A our land, to which the Lord God will show us a land—truly good and truly vast—which ought to be given by the Lord God to those who have accomplished what was commanded in the utterance: "Go forth from your land." And, as having abandoned a lineage that is not good, we shall become a great nation, and greater than men; and as having despised the house of our father, which is not praiseworthy, we shall be blessed, our name being magnified, coming to be blessed to such an extent that those who bless us are themselves blessed by God, and those who curse us are themselves under a curse, and every tribe of the earth is blessed in us. When, then, the word might also speak of us: "He went forth," as it has been said of Abraham: "And Abraham went forth, just as the Lord had spoken to him."
I think, moreover, that in the B beginning, and for some time, Lot will follow us, the symbol of whom was this: "And Lot walked with him." And as we return into Canaan, we shall travel through the land as far as the place of Sichem; thus, progressing in the ascent of the mind until we reach the high oak, and the Lord God will appear to us—He who appeared to Abraham—and will promise, in the vicinity of the high oak, to give the land to the intelligible seed of our soul. Now, it belongs to one who has perceived this to do the "works of Abraham," and to build an altar to the Lord, to Him who is being manifested to us also, where the high oak is. And after these things, to depart from the place of the high oak as if toward the mountain; and from the mountain toward the east of Bethel (which is interpreted "House of God"), where he will pitch his own tent: with Bethel, as it were, toward the sea, and Ai C (which is interpreted "feast days") toward the east. And as one who is truly progressing after these things, he will build a second altar to the Lord, being now able to call upon the name of the Lord. And departing from there in order, he who is to be a child of Abraham, having become in some way more experienced in military command, and understanding against how many enemies it is necessary to prepare himself, will encamp in the wilderness. After these things, he shall experience a famine of the earth, and shall descend into Egypt to dwell there—so that the famine which has prevailed over the earth might not also prevail over him. And he will descend D into Egypt with his wife of fair countenance, having made certain agreements with her, so that by her means the Egyptians might treat him gently, and he may acquire in Egypt sheep, and calves, and asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and mules, and camels, concerning each of which the wise man...
A who is able to penetrate with understanding into the depths of Scripture, it will be his duty to discourse. And certainly, exploring in a general way the entire history regarding Abraham, and all those things written about him which say one thing and signify another, we shall endeavor to perform all things spiritually in a spiritual manner. And see whether it is not clearly manifest from these things which we have investigated in this place, that it is the mark of a certain wise man, and one adorned with every virtue, to become a son of Abraham. For what need is there to speak of how much wisdom is required for us to consider the works of Abraham, and how much power to perform them? But of what wisdom and of what power are we in need, if not of Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God? Since, therefore, it is written: “If you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham,” you would consequently say to this: “If you are the children of Isaac, do the works of Isaac”; and likewise concerning Jacob, and each one of the holy fathers. And on the contrary, every one of those who commit sin is generally a son of the devil, since “everyone who commits sin is born of the devil”; but privately, either of Cain, or of Ham, or of Chanaan, or of Pharaoh, or of Nabuchodonosor, or of some one of the impious. And consistently with these things, you will say that every one migrating from this life shall depart to his own fathers; for it must be considered that it is not to Abraham alone, but to all men that it is said at their departure: “But you shall go to your fathers,” even if to all men there is not added that, “with peace.” But to the perfect, and to those who have become spiritually long-lived, that also is added: “In a good old age”; since “gray hair is prudence to men, and old age is a crown of boasting”; and the glory of true and divine elders are those gray hairs which are discerned by the mind, which adorn B them.
11. “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you, which I heard from God.” Those who seek to kill, since God is not killed, even if they kill, they kill a man. And if they seek to kill, and do not yet kill, they plot against him as a man, not thinking him to be God, against whom they plot. For no one who is persuaded that this one, against whom he plots, is God, would plot against Him. And it is possible indeed C to discern those who are always in some way plotting against the Word of God, because they seek to kill and destroy Him, thinking Him to be a man, that is, human and mortal; and they assail that which is more human in Him, and that which is seen. But seeking to kill even the body of the Word, it is manifest that after these things they are able to do nothing more. Wherefore it is not
to be feared A by us, that they kill the body, but possess nothing more they can do; nor is it to be feared by those who kill the body, yet are unable to kill the soul of the Word. But if such a word exists, that both His body and His soul are able to perish, as being worthy of perdition, then the Word of God is to be feared, who is able to destroy and eradicate both soul and body, whether in Gehenna or however He wills; for the Lord Jesus will consume them with the spirit of His mouth, and will abolish, by the brightness of His coming, this word that is set against Him B and exalts itself against every one who is called God or an object of worship. And indeed, those to whom the word is addressed seek to kill the man who has spoken the truth, which he heard from God and has received. Even if we interpret this passage more simply, the Savior has clearly taught that He whom the Jews were seeking to hand over to death was not God, but a man, who was also killed. For it is unlawful to say that such a God should die; wherefore the Word who was in the beginning with God, and who was God the Word, did not die. But you will ask, since it is written that the Word became flesh, whether the Word that became flesh, by the fact that He became flesh, also became man, or did not become man. For if He became man, He Himself can be sought to be killed; but if He did not become man, then the Word that became flesh was also not killed, but was restored, and things are restored to each one as that which it was before it became flesh.
12. C This Abraham did not do. For it would in no wise have been possible for this to be done by Abraham, unless Abraham had done it; and if it happened, it will seem to destroy and abrogate this context: "This Abraham did not do." For some might say to this, that it is said in vain: "This Abraham did not do," if what could not have been done at all in his own time was not done; for Jesus had not been born in the time of Abraham. But I would say (since I suppose these words are spoken as if in praise of Abraham), following the teaching of the Savior, who instructs and says: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad," that there was also in the time of Abraham a man who spoke the truth which he had heard from God, whom nevertheless Abraham did not care to kill. And observe that the man, who is understood tropically in Jesus, D never fails to arrive in this life, both after the times of his own history and before them. By reason of this, I judge that it is impossible that every one who has once been enlightened, and has tasted the heavenly gift, and become a partaker of the Holy Spirit, and has tasted the good
A Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and has fallen away, to renew themselves again unto repentance, or—to speak more precisely—crucifying or re-crucifying the Son of God and putting Him to an open shame, whether before the historical corporal advent of our Savior, or even after it. For it is not the case that the man who sins now, after illumination and the other benefits of God bestowed upon him, re-crucifies the Son of God by the very sins to which he has returned, thereby performing nothing of that action which is more commonly called 'corporal' for the crucifying of the Son of God, while this did not also happen previously, and the man who sinned after hearing the divine words did not *previously* crucify the Son of God. But if it pleases anyone to admit what is written in the Acts of Paul, as having been said by the Savior: "I must be crucified again," he who admits this as taking place after the advent, "I must be crucified again," will likewise admit it had a place before the advent, when the same reason for saying "I must now be crucified" exists. For why, indeed, was He not also crucified before, just as He must be crucified *again*? See, moreover, whether that utterance, "I have been crucified with Christ," belongs not only to the saints who B were after the coming of Christ, but belongs equally to those who were before, lest we should say that the saints who were after the coming of Christ differ from Moses, and the prophets, and the patriarchs. And that saying, "I live, yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me," let it be said not only by those after the coming, but also by those who were before. I also note this saying of the Savior: "God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob; and God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Might it be that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living for this reason, because they indeed were buried with Christ and rose with Him, though not altogether after the manner of the corporal burial of Jesus or His corporal resurrection? Thus much concerning that which is: "This did not Abraham." And what is this other than an attempt to kill a man who has told the truth which he heard from God? For we hand down and teach that the spiritual advent and dispensation of Jesus was never lacking to the saints. But if you were to reduce these things—as we have considered in other cases—to the anagogical sense, another will attempt to explain all these things of this passage in a similar way, referring them to the mystical Abraham, omitting the common custom of interpretation, and seeking the logical connection of each of these things.
13. "You do the works of your father." As for this statement, it is not clear whom He wishes to call the father of the Jews who had believed in Him, and who had not yet acknowledged the truth; for toward them D
A He says this, and if He had not added after a few words: "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father," we would not clearly have known the intention of the speaker. It is not to be wondered at that He said to the Jews who had believed in Him—but who had not yet remained in His word so as to truly become His disciples and acknowledge the truth, that they might be set free by it—"You do the works of your father," and, as it is added in the following: "You are of your father the devil."
For even if such a statement seems harsh when spoken about those who had indeed believed in Him, and had been to some extent discipled, though they had not yet truly earned the name of disciples of Jesus, nevertheless we must consider what was said by John in the Catholic Epistle about the sons of God and the sons of the devil. B "For he who commits sin," he says, "is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this the Son of God has appeared, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin, because His seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: everyone who is not righteous is not of God, and he who does not love his brother."
Since these scriptures are such as they are, consider whether it has not been clearly stated that everyone who commits sin is of the devil; insofar as we commit sins, we have not yet divested ourselves of the birth from the devil, even if we are thought to believe in Jesus. And this is consistent with what is said by Jesus to the Jews who had believed in Him: "You do the works of your father," with the word "father" being referred to the devil, on account of that which says: "You are of your father the devil." But if everyone who commits sin is of the devil, every person who is not of the devil does not commit sin. Furthermore, if for this the Son of God has appeared, that He might destroy the works of the devil, insofar as we have not yet destroyed the works of the devil within us—because we have not presented ourselves to Him who destroys the works of the devil—we have not yet laid aside being children of the devil; for from our fruits it is recognized whose children we are.
From these things, however, it is clear that no one is a son of the devil by nature, C nor is anyone among men called a son of God because he was created thus. And it is clear that one who is a son of the devil can at some time become a son of God; which Matthew also makes clear when he records the Savior saying thus: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father who is in the heavens." For pray, because by praying for those who persecute you, and by pursuing your enemies with love, you shall be made sons of the heavenly Father, if any of you had not been His son beforehand. Since, however, the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest, on account of that which was said above about the children of the devil, namely: D
[...the enemies, and pray for those who persecute] A the one who was not previously a son of the Father in heaven later becomes his son. That it is through what is 88: "In this the works of God and the works of the devil are manifest," having been stated before [(89)] concerning the children of the devil, that he who commits sin is of the devil; and concerning those of God, that "everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God," it is clear that every human being, having fulfilled the word, is either a child of God or a child of the devil; for either he commits sin, or he does not commit sin, there being nothing between committing sin and not committing sin; and if indeed he commits sin, he is of the devil; but if he does not commit sin, he has been born of God. Following upon the declaration in these matters concerning the children of God and the children of the devil are those things said in the same Epistle concerning those who are in the Son of God, and those who have not seen him: "For everyone," he says, "who remains in him does not sin; and everyone [(90)] who sins has not seen him." Therefore, if everyone who remains in him does not sin [(91)], he who sins does not remain in the Son; and if everyone who sins has not seen him, he who has seen him does not sin. At the same time also note [(92)] what John means when he says: "Everyone who sins has not seen him," because of the words "has seen him," implying that there can always be some who see the Son of God, and who, B from the very vision of him, partake of the power never to sin. Furthermore, you will say that the words: "You do the works of your father," are sometimes said to the children of the devil, and sometimes to the children of God; for those who sin do the works of their father the devil; but those who behave uprightly do the works of their Father, God. It is likely that one of these might be moved, thinking whether the same person, by doing good and evil separately, might be a child of God on account of the good, and a child of the devil on account of the evil. But this, besides being most absurd, is not suggested by the sayings. For John declares that everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. Therefore, everyone who is born of God does not commit sin; it is not written, however, that everyone born of the devil does not commit righteousness; but: "He who commits sin is of the devil." Again, it is not written just as it was said: "He who commits sin is of the devil," so also: "He who commits righteousness is of God." And apply your mind to the differences of the propositions, in what manner they were stated by John with all diligence: so that one might marvel how irreproachably and, as some would say, dialectically he used them, not presenting similar things concerning those who are of the devil and concerning those who are of God; for similarly he would have expressed it if he had written: "Just as he who commits sin is of the devil; so, he who commits righteousness..."
is of God." Or if, just as he wrote, "Everyone who is born of God does not commit sin," he had made it: "Everyone who is born of the devil does not commit righteousness." Perhaps, by not using "is" for those of the devil when speaking of those of God, or by not using "born" (which is written of those of God) for those of the devil, he has expressed himself most wisely? For he exalted the one born of God by setting it over him; which, even if it had been said of the one of the devil, would have indicated something worse than "he is of the devil." But also, if he had used the verb "is" for the one of God, just as he used it for the one of the devil, he would have shown less about the one who is born of God, since it is far better to have been born of God than simply to be of God. B Someone will say that certain creatures are indeed of God, but have not been born of God, and that these entirely hold a lower rank in the whole order of those who are called born of God. And having come to the distinction—that is, between being of the devil and being born of God—you will ask if there is perhaps someone who is also born of the devil, although everyone who is of the devil is not continuously also born of the devil: and again, if there is anyone of God who is not also entirely born of God; since if someone is of God, he is not entirely also born of God. Therefore, he who is born of God is formed and delineated, if he does not commit sin, because the seed of God remains in him, and from the power of God existing in himself, he has the strength not to sin in the future. C It is also said in the end of this Epistle: "Everyone who is born of God does not sin; but he who is born of God keeps himself, and the evil one does not touch him." But if he who is born of God keeps himself, and the evil one does not touch him, then he who does not keep himself, so that the evil one may not touch him, has not been born of God; and everyone whom the evil one touches has not been born of God; and the evil one touches those who do not keep themselves. Since, however, to those things said about Abraham, with no interval made, this is added: "You do the works of your father," we were inquiring whether this was perhaps written because of the first commandment given to Abraham. For the first divine commandment to him is as follows: "Go forth from your land, and from your kindred, and from the house of your father, and go to the land which I will show D you." Abraham therefore went out from the house of his father, which those who are rebuked for saying "Abraham is our father" are convicted of not having done; for if the sons of Abraham do the works of Abraham, and if the first work is to go out from one's land and from the house of one's father, and to set out for that land which God shows to him—and for this reason they...
to whom the discourse is addressed are convicted as being no children of Abraham—it is clear that they are reproached because they have not gone out from the house of their father, as being still in the power of the wicked father and still doing the works of that father. Having said these things in this context, it seems to me evident that they are refuted who, from this passage, think it to be shown that there are some who are sons of the devil by creation. A
14. *They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication; we have one Father, God.* I ask whether, perhaps, those Jews who are said to have believed in the Lord, being refuted for not being the children of Abraham, respond to him more bitterly—covertly insinuating that the Savior was born of fornication, suspecting as is probable, because his famous and widely told birth from the Virgin was not admitted. For it seems to me altogether contrary to reason and to the matter at hand that they should have blurted out these words, since they can be said neither in relation to what precedes nor as a sequence to what follows; nor indeed can the statement "We are not born of fornication," which they used, be understood in a simple way. But also, because the Savior called God his own Father, acknowledging no man as his father, it is probable that to that statement of his they added, again with hostility, "We have one Father, God," as if they were saying: "We have God as our one Father rather than you, who claim to have been born of a virgin but have been born of fornication; and because you boast of being born of a virgin, you say that you have only one Father, God, while we—though we confess God as Father—do not deny that we also have a human father." C But someone will say that these words, understood in this way, cannot be the words of those Jews who had believed in him. To this, it must be said that, since it had been said to them at the beginning of the discourse to them, "If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth," D just as it was possible for them both to continue in the word of Jesus and not to continue, it is not impossible that some of those who were being reproved had not remained in his word; and when they had not remained, they spoke bitterly and in opposition: "We are not born of fornication; we have one Father, God." It seems to me, moreover, that they responded even more contentiously—for when...
they had previously said, "We are the seed of Abraham," and had confessed this more clearly through the words, "Abraham is our father," upon hearing the response: "If you are children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham," they openly declare that they have a father greater than Abraham, saying, "We have one Father, God." And perhaps, since some men are from the devil and others are born from God, we might rightly say that all who are not born of God are born of fornication. For the devil does not beget or create those who are his from a bride, but from a harlot—namely, from matter. These men, being passionately and excessively attached to bodily things, are glued to this harlot matter and become one body with her; whereas those who are born of God depart from the harlot matter and are B glued to the Lord, being united to the Word who was in the beginning with God, and to His Wisdom, which He created as the beginning of His ways for His works, so that they might become one spirit with Him. For "he who is glued to a harlot is one body; but he who is glued to the Lord is one spirit."
15. "Jesus said to them: If God were your Father, you would love me; for I went forth from God and have come." Since those who introduce the [doctrine of various] natures use this text to explain it—as if Jesus had said, "If God were your Father, you would have recognized me as a kinsman and brother, and would have loved me as your own"—doubts must be raised against them in this way: There was a time when Paul hated Jesus; and he hated Him when he was devastating and persecuting the Church of God. And the first divine oracle C spoke the truth to him: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" If, therefore, that statement is true, "If God were your Father, you would love me," it is clear that its converse is also true: "If you do not love me, God is not your Father." Consequently, for those who do not love Jesus, God is not their Father. But there was a time when Paul did not love Jesus; there was, therefore, a time when God was not the Father of Paul. Thus, Paul was not by nature a son of God, but later became a son of God. At that time we could also correctly adopt the consequence of the aforementioned conjunction, saying: "But, Paul, God is your Father; therefore you love Jesus." Furthermore, even before the time of Paul's faith, since the statement "If God were your Father, you would love me" was true, Jesus could rightly have D taken it up, saying: "But, Paul, you do not love me; therefore God is not your Father." But when does God become the Father of someone, if not when one has kept the commandments? By these [acts], one who was not previously a son of the Father in heaven becomes His son; at which time the Father, bringing this person to regeneration, begets him as His son.
A It is possible to be brought to these [conclusions] by what is written in the Gospel according to Matthew in this manner: "You have heard that it was said: 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." Take note of this: "That you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven," which indicates that a person who was not previously a son of the Father in heaven becomes His son. And if you have carefully observed the "your" which is added to the word Father—for it is written, "That you may be sons of your Father"—you will ask whether this was said more simply, or whether "your" was added due to faulty manuscripts; for we would have asked nothing if it had been written, "That you may be sons of the Father who is in heaven." This is especially so since it seems to contain a contradiction that anyone should become a son not simply of the Father who is in heaven, but of *one's own* father. For if He is his father, he does not later become his son; but if he becomes his son, He was not previously his father. B At the same time, you may observe—since some of those who are considered to believe are called "servants of God," while others are given the dignity of being called "His sons"—whether it is perhaps not just any command, but rather certain actions performed with excellence that cause someone who fulfills them to become a son of God. Therefore, since many things were said in Matthew, observe this: "That you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven," which is appended to the words, "But I say to you: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." For the likeness toward God and the imitation of Him—Who loves all that exists and abhors none of the things He has made, and who spares all (since all things belong to the Lord Who loves souls)—is made manifest in the one who loves his own enemies and prays for those who persecute him. For how would it be appropriate to append the words, "That you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven," to the words, "It was said: You shall not commit adultery; but I say to you: Everyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and to those things about the destruction of one of the members, so that the whole body might not be thrown into hell? C But even if it were appended to: "It was said to those of old: You shall not swear falsely, but you shall render to the Lord your oaths; but I say to you: Do not swear at all," then, "That you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven," it would surely have caused much offense from that. But now, just as the Father who is in heaven makes His sun rise upon the evil and the good, so does each one of the sons D
of God, having as it were the sun within himself, namely love, causes it to rise even upon the wicked, when he has loved his own enemies. And again, just as God rains upon the just and the unjust, so too does the holy man, as if it were a kind of rain, send down his prayer upon those who are situated below, praying for such persons because they were persecuting him. These things, then, have been explained in regard to that which fell to our lot to clarify: "If God were your Father, you would love me." A
16. Let us also look at this: "I came out from God, and have come," for it seems useful to me to compare it with the passage from Micah, which reads as follows: "Hear, O peoples, my words, and let the earth give heed, and all who are in it; and the Lord shall be in you for a witness, the Lord, I say, from his holy house. For behold, the Lord goes forth from his place, and will descend, and will tread upon the high places of the earth, and the mountains beneath him shall be shaken, and the valleys shall melt as wax before the face of the fire, and as water that is being carried down a steep descent." And see whether, perhaps, "I came out from God" is equivalent to "The Lord goes forth from his place." For when the Son is in the Father, existing in the form of God before He emptied Himself, God is, as it were, His place. And if anyone should consider Him who existed in that primordial form of God before He emptied Himself, he will see His Son not yet gone out from God, and the Lord not yet gone forth from His own place. But when, in that state of the Son, one compares the state of Him who emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, he will understand how the Son of God has come out and has come to us, and has become as it were outside of Him who sent Him; B even if, in another way, the Father did not leave Him alone, but is with Him, and is in the Son, just as He is also in the Father. And if you do not understand the Son to be in the Father in another way than as He was before He came out from God, it will seem to involve a contradiction that He has both gone out from God and that He who has gone out from God is still in God.
Others, however, have explained "I came out from God" as meaning "I have been begotten from God." It follows for them to say that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father, as if the Father were diminished and lacked the substance of the Son which He previously had, when He begat the Son; as if one were to imagine this even in the case of pregnant beings. Moreover, it follows for them to say that the Father and the Son are bodies, and that the Father is divided; these are the doctrines of men who have not even in a dream imagined the nature which is invisible and incorporeal—which is, strictly speaking, substance. C Hence it is also clear that these men will attribute a bodily place to the Father, and that the Son, having moved from place to place bodily, has come to this life, and has not changed from state to state, as we have interpreted it.
17. "For I have not come of my own accord, but He sent me." I think these things are said as if some were coming of their own accord, and not sent by the Father, teaching, or D
A promising prophecy. And we are taught regarding such men also by Jeremiah, in whom it is written: I did not send the prophets, yet they ran. But if certain powers also, not sent by the Father, come to men with knowledge, and if there are any among them who have emerged from God, and have sinned in this very point, in that they were not sent by Him—this is a place not to be passed over without investigation for the sake of the discourse concerning the soul. For perhaps the soul of Jesus, existing in its own perfection, was in God and in the fullness; and having emerged thence because it had been sent by the Father, it assumed the body from Mary; but other souls did not go forth from God in this way, that is, they were not sent, nor were they dispatched by the divine will. B 18. Why do you not recognize my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. The cause, he says, of your not knowing my speech is that you cannot hear my word. Therefore, first a power of hearing the divine word must be acquired, so that after this we may be able to recognize all the speech of Jesus. For it is permitted that one who previously was not able to hear the words of Jesus may afterwards attain to being able to hear them; since, as long as the Word who says to the deaf man, "Be opened," has not yet healed someone's hearing, he cannot hear. But as soon as the bond which provided the occasion for the deafness has been loosened, then one will be able to hear Jesus, at which time he is also able to distinguish his speech. C Or let those who imagine that by these words a dogma concerning natures is established tell us whether those whom he afterwards healed were able to hear while they were still deaf, or were they not? But since it is evident that they were not able, it is clear that it is possible to be changed from an inability to hear the words of Jesus to an ability to hear them, and not because of a nature having something incurable, when anyone cannot hear. And these things are to be directed especially to those who dissent from the decrees of the Church, who delight in allegories and reduce the history of the healings to the healings of the soul, which Jesus delivers from every disease and every infirmity. I, however, think that the word "to hear" is used here for "to understand" D what is said; and the word "to recognize" for one who, perceiving, gives assent, being illuminated by the light of the knowledge of the things spoken. Heracleon, for his part, supposes that, by the words, "You are of your father the devil," the reason is being given why they cannot hear the words of Jesus, nor recognize his speech.
A He says: "Why can you not hear my word? Or because you are of your father the devil?" (meaning, by this, of the essence of the devil), making manifest from this point on their nature; and having refuted them, that they are neither children of Abraham—for they would not have hated him—nor of God, wherefore they did not love him. And if the phrase, "You are of your father the devil," admitted of the interpretation—as we explained above—that we should say, "Because you are still of the devil, you cannot hear my word," we would have accepted his interpretation; but now he is clearly stating that some men are of the same substance as the devil, while others are of a different substance, as those of his sect suppose, distinguishing those whom they call "animal" or "spiritual."
B "...and you wish to do the desires of your father." The phrasing is ambiguous; for it may be understood in one way as meaning that the devil has a father, from which father, as far as the literal wording goes, those to whom the discourse is addressed appear to be; or in another way, which is better, that you are of this father of whom the devil is accused. If the expression were ambiguous, and if the first article *tou* had been omitted, it would have been phrased "of father," and not "of that father"; yet the intent of the context would have appeared more clearly. And indeed, one who might favor the belief that there is some father of the devil, whose sons he seems to call those to whom the discourse is addressed, would use the words which follow, which are as follows: "When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and his father." And he says that a lie C is the devil, but that someone else, distinct from him, is the father of the lie; but this will not be correctly stated. For the lie will more fittingly apply to the adversary of the one who says, "I am the truth"; I refer to the adversary of Christ, whose father is a liar, being the devil. D But it is likely that someone might be offended by the fact that we have said the Antichrist is a lie, as if he would no longer be blameworthy if, in his hypostasis and essence, he were nothing other than a lie. When you bring forward against this the text: "You have become destruction, and you shall not be forever" (spoken in Ezekiel concerning one who, on account of wickedness, had been changed so as to become destruction itself), you will similarly bring forward that someone is not a lie by nature, by creation, but that through change and his own choice he has become such and, to use a new term, has been "natured." Wherefore, no one, by avoiding the claim that the Antichrist is a lie as though it were absurd, will say that it is appropriate to all who lie that, "When he speaks the lie, he speaks from his
A own." For the lie that is in each of those who lie, when he speaks, he speaks out of the lies that are his own. But also that saying: "He is a liar and his father," if one were to 27 apply to each one who brings forth a lie from his own mouth that he is the father of the lie he speaks, such an interpretation will not be implausible. And let these things be said as matters adjacent to the ambiguity of the passage set before us 28.
20. B Since, explaining the words, "You do the works of your father," we have already anticipated and spoken on this also, having gathered from many sources the things that appeared useful to us for the explanation, we shall not unreasonably dwell now on this place. But if anyone has been born of the devil, in that he commits sin, and has not abolished his birth from him by his own action, he desires to do not one, but many desires of such a father; and since the desires that are in all the children of the devil are born from the desires that are in the devil, it is clear that his desires are a disposition of matter and corruption, which one might properly call hostile to God. To say, then, that murders, and injustices, and avarice 29 are his desires, begetting in his children desires similar to these, does not contradict reason; and further, to say generally that things which are by nature impure and contrary to purity are his desires, from which desires are engendered in the children of the devil for impure things, is not hard to accept; and one might easily admit that to call the desire for fornication, or adultery, or obscene love for boys, or effeminacy 50 his desire is correct. But if anyone doubts how these desires arise in humans from the desires that are in him, so far as the words are concerned, it may be taught as a sort of universal principle concerning the desires that are in humans, that humans wish to do the desires of their father, because all things they desire unlawfully, are previously the desires of their father—for such is the meaning of: "And the desires of C your father you wish to do"—it must be said to these points that the devil desires this one, for example, to be corrupted, the boy for instance, and that woman to commit adultery, and these to commit fornication; and by desiring these things, he implants in those who are able to serve him the desire to do what he himself wishes to be brought about. So that, in this way, one might say that the devil, in committing fornication or adultery, is the first to commit fornication and the first to commit adultery, before the human. You will say the same concerning every sin: for example, the devil does not desire silver, but he desires to make men lovers of silver, and to make men subject to the passions D of material things; and this desire of his, those who are not otherwise than by their own will lovers of money do wish to perform.
A Therefore, it is necessary for us to pay attention to all things which we desire to do, and to examine whether perhaps what we wish to do is from the desires of the devil; that by having discerned the things which come from the desires of the devil, we may cease to wish to perform them, knowing that everyone who wishes to perform the desires of the devil is by no means from God the Father, but has become a child of the devil, and is formed and made into the image of an evil father by wishing to perform the desires of the worse one, from whom come forth and are formed the images of that earthly one. For that first earthly man, because he was the first to fall away from better things, and desired a life other than the more excellent life, became worthy to be the principle—not of a creation, not of a work, but—of a formation of the Lord, made to be mocked by his angels. B And our primary substance is in that part which is in the image of Him who created us; but the other is from the fall in the formation which was taken from the dust of the earth. And if, as though forgetful of the better substance which is in us, we submit ourselves to the formation which is from the dust, even the more excellent part will take the image of the earthly; but if, understanding what was made in the image, and what was taken from the dust of the earth, we incline ourselves toward Him in whose image we were made, we shall also be in the likeness of God, having abandoned every passion toward matter and bodies, and toward any of those C who are in likeness. But since, according to the divine Scriptures, desire is a thing indifferent, not knowing the precision of the terminology handed down by the pagans—those who treat such things with diligence—who term the noble impulse "will" (which they define as an appetite in accordance with reason), while they call the evil one "desire" (which they say is an irrational appetite, or a vehement appetite), it must be said that every generated nature wishes to perform the desires of its own father; just as every nature also performs the works of its own father: of the holy Father, who exists unbegotten, who is God; and of the originally evil father, who is from no father, for no father brought forth evil in him, but a turning away from God begat it. D Therefore, that which is now being examined according to the passage, "And the desires of your father you wish to do," refers clearly to the devil, as it was said before: "You are of the father of the devil," and as is added: "He was a murderer from the beginning." And as to each one, not only of those from the devil, but also of those from God, it could be correctly said: "The desires of your father you wish to do." Are said
moreover, to be certain desires of God, in that manner in which His volitions are named. In the Psalm, for instance, it is said: A *The judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves; to be desired above gold and much precious stone.* But if you read, *Desiderabilia* (desirable things) *above gold and much precious stone*, as certain copies have it, you will say that the desirable things are worthy of someone desiring them, just as praiseworthy things are worthy of being praised, and lovable things of being loved. Just therefore as blessed things are more blessed by God, and lovable things are more loved by God, so also desirable things would be more reasonably desired by God, in a purer and—as we said above—better sense, accepting [this as desire, the Savior also saying: *With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.*] But that desire is also taken in a bad sense, although the present context which we are now treating might suffice, nevertheless that [passage] also must be added: *Whoever shall look upon a woman to desire her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.* Furthermore, he who desires does not altogether desire that which is absent, just as neither does he who wills necessarily will things that are absent. But we have premised this on account of the desires of God and the desires of the perfect. Whoever, therefore, is the son of anyone, that person also wishes to do the desires of his father; and does the works of his father. B [For thus also the Savior desires to perform the desires of His Father, and brings His same works to completion. And likewise the son of sin and son of perdition wishes to obey the cupidities of his father, and performs the works of his father:] and it is entirely in our power, we who are human, [to do] either the works of God or of the devil, and what we wish, whether the desire be of our good heavenly Father, or of the devil who is His enemy; and if we indeed do the works of God, and wish to do His desires, we are sons of God; but if we do the things that are of the devil, wishing to do what he desires, we are from the father of the devil. Wherefore, let us look not only to what we do, but also to what we wish. For in order for someone to be a son C of the devil, it suffices even only to wish to do his desires; and perhaps also for this reason, after the words *You do the works of your father*, it is said: *The desires of your father you wish to do*; that from this we might learn that we are sons of the devil, if we only wish to do what the devil desires. But most aptly D some one might say to these things that it suffices for being a son of God to wish to do His desires, even if the doing of the works of God is not present in this; but it must be said that it is necessary for the one who wishes to do the desires to be worthy of them.
