Ex his autem quae praedicta sunt, posset sic argumentari. Manifestum est quod aliquis ex participatione verbi Dei fit deus participative; sed non fit aliquid participative hoc, nisi ex participatione eius quod est per essentiam suam tale: puta non fit participative ignis nisi participatione ignis per essentiam; ergo non fit aliquid participative deus nisi ex participatione eius qui est Deus per essentiam: ergo Verbum Dei, scilicet ipse Filius, cuius participatione aliquis efficitur Deus, est Deus per essentiam. Sed Dominus voluit humanius magis quam sic profunde contra Iudaeos arguere. Dicit autem et non potest solvi Scriptura: ut ostendat irrefragabilem Scripturae veritatem; Ps. CXVIII, 89: in aeternum, Domine, permanet verbum tuum.
From what has been said above, one might argue in this way: it is clear that a person by participating in the word of God becomes god by participation. But a thing does not become this or that by participation unless it participates in what is this or that by its essence: for example, a thing does not become fire by participation unless it participates in what is fire by its essence. Therefore, one does not become god by participation unless he participates in what is God by essence. Therefore, the Word of God, that is the Son, by participation in whom we become gods, is God by essence. But our Lord, rather than argue so profoundly against the Jews, preferred to argue in a more human way. He says, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, in order to show the irrefutable truth of Scripture: O Lord, your word endures forever (Ps 118:89).
1461. Consequenter cum dicit quem Pater sanctificavit etc., concludit propositum. Quod quidem si, secundum Hilarium, referamus ad Christum secundum quod est homo, tunc est sensus: homines aliqui dicuntur dii sola participatione sermonis Dei, quomodo ergo dicitis quia blasphemas, idest, reputatis blasphemiam, quod ille homo dicatur Deus qui est unitus Verbo Dei in persona? Et ideo dicit quem Pater sanctificavit.
1461. Then, when he says, do you say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, he draws his conclusion. If, with Hilary, we refer this to Christ insofar as he has a human nature, the meaning is this: some people are called gods only because they participate in God’s word. How then can you say, you are blaspheming, that is, how can you consider it blasphemy, if that man who is united in person to the Word of God is called God? This is why he says, whom the Father has sanctified.
Licet enim omnes qui sanctificantur, Deus sanctificet, infra XVII, 17: sanctifica eos in veritate, Christum tamen specialiter sanctificavit. Nam alios sanctificat ut sint filii adoptivi; Rom. VIII, 15: accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum, Christum autem sanctificavit ut esset Filius Dei per naturam, unitus in persona Verbo Dei: quod haec verba ostendunt dupliciter. Primo per hoc quod dicit quem Pater sanctificavit. Si enim ut Pater sanctificat, manifestum est quod sanctificat ut Filium; Rom. I, 4: qui praedestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute secundum Spiritum Sanctificationis. Secundo per hoc quod dixit et misit in mundum. Mitti enim in aliquem locum, non convenit alicui rei, nisi ante fuerit quam ibi esset: ergo ille quem Pater misit in mundum, scilicet visibiliter, est Filius Dei, qui praeexistit visibili visioni: quia, ut dicitur supra I, 10, in mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est. Supra III, 17: non enim misit Deus Filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum.
For although God sanctifies all who are sanctified, sanctify them in truth (John 17:17), he sanctified Christ in a special way. He sanctifies others to be adopted children, you have received the spirit of adoption (Rom 8:15), but he sanctified Christ to be the Son of God by nature, united in person to the Word of God. These words, whom the Father has sanctified, show this in two ways. For if God sanctifies as Father, it is clear that he sanctifies Christ as his Son: he was predestined to be the Son of God by the Spirit of Sanctification (Rom 1:4). We can also see this by his saying, and sent into the world. For it is not fitting for a thing to be sent some place unless it existed before it was sent there. Therefore, he whom the Father sent into the world in a visible way, is the Son of God, who existed before he was visible: for as we saw above, he was in the world, and through him the world was made (John 1:10); and God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world (John 3:17).
Hunc ergo quem Deus misit in mundum, vos dicitis quia blasphemas, quia dixi, Filius Dei sum? Quasi dicat: multo magis possum hoc dicere, qui sum unitus verbo in persona, quam illi ad quos sermo Dei factus est.
Do you say of him whom the Father . . . sent into the world, you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? This was like saying: I, who am united in person to the Word, have much more reason to say this than those to whom the word of God was spoken.
