Sed quid significat fremitus Christi? Videtur quod significet iram; Prov. XIX, 12: sicut fremitus leonis, ita et ira regis. Item videtur quod significet indignationem; secundum illud Ps. CXI, 10: dentibus suis fremet, et tabescet.
But what does it indicate to say that he groaned in spirit? It seems that it indicates anger: a king’s wrath is like the growling of a lion (Prov 19:12). It also seems to indicate indignation or resentment: he gnashes his teeth and melts away (Ps 112:10).
Responsio. Dicendum quod hic fremitus in Christo iram quamdam et indignationem cordis significat. Omnis autem ira et indignatio ex aliquo dolore et tristitia causatur. Duo autem hic suberant: unum de quo Christus turbabatur, quod erat mors homini inflicta propter peccatum; aliud autem de quo indignabatur, erat saevitia mortis et diaboli. Unde, sicut quando aliquis vult repellere hostem, dolet de malis illatis ab ipso, et indignatur ad animadvertendum in eum, ita et Christus doluit et indignatus est.
I answer that Christ’s being deeply moved indicates a certain anger and resentment of the heart. For all anger and resentment are caused by some kind of pain and sadness. Now there are two things involved here: the one about which Christ was troubled was death, which was inflicted upon the human race on account of sin; the other, which he resented, was the cruelty of death and of the devil. Thus, just as when one wants to repel an enemy he is saddened by the evils inflicted by him, and indignant at the very thought of him, so too Christ was saddened and indignant.
1535. Potestatem autem, quia ipse suo imperio turbavit semetipsum. Nam huiusmodi quidem passiones aliquando insurgunt ex causa indebita; sicut cum aliquis de malis gaudet et de bonis tristatur; Prov. II, 14: qui laetantur cum male fecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis. Et hoc non fuit in Christo; unde dicit ut vidit eam plorantem . . . turbavit seipsum. Aliquando insurgunt ex aliqua causa bona, non tamen ratione moderantur: et propter hoc dicit infremuit spiritu. Aliquando autem etsi moderentur ab aliquo, praeveniunt tamen iudicium rationis, cuiusmodi sunt subiti motus. Quod quidem in Christo non fuit: quia omnis motus appetitus sensitivi fuit in eo secundum modum et imperium rationis. Et ideo dicit turbavit semetipsum, quasi dicat: iudicio rationis hanc sibi tristitiam assumpsit.
1535. There was power here because Christ troubled himself by his own command. Sometimes such emotions arise for an inappropriate reason, as when a person rejoices over something evil, or is saddened over what is good: like they who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil (Prov 2:14). But this was not the case with Christ; thus he says, when he saw her weeping . . . he troubled himself. And sometimes such emotions arise for a good reason, but are not moderated by reason. So he says, he groaned in the spirit. Further, although these emotions are moderated, they sometimes spring up before the judgment of reason, as when they are sudden. This was not the case with Christ either, because every movement of his sensitive appetite was according to the control and command of reason. Thus he says, troubled himself. This was like saying: he took on this sadness by a judgment of reason.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Is. XLII, 4: non erit tristis neque turbulentus.
But how does this agree with the statement: he will not be sad nor troubled? (Isa 42:4).
Responsio. Dicendum quod hoc intelligitur de tristitia praeveniente et immoderata. Voluit etiam Christus se turbare et tristari ex triplici causa. Primo quidem ad probandum conditionem et veritatem humanae naturae. Secundo ut dum tristatur et cohibet seipsum, doceat modum servandum esse in tristitiis. Stoici enim dixerunt quod nullus sapiens tristatur. Sed valde inhumanum esse videtur quod aliquis de morte alicuius non tristetur. Aliqui autem sunt qui in tristitiis de malo amicorum, nimis excedunt. Sed Dominus tristari voluit, ut significet tibi quod aliquando debeas contristari, quod est contra Stoicos: et modum in tristitia tenuit, quod est contra secundos. Unde Apostolus I Thess. IV, 12: nolumus vos ignorare de dormientibus, ut non contristemini sicut ceteri qui spem non habent; Eccli. XXII, 10: super mortuum plora, quia deficit lux eius, et postea subdit: modicum plora supra mortuum, quoniam requievit. Tertia ratio est ut insinuet quod nos pro mortuis corporaliter tristari et plorare debemus: secundum illud Ps. XXXVII, 8: afflictus sum, et humiliatus sum nimis.