For not only the willing, but also the working, as Paul says, is from God, since the A working follows, in every way, the good willing joined to it. Indeed, for those who love God, all things work together for good, and He who makes all things very good would not leave a good will incomplete. Nor can it even be conceived that a good will exists without the good activity that belongs to such a will being joined to the good willing. Yet the activity that is directed toward the willing, B even if it is often hindered by Providence for reasons that are appropriate—when, for the sake of something universally beneficial or for the sake of some other benefit, there is a need to check the worse work—is that which belongs to the will. Heracleon says to these things: “To those whom the word is addressed, they were of the substance of the devil,” as if the substance of the devil were different from the substance of the holy rational beings. It seems to me that he has suffered in this matter something similar to one who says that the substance of a healthy eye is different from that of an eye that is seeing incorrectly, and that the substance of hearing that is impaired is different C from that of healthy hearing. For just as in these cases the substance is not different, but a certain cause has occurred so that the hearing and the eye are impaired, so also the substance that is capable of pursuing reason is the same in every one who is by nature able to do so, whether he admits reason or rejects it. For indeed I would not be able to say in what way the faculty in us humans that has followed reason differs from that which does not follow it, even if, after understanding what has been said, one person, approving, might consent to what is spoken, while another might turn away from it. We have D frequently said that if this impossible thing were allowed—I mean the existence of different substances, and that the devil is incapable of better things—we would have defended him, as being in no way the cause of wickedness, and we would fasten the accusation upon the One who gave him substance and created him, which is the most absurd thing of all. And the irrationality will be evident to one who has considered the substance of human souls and has seen that it is impossible, just as it is impossible for human bodies to be of different substances from other human bodies, so also for souls to be different from souls, or the intellectual power from the intellectual power, or the deliberative power from the deliberative power. You will say the same thing also about that which is rational, and about the powers within the soul, the mnemonic and the—so to speak—imaginative; for it is necessary, if a man is of a different substance from another, that the powers of the soul be also of different kinds, and that, for example, the mnemonic should be of a different kind from the deliberative, and the deliberative from the deliberative. But let the argument be examined concerning these things, which one would understand and deliberate upon in a similar way, so that in like manner he might consent, or hesitate, or turn away—which those people call spiritual.
A For if a man is of a different substance from another man, it is necessarily the case that the powers of his soul are also of a different kind and, so to speak, that the power of memory differs from the power of memory, and the power of deliberation from the power of deliberation. But let us deal with definite matters, using the example of those who understand and deliberate in a similar way: so that one is spiritual and another is earthly, as they say, and they assent in a similar way, or give their assent, or refuse it. Was this similarity in different essences, or was it rather a similar affection, since that in which the affection occurs was of the same essence?
Certainly, to say that the same forms of imaginations, and assents, and thoughts, and memories have occurred in those of different essences is irrational; but that in those of the same essence there is, in part, some other essence besides these, is foolish. B For let them demonstrate, alongside these powers, some other essence that does not understand, nor deliberate, nor remember, nor imagine, which in those they call spiritual is better than the one that understands and deliberates, or in the earthly ones is either similar or worse—for they will not say better. But it is likely they will say that just as it is possible for a different essence—of gold and silver, and tin, and lead, and wax—to be stamped in a like manner by the same seal, so it is possible for similar forms to be generated in those who are in different essences and who are imagining from the same imaginations; and they will say the same thing regarding thought, and understanding, and memory.
But see whether, even if this argument seems very persuasive, it might not rather mislead and be sophistic if compared in the same way, rather than persuade one who has accurately examined the example. For in the case of the image, C I can show that the form in gold, insofar as it is a form, is shown to be similar to that form which is in silver, showing the distinctiveness of having been made in gold, in contrast to having been stamped in silver or in the other materials. Therefore, let them in turn demonstrate for us the property of that which received a greater form, or a lesser, or an inferior one; and let them try even to babble and speak in circumlocutions about the different essence of the things receiving the impression in a similar way; for since they do not present this, they will indeed make assertions, but they will not prove them.
Such is our response to the discourse of Heracleon, who explained "from the father the devil" as meaning "from the substance of the father the devil." D Furthermore, regarding the saying, "You wish to do the desires of your father," he makes a distinction, saying that the devil has no will, but only desires; and the irrationality of this statement is evident of itself, since everyone would admit that he wills evil things. He himself compiles arguments—even if for the present 64 we do not have ready at hand any place in the Scripture where "willing" is attributed to the devil. After this, Heracleon says that these things were said not to those who are by nature children of the devil, the earthly ones, but to those who are by adoption children of the devil, the psychical ones; from whom, by nature, some might even be called children of God by adoption.
A It is confessed by all that he wishes for evil. Collect also for yourself, even if at present we do not have at hand what we might produce in the middle, whether the word "to wish" is used in Scripture concerning the devil. Heracleon also says after this that these things were said, not to children of the devil existing by nature on earth, but to those who are animal/psychical, having become children of the devil by position; from among whom some can be by nature and position children of God. He says, moreover, that these become children of the devil in that they have loved and done the desires of the devil, while they are not of such a nature. He argues also that the word "children" ought to be understood in three ways: first, by nature; second, by will; third, by dignity. B "By nature," he says, is that which has been begotten by some begetter, which is also properly called a son; but "by will," when someone, doing the will of another by the judgment of his own mind, is called the son of him whose will he does; finally, "by dignity," according to which some are called children of Gehenna, and of darkness, and of iniquity, and of serpents, and progeny of vipers. For these do not beget, he says, such things by their own nature; since they rather corrupt and consume those who have been cast into them; but because they have performed their works, they are called their children. Although he has given such a distinction, and although he has not confirmed his narrative from the Scriptures in the least degree, we shall answer him: If they are not called children of Gehenna, and of darkness, and of iniquity by nature, but by dignity (for these things corrupt and consume rather than establish), how does Paul say in a certain place: "We were by nature children of wrath, even as others"? C Otherwise let them tell us that that wrath, of which we were children by nature, does not consume and from itself does not greatly corrupt. Again, he says that children of the devil are spoken of by Jesus in this passage, not that the devil begets some, but that those performing the works of the devil have been assimilated to him. But how much better it would have been if he had judged this concerning all the children of the devil, that they are considered children of the devil for this reason, that they are like him by doing his works, not by essence, nor by creation, in which there are no works?
21. "He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." D Since generally that person is a murderer who in any way at all has killed a man; who is a murderer sometimes also without blame, according to what Phineas also did, who, having been inflamed with zeal for God, killed the Israelite committing fornication and the Midianite; according to which David is also called a murderer without accusation, who in the name of the Lord God of hosts slew Goliath before the army of Israel; it must be sought what the true life of man is, and again what the death of this is, which is contrary to the true life; so that we may understand who the blameworthy murderer is. And as far as the history is concerned, you would say that Adam and Eve were not dead as long as they had not sinned; but immediately perished on that day on which they ate from the forbidden tree: with no other killing them than that murderer the devil, when he deceived Eve through the serpent.
A And Eve gave to the husband from the tree, and the husband ate. But as regards the deeper doctrines, if you consider that saying: "I shall not die, but live, and shall recount the works of the Lord," and that saying uttered by the Savior to the Sadducees—hidden most deeply from those who are able to understand what was said—handed down in the Gospel according to Matthew: "Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, saying: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living"; and in the Gospel according to Luke: "That the dead are raised, even Moses indicated, as he says, at the bush, 'The Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him"; and besides, in the Gospel according to Mark: "Concerning the dead, have you not read that they are raised in the book of Moses, how God said to him at the bush, saying: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of B the living"; you will see that, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob now live, having risen from the dead, they were dead before they lived. But strictly, no one is called dead who has not lived before.
Consider also this: "In Adam all die, and in Christ all shall be made alive" (in which words neither is the middle death indicated by the saying, "In Adam all die," nor is an indifferent life, which is neither good in itself nor evil, indicated in that: "In Christ all shall be made alive"), and you will see the life of the man who is according to the image; and having considered his life, you will understand in what way that murderer killed the living man, rightly to be called a murderer, not because he killed some one person privately, but on account of the whole race killed by him, whence "in Adam all die." He worked this homicide when he began from the beginning; on account of which homicide, everyone who considers the matter itself, and his own body, and to what it is suited, will say this, calling C himself miserable because he perished in Adam: "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death?" seeing also in what manner it has been said: "Thou hast brought me down into the dust of death," and that: "Thou hast humbled us in a place of affliction," and that: "Our lowly body."
There is also something more hidden, for which that murderer from the beginning is the prince of this world, that is, of the terrestrial place where the men are whom he killed. And the murderer indeed killed us; but we, by the grace of God, were buried with Christ, and have risen with him, if indeed we have become conformed to his resurrection, and are walking in newness of life. But that murderer is the prince of those who have been killed and likewise of the dead, being unable to be the prince of any living person. But if you consider more widely D what has been written concerning the dead, such as
A *For to this end Christ both died and rose again, that he might be lord both of the dead and living* (Rom. xiv, 9), you will see in what way, through the death of Jesus, he is no longer even the prince of the dead; for Jesus died so that he might also be lord of the dead. As long, then, as a man lives, he does not bear the image of the earthy; but when he dies, and is killed by that murderer, he at once does not retain the image of God, and he takes on the image of the earthy and the dead; for the earthy is dead, just as the heavenly is living; and God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, if we have risen with him, walking in newness of life, he is our God; but if we are still among the dead, and God is not the God of the dead, he will not be our God either.
It is relevant to the examination of the one who was a murderer from the beginning to see who those "dead" are, but who are dead *in Christ*, who shall also rise first. Concerning them, it is said in the Epistle to the Corinthians thus: *For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed* (1 Cor. xv, 52). And in the Epistle to the Thessalonians: *For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a cry, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we who are alive, who remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord* (1 Thess. iv, 15 sq.).
B And I suppose that those who are living in Christ are those who have been perfected and who no longer commit sin; but those who are dead in Christ are those who are indeed disposed according to the faith which is in Christ, and purpose to live well, yet have not attained that stage, but still sin, either through ignorance of the exact and true account of righteousness, or through the weakness of judgments that have been overcome by the flesh lusting against the spirit. Consequently, it is consistent that Paul, being conscious of himself as having already acted excellently, should say, "We who are alive, who remain." But those whom we have called dead are those who most of all are in need of the resurrection, since not even the living can be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, before the dead who are in Christ rise first; wherefore it is written: *The dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are alive* (1 Thess. iv, 16), and what follows. C You will also consider whether it was because of his homicide that those things which were not came to exist upon the cursed earth, on account of the works of Adam, who was cast out from the paradise of delight. Nevertheless, this one was a murderer from the beginning of existing things; he who, I suppose, having been made [at] the beginning of the Lord's handiwork, envied those things which were created to exist. Thus, envy death D
A entered into the world, always murdering men wherever it finds them living, until, all enemies having been placed under the feet of the Son of God, his last enemy, death, shall be brought to nothing.
22. Let us also consider this, and in truth he has not stood. B And indeed, only he who firmly holds correct dogmas, and by reason of the firmness of his dogmas remains unshaken in his judgments at all times, being moved by no misfortune or any bodily pretext—as if enduring two things, namely pains or a more vehement desire for carnal pleasures, or indeed being shaken by any cause whatsoever, so that he might even be moved for a moment from the good—is reasonably to be considered to have stood in the truth. But let this argument extend even to those natures that are outside of flesh and blood; for it must necessarily be said of their life also that those who have conducted themselves excellently dwell in the truth; but if any one has not lived in this manner, he has not stood in the truth. C But I observe whether, perhaps, "standing in the truth" is one certain uniform thing, while "not standing in it" is varied and manifold; for some, attempting to stand in it but unable to attain it, have, so to speak, trembling and wavering feet; while others, though not afflicted in this way, are nevertheless placed in danger, lest the same result befall them, such as he who says: "My feet had almost slipped." And again, for others who slide on the rock, regarding whom I believe it is said: "Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken." Exhorting Moses to this "standing in the truth," the Lord said to him: "Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon the rock." D For if the rock was Christ, and Christ says: "I am the truth," perhaps this saying, "You shall stand upon the rock," signifies the same as: "You shall stand upon the truth." With difficulty, and after much time, does this come to pass for anyone. Thus, up to the time when these words were spoken to Moses, "Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon the rock," Moses had not yet stood upon the rock. And if anyone were to look more carefully at human nature, which cannot easily purify itself from false dogmas, he will see that just as "every man is a liar," so every man does not stand in the truth; for if anyone is no longer a liar, or stands in the truth, such a one is not a man, so that God might well say to him and those like him: "I have said: You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High," and the following would not be added to him: "But you shall die as men." If, therefore, anyone else has not stood in the truth, it is surely the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning; and the reason why he did not stand in the truth has been stated in this manner: "Because there is no truth in him." Hence
A entered into the world, and there is no truth in him, since he has been deceived and forms false opinions, and he has been deceived by himself, being reckoned worse than those who are deceived by others; for the latter are deceived by him, but he is the creator of deception for himself.
It is worth inquiring how it is said, "There is no truth in him." For instance, does he hold no true doctrine, but everything he ever thinks is false? Or is it that he does not share in Christ, as those who are partakers of Christ share in Him who said, "I am the truth"? For those who partake of Him partake of Him insofar as He is truth, and for this reason truth is in them.
And thirdly, one might further inquire in this type B of investigation, since some have noted whether one should say that there is no truth in one who opines any lie whatsoever, even if he opines it alongside many truths. For just as a complex composed of innumerable things that are very true and one lie is false, so in the case of one who opines one lie alongside many truths, such is, as it were, the complex and coupling, so that one might say that in him there is no truth. I am demonstrating the case of one who opines one lie alongside many truths; and indeed, all three [interpretations] will seem to have reason: one person saying it was said on this account that "There is no truth in him," because he is not a partaker of Christ, to whom he even makes war; another, that he thinks nothing truly, but has lied in everything, C and for this reason he is the devil, and wicked, and worse than anyone else who falls, because perhaps in the case of the many there is something true mixed with the many things in which they are deceived, but in this one there is nothing true. And a third person will join the remaining one, saying it is impossible for any rational animal to opine falsely about everything, and not to opine—even if feebly—what is true about nothing at all. At any rate, the devil may even have this one true doctrine, when he conceives about himself that he is rational, and that this sort of being is man, and that sort is angel, and that this is a body, and what sort of body it is, and that something else is different from a body. But so that he may not even say or conceive the last [point], but at least the first points are sufficient so that it cannot be true regarding him that he "thinks nothing true."
We, for our part, D hear "He did not stand in the truth," not as though pointing to such a nature, nor as setting forth the impossibility of his standing in the truth; but Heracleon says regarding these things: "For his nature is not from the truth, but from that which is contrary to the truth, from error and ignorance. For this reason," he says, "neither can he stand in the truth, nor can he have truth in himself, having falsehood as peculiar to his own nature, being naturally unable ever to speak the truth." I say that not only is he himself a liar, but also the father [is a liar], he assigning the nature of his father to himself.
A came into the world through the envy of the devil, since he consists of error and falsehood. Now all these things free the devil from every blame, and charge, and reproach; for no one would justly reproach, or blame, or find fault with one who is not by nature adapted for better things. Therefore, according to the judgment of Heracleon, the devil is unhappy rather than blameworthy. But it must be known that, just as the devil did not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him, so also those who are of the devil their father do not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in them; and all who still commit sins are such, even if they say they are Christ's; for everyone who commits sin is born of the devil.
23. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar, and his father is. B Since, in explaining that [passage], "You are of your father the devil," we recorded this saying and stated what occurred to us regarding it, seeking what a lie is and what its father is, these things must now be weighed alongside what will be said by us. And I think that every evil and deceptive spirit is a lie, and that each of these, when it speaks, speaks from its own resources and by no means from the things that are of God: and the father of these liars is the devil. Now, we shall bring forward what moved us to say that every evil spirit is a lie. It is written in the Third Book of Kings C as follows, where Micaiah, having been called by Ahab to prophesy whether it was profitable for him to go to Ramoth-gilead for war or not, said: "I saw the God of Israel sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left; and the Lord said: Who will deceive Ahab, the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall in Ramoth-Gilead? And when one said one thing and another another, a spirit came forth and stood before the Lord and said: I will deceive him; and the Lord said to him: In what way? And he said: I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his D prophets." And in the second book of Chronicles, the same Micaiah says to Ahab and Jehoshaphat: "Hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the power of heaven standing on his right and on his left; and the Lord said: Who will deceive Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall in Ramoth-Gilead? And when one said this and another that, a spirit came forth and stood before the Lord and said: I will deceive him; and the Lord said: In what way? And he said: I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Clearly, therefore, through these prophets it is declared that if there is any lying spirit, similar spirits also are lying spirits; for they have received from their father, the liar, to be lying spirits on account of through these prophets.
A of it is shown that it is a certain false spirit, and spirits of a similar kind would be false spirits, having received their existence from the father of falsehood, false spirits in accordance with falsehood and wickedness, and not that they are so in accordance with essence. Now the Holy Spirit, or an angelic spirit, when it speaks, does not speak from its own, but from the Word of truth and the wisdom; this is also shown in the Gospel according to John, where the Lord, teaching about the Paraclete, says: *He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you.* But the false spirit, when it speaks, speaks from its own; for out of its own spoke also the false spirit in the third book of Kings, deceiving Achab. Nevertheless, observe that "liar" is a name applied in the same way both to the devil who sired the falsehood and to man—for here it is said concerning man: *"For he is a liar, and his father,"* speaking of the devil; but in the Psalms it is said of man alone, as in the passage: *"I said in my trance: Every man is a liar."* We have brought these forward so that, to the extent that it is possible, we may flee from being men B and hasten to become gods; since, as much as we are men, we are liars, just as the father of falsehood is a liar. And it is a similar thing for us to partake of one and the same name, and to partake of the thing signified by the name: I mean, if we still remain men, and the devil, who is called a liar C.
24. But because I say the truth, you do not believe me. If we are mindful of to whom the discourse is directed, namely, to the Jews who had believed him, who had received the promise that, if they remained in the word of Jesus, they would then truly be his disciples and recognize the truth that sets them free, we shall be at a loss as to how he says to such people: "But because I say the truth, you do not believe me." And consider if it is possible for someone to believe the same person according to one conception, but not to believe him according to another; as, for example, those who believe in the one crucified under Pontius Pilate, or again, if someone believing that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, [believing him] to be something divine and saving for the world, [has] arrived; yet [denying that] he did not receive his birth from the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, but from Joseph and Mary. D I say, if we still remain men, and the devil.
A in Judea, not believing in him who was born of the Virgin Mary, these men believe in him, and they do not believe. And again, those who believe in Jesus, who did in Judea the signs and wonders that are written, but do not believe in Jesus His Son who made heaven and earth, believe in God, and do not believe. Again, those who believe in the Father of Jesus Christ, but do not believe in the Architect and Maker of this universe, these believe in him, and they do not believe. B And indeed those who believe in the Maker of heaven and earth, but do not believe in the Father of Jesus who was crucified in the time of Pontius Pilate, they believe in God, and they do not believe. That there may not, therefore, be an immediate contradiction, as if he who writes this Gospel had not himself perceived such things, you will say that by saying to the Jews who had believed in him: *But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me*, he said this with the intention that they were believers according to one way of thinking, and non-believers according to another. And it is likely that they did indeed believe according to what was visible on account of the wonders, but they did not believe the deeper sayings of His. And this fits well with: *You shall know the truth*, said to those who had not known the truth—the *Because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me*; as if He were saying: Insofar as I perform wonders, you believe me; but insofar as I speak the truth, you do not believe me. C This, indeed, you might see even now in many who admire Jesus when they look into the history concerning him, but who no longer believe as soon as a reason deeper and greater than their capacity is explained to them, but rather suspect it to be false. Therefore let us take heed, lest the Word, the Son of God, should say to us also: *Because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.* D 25. Who of you convicts me of sin? The Son of God, when He has openly set forth His own will before their eyes, so that not one of those hearing could contradict it, also says these things, checking the vision of those who did not agree with Him: If you do not show that the things which are spoken are sins, then I rightly demand your agreement. Great, however, is the confidence that the Savior’s speech has in this saying, with no man able to speak with that confidence which is born from not having sinned: *Who of you convicts me of sin?* But only our Lord is able to say these things to all.
who have ever known Him: to those who have never known Him, and to those who have committed no sin—but He was tempted in all things according to the likeness, without sin. A Yet I hear the words: *Who of you,* which are said not only to those present, but also to the whole human race; as if he were explaining it thus: "Who from your race, or who of any kind of man whatsoever, will be able to convict me of sin?" But I know well that no one can. Since, however, we are to be *imitators of me, just as I am of Christ*, we must strive with all our might to attain, according to the capacity of human nature, such confidence of a clean conscience before all men, that we may be able to say in the future, and after the beginning of our faith, to everyone who knows us: *Who of you convicts me of sin?* Even if it is not easy to say this when we have fulfilled our account. Moreover, the Savior said this not only to men, but also to the devil and the Powers subject to him, B who have nothing to say to convict Him of sin. And this is indeed consistent with the words: *The prince of this world is coming, and has nothing in me*, and finds nothing in me. But we, too, can, by great diligence, after some time attain the confidence to say to the devil and his angels when they seek an opportunity against us at the time of our departure: *Who of you convicts me of sin?*
26. *But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me?* It is worth seeing what is implied by the question; we shall see this even if those to whom the speech was directed did not provide the appropriate answer. For someone might say: "For this reason we do not believe, because we do not see how what He says is the truth; and we do not see it because the eyes within us, which have the natural power to discern the truth, C have not yet been cleansed; and because we are such as this, we are not from God; and if we are not yet from God, the eyes that have the power to perceive the truth are not clean, either because they are covered, or because they are dull, or because they are clouded by vice." And by examining carefully what it strictly means to believe, according to the saying: *Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God*, and by feeling how far we fall short of this manner of believing, we may answer these things, entreating the physician of the eyes of the soul by His own wisdom and love for humankind to do everything for the sake of opening our eyes, which are still covered by our ignominy because of vice, according to the saying: *Our ignominy has covered us.* For He will hear us when we confess the D reasons why we do not yet believe, and [confess] that we are in a bad state and in need of a physician; and the Lord, bringing aid, will cooperate with us to attain the gift of believing—which is set in the third place in Paul’s list of gifts, after the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, to which he adds: *To another, faith by the same Spirit*—that gift concerning which he says elsewhere that it was bestowed upon you by God, not only...
that you might believe in Christ, but also that you might suffer for him. And truly, if one notes the efficacy of believing, he will see clearly that it is no common gift of God that anyone should believe in no one else A except the true one alone, especially when many and varied dogmas are spread abroad by many who promise that they teach the truth. For this is now the task of a proven moneychanger, and one who calls him perfect would not err; since it is also written in the Epistle to the Hebrews: *Solid food is for the perfect, for those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil*.
27. *He who is of God hears the words of God; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God*. Those who introduce the fabrication of different natures, and who say that men exist as sons of God by nature and from their first formation, and that they alone are capable of the words of God because of the kinship they have with God, think that they can prove what they propose from this passage also. They seize upon this, indeed, and by applying to it the simple and those unable to answer the plausibility of the use of the passage, and not seeing its solution, which stands in this manner: If it is clear that as many as received the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world, did not receive it because they were from God (for if they had received it because they were from God, it would not have been written concerning them: *But as many as received him, to them he gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name*), it is clear also that those who are not from God have no power in any way to become children of God before they have received the true light. Nay, even those who have received it are not yet children of God, but, by the fact that they have received the light, they receive the power to become children of God. Then, having been born of God, they also hear the words of God, no longer merely believing in a simpler way, but now understanding the things of piety more acutely. Furthermore, those who have not striven to be of this sort do not become children of God, nor are they from B him; and for this reason they neither hear his words, nor do they understand their will; but they remain in the state preceding that of the children of God; namely, in the state of those who have only believed, servants of God, in that they have received the spirit of slavery in fear, and have not striven to advance and progress, so as to receive also the spirit of adoption, through which those who have it cry out: Abba, Father. For that in general no human being is from the beginning a son of God is clear both from this saying: *We were by nature children of wrath*—Paul having said this even of himself—and from this: *But I say to you: Love your enemies*
A and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven. For if Paul was by nature a child of wrath, who is superior to Paul, as far as creation is concerned, and who is not a child of wrath before receiving the power to become a child of God, and before becoming a child of God? And if one does not become a son of the Father who is in heaven in any other way than by loving one's own enemies and praying for those who persecute oneself, it is clear that no one hears the words of God because they are by nature from God, but because they have received the power to become a child of God, use this power to a good end, and by having loved their enemies and prayed for those who insult them, have become a son of the Father who is in heaven. Then, indeed, they are also from God and hear the words of God, understanding them and grasping their knowledge; which is a property not of slaves, but of children of God, who have brought every previous birth to naught, but have received the birth from God through the spirit of adoption. B And at the same time, we must more carefully consider how it is necessary to accept the saying: *He hears the words of God*; to which is similar the saying: *My sheep hear my voice*. For if we take "to hear" as mere consent, then even animal-like people who believe for a time will be from God, concerning whom the Savior says that some believe for a time. But if we interpret "he hears" as "keeping the commandments," it is clear that even if one sins in one thing, they will not be a child of God; a conclusion that does not trouble us, who say that everyone becomes a child of God through a change, but does trouble those who can neither show themselves—nor those instructed in the same teachings—to be easily [sinless, that is] impeccable. C But if we take "he hears" as "understanding and perceiving," let them show us someone among all who hears the words of the New Testament in such a way that we may call him a child of God, if his interpretation does not admit of a subversion of the Holy Scriptures; for we, even in these matters, imagining him who has already become a child of God to be someone great and admirable, will not be shown to have worthlessly accepted the saying: *He who is from God hears the words of God.* Now, however, it will be possible to demonstrate something paradoxical that seems to emerge from the contraries. What, then, is the paradox, if not that someone is a son of God more than another is a son of God, and that one son of God is twice as much a son of God as another? And how this is demonstrated from the contrary, we will set forth as follows. In the Gospel according to Matthew, the second woe against the scribes and Pharisees is thus: D *Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.* Therefore, according to this, neither are some people sons of hell by nature, nor are the sons of hell equal sons of it, if one is a son of it twice as much as another.
A And if one is twice as much a son of Gehenna as another, why not also of destruction, and of death, and of darkness, and of the rest, of which those who sin in various ways are sons? And if the situation holds in these cases, why will some not also be sons of light twice as much as others, and sons of life, and sons of wisdom, and in the same way sons of God? And if one becomes a son of God twice as much as another, why not also many times over, and as many times over as it is worthy to consider the Firstborn of all creation to be the Son of God compared to the remaining sons of God, and those who no longer have the spirit of slavery to fear, but have received the spirit of adoption? B Perhaps, then, since the words of God are many, not only those that are written, but also the ineffable ones, which it is not lawful for a man to speak, and those of which John says: "I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written," everyone who hears and understands any of the words of God is already from God; and by as much as he hears more words of God, by so much more he becomes from God; just as, if he must be so named, one who has heard all the words of God, if indeed this can happen to any of those receiving the spirit of adoption, becomes perfectly and surpassingly a son of God, and entirely, and totally, and completely from God. C However, those expressions "totally" and "completely" must be understood more judiciously, so as to correspond to the whole of the doctrines, and to the whole of the knowledge, and to all the mysteries, so that he who has known all the mysteries, and all the knowledge, and who has achieved along with these the things of perfect love, would say that he is completely, and in every way, begotten from God. And see whether it is possible [(14)] consistently with the saying, "We know in part, and we prophesy in part," for someone of this kind to say: "We are also in part the sons of God"; and again, "When that which is perfect has come, and that which is in part has been done away with, then the perfect state of becoming a son of God will arrive, doing away with the being a son of God in part." Let the question also not be left unexamined as to whether it is possible for one to be in part a son of the more excellent part, namely the divine, and in part a son of the contrary part; or whether this is impossible. D With this you will investigate how many are said to be the sons of one father, whether because of the ancestors and their successors, or according to this supposition. Having therefore received the power to become children of God, let us do everything so that we may be from God, and let us hear his words, and let us advance because we are from God, so that we may advance also because we hear the words of God, always manifesting more from these words until we have received all the words of God, or at least as many as it is possible for those who are held worthy of the spirit of adoption to receive, both now and hereafter. But as often as we do not hear the words which are spoken by God—that is, as often as we do not understand them—so often it must be thought that we are reproved, as not being from God; that is why this is the state of such a person.