1462. Sed unde Iudaei habuerunt quod Christus esset Filius Dei? Non enim hoc Dominus expresse dixit.
1462. But how did the Jews realize that he was claiming to be the Son of God? Our Lord did not say this expressly.
Ad quod dicendum est, quod licet Dominus hoc expresse non dixerit, nihilominus tamen ex verbis quae dixit, scilicet ego et Pater unum sumus, et quod dedit mihi Pater maius omnibus est, intellexerunt eum accepisse naturam a Patre, et esse unum in natura cum eo. Hoc autem, scilicet accipere eamdem naturam ab aliquo et esse, habet rationem filiationis.
I answer that although our Lord did not say this expressly, yet from what he did say, I and the Father are one (John 10:30), and that which my Father has given to me is greater than all (John 10:29), they understood that he received his nature from the Father and was one in nature with him. But to receive the same nature from another, and to be it, is to be a son.
1463. Si autem hoc quod dicit Pater sanctificavit, referamus, secundum Augustinum, ad Christum inquantum est Deus, tunc est sensus quem Pater sanctificavit, idest, sanctum ab aeterno genuit. Sed alia quae sequuntur, eodem modo exponenda sunt, secundum quod Hilarius exponit. Tamen melius exponitur, si referatur totum ad Christum inquantum homo.
1463. But if, with Augustine, we refer whom the Father sanctified to Christ as God, then the meaning is this: whom the Father has sanctified is he whom he has begotten holy, or sanctified, from eternity. The other things which follow should be explained in the same way as Hilary does. Yet the better explanation is to refer everything to Christ as man.
1464. Consequenter cum dicit si non facio opera Patris mei, nolite credere mihi, probat veritatem dictorum; quasi diceret: licet sim homo tantum, secundum reputationem vestram, tamen non blasphemo dicens me vere Deum, quia verissime sum.
1464. Then when he says, if I do not do the works of my father, do not believe me, he proves the truth of the foregoing. This is like saying: although in your opinion I am only human, yet I am not blaspheming when I say that I am truly God, because I truly am.
Unde circa hoc duo facit.
He does two things concerning this:
Primo proponit argumentum operum;
first, he presents the argument of his works;
secundo infert conclusionem intentam, ibi ut cognoscatis et credatis quia Pater in me est, et ego in Patre.
second, he draws his conclusion, at that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.
1465. Circa primum duo facit. Primo dicit, quod sine operibus essent excusabiles. Et dicit si non facio opera Patris mei, eadem scilicet quae ipse facit, et eadem virtute et potestate, nolite credere mihi; supra V, v. 19: quaecumque Pater facit, haec et Filius similiter facit.
1465. He does two things concerning the first. In the first place he says that in the absence of his works they would have an excuse. He says, if I do not do the works of my Father, i.e., the same ones that he does, and with the same might and power, do not believe me. Whatever he, the Father, does, these the Son also does in like manner (John 5:19).
Secundo, quod ex ipsis operibus convincuntur, dicens si autem facio, scilicet eadem opera quae Pater facit, et si mihi, qui Filius hominis appareo, non vultis credere, operibus credite; idest, ipsa opera demonstrant quod ego sum Filius Dei; infra XV, 24: si opera non fecissem quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent.
Second, he says that they are convicted by his very works: but if I do them, the same works the Father does, then even though you do not want to believe me, who appears as a son of man, believe the works, i.e., these works show that I am the Son of God: if I had not done among them the works that no other man has done, they would not have sin (John 15:24).
1466. Consequenter infert conclusionem intentam, dicens ut cognoscatis, et credatis quia Pater in me est, et ego in Patre. Nullum enim tam evidens indicium de natura alicuius rei esse potest quam illud quod accipitur ex operibus eius. Evidenter ergo cognosci potest de Christo et credi quod sit Deus, per hoc quod facit opera Dei. Et ideo dicit: ex ipsis operibus convincam, ut cognoscatis, et credatis quod oculis vestris videre non potestis, scilicet quia Pater in me est, et ego in Patre; infra XIV, 10: ego in Patre, et Pater in me est. Quod intelligendum est per unitatem essentiae. Et quasi idem est Pater in me est, et ego in Patre; et ego et Pater unum sumus.
1466. Now he draws his conclusion, saying, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. For the clearest indication of the nature of a thing is taken from its works. Therefore, from the fact that he does the works of God it can be clearly known and believed that Christ is God. Accordingly he says: I will argue from my works themselves, that you may know and believe what you cannot see with your own eyes, that is, that the Father is in me, and I in the Father: I am in the Father and the Father in me (John 14:10), by a unity of essence. The Father is in me, and I in the Father and I and the Father are one (John 10:30), have the same meaning.