I answer that this refers to a sadness which precedes the judgment of reason and is immoderate. Christ willed to be troubled and to feel sadness for three reasons. First, to show the condition and the truth of his human nature. Second, so that by controlling his own sadness, he might teach us to moderate our own sadness. The Stoics had taught that a wise man is never sad. But it seems very inhuman not to be sad at the death of another. However, there are some who become excessively sad over the evils which afflict their friends. Now our Lord willed to be sad in order to teach us that there are times when we should be sad, which is contrary to the opinion of the Stoics; and he preserved a certain moderation in his sadness, which is contrary to the excessively sad type. Thus the Apostle says: but we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope (1 Thess 4:13). Weep for the dead, for he lacks the light (Sir 22:11), and then it continues, weep less bitterly for the dead, for he has attained rest. The third reason is to tell us that we should be sad and weep for those who physically die: I am utterly spent and crushed (Ps 38:8).
1536. Consequenter Dominus affectum sui cordis verbis demonstrat; unde dicit ubi posuistis eum?
1536. Then our Lord shows the emotion in his own heart by words; he says, where have you laid him?
Sed contra. Numquid Dominus locum ubi positus erat ignorabat? Videtur quod non: nam sicut virtute divinitatis absens scivit mortem eius, ita scivit etiam locum sepulcri. Quare ergo quaerit quod scivit?
Was our Lord really ignorant of the place where he had been buried? It seems not, for just as in his absence he knew, because of his divinity, of Lazarus’ death, so in the same way he knew where his tomb was. Why did he ask about something he already knew?
Responsio. Dicendum quod non ut ignorans interrogat, sed dum a populo sibi sepulcrum ostenditur, vult eos confiteri Lazarum mortuum et sepultum: ut sic miraculum ab omnium suspicione eripiat.
I answer that he did not ask as though he did not know, but upon being shown the tomb by the people, he wanted them to admit that Lazarus had died and was buried. In this way he could prevent the miracle from being doubted.
Sunt ad hoc etiam duae rationes mysticae. Una est, quia qui interrogat, videtur nescire ea de quibus interrogat. Per Lazarum autem in monumento, signantur mortui in peccatis. Ostendit ergo Dominus se ignorare locum Lazari, dans per hoc intelligere quod quasi nesciat peccatores, secundum illud Matth. c. VII, 23: non novi vos, et Gen. III, 9: Adam, ubi es? Alia ratio est, quia quod aliqui a peccato resurgant ad statum iustitiae divinae, est ex profundo praedestinationis divinae: quod quidem profundum homines ignorant; Rom. XI, 34: quis cognovit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? Et Ier. XXIII, 18: quis enim affuit in consilio Domini, et vidit, et audivit sermonem eius? Et ideo Dominus hoc innuens, ad modum nescientis se habuit, cum et ipsi hoc nescimus.
There are also two mystical reasons for this. One is that a person who asks a question does not seem to know the things he asks about. Now, Lazarus in his tomb signifies those who are dead in their sins. And so our Lord presents himself as ignorant of where Lazarus is to have us understand that he does not, in a way, know sinners, according to: I never knew you (Matt 7:23); and God said to Adam, where are you? (Gen 3:9). The other reason is that if anyone rises from sin to the state of divine righteousness, it is due to the depths of divine predestination, the depths of which we are ignorant: for who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? (Rom 11:34); for who among them has stood in the council of the Lord to perceive and hear his word (Jer 23:18). And so our Lord, implying this, acts as one who does not know, since we also do not know this.
Sic ergo ponitur Domini interrogatio, et sequitur populi responsio; unde dicit dicunt ei: Domine, veni et vide. Veni miserando, vide, considerando; Ps. XXIV, 18: vide humilitatem meam et laborem meum, et dimitte universa delicta mea.
Thus our Lord’s question is given, and the answer of the people, when the Evangelist says, they said to him: Lord, come and see. Come, by showing mercy; and see, by giving your attention: consider my affliction and my trouble, and forgive all my sins (Ps 25:18).
1537. Consequenter Dominus affectum suum lacrymis demonstrat; unde subditur et lacrymatus est Iesus: quae quidem lacrymae non erant ex necessitate, sed ex pietate et causa. Fons enim pietatis erat, et ideo flebat ut ostenderet non esse reprehensibile si aliquis ploret ex pietate; Eccli. c. XXXVIII, 16: fili, super mortuum produc lacrymas. Flevit ex causa, ut doceret hominem propter peccatum fletibus indigere, secundum illud Ps. V, 7: laboravi in gemitu meo, lavabo per singulas noctes lectum meum.
