, pertained to the power of the Word; but what he is saying here pertains to the sharing in his body, that is, to the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Ubi possumus quatuor considerare circa ipsum sacramentum: scilicet speciem, instituentis auctoritatem, sacramenti veritatem, et eius utilitatem. 960 We can consider four things about this sacrament: its species, the authority of the one who instituted it, the truth of this sacrament, and its usefulness.
Species quidem sacramenti: hic est panis; Prov. IX, 5: venite, et comedite panem meum. Cuius ratio est, quia hoc est sacramentum corporis Christi; corpus autem Christi est Ecclesia, quae consurgit in unitatem corporis ex multis fidelibus: unde istud est sacramentum unitatis Ecclesiae; Rom. XII, 5: omnes unum corpus sumus. Quia ergo panis ex diversis granis conficitur, ideo est conveniens species sacramenti huius; ideo dicit et panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est. As to the species of this sacrament: This is the bread; “Come, and eat my bread” (Prv 9:5). The reason for this is that this is the sacrament of the body of Christ; but the body of Christ is the Church, which arises out of many believers forming a bodily unity: “We are one body” (Rom 12:5). And so because bread is formed from many grains, it is a fitting species for this sacrament. Hence he says, And the bread which I will give is my flesh.
Auctor huius sacramenti Christus est: nam licet sacerdos consecret, tamen ipse Christus dat virtutem sacramento, quia etiam ipse sacerdos consecrat in persona Christi. Unde in aliis sacramentis utitur sacerdos verbis suis, seu Ecclesiae, sed in isto utitur verbis Christi: quia sicut Christus corpus suum propria voluntate dedit in mortem, ita sua virtute dat se in cibum; Matth. XXVI, 26: accipiens panem, benedixit, ac fregit deditque discipulis suis, et ait: accipite et comedite: hoc est corpus meum. Et ideo dicit quem ego dabo: et dicit dabo, quia nondum institutum erat hoc sacramentum. 961 The author of this sacrament is Christ: for although the priest confers it, it is Christ himself who gives the power to this sacrament, because the priest consecrates in the person of Christ. Thus in the other sacraments the priest uses his own words or those of the Church, but in this sacrament he uses the words of Christ: because just as Christ gave his body to death by his own will, so it is by his own power that he gives himself as food: “Jesus took bread, he blessed it and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: ‘Take and eat it, this is my body’ “ (Mt 26:26). Thus he says, which I will give; and he says, will give, because this sacrament had not yet been instituted.
Veritas autem huius sacramenti insinuatur cum dicit caro mea est. Non dicit autem carnem meam significat sed caro mea est; quia secundum rei veritatem hoc quod sumitur, vere est corpus Christi; Iob c. XXXI, 31: si non dixerunt viri tabernaculi mei: quis det de carnibus eius ut saturemur? 962 The truth of this sacrament is indicated when he says, is my flesh. He does not say, “This signifies my flesh,” but it is my flesh, for in reality that which is taken is truly the body of Christ: “Who will give us his flesh so that we may be satisfied?” as we read in Job (31:3 1).
Sed cum in isto sacramento contineatur totus Christus, quare dixit tantum caro mea est? Ad quod respondendo, sciendum est, quod in illo mystico sacramento totus Christus continetur secundum veritatem, sed corpus est ibi ex vi conversionis, divinitas vero et anima per naturalem concomitantiam. Dato enim per impossibile, quod divinitas separaretur a corpore Christi, iam non esset in sacramento divinitas. Similiter etiam si in triduo mortis suae aliquis consecrasset, non fuisset ibi anima Christi, sed tale corpus quale erat in cruce, seu in sepulcro. Ideo autem potius dicit caro, quia cum hoc sacramentum sit dominicae passionis rememorativum, secundum illud I Cor. XI, 26: quotiescumque manducabitis panem hunc, et calicem bibetis, mortem domini annuntiabitis, passio autem Christi fuit ex infirmitate, secundum illud II Cor. ult., v. 4: mortuus est ex infirmitate etc.: ut ergo insinuetur infirmitas ex qua mortuus est, potius dicit caro mea est: nam hoc nomen infirmitatem significat. Since the whole Christ is contained in this sacrament, why did he just say, this is my flesh ? To answer this, we should note that in this mystical sacrament the whole Christ is really contained: but his body is there by virtue of the conversion; while his soul and divinity are present by natural concomitance. For if we were to suppose what is really impossible, that is, that the divinity of Christ is separated from his body, then his divinity would not be present in this sacrament. Similarly, if someone had consecrated during the three days Christ was dead, his soul would not have been present there [in the sacrament], but his body would have been, as it was on the cross or in the tomb. Since this sacrament is the commemoration of our Lord’s passion—according to “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:26)—and the passion of Christ depended on his weakness—according to “He was crucified through weakness” (2 Cor 13:4)—he rather says, is my flesh, to suggest the weakness through which he died, for “flesh” signifies weakness.
Utilitas autem huius sacramenti magna est, et universalis. Magna quidem, quia efficit in nobis nunc vitam spiritualem, tandem aeternam, ut dictum est. Nam, ut ex supradictis apparet, cum hoc sacramentum sit dominicae passionis, continet in se Christum passum: unde quidquid est effectus dominicae passionis, totum etiam est effectus huius sacramenti. Nihil enim aliud est hoc sacramentum quam applicatio dominicae passionis ad nos. Non enim decebat Christum secundum praesentiam suam semper esse nobiscum; et ideo voluit hoc supplere per hoc sacramentum. Unde manifestum est quod destructio mortis, quam Christus moriendo destruxit, et reparatio vitae, quam resurgendo effecit, est effectus huius sacramenti. 963 The usefulness of this sacrament is great and universal. It is great, indeed, because it produces spiritual life within us now, and will later produce eternal life, as was said. For as is clear from what was said, since this is the sacrament of our Lord’s passion, it contains in itself the Christ who suffered. Thus, whatever is an effect of our Lord’s passion is also an effect of this sacrament. For this sacrament is nothing other than the application of our Lord’s passion to us. For it was not fitting for Christ to be always with us in his own presence; and so he wanted to make up for this absence through this sacrament. Hence it is clear that the destruction of death, which Christ accomplished by his death, and the restoration of life, which he accomplished by his resurrection, are effects of this sacrament.
Universalis autem, quia vita quam confert, non solum est vita unius hominis, sed quantum in se est, totius mundi: ad quam sufficiens est mors Christi; I Io. II, 2: ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, et non pro nostris tantum, sed etiam totius mundi. 964 The usefulness of this sacrament is universal because the life it gives is not only the life of one person, but, so far as concerns itself, the life of the entire world: and for this the death of Christ is fully sufficient. “He is the offering for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the entire world” (1 Jn 2:2).
Notandum autem est, quod aliter est in isto sacramento, et aliter in aliis: nam alia sacramenta habent singulares effectus, sicut in Baptismo solus baptizatus suscipit gratiam; sed in immolatione huius sacramenti est universalis effectus, quia non solum sacerdos effectum consequitur, sed etiam illi pro quibus orat, et Ecclesia tota, tam vivorum, quam mortuorum. Cuius ratio est, quia continetur in ipso ipsa causa universalis omnium sacramentorum, scilicet Christus. Nec tamen si laicus sumat hoc sacramentum, prodest aliis quantum est ex opere operato, inquantum consideratur ut perceptio, quamvis ex intentione operantis et percipientis, possit communicari omnibus ad quos dirigit suam intentionem. Ex quo patet quod laici sumentes Eucharistiam pro his qui sunt in Purgatorio, errant. We should note that this sacrament is different from the others: for the other sacraments have individual effects: as in baptism, only the one baptized receives grace. But in the immolation of this sacrament, the effect is universal: because it affects not just the priest, but also those for whom he prays, as well as the entire Church, of the living and of the dead. The reason for this is that it contains the universal cause of all the sacraments, Christ. Nevertheless, when a lay person receives this sacrament it does not benefit others ex opere operato [by its own power] considered as a receiving. However, due to the intention of the person who is acting and receiving, it can be communicated to all those to whom he directs his intention. It is clear from this that lay persons are mistaken when they receive the Eucharist for those in purgatory.

Lectio 7 LECTURE 7

52 ἐμάχοντο οὖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες, πῶς δύναται οὗτος ἡμῖν δοῦναι τὴν σάρκα [αὐτοῦ] φαγεῖν; 53 εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα
οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
54 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα
καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα
ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον,
κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ:
55 ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις,
καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου ἀληθής ἐστιν πόσις.
56 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα
καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα
ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει
κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ.
57 καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ
κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα,
καὶ ὁ τρώγων με
κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι' ἐμέ.
58 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς,
οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον:
ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον
ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
59 ταῦτα εἶπεν ἐν συναγωγῇ διδάσκων ἐν Καφαρναούμ.

53 The Jews therefore disputed among themselves, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 54 Jesus then said to them:

“Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood,
you will not have life in you.
55 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life;
and I will raise him up on the last day.
56 For my flesh truly is food,
and my blood truly is drink.
57 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
abides in me, and I in him.
58 Just as the living Father has sent me, and I live because of the Father,
so whoever eats me,
he also will live because of me.
59 This is the bread that has come down from heaven.
Unlike your fathers who ate manna and are dead,
whoever eats this bread shall live forever.”
60 These things he said teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

Supra repressit dominus murmur Iudaeorum, quod ortum habuit de origine cibi spiritualis; hic reprimit eorum litigium, quod erat inter eos de sumptione huius cibi, et primo ponit eorum litigium; secundo dominus comprimit illud, ibi dixit ergo eis Iesus etc.; tertio Evangelista designat locum, ibi haec dixit in synagoga, docens in Capharnaum. 965 Above, our Lord checked the grumbling of the Jews over the origin of this spiritual food; here, he stops their dispute over the ealing of this same food. First, we see their dispute; secondly, our Lord stops it (v 54); thirdly, the Evangelist mentions the place where all this happened (v 60).
