1147. With respect to the first, it is obvious that what Jesus said in the temple, he said in the presence of the people. But now he is speaking before the Pharisees, and so they said to him: you give testimony about yourself, but your testimony is not true. They were saying in effect: because you are bearing witness to yourself, your testimony is not true.
1147. Manifestum est autem circa primum, quod illa quae dixit in templo, dixit in conspectu turbarum, hic autem coram Pharisaeis. Et ideo dixerunt ei ipsi Pharisaei: tu de teipso testimonium perhibes, testimonium tuum non est verum; quasi dicant: ex hoc ipso quod tu de teipso testificaris, testimonium tuum non est verum.
Now in human affairs it is neither acceptable nor fitting that a person praise himself: let another praise you, and not your own mouth (Prov 27:2), because self-praise does not make a person commendable, but being commended by God does: it is not he who commends himself who is approved, but he whom God commends (2 Cor 10:18), because only God perfectly knows a person. But no one can really sufficiently commend God except God himself; and so it is fitting that he bear witness to himself, and also to men: my witness is in heaven (Job 16:20). Thus the opinion of the Jews was mistaken.
In hominibus enim nec acceptum nec congruum est quod homo se laudet; Prov. XXVII, v. 2: laudet te alienus, et non os tuum: quia non ex hoc commendabilis redditur, sed si a Deo commendatur; II Cor. X, 18: non enim qui seipsum commendat, ille probatus est, sed quem Deus commendat: quia solus Deus perfecte eum cognoscit. Deum autem nullus potest sufficienter commendare, nisi ipse seipsum, et ideo oportet quod ipse de seipso testificetur, et etiam de hominibus; Iob XVI, 20: ecce in caelo testis meus. Et ideo Iudaei decipiebantur.
1148. Next, at Jesus answered and said to them: although I give testimony about myself, our Lord rejects their opposition:
1148. Consequenter cum dicit respondit Iesus, et dixit eis etc., Dominus repellit eorum contradictionem, et
first, by the authority of his Father;
primo auctoritate Patris;
second, by answering their rejection, which arose concerning his Father, at they therefore said to him: where is your father?
secundo removet contradictionem exortam de Patre, ibi dicebant ergo ei: ubi est pater tuus?
The opposition of the Jews arose from a certain conclusion which they drew: and so
Contradictio autem Iudaeorum erat per quamdam consequentiam, et ideo
first he shows that their conclusion is not true;
primo ostendit eorum consequentiam non tenere;
second, he proves that his own testimony is true, at I do not judge any man.
secundo probat suum testimonium verum esse, ibi ego non iudico quemquam etc.
He does two things concerning the first:
Circa primum duo facit.
first, he shows that their conclusion is false;
Primo ostendit consequentiae falsitatem;
second, he adds the reason for their error, at but you do not know where I come from or where I go.
secundo subdit deceptionis ipsorum causam, ibi vos autem nescitis unde venio, aut quo vado.
1149. Their conclusion was that the testimony of Christ was not true, because he bore witness to himself. But our Lord says the opposite, namely, that because of this it is true. Jesus replied: although I give testimony about myself, my testimony is true; and it is true because I know where I came from and where I go. It is like saying, according to Chrysostom, my testimony is true because I am from God, and because I am God, and because I am the Son of God: God is truthful (Rom 3:4).
1149. Consequentia autem istorum erat quod ex hoc ipso quod Christus de se testimonium perhibebat, testimonium eius non erat verum. Sed Dominus dicit contrarium, scilicet quod ex hoc verum est. Unde respondit, et dixit eis: si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum verum est: et hoc ideo, quia ego scio unde veni, et quo vado; quasi dicat, secundum Chrysostomum, quia ex Deo sum, et Deus, et Dei Filius. Est autem Deus verax: Rom. III, 4.
He says, I know where I came from, that is, my origin, and where I go, that is to the Father, whom no one but the Son can know perfectly: no one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wishes to reveal him (Matt 11:27). This does not imply that anyone who knows, by love and understanding, where he comes from and where he is going can speak only the truth, for we all come from God and are going to God. But God is truth: how much more, then, does the Son of God speak the truth, he who knows perfectly where he comes from and where he is going.
Dicit autem scio unde veni, idest cognosco meum principium, et quo vado, scilicet ad Patrem, quem nullus perfecte scire potest nisi Filius Dei; Matth. XI, 27: nec Patrem quis novit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare. Non autem quicumque scit affectu et intellectu, unde veniat et quo vadat, non potest nisi verum dicere, nam a Deo venit, et ad Deum vadit; Deus autem veritas est: quanto ergo magis Filius Dei, qui perfecte scit unde venit et quo vadit, verum dicit?
1150. Then when he says, but you do not know where I come from or where I go, he shows the reason for their error, which was their ignorance of the divinity of Christ. For it was because they did not know this that they judged him according to his human nature.
