Lectio 2 Lecture 2 Revelatio Spiritus Revelation of the Spirit ^2:8 quam nemo principum hujus saeculi cognovit: si enim cognovissent, numquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent. [n. 88] ^2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew. For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. [n. 88] ^2:9 Sed sicut scriptum est: quod oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit, quae praeparavit Deus iis qui diligunt illum: [n. 96] ^2:9 But, as it is written: that eye has not seen, nor ear heard: neither has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him. [n. 96] ^2:10 nobis autem revelavit Deus per Spiritum suum: Spiritus enim omnia scrutatur, etiam profunda Dei. [n. 99] ^2:10 But to us God has revealed them by his Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. [n. 99] ^2:11 Quis enim hominum scit quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est? ita et quae Dei sunt, nemo cognovit, nisi Spiritus Dei. [n. 103] ^2:11 For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man which is in him? So the things also that are of God, no one knows, except the Spirit of God. [n. 103] ^2:12 Nos autem non spiritum hujus mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis: [n. 106] ^2:12 Now, we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that are given us from God. [n. 106] 88. Posita expositione de sapientia quam Apostolus loquitur inter perfectos, hic rationem assignat expositionis praedictae, et 88. Having explained the wisdom he speaks among the perfect, the Apostle now gives the reason behind the explanation: primo quantum ad hoc, quod eam descripserat per comparationem ad infideles; first, insofar as he described it in relation to unbelievers; secundo, quantum ad hoc quod eam descripserat per comparationem ad fideles, ibi nobis autem revelavit Deus. second, in relation to believers, at but to us God has revealed. Circa primum duo facit. As to the first he does two things. Primo proponit quod intendit; First, he states his proposition; secundo probat propositum, ibi si enim cognovissent. second, he proves it, at for if they had known it. 89. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod sapientia quam loquimur non est principum huius saeculi, haec enim sapientia est, quam nemo principum huius saeculi cognovit, quod verum est, de quibuscumque principibus intelligatur. Saeculares enim principes hanc sapientiam non cognoverunt, quia excedit rationem humani regiminis. Iob XII, 24: qui immutat cor principum populi terrae, et decipit eos, ut frustra incedant per invium. Philosophi etiam eam non cognoverunt, quia excedit rationem humanam. Unde dicitur Bar. c. III, 23: exquisitores prudentiae et scientiae viam sapientiae nescierunt. daemones etiam eam non cognoscunt, quia excedit omnem creatam sapientiam. Unde dicitur Iob XXVIII, 21: volucres caeli quoque latent. Perditio et mors dixerunt: auribus nostris audivimus famam eius. 89. He says, therefore: I have said that the wisdom we speak is not the wisdom of the rulers of this world; for this is the wisdom which none of the princes of this world knew. This is true regardless of which class of rulers be considered; for worldly rulers did not know this wisdom, because it surpasses the rules of human government: he takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless waste (Job 12:24). Philosophers, too, have not known it, because it transcends human reason; hence it is said: the searchers for understanding on the earth have not learned the way to wisdom (Bar 3:23). Finally, the devils have not known it, because it surpasses all created wisdom; hence it is said: it is hid from the eyes of all living, and the fowls of the air know it not. Destruction and death have said: with our ears we have heard the fame thereof (Job 28:21). 90. Deinde cum dicit si enim cognovissent, etc., probat quod dixerat, et 90. Then when he says, for if they had known, he proves what he had said: primo quidem probat per signum quod non cognoverunt principes Dei sapientiam, secundum quod est in se abscondita. first, he proves it by a sign which indicates that the rulers did not know God’s wisdom, insofar as it is hidden in him; Secundo probat per auctoritatem, quod non cognoverunt eam, secundum quod praeparata est in gloriam nostram, ibi sicut scriptum est. second, he proves on scriptural authority that they did not know it as prepared for our glory, at as it is written. 91. Dicit ergo primo: recte dico, quod principes huius saeculi Dei sapientiam non cognoverunt, si enim cognovissent Dei sapientiam, cognovissent utique Christum esse Deum, qui in hac sapientia continetur, quo cognito, numquam crucifixissent Deum gloriae, id est, ipsum Christum Dominum dantem gloriam suis, secundum illud Ps. XXIII, v. 10: Dominus virtutum ipse est rex gloriae; et Hebr. II, 10: qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat. 91. He says, therefore: I am correct in saying that the rulers of this world did not understand God’s wisdom; for if they had known it, they would certainly have known that Christ is God, who is contained in this wisdom, and knowing it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory, i.e., Christ the Lord, who gives glory to his own: the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory (Ps 24:10) and he brought many sons into glory (Heb 2:10). Cum enim creaturae rationali sit naturaliter appetibilis gloria, non potest in voluntatem humanam cadere, quod auctorem gloriae interimat. For since the rational creature by nature desires glory, it cannot occur to the human will to destroy the author of glory. Quod autem principes crucifixerunt Iesum