Circa primum sciendum est, quod Evangelista Iudaeorum litigium inducit per modum conclusionis, cum dicit litigabant ergo Iudaei et cetera. Et quidem satis congrue: nam, secundum Augustinum, dominus locutus fuerat eis de cibo unitatis, quo qui reficiuntur, efficiuntur unanimes, secundum illud Ps. LXVII, v. 4: iusti epulentur, et exultent in conspectu Dei, et laetentur in laetitia, et sequitur, secundum aliam litteram: qui habitare facit unanimes in domo. Quia igitur Iudaei cibum concordiae non sumpserant, ideo ad invicem litigabant; Is. LVIII, 4: ecce ad lites et contentiones ieiunatis. Ex hoc autem quod litigabant cum aliis, se esse carnales ostendebant; I Cor. III, 3: cum sit inter vos zelus et contentio, nonne carnales estis? Et ideo haec verba domini carnaliter intelligebant; scilicet quod caro Christi manducaretur sicut cibus carnalis; unde dicunt quomodo potest hic carnem suam dare ad manducandum? Quasi dicant: hoc est impossibile, sicut et patres eorum locuti sunt contra dominum, Num. c. XXI, 5: anima nostra nauseat super cibo isto levissimo. 906 As to the first, note that the Evangelist brings in the dispute among the Jews in the form of a conclusion, saying, The Jews therefore disputed among themselves. And this is fitting: for according to Augustine, our Lord had just spoken to them about the food of unity, which makes into one those who are nourished on it, according to, “Let those who are just feast and rejoice before God,” and then it continues, according to one reading, “God makes those who agree to live in one house” (Ps 67:4). And so, because the Jews had not eaten the food of harmony, they argued with each other: “When you fast, you argue and fight” (Is 58:4). Further, their quarreling with others shows that they were carnal: “For while you are envious and quarreling, are you not carnal?” (1 Cor 3:3). Therefore, they understood these words of our Lord in a carnal way, i.e., as meaning that our Lord’s flesh would be eaten as material food. Thus they say, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? As if to say: This is impossible. Here they were speaking against God just as their fathers did: “We are sick of this useless food” (Nm 21:5).
Sed hoc eorum litigium comprimitur a domino; unde dixit ergo eis Iesus et cetera. Ubi primo ponit virtutem sumptionis huius cibi; secundo manifestat eam, ibi qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit carnis manducandae necessitatem; secundo eius utilitatem, ibi qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam; tertio subdit eius veritatem, ibi caro enim mea vere est cibus. 967 Our Lord stops this argument. First, he states the power that comes from taking this food; secondly, he amplifies on it (v 55). As to the first he does three things. First, he states why it is necessary to eat this flesh; secondly, its usefulness; and thirdly, he adds something about its truth (v 56).
Dixit ergo Iesus amen, amen dico vobis: nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis, quasi dicat: vos reputatis impossibile et incongruum quod carnem meam manducetis; sed non solum non est impossibile, sed etiam est valde necessarium, intantum quod nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis, idest non poteritis habere, in vobis vitam, scilicet spiritualem. Nam sicut cibus corporalis ita est necessarius ad vitam corporalem, quod sine eo esse non possit Thren. I, v. 11: dederunt pretiosa quaeque pro cibo; et in Ps. CIII, 15: panis cor hominis confirmet: ita cibus spiritualis necessarius est ad vitam spiritualem, adeo quod sine ipso vita spiritualis sustentari non possit; Deut. VIII, 3: non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo quod egreditur de ore Dei. 968 Jesus said: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. As if to say: You think it is impossible and unbecoming to eat my flesh. But it is not only possible, but very necessary, so much so that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have, i.e., you will not be able to have, life in you, that is, spiritual life. For just as material food is so necessary for bodily life that without it you cannot exist—“They exchanged their precious belongings for food” (Lam 1:11); “Bread strengthens the heart of man” (Ps 103:15)—so spiritual food is necessary for the spiritual life to such an extent that without it the spiritual life cannot be sustained: “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which comes from the mouth of God” (Dt 8:3).
Notandum autem, quod haec sententia potest referri vel ad spiritualem manducationem, vel ad sacramentalem. Sed si referatur ad spiritualem, nullam dubitationem habet sententia. Ille enim spiritualiter carnem Christi manducat et sanguinem bibit qui particeps fit ecclesiasticae unitatis, quae fit per caritatem; Rom. XII, 5: omnes unum corpus estis in Christo. Qui ergo non sic manducat, est extra Ecclesiam, et per consequens extra caritatem; ideo non habet vitam in semetipso; I Io. III, 14: qui non diligit, manet in morte. 969 We should note that this statement can refer either to eating in a spiritual way or in a sacramental way. If we understand it as referring to a spiritual eating, it does not cause any difficulty. For that person eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a spiritual way who shares in the unity of the Church; and this is accomplished by the love of charity: “You are one body, in Christ” (Rom 12:5). Thus, one who does not eat in this way is outside the Church, and consequently, without the love of charity. Accordingly, such a one does not have life in himself: “He who does not love, remains in death” (1 Jn 3:14).
Si vero referatur ad sacramentalem, dubium habet quod dicitur; nam supra III, 5, dicitur: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non potest introire in regnum caelorum. Sed sicut proposita fuit illa sententia, ita est ista: nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis et cetera. Cum ergo Baptismus sit sacramentum necessitatis, videtur etiam quod Eucharistia. Sed hoc quidem Graeci concedunt, unde et pueris baptizatis dant Eucharistiam: et in hoc habent pro eis ritum Dionysii, qui dicit, quod perceptio cuiuslibet sacramenti debet consummari in communione Eucharistiae, quae est consummatio omnium sacramentorum. Sed hoc verum est in adultis, non autem in pueris: cum in sumente Eucharistiam exigatur actualis reverentia et devotio, quam illi qui non habent usum liberi arbitrii, sicut sunt pueri et amentes, habere non possunt; et ideo nullo modo eis est danda. But if we refer this statement to eating in a sacramental way, a difficulty appears. For we read above: “Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (3:5). Now this statement was given in the same form as the present one: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man. Therefore, since baptism is a necessary sacrament, it seems that the Eucharist is also. In fact, the Greeks think it is; and so they give the Eucharist to newly baptized infants. For this opinion they have in their favor the rite of Denis, who says that the reception of each sacrament should culminate in the sharing of the Eucharist, which is the culmination of all the sacraments. This is true in the case of adults, but it is not so for infants, because receiving the Eucharist should be done with reverence and devotion, and those who do not have the use of reason, as infants and the insane, cannot have this. Consequently, it should not be given to them at all.
Dicendum ergo, quod sacramentum Baptismatis est necessarium quantum ad omnes, ut realiter accipiatur, quia sine eo nullus regeneratur ad vitam: et ideo oportet quod ipsum habeatur in re vel in voto, quantum ad praeoccupatos; nam si contemptus in aliquo Baptismum aquae excludat, neque Baptismus flaminis nec sanguinis prodest ei ad vitam aeternam. Sacramentum vero Eucharistiae est necessitatis quantum ad adultos tantum, ita quod recipiatur re vel voto secundum Ecclesiae instituta. We should say, therefore, that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for everyone, and it must be really received, because without it no one is born again into life. And so it is necessary that it be received in reality, or by desire in the case of those who are prevented from the former. For if the contempt within a person excludes a baptism by water, then neither a baptism of desire nor of blood will benefit him for eternal life. However, the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for adults only, so that it may be received in reality, or by desire, according to the practices of the Church.
Sed secundum hoc etiam dubitatur: quia per haec verba domini, non solum manducatio corporis, sed etiam sumptio sanguinis est de necessitate salutis, praesertim cum perfecta refectio cibi non sit sine potu. Cum ergo consuetudo aliquarum Ecclesiarum sit quod solus sacerdos communicet de sanguine, alii vero communicant corpori tantum, videtur huic sententiae contrariari. 970 But even this causes difficulty: because by these words of Our Lord, it is necessary for salvation not only to eat his body, but also to drink his blood, especially since a repast of food is not complete without drink. Therefore, since it is the custom in certain Churches for only the priest to receive Christ’s blood, while the rest receive only his body, they would seem to be acting against this.
Respondeo dicendum, quod, secundum antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem, omnes sicut communicabant corpori, ita communicabant et sanguini; quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesiis servatur, ubi etiam ministri altaris continue et corpori et sanguini communicant. Sed propter periculum effusionis, in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicet sanguini, reliqui vero corpori. Nec tamen est contra sententiam domini, quia qui communicat corpori, communicat etiam sanguini, cum sub utraque specie totus Christus contineatur, etiam quantum ad corpus et sanguinem. Sed sub speciebus panis continetur corpus Christi ex vi conversionis, sanguis vero ex naturali concomitantia: sub speciebus vero vini continetur sanguis Christi ex vi conversionis, corpus vero ex concomitantia naturali. I answer that it was the custom of the early Church for all to receive both the body and blood of Christ; and certain Churches have still retained this practice, where even those assisting at the altar always receive the body and blood. But in some Churches, due to the danger of spilling the blood, the custom is for it to be received only by the priest, while the rest receive Christ’s body. Even so, this is not acting against our Lord’s command, because whoever receives Christ’s body receives his blood also, since the entire Christ is present under each species, even his body and blood. But under the species of bread, Christ’s body is present in virtue of the conversion, and his blood is present by natural concomitance; while under the species of wine, his blood is present in virtue of the conversion, and his body by natural concomitance.
Sic ergo apparet necessitas sumendi hunc cibum spiritualem. It is now clear why it is necessary to receive this spiritual food.