A
28. "We say well," the Jews answered, "that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?" It is probable that, due to what is left unsaid, some among them frequently spoke these things to one another about the Savior, calling him a Samaritan, as one who adulterated Jewish customs, similarly to the Samaritans; for the Jews do not associate with the Samaritans, since they differ from them in many doctrines. Yet it is surely worth inquiring how they dared to call the Savior a Samaritan, when the Samaritans deny the future age and do not even admit the persistence of the soul, whereas he had taught a great many things concerning resurrection and judgment. But perhaps they say this while reviling him, and not necessarily because he held the same doctrines as they did. It is also probable that some imagined that he was not teaching the things concerning the future age, the judgment, and the resurrection from conviction, but was disposed in a Samaritan fashion—as if nothing remained for men after this life—and that he was putting forth his words about the resurrection and eternal life for the sake of pretense, B in accordance with the reputation and desires of the Jews. Furthermore, they said he had a demon because of his teachings that transcended the human capacity, by which he called God his own Father, and said that he had come down from heaven, and that he himself was the bread of life, far better than the manna, so that whoever ate of this bread would live forever, and countless other things with which the Gospels are filled. It can also be said that the expression, "Thou hast a demon," was spoken because of their suspicion concerning Beelzebul, since some thought that he cast out demons in Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, as if he had Beelzebul within himself. Now, as for the enemies who say he has a demon, that is their concern; but we believe him when he says: "I have not a demon," C for a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, or perform such signs as have been written, the traces and remnants of which are still performed in the Churches in the name of Jesus to this day. After this, one might ask why, when the Jews—not those who had believed in him, but those who answered him—cast two reproaches at him, namely, "Thou art a Samaritan," and "Thou hast a demon," he did not answer to both, but only to the one, "Thou hast a demon," saying, "I have not a demon." And see whether it is possible D to apply to this
A the matter of the parable in the Gospel according to Luke concerning him who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers; whom the priest passed by, and the Levite; but the Samaritan who was journeying, coming to him and seeing him, was moved with compassion, and approaching, bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. For if anyone, discussing this parable, B is able to show that the things said about the Samaritan, who healed the man half-dead and fallen among robbers, can be referred to no one else but the Savior, he will thereby also show why the Savior did not deny that he is a Samaritan.
Another, however, considering the difference C according to Paul between the Jews and those who are under the law, and bringing those who are under the law to the Samaritans, and [knowing] that the Savior became all things to all men, that he might gain all, will say that because he became to those under the law as under the law, he was as it were also made a Samaritan, and in this respect did not deny that he is a Samaritan.
And a third person, taking the interpretation of "Samaritan" as signifying "guardian," will say that, even if the Jews spoke of him as a Samaritan in another sense, he himself, taking the meaning from the name, did not deny it; knowing that he is a guardian of human souls, and it is of him that it was said: "Behold, he shall not sleep, nor slumber, who guards Israel," and: "The Lord guards the little ones." Moreover, the Hebrews say Somer for guardian, and thus they hand down that the Samaritans were first so named D because they were sent by the king of the Assyrians to guard the land of Israel after the captivity of Israel, which was distinct from Judah, and which was also led captive to the Assyrians because of many sins.
29. "Jesus answered: I have not a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. I do not seek my glory; there is one who seeks and judges." If the tree planted by the streams of water is of such a kind that it gives its fruit in its season, and not a leaf of it falls off, but everything it does prospers, what must we think regarding our Savior Jesus, unless that, since he is the tree of life in that he is Wisdom, and Wisdom is the tree of life to all who grasp hold of it, he both bears fruit and has other leaves besides the fruits that are of such a kind that not even one of them falls away?
A no word of Jesus, especially that which has been deemed worthy of being recorded by his holy disciples, should be understood in a common or vulgar way. Nay, every diligence must be applied by us even to those things which are thought to be clear; not despairing that in his word, even if it is believed to be extemporaneous and simple, there will always be found something worthy of that sacred mouth by those who rightly inquire. And if at any point we do not find it, we must blame ourselves, and not the word of Jesus, as though it did not breathe forth dogmas full of the fullness of truth and wisdom. These things have been said by me as I desire to examine the saying: "I have no demon," by which we are all who encounter the Gospel taught a matter that we did not know even before we encountered the Gospel.
What this is, must now be considered. It is acceptable, according to the Scriptures, that those who sin do many things contrary to reason, for no other cause than that they have become capable of the operation of an evil spirit or the will of an unclean demon. Those, therefore, did not hesitate to attribute even those things that are thought to be minor sins to demons, who said that sudden quickness to anger—and similarly, detraction—is a demon. B It is likely that ten thousand other things also are demons that deceive us and work so that we act according to their will. And just as among men there is no one who is clean from filth, and no one just upon the earth who will do good and not sin, so too is there no one who is always clean from demons and has never at any time been receptive to their operation.
Wherefore, interpreting allegorically the healings in the Gospel, in which there are also the expulsions of demons, we shall say that Jesus always expels demons from all those who, because they have been healed by the Son of God, no longer admit the operations of demons. Therefore, I believe it is the voice of Jesus alone (who alone stripped away the principalities and the powers, and displayed them openly, and triumphed over them on the tree, having set up the cross as a trophy against every opposing power) to speak thus: "I have no demon," just as he also said: "The ruler of this world is coming, and has nothing in me." C We, too, can indeed bring forward the statement and say, "I have no demon," but we shall be refuted, just like those who, while denying that they are mad, are convicted by the actual deeds themselves of having lied. For is it not a manifest proof that we are mad, when we have the state of those who are insane and we shout, inflamed by fury and anger? Or when, agitated with rabies, and as if neighing, we mount our own wives like horses maddened by the love of mares, throwing the words of God concerning the curbing of the passions behind our backs? Indeed, because to be cast down and darkened by grief, D and to have lost the pride that is worthy of rational beings, is to forget that not even a sparrow falls into a trap without God.
A, and that the judgments regarding the things that happen to every human being are just; what shall we say, except that we suffer these things because the demon has conquered us and clouded our ruling faculty? But what of the fears of things not to be feared, and the excessive joys over things of no value—whose workings could these be, if not of the demons who have filled those who cannot with truth say: "I have no demon"? But it is likely that some will bring forward the holy patriarchs, or that holy servant, or the admirable prophets, or the most powerful apostles of our Savior Jesus into this B discussion, to refute us, as if these also would say, like Jesus: "I have no demon." To whom it may be said: Did these also sin at some time, or is the statement false: "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," and is it not true that "No one is clean from filth," and has the statement not been considered: "There is no righteous man upon the earth who will do good and will not sin"? But it is clear that all the Scriptures are true, and that not always, nor from the beginning, were they able to say—not even those who were transitioning to a life constant in virtue—"I have no demon." C Rather, that voice belongs, from the beginning, solely to the man contemplated in the Savior: who for this reason most properly and most perfectly honored the Father alone. For no one who honors anything among those things that are honored by God honors the one who scorns what God honors. Otherwise, how is one to be said to honor the Father, who has in no way received the spirit of adoption? For no one who is sinning has the spirit of adoption: "For he who is born of God does not sin." Furthermore, how does someone honor the Father, while honoring glory that comes from men, or silver, or earthly wealth, D [or the beauty that consists of flesh and blood], or, in general, those things that are proper to matter and decay? Therefore, it is clear how that voice of the Savior is: "I honor the Father," which we too must strive with all our might to say, attributing honor to God and the Father, and attributing it to no one else, with our conscience testifying to us in the Holy Spirit. And beautifully, indeed, when "the fullness of the time had come," [He was] sent by God "to be born of a woman, and to be under the law," as one who, being under the law that says: "Honor your father and your mother, that it may be well with you," having no father other than the heavenly God, says: "But I honor my Father." We too shall say this voice, if we have considered the laver of regeneration, and have washed in it, so that we might become children of God, and no longer calling any man father on earth, because we have become sons of the Father in the heavens, and brothers of Him who said: "I am going to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." It is clear, therefore, that when Jesus said most properly and most perfectly: "I have no demon"
A but I honor My Father, each of us, as his imitator—insofar as it is possible, and being able to do all things in Christ Jesus who strengthens him—will also be able to say: "I have no demon, but I honor My Father." But who, dwelling among the dead and living in tombs, could say: "I have no demon"? Or who, honoring something else besides God and His Word—and besides that which is prescribed by the Word to be honored—giving the honor to another when it is necessary to give the honor to Him, could say as a disciple of Jesus: "But I honor My Father"?
Following these things is the saying: "And you dishonor Me," B spoken to those who had dishonored Him and said to Him: "Do we not say well that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?"—thinking they had spoken well, whereas they had spoken badly. For in thinking evilly, they declared the Savior to be a Samaritan and one having a demon. But it must be considered that the saying, "And you dishonor Me," was not spoken only to those at that time, but also to those who always dishonor Him, through the things they do contrary to the right reason of God; and they dishonor the One through whom they do injustice, namely Christ, who is righteousness; and they dishonor the power of God, which is the Savior—for Christ is the power of God—through the things they accomplish in weakness and infirmity. C And to everyone who sets at nought wisdom, it might be said: "You dishonor Me," since Christ is also wisdom; but also if it is necessary for someone to be at peace with all men, as to say that prophetic word: "I was peaceful with those who hate peace," and it is necessary to take up "the peace of God that surpasses all intellect, guarding the heart and the thoughts" of the one who has received it. But if anyone is warlike, and biting, and accusing, and devouring his neighbor, and filled with the standing of passions in his own ruling faculty, to him also it might be said: "You dishonor Me"; for "Christ is our peace." D Furthermore, since "everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light," and He who said "I am the light of the world" is the Light, it is clear that whoever does evil, dishonoring the light, also dishonors Christ, and will hear: "And you also dishonor Me." And what need is there for me to lengthen the discourse, unfolding and showing who those are who are rebuked by Jesus, and who hear from Him: "You dishonor Me," when they are manifest from the things explained, and from the things that can consistently be joined to these?
30. After these things let us see what it is: "But I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges." God seeks, having given us the Son...
of Himself, in each of those who have received Him, the glory of Christ: which indeed He will find in those who have taken care of themselves and diligently cultivate the seeds of virtue planted within them by nature; but He will not find it in those who are not of this kind. A And not finding it, He judges those in whom He does not find the glory of His Son, to whom He will say: "Because of you My name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles." Someone might also ask, on account of this: "There is One who seeks and judges," whether this work ought to be referred to God, since the Savior has clearly said: "For neither does the Father judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." But see if you can address this with the passage: "I can do nothing of Myself; as I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me." B For if, as our Savior hears from the Father, so He judges, seeking not His own will but the will of the Father who sent Him, and because of this His judgment is righteous; perhaps the judgment which He who hears from the Father judges is not that of the one hearing, but more properly that of the One speaking to the one who hears. And even if He says, "My judgment is righteous," hear in the same Gospel Him saying: "All Mine are Yours." For if it is true that which was said by the Savior, "All Mine are Yours," it is clear that the judgment itself, concerning which He says, "My judgment is righteous," is the Father's judgment; but if the judgment is the Father's, the doubt of this statement can be resolved: "But I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges." The saying, "But I do not seek My own glory," has also a certain emphasis of modesty befitting the Savior; for it was not at all appropriate for Him to demand His own glory, and for this reason to judge those who had not rendered it to Him; but it was appropriate that the Father, who had given glory to the Son, should demand it from those who were depriving Him of it, and should judge them on account of Him. C Perhaps also the Savior, being an imitator of the Father, seeks the glory of God from those who have learned the things of God; and if He should not find the glory of the Father in some, He would judge them, as having received authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man. Heracleon, however, does not refer that "There is One who seeks and judges" to the Father, saying such things as: "The One who seeks and judges is the one who vindicates me, the minister appointed for this, who does not bear the sword in vain, the avenger of the king. And this is Moses," just as Jesus had said to them previously, saying: "In whom you have hoped." Then he adds that "The one who judges and punishes is Moses, that is, the legislator himself." D Afterward, Heracleon raises a doubt against himself, saying: "How then does He not say that all judgment has been handed over to Him?"
A And if He assigns the judgment to someone else, as to one inferior to the Savior—to the Demiurge and Creator of the world, as he thinks—he cannot demonstrate this, since it is clearly written: "For not even the Father judges anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son," and: "He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man."
51. "Amen, amen, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word, he shall not see death forever." Just as there is a certain life that is indifferent to us, being neither good nor evil—according to which we say that the impious and the brute animals also live—and another life that is not indifferent, but is good, concerning which the Apostle says: "Our life is hidden with Christ in God," B and our Lord Himself says of Himself: "I am the life"; so, one would call the death that is contrary to the indifferent life "indifferent." But one would call the death that is the enemy of Him who says "I am the life" a certain evil and harsh death, in which he who dies is "in death," concerning which it is written: "The last enemy shall be destroyed, death."
And it is concerning this death that we must believe the Apostle is speaking when he says these things: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed to all men, in whom all sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world; for sin is not reckoned when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness C of the transgression of Adam." And after a few words: "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more shall those who receive the abundance of grace and of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ." For what is the death that entered into the world through sin, if not the last enemy of Christ that is to be destroyed? And what is the death that passed to all men, because all have sinned, if not this very death that reigned from Adam until Moses? Now Moses, that is, the Law, was until the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. And it reigned D by the transgression of the one, through the one, until those who receive the abundance of grace and of righteousness shall reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. He, therefore, who has kept the word of the Only-Begotten and Firstborn of all creation, who is naturally fitted to prevent death from being seen, shall not see this death forever. Thus, therefore, must we understand: "If anyone keeps My word, he shall not see death forever."
the age, as if he who speaks these things had graciously bestowed light upon A those who hear, he said to them: "If anyone shall keep this light of mine, he shall not see darkness for ever." For it is impossible for darkness to arise for one who keeps the light; but if anyone should lose this light, it follows instantly for the one who has lost it to see the darkness. Thus, therefore, life also came to be in the Word, who in the beginning was with God. Wherefore the beginning, that is, Wisdom, which says: "God created me the beginning of his ways for his works," regarding the word in her which is the life that has come to be, will teach and say: "If anyone shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever." For at the same time as anyone keeps the word, he also keeps the life that has come to be in it, which is inseparable from it, which is also the "light of men," "shining in darkness, and the darkness did not apprehend it." If therefore the Prophet, as if inquiring, should say: "Who is the man who shall live, and shall not see death?" we will answer, having been taught by our Saviour, and we will say: That man lives, and shall not see death, who keeps the word of him who says: "If anyone shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever." But at the same time I inquire in this place whether it happens that the phrase "for ever" should be taken commonly, so that the whole would be of this kind: "If anyone shall keep my word for ever, he shall not see death for ever." For it seems that someone does not see death B for as long as he keeps the word of Jesus; for as soon as someone has lost it, he also saw death. But if one is able to recur to more profound reasons, and to consider how it may be said by a man: "And into the dust of death thou hast brought me down," and by Paul: "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" he will also see in what way, as long as the word was kept, death was not seen by the one who kept it; and how, when someone, struggling in attention and having become negligent regarding the keeping of the word, ceased to guard it, then he saw death, not in another, but in himself. And surely this must be considered a dogma and an eternal law, which must always be told to those who have received the word: "If anyone shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever." But just as, if I may so speak, darkness when seen for too long blunts the vision C of him who has seen it, so death, being seen by him who has not kept the word, kills, puts to death, and blinds the vision accustomed to contemplation, so that he has need of him who opens the eyes of the blind. And I certainly think it is for this reason that the blind, whose hallmark was that they were blind, who are written of in the Gospel as having lost their eyes, was because, not having kept the word, they had caught sight of death.
52. The Jews said to him: "Thou hast a demon." Many, and among them the wise, [believe] every kind of sin, of which this is one species, D
arises from nowhere else but from wicked judgments. Truly, those who have relied upon the Holy Scriptures as divine, dispute concerning men who act unreasonably as if sins were not committed without demons or whatever contrary powers there may be. Wherefore, the Jews also imagined that Jesus spoke according to the operation of a demon: *Amen, amen, I say to you: If anyone shall have kept my word, he shall not see death forever.* And they had suffered this, because they neither kept the word nor perceived the power of what was said. For Jesus, knowing that there is a certain death hostile B to reason, by which sinners die, was saying that this death would not be seen forever by him who keeps His word. But they, thinking it was said of common death, supposed that He was wandering from the truth, since Abraham and the other prophets had died, yet He was saying that no one who kept His word would die forever.
33. *Abraham is dead and the prophets, and thou sayest: If anyone shall have kept my word, he shall not taste death forever; art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead; whom dost thou make thyself?* Even if, according C to the simpler understanding, just as we ourselves have given, it seems to be obvious what the Jews suspected, replying to the Savior’s word about Abraham and the prophets as if they had died, nonetheless, the investigation is not to be left unexamined, with a comparison showing things similar to what went before. For did they suppose that the Savior had said, *If anyone shall have kept my word, he shall not see death forever*, without any reason, and for this cause replied to His word with something manifest? Or rather, as we D have considered, did they suppose that He had not spoken about common death, and thinking in their minds that Abraham and the prophets had at some time been spiritually dead, they despised His word, as if they did not even believe Him to be such as He claimed to be in His speaking, and say: *Now we know that thou hast a demon?* And we examined similar things also in others of His words and in the replies to them in many places above; for instance, in the case of the Samaritan woman, when, after Jesus had said to her: *Give me to drink*, among other things...
he added such words as these: *If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water*. And the woman says to him: *Lord, you have no bucket, and the well is deep; from where, then, have you that living water?* and again: *Lord, give me this living water, that I may not thirst, nor come hither to draw*. For it is not A plausible that the Samaritan woman was answering him concerning water which falls under the senses, or that she asked him for bodily water so that she might never thirst again, nor come to draw from the sensible fountain of Jacob. Moreover, when the Lord said: *The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world*, when the Jews were quarreling among themselves, saying: *How can this man give us his flesh to eat?* we demonstrated that those who were listening were not so stupid as to suppose that he who was speaking was inviting his hearers to come and eat his flesh. And it is B certainly consistent that the Jews spoke the words we are now examining: *Abraham is dead, and the prophets*, having learned in what manner sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. They also saw that death reigned over those who had sinned after the likeness of the transgression of Adam, and they had discourse concerning the death which passed upon all men through sin, for that all have sinned. Being instructed in these things, however, they did not know the words of Jesus, because they did not accept what follows; C namely, that *not as the trespass, so also is the free gift*. But they could not even reason that *if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound unto the many*. Nor did they understand how the gift is not similar to the death which was through the one who sinned; for they had not been instructed that the gift from many trespasses came to be for justification. But they did not even see that those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. And while they D pondered the death of Abraham and the prophets, hearing that even Samuel, as if existing beneath the earth through death, had been raised up by the ventriloquist—who, when she thought that gods were somewhere below the earth, said: *I saw gods ascending out of the earth*—they did not, however, perceive the life of Abraham and the prophets, nor even that God was the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, not the God of the dead, but of the living; and as if suspecting that the prophets were dead, they built their sepulcres; and for this reason also, wretched that they were, they
A lived on, to see death no more; for from that time, when he saw the day of Jesus, he exulted and rejoiced. And I think that for this reason also the Savior, when they had said, "Abraham is dead," immediately added, teaching them that Abraham lived: "Abraham your father exulted that he might see my day, and he saw it, and rejoiced" (John viii, 56). But if anyone does not wish for the matters regarding Abraham to be thus, let him tell us first whether one who has seen the day of our Savior, and has exulted and rejoiced at this, [sees death; or whether he who has seen the day of our Savior, and has exulted and rejoiced], having been deemed worthy of such a vision, as one worthy of it, is subsequently deprived of the thing he had seen. For if each of these is absurd, since Abraham saw the day of Jesus, and together with the seeing he also heard his word and kept it, and sees death no more; then the Jews did not speak correctly when they said, "Abraham is dead," as though he were still even then in death. B You will say the same also concerning the prophets; for if God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, and as he is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob (Matt. xxii, 32), thus also he is the God of the remaining prophets, then the prophets also live. For they indeed kept the word of the Son of God, when the word of the Lord came to Hosea (Os. i, 1), or the word came to Jeremiah (Jer. xiv, 1), or the word came to Isaiah (Isa. ii, 1); for no other word came to any of these than that Word which was in the beginning with God (John i, 2), the Son of God himself, the Word of God; and the prophets first of all kept him, if anyone did, and from whom they received the word, death they saw no longer. Likewise, therefore, it is false that "Now we have known that you have a demon" (John viii, 52), even as that which the Jews said: "Abraham is dead, and the prophets." For neither had they recognized that he who commanded the demons had a demon; for no one knows what does not exist; nor were Abraham and the prophets any longer in death, when the C Jews said, "Abraham is dead, and the prophets."
After this we inquire why it is that, when the Savior had spoken regarding everyone who keeps his word, that "He shall not see death forever," the Jews—after those things which we have previously examined—ought to have answered contextually to the words, "He shall not see death forever," and said: "And you say: If anyone shall have kept my word, he shall not see death forever." But they do not do this, but answer what was not said by the Savior; for he did not say: "If anyone shall have kept my word, he shall not taste death forever," which these people allege as having been said by our Lord. And see if, because there is a difference between seeing death and tasting death, the one D is not also to be treated just as the other.
A Since it has been said by the other evangelists regarding not tasting death B towards those standing near Jesus, until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom—Matthew saying: "Amen, amen I say to you, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"; and Mark: "Amen, amen I say to you that there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God having come in power"; and Luke: "Truly there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His glory." For just as in the body there are different senses, taste and sight, so according to the divine senses spoken of by Solomon, one power of the soul would be that of seeing and contemplating, and another would be that of tasting and perceiving the quality of those foods which are discerned by the mind. And since the Lord is, insofar as He is the living bread which descended from heaven, C tasteable, being nourishing to the soul, and insofar as He is wisdom, He is visible, of whose beauty he who says: "I became a lover of her beauty" confesses himself to be a lover; and He instructs us: "Love her, and she will guard you"; for this reason it is said in the Psalms: "Taste and see that the Lord is sweet." And as the Lord falls under taste and under sight, so also His adversary death falls under taste and under sight. That death falls under taste is taught by: "There are some standing here who shall not taste death," and the things that follow; but that it also falls under sight is taught by: "If anyone shall keep my word, he shall not see death forever." Hence he tastes death, and does not merely taste, but is even filled as with food by death, he who utters things contrary to the words of eternal life. There is also a promise that no one standing in the place which is discerned by the mind—which Jesus points out—will taste death. For observe that the three evangelists have said alike: "There are some standing here," or "There are some who stood here," concerning whom they also wrote that they would not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, or in His glory, or until they saw the kingdom of God having come in power. D And since, as it is possible for the one who stands to fall, it has been said: "He who thinks he stands, let him see that he does not fall," for this reason it was written not of all who are standing, but of some: "Amen I say to you, there are some standing here." Thus, someone standing does not taste death, while he preserves that standing; but he who has received the word and keeps it, shall not see death. Wherefore, if there is a certain difference between tasting death and seeing death, the Jews, as listeners who understood little and confounded the Lord's word, for the saying "He shall not see death," have said "He shall not taste death," falling by the word into a worse sense. You will also inquire whether, just as we say to see death and to taste death, so it might also be in the other senses, whether to hear death, or to smell
death, or to touch death. For if the hands of the apostles touched the Word of life, did the hands of the false apostles and deceitful workers, who transform themselves into angels of justice, touch the word of death? And if the sheep of Christ hear His voice, perhaps His sheep that are not His, to whom He might say, "You are not of my sheep," hear the voice of death. See if there is not an odor of death in those wounds that come from sin, concerning which it is said: "My wounds have stank and are corrupted." And there is the odor of death in Lazarus before he rose from the dead, an odor which the apostles, not wishing to smell, said to the Savior: "Lord, he already stinks; for he is four days dead." But regarding the intelligible odor of death or the odor of life, one must observe the apostolic word that says: "We are the good odor of Christ to God in every place, in those who are being saved and in those who are perishing; to some an odor of death unto death, but to others an odor of life unto life." For the people who are in Christ are indeed a good odor of Christ in every place, and by no means a bad odor. But since, just as a physical good odor is said to destroy certain animals, so too, because of a preceding vice, the good odor of Christ may become to some who are of death unto their own death, while to others it results in life. These things seemed to us to be adjacent to the discussion about tasting death, and about seeing or not seeing death. After this, B not seeing how much Christ excels the patriarchs and the prophets, and not even believing that Christ is He who teaches such and so great things, they are perplexed and say: "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?" But they do not see that He who was born of the Virgin is greater not only than Abraham himself, but also than whoever is born of women; and likewise, He is greater than all the prophets, having been prophesied by them; and He is greater than all who have died, because He has given life to them—not that He made Himself such, but that He received it from the Father. For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He also gave to the Son to have life in Himself, with the Son being unable to do anything of Himself, and not seeking to do His own will, but the will of Him who sent Him. And the saying, "Whom do you make yourself?" was the voice of those who did not perceive that Jesus had not made Himself what He is; for which reason it seems to me that He answers this by teaching who had made Him what He was: "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is the Father who glorifies me." And here let these things find an end, as the twentieth C tome of the explanations of the Gospel according to John has received a sufficient circumscription, so that, God revealing to us what remains, we may consider them in the following tome, continuing.
after those words: *Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing.*
The twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-seventh tomes are missing.
ORIGEN'S EXPLANATORY COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN TOME XXVIII
ORIGENIS COMMENTARIORUM IN EVANGELIUM SECUNDUM JOANNEM TOMUS VICESIMUS OCTAVUS
A 1. Those who investigate the natures of numbers have B defined the first perfect number as six, which consists of its own parts, specifically from the collection of those doubled from unity—that is, one and two (three is a prime number 55)—and from that at which the doubling arrived, I mean the two; for when two is multiplied by three, it makes six. They say the second perfect number is twenty-eight, consisting of the sum of those doubled from unity until a prime number is reached, and of that at which the doubling ended; for four is the number doubled from unity in this manner: one, two, four. The sum of these is seven, which is itself a prime number measured only by unity. When four is multiplied by seven, it produces the number twenty-eight, which is also equal to its own parts. For this reason, C I believe Moses, who was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians 56, is here referred to in the passage from Eustathius of Antioch, in which he brings forward a fragment taken from Origen’s Commentaries on John, and indeed from those tomes which are missing here. Thus he writes in his book *On the Engastrimythus*: D "To these [points], while he contemplates the act of stoning, he no less desperately lies concerning the evangelical words, attempting to lead even that into another meaning as if it were done by tropes. 'Although,' he says, 'we have searched much, we have not yet found in what is written that the Jews snatched up stones to throw at him.' And having added a few things: 'For if they took them up again, they had taken them up before': he wants it to be understood both in the prior and subsequent parts that nothing of the sort had preceded, so as to prove that they took up words, not stones, incorrectly against him. But concerning the number six, which is here called perfect, Origen speaks thus on Psalm 66:2 in the Catena Corderiana: 'The number six is perfect.' And on Matthew 10:1 in the Catena Possiniana: 'Greater than tome 1 in John, no. 23,' [and] *Arithmetica*: 'Primes are those which only unity measures: of this kind are three, five, seven (for we can measure them only by unity) and those like them.' So Origen a little later: 'The sum of these is seven, itself a prime number measured by unity.' *Egyptians.*"
A Migne’s translation of Moses’ construction of the tabernacle of testimony: for the curtains are twenty-eight cubits in length; 6 and it was fitting that the tabernacle of the testimony, which was being constructed for the glory of God, should also contain the twenty-eighth [number] among its special numbers. Having reached this number, holy brother Ambrose (for, God willing, this will be the twenty-eighth volume of the explanations on the Gospel according to John), we invoke God, who is perfect and the provider of perfection, through our great high priest Jesus Christ, that He may grant us our mind to find the truth, the construction of the matters to be examined, and thus proceed to what follows.
2. B ‘Jesus says, “Take away the stone.”’ For since here Jesus Himself does not take away the stone placed upon the cave, but says, ‘Take away the stone,’ while in Genesis, when there was a large stone at the mouth of the well, and all the flocks were gathered there, and they rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and gathered them, and gave the sheep to drink, and replaced the stone upon the mouth of the well in its place—and since this had not yet been done, because the cattle had not yet been gathered, Jacob, having seen Rachel the daughter of Laban, his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother, approaching himself, rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and gave the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother, to drink. We wish to compare both stones with each other, C so that we may understand the reasonableness of why in this place Jesus Himself did not lift the stone from the cave, but said, ‘Take away the stone,’ whereas in Genesis Jacob Himself rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well. And observe if we can say that because the stone was on the cave, since the cave was a tomb, it was not fitting for Jesus to touch it, but only to command those who were suitable for the task to take the stone away; but it is right that Jacob himself should lay hold of the stone placed at the mouth of the well, which was preventing the sheep from drinking—from which the prominent ones and the portion of Jacob were to be benefited—and having approached the stone, to roll it away from the mouth of the well, D so that the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother, might be given to drink. And indeed, it was necessary for Jacob to approach the well, but for Jesus to stand outside the cave. But see if you can discern why the stone placed on the cave is not rolled away, but taken away; whereas from the well it is not taken away entirely, but only rolled away. It was necessary for the stone to be taken from the tomb entirely, and not be rolled back again; whereas the stone from the well had only to be rolled away, for it has been said previously that it...
A of the glory of God, realizing the greatness of the faith which is reckoned unto righteousness, let us believe. And if anyone has not yet seen the glory of God among those who think they have believed, let him learn that he is convicted, from the fact that because he has not yet seen the glory of God, he has not believed; for He who is truth does not lie, when He says, not only to Martha, but to everyone: "If you believe, you will see the glory of God."
3. "They took away the stone then." The delay in lifting the stone placed upon the tomb from the sister of the deceased occurred; for it was as if she hindered those whom Jesus had commanded, saying, "Take away the stone," by saying, "He already stinks, for he has been dead four days." And if the unbelief of Martha had not been a hindrance, through the Lord saying to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?", those who heard "Take away the stone" would not have B taken away the stone. For consider hypothetically: if, when Jesus said, "Take away the stone," the sister of the deceased had not answered and had not said, "He already stinks, for he has been dead four days," what then would have followed to be written, than what Jesus says: "Take away the stone," and "They took away the stone"? But as it is, between the words "Take away the stone" and "They took away the stone," the things said by the sister of the deceased hindered the stone from being taken away. And not even at all, even if it were late, would it have been taken away, had not Jesus, answering her unbelief, said: "Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?"
Wherefore it is good, when the Lord commands anything to anyone, that he should interpose nothing between His command and the fulfillment of the work; and I think it fitting for such a person to say that he has become an imitator of Christ. For as to Him "God spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created," so to the faithful C Christ spoke, and he has done it; and He commands, and he (the faithful) carries out the command of God, fulfilling the commandment, interposing nothing, nor harming himself by disobedience during the time between the command and the work. For we must believe that the time which some interpose, doing the commandments afterwards, is a time of disobedience to the commandment. For this same reason, the one in the parable of the Gospel who is ordered by his father to go into the field and work, because he did not do it immediately, but went later when moved by repentance, did not do the will of his father during the time which intervened before repentance moved him. Wherefore we must be mindful of the saying: "Do not delay to turn to the Lord, and do not put it off from day to day," and of the saying: "Do not say: Go and return, and tomorrow I will give, when you are able to do D good." Therefore we must consider it a condemnation of the
A accusation of Martha, that it was written later: "They have taken away the stone," when otherwise the situation demanded, as when Jesus had said, "Take away the stone," that what followed should be, "They took away the stone."
