Chapter 5

Chapter V.


Second, on the manifestation of the Word with respect to conditions on the part of the Word Himself who is manifested.

1. After these things there was etc. That principal part has been concluded in which the manifestation of the incarnate Word is treated insofar as it regards conditions on the part of those to whom the manifestation is made: here begins the second principal part, in which the manifestation of the incarnate Word is treated insofar as it regards conditions on the part of the Word Himself who is manifested. For He shows that the Son of God Himself, who is the Word of the Father, manifests Himself as healer, preserver, director, and life-giver.

First, therefore, He shows Himself as healer in the present chapter. Second, as preserver in the sixth chapter, there: After these things He went away etc. Third, as director from the beginning of the seventh chapter up to the eleventh, and it begins there: After these things Jesus walked in Galilee etc. Fourth, as perfect restorer in the raising of Lazarus, at the beginning of the eleventh chapter, there: Now there was a certain man sick, Lazarus.

First, the Son of God manifests Himself as healer.

2. The present chapter, therefore, in which He manifests Himself as healer through the wondrous liberation of the paralytic, has four parts according to the four things that are determined therein. In the first is touched upon the miraculous healing. In the second, the calumniation of the healing, there: Now it was the Sabbath. In the third, the refutation of the calumniation, there: Jesus therefore answered and said to them. In the fourth, the corroboration of the refutation, and this through many testimonies, there: If I bear witness etc.

The wondrous healing, therefore, is described according to the letter from four aspects: first, from the fitness of the time; second, from the disposition of the place; third, from the need of the sick man; fourth, from the power of the one healing.

3. (Vers. 1.). First, therefore, it is described from the fitness of the time, because it was a festive time, in which the Lord was accustomed to bestow benefits. For this reason he says: After these things, namely those things which were narrated above, there was a feast day of the Jews. Chrysostom says that this feast day was Pentecost, which was midway between Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is, the solemnity of booths. And Jesus went up to Jerusalem, as all the Jews had in custom: Luke 2: "They went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast day."

4. (Vers. 2.). Now there is at Jerusalem. Here second is touched upon the disposition of the place where the healing was done, because it was in the place of healing, which was the sheep pool; on account of which he says: Now there is at Jerusalem a sheep pool, that is, a pool for livestock, because there the victims from the flocks were washed; and this pool was near the temple and from this function had received its name. Therefore he says: Which is called in Hebrew Bethsaida, that is, house of livestock, because it had this function. It also had an adornment; whence he says: Having five porticoes. And the reason is given for why it had these.

5. (Vers. 3.). In these lay a great multitude of the sick, and incurable by nature: whence he says: Of the blind, the lame, the withered, waiting for the moving of the water, so that they might be healed through the benefit of divine grace, which was bestowed in the descent of the Angel. Therefore he says:

6. (Vers. 4.). Now an Angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pool, namely to heal: and he adds the sign of this descent: And the water was stirred, so that those who could not see the Angel might see the water: and he adds the divine effect: And whoever first descended into the pool after the stirring of the water, as being more diligent, was made well from whatever infirmity held him, without distinction, because, as is said in Acts 10, "God is no respecter of persons," etc.

7. (Vers. 5.). Now there was a certain man etc. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the necessity of the sick man, because he had long been sick and destitute of all help. He had long been sick, whence he says: Now there was a certain man there: a certain one, singular in his misery, having thirty-eight years in his infirmity. Behold, the length of infirmity, by which the Lord was moved to have mercy and to seek out and address him. Whence he says:

8. (Vers. 6.). When Jesus had seen him lying, oppressed by infirmity, and knew that he had already been there a long time, in the suffering of misery: he says to him, through the kindness of mercy: Do you wish to be made well ? through the power of divine might. He did not ask this because he doubted his will, but in order to make manifest his need. Which he also did by his response: therefore he adds:

9. (Vers. 7.). The sick man answered him: Lord, I have no man, so that when the water is stirred, he might put me into the pool: and so I am destitute, and there is none to help: the Psalm: "Trouble is near and there is none to help", and I of myself am powerless. Whence he adds: While I am coming, another descends before me: and so I cannot be healed, because only one is healed, and that the one who descends first. And thus the necessity of the sick man is indicated.

10. (Vers. 8.). Jesus says to him. Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the power of the healer, because he heals by command alone. Therefore he says: Rise, take up your bed and walk: rise, through restored health: take up your bed, through strength: and walk, through the certainty of health. And this was done: whence he also adds:

11. (Vers. 9.). And immediately the man was made well; behold, restored health: and he took up his bed: behold, strength: and he walked: behold, the certainty of health. And all this was done by the word of Christ: the Psalm: "He spoke, and they were made"; whence in Esther 13, Mordecai said: "Lord, almighty King, all things are placed in your dominion," etc.