Utilitas eius ostenditur cum dicit qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam, et primo quantum ad spiritum seu animam; secundo quantum ad corpus, ibi et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. 971 Next, the usefulness of this food is shown: first, for the spirit or soul; secondly, for the body, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Est ergo utilitas huius manducationis magna, quia dat vitam aeternam; unde dicit qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. Nam cibus iste spiritualis est similis quidem corporali in hoc quod sine ipso vita spiritualis esse non potest, sicut nec sine corporali cibo vita corporalis, ut dictum est supra. Sed amplius habet ab eo, quia causat indeficientem vitam in sumente, quam cibus corporalis non efficit: non enim qui eum sumpserit, vivet; potest enim fieri, ut Augustinus dicit, ut senio vel morbo, et aliquo casu plurimi qui eum sumpserunt, moriantur. Qui vero hunc cibum et potum corporis et sanguinis domini sumpserit, habet vitam aeternam: et ideo comparatur ligno vitae; Prov. III, 8: lignum vitae est his qui apprehenderint eam; unde dicitur panis vitae; Eccli. XV, 3: cibavit illum pane vitae et intellectus. Et ideo dicit vitam aeternam: et hoc, quia qui manducat hunc panem, habet in se Christum, qui est verus Deus, et vita aeterna: ut dicitur I Io. ult., 20. 972 There is great usefulness in eating this sacrament, for it gives eternal life; thus he says, Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. For this spiritual food is similar to material food in the fact that without it there can be no spiritual life, just as there cannot be bodily life without bodily food, as was said above. But this food has more than the other, because it produces in the one who receives it an unending life, which material food does not do: for not all who eat material food continue to live. For, as Augustine says, it can happen that many who do take it die because of old age or sickness, or some other reason. But one who takes this food and drink of the body and blood of our Lord has eternal life. For this reason it is compared to the tree of life: “She is the tree of life for those who take her” (Prv 3:18); and so it is called the bread of life: “He fed him with the bread of life and understanding” (Sir 15:3). Accordingly, he says, eternal life, because one who eats this bread has within himself Christ, who is “the true God and eternal life,” as John says (1 Jn 5:20).
Sed ille habet vitam aeternam, qui manducat et bibit, ut dicitur, non solum sacramentaliter, sed etiam spiritualiter. Ille vero sacramentaliter manducat et bibit, qui sumit ipsum sacramentum; spiritualiter vero, qui pertingit ad rem sacramenti; quae est duplex: una contenta et signata, quae est Christus integer, qui continetur sub speciebus panis et vini; alia res est signata et non contenta, et hoc est corpus Christi mysticum, quod est in praedestinatis, vocatis et iustificatis. Sic ergo spiritualiter manducat carnem et bibit sanguinem per comparationem ad Christum contentum et signatum, qui coniungitur ei per fidem et caritatem, ita quod transformatur in ipsum, et efficitur eius membrum: non enim cibus iste convertitur in eum qui sumit, sed manducantem convertit in se, secundum Augustinum, cum dicit: cibus sum grandium: cresce, et manducabis me; nec tu me mutabis in te, sed tu mutaberis in me. Et ideo est cibus hominem divinum facere valens, et divinitate inebrians. Item per comparationem ad corpus mysticum signatum tantum, si fiat particeps unitatis ecclesiasticae. Qui ergo sic manducat, habet vitam aeternam. Et de primo per comparationem ad Christum iam satis patet. Similiter per comparationem ad corpus mysticum de necessitate habebit vitam aeternam, si perseveret. Nam unitas Ecclesiae fit per spiritum sanctum, Eph. IV, 4: unus spiritus et unum corpus, qui est pignus hereditatis aeternae, ut dicitur Eph. c. I, 14. Est ergo magna utilitas huius cibi, quia dat vitam aeternam animae; sed etiam magna est, quia dat vitam aeternam etiam corpori. Now one has eternal life who eats and drinks, as it is said, not only in a sacramental way, but also in a spiritual way. One eats and drinks sacramentally or in a sacramental way, if he receives the sacrament; and one eats and drinks spiritually or in a spiritual way, if he attains to the reality of the sacrament. This reality of the sacrament is twofold: one is contained and signified, and this is the whole Christ, who is contained under the species of bread and wine. The other reality is signified but not contained, and this is the mystical body of Christ, which is in the predestined, the called, and the justified. Thus, in reference to Christ as contained and signified, one eats his flesh and drinks his blood in a spiritual way if he is united to him through faith and love, so that one is transformed into him and becomes his member: for this food is not changed into the one who eats it, but it turns the one who takes it into itself, as we see in Augustine, when he says: “I am the food of the robust. Grow and you will eat me. Yet you will not change me into yourself, but you will be transformed into me.” And so this is a food capable of making man divine and inebriating him with divinity. The same is true in reference to the mystical body of Christ, which is only signified [and not contained], if one shares in the unity of the Church. Therefore, one who eats in these ways has eternal life. That this is true of the first way, in reference to Christ, is clear enough. In the same way, in reference to the mystical body of Christ, one will necessarily have eternal life if he perseveres: for the unity of the Church is brought about by the Holy Spirit: “One body, one Spirit... the pledge of our eternal inheritance” (Eph 4:4; 1:14). So this bread is very profitable, because it gives eternal life to the soul; but it is so also because it gives eternal life to the body.
Et ideo subdit et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. Sicut enim dictum est, ille qui spiritualiter manducat et bibit, fit particeps spiritus sancti, per quem unimur Christo unione fidei et caritatis, et per quem efficimur membra Ecclesiae. Resurrectionem autem facit mereri spiritus sanctus; Rom. IV, 24: qui suscitavit Iesum Christum dominum nostrum a mortuis, resuscitabit et mortalia corpora nostra propter inhabitantem spiritum eius in nobis. Et ideo dicit dominus, quod eum qui manducat et bibit, resuscitabit ad gloriam, non ad condemnationem: quia haec resuscitatio non prodesset. Et quidem satis congrue huiusmodi effectus sacramento Eucharistiae attribuitur, quia, ut dicit Augustinus, et dictum est supra, verbum resuscitat animas, sed verbum caro factum vivificat corpora. In hoc autem sacramento non solum est verbum, secundum suam divinitatem, sed etiam secundum veritatem carnis: et ideo non est solum causa resurrectionis animarum, sed etiam corporum; I Cor. XV, 21: per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. Patet ergo utilitas huius manducationis. 973 And therefore he adds, and I will raise him up on the last day. For as was said, one who eats and drinks in a spiritual way shares in the Holy Spirit, through whom we are united to Christ by a union of faith and love, and through him we become members of the Church. But the Holy Spirit also merits the resurrection: “He who raised Jesus Christ our Lord form the dead, will raise our mortal bodies because of his Spirit, who dwells in us” (Rom 8:11). And so our Lord says that he will raise up to glory whoever eats and drinks; to glory, and not to condemnation, as this would not be for their benefit. Such an effect is fittingly attributed to this sacrament of the Eucharist because, as Augustine says and as was said above, it is the Word who raises up souls, and it is the Word made flesh who gives life to bodies. Now in this sacrament the Word is present not only in his divinity, but also in the reality of his flesh; and so he is the cause of the resurrection not just of souls, but of bodies as well: “For as death came through a man, so the resurrection of the dead has come through a man” (1 Cor 15:21). It is now clear how profitable it is to take this sacrament.
Veritas autem eius ostenditur cum dicit caro enim mea vere est cibus. Posset enim aliquis credere, quod ea quae de carne dicta sunt et sanguine aenigma et parabola esset; et ideo hoc dominus excludens, dicit caro mea vere est cibus; quasi dicat: non intelligatis quod figuraliter loquar; sed secundum veritatem caro mea continetur in cibo fidelium, et sanguis meus vere continetur in sacramento altaris; Matth. XXVI, 26: hoc est corpus meum (...) et hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti. 974 We see its truth when he says, For my flesh truly is food. I some might think that what he was saying about his flesh and blood was just an enigma and a parable. So our Lord rejects this, and says, my flesh truly is food. As if to say: Do not think that I am speaking metaphorically, for my flesh is truly contained in this food of the faithful, and my blood is truly contained in this sacrament of the altar: “This is my body... this is my blood of the new covenant,” as we read in Matthew (26:26).
Vel aliter, secundum Chrysostomum, quia cibus et potus sumitur ad refectionem hominis. In homine autem sunt duae partes; principalis quae est anima, et secundaria quae est corpus. Illud autem quod est homo, est per animam, non per corpus: illud ergo est vere cibus hominis, qui est cibus animae; et hoc est quod dominus dicit caro enim mea vere est cibus: quia non solum est cibus corporis, sed etiam animae. Similiter et sanguis. Ps. XXII, 2: super aquam refectionis educavit me, animam meam convertit. Quasi diceret: haec refectio specialiter ad animam ordinatur. Chrysostom explains this statement in the following way. Food and drink are taken for man’s refreshment. Now there are two parts in man: the chief part is the soul, and the second is the body. It is the soul which makes man to be man, and not the body; and so that truly is the food of man which is the food of the soul. And this is what our Lord says: my flesh truly is food, because it is the food of the soul, not just of the body. The same is true of the blood of Christ. “He has led me to the waters that refresh” (Ps 22:2). As if to say: This refreshment is especially for the soul.
Vel aliter, secundum Augustinum. Illud vere dicitur esse aliquid quod facit effectum eius; effectus autem cibi est ut satiet: quod ergo vere facit satietatem, vere est cibus et potus. Hoc autem facit caro et sanguis Christi, qui ducit ad statum gloriae, ubi non est esuries neque sitis: Apoc. VII, 16: non esurient nec sitient amplius; et ideo dicit caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Qui manducat, et cetera. Augustine explains these words this way. A thing is truly said to be such and such a thing if it produces the effect of that thing. Now the effect of food is to fill or satisfy. Therefore, that which truly produces fulness is truly food and drink. But this is produced by the flesh and blood of Christ, who leads us to the state of glory, where there is neither hunger nor thirst: “They will neither hunger nor thirst” (Rv 7:16). And so he says: For my flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink.
Hic probat dominus cibi spiritualis virtutem supra positam, scilicet quod det vitam aeternam: et utitur tali argumento. Quicumque manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, coniungitur mihi; sed qui coniungitur mihi, habet vitam aeternam: ergo qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. Secundum hoc ergo tria facit. Primo ponit maiorem; secundo minorem, et probat eam, ibi sicut misit me vivens pater, et ego vivo propter patrem; tertio infert conclusionem, ibi hic est panis qui de caelo descendit. 975 Now our Lord proves that this spiritual food has such power, that is, to give eternal life. And he reasons this way: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood is united to me, but whoever is united to me has eternal life: therefore, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. Here he does three things: first, he gives his major premise; secondly, the minor premise, which he proves (v 58); and thirdly, he draws his conclusion: This is the bread that has come down from heaven.