4. "And Jesus raised His eyes upward, and said" B — the things that are recorded. Regarding the eyes of Jesus and their stance toward certain people, a diligent observation and inquiry must be applied. For example, in the Gospel of Luke, when He was about to pronounce the beatitudes and the teaching conjoined with them, raising His eyes to His disciples, He said: "But now He raised His eyes upward, and said..." We are cautioned by the first statement that His disciples were not "down below," for which reason the Master's eyes are raised to those toward whom it was worthy that He Himself should lift His eyes. But regarding this which we are now examining, we are taught that Jesus transferred human understanding from the custom it had with those who were living "down below," and elevated and exalted it, lifting it up through prayer to the Father who is above all things existing.
Furthermore, even Paul and those similar to him, since he is an imitator of Christ, in the example and imitation of the prayer of Christ ought, when about to pray, necessarily to lift the eyes of the soul upward and lead them away from present things—namely, from memory, from considerations, and from thoughts—and thus say to God the words of prayer that are great, and heavenly, concerning things C great and super-heavenly. But if anyone were to object by citing the publican, who did not even wish to lift his eyes, and who struck his breast, saying: "God, be merciful to me a sinner," it must be answered to him that, just as sorrow according to God—which works repentance unto salvation not to be repented of—is not to be assumed by all nor at all times, but only by him, and by everyone who has committed something worthy of such sorrow, and has understood greatly regarding it; and it should be assumed with measure and not beyond that (so that one may not be swallowed up by greater sorrow by Satan), so perhaps it is not proper that all should always wish to lift their eyes, just as it is not fitting to always stand afar off. But let each man judge and prove himself regarding matters of this kind, and thus not only eat of that bread and drink of that cup, but let him also lift his eyes, D raising them upward in accordance with prayer, subjecting himself to God, and humbling himself to Him. But if we think that it is proper for anyone living in whatever manner to wish, like the publican, not to lift his eyes, the time has come to say that, like the one not wishing to lift his eyes, he ought also to stand afar off from the temple. And what would that temple be, if not the Church of the living God? Which is also called the house of God by Paul, when he says: "But if I am delayed, that you may know how it is necessary to conduct oneself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation">
of the truth." A Just as it is not fitting for everyone to partake of the bread, and not to drink of the cup, and not to be far from the house of God and the Church; so it is not fitting for everyone to be unwilling to lift up their eyes. But one sins if, when it is fitting for him to lift up his eyes, he does not lift them; and he sins likewise if, when it is not fitting for him to lift them up, he does lift them. Now, accordingly, the tax collector in the Gospel B was not even willing to lift up his eyes, acting fittingly; yet the disciple of Jesus who is present, to whom the commandment is also given saying: "Lift up your eyes, and look at the regions, for they are already white for harvest," would reasonably lift them up. And the prophet also says: "Lift up your eyes to the height." But also in the one hundred and twenty-second Psalm, which is the fourth of the Songs of Ascents, as one who fittingly lifted up his eyes to God, the Prophet says: "To you I have lifted up my eyes, O you who dwell in heaven. Behold, as the eyes of servants are to the hands of their masters, as the eyes of a maidservant to the hands of her mistress, so are our eyes to the Lord our God, until he has mercy upon us."
But if it is necessary to teach more clearly who it is fitting for to imitate Jesus, lifting up his eyes on high while he himself also lifts up his eyes, and for whom this is not fitting [and who] should, in imitation of the tax collector, not only stand far from the temple, but also not wish to lift up his eyes, we shall bring forward from Daniel what is written concerning the lawless elders who desired Susanna, which in this manner C has it: "And they turned away their own mind, and turned aside their eyes, so as not to look toward heaven, nor to remember righteous judgments." And we shall bring into the middle what is written concerning Susanna, spoken in this way: "But she, weeping, looked up to heaven, because her heart was trusting in the Lord." Observe then, in these passages, that those who had turned away their mind turned aside their eyes so as not to look toward heaven; but she, trusting in the Lord, consequently to the trust she had in the Lord, looked up to heaven. It was fitting, therefore, for the woman, being about to pray with the boldness of chastity, to look up to heaven and to lift her eyes on high; but for the elders, if one were to suppose that after turning away their mind and turning aside their eyes so as not to look toward heaven, nor to remember righteous judgments, they had repented, having made an attempt D upon the woman but not having obtained what they desired, and after this were praying, it would not be fitting for them to wish to lift up their eyes, but rather to stand afar off just like the tax collector, and to strike their own breasts, and to say: "God, be merciful to me, a sinner." But of the one who lifts up his eyes on high, and lifts them fittingly toward heaven, it would be the duty to lift up holy hands as well, especially when he sends forth a prayer without anger and disputations. For thus, with our own eyes also lifted up through thought and contemplation, and with our very hands indeed lifted up
A by actions that lift up and exalt the soul, in the manner of Moses who so lifted his hands that he could even say, "The lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice," B the Amalekites and all the invisible enemies will be defeated; but the Israelites within us, our thoughts, will conquer. So much also for, "Jesus lifted up his eyes above, and said," C in accordance with what has appeared logical to us.
5. "Father, I thank you, that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me; but for the sake of the crowd standing around I said it, so that they may believe that you sent me." If to worthy men living in the flesh, but not warring according to the flesh, such a promise is said by God concerning their prayer: "And while you are still speaking, I will say: Behold, I am here," what must one think concerning the Savior and Lord? Is it not this: "Before you speak, I will say: Behold, I am here"? For at the same time he "lifted up his eyes above, and said." What did he say? If it be possible as in such matters to conjecture, it follows from the saying, "Before you speak, I will say: Behold, I am here," so that what is said to the Savior might be greater than what was written in the promise which is to the saints, namely: "While you are still speaking, I will say: Behold, I am here." What, then, did he say? He had proposed to offer a prayer; but since He who had said to him, "Before you speak, I will say: Behold, I am here," had forestalled his prayer, instead of the prayer which was to have been offered according to his intention, he speaks the thanksgiving for that which had anticipated the prayer. And as if he had been heard for what he had only pondered in his mind, yet had not brought forth in prayer, he says: D "Father, I thank you, that you have heard me." He was therefore about to pray for the resurrection of Lazarus, and God, the only good Father, anticipating his prayer, heard what was to be said in the prayer, for which, in the hearing of the crowd surrounding him, the Savior sends up thanksgiving instead of prayer, doing two things at once: giving thanks for what he had attained concerning Lazarus, and confirming the crowd standing around him; for he wished them to accept that he had indeed been sent by God and had come into this life. He knew that he had been heard, since he saw in the Spirit that the soul of Lazarus had been restored to his body, having been sent back from the place of souls. For it is not to be thought that the soul of Lazarus was present to the body after his departure, and that as if present it quickly heard Jesus calling and saying: "Lazarus, come forth." Or if anyone supposes this concerning the soul of Lazarus, and admits the absurdity regarding the soul released from the body—as if it were sitting by the dead—let him say how Jesus was heard by the Father, while the body of Lazarus was still dead, and the soul separated, as one might think, and...
as some who assert this would say; yet, while the body remained, A he was sitting by it. For even if this be granted, we cannot say that Jesus was heard—if indeed he was the One who was to be heard—because the soul was inhabiting the body. I think a similar thing happened when He raised the daughter of the archisynagogus 78; for He prayed concerning this, since He asked for the soul to return and dwell again in the body. Whether the same is true or not regarding the son of the widow 79 who was being carried out, you yourself shall inquire, so that you may find the consistency of all these passages; for it is not fitting for us to make such lengthy digressions. Perhaps Jesus—being Who He was (73)—also saw the soul of Lazarus itself, either being led by those appointed for these things, or by the Fatherly will itself which had heard Jesus. And seeing it entering through the place from which the stone was removed, He said: B "Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me." But since before this He had asked for other countless things and had obtained them, for this reason He gives thanks not only for Lazarus, but also for those former things, saying, in the case of Lazarus: "Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me," and regarding the former things: "But I knew that Thou hearest me always; and I said all this," He says, "on account of the crowd standing around, that they may believe that Thou didst send me." These things we have interpreted as addressed to the literal sense and the resurrection of Lazarus. The spiritual interpretation C of the place, derived from what was previously established, is not difficult; for He asked regarding...
On the souls of the dead
The Lord cried out with power, and for this reason, to stop the mouths of the Greeks who invent fables that the soul is in the tomb. Stephanus Gobarus the Tritheite, in Photius, cod. CCXXXI, among the questions debated on both sides, which are almost entirely based on Origenist dogmas, sets forth this one: "That after death the soul is neither separated from the body nor the tomb. And from the opposite, that the soul does not remain with the body, nor at the tomb."
"But it is heavy, O friend, and burdensome, and earthy, and visible, which such a soul, having, is weighed down and pulled back again into the visible place, through fear of the invisible and Hades, as it is said, wandering around memorials and tombs; around which indeed D some shadowy phantoms of souls have been seen, such as those souls provide which have not been purely released, but partake of the visible; therefore they are seen. 'It is likely, O Socrates, it is likely indeed, O Cebes; and these are not the souls of the good, but of the wicked, which are compelled to wander around such places, paying the penalty for their former education, for it was evil.'" Hence Origen, *Contra Celsum*, book VII, no. 5: "But if it is believed not only among Christians and Jews, but also among many others of the Greeks and barbarians, that the human soul lives and exists after its separation from the body... but the wicked soul, dragged down by sins toward the earth, and not even able to take a breath, is carried hither and wanders around, some around the tombs, where even shadowy phantoms of souls have been seen."
The ancient poets believed that the souls of all men, both good and bad, follow their bodies after death. Virgil, *Aeneid* IV: *Do you believe that these ashes and the silent Manes care for the buried?* Item: *Nor can the ashes and Manes of my father Anchises be disturbed.* Ovid, *Fasti* II: *Thrice she said farewell, and thrice she pressed the ashes brought to her lips, and to her the sister seemed to lie beneath them.* Propertius, book IV, eleg. 5: *Nor do the Manes sit by the ash, and may the avenging Cerberus frighten the shameful bones with an empty sound.* Lucan, book VIII: *Why do you obstruct the tomb for Magnus, and enclose the wandering Manes?* And book IX: *Gather the ashes scattered on the shore, and give one urn to the scattered Manes.* Servius on that *Aeneid* III: *We bury.* He writes that the soul remains subject to the body as long as the body lasts; and that the Egyptians, skilled in wisdom, for this reason kept bodies preserved for a long time, so that the soul might not quickly pass to other things. [Hestius.]
A As far as the resurrection is concerned, this is enough. But the anagogical sense of this passage, from what we have explained, is not difficult. For Jesus asked that he who had sinned after the friendship he had held towards Him, and had become dead to God, should by divine power return again to life; and having obtained his request, he saw the vital movements in such a man, for which he gives thanks to the Father. Around such a dead man stood the crowd, not yet believing that Jesus had been sent by God, and that this Word had come down to men from God. B And surely this crowd, standing around, should marvel that one who had become so offensive because of sins leading to death, and who had died to virtue, should have returned to it; and having marveled, might one day believe in the Word who quickened him, as having come down to men from God.
6.
Commentary on John, Tomus XXVIII
*John XI, 43.* And when he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth! And he who had been dead came forth, his hands and feet bound with burial bands; and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus says to them: Loose him, and let him go. B Jesus, when he was about to pray, had lifted his eyes, and had been heard, and in place of a prayer he gave thanks because he had diligently perceived that the soul of Lazarus had entered the body, and was in need of the strength that was to come upon it from the command of Jesus for coming out of the tomb. Therefore, after giving thanks to the Father, he used a loud voice, to put strength into Lazarus, who was in great need of it, as he had not yet become sharp of hearing for the cry calling him out of the tomb. And this, indeed, must be deemed a work worthy of Jesus: not only to pray that the dead man might live, but also to call out to him, and to summon him who was inside the cave and the tomb to come forth. C But it must be known that there are even now some Lazaruses who, after their friendship with Jesus, have fallen ill and died, and have remained in the grave and in the land of the dead as dead among the dead; and after this, by the prayer of Jesus, they are quickened, and are called from the tomb to the outside by the great voice of Jesus; he who obeys this comes forth, encompassed by the bonds of death worthy of his former sins, and with his face still bound, neither seeing, nor C able to walk, nor able to perform any function on account of... D ...calling him out from the tomb with authority, and having restored life to bodies swollen by the emission of the word, while leaving all these things in silence, he transferred his remarks to Lazarus, the friend of the Lord, whom he did not love without reason on account of his virtue, as one laboring in sins and dead. No one has either said or committed to writing such things concerning a righteous man; for the Lord would not have followed him with such powerful love, unless the way of life which he professed had been divine. In this matter, indeed, as often in others, Eustathius unworthily criticizes Origen; for although he taught that by Lazarus a man laboring in sins is signified, he did not thereby intend that Lazarus had labored in sins, just as one who would have said that the bronze serpent set forth by Moses in the wilderness for the Israelites was a type of Christ, would not therefore have said that the bronze serpent itself was Christ. And these things are considered in the Origeniana. HUETIUS.A from the bonds of mortality, until Jesus commands those who are able to unbind him to let him go free. And let everyone who is able to say, "Do you seek proof of Christ speaking in me?" [A Cor. XIII, 3] attempt to become such a person, so that for him Christ may cry out with a loud voice B to him who, though he had died, had indeed called out—but not sharply, and for that reason had need of the cry of Jesus—the words: "Lazarus, come out." And consider him to be in Hades with the shadows and the dead, and in the place of the dead, or in the tombs, who after having received the knowledge of the truth, and having been enlightened, and having tasted the heavenly gift, and having become a partaker of the Holy Spirit, and having tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come [Heb. VI, 4, 5], has apostatized from Christ and has relapsed into the life of the Gentiles. When, therefore, Jesus comes to the tomb of such a one, and standing outside of it prays and is heard, having asked that power be imparted to his voice and his words, he cries out with a loud voice to the things that are outside the life of the Gentiles and their tomb and cave, calling the one who has thus become his friend. C When it is possible for the follower of Jesus to see in what way such a one comes forth indeed because of the voice of Jesus, yet is still bound and constrained by the coils of his own sins; by repentance, and because he has heard the voice of Jesus, he lives; but because he has not yet been loosened from the bonds of sin, nor is he yet able to tread with free feet, nor even to perform freely the things that are excellent, he has his hands and feet bound with the burial-shrouds of the dead. And such a person, because of the mortality existing in him, in addition to the bonds of his hands and feet, also has his face covered and wrapped in ignorance. D Then, because Jesus wished him not only to live, and not to remain any longer in the tomb, when Lazarus had come out of the tomb bound, as was said above, having his face wrapped, and was impeded—insofar as he was bound—from proceeding from the tomb, Jesus says to those who were fit to serve in this duty: "Unbind him and let him go." I think that because he did not approve of the manner of his conversion after he had sinned, and because he was not yet able to live according to that [standard], since the powers of his soul—namely, those of walking, of acting, and of contemplating—were held fast, such a one came forth from the tomb still having his hands and feet bound with burial wrappings, and his face wrapped about with a cloth. But after Jesus Christ, as Lord, said to those able to unbind him, by the command of Christ as Master, "Unbind him and let him go," he was unbound as to his feet.
A from his hands, and having laid aside the covering which had been placed upon his face, he journeys in such a way as to arrive at the place and become one of those reclining with Jesus.
7. After this, regarding the passage: "The dead man came out, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes," we must say that there is a difference between those who have their feet and hands bound; and it is not the same thing to have received the initiation of being bound from the fact of having died—so that even the bonds bear the name of mortality (for now the grave-clothes B are the bonds of the dead)—as to have been bound by the judgment of the Lord, who, having entered to see those reclining at table, and having seen one not wearing a wedding garment, said concerning him: "Bind his feet and hands, and cast him into the outer darkness." Moreover, in this place there is something that requires discernment, in that it is said: "And his face was wrapped about with a napkin," and in that a veil was laid upon the face of Moses when he was speaking to the people. For the napkin placed upon the face of Lazarus covered his deadened senses; but the veil of Moses was placed upon his face by divine economy on account C of those among the people who were not able to behold the glory of his countenance. But you will ask concerning him who was not clothed with a wedding garment, of whom it was said: "Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness," whether he remains bound forever, and in the outer darkness (for the phrase "for ever" or "for ages" is not added), or whether he will ever be released; for it does not appear from the passage concerning him that anything has been written about his future release; and it does not seem safe to me to pronounce upon something that one has not grasped, especially when it is not expressed in the scriptures. You will further ask, in that Jesus says to them, "Unbind him," D who these "them" are to whom he said this; for it is not written that he said it to the disciples, nor to the standing crowd, nor even to the Jews who were with Mary and consoling her; but perhaps someone, because of the context: "Angels approached and ministered to him," and because of the anagogical sense of this passage, will suspect that it may seem to have been said to them: "Unbind him, and let him go."
8. I still ask whether Jesus fulfilled this saying: "But I go, that I may awaken him out of sleep," and what is added to it: "Lazarus our friend sleeps." I look into whether it happened that this saying was fulfilled: "I go, that I may awaken him," when Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said: "Lazarus, come out"; for a great voice and a shout may not absurdly be said to have awakened him. I also look into whether you could claim that this was here more fully realized: "I go, that I may awaken him," rather than in the hearing of the prayer of the Son...
for one might say that the Father, having heard the Son praying, raised Lazarus from the dead, while He who said with a great voice and cried out, "Lazarus, come forth," fulfilled what He had previously promised: "But I go, that I may awaken him." A And he who seeks to establish a distinction, giving a different meaning to "Lazarus our friend sleeps" and "Lazarus is dead," will say that in relation to the word "sleeps," He promised by saying, "But I go, that I may awaken him," whereas in relation to "is dead," He did not add, "I go, that I may raise him from the dead." But he who resolves the discrepancy which seems to exist in these things, and declares that the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead was a common work of the Son who prayed and the Father who heard, will make use of the testimony of the Lord speaking to Martha: "I am the resurrection and the life"; and he will also add that: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will."
9. "Many therefore of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what Jesus had done, believed in Him." B And who, indeed, would not be moved to believe the preaching of Jesus? And truly, as if from the deadness and stench of those who are utterly drowned in wickedness, by an extreme change those having cast off by the command and cooperation of the Word not only the great stench contracted from sin, but also the bonds holding fast the power of the soul to walk and to act, and furthermore the power to contemplate; who, I ask, would not have been moved by these things to believe, and even to truly believe, the preaching of Jesus? For those who were struck with amazement, who had glorified themselves for having applied great diligence to be exercised in the Word of God, yet had not grasped C its fullness, believed having seen that Jesus could do so much in such matters; and especially were they likely to believe who, on account of the dead and entirely desperate man—whom they themselves also held to be beyond hope—had come to Mary for the sake of duty, as she was weeping over her brother’s misfortune; for it was for their sake, rather than for his who had died, that when He came to the tomb of the deceased, He "lifted up His eyes and said, 'Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me; for I knew that Thou hearest Me always.'" D For that it was for their sake more than for Lazarus’s that He uttered this thanksgiving to the Father is evident from the words: "But for the sake of the people who stand around I said it, that they might believe that Thou didst send Me." He therefore concerned Himself with Lazarus for the sake of the crowd standing around, so that many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen what Jesus had done, might believe in Him.
10. Hear also concerning these things, not only corporally. "But some of them went to the Pharisees, and told them what Jesus had done."
A This passage has a certain ambiguity: whether those who went off to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done were from the multitude of the Jews who had seen what He did and believed in Him, doing this in order to influence even those who were hostily disposed toward Jesus by announcing what had happened to Lazarus; or whether they were others, distinct from those many who had believed, as though they were not moved by the event to believe in Jesus; but rather, as far as they were concerned, they were arousing the evil zeal against Jesus that was within the Pharisees by means of the account of Lazarus.
And this second interpretation seems to me to be what the Evangelist intended, for which reason it is subjoined: "The chief priests and the Pharisees therefore gathered a council," and what follows. B While he says "many" were those who believed because of having seen the things concerning Lazarus, he speaks of those who were not so disposed as a smaller number, saying: "But some of them went away," and so forth.
Do you also pay attention to what I am about to say, to see if it can move us toward consent; since it is not said: "Many, therefore, of the Jews who had come to Mary and seen what He did, believed in Him," but it is written: "Many, therefore, of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen what He did, believed in Him." C And particularly, I am moved by the anagoge: might it be that all who beheld—that is, who looked upon and understood what Jesus did—believed in Him? But those who went off to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done, since they are not testified to have "beheld," perhaps they did not possess that which is spoken of in praise regarding those who believed, namely, the word: "They beheld." For it could have been written, if these had also "beheld," that "some of them went off to the Pharisees, and told them what they had beheld Jesus having done," or "what they had beheld and what Jesus had done." D Yet, as it stands, the word "beheld" is used not at all for these people; whereas for those who believed—who had also come to Mary and beheld what Jesus had done—it is, for whose sake, I suppose, He also said: "But because of the crowd standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me."
At the same time, also observe concerning this: if you are able to say that only those who came to Mary, and beheld what Jesus had done, and believed in Him—since they were many—were the crowd standing around Jesus for whose sake He said: "Father, I thank You that You heard Me; and I knew that You always hear Me." For if He said these things because of the crowd standing around so that they might believe that the Father sent Him, and saying this for this reason, so that the crowd standing around might believe—there would not have been, if anyone of them did not believe, those who believed in the Father.
But I said it for the sake of the crowd standing around, that they might believe that thou didst send me.” A Observe, therefore, whether perhaps those who came to Mary, and had contemplated what he had done, and believed in him, were the only crowd standing around Jesus; while the others had neither contemplated the things he had done, nor had they been standing around him.
11. “The chief priests and the Pharisees therefore gathered a council, and were saying: What are we doing, because this man does many signs? If we let him go on like this, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and take away both our B place and our nation.” Concerning the text, the Pharisees and the chief priests saw that, because of the magnitude of the wonders and the powers which Jesus had wrought, it was possible for the entire Jewish people to be led over into faith in him, and, once led over, to despise the bodily, Levitical, and priestly worship of that place; C so that such a matter might become a pretext—since the Jews were not caring for the place—for it to come under the Romans by the Savior, both the place mentioned, as highly esteemed by them, and the entire nation of the Jews, not wishing in any way to maintain the confession that they were Jews themselves. Furthermore, since they preferred the divine worship, and the place, and the multitude of the nation to all things—which were deemed to be of greater importance than these—for this reason they plot against Jesus, that they might not let him live. And I think they spoke in a similar way, “this man,” as if to destroy his glory; for they did not believe those things which he had said above, namely, that he himself was God, when they wanted to stone him as for blasphemy, D saying to him: “You, being a man, make yourself God,” when he had also responded according to his own kindness, teaching that everyone to whom the word of God came is called God by God; since the prophetic Scripture which declares this cannot be broken or dissolved. It is also possible, from those things which the Pharisees and the chief priests said, to perceive both the manifest and the blind character of their malice; manifest, in that they testified to him that he had also done many signs, and that it was possible to set snares for one who had performed so many signs, as though being able to do nothing on his own behalf in the setting of the snares; but it was blind, no less, and this very thing: for according to the one performing many signs, it was also better to be able to overcome the snares of those who were not willing to let him go. Unless, perhaps, they believed that he performs signs, and likewise suspected them not to be done by divine power, so that for this reason he could not himself do all things, nor deliver himself from their snares. And they
A indeed thought that they would not let Him go, imagining that for this reason they would be a hindrance to those who believed in Him, and that the Romans would come and take away both their place and their nation. But since "the Lord bringeth to naught the counsels of the nations, and setteth aside the devices of the peoples," none the less, although they did not let Him go, and God raised Him up and let Him go, and all nations served Him, the Romans came and took away their place (for where is that which they call the sanctuary?) and they even took away their nation, casting them out of that place, and scarcely permitting them to remain where they wish, even in their dispersion.
But if we must be bold enough to pass to the anagogical sense of these words, we shall say that the nations have received the place of those of the circumcision, because "by their fall salvation came to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy," and that the Romans were taken for the Gentiles, being named as those ruled from those who rule; and the nation was taken away by those who were from the nations; for the people became no people, and those who were of Israel are no longer Israel; and the seed did not attain to becoming children. The cause of these things was the many signs of Jesus, and that the Father let Him go, having become superior to the plotting of the chief priests and Pharisees who gathered in council against Him.
B The chief priests and all the bodily worship among the Jews, and the Pharisees, and the entire teaching of the Law according to the letter, plot against Jesus, who is the Truth, and the type wishes that it might subsist, hindering the manifestation of the truth; and just as the flesh, for this reason, lusts against the spirit. But the Spirit, which lusts against the flesh, is stronger, and the true priesthood of our Savior, and His spiritual teaching, dissolves the council of the chief priests and Pharisees who devise schemes against Him. These things must be thought to occur even now, just as it is possible to see in those who, through the bodily composition of Judaism, wish to dissolve the spiritual teaching of Christ.
12. "And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest of that year, said to them: You know nothing, nor do you reckon that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now he did not say this from himself; but being high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad. For not if any man prophesies is he a prophet. C Caiaphas, therefore, being the high priest of that year, indeed prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad—yet he was not a prophet. But if Balaam also prophesied the things that are in the
A Numbers recorded, saying, "If God should put the word into my mouth, this I will speak," and saying the things from, "He brought me from Mesopotamia," and what follows, it is clear that he was not a prophet; for it is recorded that he was a soothsayer. If, therefore, anyone is a prophet, he certainly prophesies; but if anyone prophesies, he is not necessarily a prophet. It is as if I were saying the same thing regarding another of the better qualities: If anyone is just, he also pursues justice; but it does not follow that if anyone pursues justice, he is just. This is what you will understand by attending to the saying, "You shall pursue justice justly," if the word "justly" was not placed before "you shall pursue justice" in vain; for I think it is possible to pursue justice, but not justly. For those who perform a work good in itself so that they might be glorified by men—for instance, by being beneficent to the poor—have indeed done something just, yet not out of a habit of justice, but out of vainglory. B And in my opinion, analogous to "You shall pursue justice justly," one might say: "You shall pursue that which is modest modestly," and "You shall pursue that which is manly manfully," and "You shall pursue that which is wise wisely," and so on for the remaining virtues. We said these things to compare the soothsayer with the prophet, for while he is similar to him, he is yet not a prophet. For this reason, I think, it is constantly said in the prophecies concerning the prophets: "Jeremiah the prophet said," and if there is anything similar to this. Those who are skilled in the power of names say that if anyone performs something medical, or anything that contributes to health, that person is not necessarily a physician; neither, if someone has done something related to the art of building, is he a house-builder. From the things recorded concerning Caiaphas, C who prophesied concerning the Savior, we can say that even a wicked soul may sometimes receive the gift of prophecy; for the wickedness of Caiaphas is accused by the evangelists—he who was the high priest of that year when our Savior performed the economy of His suffering for the sake of men. For Matthew says: "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, 'What are you willing to give me, and I will deliver Him to you?' And they appointed to him thirty pieces of silver." And after a little, "Behold," he says, "Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people." Now, in these chief priests we understand Caiaphas also to be included, D since it is testified that he was the high priest of that year. Clearly, after these things, Matthew says: "But they, having seized Jesus, led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together;" and after a little he adds:
A "The chief priests and the council sought false testimony against Jesus, to put Him to death, but they found none, even though many false witnesses had come forward; at last, however, two false witnesses came forward and said, 'This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'" And the high priest arising said to Him, "Do you answer nothing? What is it that these witness against you?" But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus says to him, "You have said. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his garments, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy; what further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard His blasphemy; what do you think?" But they answering said, "He is deserving of death." Then again after other things: "And when He was accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing." And again after a little: B "But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." Afterwards, after the resurrection of the Savior, as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were going away, "behold, certain of the guard came into the city, and reported to the chief priests all the things that had occurred: and having gathered together with the elders, and taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, Carry the report that His disciples came by night, and stole Him away while we were sleeping; and if this comes to the hearing of the governor, we will persuade him, and make you free from care." And Luke wrote that, "Satan entered into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve, and he went away and talked with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him unto them." Then after a little: C "Jesus, he says, said to those who had come against Him, the chief priests and captains of the temple, and elders: Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs?" and after a little: "Having seized Him, they led Him away, and brought Him into the house of the high priest;" and yet after a little: "The chief priests and scribes stood, vehemently accusing Him;" and again after a little: "When it was day, the council of the people was gathered together, the chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away into their council." D Mark says that "Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, that he might betray Him; and they, when they heard it, were glad and promised to give him money;" and after a little: "While Jesus was still speaking, Judas Iscariot arrives, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the
with them: but when he heard this, they rejoiced, and A promised that they would give him money; and after a few words: « While Jesus was still speaking, Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, approached, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, and scribes, and elders »; and after a few words: « They led Jesus away to the high priest Caiaphas, and all the chief priests, and scribes, and elders gathered to him »; then again after a few words: « The high priest rising asked Jesus, saying: Do you answer nothing? What do these testify against you? But he was silent, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him a second time, saying: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? But Jesus answering says to him: You have said it; I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. But the high priest, having immediately torn his garments [says: What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy.] » Then after a few words: « And in the morning, a council having been formed, the chief priests with the elders, and scribes, and the whole assembly, led Jesus away bound, and delivered him to Pilate. » Then after a few words: « The chief priests accused him of many things, but he answered nothing. » John, however, says: « They lead Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium. » We have set these things forth at some length, so that we might show by the many testimonies of all the evangelists the outpouring B of the wickedness of Caiaphas; and that, contending against Jesus, he nonetheless prophesied. And that he prophesied, John has clearly taught us.