Christum, certum est, si intelligatur de principibus qui potestatem habent inter homines. Dicitur enim in Ps. II, 2: astiterunt reges terrae, et principes convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum, et adversus Christum eius, quod Act. IV, 27 exponitur de Herode et Pilato, et principibus Iudaeorum qui consenserunt in mortem Christi. Sed etiam daemones operati sunt in mortem Christi, persuadendo, secundum illud Io. XIII, 2: cum diabolus iam misisset in cor ut eum traderet, et cetera. Sed et pharisaei, et scribae in lege periti, qui studium sapientiae dabant, operati sunt ad mortem Christi instigando et approbando. That the rulers crucified Jesus Christ is certain, if by rulers is meant those in power among men, for it it said: the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed (Ps 2:2). In Acts this is referred to Herod and Pilate and the Jewish leaders, who consented to Christ’s death (Acts 4:27). But the devils also had a part in Christ’s death by persuading, for John says: the devil, having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him (John 13:2). Furthermore, the pharisees and scribes versed in the law and students of wisdom, procured Christ’s death by instigating and approving. 92. Sed circa hoc duplex oritur dubitatio, quarum prima est de hoc quod dicit Deum gloriae crucifixum. Non enim divinitas Christi aliquid pati potuit, secundum quam dicitur Christus Dominus gloriae. 92. Two difficulties arise here: the first concerns the statement that the God of glory was crucified. For Christ’s godhead, according to which Christ is called the Lord of glory, cannot suffer anything. Sed dicendum quod Christus est una persona et hypostasis in utraque natura consistens, divina scilicet et humana. Unde potest utriusque naturae nomine designari, et quocumque nomine significetur, potest praedicari de eo id quod est utriusque naturae, quia utrique non supponitur nisi una hypostasis. Et per hunc modum possumus dicere quod homo creavit stellas, et quod Dominus gloriae est crucifixus, et tamen non creavit stellas secundum quod homo, sed secundum quod Deus, nec est crucifixus secundum quod est Deus, sed inquantum homo. The answer is that Christ is one person subsisting in two natures, the human and the divine. Hence he can be described by names drawn from either nature; furthermore, no matter what the name by which he is designated, it can be predicated of him, because there is but one person underlying both natures. Consequently, we can say that the man created the stars and that the Lord of glory was crucified; however, it was not as man that he created the stars, but as God; nor was it as God that he was crucified, but as man. Unde ex hoc verbo destruitur error Nestorii, qui dixerat unam naturam esse in Christo, Dei et hominis, quia secundum hoc nullo modo posset verificari quod Dominus gloriae sit crucifixus. Hence this phrase refutes Nestorius’ error asserting that there is one nature, composed of God and man, in Christ; because if Nestorius were correct, it would not be true to say that Lord of glory was crucified. 93. Secunda dubitatio est de hoc quod videtur supponere, quod principes Iudaeorum vel daemones non cognoverunt Christum esse Deum. Et quidem, quantum ad principes Iudaeorum, videtur hoc astrui per hoc quod dicit Petrus, Act. III, 17: Scio quia per ignorantiam hoc feceritis, sicut et principes vestri. 93. The second difficulty is that he seems to suppose that the Jewish rulers or the devils did not know that Christ was God. Indeed, as far as the Jewish rulers were concerned, this seems to be supported by Peter’s statement in Acts: I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers (Acts 3:17). Videtur autem esse contrarium quod dicitur Matth. XXI, 38: Agricolae videntes Filium, dixerunt intra se: hic est haeres, venite, occidamus eum; quod exponens Chrysostomus dicit: Manifeste Dominus probat his verbis Iudaeorum principes non per ignorantiam, sed per invidiam Dei Filium crucifixisse. This in turn seems to be contrary to what it says in Matthew: but when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, this is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance (Matt 21:38). Furthermore, in explaining this Chrysostom says: by these words the Lord proves clearly that the Jewish rulers killed the Son of God not through ignorance but through envy. Solvitur in Glossa quod sciebant, principes Iudaeorum, eum esse qui promissus erat in lege, non tamen mysterium eius quod Filius Dei erat, neque sciebant sacramentum incarnationis et redemptionis. This difficulty is answered in a Gloss, which states that the Jewish rulers knew that he was the one promised in the law, although they did not know his mystery, that he was the Son of God or the sacrament of the Incarnation and redemption. Sed contra hoc esse videtur quod Chrysostomus dicit quod cognoverunt eum esse Filium Dei. But this seems to be contradicted by Chrysostom’s own statement that they knew he was the Son of God. Dicendum est ergo quod principes Iudaeorum pro certo sciebant eum esse Christum promissum in lege, quod populus ignorabat. Ipsum autem esse verum Filium Dei non pro certo sciebant, sed aliqualiter coniecturabant; sed haec coniecturalis cognitio obscurabatur in eis ex invidia et ex cupiditate propriae gloriae, quam per excellentiam Christi minui videbant. Therefore, the answer is that the Jewish rulers knew for certain that he was the Christ promised in the law, although the people did not know; yet they did not know for certain but somehow conjectured that he was the true Son of God. However, this conjectural knowledge was obscured in them by envy and from a desire for their own glory, which they saw was being diminished by Christ’s excellence. 