Sciendum est ergo quantum ad primum, quod si hoc quod dicit qui manducat carnem meam etc., referatur ad carnem et sanguinem mystice; nulla dubitatio est in verbo. Nam, sicut dictum est, ille manducat spiritualiter per comparationem ad rem signatam tantum, qui corpori mystico incorporatur per unionem fidei et caritatis: caritas autem facit Deum esse in homine, et e converso; I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Et hoc est quod facit spiritus sanctus; unde ibid. 13: in hoc cognoscimus quoniam in Deo manemus, et Deus in nobis, quia de spiritu suo dedit nobis. 976 We should note, with respect to the first, that if his statement, He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him, is referred to his flesh and blood in a mystical way, there is no difficulty. For, as was said, that person eats in a spiritual way, in reference to what is signified only, who is incorporated into the mystical body through a union of faith and love. Through love, God is in man, and man is in God: “He who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him” (1 Jn 4:16). And this is what the Holy Spirit does; so it is also said, “We know that we abide in God and God in us, because he has given us his Spirit” (1 Jn 4:13).
Si vero referatur ad sumptionem sacramentalem; tunc quicumque manducat carnem et bibit sanguinem, manet in Deo: quia, sicut dicit Augustinus, est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem et bibendi illum sanguinem, quo qui manducat et bibit, in Christo manet, et Christus in eo. Sed hic est ille qui non sacramentaliter tantum, sed revera corpus Christi manducat, et sanguinem bibit. Est et alius modus quo qui manducant, non manent in Christo, nec Christus in eis; hoc est qui in corde ficto ad illud accedunt: nullum enim effectum habet sacramentum in ficto. Fictus enim est, cum non respondet interius quod signatur exterius. In sacramento autem Eucharistiae exterius quidem signatur quod Christus incorporetur in eo qui percipit illud, et ipse in Christo. Qui ergo non habet in corde desiderium huius unionis, nec conatur ad removendum omne impedimentum ad hoc, est fictus. Et ideo Christus in eo non manet, nec ipse in Christo. If these words are referred to a sacramental reception, then whoever eats this flesh and drinks this blood abides in God. For, as Augustine says, there is one way of eating this flesh and drinking this blood such that he who eats and drinks abides in Christ and Christ in him. This is the way of those who eat the body of Christ and drink his blood not just sacramentally, but really. And there is another way by which those who eat do not abide in Christ nor Christ in them. This is the way of those who approach [the sacrament] with an insincere heart: for this sacrament has no effect in one who is insincere. There is insincerity when the interior state does not agree with what is outwardly signified. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is outwardly signified is that Christ is united to the one who receives it, and such a one to Christ. Thus, one who does not desire this union in his heart, or does not try to remove every obstacle to it, is insincere. Consequently, Christ does not abide in him nor he in Christ.
Hic ponit minorem: scilicet quod qui coniungitur Christo, habet vitam; et inducit hoc in manifestatione cuiusdam similitudinis, quae talis est. Filius propter unitatem quam habet ad patrem recipit vitam a patre: ergo qui unitur Christo, recipit vitam a Christo; et hoc est quod dicit sicut misit me vivens pater, et ego vivo propter patrem. Quae quidem verba possunt dupliciter exponi de Christo, scilicet secundum humanam naturam, et secundum divinam. 977 Now he presents his minor premise, that is, whoever is united to Christ has life. He mentions this to show the following similarity: the Son, because of the unity he has with the Father, receives life from the Father; therefore one who is united to Christ receives life from Christ. And this is what he says: Just as the living Father has sent me, and I live because of the Father. These words can be explained in two ways about Christ: either in reference to his human nature, or in reference to his divine nature.
Si enim exponantur de Christo filio Dei, tunc ly sicut importat similitudinem Christi ad creaturam quantum ad aliquid, sed non quantum ad omnia, sed quantum ad hoc quod est esse ab alio. Nam hoc est commune Christo filio Dei, et creaturae, quod sunt ab alio: sed quantum ad alium est dissimile. Quia filius habet aliquid proprium, quia scilicet sic est a patre quod tamen recipit totam plenitudinem divinae naturae, intantum quod quidquid est naturale patri, sit etiam naturale filio. Creatura vero accipit aliquam perfectionem et naturam particularem; supra V, 26: sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio vitam habere in semetipso. Et hoc ostendit, quia non ait: sicut manduco patrem, et ego vivo propter patrem, cum loquatur de processione sua a patre, sicut dixit qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me, cum loquitur de participatione corporis et sanguinis eius, qua nos efficimur meliores: nam manducatio quamdam participationem dicit. Sed Christus dicit se vivere propter patrem, non quidem manducatum, sed generantem, sine aequalitatis detrimento. If they are explained as referring to Christ the Son of God, then the “as” implies a similarity of Christ to creatures in some respect, though not in all respects, which is, that he exists from another. For to be from another is common to Christ the Son of God and to creatures. But they are unlike in another way: the Son has something proper to himself, because he is from the Father in such a way that he receives the entire fulness of the divine nature, so that whatever is natural to the Father is also natural to the Son. Creatures, on the other hand, receive a certain particular perfection and nature. “Just as the Father possesses life in himself, so he has given it to the Son to have life in himself” (above 5:26). He shows this because, when speaking of his procession from the Father, he does not say: “As I eat the Father and I live because of the Father, “ as he said, when speaking of sharing in his body and blood, whoever eats me, he also will live because of me. This eating makes us better, for eating implies a certain sharing. Rather, Christ says that he lives because of the Father, not as eaten, but as generating, without detriment to his equality.
Si vero exponatur de Christo homine, sic quantum ad aliquid ly sicut importat similitudinem inter Christum hominem et nos: in hoc scilicet quod sicut Christus homo accipit spiritualem vitam per unionem ad Deum, ita et nos accipimus spiritualem vitam in communione sacramenti. Sed tamen est dissimile: quia Christus homo accepit vitam per unionem verbi, cui in persona unitur; sed nos unimur Christo per sacramentum fidei. Et ideo duo dicit misit me et pater. Si ergo referatur ad filium Dei, tunc dicit vivo ego propter patrem: quia ipse pater vivens est. Si vero referatur ad filium hominis; tunc dicit vivo ego propter patrem, quia misit me: idest, fecit me incarnari: missio enim filii Dei est eius incarnatio; Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege. If we explain this statement as applying to Christ as man, then in some respect the “as” implies a similarity between Christ as man and us: that is, in the fact that as Christ the man receives spiritual life through union with God, so we too receive spiritual life in the communion or sharing in this Sacrament. Still, there is a difference: for Christ as man received life through union with the Word, to whom he is united in person; while we are united to Christ t through the sacrament of faith. And so he says two things: sent me and Father. If we refer these words to the Son of God, then he is saying, I live because of the Father, because the Father himself is living. But if they are referred to the Son of Man, then he is saying, I live because of the Father, because the Father has sent me, i.e., made me incarnate. For the sending of the Son is his incarnation: “God sent his Son, made from a woman” (Gal 4:4).
Per hoc ergo, secundum Hilarium, excluditur error Arii; nam si nos propter Christum vivimus, quia aliquid de natura sua habemus, ut ipse dicit: qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam; ergo et Christus vivit propter patrem, quia habet in se naturam patris: non autem partem, quia simplex est et indivisibilis, ergo habet totam naturam patris. Propter patrem ergo vivit filius, dum nativitas non alienam ei intulit diversamque naturam. 978 According to Hilary, this is a rejection of the error made by Arius. For if we live because of Christ, because we have something of his nature (as he says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”), then Christ too lives because of the Father, because he has in himself the nature of the Father (not a part of it, for it is simple and indivisible). Therefore, Christ has the entire nature of the Father. It is because of the Father, therefore, that the Son lives, because the Son’s birth did not involve another and different nature [from that of the Father].
Consequenter cum dicit hic est panis, qui de caelo descendit, ponit duas conclusiones: nam de duobus litigabant, scilicet de origine spiritualis cibi, et de eius virtute. Prima ergo conclusio est de origine; secunda est de virtute; et hanc principaliter intendit, ibi qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum. 979 Next (v 59), he presents his two conclusions. For they were arguing about two things: the origin of this spiritual food and its power. The first conclusion is about its origin; the second is about its power: whoever eats this bread shall live forever.
Sciendum est circa primum, quod Iudaei turbati fuerant, quia dixerat: ego sum panis vivus qui de caelo descendit, et ideo contra eos hoc iterum concludit ex hoc quod dicit vivo propter patrem, cum dicit hic est panis. Nam descendere de caelo, est de caelo originem habere; sed filius habet originem de caelo, quia vivit propter patrem: ergo Christus est qui de caelo descendit. Et ideo dicit hic est panis qui de caelo, idest de vita paterna, descendit, et hoc quantum ad divinitatem; vel descendit etiam quantum ad corpus: inquantum scilicet virtus formativa eius, quae fuit spiritus sanctus, de caelo fuit, ut virtus caelestis. Unde qui manducant hunc panem non moriuntur, quo modo mortui sunt patres nostri, qui manducaverunt manna non de caelo: nec erat panis vivus, ut dictum est supra. Quomodo autem mortui sunt qui manna manducaverunt, ex praemissis manifestum est. 980 With respect to the first, we should note that the Jews had been troubled because he had said, “I am the living bread that has come down from heaven” (v 51). Therefore, in opposition to them, he arrives at this same conclusion again, from his statement, “I live because of the Father,” when he says, This is the bread that has come down from heaven. For to come down from heaven is to have an origin from heaven; but the Son has his origin from heaven, since he lives because of the Father: therefore, Christ is the one who has come down from heaven. And so he says, This is the bread that has come down from heaven, i.e., from the life of the Father. Come down, in relation to his divinity; or come down, even in his body, so far as the power that formed it, the Holy Spirit, was from heaven, a heavenly power. Thus, those who eat this bread do not die; as our fathers died, who ate the manna that was neither from heaven, nor was living bread, as was said above. How those who ate the manna died is clear from what has been mentioned before.
Secunda conclusio de virtute panis ponitur cum dicit qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum: quae sequitur ex hoc qui manducat meam carnem. Qui enim manducat hunc panem manet in me, et ego in illo; sed ego sum vita aeterna: ergo qui manducat hunc panem, ut debet, vivet in aeternum. 981 The second conclusion, concerning the power of this bread, is given when he says, whoever eats this bread shall live forever. This follows from his statement, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (v 57). For whoever eats this bread abides in me, and I in him. But I am eternal life. Therefore, whoever eats this bread, as he ought, shall live forever.