388 13. Concerning whether one who prophesies does so entirely of the Holy Spirit
13. But you will ask whether he who prophesies, prophesies entirely of the Holy Spirit, even if to some it may not seem that this statement demands a question. But how is this not worthy of investigation, if David, after the sin committed against Uriah, fearing lest the Holy Spirit be taken from him, says: « Take not thy Holy Spirit from me »? But if one also admits that: « The Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from foolish thoughts, » C it will clearly seem to show that the Holy Spirit flees from the deceitful soul, even if the Holy Spirit had dwelt in it before it fell into deceit and sin. Thus it is indeed worthy of investigation regarding the Holy Spirit, whether He can also be in a sinful soul, so that some might say that even in sinners themselves there is the Holy Spirit, since « no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit, » yet many sinners are found disposed toward Jesus as if toward their Lord. And perhaps, D since those who sin, having after the attainment of [index: entries preserved]
A the Holy Spirit, would not obtain forgiveness, for this reason it is said regarding those who have sinned before the Holy Spirit: « All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; » but regarding those who have stumbled after obtaining the Holy Spirit: « But whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath no forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. » For he blasphemes in deeds and words of sin against the present Holy Spirit, who sins while He is present in his soul.
Thus, someone will say that what is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews in this manner is also said: « For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. » For pay heed in these words to: « were made partakers of the Holy Ghost. »
But on the contrary, since, even if Caiaphas prophesied, he nevertheless did not have the Holy Spirit in him, it may be said regarding that: « For the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. » And if, indeed, the Holy Spirit was not at all in the apostles before Jesus was glorified, how much more was He not in Caiaphas? But having risen, the Savior breathed on the disciples, B and says to them: « Receive ye the Holy Ghost, » and what follows.
Someone will boldly set forth what is to be said against Caiaphas having prophesied not from the Holy Spirit, yet he will nevertheless say that evil spirits can also bear witness to Jesus, and prophesy about Him, or bear witness to Him, just like the one that says: « I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God; » and those who were beseeching Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss, and saying: « Art thou come to destroy us? »
And in the Acts of the Apostles these things are also written: « And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: the same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. » C Whoever uses these testimonies will therefore say that the speech of the Python spirit is in no way inferior to prophecy, bearing witness to the apostles and urging those who heard to believe as if on the way of salvation being proclaimed.
Since we have also brought forward the things concerning Balaam, pay heed if it can also be said regarding him that he did not speak from God, but from an angel; for he says, D
A "And the angel of God stood in the way to oppose him, and he himself was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. And the ass, seeing the angel of God standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand, the ass turned aside from the way and went into the field. And Balaam struck the ass with his rod to direct her into the way; and the angel of God stood in the furrows of the vineyards, there being a fence on this side, and a fence on that side." Then after a little: "And the ass, seeing the angel of God, crouched down under Balaam." And again after a little: "The angel of God said to him: Why have you struck your ass these three times? Behold, I have come forth to oppose you, because your way is not straight before me. And the ass saw me and turned aside from me these three times; and if she had not turned aside from me B now, I would have killed you, and saved her." And Balaam said to the angel: "Lord, I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing to meet me in the way; and now, if it displeases you, I will return." And the angel of God said to Balaam: "Go with the men; nevertheless, the word that I shall speak to you, this you shall keep to speak." For observe that it is the angel who says: "The word that I shall speak to you, this you shall keep to speak." But you will say that a little later God appeared to Balaam, and Balaam said to Him: "I have prepared the seven altars, and I have brought up a calf and a ram upon the altar. And God put a word into the mouth of Balaam, and said: Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak." And you, pay heed to how both are true, both what is said by the angel, to wit: "Whatever I shall speak to you, this you shall keep to speak," and what is proclaimed by the Scripture, that: "God put a word into the mouth of Balaam, and said." But as for the words, "The Spirit of God came upon him," we have marked them with an obelus, C as we have found neither them nor anything similar to them in the other editions. And again, after a little, it says: "God met Balaam, and put a word into his mouth, and said: Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak." To all these things, one might boldly say that it was also said concerning Saul: "An evil spirit of God was choking him." And, furthermore, when the lying spirit had gone forth, it was in the mouth of all the prophets of Ahab, the Lord saying: "Who shall deceive Ahab?" and the lying spirit going forth and saying: "I will deceive him." These things, then, should be examined in their places, since everyone is able of himself, following these testimonies that we have brought forward, to consider how Caiaphas prophesied. Perhaps even these things D
A should also be said concerning his prophecy, that because he was not holy, even though he prophesied, he did not prophesy by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But as it is worth inquiring how Caiaphas prophesied, so also in the first book of Kings you will inquire how the messengers of Saul, sent against David, and after them Saul himself, prophesied. For it is written: “And it was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is in Avoth in Rama.” And Saul sent messengers to take David, and they saw the assembly of the prophets, and Samuel standing as leader over them; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon the messengers of Saul, and they too prophesied. And it was told to Saul, and he sent other messengers, and they too prophesied. And Saul became angry with wrath and went to Armathaim, and he came as far as the great well, and on the road to Sophem; and he asked and said: “Where are Samuel and David?” And they B said: “Behold, in Avoth in Rama.” And he went from there to Avoth in Rama; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he went on his way, and prophesied, until he came to Avoth in Rama; and he stripped off his clothes, and prophesied before Samuel; and he fell naked all that day, and all the night. Therefore they said: “Is Saul also among the prophets?” And I consider it necessary that these things also were set forth, so that how sinners prophesy might be made clear, and whether they prophesy from the Holy Spirit, or from another power that does not lie, as far as concerns the testifying to the truth. And again, in the first book of Kings C are found the seers of idols, pointing out the matters concerning the ark, and that, when the suckling kine walk on the road to Beth-shemesh, they signify that the plague had been brought upon the Philistines by God. Nor must that which concerns the woman having the spirit of Python and Samuel in these places be passed over in silence, from which Saul learned that on the next day he was to be slain with his sons. But the person who is able to distinguish concerning diverse powers, worse and better, and if there are some in between, and concerning these also, will see the precise meaning in these passages. Again, further, one who wishes to say that Caiaphas prophesied by the force of an evil D power, says that it is no paradox that an evil power has said these things, since the devil is found not to be entirely ignorant that Jesus is the Son of God, as it is written in those things recorded by the evangelists to have been said by him to the Lord. And he will say that there is also a certain malice in the power operating so that these things might be prophesied concerning the Saviour; for its purpose was not to make the hearers faithful, but to stir up the chief priests and the Pharisees, who had gathered in the council
against Jesus, so that they might kill him; an action which was not to be performed by the Holy Spirit.
14. For he who wishes to urge on the hearers—whether it be Caiaphas, or he who supplied him with the power of prophesying—so as to kill Jesus, through the words, "You know nothing, nor do you calculate that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish," does the one who says, "It is expedient for us," which was part of his prophecy, speak the truth or lie? If he speaks the truth, then Caiaphas and those in the council who contend against B Jesus are saved, since Jesus died for the people, and they obtained the benefit; but if it is absurd to say that Caiaphas and those in the council against Jesus are saved and have obtained the benefit because Jesus died, it is clear that it is not the Holy Spirit who is said to have performed these things; for the Holy Spirit does not lie. But he who wishes to say that Caiaphas and the power working in him are speaking the truth when saying, "It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people," will understand this saying, "It is expedient for us," more deeply, on account of the reason for the end, and he will use the testimony: "That by the grace of God," or "apart from God," he might taste death for everyone; and he will attend to the phrase "for everyone," and also to "apart from God, for everyone." He will also use C the phrase: "Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful," and also: "This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," properly understanding the taking away of the sin of the world, and not of a part of it. He who says that the statement, "It is expedient for us that one man should die," is true, will also say that the whole passage is a true prophecy, beginning from: "You know nothing." For the Pharisees and chief priests, who did not know Jesus, knew nothing, since they did not know that he is the truth, and wisdom, and righteousness, and peace—"For he himself is our peace." But these men, knowing nothing, did not even calculate how it was expedient even for them that this one man, in so far as he is human, should die for the people; for Jesus, having died, is human; D wherefore he himself also says: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth." And since he who died is indeed human, but the truth, and wisdom, and peace, and righteousness—concerning whom it is written: "The Word was God"—was not human, that God the Word, and the truth, and wisdom, and righteousness did not die; for the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation, is incapable of death. But this man, purer than all living creatures, died for the people—he who bore our sins and infirmities, since he was able to take upon himself the entire sin of the whole world, to loose it, and consume it, and blot it out; since "he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth," nor did he know sin.
A For this reason, I also think Paul spoke thus: “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin for our sake, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” For when he said he “knew no sin,” he meant that, although he had committed no sin himself, he had taken upon himself the sins of all men; and if one dare to speak more boldly, he had become, much more than his other apostles, the offscouring of the world, and the refuse of all men, according to those who said: “We have become as the offscouring of the world, the refuse of all men until now.”
Now, regarding the fact that often, when certain harsh things prevail among the human race—such as plagues, or harmful winds, or famines—these things are resolved, as if the evil spirit that brought them about were rendered inactive, because someone has given himself for the common salvation, many histories of both Greeks and barbarians are reported, B which do not reject or disapprove of this understanding of ours; whether such things are true or not is not for the present time to examine with precision. Nevertheless, nowhere among the nations, in no history, has it ever been recorded—nor indeed can it be recorded—that there was anyone who took it upon himself to die for the whole world, so that the whole world might be purified by his holiness, being otherwise destined to perish if he did not choose to die for its salvation; for it is the prerogative of Jesus alone, through the cross for the sake of all, to be able to take upon himself and bear with his great power the burden of the sin of all. For he alone was skilled in bearing infirmity, as the prophet Isaiah says, stating: C “A man deeply afflicted, and knowing how to bear infirmity.” And indeed, he “took our sins, and was afflicted for our iniquities,” and the punishment owed to us for the sake of our being disciplined and receiving peace came upon him. For thus I hear these words: “The discipline of our peace was upon him.” And perhaps, since “by his stripes we were healed,” we who have been healed might say, because of the stripes that came upon him from the cross: “But far be it from me to glory, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”
This Jesus the Father delivered up for our sins, and for their sake, “as a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent.” In his humiliation, in which “he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross,” his judgment was taken away; D for thus I understand the text: “In his humiliation his judgment was taken away,” so that the following is the meaning: “In his humiliation his judgment was taken away,” and thus he was led to death for the iniquities of the people of God. Therefore, this one man died for the people, and because of this man, the whole nation did not perish. And consider, if you are able, taking the name of the “people” to refer to those from the circumcision, and that of the “nation” to refer to the rest; for this man died not
only for the people, but also so that the whole nation should not perish; as if he had said, “lest those called a nation among the Jews and all the Gentiles perish.”
15. *His next point is:* “This he did not say of himself.” By this saying, I think we are taught that some things we humans speak of ourselves, with no spirit impelling us to speak, while other things we speak as if some spirit were sounding and suggesting to us the things we say; and even if we are not entirely alienated from them, and do not seem to follow them in an incoherent way, but appear to follow what we say, it is possible that while we follow what we say, we do not follow the intention of what is said. Just as now Caiaphas the high priest did not speak of himself, and did not speak to understand it as a prophecy, and did not accept the prophecy of what was being said. And among Paul there are also certain teachers of the law, “neither understanding what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim. I, 7). But the wise man is not of this sort, of whom that Solomon speaks in Proverbs: “A wise man will understand the things from his own mouth, and on his lips he will bear knowledge” (Prov. XVI, 23). And it is indeed my judgment that a circumstance is sometimes the cause of prophesying, as in the present case it was for Caiaphas, the fact that he was the high priest of that year in which Jesus was to die for the people, that the whole nation might not perish. For since there were other high priests, as is evident from what we have set forth, no one prophesied except the high priest of that year in which Jesus was to suffer. C Likewise, a circumstance caused the messengers of Saul sent to David, and Saul himself, to prophesy; for the very fact that they were seeking David became the cause of the prophecy, though of such a kind as is recorded. Indeed, Balaam also, having taken up his parable, would not have said, “Out of Mesopotamia he brought me” (Num. XXIII, 7), and what follows, had he not seen Israel encamped; and since he always saw a different part of the camp, he was moved by the novelty of the thing seen to speak concerning Israel.
16. Jesus was therefore to die for the nation, which was different from the other dispersed children of God, as it is evident from this saying: “It was to be that Jesus would die not only for the nation, but also that he might gather together into one the children of God who were dispersed” (Joan. XI, 51, 52). But it is now time to inquire who the other children of God, dispersed besides the nations, might be. Concerning these, those who introduce natures will say that those who are in their judgment spiritual are the children of God, not judging all things spiritually. For it is consequent to say this for those who think there are natures, [understanding] D
this term "spiritual" to be contrary to the will of the Apostle, who teaches that: “The spiritual man judges all things, and is judged by no one.” It follows from this that one who does not judge all things is either not spiritual, or not yet spiritual. Furthermore, if anyone is judged by someone, since the spiritual man is judged by no one, he is not spiritual, or is not yet spiritual. But consider whether it is not better to say that one becomes spiritual, though he was not so before, who properly and strictly is already a son of God. Who, then, are the ones now called sons of God, if they are not those who are spiritual according to the judgment of those who introduce these natures? It is time to consider, and see whether you can understand the “children of God who are scattered,” [as being] others than the Gentiles, namely those who were already just in God when these things were spoken; whether the patriarchs who had already departed from this life, or the prophets, or some other elect of God, or even those who were at that time B sound. For as if there were some who were sound and not sick, he says: “Those who are sound have no need of a physician, but those who are sick”; and as if there were some who were righteous, he says: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Jesus, therefore, was to die for the nation, that it might not perish; and for the children of God who were in dispersion, that they might be gathered into one word, and become (48) one flock, one shepherd: when, in my opinion, the prayer of the Savior will be fulfilled, saying: “That I and you (49) may be one, that they also may be one in us.” But if indeed something deeper is to be said about Israel, not by nature but by lineage, concerning whom it is written: “My firstborn son is Israel,” and he himself understands that these are the children of God who are scattered, for whom Jesus was about C to die, that he might gather them into one.
17. “From that day on, therefore, they took counsel, that they might put him to death.” The chief priests and the Pharisees, having gathered a council, and having considered concerning our Savior what they ought to do to him, after Caiaphas the high priest had said the things previously set forth, and being provoked by his words, took counsel that they might put the Lord to death. Wherefore you will ask by what spirit he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation; and whether the Holy Spirit worked even in such a man, and was the author of the counsel against Jesus; or whether it was not that Spirit, but another, capable of speaking even in the D ungodly, and of moving those like himself against Jesus, despite the fact that he saw something toward Jesus, as we have sought above according to our power. And in general, he who wishes to answer that the Holy Spirit appears to be the author
A so that the high priests and Pharisees, moved by the words of Caiaphas, took counsel to kill Jesus, says that such a work is not alien to holiness, since not even Jesus has done anything unworthy of himself, having come into the ruin and resurrection of many nations that were in Israel, and saying: "For judgment I am come into this world, that they who see not may see, and they who see may become blind." For just as we have need of a wise discourse to answer how he who confesses that he has come into this world for judgment has not done anything unworthy of himself, so also is it necessary to speak concerning the matter of the high priests and Pharisees taking counsel from the words of Caiaphas B to kill Jesus. Therefore, concerning that which is said, "For judgment I am come into this world," we have spoken as much as we were able in our commentaries on that passage. But concerning what is presently before us, let it be said that just as those who pervert the holy mind of the Scriptures—which were spoken for the utility of those who seek to be helped by them—toward the worse part, so that they may seem to have a handle to confirm the impious doctrine of those who speak iniquity on high, are slandering them; so also the high priests and Pharisees, not rightly understanding the true prophecy made by Caiaphas concerning our Savior, namely, that it was expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish, but thinking there to be another mind in the will of the counsel of Caiaphas, from that day they took counsel to kill Jesus. C But I say these things following this understanding, that the Holy Spirit is he who prophesied in Caiaphas, not altogether confirming that this is so, but leaving judgment to the readers as to whether it ought to be admitted concerning Caiaphas that he was moved as it were suddenly by the Holy Spirit, but rather leaving it to those who encounter it to judge which opinion ought to be accepted concerning Caiaphas, and how he was moved under the feet of the Spirit.
18. "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but went thence into the country near the desert, into a city which is called Ephraim, and there abode with his disciples." I think that these and similar things were written because the Word wishes to turn us away from leaping too heatedly and thoughtlessly D into the contest of death, in order to give testimony for the truth. For it is indeed honorable, if a contest should arise for confessing Jesus, not to delay the confession and not to hesitate to meet death for the truth: but it is no less honorable than this not to give an occasion to such a great temptation, but in every way to avoid it, not only because the outcome of such a great matter is uncertain to us, but also lest we
B become a cause for others to become greater sinners and more impious—those who are not yet guilty of the deed of shedding our blood, if, in doing what rests with us, we avoid those who plot against us even unto death—but who shall become guilty of a greater and heavier punishment through us, if, loving ourselves and not looking to their sake, we were to deliver them up to committing murder, when no necessity compels us to this. For if even he who has become an occasion of sin to anyone, in that he himself moved the sinner to it, will pay the penalty for the sins committed by some men on his account, how shall he not also pay the penalty who, having the ability to avoid, and not to let that man become a betrayer of a Christian and an insidiator against the divine worship towards Jesus, does not avoid, but rather provokes—even if, so far as promptitude and fortitude are concerned, he is worthy of honor and praise before the God whom he piously worships, and before the Savior whom he has confessed?
That these things were written for our sake, in order that we might have Jesus as an example and become his imitators in such matters, the Scripture shows, saying: "They sought therefore to take him, and no man laid his hand on him, because his hour was not yet come." For as, according to this utterance, no man laid his hand on him, present and not fleeing, because his hour had not yet come, so also if he had not withdrawn at that time when his hour had not yet arrived, they would not have been able to detain him, and in like manner no one would have laid a hand upon him C. Wherefore it is to be understood not only that saying: "If they persecute you in one city, flee into another," and what follows; but also this, that when the chief priests and the Pharisees had consulted together to kill Jesus, the Savior, keeping to what was most reasonable, no longer walked openly among the Jews; but he did not go away into another city full of crowds, but into a certain city situated apart. For it is written: "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence into the country near the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim." And he did not go away there alone, but, so as to give no occasion to those seeking him, he also took his disciples with him, "and there he stayed with his disciples." Such also is that which is written in the Gospel according to Matthew; when, "having heard that John had been delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim." And when he reached the time of being seized, he took care not to suffer this of his own accord, neither to be found in Jerusalem, nor in the temple, where he taught many times, nor in any other such place; "He went forth D with his disciples."
across the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into which he himself entered, and his disciples." A Thus he withdrew at that time, and walked not openly, so that the chief priests and Pharisees, desiring to apprehend him, had need of Judas; because, since he was his disciple, he knew well the places of his withdrawal. Wherefore then "Judas, having received a band and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came thither with lanterns and torches and weapons." Moreover, it is declared in this passage of the Gospel that if he had not desired to be taken, he would not have been held at all; but he was held, since he humbled himself and became obedient to those holding him, even unto the cross. Therefore, when he went forth and said to those who came to the garden: "Whom seek ye?" and they answered him: "Jesus of Nazareth," and he said to them: "I am he," they went backward by his divine power and fell to the ground. Then after this, because B he wished to accept the dispensation and economy through the passion, "he asked them again: Whom seek ye? But they said, Jesus of Nazareth." And after a few words, "the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews took Jesus," in his willingness, "and bound him," he offering himself to the bonds; for if he had not wished to suffer, would he have said again, "I am he," and would so many have gone backward, and would all have fallen to the ground? But just as by such things he teaches us to withdraw in persecutions and in the plots which are laid against us, so also in other places you may find him withdrawing from those things which the world deems good, that by these means he might also teach us to flee from the dignities of the world and the excellencies existing in it. For Jesus, when he once C knew that they were about to come and seize him to make him king, "he withdrew into the mountain," but not with his disciples, but "alone," not providing even an occasion for those who loved him, and who would have wished with the others to make him king, so that he might now become their king in a worldly sense.
19. These things, then, are according to the letter and the teaching from the evangelical scripture concerning withdrawal. But in the anagogical sense, such things might be said: that Jesus formerly walked openly among the Jews, when the word of God was wont to dwell among them through the prophets; for the voice, "Thus saith the Lord," was the open presence of Jesus. But now Jesus no longer walks openly among the Jews, but has gone away from thence, and the word of God is not among the Jews. And having departed thence—that is, from the Jews—he came into the region D near the desert, of which it is said: "Many are the children of the desolate, more than of her who has a husband"; and to whom it is said: "Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not." And there is a city near the desert, Ephraim, to which Jesus came, no longer walking openly among the Jews.
A Ephraim is interpreted as "fruitfulness," the brother of Manasseh, who is the elder of the people who was "from forgetfulness." For after the people "from forgetfulness" had been left behind, the fruitfulness from the nations came to be, when God "turned the rivers" that were in Israel "into a desert, and the outgoings" of the waters that were there "into thirst, and their land" fruitful "into salt, because of the wickedness of them that dwell in it." But "He turned the desert" of the Gentiles "into pools of water, and their" waterless "land into outgoings of water; and He settled there the hungry, and they built a city of habitation," namely the Church; where "they sowed fields," according to the seed which fell upon the good and excellent earth, and which "produced a hundredfold; and they planted vineyards"; for the branches are the disciples of the Lord, who also "produced fruit of produce, and He blessed them, and they were multiplied exceedingly." B Indeed, He did not consider even those who were more irrational than these to be small, He who saves "men and beasts," for it is written: "And their cattle He did not diminish." While the Jews were "diminished, and were afflicted by the tribulation of evils, and pain; and contempt was poured out upon the princes" for the sake of Abraham, "and He caused them to wander in a pathless place, and not in the way," after them God helped the poor people from the nations out of poverty, and settled them "as a flock of families," whom the "angels" shall presently "see, and they shall rejoice, and all iniquity shall close its mouth." To these things, prophetically foretold in the hundred and sixth Psalm, it is added: "Who is wise, and will observe these things, and will understand the mercies of the Lord?" For the Lord showing mercy upon those from the nations, the wise man shall observe these things, understanding the mercies of the Lord. C Therefore, Jesus no longer walks openly among the Jews, but went away from there to the place of the whole world, the Church, "near the desert," namely "into Ephraim," the city which is called the city of fruitfulness, "and there He stayed with His disciples"; and even until now Jesus is with His disciples in the city which they call Ephraim, near the desert; for He is present with fruitfulness, and touching the very birth of this Ephraim, the Lord who begat Him, our dispenser of grain, who "humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," would say: "God has increased me in the land of my affliction."
20. "Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many of the Jews went up to Jerusalem out of the region before the Passover, to purify themselves. They were seeking Jesus, therefore, and were speaking among themselves D
A as they stood in the temple: "What think you, that He will not come to the feast?" The Passover of the Lord and the Passover of the Jews are not to be considered as the same thing; for the Passover according to the Law belongs to the Lord, but that of the lawless belongs to the Jews. Therefore, one must observe when the Passover is called the Lord’s, along with other days, and when it is not the Lord’s, but belongs to those who are rebuked for their sins. For example, in Exodus, after other things, it is written concerning the law of the Passover in the first ordinance: "And you shall eat it with haste, it is the Passover of the Lord." And in the second: "If your children say to you: What is this worship for you? You shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Passover of the Lord, as he protected the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt." But in Isaiah, the Lord says that the new moons, the Sabbaths, the fast, the rest, and the B festivals are not His own, but belong to those who sin; and if the festivals are included, it is clear that the Passover is also, since this is one among the festivals. It is written in this manner: "Your new moons, and your Sabbaths, and the great day I do not tolerate; your fast, and rest, and new moons, and your festivals my soul hates." And in one of the twelve prophets it is written: "I have hated, I have rejected your festivals." And according to the stated phrasing, the Passover was not the Lord’s, but the Jews'—for in it, their Savior was being plotted against. And for this reason, I think that the Passover was spoken of to them prophetically: "I have hated, I have rejected your festivals," for they performed a work not proper to a festival of God, but a wicked one, in that very Passover, by killing C Jesus. However, before this Passover of the Jews, many went up to Jerusalem from the countryside in order that they might purify themselves. I would say in advance that the multitude did not understand how they could purify themselves; wherefore, supposing that by offering their own Passover they were offering worship to God, they were so far from purifying themselves that they became more defiled than they were before they sanctified themselves. For the Jews who handed Jesus over to him said to Pilate: "It is not lawful for us to kill anyone," concerning whom he said to the Savior: "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the high priests have delivered You to me." And the very ones who claimed to have gone up that they might purify themselves, "cried out," saying to Pilate: "Do not release this man, but Barabbas"—now Barabbas was a robber. Again, D the Jews answered: "We have a law, and according to the law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God." And again the Jews cried out, saying to Pilate: "If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; for everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar." And again the Jews cried out: "Away, away, crucify Him." And yet those who had gone up for the Passover, in order to purify themselves, said at that very Passover: "We have no king but Caesar."
A Furthermore, what the Savior had said to the disciples, prophesying and saying, "The hour comes when everyone who kills you will think he is offering service to God," B was fulfilled, having begun from Him; for those who judged Him worthy to die thought they were offering service to God, and they had gone up to Jerusalem before the Passover in order to purify themselves. But the true purification was not before the Passover, but in the Passover itself; that is to say, when Jesus died for those who were being purified, as the Lamb of God, and took away the sin of the world. And these Jews were indeed seeking Jesus, not that they might be helped, but that they might kill Him, to whom He had said: "But now you seek to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God." And standing in the very temple, they were saying to one another concerning Jesus: "What do you think, that He will not come to the feast?" But Jesus was not celebrating the feast where these were standing, but in the large upper room C swept and garnished, where He had desired with desire to eat the Passover with the disciples before He suffered. You might say, therefore, that they were still standing in the temple seeking Jesus, relying, as it were, upon the Holy Scriptures, but because in their seeking they were ignorant of Him who had come, they spoke evil of this One, while confessing another as the Christ. But observe, if you are able, how you might speak of other Jews, who were going up to Jerusalem, and coming to the city of God from the region outside Jerusalem, and coming so that, having purified themselves, they might be able, when the Passover, Christ, has been sacrificed, to celebrate the feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Such people, indeed, seek Jesus, standing in the temple of the Scriptures, and they debate among themselves whether Jesus will come to the feast.
21. "Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that, if anyone knew where He was, he should inform them, so that they might seize Him." See how it is witnessed that He had withdrawn, so that we also may learn to do the same in the right time. And observe, furthermore, that neither the chief priests nor the Pharisees knew where He was; and, not knowing, they gave orders that if anyone knew where He was, he should inform them, that they might seize Him. D You may also say, in another way, that those who plot against Jesus do not know where He is; for which reason they give commands other than the commands of God, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. And the commands which the Pharisees and chief priests offer are their own, belonging to the carnal Jews against Jesus; for they wish for certain persons to inform them of Jesus, so that having taken Him into their power, they might betray Him. You would also say that everyone who curiously examines matters regarding Christianity, in order to subvert and accuse it, is a sort of Pharisee, and not a good priest,
and to the common man, and [is] not a good high priest, giving commandments to others, by whom he thinks he will teach Him about Jesus, so that having been informed by him he might seize Him and, having treated Him with contumely, put Him to death. A But since the twenty-eighth volume of the commentaries on the Gospel according to John has received sufficient scope, we shall end our discourse here, and by God's grace pursue in the twenty-ninth volume what follows. The twenty-ninth, thirtieth, and thirty-first volumes are missing.
ORIGEN, COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, VOLUME XXXII
B 1. Since God is granting us, through Jesus Christ, a journey according to the desire of our soul, we proceed along the great and living way of the holy Gospel, so that we may arrive at its very end, if we have traveled it in the way it is known to us. Now, however, as we endeavor to enter what is, as it were, the thirty-second station, may the pillar of the luminous cloud of Jesus be with us, which leads us on when there is need, and stands still when it is appropriate; until, O holy man and brother Ambrose, we have fully explained C the whole Gospel in copious commentaries. We must not succumb because of the excessive length of the way, nor grow weary because of our own infirmity, but strive to walk in the footsteps of the pillar of truth. Whether God wills that our mind should complete the journey through the commentaries on the whole of the Scripture of the Gospel according to John, or not, He Himself knows. Only let us, while we are at home in the body and away from Him, so as to be present with the Lord, not depart from the Gospel, that we may enjoy the works and words that bring beatitudes in the paradise of God's delights.
A And when supper was done, B the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, that he should betray Him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going to God, rises from supper and lays aside His garments, and having taken a towel, He girded Himself. Then He pours water into the basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. In the homilies which we published on Luke, after comparing the parables among themselves, we inquired what "breakfast" (prandium) signifies in the divine Scriptures, and what, on the other hand, "supper" (cœna) signifies in them. Let it be said, therefore, even now, that breakfast is that first food which is suitable for those being introduced, even before the spiritual day that befalls one in this life is ended; but supper is that final food which is reasonably set before those who have made greater progress. Unless someone might also say that breakfast is the understanding of the Old Scriptures, but supper is the mysteries which are stored up in the New Testament. These things, moreover, were said by me in the preface when I was investigating how it is that, while supper was taking place, Jesus rises from supper, and having put water into the basin, He begins to wash the disciples' feet. C For I think that those who sup with Jesus, and partake of food with Him at the end of the day of this life, have need of some purification; although they have no need that the primary parts of the body of their soul, if I may so speak, be washed, but, as one might say, only those parts are to be washed for them which are the last and extreme, and which of necessity dwell upon the earth. And this purification can be performed, first of all, by no one save by Jesus alone; and secondly, also by His disciples, to whom He said: "You also ought to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also should do." Nay, the Evangelist also seems to me, in exciting our mind to the spiritual understanding of the present passage, not to have observed in this place the bodily sequence and order of washing; since those who have need to be washed wash their feet before supper, and before reclining for supper; but at that time, when He had finished His discourse, he wrote that Jesus, who had already reclined for the sake of supping, had risen from supper, so that the Master and Lord might begin to wash the feet of the disciples who had already supped; for before supper they had been washed, and had become entirely clean, according to that: "Wash yourselves, be clean; take away the wickedness from your souls from before your eyes," and the rest; but after that washing they had need of a second act of washing, namely D of the feet, this being of those parts of the body alone which are the lowest. For I do not think it possible that the soul
should be in no way defiled, not even in its extremities and those parts which are very low, even if a man were to seem perfect among men. Many, indeed, even after baptism, fill their heads with the dust of sins, or those parts which are a little lower than these; but those who have been the genuine disciples of Jesus himself, to such a degree that they arrive at even dining with him, have only their feet needing to be washed [that is, by the Son of God and by the Word]. And certainly, he who sees the diversities of sins, and considers sins according to an accurate and constant standard—which are not even thought to be sins by many—will see what those things are on account of which the feet have need to be washed by Jesus. But if the defilements of the feet are such, what shall we do, we who have never arrived at dining with Jesus, and who have not only our feet defiled? Jesus said to Peter, who did not know at the time but would understand afterwards the mystery of the washing of the feet of those who are cleansed by Jesus: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." B You will ask what sense this has; whether it is this: "If I do not wash thee, thou shalt have no good part at all"; or that other: "Thou wilt not have a part even with me, thy Teacher and Lord, if I do not wash thee, but rather with those inferior to me," among whom are those who, after baptism, have neither dined with me, nor had their feet washed by me; or if they have dined, they were not cleansed by me. I mark this on account of these words: "Behold I stand at the door, and knock: if any man shall open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me," lest perhaps Jesus might not dine with anyone; for he needs no introduction or elementary instruction, nor does just anyone dine with him, but only he who eats with him dines. "For behold," he says, "more than Solomon is here," about whom it is written: "And Solomon’s provision was this," which is recounted in the third book of Kings. And I would venture to say this, as a consequence of the statement: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me," that Jesus did not wash the feet of Judas; C for the devil had already put it into his heart that he should betray his Teacher and Lord, having found him not wearing the whole armor of God, nor possessing the shield of faith, by which one is able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the wicked one. For I understand this which is written: "When the devil had already put it into his heart," just as Scripture also teaches concerning this in the seventh psalm, namely of the devil striking, who like an archer has fashioned fiery darts for those who do not keep their heart with all diligence. The context of the psalm is such: "If you will not be converted, he will brandish his sword; he has bent his bow, and made it ready, and in it he has prepared the vessels of death; he has made his arrows for them that burn." D Behold he has travailed with iniquity, he has conceived sorrow, and has brought forth unrighteousness. Everyone, therefore, will confess that the ...