94. Similiter etiam videtur esse de daemonibus dubitatio. 94. There seems to be difficulty also about devils. Dicitur enim Mc. I, 23 ss. et Lc. IV, 34, quod daemonium clamavit, dicens: scio quod sis sanctus Dei. Et ne hoc praesumptioni daemonum ascribatur, qui se iactabant scire quod nesciebant, eorum notitia quam habebant de Christo per ipsos Evangelistas asseritur. In Marco quidem sic scribitur: Non sinebat ea loqui, scilicet daemonia, quoniam sciebant eum Christum esse. Et Lucas dicit: Increpans non sinebat ea loqui quia sciebant eum esse Christum. For it says in Mark and Luke that the devil cried out: I know you are the holy one of God (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:34). But lest this be ascribed to the devils’ boasting to know what they did not know, the knowledge they had of Christ is asserted by the Evangelists. For Mark says: and he did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him (Mark 1:34), and Luke says: but he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ (Luke 4:41). Et ad hoc respondetur in libro de quaestionibus Novi et Veteris Testamenti, quod daemonia sciebant ipsum esse, qui per legem fuit repromissus, quia omnia signa videbant in eo quae dixerunt prophetae, mysterium autem divinitatis eius ignorabant. This is answered in the book of questions of the New and Old Testament: that the devils knew he was the one promised by the law, because they saw in him all the signs foretold by the prophets; nevertheless, they did not know the mystery of his divinity. 95. Sed contra hoc videtur esse quod Athanasius dicit, quod daemonia dicebant Christum esse sanctum Dei, quasi singulariter sanctum: ipse enim naturaliter est sanctus cuius participatione omnes alii sancti vocantur. 95. But opposed to this is Athanasius’ statement that devils called Christ the holy one of God, as being uniquely holy, for he is naturally holy, by participation in whom, all others are called holy. Dicendum est autem quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, non habebant adventus Dei firmam et certam notitiam, sed quasdam coniecturas. Unde Augustinus dicit in IX de Civitate Dei quod innotuit daemonibus, non per id quod est vita aeterna, sed per quaedam temporalia sua virtute effecta. Consequently, it must be said with Chrysostom that they did not have firm and sure knowledge of God’s coming, but only conjectures; hence Augustine says in The City of God that he was recognized by the devils not by that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal things effected by his power. 96. Deinde cum dicit sed sicut scriptum est, probat per auctoritatem quod principes huius saeculi Dei sapientiam non cognoverunt, quantum ad hoc quod praedestinata est in gloriam fidelium, dicens: sed sicut scriptum est Is. LXIV, 4, ubi littera nostra habet: oculus non vidit, Deus, absque te, quae praeparasti his qui diligunt te. 96. Then when he says, but, as it is written, he proves by Scripture that the rulers of this world did not know God’s wisdom as to what it prepared for the glory of believers, saying, but, as it is written, where our version has: the eye has not seen, O God, besides you, what things you have prepared for those who wait for you (Isa 64:4). Ostenditur autem illa gloria visionis aperte ab hominibus ignorari dupliciter. Primo quidem quod non subiacet humanis sensibus, a quibus omnis humana cognitio initium sumit. Et ponit duos sensus. Primo visionis quae deservit inventioni, cum dicit quod oculus non vidit, Iob XXVIII, 7: semitam eius ignoravit avis, nec intuitus est eam oculus vulturis. Et hoc ideo, quia non est aliquid coloratum et visibile. Secundo ponit sensum auditus, qui deservit disciplinae, dicens nec auris audivit, scilicet ipsam gloriam, quia non est sonus aut vox sensibilis. Io. V, v. 37: neque speciem eius vidistis, neque vocem eius audistis. That this glorious vision is unknown to man is shown in two ways: first, because it is not within the range of the human senses, from which all human knowledge begins. And he mentions two senses: first, vision, which is employed when a person finds things out for himself: hence he says: that eye has not seen: the bird has not known the path, neither has the eye of the vulture beheld it (Job 28:7). The eye is of no use, because the object of inquiry is not something colored and visible. Second, he mentions the sense of hearing, which is employed when a person learns from someone else; hence he says: nor ear heard that glory, because it is not a sound or an audible world: his voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen (John 5:37). 97. Deinde excludit notitiam eius intellectualem, cum dicit neque in cor hominis ascendit. Quod quidem potest intelligi: uno modo ut ascendere in cor hominis dicatur quidquid quocumque modo cognoscitur ab homine, secundum illud Ier. II, v. 50: Ierusalem ascendat super cor vestrum: et sic oporteat, quod cor hominis accipiatur pro corde hominis carnalis, secundum illud quod dicitur infra III, 3: cum sint inter vos zelus et contentio, nonne carnales estis, et secundum hominem ambulatis? 97. Then he excludes intellectual discovery of this glory when he says: neither has it entered into the heart of man. In one sense, whatever is known by men in any manner whatsoever is said to enter into the heart of man: let Jerusalem come into your mind (Jer 51:50). In this way, the heart of man refers to the heart of a carnal man in the sense of his statement below: while there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal and walk according to man? (1 Cor 3:3).