Locus autem ubi hoc dixit Iesus, fuit in synagoga, in qua Christus docebat in Capharnaum. Volens enim multitudinem attrahere, in templo et synagoga docebat, et ut ex multis saltem proficiant aliqui; Ps. XXXIX, 10: annuntiavi iustitiam tuam in Ecclesia magna. 982 Jesus said this in the synagogue, in which he was teaching at Capernaum. He used to teach in the temple and in the synagogues in order to attract many, so that at least some might benefit: “I have proclaimed your justice in the great assembly” (Ps 39:10).

Lectio 8 LECTURE 8

60 πολλοὶ οὖν ἀκούσαντες ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ εἶπαν, σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος: τίς δύναται αὐτοῦ ἀκούειν; 61 εἰδὼς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὅτι γογγύζουσιν περὶ τούτου οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,

τοῦτο ὑμᾶς σκανδαλίζει;
62 ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον;
63 τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζῳοποιοῦν,
ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν:
τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν
πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν.
64 ἀλλ' εἰσὶν ἐξ ὑμῶν τινες οἳ οὐ πιστεύουσιν.
ᾔδει γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ πιστεύοντες καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν. 65 καὶ ἔλεγεν,
διὰ τοῦτο εἴρηκα ὑμῖν
ὅτι οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με
ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός.
66 ἐκ τούτου πολλοὶ [ἐκ] τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ οὐκέτι μετ' αὐτοῦ περιεπάτουν. 67 εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς δώδεκα,
μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε ὑπάγειν;
68 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Σίμων Πέτρος, κύριε, πρὸς τίνα ἀπελευσόμεθα; ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχεις, 69 καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. 70 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
οὐκ ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δώδεκα ἐξελεξάμην,
καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν;
71 ἔλεγεν δὲ τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος ἰσκαριώτου: οὗτος γὰρ ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι αὐτόν, εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα.

61 On hearing this, many of his disciples said: “This is a hard saying! Who can accept it?” 62 But Jesus, knowing fully that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them:

“Does this scandalize you?
63 What if you should see the Son of Man
ascending to where he was before?
64 It is the spirit that gives life;
flesh profits nothing.
The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
65 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
For Jesus knew from the beginning those who would believe in him and who it was that would betray him. 66 And he said:
“This is why I said to you,
that no one call come to me,
unless it be given him by my Father.”
67 From this time on, many of his disciples turned back, and no longer walked with him. 68 Jesus then said to the Twelve:
“Do you too wish to leave?”
69 Simon Peter replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 70 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 71 Jesus answered him:
“Did I not choose you Twelve?
And one of you is a devil.”
72 Now he was talking about Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, who would betray him, since he was one of the Twelve.

Postquam compressit litigium Iudaeorum, et murmur, consequenter dominus sedat scandalum discipulorum, et primo agitur de scandalo discipulorum recedentium; secundo examinatur devotio remanentium, ibi dixit ergo Iesus ad duodecim. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur scandalum discipulorum; secundo benignitas Christi ad reprimendum ipsum, ibi sciens autem Iesus etc.; tertio ponitur pertinacia et incredulitas recedentium, ibi ex hoc multi discipulorum eius abierunt retro. 983 After our Lord put an end to the complaining and arguing among the Jews, he now removes the scandal given to his disciples. First, we see the scandal of those disciples who left him; secondly, the devotion of those who remained with him (v 68). Concerning the first, he does three things: first, we see the scandal given to his disciples; secondly, the kindly way Christ takes it away (v 62); and thirdly, the stubbornness and unbelief of those who leave him (v 67).
Sciendum est ergo circa primum, quod multi erant in populo Iudaeorum qui adhaerebant Christo, credentes ei, et sequebantur eum non tamen relictis omnibus, sicut duodecim, qui omnes dicebantur discipuli. Et de istis dicit, quod multi, scilicet in populo, qui ei credebant, audientes, quae supra dixit, dixerunt: durus est hic sermo. De istis dicitur Lc. VIII, 13: ad tempus credunt, et in tempore tentationis recedunt. Dicitur autem multi, quia, ut dicitur Eccle. I, v. 15, stultorum infinitus est numerus. Et Matth. XX, 16: multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. Isti ergo dixerunt durus est hic sermo. 984 We should note, with respect to the first, that there were many Jews who adhered to Christ, believed him and followed him. And although they had not left all things as the Twelve did, they were still all called his disciples. It is of these that he says, many, that is, many of the people who believed him, on hearing this, what he had said above, said, This is a hard saying! We read of these: “They believe for a while, and in the time of testing fall away” (Lk 8:13). He says, many, because “The number of fools is infinite” (Ecc 1:15); and, “Many are called but few are chosen” (Mt 20:16).
Durum dicitur quod non facile dividitur, et resistentiam habet. Est ergo aliquis sermo durus, aut quia resistit intellectui, aut quia resistit voluntati; cum scilicet illum intellectu capere non possumus, aut voluntati non placet; et utroque modo erat istis durus sermo. Durus quidem intellectu, quia superexcedebat imbecillitatem intellectus eorum; cum enim carnales essent, non poterant capere quod dicebat, se carnem suam daturum eis ad manducandum. Voluntati autem, quia multa dixit de potentia suae divinitatis. Et licet isti crederent ei sicut prophetae, non tamen credebant eum Deum: et ideo videbatur eis quod loqueretur maiora seipso. II Cor. X, 10: epistolae graves sunt. Eccli. VI, 21: aspera est nimium indoctis hominibus sapientia. Et ideo sequitur quis potest eum audire? Haec dicunt ad excusationem suam. Nam ex quo dederant se ei, debebant eum audire: sed quia non docebat eos placentia, vellent aliquam occasionem quaerere recedendi; Prov. c. XVIII, 2: non recipit stultus verba prudentiae, nisi ea dixeris quae versantur in corde suo. They said: This is a hard saying! Now that is said to be hard which is difficult to divide, and which offers resistance. Accordingly, a saying is hard either because it resists the intellect or because it resists the will, that is, when we cannot understand it with our mind, or when it does not please our will. And this saying was hard for them in both ways. It was hard for their intellects because it exceeded the weakness of their intellects: for since they were earthly minded, they were incapable of understanding what he said, namely, that he would give them his flesh to eat. And it was hard for their wills, because he said many things about the power of his divinity: and although they believed him as a prophet, they did not believe that he was God. Consequently, it seemed to them that he was making himself greater than he was. “His letters are strong” (2 Cor 10:10), “Wisdom is exceedingly unpleasant to the unlearned” (Sir (, 21). And so it reads on. Who can accept it? They said this as an excuse: for since they had given themselves to him, they should have accepted what he said. But because he was not teaching them things that were pleasing to them, they were waiting for an occasion to leave him: “A fool does not accept words of wisdom unless You tell him what he desires” (Prv 18:2).
Consequenter cum dicit sciens autem Iesus apud semetipsum quia murmurarent de hoc discipuli eius, dicit eis: hoc vos scandalizat? Ponitur benignitas Christi ad sedandum scandalum, et primo denuntiat et manifestat scandalum; secundo removet causam scandali, ibi si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? Tertio innuit ipsam causam, ibi sed sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt. 985 Next (v 62), we see the kindly way Christ dispelled their difficulty. First, he takes notice of it; secondly, he removes its cause (v 63); and thirdly, he mentions what the cause was (v 65).
Scandalum autem denuntiat, quia dixerant occulte durus est hic sermo ut ab illo non audirentur. Sed ille qui virtute suae divinitatis noverat quid dicebant, hoc manifestat; et hoc est quod dicit sciens autem Iesus apud semetipsum, quod ipsi in semetipsis dicebant, scilicet quia murmurarent de hoc discipuli eius (supra II, 25: non erat ei opus ut quis testimonium perhiberet de homine; ipse enim sciebat quid esset in homine; Ps. VII, 10: scrutans corda et renes Deus); dixit eis: hoc vos scandalizat? Quasi dicat: de hoc non debetis scandalizari. Vel potest legi remissive; quasi dicat: scio quod de hoc scandalizamini; Is. VIII, 4: erit nobis, scilicet in Christo credentibus, quidem in sanctificationem; in lapidem autem offensionis duabus domibus Israel, idest discipulis murmurantibus et turbis. 986 He had noticed that they were scandalized because they had said, although privately, so he could not hear, This is a hard saying! But Christ, who in virtue of his divinity knew that they had said this, mentions it. And this is what he says: But Jesus, knowing in himself, what they said within themselves, that is, that his disciples were grumbling about this —“He did not need anyone to give him testimony about men. He was well aware of what was in man’s heart” (above 2:25); “God searches into the hearts and loins of men” (Ps 7:10)—said to them, Does this scandalize you? As if to say: You should not be scandalized at this. Or, it can be understood less strongly, as meaning: I know that you are scandalized at this. “He will be our sanctification,” i.e., those who believe in Christ, but “a stumbling-stone to the two houses of Israel,” to the grumbling disciples and the crowds (Is 8:4).
Sed cum doctores debeant vitare scandalum audientium, quare eis dominus talia dogmata proponit, ut scandalizarentur et recederent? Respondeo. Dicendum quod necessitas doctrinae exigebat ut dominus eis talia proponeret. Institerant enim apud eum pro cibo corporali qui venerat ut duceret in appetitum cibi spiritualis; et ideo necesse erat ut eis proponeret doctrinam de cibo spirituali. 987 But since teachers should avoid creating difficulties for those who are listening to them, why did our Lord mention those things that would upset the people and have them leave? I answer that Christ had to mention such things because his teaching required it. For they had pleaded with him for material food, when he had come to strengthen their desire for spiritual food; and so he had to make known to them his teaching on spiritual food.