A words, "Behold he has travailed with iniquity, he has conceived sorrow, and has brought forth unrighteousness," can be referred to the devil; and it is absurd not to think that the following words were said in likeness to these: "If you do not turn, he will sharpen his sword; he has bent his bow and made it ready, and in it he has prepared the vessels of death." For no one but he, by whose envy death entered into the world, prepares vessels of death in the bow he has bent. From these arrows, which the devil had fashioned for those who burn, he cast one into the heart of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, B who was already wounded in the supper—and in such a way that it was pleasing to him; for the food of this supper, and the wine that was in it, could not penetrate to a heart wounded by the devil's dart regarding the betrayal of the one who was perhaps the host. For it does not clearly appear in these passages who it was by whom the supper was being held, as it does in the preceding ones: "They made him a supper there," he says, "and Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him." And indeed concerning Judas it is written: "When the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, that he should betray him." But you would say this consistently C of each of those who have their hearts wounded by the devil: the devil having already put it into the heart, that such a one should commit fornication, and that such a one should defraud, and that, being vain, one might adopt the idolatry of those who seem to be in high standing; and in this way you would speak of the remaining sins, which the devil casts into the heart that is stripped of the shield of faith—by which shield of faith one can extinguish not one or two, but all the fiery darts of the wicked one.
3. As the dispensation of the passion approached, in which Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, wounded by the devil, was about to betray him, knowing, he says, "that Jesus, D that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God and goes to God, he rises from supper." Therefore, things that were not previously in the hands of Jesus are given by the Father into his hands, and not some and not others, but all things; which, seeing spiritually, David says: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." For the enemies of Jesus were a certain part of all things which he knew, as far as concerns foreknowledge, to have been given to him by the Father. But that we may see more clearly what it is, "The Father has given all things into his hands," let us look at this dictum: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." But if the Father has given all things into his hands, and in Christ all shall be made alive, yet the justice of God is not confounded, but the distribution is made according to the dignity of each one; which
is A signified by that which is added to it, "So in Christ all shall be made alive," and by "But each in his own order." And again, you will understand these orders of those who are to be made alive in Christ in different ways, when that is fulfilled, "The Father has given all things into his hands," noting that which says, "Christ the firstfruits; then those who are Christ's at his coming, then the end"; which end shall stand with Christ at his coming, "when he shall have delivered the kingdom to God and the Father, having first abolished all rule and all authority and power." These things, I suppose, are those against which the struggle is, so that there may no longer be rule, and authority, and power; against which is the struggle, and for that reason there will no longer be any struggle, all rule and authority and power having been abolished. B And it moves me to believe that every principality, and every authority, and every power which are destroyed, are those against which we have our fight, for the reason that to these words which Paul has spoken, this is soon added: "For he must reign, until he has put all enemies under his feet: the last enemy death is destroyed"; which truly accords with this saying, "The Father has given all things into his hands," which the Apostle expounding more clearly says: "But when he says that all things are put in subjection, it is manifest that he is excepted who subjected all things to him." But if all things have been subjected except him who subjected all things to him, it is clear that he also of whom it is written, "Before the almighty Lord he bowed his neck," C will be among those who are subjected to him, overcome so as to yield to the Word, the Son of God, and to be subjected to the image of God, and to become the footstool of Christ's feet. Looking therefore at the economy already tending toward a good end, because of that which says, "When the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him," he knew that the Father had given all things into his hands, and had given them into the hands that contain all things, so that all things might be subject to him; or he knew that the Father had given all things into his hands, that is, into his actions and rightful deeds; for "My Father," he says, "is working until now, and I am working." But because of those things which had gone forth from God, having been made outside of God, and outside of him who had not primarily willed to go forth from the Father, Jesus went forth from God, D so that things which had gone forth might come into the hands by the way and order of Jesus, and be arranged to go to God following Jesus; and because they would follow Jesus, they would be with God, from which it was said to Peter: "Where I go, you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow later"; for Peter still had that which did not permit him to follow the Word [and the Son of God] already at that time. And you must understand that the like is to be said, though according to a certain just analogy, regarding each of those of God, and of him who had not primarily willed to go forth from the Father, as he went forth from God, so that the things which had gone forth might come into the hands...
of the Father, and those of the Father into the hands of the Son. A For to each of all it shall be said: "But you shall follow me later"; but if they do not follow at the same time, the "later" which is appropriate to each of those who have followed is not referred to the same time in the phrase, "But you shall follow me later." And understand this for me also concerning all things that are being brought to an end, whether when he shall have brought to an end every principality, or every authority, or every power, and simply until he shall have put all his enemies under his feet, the last enemy that is brought to an end is death. "Jesus, therefore, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, and was going to God," and knowing how much we have been moved regarding the points we have discussed, as we have explained by setting forth B the sense appearing to us in the phrase, "He came forth from God," and in the phrase, "He is going to God," he rises, he says, "from supper," which we shall consider in this light along with what follows. And see if you are able in these matters to say that, while he was unencumbered, it gladdened him to be seen with his disciples; but he rises from supper in a circumstantial and necessary way for the sake of the disciples, and stops eating for a while, until he might wash the feet of the disciples, who were unable to have a part with him unless he himself washed them.
4. But let us diligently consider what is said after these words, "He rises from supper." "He lays aside," he says, "his garments, and having taken a towel, girded himself." C And in these matters we might say to those who do not wish to ascend from the literal meanings and to consider mentally the food of the soul placed in them: For what hindered him from washing the feet of the disciples while clothed? But if we do not in some way see, as is worthy of Jesus, the garments with which he was clothed while supping and enjoying himself with his disciples, we shall consider what ornament the Word of God, having become flesh, wore about himself. He lays aside this, which consisted in a certain texture of words with words and of sounds with sounds, and he becomes somewhat more naked with a servile form, which is indicated by the phrase, "Having taken a towel, he girded himself," so that he might not be entirely naked, D and after the washing, might wipe the feet of the disciples with a more suitable cloth. And see in this how the great and glorified Word, having become flesh, abases himself in order to wash the feet of the disciples; for "he pours," he says, "water into the basin." Abraham, indeed, "when he had looked up with his eyes, he saw; and behold, three men were standing beside him; and having seen..."
A he ran to meet them from the door of the tent; and he bowed himself to the earth, and said, Lord, if now I have found grace in thy sight, pass not by thy servant." He himself does not take water, nor does he promise to wash the feet of those who have arrived like guests, but he says: "Let water be taken, and let your feet be washed." But not even Joseph himself brought water to wash the feet of the eleven brethren, but the man from Joseph's house "brought Simeon to them, and brought water to wash their feet." But truly He who said, "I am come, not as one who reclines, but as one who ministers," and who justly said, "Learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart," He himself pours water into the basin; for He knew that no one could wash the feet of the disciples in such a way that, by being washed, they themselves might have a part with Him, as He could. The water, however, in my opinion, was such a word, washing the feet of the disciples B who had come to the basin set before them by Jesus. Then I ask why it is not written: "He washed the feet of the disciples," but it has been said: "And He began to wash the feet of the disciples." For is such the custom of the Scriptures, according to which, not rightly, by comparison with the custom of the many, that word "began" seems to be put forward? Or did Jesus indeed begin to wash the feet of the disciples, but did not then cease to wash their feet? For He washed afterwards, and completed the act of washing itself, because they had been defiled, according to that saying, "All you will take offense at me this night," and according to that which was said to Peter: "The cock will not crow until thou hast denied me thrice." For when these sins had been committed, then the defiled feet of the disciples had need to be washed again: which He finished washing when He rose from supper, and completed the washing when He had cleansed them so that they would no longer be defiled. C In this same way He began to wipe the feet of the disciples; He completed the wiping when He had completed the washing as well.
5. "Then He comes to Simon Peter; and he says to Him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said to him: What I do, thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter says to Him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I do not wash thee, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter says to Him: Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus says to Him: He who is D bathed has no need except to wash his feet, but he is clean altogether; and...
you are clean, but not all; for He knew who his betrayer was. For this reason He said, "You are not all clean." A We shall use what is now said by Peter as an example, if need be, because it is easy for someone, out of imprudence, to say things that are of no use to him at all, even with the best intention. For if it was useful to Peter, in order to have a share with Jesus, that his feet should be washed by Him, and Peter, not knowing that this was useful, said at first, as if questioning with modesty, "Lord, do You wash my feet?" and then, "You shall never wash my feet," and since the things said were those that obstructed B the work which would lead him to having a share with the Savior, it is evident that, even if he said this with a sound and reverent intention toward the Teacher, he said it in a way harmful to himself. Life is full of sins of this kind among those who, while coming to the faith, propose to themselves excellent things, yet, through ignorance, say or even do things that lead to the opposite. And of this sort, indeed, are those who say, "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," concerning all things which are for corruption and the abuse C of men, according to a certain teaching much inferior to the divine, through which a man, as it were, dies. But what ought one to say concerning those who are tossed about in heresies and carried about by every wind through the craftiness of men who circulate as salutary things that bring destruction, and who, as if in honor of Jesus, hold false opinions about Him? Often indeed did Scripture mark Peter as being more fervent in promising the things that seemed to him to be better; just as also D in that which he said without any examination, and as if despising the prophecy of Jesus concerning the disciples, saying, "All of you will be offended in Me this night," and showing the cause in that which He says, "For it is written: I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered;" for without any examination, and as if despising the pronouncement of Jesus, he said to this: "Even if all are offended because of You, I will never be offended." And this, being at that time still rash in his soul, was also the cause that he sinned more than the rest through the scandal of falling, by denying Jesus three times before the cock-crow. Therefore, having scrutinized such previous rashness of his own, he reaped the greatest benefit, so that he became most firm and most patient; which is made clear by the fact that when Paul said to him before all, "If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" and what follows, he remained silent after...
A with a fortitude that was most patient, and did not explain that what had been done in that place was done with reason; B on which matter one might dispute more appropriately in the Epistle to the Galatians. Indeed, in the Acts of the Apostles also, his stability, transformed into the same image, will be manifest to those who observe each detail and apply their minds to it. Therefore, in this place as well, when Jesus had risen from supper, and had laid aside his garments, and had girded himself with the towel he had taken, and had poured water into the basin, and had begun to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded, all gave him their feet, following the preconceived notion they had of Jesus, seeing that one so great would not wash their feet without cause, nor, as many might say, because he wished to burden the disciples; but rather that he was performing some useful act, which they expected to understand later, thinking that perhaps these things were being done as a symbol of something. But Peter alone, looking to C that which was ready at hand, and attributing no other reasoning to him, as though honoring Jesus, did not offer his feet to be washed, but first tried to shame him, saying: "Lord, do you wash my feet?" Then, when he ought to have obeyed him who said, "What I am doing, you do not know now, but you will understand later," he said, "You shall never wash my feet." Otherwise, when the rest of the disciples had entrusted themselves to the faith of Jesus, and were contradicting him in nothing, this man, by his words—even if he thought he was speaking correctly—accuses not only Jesus, as if he had begun to wash the disciples' feet without cause, but also his fellow disciples. For if he, in his own estimation, while wishing to prohibit the act, believed he was performing a duty, by those others not considering the same, he also accused D those who, beyond their duty, had offered their feet to Jesus to be washed. And indeed, if he had considered that one ought not to contradict a matter which is being done with reason, and had considered that what was being done while the feet of the disciples were being washed by Jesus was reasonable, he would by no means have resisted the deed. Wherefore it appears that, without judgment, he assumed that the will of Jesus regarding the washing of the disciples' feet was not consistent with reason. But if it is necessary to search the Scripture even down to what are thought to be the least matters, someone might ask why, when Peter is listed first in the number of the twelve (perhaps because he was more honorable than the rest, since Judas was truly the last of all because of his evil disposition, having been cast off to the very last place), Jesus, having begun to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded, did not begin from Peter? And it must be said
A in response to this, that as a physician, ministering according to the medical art to many sick persons, begins his treatment from those who are in more urgent need and have suffered worse, so he who is washing the soiled feet of the disciples begins from those who are more soiled; and perhaps he came last to Peter, as being in less need of the washing of the feet than all the others; and perhaps, too, the state of his feet, which were near to cleanliness, contributed to his seemingly speaking against it. B
6. But as to what is said by Jesus, “He who is bathed has no need to wash, except for his feet, but is clean all over; and you are clean, but not all,” perhaps he is suggesting a thought such as this: that the disciples already had their feet washed by Jesus, and that after that washing they no longer had any need to be washed; and further, that Peter himself was already clean, even before Jesus washed his feet. And if any one should ask in reply to these things, “Why then, when he said, ‘He who is bathed has no need to wash, but is clean all over,’ does Jesus wash the feet of the disciples, since they had no need to wash?” it must be said to him: “To every one who has, it will be given, and it will be added.” Since, therefore, the disciples had that they were clean, Jesus adds to their cleanliness the washing of their feet—not as if he would wash those who were not bathed, nor those who were not clean all over, but in such a way that one might speak concerning those who are clean in this manner, that even if someone were perfect among the sons of men, C if that cleanliness which is from thee (10) be absent—to use such a term—he will not be reckoned as clean. And I set these things forth subsequently, having fallen upon them after the former things were dictated, while we preserve also the order of the thoughts that entered in: how at first we saw that the soiled feet of the disciples had need of the washing from Jesus, but now we say that he washed their feet because they were clean as among men, but not also before God; for apart from Jesus no one becomes clean before God, even if before Him (11) one should be thought to have made himself clean by some diligence. But in those who have already become clean as among men, and have been bathed with the baptism of Jesus, and have had their feet washed by him, the Holy Spirit D can also dwell.
(10) John xiii, 10. (11) Matt. xxv, 29.
I shall begin, and endure even to be considered ill-advised. Propertius, lib. 2, Eleg., 1: Rivers begin to call back their waters to their source. Juvenal, sat. 10: He begins to desire the eloquence or fame of a Demosthenes or a Cicero.
It is likely, therefore, that Christ began the washing from Peter. Augustine feels this way concerning this passage of John, whose words it is worth the trouble to recount: “Although, therefore, it had been a piece of great boldness for a servant to contradict the Lord, a man to contradict God, yet Peter preferred to do this, rather than to endure that his feet should be washed by the Lord and God. Nor ought we to think that Peter feared and refused this among the rest, when others before him had willingly or resignedly allowed it to be done to themselves.” For these words of the Gospel are more easily understood in this way, because when it had been said, “He began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded,” there was then subjoined, “He came therefore to Simon Peter,” as if he had already washed some, and after them had come to Peter. For who did not know that the first of the apostles was the most blessed Peter? But it is not to be understood that he came to him after some others, but that he began from them. When therefore he began to wash the disciples' feet, he came to him from whom he began, that is, to Peter. Ferrarius interprets Origen at this point as if he had written that Christ began from Judas. If this is true—which does not appear, however, in the Royal codex—Origen would have had Chrysostom and Theophylact in agreement. Huetius.
A and the power from on high as a garment. B Peter, then, not perceiving the reason for the will of Jesus, who had begun to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded, says to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" saying this in doubt and out of a sense of shame. But Jesus answered and said to him, teaching that this was a mystery, "What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will know after this." What, then, was Jesus doing by washing the feet of the disciples? Was he working, by washing their feet and wiping them with the towel with which he was girded, to make them fair, as they were about to evangelize good things? For when Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, then, I think, that which was spoken prophetically concerning his apostles was fulfilled: "How fair are the feet of those who evangelize good things!"
But if, by washing the feet of the disciples, he makes them fair, what shall we say is generated by true beauty in those who are wholly baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit and in fire? And the feet of those who evangelize good things became fair, so that, having been washed, and cleansed, and wiped by the hands of Christ, they might be able to step onto the holy way, and to walk through Him who said: "I am the way." For only everyone whose feet Jesus has washed walks this living way that leads to the Father; and this way does not contain sullied feet, and those not yet clean. Moses, indeed, had need to put the sandal off from his feet, since the place to which he had arrived and in which he stood was holy ground; similarly, too, Joshua the son of Nun. But the disciples of Jesus, C in order that they might walk the living and animate way, are not only content with not having sandals on the way, this being what Jesus commanded his apostles, but they also had need, in order to complete this way, to be washed by Jesus, who laid aside his garments, perhaps so that he might make their already clean feet yet cleaner; perhaps also so that he might take up the uncleanness which the disciples had on their feet into his own body, by means of the towel with which alone he was girded: for he himself bears our infirmities.
See, therefore, that in intending to wash the feet of the disciples, he chose no other time except when the devil had already cast into the heart of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, that he should betray him, and when the economy for mankind was about to take place. For before this it was not the fitting time for the disciples to have their feet washed by Jesus; for who would have washed the filth of their feet in the time intervening until the passion? But not even in the time of the passion, for there was no Jesus other than he to wash their feet. And not even after the economy, for already the hour of the Holy Spirit was at hand to come to the disciples, who had already been made clean and had their feet washed, and already had them ready and fair for what was in the Spirit. D
Such then is that which says: A “What I am doing, you do not know now, but you will know after these things.” It is a symbol that the washing of your feet by me is for the cleansing of the foundations of your souls, so that they may become fair, since you are about to preach the good news and to step with clean feet upon the souls of men. But this mystery you do not now know, inasmuch as you do not yet contain the knowledge of it, which will become more timely in you when I have washed your feet; but after this you will know it, in that you will understand it, being illuminated by the knowledge of what is neither contemptible nor small. B While Jesus was saying these things to Peter, the disciple responds with a response that is not wise, but one sending forth an impression of honor and reverence towards Jesus—an impression, however, that was deceived. Furthermore, since his response was not beneficial to Peter, He who, for the sake of His own goodness, appropriately hinders those things being spoken that are true but harmful to the user's benefit, does not allow it to become true. For Peter says, “You shall not wash my feet for ever,” and he asserted himself, when Jesus had judged to wash his feet, that he would not be washed by Him, and that it would not happen in all eternity. But He, seeing that it was more beneficial for Peter to lie in this than to tell the truth, points out the benefit in the case of not having to speak the truth, saying: “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” C If, therefore, Peter was going to have no part with Jesus by asserting, “You shall not wash my feet for ever,” and speaking the truth in this, while he was going to have a part if he did not speak the truth—which he had already rashly spoken—what else was there need for him to do but not to speak the truth? In order that, by his not speaking truth in this, He might cause him not to lose his part with Jesus, by proving him a liar in the washing of his feet; for it is written, “Every man is a liar.” D We shall opportunely use this text for those who more audaciously and without discrimination say that they will do what is not at all to their benefit, especially if they are unwilling to desist from what they have poorly determined. For by showing them that they will have no part with Jesus if they keep the rash word they uttered in promising, but that they will be able to have a good hope if they reject what they previously said, we shall draw them away from persisting in what they had poorly judged, even if it sometimes happens with an oath due to great rashness. And we shall say that, just as Peter, who said, “You shall not wash my feet for ever,” is hindered from persisting in the profession of what was said, in order that he may have a part with Jesus, so too you, who have sinned in your rashness and have promised something without discrimination, would do better to change and to do what is more reasonable than to persist in what was poorly judged. And having applied themselves to both “What I am doing, you do not know now, but you will know after these things,” and to “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me,” let those who do not wish to interpret this and its parallels allegorically be ashamed, and let them accept the
such a form of evangelical disputation, or else let them show what it would be consistent for A one who, out of veneration—as those who would speak this way would say—was following Jesus, to say, “You shall never wash my feet,” and to hear from the Master that he would have no part with the Son of God, as though he were guilty of a very great sin because his feet were not washed by him. For to say, “If you commit this offense, you will have no part with me,” has a place when speaking of open sins; but to say, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me,” is in no way consistent—if, which is a profanity to say, the Master intended this reply—since it is most absurd that he should have responded in this way to the disciple Peter, who was honoring him and was unwilling to offer his own bodily feet to be washed by him who had resolved to wash his feet with such gentleness. B For this reason, let us offer our feet to Jesus, who even now rises from supper, lays aside his garments, takes a towel, girds himself, pours water into a basin, and begins to wash the feet of us as his disciples, and to wipe them with the towel with which he, having become in our midst for our sake, girds himself as one who serves. For unless we do this, we shall have no part with him, nor will our feet be beautiful, especially when we covet the greater gifts, wishing to be numbered among those who bring good tidings.
However, when Peter is more free in speaking importunately, having been asked to offer his feet to Jesus, when he heard, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me,” he wishes to exceed the measures of his petition, C not only offering his feet alone to be washed by Jesus, but also his hands, which Jesus no longer wished to be washed when they ate bread, despising those who said, “Your disciples do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He also offered, besides his hands, his head, which Jesus no longer wished to be washed; for in it was already the image and glory of God. For it is sufficient for us, if we have reached that point, to have the opportunity, just as the disciples did, of offering him our feet, which he alone washes and wipes; for “he who has been washed has no need to wash, but is clean altogether,” but if anyone is not clean altogether, he is not washed. But someone might ask, if he who has been washed has no need to wash but is clean, and the disciples of Jesus were clean as having been washed, why does Jesus pour water into the basin and begin to wash D the feet of the disciples? Regarding this matter, since we have already discoursed on it in part in anticipation, we shall now also add these things to them, namely, that these words, “We have need,” are used of necessary things, those without which one cannot live. So that one might say that in physical matters a person has need of nothing more, but only of these things concerning which Paul says, “Having food and clothing, with these we shall be content,” but for things belonging to wealth and luxury,
they are to be held as being in abundance over and above, not as necessary, and not that without which A one cannot live, but as superfluous. Thus, therefore, even in things of a more divine nature, we have need of those which lead into life and which cause us to be in him who says, “I am the life.” But those things beyond these, concerning which it is said, “Delight in the Lord, and he will give you the requests of your heart,” and all those things that are understood according to the paradise of delight, and the wealth, and the glory which are on the left hand of wisdom, according to him who says, “Length of life and years of life are in her right hand; but in her left hand are wealth and glory,” might be said to be beyond need. And perhaps such is the washing of the feet after one has been bathed, by such a Master and Savior; for the gift of God excels necessity, just as also being in the glory of the sun, or of the moon, or of the stars in the holy resurrection of the dead. The clean person, indeed, who has been bathed, has no need to wash; yet he is washed according to what has been previously B set forth: for “to everyone who has, it shall be added,” and as John says, “And let the clean one be cleaned still, and the holy one be sanctified still.” But the words, “You are clean,” are referred to the eleven, to which is added, “Not all,” because of the Iscariot; for he knew that the one betraying him was not already clean: first, because he did not care for the poor, but because he was a thief and, having the money box, he carried what was being put into it. And later, since, when a supper was taking place, the devil having already cast into the heart that Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, should betray him, he did not repel the one casting it in. Therefore, the eleven who had been bathed were clean, and they became even cleaner by having their feet washed by Jesus; but Judas, not being clean (for he says, “Let the filthy one grow filthy still”), C became filthier and unclean when, after the morsel, Satan entered into him.
7. “So when he had washed their feet and taken his garments and reclined again, he said to them: ‘Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you speak well; for so I am. If, therefore, I, the Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet; for I have given you an example, that just as I have done to you, you also should do.’” It is probable that those who had considered the greatness of the power of Jesus, and had understood what had been done by Jesus in washing the feet of the disciples—in order to cleanse even their last and vile parts and the bodies which moved upon the earth, of which those bodies were a symbol—having wondered at the work in the washing, would not have dared themselves to perform such a thing, D considering themselves to be smaller than the
A inner man in the hidden heart, or than those who cherish the same dogmas of God, had not Jesus, through what was set before them, exhorted them to this, reassuming the posture of one dining when He was about to teach them after they had finished eating. For the most compelling, and most persuasive to the understanding of what was done, is the statement: “Know you what I have done to you?”—which must be read either as a question, so that the magnitude of the action is indicated, or as a command, so that He might rouse their mind to gain knowledge from that action by paying attention to it. Most instructive, following the compelling aspect, is the statement: B “You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If then I have washed your feet, the Lord and the Master, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” Jesus washed the feet of the disciples in His capacity as their Master, and the feet of the servants in His capacity as Lord. For the dust from the earth and worldly things is cleansed by the teaching, reaching nothing else but the outermost and lowest parts of the disciples; but by the lordship of the Ruler, who holds power over them, the things that soil the feet of those who still receive some common and vulgar defilement are cast away, because they still possess the spirit of bondage. And no person of sound mind would say that Jesus, in His capacity as the Door, or as the Shepherd, or as the Physician, washes the feet of the disciples and servants. But I think that the feet of the disciples have a need to be washed by the Master insofar as they have not yet perceived what is sufficient for them; C but they are still far from that statement: “It is sufficient for the disciple if he becomes as his teacher.” And this is indeed the final goal for the disciple of the teacher, insofar as he is a teacher, to make the disciple like himself, so that he may no longer have need of the teacher as teacher, even if he shall have need of him in some other way. For as the goal of the physician—who is needed by those who are ill, but not by those who are healthy—is to restore the ailing to health, so that they no longer have need of his work; so the goal of the teacher is to acquire for the disciple that which is called “sufficient” in the text: “It is sufficient for the disciple if he becomes as his teacher.” But concerning our Savior, being Lord, it is possible from this point to see more than in the case of other lords, who do not wish D the disciple to become as the teacher, or the servant as his lord. Such is the Son of the Father’s goodness and love; for being Lord, He brought it about for the servants to become as their Lord, when they no longer have the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but shall receive the spirit of adoption, in which they cry out: “Abba, Father.” Before, therefore, they become as the Master and the Lord, they have need of the washing of the feet, as being destitute disciples, and as still possessing the spirit of bondage unto fear; but when one of them is in accordance with what is sufficient for the disciple, that he may become as the Master, he [is as He]. Such is
the time when they will no longer have the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but they will receive the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry, A “Abba, Father.” However, before they become as the Master and Lord, they have need, just like needy disciples, to have their feet washed, and as though they still had the spirit of bondage unto fear. B But when truly one of these, possessing what is sufficient for a disciple so that he may be like his master, and the servant like his lord, reaches the point where he is as his master and his lord, then he will be able to imitate Him who washed the feet of the disciples; and to wash the feet of the disciples, as the master whom God has ordained in the Church after the apostles, who first obtained a place in her, and after the prophets, who were second.
But if the saying, “You shall serve your brother,” can be referred to those who are more in need, and that, “Be lord of your brother,” to those who are, like Jacob, more preeminent, it is clear that the servant who has become as his lord washes the feet of those serving the doctrine which he possesses; since the [saying], “You call me the Master and the Lord, and you speak well; for I am,” I consider to contain nothing profound or beyond the understanding of the many, seeing that not to all who say, “Lord, Lord,” will that be said by Jesus: “You call me the Lord and the Master, and you speak well.” Not well, therefore, do they speak, “Lord,” who on that day will say, “Lord, Lord, did we not eat in your name, and drink in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and do many powers?” Jesus will then say to them: C “Depart from me; I never knew you, because you are workers of iniquity.” For He would not have said to them—had they said “Lord, Lord” well—the word, “Depart from me.” But also, “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,” shows that not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord,” would be testified to by Him, as the apostles are now, to whom He said: “You speak well; for I am.” For indeed, wickedness was truly no longer mistress over them, but the Word [was]; and, to speak generally, the Lord is every living and life-giving virtue.
But also, if “no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except in the Holy Spirit,” and we understand in this what it is to say, “Jesus is Lord,” he who says, “Jesus is Lord,” in the Holy Spirit, speaks well. But if even he who speaks well surely speaks in the Holy Spirit, you will inquire, because of the present [context], “And you speak well,” being examined together with: “For the Spirit was not yet [given], because Jesus was not yet glorified.” It is, therefore, the duty of one who sincerely and from the heart serves the Word to speak well, “Jesus is Lord,” and of the disciple analogous to this [duty] to speak well to the Savior, “The Master,” toward whom it might be said, “For I am”; [a thing] which would not be said by the Word to one serving sin and being discipled to lies.