Hilarius autem hoc bene exponit dicens, quod differentia est inter Deum et hominem: nam homo cum sit compositus, non est sua natura; Deus autem cum sit simplicissimus, est suum esse et sua natura. In quocumque ergo est natura Dei, ibi est Deus. Cum ergo Pater est Deus et Filius est Deus, ubicumque est natura Patris, ibi est Pater, et ubicumque est natura Filii, ibi est Filius. Cum ergo natura Patris sit in Filio, et e converso: ergo Pater est in Filio, et e converso. Sed, ut dicit Augustinus, licet Deus sit in homine, et homo in Deo, ut dicitur I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo, non est intelligendum per essentiae unitatem; sed homo in Deo est, idest sub divina cura et protectione, et Deus in homine per similitudinem suae gratiae. Unigenitus autem Filius est in Patre, et Pater in illo tamquam aequalis.
Hilary explains this well by saying that there is this difference between God and man: man being a composite, is not his own nature; but God, being entirely simple, is his own existence and his own nature. Therefore, in whomever the nature of God is, there is God. And so, since the Father is God and the Son is God, where the nature of the Father is, there is the Father, and where the nature of the Son is, there is the Son. Therefore, since the nature of the Father is in the Son, and conversely, the Father is in the Son, and conversely. But as Augustine remarks, although God is in man and man is in God, he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him (1 John 4:16), this does not mean that they are one in essence. Rather, man is in God, that is, under the divine care and protection, and God is in man, by the likeness of his grace. However, the only Son is in the Father and the Father is in him as equals.
1467. Hic Dominus declinat Iudaeorum pertinaciam, et
1467. Now our Lord turns away from the obstinacy of the Jews.
primo ostendit ipsorum pertinaciam;
First, the Evangelist shows they were obstinate;
secundo declinat eam;
second, we see that Christ turns away from this;
tertio ostendit effectum declinationis.
third, we see what effect this had.
1468. Pertinaciam autem ostendit per hoc quod post tot veritatis documenta, post tot miraculorum et mirabilium operum argumenta, adhuc in malitia perseverant. Unde quaerebant eum apprehendere: non ad credendum et intelligendum, sed ad saeviendum et ad nocendum. Nam quia aequalitatem sui ad Patrem evidentius expresserat, magis concitati fuerunt; Ier. VIII, 5: apprehenderunt mendacium, et noluerunt reverti.
1468. The Evangelist shows their inflexibility by the fact that after so many confirmations of the truth, after the evidence of so many miracles and wonders, they still persist in their evil. So they sought therefore to take him, to apprehend him, not in order to believe and understand, but in their rage to do him harm; they were even the more enraged because he had more clearly expressed his equality with the Father: they hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return (Jer 8:5).
1469. Declinat autem eorum saevitiam Dominus exiens ab eis; unde dicit exivit de manibus eorum.
1469. But our Lord turns away from their rage, and so the Evangelist says, and he escaped out of their hands.
Ubi primo ostenditur quomodo eos dimisit, scilicet exeundo de manibus eorum: et hoc propter duo. Primo, ut ostenderet se non posse detineri nisi quando volebat; Lc. IV, v. 30: Iesus transiens per medium illorum, ibat. Supra eodem: nemo tollit a me animam meam, sed ego ponam a meipso. Secundo ut daret nobis exemplum declinandi malorum saevitiam, quando sine periculo fidei potest; Eccli . VIII, 14: ne stes contra faciem contumeliosi.
Here we see, first, that he left them by escaping from their hands. He did this for two reasons. To show that he could not be restrained unless he willed: passing through the midst of them he went away (Luke 4:30); no man takes it away from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18). Second, to give us the example of turning away from persecution when this can be done without endangering the faith: do not make your stand against one who can injure you (Sir 8:14).
Secundo ostenditur quo exiens ierit; unde dicit et abiit iterum trans Iordanem, in eum locum ubi erat Ioannes baptizans primum. Cuius quidem mystica causa est, quod aliquando iturus esset per apostolos suos ad gentes convertendas.
We see, second, where he went when the Evangelist says, he went again beyond the Jordan, into that place where John was baptizing first. The mystical reason for this is that at some time, through the apostles, Jesus would go to convert the gentiles.
Causa vero litteralis est duplex. Una, quia locus erat vicinus Ierusalem, et iam imminebat tempus passionis, unde nolebat se elongare. Secunda, ut reducat ad memoriam testimonium quod illic perhibuit Ioannes dicens: ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi, et testimonium Patris et Filii Christo perhibitum in baptismo.