1537. Next, our Lord reveals his emotion with tears; the Evangelist says, and Jesus wept. Now his tears did not flow from necessity, but out of compassion and for a purpose. Christ was a well-spring of compassion, and he wept in order to show us that it is not blameworthy to weep out of compassion: my son, let your tears fall for the dead (Sir 38:16). He wept with a purpose, which was to teach us that we should weep because of sin: I am weary with my moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears (Ps 6:6).
1538. Consequenter cum dicit dixerunt ergo Iudaei: ecce quomodo amabat eum, ponit Evangelista disceptationem de affectu Christi: et primo inducit quosdam admirantes Christi affectum; secundo quosdam in dubium revocantes miraculum prius factum, ibi quidam autem ex ipsis dixerunt etc.
1538. The Evangelist mentions the remarks that were made about Christ’s affection when he says, the Jews therefore said: behold how he loved him! First, he mentions those who sympathize with Christ’s affection; second, those who doubted his previous miracle, at: but some of them said.
Admirantes autem miraculum Christi inducit Evangelista per modum conclusionis, cum dicit dixerunt ergo Iudaei, ostensis scilicet signis affectus Christi, tam verbis quam lacrymis, ecce quomodo amabat eum: nam amor maxime in tristitiis hominum manifestatur; Prov. XVII, 17: in tristitia amicus cognitus est. Mystice autem per hoc datur intelligi quod Deus homines etiam in peccatis amat, nisi enim eos amasset, non utique diceret: non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores ad poenitentiam: Matth. XIX, 13. Unde Ier. XXXI, 3: in caritate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans.
The Evangelist infers that some sympathize with Christ’s affection when he says, the Jews therefore said, after Christ showed his affections by his words and tears, behold how he loved him: for love is especially manifested when people are afflicted: a brother is born for adversity (Prov 17:17). As for the mystical sense, we understand by this that God loves us even when we are sinners, for if he did not love us he would not have said: for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (Matt 9:13). So we read: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you (Jer 3:13).
1539. Vertentes autem in dubium miraculum factum, erant ex invidis Iesu; unde dicit quidam autem ex ipsis, scilicet Iudaeis, dixerunt: non potuit hic, qui aperuit oculos caeci nati, facere ut hic non moreretur? Quasi dicant: si sic amabat eum ut etiam pro eius morte lacrymaretur, videtur quod voluisset eum non mori: nam tristitia est de his quae nobis non volentibus acciderunt. Si ergo eo nolente mortuus est, videtur quod non potuit mortem impedire; multo magis videtur quod non potuerit aperire oculos caeci nati. Vel, dicendum quod hoc dixerunt admirando, eo modo loquendi quo Eliseus dixit IV Reg. II, 14: ubi est Deus Eliae etiam nunc? Et David in Ps. LXXXVIII, 50: ubi sunt misericordiae tuae antiquae, Domine?
1539. Those who doubted his previous miracle were from the group which envied Christ. The Evangelist says, but some of them, the Jews, said: could not he who opened the eyes of the man born blind, have kept this man from dying? It was the same as saying: if he loved him so much that he now weeps over his death, it seems that he did not want him to die, for sadness concerns things that we do not want. So, if he died against Christ’s wishes, it seems that Christ was not able to prevent his death; and all the more it seems that he could not open the eyes of the man born blind. Or, one could say that the Jews were speaking out of wonder or astonishment, as Elisha spoke when he said, where is the Lord, the God of Elijah? (2 Kgs 2:14); and David in Lord, where is thy steadfast love of old? (Ps 89:49).
Lectio 6
Lecture 6
Resurrectio Lazari
The resurrection of Lazarus
11:38 Iesus ergo rursum fremens in semetipso venit ad monumentum. Erat autem spelunca, et lapis superpositus erat ei. [n. 1541]
11:38 Jesus, again groaning in himself, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was laid over it. [n. 1541]
11:39 Ait Iesus: tollite lapidem. Dicit ei Martha, soror eius qui mortuus fuerat: Domine, iam foetet, quatriduanus enim est. [n. 1544]
11:39 Jesus said: take away the stone. Martha, the sister of he who was dead, said to him: Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days. [n. 1544]
11:40 Dixit ei Iesus: nonne dixi tibi, quoniam si credideris, videbis gloriam Dei? [n. 1547]
11:40 Jesus said to her: did I not say to you that, if you believe, you will see the glory of God? [n. 1547]
11:41 Tulerunt ergo lapidem. Iesus autem, elevatis sursum oculis, dixit: Pater, gratias ago tibi, quoniam audisti me. [n. 1549]
11:41 They therefore took the stone away. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said: Father, I give you thanks that you have heard me. [n. 1549]
11:42 Ego autem sciebam, quia semper me audis; sed propter populum qui circumstat dixi, ut credant quia tu me misisti. [n. 1554]
11:42 And I knew that you hear me always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that you have sent me. [n. 1554]
11:43 Haec cum dixisset, voce magna clamavit: Lazare, veni foras. [n. 1557]
11:43 When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth. [n. 1557]
11:44 Et statim prodiit qui fuerat mortuus, ligatus manus et pedes institis, et facies eius sudario erat ligata. Dixit eis Iesus: solvite eum, et sinite abire. [n. 1558]
11:44 And immediately he who had been dead came forth, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them: unbind him and let him go. [n. 1558]
1540. Postquam autem Evangelista posuit quaedam praeambula ad suscitationem, hic consequenter agit de ipsa suscitatione: circa quam quatuor agit.