Nevertheless, it is possible for one who is holy to need the washing of the feet; since even the widow listed for ecclesiastical honor is examined, among other good qualities, concerning this: “if she washed the feet of saints.” For it is ridiculous, I think, to stand upon the literal sense, and, to cite an example, for one who possesses all the traits that characterize the holy widow, and is lacking only in this, not to be enrolled for ecclesiastical honor, often on account of [missing text/lacuna in page]
as it equally pertains to a disciple to say, "Master"; to whom He Himself might reply, "For I am so indeed," which otherwise Jesus would not have said to a servant of sin and a disciple of lies. Yet it happens that a holy work also involves having one’s feet washed: since it is required even of a widow 20, who is numbered among the ecclesiastical honor, whether, among other good works, she has washed the feet of the saints. For I think it ridiculous to be bound to the letter, and that a widow—failing in all these things, to put it so, which delineate a holy widow, and lacking in this one thing—would not be joined to the ecclesiastical honor, when she herself has frequently, through the agency of maids and slaves, acted prudently in times when she had abundance, and had the means by which she could confer a benefit upon guests, and also, to speak generally, upon those who had need to receive from her some human service. Nor should you marvel if it must be expounded to you in an anagogical sense, this saying, "If she has washed the feet of the saints," when aged women are commanded in like manner to teach what is honorable 21 alongside the presbyters. But observe whether it is not also laborious for any disciple of Christ who desires to fulfill the commandment that says, "And you ought to wash one another’s feet 22," if he wishes to wash the corporal and sensible feet of the brethren as a due work, so that the faithful who exist in any walk of life whatsoever might do this, whether those who seem to be in ecclesiastical eminence as bishops and presbyters, or those in some other worldly dignities; so much so that for this reason even a master should come to wash the feet of the believing servant, and parents the feet of their children. This custom, indeed, existed, but now it does not happen, except most rarely, and among the very simple and more rustic folk. 423 Beyond these things, moreover, we ought to remember those things which we have discussed in this context 23: "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me," and also that: "Do you know what I have done to you?" For it is fitting that Jesus should have given us an example of washing the feet of those in high positions, which corresponds to those things which were said tropically by the bride in the Song of Songs, when she says: "I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them 24?" Attend, however, to this saying, "That just as I have done to you, so you also should do," while likewise examining this: "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me." But if anyone should say against these things that, even if it is allegorized, it is nonetheless a fact 28 according to the literal, it must be heard along with the tropical and the explicit wording: "If I then have washed your feet, the Lord and the Master, you also ought to wash one another’s feet; for I have given you an example, that, just as I have done for you, you also should do." It must be said to such a person: "Since what was said to Peter, who had said, 'You shall never wash my feet,' came to pass according to the literal—namely, 'If I do not wash you, you have no part with me'—shall we also, according to the literal, say to those who, out of reverence, do not offer us their feet that we might wash them, and shall we dare to say to such people: 'If I do not wash'"
you, you have no part with me'? But if this does not persuade you, consider what you ought to say in response to the doubt: whether these things must be kept strictly according to the text. Now, that it is fitting for one to wash the feet of such a disciple of Jesus, and for that one in turn to offer his feet to be washed by him—so that the one washes out of love and kindness, and the other submits himself to be washed—even I myself grant. But if we say that whoever is not conscious that he has done this, and has not in this way washed the feet of the saints, has failed to fulfill a certain obligatory command—namely, 'You ought to wash one another’s feet'—it is time to say that all are, in some way, debtors of this command.
8. B 'Amen, amen, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is an apostle greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. I do not speak of you all; I know whom I have chosen, but that the Scripture may be fulfilled: He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me.' C It seems to me that these words also cohere with the need to know how to reduce to moral application what is said concerning the washing of the feet. For these words: 'If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them,' since there was nothing previously commanded to be done except the washing of the feet, have reference to those things. Moreover, to know the doctrines of the present passage as the Word intends, and to do as Jesus wills—namely, how the feet of disciples who have already bathed are defiled, and in what manner they are washed—is truly the work of blessed men. For it is not reasonable to say that so great a title as 'blessed' belongs to just anyone, such that even a servant washing the feet of his master might, for this reason alone, be thought to obtain the title of 'blessed,' even if he were a flatterer and a hypocrite; whereas, as we have explained, to wash the feet of the disciples of Jesus is the work of someone great, one who has Jesus within himself, and is, in a word, blessed. But we must know that similar things are found in the Gospel handed down by Matthew; for it has: 'A disciple is not above the teacher, nor is a slave above his master; it is enough for the disciple that he be as his teacher, and the slave as his master.' But Luke has it thus: 'A disciple is not above his teacher; but everyone who is perfected D shall be as his teacher.' Next to this, it is necessary to inquire to what we should refer what is said at the end: 'I do not speak of you all.' Now, someone will say that it is referred to: 'You are blessed if you do them'; for Judas is not blessed. I do not think that [it is referred] soundly to the one who is not conscious [of having done this].
For this whole statement is true, both concerning Judas and anyone else whatsoever, even if he be most depraved: "You are blessed, so-and-so, if you do such and such things." As if I were to say even to the intemperate man (even if he does not listen to what is said, nor become temperate): "You are blessed if you become temperate"; and to him who despises wisdom, even if he ignores this purpose: "You are blessed if you take up wisdom and instruction." Perhaps, therefore, the saying, "I do not speak of you all," B ought to be brought to the statement, "A slave is not greater than his lord." For since "everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin," and Judas was committing sin—especially when the devil had put it into his heart to betray the Savior—Judas was a slave of sin. But being a slave of sin, he was not a slave of the Word of God; and in this way he was no longer an apostle of Jesus. For he had already become the devil's, who had put it into his heart to betray the Savior. Therefore, the Savior, denying him to be his own slave and apostle, said also, "Neither is a slave greater than his lord, nor an apostle greater than him who sent him," and C the words, "I do not speak of you all."
After this, let us see the saying, "I know whom I have chosen," which in its simpler sense is as follows: I know what sort of person each one is whom I have chosen; I know, therefore, also who Judas is, and it does not escape me, since the devil has already put into his heart these things against me. And it carries this meaning because of a certain habit of Scripture when it uses the word "know," and similar terms; of which kind is also "I have known." The Savior says somewhere that he will say to those who will say, "In your name we have eaten and drunk, D and cast out demons," the words, "I have never known you," and the saying, "I do not know you from where you are." If this is understood too simply, we shall appear to be thinking beneath the dignity of the Savior. But perhaps, since "the Lord knows those who are his own," he does not know those who are not his own; and as he says of some, "I have never known you," so he might say also concerning Judas, if he is not his: "I have never known you." But if, when he was Jesus's [disciple], he later fell, Jesus would certainly say to him: "I do not know you from where you are." And so now, because the devil has already put into his heart these things against Jesus, Jesus does not know him. Therefore, he did not say, "Now I know all who are present," but, "I know whom I have chosen," as if to say, my elect. "But I do not speak concerning all those present," [when I say], "I know whom I have chosen," and that which happens, "by one of you who will betray me, that the Scripture might be fulfilled: 'He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me.'"
'" A This passage from the fortieth Psalm has been paraphrased, as follows: "For even the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has magnified his supplantation of me." The Savior, therefore, says that this passage was spoken concerning Judas and Himself. In this, one might ask how Judas was a man of peace, and how the Savior trusted in him. I believe it is shown by these words that he once sincerely believed; for the Lord would never have sent him out among the other apostles [(38)] if he had not at some time become a son of peace and said to him—since it is written that He said to the twelve: "Say, 'Peace to this house,' and if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him; but if not, your peace will return to you." B And indeed, consider how much the devil, after all this, cast into his heart against the Savior, and that a little before he was testified to be a thief; but I do not think that, being a thief from the beginning, he would have been entrusted with the money-bag. Being worthy, therefore, to be entrusted [(39)] (even if he was foreknown to be going to fall), he was entrusted, and he was such a man of Christ's peace that Jesus once had good hopes of him as a good apostle. For hear the words: "In whom I trusted." And I believe that he also shared in the most secret and nourishing discourses which he received from Jesus, regarding which He said: "He who eats my bread." And the expression [(41)] "He magnified his supplantation against me" is paraphrased as "He lifted up his heel against me," so that "Magnified" is the same as "Lifted up." And if it is necessary to explain the phrase, "He lifted up his heel against me" and "He magnified his supplantation against me," we shall say that this is what a person does when he aims a blow at someone with his heel; and such was Judas, who was trampling upon the Son of God, and eating bread with Jesus, when Jesus, having dipped the morsel, took it and gave it to Judas Iscariot the son of Simon; then Judas lifted up his heel against his Teacher, because [(42)] after the morsel, Satan entered into Judas. And if it is possible for the text, C〗 "The iniquity of my heel shall encompass me," also to be examined alongside "He lifted up his heel against me," and to be referred to Judas, who was made a partaker in the portion of Jesus, and became His possession and an apostle—"heel" being used figuratively because he was the last to become a traitor—you yourself shall also consider this.
9. "I tell you now before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe that I am He." This expression refers to what was previously said. D (It is [alt-version omitted]).
9. "Now I tell you before it happens, that when it has happened, you may believe that I am He." These words relate back to what was said above.
A "I do not say this of you all; I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled: He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me." For this is what was to come to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled concerning him who lifted up his heel against Me (who is the one eating bread with Me), "From now on I tell you, and I tell you before it happens, so that when it has happened," that which was fulfilled from what was prophesied in the Scripture, "you may believe that I am He" of whom these things were prophesied, from the one eating bread with Him, having lifted up his own heel against Him.
One might ask how it could be said to the disciples, whose feet Jesus had washed, as if they had not yet believed that He Himself was the Christ: "From now on I tell you before it happens, and because of this I tell you, that when it B happens, you may believe that I am" the Christ who was prophesied. And see whether we are able, while accusing such great disciples of Jesus as not yet having believed, to also preserve the intention of Him who said: "That when it happens, you may believe that I am." Just as someone who receives theorems of wisdom sometimes, through prior ones—in which he is already wise—grasps subsequent ones (in which he was not wise before) and will become wiser, just as it is also said: "For the wise man who hears these things will become wiser." As therefore, if certain things were said to a wise man, and it were added: "These things make you wise," we would not necessarily think of a man becoming wise from being unwise, but rather of a wise man becoming wiser, as progress ensues and moves toward perfection; so also consider for me that a believer can become a more faithful believer. For the apostles, C having once approached the Lord, not blaming themselves as being unbelievers, said to Him: "Lord, increase our faith"; for indeed, in the word "increase," it is clearly represented that they had faith that was capable of an addition.
If, therefore, we have understood these things, consider for me the additions of the things that produce faith, after those things that had previously produced faith, as having added to their faith; so that the disciples, besides those things which they already had that produced faith, also took on this, that they should see the Scripture saying: "He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against Me," fulfilled, placing before their eyes Him who was being prophesied—Him of whom such things had been predicted. And see that you understand this word, "that you may believe," D just as if it were, "that you may work," remaining in faith, having no cause by which you might be changed. And certainly, if faith were not great in magnitude or much in multitude, Paul would in no way have said: "Even if I have all faith." For just as the perfect man, having all the virtues, when he has grasped each virtue perfectly, possesses perfect wisdom, and perfect temperance, and likewise piety and the rest; thus one might say of the virtue of believing, that he possesses it perfectly by having "all the faith." I say these things as not...
A not that incomplete wisdom, or temperance, or piety, or the rest of the virtues can be properly named by us, but that they are used catachrestically, and those who fall short in each virtue are named equivocally with those who are perfect. For in this way he is called wise who, while indeed committing some sin so as to be in need of correction, does not, however, hate those who correct him, but rather loves them, according to what is written: "Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you." And in this way he is also called wise who, being capable of other speculations of wisdom, does not yet possess the things that remain, according to what is also said: "Give to the wise man an opportunity, and he will be wiser." But indeed we have come to these points, showing that it is possible for him who already believes to learn some things in order that he may believe again, and through the addition of the teachings to add to his faith.
But if we wish to know who it is that has "all the faith," let us take, for the sake of example, B in summary the things that save the believer in the act of believing; let us say, for the sake of argument, that they are one hundred in number, and let us say that he who accepts the aforementioned one hundred without hesitation, and believes firmly in each one of them, has "all the faith." He who falls short in any number of the things that save the believer, or in the firmness toward the things believed, falls short of having "all the faith" by as many numbers as that in which he is lacking in his believing, or by as much as he stands apart from the firmness concerning those things that are believed—whether all of them or some—in order that, in the present case, it may be conceded to some that they are able to believe one thing firmly, while to others it is conceded that they believe, though not firmly. Yet it should be acknowledged that it is impossible to demonstrate that he who is incomplete in one thing has no C firmness whatsoever; because each of those whom I might thus call, according to the Scripture, "men of little faith," and who have not yet received the firmness toward those things that are believed, does not stand at the same distance from the firmness toward the things believed.
To these things follows, because of the text "According to your faith let it be done to you," and because of "Your faith D has saved you," that to each one there also happens to be, in the just judgment of God, a reward proportional to such and such a faith and salvation—provided that there is indeed a difference among those who are saved in this respect, as in the text "With what measure you measure, it will be measured to you"—reaching even to the measures of faith and to the measures of the reward and salvation that are from God. He who has observed the reasoning of these matters will see how reasonably it is said to men, as though they were unable to judge: "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged," and "Do not judge anything before the time, until the Lord comes." Again, regarding these things, since I was speaking, as in the example, of the one hundred things that save in the act of believing—that he who believes firmly in the hundred has all the faith, but he who is lacking in his faith toward some of the one hundred, in his firmness toward the things believed, has not all the faith—I shall set forth for the sake of clarity such matters...
A Before all things, one must believe that there is one God, who created and perfected all things, and who made all things that are, out of that which was not. It is necessary, moreover, to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is true, in all the truth concerning him according to his divinity and his humanity; and one must also believe in the Holy Spirit; and that, being endowed with free will, we are punished for the things B in which we sin, and honored for the things in which we act rightly.
Come then, let us assume for argument's sake that someone, while thinking he believes in Jesus, does not believe that there is one God of the Law and the Gospel, whose glory the heavens—as having been made by him—narrate, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands as being his handiwork; such a person would be lacking in this most important head of the faith. Or again, if someone were to believe that he [Jesus] was crucified under Pontius Pilate and has brought to the world something sacred and saving, but did not accept that he took his birth from the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, but rather from Joseph and Mary; for such a person, too, would be lacking the most necessary things for possessing the whole faith.
Again, if someone were to admit his divinity, but, being offended by his humanity, were to believe that nothing human had happened to him, or that he had not taken on a subsistence; for this person as well, not insignificant things would be lacking for the whole faith. Conversely, if someone were to admit the human things concerning him, while spurning the subsistence of the Only-Begotten and the Firstborn of all creation; not even he could say that he possesses the whole faith.
And so, consider these things with me in order, so that we may see how great a thing it is to possess the whole faith without any deficiency and firmly, a faith so powerful that, when it is entirely within C a man’s soul, it is able even to move mountains (of whatever kind they may be). For while all men might be able to move the mountain, or the mountains, which Jesus pointed out—if, however, certain things were lacking to the perfect faith, the power to move mountains would also be lacking.
And I shall indeed use such an example even for these things: just as those many men, possessing such strength, first launch the ship into the sea; but if one of the workmen were lacking, or if the strength of some thing were absent, the ship would not be launched; so, as it were, many are they who move the mountains—namely, the whole faith. And so much is lacking in the power of the moving of the mountains, as is lacking toward possessing the whole faith, by him who is still imperfect in it.
And if perhaps all these things were not examined to good purpose for the sake of the disciples whose feet Jesus washed, to whom he said, as one who had not examined it might suppose, as if they had not yet believed, the words: “From now on I tell you before it happens, so that you may believe when it happens that I am he.” D At the same time, the unfolding argument shows how great a...
matter is the virtue containing all faith, and that it is rarely found: it shows, moreover, how far any of us is from possessing that fullness of faith which moves mountains. Nevertheless, the matter upon which we are led to believe is not to be despised, according to what is now set forth: that the prophets had previously prophesied what pertains to Jesus, and that those things which were foretold by them have come to pass for the Savior in accordance with their word.
B 10. “Amen, amen I say to you: whoever receives anyone I send, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives him who sent me.” Jesus sends not only holy men, but also holy men and angels: and those whom he sends are called apostles—that is, those who are sent—because they are sent by him. Now of these, some are men, others are higher powers. For we shall not err C if we apply the name “apostle” also to these, concerning whom it is written: “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?” For if they are apostles because they are sent, and all are [sent] by him who “makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire,” being sent forth into ministry as ministering spirits, these also would be apostles of him who sends them. And indeed, everyone who is sent by someone is an apostle of the one who sent him; just as it was stated in the foregoing after the words: “A servant is not greater than his D master, nor an apostle greater than him who sent him.” According to this, one will not err in calling John an apostle of God, because of the text: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” And Isaiah likewise will be an apostle, because of the text: “Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people?” when he answered, saying: “Here am I, send me.” But why speak of these, when even in the Epistle to the Hebrews such a great Savior of ours is called an apostle of the Father? For it is written: “Having therefore a great high priest and apostle, Jesus Christ.” And now, therefore, whoever the Savior sends to minister to the salvation of some, that person who is sent is an apostle of Jesus Christ. But an apostle, just as he is an apostle of the one who sent him, is an apostle only to those to whom he is sent. Pondering this, Paul said: “If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” It is permitted, therefore, for someone to be an apo-
-Astle of Jesus Christ sent to one person alone, if by the providence of God he has dispensed the word to that one alone. These things we have said, that we may again look upon the excellence of those who were esteemed as apostles of Jesus Christ: “For they gave to me and Barnabas,” he says, “the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.” Therefore, Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles alone, and Peter to the whole of the circumcision. But if any of us is deemed worthy, as the Apostle indicated, to go to someone, or to a few more, that person becomes an apostle. And if it happens, let him not be puffed up, mindful of this: “Moreover, it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.” For it is not always the case that if something is sought, that which is sought is found. These things are because of this: “He who receives whomever I may send.” He names as apostles as many as may chance to be sent by Jesus, even if, as we have said, they are not such; and because it is possible that even things superior to human nature may be sent by Jesus. He, therefore, who receives whomever Jesus may send, receives Jesus in the one sent; and he who receives Jesus receives the Father. Therefore, he who receives whomever Jesus may send, receives the Father who sent Jesus, who sent Himself. B This saying can also be of such a sort: “He who receives whomever I may send, receives me,” and it reaches as far as receiving me; but he who does not receive me through any apostle of mine, but receives me—not administered by humans, nor through humans, but coming upon the souls of those who have diligently prepared themselves for my reception—these receive the Father who sent me, so that not only I, Christ, may be in him, but the Father also. It is possible from these things also to understand the opposite: for he who receives whomever the son of the evil one may send, he receives the Antichrist. But he who receives the son of the evil one and admits a word contrary to Christ—pretending to be truth and falsely promising to be righteousness—this person receives the evil one himself. Wherefore let us pay attention, so that like good money-changers we may indeed test the minister of true things, but reject the one administering false things. C And here, indeed, it says, “He who receives whomever I send receives me; and he who receives me receives Him who sent me”; and “He who sees me sees Him who sent me.” But it has not been said: “He who believes in you believes in me,” nor: “He who sees you sees me.” For while He wishes us to receive His own apostles, He does not wish us to believe in them. Therefore, let us receive those who are sent to us by the Word and the Word of God Himself; yet let us by no means receive an apostle of the Antichrist and a false word.
11. When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit, and He testified and said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, that one of you will betray me.” D
He had said above: “Now my soul is troubled” A, but now it is said: “When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit.” I seek into this place why it has not been said in a way analogous to “Now my soul is troubled,” that is, “The spirit of Jesus is troubled,” or conversely, why that which was said, “Now my soul is troubled,” was not said according to the likeness of that other saying, “He was troubled in spirit.” I have dared to seek these things moderately, having observed throughout all the Scripture the difference between soul and spirit, and seeing that the soul is something intermediate, capable of virtue and vice, but that the spirit of man which is in him is incapable of the worse things; for the very best things are said to be the fruits of the spirit, B not of the Holy Spirit, as one might think, but of the human spirit. For by way of contrast to this, the works of the flesh are said to be manifest, which are all to be blamed, since no work of the flesh is praiseworthy. Once, however, up to this point, I have found the spirit of an evil man said to be hardened by the Lord God. For it is written thus in Deuteronomy: “And Seon, king of Esebon, would not let us pass by him, because the Lord God hardened his spirit, and confirmed his heart, that he might be delivered into thy hands, as it is this day.” But the matters concerning this would be more appropriately examined in the commentaries on Deuteronomy. Now, however, it is proposed to us to say how Jesus, having said the aforementioned things, was troubled, not in soul, nor by the soul, nor even of the spirit, but in spirit. In order, then, C that the observation concerning the spirit may not fail, it must be said that in the case of “Now my soul is troubled,” the affection of the trouble was of the soul; but where it is said, “Jesus was troubled in spirit,” which is the human spirit, the passion was one coming by the predominance of the spirit. For just as a holy person lives by the spirit initiating all those things that are in his life, and every action, and prayer, and the hymn to God, so whatever he does, he does by the spirit; but even if he suffers, he suffers in spirit. And if this is the case with a holy person, how much more must these things be said concerning Jesus, the prince of the saints, whose human spirit, in the fact that He took on the whole man, shook the other human elements that were in Him? And in this D way He was troubled in spirit, in order to testify, and in order to say with a divine-like oath, that “Amen” which is “I say to you that one of you will betray me.” For I think that the spirit, having seen that which had already been cast by the devil into the heart of Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, that he should betray his Master, having been illuminated concerning things to come, was troubled; and since the trouble came from the knowledge that was through the spirit, which spirit also was in a state of trouble, it is said that Jesus was troubled in spirit. Perhaps also, according to one interpretation, since “the flesh is weak,” the flesh too was troubled; and these things were what Jesus knew, having been illuminated by Gabriel to Mary concerning the things that were to come.
A “And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest.” You will note in the matters we are examining, in what way the word “testified” is referred to the text: “One of you will betray me.” For this saying, spoken and prophesied to the disciples concerning Judas, who was one of them, was a testimony—equivocal, I think—with that meaning which is derived from standing and dying for the worship of God. For I do not think that the same meaning is intended by the word “testified” when that word, from which “witness” [that is, *martys*] is formed, is declared concerning God and his Christ, as when it is now referred to the text: “One of you will betray me.”
Still, according to my power, I also look at the words: “One of you,” referred to Judas, lest it indicate that he had fallen from the apostolic order in which he had been exalted, B having once possessed a disposition similar to the other apostles; for this is how I also heard the text: “Behold, Adam has become as one of us.” For it is not even said there “as we” or “as I,” but because of the one who fell from blessedness: “as one of us,” because one has fallen. And it seems to me to harmonize also with the verse: “But you shall die like men, and shall fall like one of the princes.” For since there were many princes, the one fell, and sinners who imitate his fall, fall in a way similar to him. For just as he who existed in divinity fell, so also do those to whom the Word says: “I said: You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Highest.” But having fallen from blessedness, though they were not originally men, they die as men, and fall like one of the princes.
I think, moreover, that these words were spoken with admiration, in such a sense as this: He who is about to betray me is not a stranger to my disciples, C not even one of the many and common disciples, but one of the number of those apostles whom I had honored by choosing them. And while many who condemned Jesus say, “Crucify, crucify him,” and “Take such as this from the earth,” yet to betray him was the work of him who had both seen and understood him. For knowing him to be the teacher of such great and many teachings, which he had heard privately with the apostles, and knowing him to be the Lord, by betraying him he betrayed the greatness which he knew, whereas no one who had not seen his greatness would have done this. For he indeed betrayed one who was great, yet not in that he is great, since he did not see him in that he is great. D But he who had even learned how he was great, and had become a listener to the greatness of the wisdom, and the word, and the grace in him, yet betrayed him—he betrayed him not according to the whole greatness that he saw. For this reason it was profitable for him if he had not been born, whether as to the birth of the regeneration, as one might look at it more deeply, and with the text: “You.”
or as to this more common birth: concerning which birth he who wishes to free himself from troubles, when he has inquired that whatever is useful, is useful to him who exists, and considering that to him who does not exist it confers nothing, A nor is it useful, when he has come to the second exposition, he will more readily accept it.
12. « The disciples looked at one another, doubting of whom he spoke. » If the malice of Judas had been manifest to the disciples of Jesus, the one who was about to betray the Master would have been recognized, when the Saviour said, « One of you will betray me; » but now the disciples look at one another, doubting of whom he speaks. For Judas perhaps had previously, through his more virtuous deeds, persuaded the apostles so that they suspected nothing evil concerning him; or perhaps, though the devil had already cast into his heart that Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, should betray him, he was not B yet entirely lost to wickedness; for since a remainder of good purpose existed in him, having seen that Jesus was condemned, when they had bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor, « repenting, he brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood; » and when they said, « What is that to us? See to it yourself, » the lover of money, Judas, « having thrown down the silver, departed and hanged himself, » not even waiting to see the end of the judgment concerning Jesus before Pilate. And there was in him neither a repentance cleansed C from sin, nor wickedness pure and unmixed with something better; for if he had truly repented, and like the thief, having said, « Remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom, » he had approached the Saviour, he would have done the things required by Him, for the sake of propitiating Him for the betrayal that had already taken place. But if he had wholly driven out from his soul the goodwill toward the good, he would not have repented upon seeing that Jesus was condemned; but he would even have added discourses accusing him, akin to the betrayal; but also, enjoying as a lover of money the thirty pieces of silver he had received, the price of the one D appraised, he would not have decided to throw away the silver, nor would he have returned them to the chief priests and elders, nor would he have confessed his sin before those very men, accusing himself, while praising the Master by saying: « I have sinned in betraying righteous blood. » But also, that he should hang himself, no one else brought about, except the one who had cast into his heart that he should betray the Saviour; and in both respects indeed he gave place to the devil. These things I have worked out according to my ability, at once setting before those who
A supposed that Judas was by nature incapable of salvation, that he was not such a person; and at the same time explaining how the apostles might reasonably look at one another upon the Lord's word, doubting of whom He spoke. But it is sufficient for demonstrating that he had fallen, though he had been holy, to bring forward the prophetic passage from the fortieth Psalm, which shows that being holy he had fallen, for: "For even the man of my peace, in whom I hoped, who ate my bread, has magnified his supplantation against me." Moreover, the text: "If an enemy had reproached me, I would have endured it," which is referred to the same person, declares that he was not an enemy from the beginning. And likewise the passage: "If he who hates me had spoken evil things against me, I would have hidden myself from him," demonstrates that he too had once loved Jesus, having reached the point of being even a familiar friend to Him, since it is B written: "But you, a man of like mind, my leader and my acquaintance." You might find ten thousand other things from which you will understand that the disciples reasonably looked at one another, doubting of whom He spoke. Luke has written that, after the Saviour said: "But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table; and the Son of Man goes according to what has been destined for Him; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed," the disciples began to inquire among themselves who it was among them who was about to do this; for they were discussing it, doubting of whom He spoke. But according to Luke it is not apparent that each one suspected himself, whereas according to Matthew and Mark this is also shown. For Matthew says: "And being very sorrowful they began to say: Is it I, Lord?" And Mark: "They began to be C sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one: Is it I? and another: Is it I?" For they remembered, I think—being human—that the disposition of those who are still progressing is mutable, and capable of being willing to do things contrary to what they had previously intended. And perhaps also, having learned against what things we have our struggle, because of the uncertain outcome of human affairs, they were fearful, lest, being overcome, they might at some point admit to the betrayal of the Teacher. For example, Peter indeed had the intent, when he stated with assurance: "Even if all are offended in You, I shall never be offended," not to deny Jesus; but having been overcome by the spirit of cowardice, he denied Him three times before the cock-crow. From such words we are taught that, "He who thinks he stands must take heed lest he fall," and, "Do not boast of tomorrow, for you do not know what the coming day will bring." D Perhaps also the passage: "The disciples looked at one another," besides the simpler meaning, indicates this: that each one, according to what is possible for human nature, was looking into the disposition of the other, wondering if a soul that had done such things, and had been so disposed toward the truthful Teacher who truly witnessed in the Law, was capable of the like.
A, is what is declared by that which is understood simply: that each person, according to the power of human nature, should look into the purpose of another, doubting whether a soul that had committed such deeds, and was so disposed toward the truthful Teacher—who had truly testified by saying, “Amen, amen, I say to you, that one of you will betray me”—could be so changed and forget the teachings of the Master as to arrive at handing him over. For the expression B concerning the disciples, “doubting of whom he spoke,” possesses emphasis, for they did not have the means to think to whom that which had been foretold applied, but they were doubting about this, finding nothing clear either to think or to say.