Nec tamen scandalum eorum causabatur ex vitio doctrinae Christi, sed ex eorum infidelitate. Si enim verba domini non intelligebant propter eorum carnalitatem, poterant dominum interrogare, sicut apostoli alias fecerunt. Hoc autem, secundum Augustinum, dominus dispensative permisit, ut bene docentibus causam patientiae et consolationis contra malignantes eorum dicta praeberet, cum discipuli etiam verbis Christi detrahere praesumerent. Consequenter cum dicit si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? Nevertheless, their difficulty was not caused by any defect in what Christ was teaching, but by their own unbelief. For if they had not understood what our Lord was saying, because of their own earthly mindedness, they could have questioned him, as the apostles had done in similar circumstances. According to Augustine, however, our Lord purposely permitted this situation, to give teachers a reason for consolation and patience with those who belittle what they say, since even the disciples presumed to disparage what Christ said.
Tollit occasionem scandali, quae quidem erat et de persona dicentis, et de verbis dictis, ut dicit Chrysostomus, et ideo primo removet occasionem scandali quantum ad personam dicentis; secundo quantum ad verba dicta, ibi spiritus est qui vivificat. 988 Then (v 63), he takes away the occasion of their scandal so far as concerns the person speaking and what he said, as Chrysostom says. First, he deals with the person who was speaking; secondly, with what he said (v 64).
Occasio autem istorum fuit, quia audierant dominum loqui de se divina: unde, quia ipsi credebant eum esse filium Ioseph, scandalizabantur ex hoc quod de se dicit. Et ideo hanc occasionem removens, ostendit eis Deus apertius suam divinitatem; unde dicit: vos turbamini de his quae de me dixi si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius; supple, quid dicetis? Quasi dicat: numquam potestis negare quin de caelo descenderim, quin sim dator vel doctor vitae aeternae. Simile fecit in Nathanaele: cum enim diceret: tu es rex Israel, voluit eum ad perfectiorem cognitionem elevare; unde dixit ei: maiora his videbis. Et ideo istis aliquid maius futurum de se manifestat, dicens si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? Ascendit autem in caelum videntibus discipulis, ut dicitur Act. I, 9. Si ergo ascendit ubi prius fuit, ergo prius fuit in caelo; supra III, 13: nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui de caelo descendit. 989 The occasion for their scandal was when they heard our Lord say divine things about himself. And so, because they believed that he was the son of Joseph, they were upset at what he said about himself. God takes away this reason by showing them his divinity more openly, and says: You are upset over the things I have said about myself; What if you should see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? What would you say then? As if to say: You can never deny that I came down from heaven, or that I am the one who gives and teaches eternal life. He did the same thing before with Nathanael. When Nathanael said to him, “You are the King of Israel” our Lord, wanting to lead him to more perfect knowledge, answered him: “You will see greater things than this” (above 1:5 0). And here too, our Lord reveals to them something greater about himself which would happen in the future, saying, What if you should see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? Indeed, he did ascend into heaven in the sight of his disciples (Acts 1:9). If, therefore, he does ascend to where he was before, then he was in heaven before: “No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven” (above 3:13).
Sed attende quod etsi sit eadem persona filii Dei et filii hominis in Christo, quia tamen natura est alia, ideo aliquid convenit ratione humanitatis, scilicet ascendere, quod non convenit ei ratione divinitatis, secundum quam non habet quo ascendat, cum aeternaliter sit in summo rerum vertice, scilicet in patre; sed secundum eam convenit ei ascendere ubi erat prius, scilicet in caelo, ubi non fuit secundum humanam naturam; quod est contra errorem Valentini dicentis, Christum attulisse corpus caeleste. Sic ergo ubi prius fuit secundum divinitatem, ascendit videntibus apostolis et propria virtute secundum humanitatem; infra XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum: iterum relinquo mundum, et vado ad patrem. 990 Let us note that Christ is one person: the person of the Son of God and the person of the Son of Man being the same person. Still, because of his different natures, something belongs to Christ by reason of his human nature, that is, to ascend, which does not belong to him by reason of his divine nature, according to which he does not ascend, since he is eternally at the highest summit of things, that is, in the Father. It is according to his human nature that it belongs to him to ascend to where he was before, that is, to heaven, where he had not been in his human nature. (This is in opposition to the teaching of Valentinus, who claimed that Christ had assumed a heavenly body). Thus, Christ ascended in the sight of his apostles to where he was before according to his divinity; and he ascended, by his own power, according to his humanity: “I came forth from the Father, and I have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and am going to the Father” (below 16:28).
Sed, secundum Augustinum, aliter haec verba introducuntur: dicit enim, quod isti scandalizati sunt de hoc quod dominus dixit quod daret eis carnem suam ad manducandum, quod intelligentes carnaliter, ac si eam ad litteram deberent comedere, ut carnes animalium, scandalizati sunt. Et hunc intellectum removens, dicit si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem, integro corpore, ubi erat prius; supple: numquid dicetis quod sic daturus eram vobis carnem meam ad manducandum ut carnes animalium? 991 Augustine understands this passage differently. He said that the disciples were scandalized when our Lord said that he would give him them his flesh to eat because they understood this in a material minded way, as if they were literally to eat this flesh, just like the flesh of an animal. Our Lord rejected this interpretation and said. What if you should see the Son of Man ascending, with his entire body, to where he was before? Would you say that I intended to give you my flesh to eat like you do the flesh of an animal?
Consequenter cum dicit spiritus est qui vivificat, removet occasionem scandali ex parte verborum prolatorum, et, secundum Chrysostomum, primo distinguit duplicem intellectum ipsorum verborum; secundo ostendit quis eorum congruat ipsis verbis, ibi verba quae ego loquor, spiritus et vita sunt. 992 Then (v 64), he settles the offense they took at what he said. And, as Chrysostom says, he distinguished two ways in which his words could be understood. And secondly, he showed which way was appropriate here (v 64b).
Sciendum est ergo quantum ad primum, quod verba Christi secundum duplicem sensum intelligi possunt, scilicet secundum spiritualem et secundum corporalem. Et ideo dicit spiritus est qui vivificat idest, si ea verba quae dixi, intelligatis secundum spiritum, idest secundum spiritualem sensum, vivificabunt; caro non prodest quidquam idest, si secundum carnalem sensum ea intelligatis, nihil vobis prosunt, immo nocent: quia, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, 13, si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini. With respect to the first, we should note that Christ’s words can be understood in two senses: in a spiritual way, and in a material way. Thus he says, It is the spirit that gives life, that is, if you understand these words according to the spirit, i.e., according to their spiritual meaning, they will give life. Flesh profits nothing, that is, if you understand them in a material way, they will be of no benefit to you, they will, rather, be harmful, for “If you live according to the flesh you will die” (Rom 8:13).
Tunc autem verba domini de carne sua manducanda, carnaliter intelliguntur, quando accipiuntur secundum quod verba exterius sonant, et ut natura carnis habet; et hoc modo ipsi intelligebant, ut dictum est. Sed dominus dicebat daturum se eis sicut spiritualem cibum, non quin sit in sacramento altaris vera caro Christi, sed quia quodam spirituali et divino modo manducatur. Sic ergo dictorum verborum congruus sensus est non carnalis, sed spiritualis. Unde subdit verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, scilicet de carne mea manducanda, spiritus et vita sunt; idest, spiritualem sensum habent, et sic intellecta vitam dant. Nec mirum si habent spiritualem sensum, quia sunt a spiritu sancto; I Cor. XIV, 2: spiritus est qui loquitur mysteria. Et ideo mysteria Christi vivificant; Ps. CXVIII, 93: in aeternum non obliviscar iustificationes tuas, quia in ipsis vivificasti me. What our Lord said about eating his flesh is interpreted in a material way when it is understood in its superficial meaning, and as pertaining to the nature of flesh. And it was in this way that the Jews understood them. But our Lord said that he would give himself to them as spiritual food, not as though the true flesh of Christ is not present in this sacrament of the altar, but because it is eaten in a certain spiritual and divine way. Thus, the correct meaning of these words is spiritual, not material. So he says, The words that I have spoken to you, about eating my flesh, are spirit and life, that is, they have a spiritual meaning, and understood in this way they give life. And it is not surprising that they have a spiritual meaning, because they are from the Holy Spirit: “It is the Spirit who tells mysteries” (1 Cor 14:2). And therefore, the mysteries of Christ give life: “I will never forget your justifications, because through them you have brought me to life” (Ps 118:93).
Secundum Augustinum vero aliter exponitur: nam hoc quod dixit caro non prodest quidquam, intelligitur de carne Christi. Manifestum est enim quod caro Christi, ut coniuncta verbo et spiritui, multum prodest per omnem modum: alioquin frustra verbum caro factum esset, frustra ipsum pater manifestasset in carne, ut dicitur I Tim. c. IV. Et ideo dicendum est quod caro Christi in se considerata non prodest quidquam, et non habet effectum proficuum, nisi sicut alia caro. Si enim per intellectum separetur a divinitate et spiritu sancto, non habet aliam virtutem quam alia caro; sed si adveniat spiritus et divinitas, multis prodest, quia facit sumentes manere in Christo: est enim spiritus caritatis per quem homo in Deo manet; I Io. IV, 13: in hoc cognoscimus quia in Deo manemus et ipse in nobis, quoniam de spiritu suo dedit nobis. Et ideo dicit dominus: hunc effectum, scilicet vitae aeternae quem ego promitto vobis, non debetis attribuere carni in se consideratae, quia caro sic non prodest quidquam; sed si spiritui attribuatis, et divinitati coniunctae carni, sic praestat vitam aeternam; Gal. V, 25: si spiritu vivimus, spiritu et ambulemus. Et ideo subdit verba quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt; idest, referenda sunt ad spiritum carni coniunctum; et sic intellecta, vita sunt, scilicet animae. Nam sicut corpus vivit vita corporali per spiritum corporalem, ita et anima vivit vita spirituali per spiritum sanctum; Ps. CIII, 30: emitte spiritum tuum, et creabuntur. 993 Augustine explains this passage in a different way, for he understands the statement, flesh profits nothing, as referring to the flesh of Christ. It is obvious that the flesh of Christ, as united to the Word and to the Spirit, does profit very much and in every way; otherwise, the Word would have been made flesh in vain, and the Father would have made him known in the flesh in vain, as we see from 1 Timothy (c 4). And so we should say that it is the flesh of Christ, considered in itself, that profits nothing and does not have any more beneficial effect than other flesh. For if his flesh is considered as separated from the divinity and the Holy Spirit, it does not have different power than other flesh. But if it is united to the Spirit and the divinity, it profits many, because it makes those who receive it abide in Christ, for man abides in God through the Spirit of love: “We know that we abide in God and God in us, because he has given us his Spirit” (1 Jn 4:13). And this is what our Lord says: the effect I promise you, that is, eternal life, should not be attributed to my flesh as such, because understood in this way, flesh profits nothing. But my flesh does offer eternal life as united to the Spirit and to the divinity. “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit” “Gal 5:25). And so he adds, The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life, i.e., they must be understood of the Spirit united to my flesh; and so understood they are life, that is, the life of the soul. For as the body lives its bodily life through a bodily spirit, so the soul lives a spiritual life through the Holy Spirit: “Send forth your Spirit, and they will be created” (Ps 103:30).