1540. The Evangelist, after having given certain preambles to the raising of Lazarus, now presents the raising itself. He considers four things:
Primo de Christi ad monumentum perventione;
first, Christ’s arrival at the tomb;
secundo de lapidis sublatione, ibi erat autem spelunca etc.;
second, the removal of the stone, at it was a cave, and a stone was laid over it;
tertio de Christi oratione, ibi Iesus autem, elevatis sursum oculis, dixit etc.;
third, Christ’s prayer, at and Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said;
quarto de mortui resuscitatione, ibi haec cum dixisset, voce magna clamavit: Lazare, veni foras.
and fourth, the actual raising of the dead Lazarus, at when he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth.
1541. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum Iesus ergo rursum fremens in semetipso, venit ad monumentum.
1541. In regard to the first he says, Jesus, again groaning in himself, came to the tomb.
Studiose autem Evangelista frequenter dicit, quod lacrymatus est et quod infremuit, ut Chrysostomus dicit, quia in futuro ostensurus erat suae divinitatis potestatem. Ne ergo dubites de veritate suae humanitatis, infirmiora et humiliora nostrae naturae de Christo asserit. Et sicut Ioannes ceteris Evangelistis expressius divinam naturam et potestatem ostendit, ita etiam quaedam infirmiora de eo loquitur, sicut quod lacrymatus est, quod infremuit, et huiusmodi, quae maxime affectum in Christo demonstrant humanae naturae.
The Evangelist is careful to frequently mention that Christ wept and was deeply moved because, as Chrysostom says, he will later show the power of his divinity. And so he affirms that Christ experienced the weaker and humbler marks of our nature so that we do not doubt the reality of his human nature. And just as John shows his divine nature and power more explicitly than the other Evangelists, so he also mentions his weaker aspects, and other such things which especially reveal the affections of Christ’s human nature.
Mystice autem infremuit, ut detur intelligere, eos qui a peccatis resurgunt, in continuo debere persistere luctu, secundum illud Ps. XXXVII, 7: tota die contristatus ingrediebar. Vel dicendum, quod supra infremuit spiritu, propter mortem Lazari, hic autem rursum in semetipso propter infidelitatem Iudaeorum. Unde Evangelista praemiserat dubietatem miraculi, dicentium non potuit hic, qui aperuit oculos caeci nati, facere ut hic non moreretur? Qui quidem fremitus fuit ex compassione et miseratione ad Iudaeos; Matth. XIV, 14: videns Iesus turbas, misertus est eis.
As for the mystical sense, he was deeply moved in order that we might understand that those who rise from sin should continue to weep without interruption, according to: all the day I go about mourning (Ps 38:6). Or, one could say that while Christ was deeply moved before due to the death of Lazarus, he is deeply moved now because of the unbelief of the Jews. Thus the Evangelist mentioned their doubt about his previous miracle, when they said, could not he who opened the eyes of the man born blind, have kept this man from dying? (John 11:37). Indeed, he was deeply moved with compassion and pity for these Jews: he saw a great throng; and he had compassion on them (Matt 14:14).
1542. Hic agitur de lapidis sublatione, ubi quatuor facit.
1542. The Evangelist next mentions the removal of the stone; and he does four things about this.
Primo describit lapidem;
First, he describes the stone;
secundo subdit mandatum Christi de lapide submovendo;
second, he mentions the order of Christ to remove it;
tertio addit disceptationem de lapidis amotione;
third, he adds the objection to taking away the stone;
quarto insinuat mandati impletionem.
fourth, he states that the order was carried out.