13. “There was one of his disciples reclining in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus loved.” Simon Peter therefore signals to him, and says to him, “Tell who it is of whom he speaks.” Reclining then upon the breast of Jesus, he says to him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus therefore answers, “It is he to whom I shall dip the morsel.” And having dipped the morsel, he takes it and gives it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot 83; and after the morsel, then Satan entered into him. Jesus therefore says to him, “What you do, do quickly.” But no one of those reclining knew for what purpose he said this to him; for some were thinking, since Judas had the money-box, that Jesus was saying to him, “Buy those things we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. C The one reclining in the bosom of Jesus, one of the disciples whom Jesus loved, seems to be John who wrote the Gospel; for at the end of the Gospel it is written in this manner: “Peter, turning, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also reclined at the supper upon his breast, and said, ‘Lord, who is it who is betraying you?’ Peter therefore seeing him, says to Jesus, ‘Lord, but what of this man?’ Jesus says to him, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.’ The report therefore went out to the brothers that that disciple does not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he does not die, but, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?’” But that this disciple who wrote the Gospel is John is clear from what follows, which is to this effect: “That this is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things, and wrote these things.” Observe, however, in both places of the Gospel in what way Peter, as if trusting him the most D, and reclining where he signals to him, and says, “Who is it of whom Jesus speaks as about to betray him?”—and where he sees him following, as if having a care for him more than the others, says to Jesus concerning him, “Lord, but what of this man?”—wishing to learn also the end for John, just as he had come to know concerning his own, namely that when he grew old, he would stretch out his hands, and another would gird him, and carry him where he would not. If indeed the words which Jesus spoke are spirit and not letter, in all of which there is life and nowhere death, and...
the disciple whom Jesus loved imitators him, writing spirit and life, one must hear the statement: A "There was reclining one of his disciples in the bosom of Jesus," according to the dignity of the honor which it is fitting for the Son of God to bestow, and for him whom He loved to receive. And I consider that, even if at that time John was reclining symbolically in the bosom of Jesus, having been judged worthy of this honor as being worthy of the exceptional love from the Master, this symbolic fact indicates that John, reclining toward the Word and resting in the more mystical things, reclined in the bosoms of the Word, analogous to his own being in the bosoms of the Father, according to that which says: "The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." B Unless we hear more humbly also the saying: "And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom," we shall conceive something of this kind also concerning the bosom of Abraham; which, if we explain it in this way, making an apology against the difficulty raised through ignorance of Scripture by one who desired to reject the narrative concerning the rich man and the beggar—"For if," he says, "Lazarus was reclining in the bosom of Abraham, another was in Abraham’s bosom before he departed from this life, and before him another; but also when another righteous man has departed, the beggar will rise up"—the one who is questioning about these things has not seen the bosom of Abraham, nor that it is possible for countless people to rest in the C bosom of Abraham at once, partaking of the things revealed to him. But if there is need to bring forward another passage from Scripture for the designation of the "bosom," come let us examine in what way the Lord spoke to Moses: "Again put thy hand into thy bosom; and he put his hand into his bosom; and he brought it out of his bosom; and his hand became leprous, as snow. And He said: Put thy hand into thy bosom; and he put his hand into his bosom; and he brought it out of his bosom, and it was again restored to the color of his flesh." And it is indeed difficult, and above our capacity, to see of what this sign can be the symbol. Since, however, it is not proper for us to grieve at the searching, [but] handing over what occurs to us to the judgment of the reader, we shall say D that the hand is in many places the symbol of actions; but the bosom of Moses has two powers: the former one, which makes the action of the one acting according to the sense of the letter leprous as snow (insofar as the Hebrew word goes), or even leprous; the second, which demonstrates the sincere purpose of life according to the spiritual law, [is] pure and restored to the will of the nature of the Word. And observe what is subjoined to these: "If they will not believe thee, neither hear the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the latter sign"; for he who has not believed the interpretation of the letter, is [to be...]
will, by reason of his greatness of mind, believe the spiritual interpretation of the law. A If, however, any one should not believe these two signs—the former, because it makes the action leprous; the latter, because it restores it to its natural state, for the water in this case becomes blood—it is written: "And it shall be, if they will not believe thee to these two signs, neither will harken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land." And observe, that in the case of this sign it is no longer said, "Whether they will believe thee," or, "They will not believe thee." For it is signified that for him who does not believe the two signs, the water taken from the river becomes blood, because, through unbelief, he is unable to enjoy the potable Word.
But let us return, having perhaps taken more than necessary regarding the bosom of Jesus for the place before us, and having learned that he whom Jesus loves was reclining in the bosom of Jesus, let us do everything to be judged worthy of his exceptional love; for in this way we ourselves shall also recline in the bosom of Jesus. B Now Simon Peter beckons to the beloved disciple, and not content with the beckoning, says to him: "Ask who it is of whom he speaks." Since, therefore, "beckoning" in the Proverbs is taken in the sense of calumny—for "the wicked man winks with his eye, beckons with his foot, and teaches with the movements of his fingers, contriving evils with a perverse heart," and "He who winks with his eyes with deceit gathers sorrows for men"—it must be said that it is not evil to beckon, but to "wink with the eye," that is, to slant the eye and not look straight, and it is "winking with deceit" that is blameworthy; but to beckon out of a desire to learn was the act of Peter, and as a consequence [it was proper] for such a signal to say to his fellow-student, as one having greater freedom toward the Master: "Ask who is the one of whom he speaks." For perhaps he desired to know the mystery which was in the betrayal by which Judas was betraying Jesus; C and in order that Peter might learn this, John, who was previously reclining in the bosom of Jesus, rose up and reclined upon his breast. And perhaps had he not risen and reclined upon the breast, but remained reclining in the bosom, Jesus would not have delivered the word which Peter and John were desiring to learn. If, therefore, though he was reclining previously in the bosom of Jesus, he later reclined upon the breast of Jesus, he is characterized by the second [act] in the final part of the Gospel as the genuine disciple of Jesus, as being greater and more excellent; for it is written that "Peter, turning, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also reclined at the supper upon his breast, and said: Lord, who is it that betrayeth thee?" for it is not written, "Who was reclining in his bosom." D
A 14. Let us see what the Lord said in response. "He," he says, "is the one to whom I shall dip the morsel and give it." Jesus therefore said this; and having dipped the morsel, he takes it and gives it to Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, and after the morsel, then Satan entered into him, who had previously been unable to enter, nor even immediately when he had cast into his heart that he should betray him. For it was necessary, I think, on account of the giving of the morsel, for Jesus to receive back from the unworthy that more excellent thing which he appeared to possess, since "from him who does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken away from him." Judas, therefore, being deprived, as one unworthy, by the more excellent One who had prayed for peace, received the entrance of Satan into himself.
By way of example, that it may be understood how the Lord indeed gave the morsel to Judas, but he then cast away from himself that which he possessed that was excellent—and perhaps the peace, returning from the one who heard but did not accept, unto the one who said it, according to that which is said: "If a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, your peace shall return to you"—we shall also bring forward what is written in the second Epistle to the Corinthians in this manner: "Let your abundance supply their lack, that their abundance also may become your lack." For if you consider the retribution in these matters of earthly things toward spiritual things, you will be able to know how, to him who was unworthy of bread, he distributed a morsel, so that through the morsel he might take away peace from Judas, as from one unworthy to hear further: "For even the man of my peace... let the filthy still be filthy." C When this had been taken away, he who was watching for an opportunity to enter into his soul, and for the one giving him a place to enter, entered into Judas.
Equally, observe that Satan had not entered into Judas before, but had only cast into his heart that he should betray the Master; but according to the things we are now closely examining, he entered into him after the morsel. Wherefore, let us also guard ourselves lest the devil at any time cast into our heart any of his own fiery darts; for if he casts one, he afterward also watches for an opportunity to enter. Someone might ask why it was not written, "He is the one to whom I shall give the morsel," but with this addition, "I shall dip." "For I shall dip," he says, "the morsel, and I shall give it," and having dipped the morsel, he takes it, and gives it to Judas the son of Simon Iscariot. In such places, then, apply your mind, whether you can say that sincere bread is not dipped, but is of itself—that is, nourishing; D but that which was given to Judas was not bread, but a morsel, and not an undipped morsel, but one dipped by the power...
A of him who could have removed from his soul every stain infused by the reason in any degree, so that after the morsel Satan might enter into him. But I would still seek what is written in Matthew akin to this passage, which says: “He who dipped his hand with me in the dish, he will betray me,” and that from Mark: “He who dips with me into the dish”; and that from Luke as well, even if it does not name the term “dipped,” but says simply: “But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.” Now, the true account of this matter would be found among those who are far wiser than I. But I conjecture that perhaps the impudence of Judas is shown even in this, in that he did not honor the Master at the meal while eating with Him, nor did he yield to Him the dipping into the dish, as the others did. Therefore, while none of them dipped their hand B into the dish with Him, he, not deigning to dip with them, dipped with Him, wishing to have equality with Him, when he ought to have yielded to His superiority. Wherefore, perhaps, what is also akin to this is: “But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.” And indeed, whoever might ever want to admonish young people politely to show deference to their elders at banquets would use this scriptural passage, so that they might not crowd the hand of their elders. For it is also written: “Do not crowd with him in the dish.” But not being ignorant that, regarding a curious question, and one where the defense is unable to persuade the auditor, glory is not gained C among those who hear these things, we have dared these points, judging it better to examine everything than to let anything that is written pass by unexamined.
15. When Satan had entered into Judas, Jesus says to him: “What you do, do quickly.” But to whom He says it is uncertain; for the Lord could have said to either Judas or Satan: “What you do, do quickly,” inviting either the antagonist to the struggle, or the betrayer to serve the dispensation which was about to be salutary for the whole world; which He wished not to hold back or delay any longer, but to hasten with all His might; not fearing, as some who do not understand how He said: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” D imagine, but most confidently stripping for the contest, if I may so speak. I think, therefore, that the twenty-sixth psalm was also prophesied from the person of the Savior for the time of the passion, with the devil contending against Him with all his might; for whom He beheld armed against Him and ready for the battle, when “the kings of the earth stood together, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ,” of whom he says:…
A “The Lord is my light and my salvation: whom then shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life: of whom shall I be afraid? Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh, my enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen. If armies in camp should stand together against me, my heart shall not fear. If a battle should rise up against me, in this will I be put to hope” (Ps. xxvi, 1-3). But as for what Jesus said, whether to Satan or to Judas: “That which thou dost, do quickly,” no one of those who were reclining at table knew for what purpose He had said it. For some thought, since the feast day of the Passover was at hand, that Jesus had said it to him who held the money bag, and of those things which were given for the use of the poor, that he should buy those things of which they had need for the feast day, or that he should give to the poor of those things which had been gathered. B But Jesus had not said this; rather, seeing both Satan who had entered, and Judas who had admitted him, and all the stratagems against Himself, as one prepared for the conflict and to act strenuously for the salvation of men against the evil one, that is, the devil, He said this: “That which thou dost, do quickly.”
16. “When he had taken the morsel, he went out immediately: and it was night.” The Savior had indeed said to Judas: “That which thou dost, do quickly”; and the traitor in this one thing now obeys the Master. For having taken the morsel, he does not delay, nor does he linger, but as it is written, “he went out immediately,” to perform quickly the work of the betrayal according to the command of Jesus; and he truly went out. For he went out not only according to the simpler sense C from the house in which the supper was being held, but he also went out entirely from Jesus, not otherwise than that saying: “They went out from us” (1 John ii, 19). And I think that Satan, who had entered into Judas after the morsel, could not bear to be in the same place with Jesus; for there is no concord of Christ with Belial (2 Cor. vi, 15). I ask further, unless it be a curious question, why at length to this phrase: “When he had taken the morsel,” there is not added, “and had eaten it”; but you yourself shall also examine this. For to this verb of “taking,” the evangelists add the verb of “eating,” when they wish; just as in the blessing of the bread it is written that Jesus said to the disciples: “Take and eat” (Matt. xxvi, 26). Come then, whether Judas did not eat the morsel he took (even if some of those things which we are about to say do not seem to agree with the D things going before), we shall explain in the present passage, with the reader judging which of the things said it behooves one to accept. “When he had dipped,” he says, “the morsel,” Jesus, and had let go of it—that is, into the dish—he takes it (for so you will understand that saying: “When, therefore, he had dipped the morsel,” so that the word “takes” may not be redundant); then it is said that “He gives it to Judas Iscariot,” and after the morsel, then Satan entered into him. After the morsel, therefore, perhaps not eaten by Judas, Satan—anticipating
A the use of the morsel, so that Judas would not derive benefit from the giving of the morsel by Jesus (for it indeed had a power beneficial to one who would use it; but he, having once cast into his heart so that he might betray the teacher, fearing lest what was cast might fall out of what was cast through the use of the morsel, anticipating him at the same time as Judas received the morsel, entered into him, when also, the word having been spoken, “What you do, do quickly,” Judas, having received the morsel, went out immediately. And in this way it might consistently be said in this place, just as he who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks His cup, eats and drinks to judgment, because of the one power in the bread and in the cup which is better, which works the better in one situated in a better disposition, but produces the judgment in one who is worse; so the morsel from Jesus was of the same kind as that given B to the other apostles, when He said, “Take, eat”; but to them it was for salvation, while to Judas it was for judgment, so that after the morsel Satan entered into him.
But let the bread and the cup be considered by those who are simpler according to the more common understanding concerning the Eucharist, that is, concerning the action of grace; but let those who have learned to hear more deeply consider that this was said according to the diviner promise also concerning the Word of truth, which provides nourishment more abundantly; just as if I were to say by way of example C that the bread which is most nourishing according to the body increases a fever that is present, yet leads to health the state of good constitution. For this reason, a word of truth often given to a sick soul, not needing such food, wears it out, and becomes a cause of worse things to it; and thus it is dangerous even to speak the truth. This, however, has been said by me because of the morsel which, having dipped, He gives to Judas, Simon’s son, the Iscariot; and we have stirred up the argument for both sides, whether one must say he ate it after receiving it, or was hindered by Satan who had entered into D Judas.
But if one must examine, as not having been cast out randomly by the evangelist, the statement, “And it was night,” it must be said that symbolically the sensible night then was an image, happening to be the image of the night that had come to pass in the soul of Judas, when the darkness that was being borne over the abyss, Satan, entered into him; for God called the darkness night. Thus we are not children of night, says Paul, nor of darkness, saying, “Therefore, brethren, we are not children of night, nor of darkness,” and, “But let us, who are of the day, be sober.” There was not, therefore, night for those being washed in their feet by Jesus, but a most brilliant day, for those being cleansed and casting off those things which were filthy in the feet of their souls.
A Excellent indeed, in a more superior way, night did not exist for him who was reclining in the bosom of Jesus, because Jesus, through the love with which He pursued him, had dissolved all darkness. And for Peter, even when he confessed that which the heavenly Father had revealed to him—namely, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"—it was not night; yet night and denial were with him at the same time. Therefore, now that Judas had taken the morsel and B immediately gone out, it was night for him upon his departure; for the Man whose name is the Orient was no longer present with him, as he had abandoned, in his going out, the Sun of justice. Judas, indeed, pursued Jesus full of darkness; but the darkness, and he who had received it, did not overtake the Light that was being pursued. Therefore, when he said, as if it were a word of justice, "I have sinned in betraying just blood," he went away and hanged himself, with Satan, who was in him, leading him by the hand as far as the noose and hanging him upon it, at which time the devil also touched his soul; for he was not such that it could be said of him by the Lord, as it is said concerning Job to the devil, "But do not touch his soul."
17. "When therefore he had gone out, Jesus says: Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God also shall glorify him in himself; and will straightway glorify him." C The beginning of the Son of man being glorified, after the glories which had occurred because of signs and wonders, and after the glory of the transfiguration, was the going out of Judas with the Satan who had entered into him, from the place where Jesus was. Therefore the Lord said, "Now is the Son of man glorified." And furthermore, the word, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself," was spoken by the Savior signifying by what death He would glorify God; for He glorified God even in dying. For this reason, because the beginning of the economy of Jesus' being about to die was being brought about by the departure of Judas after the morsel, in order that he might take action against Jesus, it was said, "Now is the Son of man glorified"; then, since it is not possible for Christ to be glorified without the Father being glorified D through Him, therefore to the words, "Now is the Son of man glorified," there are added these: "And God is glorified in him." However, the glory that came about because of the death for the sake of men did not belong to the only-begotten Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and whatever else is said to be of the more divine things in Jesus, but to the man, who was also the Son of man, born from the seed of David according to the flesh. Wherefore He said earlier, "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you"; but in the things now examined, He says, "Now is the Son of man glorified."
A And I think that God also highly exalted Him, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. For the Word, which was in the beginning with God, being God, does not admit of being exalted. But the exaltation of the Son of man, happening to Him for having glorified God in His own death, was that He was no longer to be another than the Word, but the same as He. For if "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit," so that one could no longer say of him and the Spirit that they are two, how much more should we say that the human element of Jesus has become one with the Word, being exalted, on the one hand, as He who "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," yet remaining in His own height, or even being restored to that place where He was before, being with God, B both God the Word and man? But the other glorification of Jesus, who glorified God through His own death, was when He "having despoiled the principalities and the powers, made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in the wood," and when He "made peace through the blood of His cross, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens." For in all these was the Son of man glorified, God also being glorified in Him. But since he who is glorified is glorified by someone, you will inquire into the words, "Now is the Son of man glorified," as to by whom: and similarly also in the words, "And God is glorified in Him." C For the sake of the clarity of the expressions, let us carefully attend first to that which is said: "Now is the Son of man glorified," secondly to that: "And God is glorified in Him," thirdly to this connected statement: "If God is glorified in Him, and God shall glorify" 27 "Him in Himself," and fourthly: "And straightway shall glorify Him." Unless perhaps someone says that Christ is repeating this addition which concludes the connected statement, so that the connected statement begins from the words: "God is glorified in Him," and ends at: "And God shall glorify Him in Himself, and straightway shall glorify Him." But we must necessarily attend to the name of 'glory,' which is not used here for that which is, among some of the Greeks, an intermediate thing 28 (where they define 29 glory as the praise coming from the many): it is clear that the name is used for something else besides this, from that which is thus spoken in Exodus: "And the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle; and Moses was not able to enter into the tabernacle of witness, because the cloud overshadowed it; and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." D And this is recorded in the third book of Kings.
in this manner: "And it happened, when the priests went out of the sanctuary, the cloud filled the house of the Lord; and the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord had filled the house." Moreover, such things are written in Exodus concerning A the glory of Moses: "And when Moses descended from the mountain, and the two tablets of the testament were in the hands of Moses; and as Moses was descending from the mountain, he did not know that his face appeared glorious from the speech he had with Him. And Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, and the appearance of the skin of his face was glorious, and they were afraid to come near to him." This meaning of glory is also declared in the Gospel of Luke with these words: "And it happened, while he was praying, the appearance of his face was changed, and his raiment became white and glistening. And behold, two men were talking with him, who were Moses and Elias; who appeared in majesty and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." See also in what B contexts Paul takes up the name of "glory"; for in one place he says: "But if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stones, was in glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, which is being abolished, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be in glory? For if the ministry of condemnation is glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed, that which had been glorified has no glory in this respect, because of the surpassing glory. For if that which is being abolished was with glory, much more is that which remains in glory." Elsewhere also: C "But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." And again, after a few words: "But if our gospel also is veiled, it is veiled in those who are perishing, in whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine upon them." And again, after a few words: "For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts to give the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Although the proposed explanation of the evangelical text does not D now require us to recount each of these points precisely, nevertheless these things must be said briefly. As far as the humble and corporal sense is concerned, a certain more divine manifestation took place in the tabernacle and in the completed temple, and on the face of Moses, who had conversed with the divine nature; but as far as the anagoge and the higher understanding are concerned, those things which are accurately known concerning God, and which are contemplated by a mind that has attained to a high degree of purity, might be called the glory of God that has been seen; since the mind that has been purified, and has surpassing all material things, in order to make accurate the contemplation of God...
in those things which it contemplates, is deified. It must be said that to have one’s face glorified after looking upon God, and conversing with Him, and dwelling in such a vision, is A of such a kind that it is tropically said that the face of Moses was glorified, because his mind was deified. To this effect the Apostle also said: "But we all, with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image." And just as the splendor of the light of night is dimmed when the sun rises, so is the glory of Moses overshadowed by the glory which is in Christ; for the excellence which is in Christ has no comparison, by which Christ, knowing the Father, was glorified in relation to those things known by Moses, and which glorified the face of his soul; B wherefore the glory that was on Moses is said to be passing away, in comparison with the surpassing glory which is in Christ.
18. But since we have discussed as much as our power allowed of those things which we set forth, let us return to the words: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." The Son, therefore, knows the Father, and in the very act of knowing Him, who is the greatest good, and of such a nature as one who is in perfect knowledge—which the Son knows (the Father)—He is glorified; I think, too, that by knowing Himself (which itself is not far from the former), He is glorified by having known Himself. C But if the knowledge of all things also completes the magnitude of His glory, both of those things which are hidden and those which are manifest, if you should inquire—perhaps this is what it is to be Wisdom itself, or for what is called the Son of man to be glorified by being united to Wisdom. And all this glory, by which the Son of man was glorified, He was glorified by the Father who bestowed it upon Him. And since there are many things that complete the whole glory of man, God is the preeminent one of all these. For He, by being known by the Son, is not simply glorified, but is glorified in the Son; according to which it is indeed a daring feat, and beyond our grasp, to commit ourselves to the examination D of such a discourse; yet one must dare to suggest what might be inquired into in this place. For I inquire if it is possible for God to be glorified, beyond being glorified in the Son, as we have declared, by being glorified more greatly in Himself, when, becoming in His own exalted state, in His own knowledge, and in His own contemplation—which is greater than the contemplation in the Son, as it is necessary to conceive of such things regarding God—it must be said...
that He is suffused with an ineffable delight, and gladness, and joy, finding pleasure and rejoicing in Himself. I use these words not as if they could be properly applied to God, but being in need of words for the unspeakable, if I may so call them, which He alone, and after Him His Only-Begotten, who possesses the proper language to speak or think of Him, can utter. A Since, however, we have arrived at this place where God is glorified through Christ, we may aptly ask how He is also glorified through the Holy Spirit, and through all in whom the glory of the Lord has been or shall be seen. Now, I consider the Son to be the radiance of the whole glory of God, according to him who said, "Who being the radiance of His glory" (Heb. 1, 3); yet I believe that from this radiance of the whole glory, particular radiances reach the rest of the rational creation; for I do not think that anyone can contain the entire radiance of the whole glory of God except His Son (59). Now, therefore, when the economy of the passion for all B of the Son of Man takes place, it is not without God, ("For which cause God hath highly exalted Him" (Phil. 2, 9)), "The Son of Man is glorified," He says, "and not alone; for God is also glorified in Him" (John 13, 31). And in this way one might explain the matters of this passage. It is written: "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father" (Matt. 11, 27; Luc. 10, 22), and it is said: "And blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16, 17). Insofar, therefore, as the Son was not known to the world ("For He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not" (John 1, 10)), He had not yet been glorified C by the world; and indeed, the loss caused by His not being glorified in the world was not that of Christ, who was not glorified, but of the world, which did not glorify Christ. But when the heavenly Father revealed the knowledge of Jesus to those who were of the world, then the Son of Man was glorified in those who knew Him; and through the glory in which He was glorified in those who knew Him, He acquired glory for those who knew Him (42). For those who with unveiled face reflect as in a mirror the glory of the Lord are transformed into the same image (II Cor. 3, 18). Observe, then, whence He says [it is] "from glory" and whither [it is] "to glory": from the glory of the One being glorified to the glory of those who glorify Him. When, therefore, He came to the economy, from which He was to rise upon the world, and by being known, was to be glorified D by the glory of those who glorify Him, He said: "Now is the Son of Man glorified." And since "no one knoweth the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him" (Matt. 11, 27), and the Son was to reveal the Father through the economy, for this reason "God is also glorified in Him." Or [it is] that saying: "And God is glorified in Him," which corresponds to: "He that seeth Me seeth the Father that sent Me" (John 14, 9); for He is contemplated in the Word who is God.
A And in the image of the invisible God, the Father who begat Him, for he who looks into the image of the invisible God is immediately able to see the prototype of the image, the Father. Furthermore, the meaning of the passage can be grasped more clearly in this way: as the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of some, so because of the saints, whose good works are seen shining brightly before men, the name of the Father who is in heaven is glorified. In whom, then, was He so much glorified as in Jesus, since "He committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth," nor "did He know sin"? Being such, then, the Son was glorified, and God was glorified in Him. And if God was glorified in Him, the Father returns to Him a greater gift than the Son of Man has done; for it is greater for the one who has glorified God, being lower, to be glorified by the one who is superior, according to the saying: "The Father who sent Me is greater than I" (John 14, 28) — namely, the glorification of the Son of Man by God, who is greater, in the God who is B superior. And the glory in the Son when the Father glorifies Him is far, far more surpassing than that in the Father when the Father is glorified in the Son. And it was fitting, indeed, that the greater one, in return for the glory with which the Son had glorified Him, should bestow upon the Son the gift of being glorified in Him, so that the Son might be in God, being glorified. Then, since these things were not yet about to happen (I mean the glorification of the Son in God), for this reason He adds: "And straightway He shall glorify Him" (John 13, 31). We are not unaware that these things are far inferior to what the passage under examination contains, as God reveals and His Word is present to demonstrate the glory of God and that which the Father is able to bestow in order that all the glory of God might be known. C Therefore, as men who are small and far more abject than the dignity of the discourses requires, let us give thanks to God for these things which we have set forth; which are far greater than our own dignity.
19. "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. And as I said to the Jews, 'Whither I go, ye cannot come,' and to you I say now" (John 13, 33). Having collected from the Gospels the utterances spoken by our Savior, as from a father to children, one may venture to say that the Savior is the father of some: for to the paralytic He says, "Be of good courage, son, thy sins are forgiven thee" (Matt. 9, 2); and to the woman with the issue of blood, "Daughter, thy faith has made thee whole" (Matt. 9, 22). And now to the disciples He says, "Little children," D indicating, I think, something of a caressing affection, and at the same time teaching the apostles that they were even then small in soul. But if someone should ask whether the paralytic, addressed as "Son," was more honorable than those to whom the Son of God says, "Little children," let him know that he who is a little child is altogether
A a son; therefore, it is not forbidden for the paralytic who is called "son" to also be a "little child." Thus, there is no necessity for the paralytic who has been named "son" to be more perfect than those to whom the Word said "little children." One must know that, just as in the case of men it is impossible for a son to later become a brother of the one whom he has already preceded as a son, it is not impossible for one to change from a son of Jesus to becoming his brother. Those, therefore, to whom he said, "Little children," after the Savior’s resurrection (as if he had been changed by the resurrection of Jesus), become brothers of him who had previously said to them, "Little children"; wherefore it is written: "Go to my brothers, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." And perhaps, just as it is allowed to change from a servant of Jesus—for the disciples were also servants before they became little children, as is clear from this saying: "You call me Master and Lord, and you speak well, for I am," and from those words: "The servant is not greater than his lord," which is written before these words: "Little children, yet a little while I am with you"—you should examine whether a servant first becomes a disciple, then a little child, and finally a brother of Christ and a son of God. You should also examine whether one should be called a disciple among these who, because he has manifested himself, will be about to receive the knowledge of the Word, learning from such a great teacher the wisdom of God.
But that saying, "Yet a little while I am with you," according to the simpler sense, which pertains to the context, is clear, since he was soon no longer to be with the disciples; first, indeed, having been seized by the cohort, and the tribune, and the Jewish ministers who bound him and led him away to Annas first; but after this, having been handed over to Pilate, and subsequently condemned to the cross, and finally having spent three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. But according to a deeper sense, you shall inquire whether, perhaps, after that "a little while," he was no longer with them—not because he was not present with them according to the flesh, and because he had descended with his soul to the underworld (for because of this reason, he who had said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them," and, "Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age," was not prevented from being even with the disciples), but because that was fulfilled: "All you will take offense at me this night; for it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered." Therefore, he was no longer to be with them, because he is only with the worthy. But against this, someone might object with that saying: "In the midst of you stands one whom you do not know," D saying that he is also with those who do not know him. But see whether it is not the same thing for him to be with someone—which is given in a promise to the worthy—as for him to be standing and remain unknown in the midst of those who do not know him; for the promise is, "Where two [or three are gathered in my name, I am in the midst of them.]"
and that which says, "Behold I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age," is not of the same kind as, "In the midst of you stands one whom you do not know." Therefore, he who had said, "Behold I am with you," in the present context says, "A little while I am with you." And he who says, "A little while I am with you," definitely did not say to Judas, in whose heart the devil had already cast that he might betray the Savior, "I am with you"; A for he was no longer with him, not even when he dipped the morsel and gave it to him. But when, after the morsel, Satan entered into him, Jesus was much less with Judas, who had withdrawn himself far from the Savior; "For what concord has Christ with Beliar?" Even though Jesus was to be with his little children as their father for a little while longer, we should know that this "little while" is something great. For even if Jesus was not with them, nonetheless they were going to seek Jesus; just as Peter, after his denial, wept bitterly, seeking, I suppose, Jesus. Now, therefore, the saying, "A little while I am with you," has been spoken; but a little later he says, "A little while, and you see me no longer; and again a little while, and you shall see me," when, as the disciples were saying, "What is this that he says, 'A little while'? We do not know what he is talking about," Jesus, knowing that they wanted to ask him, said to them: "Do you inquire about this among yourselves, because I said, 'A little while, and you do not see me; and again a little while, and you shall see me'? Amen, amen I say to you, that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; B you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy." For in that little while, during which they did not see him, they were seeking Jesus. Wherefore they wept and lamented, but their sorrow having been changed into joy, that saying was fulfilled: "And again a little while, and you shall see me." In these things you may examine whether he who, after a little while, does not see him, if indeed he is to see him afterward, will see him altogether after no long time; as we contemplate the words, "And again a little while, and you shall see me." To seek Jesus is to seek the Word, and Wisdom, and Justice, and Truth, and the Power of God, all of which Christ is. But some seek him from among those who saw the signs, and who, with the seeing, received bread from him and ate it, the cause of their seeking having become the fact that they were fed by the Word—for he says, "You seek me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled." C Then, since he had previously said to the Jews, "I go away, and you will seek me, and in your sin you will die," and, "Where I go, you cannot come," referring the present text to that, he says: "And as I said to the Jews, that 'Where I go, you cannot come,' so I say to you also now." For as he says he said this to them, so also to you—but I say this to you also, not regarding an extended time; for so do I hear from the Word. D
A For thus I understand the phrase, "I say to you also now," which does not have the same meaning as if he had said: "I say to you," without the addition of the word "now." For the Jews, whom he had foreseen would die in their sin, could not go, not even for a short time, to where Jesus was going; but the disciples, after that little time had passed during which he was no longer to be with them, were able, for the reasons mentioned above, to follow the Word as he departed for his own dispensations.
And if these words, "Where I am going, you cannot come," had not been preceded by, "As I said to the Jews," we might have considered these things to have been said more simply, referring the word "now" to the time when the soul of Jesus was departing from life. But if the Jews were going to die, and Jesus was also going to die and descend B to the underworld, how could they not go to where Jesus was going? But someone might say that Jesus was also going to be in the paradise of God, to which those who died in their sins could not journey; but the disciples of Jesus, although they could not go then, were able to do so afterward. For that reason, it was said to the Jews dying in their sin: "Where I am going, you cannot come," but to the disciples: "Where I am going, you cannot come *now*." For the order of the utterance is this: "As I said to the Jews, so I say to you also: Where I am going, you cannot come now."
However, this passage presents not a few questions, because of the text: "The Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." For how C could he be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, if, as soon as he had departed from life, he was to be in the paradise of God, according to the words: "Today you will be with me in the paradise of God"? But this statement has so troubled some, as if it were inconsistent, that they have dared to suspect that these words, "Today you will be with me in the paradise of God," were added to the Gospel by certain fabricators.
But we say, according to a simpler meaning, that perhaps before departing for what is called the "heart of the earth," he restored to the paradise of God the man who said to him: "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom." But according to a deeper meaning, we generally say that in many places the word "today" in Scripture D extends over the entire present age; just as it is also in: "This report has been spread among the Jews until today"; and: "This is the father of the Moabites until this present day"; and: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden yourselves against the Lord." Therefore, on this present day, he promises...