1150. Consequenter cum dicit vos autem nescitis unde venio aut quo vado, ostendit causam erroris, quae est ignorantia divinitatis Christi; quia enim ipsam ignorabant, iudicabant de eo secundum humanitatem.
Thus, there were two reasons for their error. One, because they did not know his divinity; the other, because they judged him only by his human nature. And so he says, with respect to the first, you do not know where I come from, that is, my eternal procession from the Father, or where I go. It says below: he who sent me is truthful, and the things that I have heard from him are the same that I speak to the world (John 8:26); from where, then, does wisdom come? (Job 28:20); who will state his origin? (Isa 53:8).
Sic ergo duplex causa erroris erat in eis. Una, quia eius divinitatem ignorabant; alia, quia de eo secundum humanitatem tantum iudicabant. Et ideo quantum ad primum dicit vos nescitis unde venio, idest aeternum meum processum a Patre, aut quo vado. Supra: est verax qui misit me, et ego quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo; Iob XXVIII, 20: unde ergo venit sapientia? Is. LIII, 8: generationem eius quis enarrabit?
As for the second reason for their error, he says, you judge according to the flesh, that is, you judge me thinking that I am merely flesh and not God. Or, we could say, according to the flesh, that is, wickedly and unjustly. For just as to live according to the flesh is to live wickedly, so to judge according to the flesh is to judge unjustly.
Quantum ad secundum dicit vos secundum carnem iudicatis, scilicet de me, solum carnem esse putantes, non autem Deum. Vel secundum carnem, idest male et iniuste. Sicut enim secundum carnem vivere est male vivere, ita et secundum carnem iudicare, est male iudicare.
1151. Then, at I do not judge any man, he shows that his testimony is true, and that it is false to say that he alone is bearing witness to himself. Because mention was now made about judging, he shows,
1151. Consequenter cum dicit ego non iudico quemquam, ostendit testimonium suum esse verum, et falsum esse quod ipse solus de se testimonium perhibeat. Et quia de iudicio mentio facta est, ostendit
first, that he is not alone in judging; and
primo se non esse solum in iudicando;
second, that he is not alone in bearing witness, at and in your law it is witten that the testimony of two men is true.
secundo se non esse solum in testificando, ibi et in lege vestra scriptum est etc.
He does three things about the first:
Circa primum tria facit.
first, he says that his judgment is deferred;
Primo ponit iudicii dilationem;
second, that his judgment is true; and
secundo iudicii veritatem; et
third, he gives the reason why his judgment is true.
tertio veritatis rationem.
1152. He mentions that his judgment is deferred when he says, I do not judge any man. He is saying in effect: you judge wickedly, but I do not judge any man. As it says above: for God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17). Or, we could say, I do not judge any man, according to the flesh, as you judge: he will not judge by the sight of his eyes, or reprove by what his ears hear (Isa 11:3).
1152. Dilationem quidem iudicii ponit cum dicit ego non iudico quemquam; quasi dicat: vos iudicatis male, sed ego non iudico quemquam; supra III, 17: non enim misit Deus Filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Vel non iudico quemquam, scilicet secundum carnem, sicut vos iudicatis; Is. XI, 3: non secundum visionem oculorum iudicabit, neque secundum auditum aurium arguet.
1153. Yet, I will judge at some time, because he has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22). And then, my judgment is true, that is, just: he will judge the people with justice (Ps 95:10); we know that the judgment of God is according to the truth (Rom 2:2). This shows that his judgment is true.
1153. Sed tamen quandoque iudicabo; quia Pater omne iudicium dedit Filio; supra c. V, 22. Et tunc iudicium meum verum est, idest iustum; Ps. XCV: iudicabit orbem terrae in aequitate; Rom. II, 2: scimus quia iudicium Dei est secundum veritatem in eos qui talia agunt. In quo ostenditur iudicii veritas.
1154. He gives the reason for its truth when he says, because I am not alone. What Christ said before, neither does the Father judge any man (John 5:22), should be understood to refer to the Father in isolation from the Son. Or, again, he said this because the Father will not appear visibly to all at the judgment. Thus he says, I am not alone, because he is not left alone by the Father, but is with him: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me (John 14:10).
1154. Rationem veritatis ostendit, cum dicit quia non sum solus. Quod autem dicit supra V, 22, Pater non iudicat quemquam, intelligendum est seorsum a Filio, vel quia non visibiliter Pater apparebit omnibus in iudicio; et ideo dicit non sum solus, quia non derelictus ab ipso, sed simul cum ipso; infra XIV, v. 10: ego in Patre, et Pater in me est.