Consequenter cum dicit sed sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt, demonstrat causam scandali, quae erat infidelitas eorum, quasi dicat: causa scandali vestri non est duritia sermonis quem ego locutus sum vobis, sed infidelitas vestra. Et ideo primo ostendit eorum infidelitatem; secundo excludit falsam opinionem; tertio manifestat causam infidelitatis eorum. 994 Then (v 65), he indicates the reason why they were upset, that is, their unbelief. As if to say: the cause of your difficulty is not the hardness of what I have just said, but your own unbelief. And so first, he mentions their unbelief; secondly, he excludes an incorrect interpretation; and thirdly, he gives the reason for their unbelief.
Infidelitatem quidem eorum ostendit dominus cum dicit sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt. Non autem dixit qui non intelligunt sed, quod plus est, causam quare non intelligunt insinuat: ex hoc enim non intelligebant, quia non credebant; Is. VII, 9, secundum aliam litteram: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Et dixit quidam, ut excipiat discipulos; II ad Thess. III, 2: non omnium est fides; ad Rom. X, 16: non omnes obediunt Evangelio; Ps. CV, 25: non crediderunt verbis eius. 995 Our Lord indicated their unbelief when he said, But there are some of you who do not believe. He did not say, “who do not understand.” He did more than this, for he gave the reason why they did not understand: they did not understand because they did not believe. “If you do not believe, you will not understand,” as we read in another version of Isaiah (7:9). He said, some, in order to exclude his disciples: “All do not have faith” (2 Thes 3:2); “All do not obey the Gospel” (Rom 10:16); “They did not believe what he said” (Ps 105:24).
Falsam suspicionem excludit Evangelista, cum subdit sciebat enim, quasi dicat: non ideo dixit Iesus sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt, quasi de novo hoc ei innotuisset; sed quia sciebat ab initio, mundi scilicet, qui essent credentes et quis esset traditurus eum; Hebr. IV, 13: omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius; et Eccli. XXIII, 29: domino Deo nostro nota sunt omnia antequam fiant. 996 The Evangelist then rejects an incorrect interpretation when he adds, For Jesus knew. As if to say: Jesus did not say, there are some of you who do not believe, because he just recently learned it, but because Jesus knew from the beginning, i.e., of the world, those who would believe in him, and who it was that would betray him. “All things are naked and open to his eyes” (Heb 4:13); “All things were known to the Lord God before they were created,” as we read in Sirach (23:29).
Causam autem infidelitatis eorum assignat dominus consequenter, quae est ex remotione gratiae attrahentis; unde dicebat propterea ego dixi vobis; quasi dicat: ideo necessarium fuit ut vobis praedicta dicerem, quia nemo potest venire ad me, scilicet per fidem, nisi fuerit ei datum a patre meo. Ex quo sequitur, secundum Augustinum, quod etiam ipsum credere datur nobis a Deo. Cur autem non omnibus detur, ostensum est supra, eodem ubi quasi eadem verba dominus dixit. Repetit tamen ea hic propter duo: ut ostendat quod hoc quod recepit eos ad fidem, magis erat eis ad beneficium et utilitatem quam Christo; Phil. I, 29: vobis datum est ut in ipsum credatis; quasi dicat: bonum vestrum est quod credatis; et ideo dicit Augustinus: magnum quidem est credere: gaude quia credidisti. Secundo, ut ostendat se non esse filium Ioseph, ut ipsi putabant, sed Dei: nam Deus pater est qui attrahit homines ad filium, sicut ex praemissis apparet. 997 Our Lord next mentioned the cause of their unbelief, which was the withdrawal of attracting grace. Thus he said: This is why I said to you. As if to say: Thus it was necessary to tell you what I told you before: that no one can come to me, i.e., through faith, unless it be given him by my Father. It follows from this, according to Augustine, that the act of believing itself is given to us by God. Why it is not given to everyone we discussed above, where our Lord used almost the same words (6:44). They are repeated here for two reasons. First, to show that Christ received them in the faith more for their advantage and benefit than for his own: “It has been granted to you to believe in him” (Phil 1:29). As if to say: It is good for you to believe. Thus Augustine says: “It is a great thing to believe: rejoice, because you have believed.” Secondly, to show that Christ was not the son of Joseph, as they thought, but of God, for it is God the Father who draws men to the Son, as is clear from what has been said.
Consequenter cum dicit ex hoc multi, discipulorum eius abierunt retro, ponitur ipsorum discipulorum pertinacia. Nam licet dominus reprehenderit eos, et causam scandali, quantum est ex parte sua, removerit, nihilominus tamen perseverant in infidelitate: et ideo dicit, quod multi discipuli eius abierunt retro. Non dixit recesserunt sed, abierunt retro, a fide, quam secundum virtutem habebant, et praecisi a corpore Christi, vitam perdiderunt, quia forte nec in corpore fuerunt, ut dicit Augustinus. Sunt enim aliqui qui simpliciter vadunt retro: illi scilicet qui sequuntur Diabolum, cui dictum est, Matth. IV, 10: vade retro, Satana. Et de quibusdam feminis dicitur I Tim. V, 15: quaedam conversae sunt retro post Satanam. Non sic vadit retro Petrus, sed post Christum; Matth. XVI, 23: vade retro me, Satana. Isti autem abierunt post Satanam. 998 Then (v 67), we see the stubbornness of the disciples: for although our Lord had rebuked them and had taken away the cause of their difficulty so far as it concerned himself, they still would not believe. Thus he says, From this time on, many of his disciples turned back. He did not say, “they left,” but that they turned back, i.e., from the faith, which they had in a virtuous way; and cut off from the body of Christ, they lost life, because perhaps they were not in the body, as Augustine says. There are some who turn back in an absolute way, that is, those who follow the devil, to whom our Lord said, “Go back, Satan” (Mt 4:10). We also read of certain women that “Some turned back after Satan” (1 Tim 5:15). But Peter did not turn back in this way; he rather turned after Christ: “Follow after me, Satan” (Mt 16:23). But the others followed after Satan.
Unde sequitur et iam non cum illo ambulabant: scilicet quamvis a nobis requiratur ut cum Iesu ambulemus; Mich. VI, 8: iudicabo tibi, homo, quid sit bonum, et sequitur: sollicite ambulare cum Deo tuo. Consequenter cum subditur dixit ergo Iesus ad duodecim: numquid et vos vultis abire? Then follows: they no longer walked with him, that is, even though we are required to walk with Jesus: “I will show you man what is good,” and then it continues on, “to walk attentively with your God” (Mi 6:8).
Examinat dominus discipulos remanentes, et primo ponitur examinatio discipulorum ex interrogatione Christi; secundo subditur devotio remanentium ex responsione Petri, ibi respondit ergo Simon Petrus; tertio corrigitur Petri responsio, ibi respondit ei Iesus. 999 Then (v 68), our Lord examined those disciples who remained with him. First, we see this in the question he asked them; secondly, Peter’s answer shows the devotion of those who remained; and thirdly, our Lord corrects Peter’s answer (v 71).
Examinat autem dominus duodecim qui remanserant an velint persistere; et ideo dixit ad duodecim, scilicet apostolos: numquid et vos vultis abire? Et hoc propter duo. Primo ne hoc quod isti, aliis recedentibus, remanserant, propriae iustitiae ascribentes, superbirent, existimantes se gratiam fecisse Christo, eum non relinquendo: et ideo, ostendens se non indigere eorum sequela, magis eos detinet et confirmat. Iob XXXV, 7: porro, si iuste egeris, quid donabis ei, aut quid de manu tua accipiet? Secundo, quia contingit quod aliquando aliquis habet voluntatem recedendi ab aliquo, et tamen verecundia retinetur; et ideo nolens eos verecundia coarctari apud eum remanere (quia idem est invite servire quod penitus non servire), aufert etiam verecundiam et necessitatem remanendi, ponens in eorum arbitrio, an vellent remanere, an abire, quia hilarem datorem diligit Deus, ut dicitur II Cor. IX, 7. 1000 Our Lord examined the Twelve who remained as to their willingness to stay on; and so he said to the Twelve, that is, to the Apostles, Do you too wish to leave? He asked them this for two reasons. First, so that they would not take pride, thinking it was due to their own goodness, in the fact that they stayed on while the others left, and think that they were doing Christ a favor. And so he showed that he did not need them by holding them off, but still giving them strength: “If you live rightly, what do you give him, or what does he receive from your hand?” (Jb 35:7). Secondly, it sometimes happens that a person would really prefer to leave another but is kept from doing so by shame or embarrassment. Our Lord did not want them to stay with him because they were forced to do so out of embarrassment (because to serve unwillingly is not to serve at all), and so he took away any embarrassment in their leaving or necessity for their staying, and left it to their own judgment whether they wanted to stay with him or leave, because “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7).
Sequitur devotio remanentium ex responsione Petri: nam ipse fratrum amator, et amici conservator, et specialem affectum gerens ad Christum, respondet pro toto collegio, dicens domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes, et nos credimus. Ubi tria facit. Primo extollit Christi excellentiam; secundo commendat eius doctrinam; et tertio profitetur fidem. 1001 Then, from Peter’s answer, we see the devotion of those who did not leave. For Peter—who loved the brethren, who guarded his friendships, and had it special affection for Christ—answered for the whole group, and said, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Here he did three things. First, he extolled the greatness of Christ; secondly, he praised his teaching; and thirdly, he professed his faith.