The literal reason is twofold. First, this place was near Jerusalem, and since his passion was near, he did not wish to be too far away. Second, he wanted to recall the witness which John had given there, when he said, behold, the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), as well as the Father’s testimony to his Son, Christ, at the time of his baptism.
1470. Effectus autem declinationis fuit conversio turbarum ad fidem: quae quidem conversio describitur quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad operationis imitationem; unde dicit et multi venerunt ad eum, scilicet per imitationem operum; Matth. XI, 28: venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos.
1470. The effect of this turning away was that many were converted to the faith. Three points are made about this conversion. First, many imitated his works; so he says, and many came to him, namely, by imitating his works: come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matt 11:28).
Secundo quantum ad oris confessionem; unde et dicebant quia Ioannes quidem nullum fecit signum. Ubi primo confitentur eminentiam Christi ad Ioannem; unde dicebant quia Ioannes fecit nullum signum. Cuius quidem ratio fuit, quia Ioannes missus fuit ut testis Christi, unde oportebat quod fieret fide dignus, et testimonium eius ostenderetur verum: quod quidem fit convenienter per sanctitatem vitae: Christus autem venit ut Deus: et ideo oportebat quod ostenderet in se signa potestatis divinae. Et ideo Ioannes vitae sanctitate pollebat; Christus autem cum hoc exercebat etiam opera potestatem divinam manifestantia. Hic etiam mos servabatur apud antiquas potestates, quod in praesentia potestatis maioris minor potestas non utebatur suae potestatis insignis; unde in praesentia dictatoris consules insignia deponebant. Non ergo decens fuit ut Ioannes, qui minoris potestatis erat, utpote praecursor et testis, in Christi praesentia, divinae potestatis insigniis uteretur; sed solum Christus. Secundo confitentur veritatem testimonii Ioannis de Christo; unde dicebant omnia enim quae dixit Ioannes de hoc, scilicet de Christo, erant vera; quasi dicerent: et si nullum signum fecerit Ioannes, tamen de Christo omnia veraciter dixit.
Second, many professed him in word, and they said: John indeed did no sign. By this they profess Christ’s superiority to John. The reason for this was that John was sent as a witness to Christ; thus he should show that he was worthy to be believed and his testimony would be shown to be true. Now this is fittingly done by holiness of life. On the other hand, Christ came as God; consequently, it was fitting that he show the signs of divine power. And so John stood out by the sanctity of his life; Christ, however, in addition to this, performed works which manifested his divine power. This was in accord with the practice of the rulers of antiquity that when in the presence of a higher power a lesser power did not display the insignia of its power. Thus, in the presence of the dictator, the consuls took down their insignia. So it was not fitting that John, who possessed less power, because he was a precursor and witness, should employ the insignia of divine power; only Christ should have done this. They profess the truth of John’s witness to Christ, saying, but all things whatsoever John said about this man, Christ, were true. They were saying: although John did no sign, he nevertheless said all things truthfully about Christ.
Tertio manifestat cordis fidem; unde dicit et multi crediderunt in eum. Ut Augustinus dicit, Christum apprehenderunt permanentem, quem Iudaei volebant apprehendere descendentem, quia per lucernam ad diem venerant: Ioannes enim lucerna erat, et diei testimonium perhibebat.
Third, he reveals the faith in their hearts, saying, and many believed in him. As Augustine remarks, they grasped Christ remaining, whom the Jews wanted to seize waning, because through the lamp they had come to the day. For John was that lamp and gave testimony to the day.
Sickness of Lazarus
11:1 Erat autem quidam languens Lazarus a Bethania, de castello Mariae et Marthae sororum eius. [n. 1472]
11:1 Now there was a certain sick man named Lazarus, of Bethany, of the town of Mary and her sister Martha. [n. 1472]
11:2 Maria autem erat quae unxit Dominum unguento, et extersit pedes eius capillis suis, cuius frater Lazarus infirmabatur. [n. 1474]
11:2 (And Mary was she who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) [n. 1474]
11:3 Miserunt ergo sorores eius ad eum, dicentes: Domine, ecce quem amas, infirmatur. [n. 1475]
11:3 Therefore, his sisters sent to him, saying: Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick. [n. 1475]
11:4 Audiens autem Iesus dixit eis: infirmitas haec non est ad mortem, sed pro gloria Dei, ut glorificetur Filius Dei per eam. [n. 1477]
11:4 And Jesus, hearing it, said to them: this sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it. [n. 1477]
11:5 Diligebat autem Iesus Martham, et sororem eius Mariam, et Lazarum. [n. 1479]
11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus. [n. 1479]