This statement rejects the error of Sabellius, who said that the Father and the Son were the same person, the only difference between them being in their names. But if this were true, Christ would not have said: I am not alone, but there is me and the Father who sent me. He would rather have said: I am the Father, and I am the Son. We should, therefore, distinguish between the persons, and realize that the Son is not the Father.
Hoc autem verbum excludit errorem Sabellii dicentis unam esse personam Patris et Filii, nec differre nisi secundum nomina. Si enim hoc esset, non dixisset non sum solus, sed ego, et qui misit me, sed dixisset: ego sum Pater, et ego ipse sum Filius. Distingue ergo personas, et cognosce Filium esse alium a Patre.
1155. Then, at and in your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true, he shows that he is not alone in bearing witness. He does not defer bearing witness, as he does his judging. Thus he does not say, I do not bear witness.
1155. Consequenter cum dicit et in lege vestra scriptum est etc., ostendit quod non est solus in testificando; nec tamen differt testimonium, sicut iudicium: unde non dicit, testimonium non perhibeo.
First, he mentions the law;
Primo ergo introducit legem;
second, he gives his conclusion, at I am one who gives testimony about myself.
secundo concludit propositum, ibi ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de meipso.
1156. He says, and it is written in your law, the law which was given to you—Moses imposed a law (Sir 24:33)—that the testimony of two men is true; for it is written: by the mouth of the two or three witnesses the issue will be settled (Deut 19:15).
1156. Dicit ergo in lege vestra, et vobis data, Eccli. XXIV, 23: legem mandavit Moyses: scriptum est, Deut. XIX, quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est: sic enim est ibi: in ore duorum aut trium stabit omne verbum.
According to Augustine the statement that the testimony of two men is true, involves a great difficulty. For it could happen that both of them would be lying. Indeed, the chaste Susanna was harassed by two false witnesses (Dan 13:5 ff), and all the people lied about Christ.
Sed, secundum Augustinum, habet magnam quaestionem quod dicit duorum hominum testimonium verum est. Fieri enim potest quod duo mentiantur. Nam Susanna casta duobus falsis testibus urgebatur, ut habetur Dan. XIII, 5 ss. Universus etiam populus mentitus est contra Christum.
I answer that statement, the testimony of two men is true, means that such testimony should be regarded as true when giving a verdict. The reason for this is that true certitude cannot be obtained when human acts are in question, and so in its place one takes what can be considered the more certain, that is, what is said by a number of witnesses: for it is more probable that one person might lie than many: a threefold cord is not easily broken (Eccl 4:12).
Responsio. Hoc quod dicit duorum hominum testimonium verum est, intelligendum est quod pro vero in iudicio est habendum. Cuius ratio est, quia in actibus humanis vera certitudo haberi non potest; et ideo accipitur inde id quod certius haberi potest, quod est per multitudinem testium: magis enim est probabile quod unus mentiatur, quam quod multi; Eccle. IV, 12: funiculus triplex difficile solvitur.
When we read, by the mouth of two or three witnesses the issue will be settled (Deut 19:15), we are led, as Augustine says, to a consideration of the Trinity, in which truth is permanently established, from which all truths are derived. It says, of two or three, because in Sacred Scripture sometimes three persons are enumerated and at other times two persons, in which is implied the Holy Spirit, who is the bond of the other two.
Nihilominus tamen per hoc quod dicit: in ore duorum aut trium testium stabit omne verbum, reducit nos, secundum Augustinum, in considerationem Trinitatis, in qua est perpetua stabilitas veritatis, a qua omnes veritates derivantur. Dicit autem duorum vel trium, quia in Scriptura sacra quandoque nominantur tres, quandoque duae personae, cum quibus etiam intelligitur Spiritus Sanctus, qui est nexus duorum.
1157. If, therefore, the testimony of two or three is true, my testimony is true, because I am one who gives testimony about myself, and the Father who sent me who gives testimony about me; as above: but I have a greater testimony than that of John (John 5:36).
1157. Si ergo duorum hominum testimonium verum est vel trium, testimonium meum verum est, quia et ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, et testimonium perhibet de me qui misit me Pater; supra V, 36: ego testimonium habeo maius Ioanne.
But this does not seem to be to the point. First, because the Father of the Son of God is not a man, while Christ says, the testimony of two men is true. Second, because there are two witnesses to someone when they are testifying about a third person; but if one testifies to one of the two, there are not two witnesses. Thus, since Christ is testifying about himself, and the Father is also testifying about Christ, it does not seem that there are two witnesses.
Sed hoc non videtur ad propositum pertinere. Primo quidem, quia Pater Filii Dei non est homo; cum ipse dicat duorum hominum testimonium verum est. Secundo vero, quia tunc sunt duo testes alicuius quando testificantur de aliquo tertio; sed si unus testificatur de uno, non sunt duo testes. Cum ergo Christus testificetur de se, et similiter Pater de Christo, videtur quod non sunt duo testes.