Excellentiam quidem extollit cum dicit domine, ad quem ibimus? Quasi dicat: repellis nos a te; da nobis alium meliorem te, ad quem eamus. Sed certe nullus similis tui in fortibus, domine: Ex. XV, 11, et in Ps. LXXXVIII, 7: quis similis Deo? Et ideo non dimittemus te; Ps. CXXXVIII, 7: quo ibo a spiritu tuo? Et, secundum Chrysostomum, verbum Petri multum amicitiae est ostensivum: iam enim Christus eis erat honorabilior quam patres et matres. 1002 He extolled the greatness of Christ when he said, Lord, to whom shall we go? As if to say: Are you telling us to leave you? Give us someone better to whom we can go. But then, “There is no one like you among the strong, O Lord” (Ex 15:11); “Who is like God” (Ps 88:7). And so you will not tell us to go. “Where can I go that is away from your spirit?” (Ps 138:7). Further, according to Chrysostom, Peter’s words show great friendship; for to him, Christ was more worthy of honor than father or mother.
Doctrinam vero commendat cum dicit verba vitae aeternae habes. Moyses autem habuit verba Dei, similiter et prophetae, sed raro verba vitae aeternae; tu vero promittis vitam aeternam, quid ergo aliud maius quaerimus? Supra: qui credit in me, habet vitam aeternam; et Sup. III, 39: qui credit in filium Dei, habet vitam aeternam. 1003 He praised his teaching when he said, You have the words of eternal life. Now Moses, and the prophets, also spoke the words of God; but they rarely had the words of eternal life. But you are promising eternal life. What more can we ask? “Whoever believes in me has eternal life” (above 6:47); “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life” (above 3:36).
Fidem autem confitetur cum subdit et nos credimus e cognovimus quia tu es Christus filius Dei. In fide enim nostra duo principaliter credenda sunt, scilicet mysterium Trinitatis et incarnationis: quae duo hic Petrus confitetur. Mysterium quidem Trinitatis, cum dicit tu es filius Dei. In hoc enim quod dicit eum filium Dei, facit mentionem de persona patris et filii, simul etiam et spiritus sancti, qui est amor patris et filii, et nexus utriusque. Mysterium vero incarnationis, cum dicit tu es Christus, Christus enim Graece, Latine unctus dicitur, oleo scilicet invisibili spiritus sancti; sed non secundum divinam naturam, quia qui ungitur spiritu sancto ipsa unctione melior efficitur, sed, secundum quod Deus, Christus non efficitur melior: ergo est unctus secundum quod homo. 1004 He professed his faith when he said, We have come to believe and to know that you are the Christ, the Son of God. For in our faith there are two things above all that must be believed: the mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation. And these two Peter professed here. He professed the mystery of the Trinity when he said, you are the Son of God: for in calling Christ the Son of God he mentioned the person of the Father and that of the Son, along with the person of the Holy Spirit, who is the love of the Father and of the Son, and the bond or nexus of both. He professed the mystery of the Incarnation when he said, you are the Christ: for in Greek, the word “Christ” means “anointed”; anointed, that is, with the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit. He was not anointed according to his divine nature, because one who is anointed by the Holy Spirit is Made better by that anointing. But Christ, so far as he is God, is not made better. Thus, Christ was anointed as man.
Dicit autem credimus et cognovimus, quia prius est credere quam cognoscere: et ideo si prius cognoscere quam credere vellemus, non cognosceremus, nec credere valeremus, ut dicit Augustinus. Is. VII, 9, secundum aliam litteram: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. He said, We have come to believe and to know, because believing comes before knowing. And therefore, if we wanted to know before believing, we would neither know nor be able to believe, as Augustine says, and as in that other version of Isaiah: “If you do not believe, you will not understand” (Is 7:9).
Responsionem autem Petri dominus corrigit cum dicit nonne ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex vobis unus Diabolus est? Et primo ponitur responsio domini; secundo expositio Evangelistae, ibi dicebat autem de Iuda. 1005 Our Lord corrected Peter’s answer when he said, Did I not choose you Twelve? And one of you is a devil. First, we have the Lord’s reply: secondly, the Evangelist’s explanation of it (v 72).
Quia Petrus largus fuit in responsione sua omnes includendo, sic dicens et nos credimus, et cognovimus quia tu es Christus filius Dei, per quod videbatur quod omnes perventuri essent ad vitam aeternam, ideo dominus de collegio credentium excepit Iudam. Sed haec quidem in Petro commendabilis erat confidentia, quod nullum de socio malum suspicabatur: sed in domino admiranda est sapientia, qui occulta videbat. Et ideo dicit nonne ego vos duodecim elegi, et unus ex vobis Diabolus est? Non per naturam, sed per imitationem diabolicae malitiae. Sap. II, 24: invidia Diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum: imitantur autem illum qui sunt ex parte illius; infra XIII, 27: post buccellam introivit in eum Satanas, quia scilicet factus est conformis malitiae eius. 1006 Because Peter was great-hearted and included all in his answer, We have come to believe and to know that you are the Christ, the Son of God, it seemed that all of them would arrive at eternal life. And so our Lord excluded Judas from this community of believers. This trust was commendable in Peter, who did not suspect any evil in his companions; but we must also admire the wisdom of our Lord, who saw what was hidden. Thus he says, Did I not choose you Twelve? And one of you is a devil; not by nature, but by imitating the devil’s malice: “Death came into the world -by the envy of the devil; his disciples imitate him” (Wis 2:24); “After the morsel, Satan entered into him” (below 13:27), because Judas became like him in malice.
Sed si Christus elegit Iudam, et ipse factus est malus, videtur quod erraverit in electione. Ad quod respondetur primo, secundum Chrysostomum, quia hoc non dicitur de electione praedestinationis, sed ad aliquod officium, et ad statum praesentis iustitiae, ad quem aliquando aliquis eligitur non secundum futurum, sed secundum quod nunc est in re: quia per hanc electionem non aufert arbitrii libertatem, nec aufert possibilitatem peccandi; unde, dicitur I Cor. X, 12: qui existimat stare, videat ne cadat. Sic ergo dominus elegit Iudam non tamquam malum tunc, nec tamen per electionem ablata est ei possibilitas peccandi. Secundo respondetur, secundum Augustinum, quod dominus elegit Iudam malum: et quia boni est ut malo utatur in bonum, licet sciret eum malum, malo eius bene est usus Deus, dum tradi se pertulit ut nos redimeret. Vel dicendum quod electio duodecim apostolorum non refertur hic ad personas, sed ad numerum; quasi dicat: ego elegi in vobis duodenarium numerum. Hic enim numerus congrue consecratur eis qui fidem sanctae Trinitatis per quatuor mundi cardines praedicaturi erant; qui quidem numerus non periit, quia in locum pereuntis proditoris surrogatus est Mathias. Vel, secundum Ambrosium, ideo elegit Iudam malum, ut consolaretur infirmitatem nostram, si aliquando contigerit nos ab amicis prodi, cum legimus a discipulo proditum dominum et magistrum. 1007 But if Christ chose Judas, who was later to become evil, it seems that our Lord made a mistake in choosing him. First, we might answer this as Chrysostom does, and say that this choice was not for predestination, but for some task, and in reference to a condition of present justice. Sometimes a person is chosen this way, not in relation to the future, but according to present realities; for being chosen in this way does not destroy one’s free choice or the possibility of sinning: hence we read, “Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he will not fall” (1 Cor 10:12). And so our Lord did choose Judas, but not as evil at that time; and being so chosen did not take away his possibility of sinning. Secondly, we could answer with Augustine, who said that our Lord did chose Judas as evil. And although he knew that he was evil, because it is characteristic of a good person to use evil for good, God made good use of this evil in allowing himself to be betrayed in order to redeem us. Or, we could say that the choice of the Twelve does not refer here to the persons, but rather to the number; as if to say: I have chosen Twelve. For this number is fittingly set apart for those who would preach the faith of the Holy Trinity to the four corners of the world. And indeed, this number did not pass away, because Matthias was substituted for the traitor. Or, according to Ambrose, Jesus chose Judas as evil so that when we read that our Lord and Master was betrayed by his disciple, we might be consoled if sometimes our friends betray us.
Sed quaeritur hic, quare cum dicit dominus unus ex vobis Diabolus est, nihil dicunt discipuli; et postea cum dicit, infra XIII, 21, unus ex vobis me tradet, dixerunt, numquid ego sum, domine? Respondeo dicendum, quod huius ratio est, quia hic dominus generaliter locutus est, dicens, unum ex eis esse Diabolum, quod potest referri ad quamcumque malitiam, et ideo non sunt commoti: ibi vero tantum facimus audientes, proditionem scilicet magistri, se continere non valent. Vel dicendum ad hoc, quod cum dominus haec verba dixit, quilibet eorum de sua virtute confidebat, et ideo non timebant de se. Sed quando Petrus audivit: vade post me, Satana, territi sunt, et infirmiora de se senserunt: et ideo vacillantes dicebant: numquid ego sum, domine? 1008 We could ask here why the disciples did not say anything after our Lord said, one of you is a devil; for later on, when he says, “One of you will betray me” (below 13:21), they reply, “Is it I, Lord?” (Mt 26:22). 1 answer that the reason for this is that our Lord was speaking here in a general way when he said that one of them was a devil; for this could mean any kind of malice, and so they were not disturbed. But later on, when they heard of such a great crime, that their Master would be betrayed, they could not keep quiet. Or, we could say that when our Lord said this, each of them had confidence in his own virtue, and so none feared for himself; but after he said to Peter, “Follow after me, Satan” (Mt 16:23), they were afraid, and realized their own weakness. That is why they asked in that indecisive way, “Is it I, Lord?”
Hanc autem responsionem, quam dominus occulte fecerat, Evangelista exponit, dicens dicebat autem de Iuda, ut rei probavit eventus, ut patet infra, XIII. 1009 Finally, what our Lord had just said privately is explained by the Evangelist when he says, he was talking about Judas, as events proved and which will be clear below (c 13).