12. Morally. It should be noted here what this pool having five porticoes is, who the sick are, and how they are healed.

The pool, which is gathered from rainwaters, is penance, in which there is an outpouring of tears for the loss of heavenly things. Concerning this rain, Jeremiah 5 : They did not say: Let us fear our God, who gives us the early rain, that is, compunction for evils committed, and the latter rain, for goods omitted. This rain descends to the valleys; it is not on the mountains and the proud: 2 Kings 1: Mountains of Gilboa, let neither dew nor rain come upon you.

This pool of penance has five porticoes, in which rests a multitude of the infirm: because there are five considerations which ought to make a person remain in penance.

13. The first consideration is the guilt of sin, by which one has bound oneself to punishment: Psalm : For I am ready for scourges, and my sorrow is continually before me.

The second consideration is the severity of judgment: Sirach 2 : If we do not do penance, we shall fall into the hands of the Lord: Hebrews 10: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The third consideration is the opportunity of time, because afterward there will be no place for penance: Ecclesiastes 9 : Whatever your hand is able to do, do it earnestly, because neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge will be in the netherworld, to which you hasten.

The fourth consideration is the uncertainty of the last day: Ecclesiastes 9 : Man does not know his end: but as fish are caught with a hook, and as birds are seized with a snare, so are men caught in an evil time, when it suddenly comes upon them.

The fifth consideration is the uncertainty of one's own state, because one does not know whether one has done anything pleasing to God: therefore he said in the Psalm : And I said: Now I have begun: Sirach 10: Every dominion is a brief life.

14. The infirm are: the blind, sinning through ignorance: Matthew 15 : They are blind and leaders of the blind. And if a blind man offers guidance to a blind man, both fall into a pit.

There are the lame, who sin through weakness: Hebrews 12 : Make straight steps with your feet, so that you do not go lame. - There are the withered, who sin through malice or hardness: Sirach 3 : The hard heart shall fare ill at the last: Sirach 37: O most wicked presumption! Whence were you created to cover the earth with its malice and deceitfulness?

These are healed at the coming of the Angel, that is, of the divine visitation; Job 33 : He rebukes through pain upon the bed, etc. -

After the stirring of the water, that is, of interior weeping: Lamentations 2 : Pour out your heart like water before the face of the Lord.

Through the descent into the pool of water, that is, the humility of penance: Isaiah 47 : Come down, sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne for the daughter of the Chaldeans.

QUESTIONS.


15. Question I. Here the inquiry concerns the power of this pool:

1. From where did it have this power, and by what reason was it thus continually conferred upon that pool?

2. Likewise, since the power was so great, how is it that Scripture makes no mention of it? It seems that this was due to the negligence of the writers. — If you say that this power appeared near the time of Christ's passion, it is then asked: why did it appear near the passion, and why did it cease when the passion came?

Some respond that in that pool was the wood of the cross, which at that time began to appear and float to the surface; therefore, to ennoble the trophy of his passion, the Lord willed to show that miracle, and near the passion, because then it began to float, and not after the passion, because the wood was extracted from it.

But because this has no authority from the Scriptures, it is destroyed by the same reason by which it is proved.

On account of this, others say that in that water there was no power, but the Angel descending at a fixed time did this in the water by a power given to him by the Lord. — It must be said, therefore, that this power was given to the Angel in the water as a figure of baptism, in which cleansing is accomplished through water and healing through the Spirit. And therefore it was sent forth near the time of baptism, and when baptism came, it ceased. Therefore, because it lasted a short time and began late, Scripture made no mention of it.

And thus the response to all the objections is clear.

16. Question II. Likewise it is asked: 1. Since it was equally easy for the Lord to cure all as to cure one, and he himself is most generous, why did he not give that water the effect of curing all?

2. Likewise, concerning the Lord himself it is similarly asked: why did he cure only one, when he could cure all as easily as one?

I respond: It must be said that that bodily healing was more as a sign than as a benefit for the one to whom it belonged, for it was ordered to the healing of the soul. Because, therefore, it was ordered to designating and prefiguring that healing, it ought to have been done in the way that would best signify it. And because healing in the Church exists only in the unity of faith and charity, therefore only one was cured.

What is therefore objected does not hold, because it was not only for a benefit, but also for a sign.

17. Question III. But then there is a further question: If it belongs to mercy to have compassion on misery, then where there is greater misery, mercy ought to be more inclined; therefore it was not the one who descended first who ought to have been healed, but the one who was more in need.

I respond: It must be said that, as has been stated, it was a sign of the healing of the soul; and because the soul is healed by God according to its disposition for receiving grace, not according to the gravity of its guilt, therefore the one who descended first and most eagerly obtained health first.

18. Question IV. Likewise it is asked: since the Lord in Matthew chapter nine encourages the paralytic to confidence and from others whom he healed demands a confession of faith, how is it that from this man he asks nothing at all?

I respond: It must be said that we understand that when the Lord healed someone, he left him wholly sound, not only in body but also in soul.

On account of this it must be noted that there were some who had fallen into illness from fault; and because these had to be healed in soul, and the soul is not healed except through faith in Christ, from such persons the Lord required a confession of faith. — Others there were who were infirm for the manifesting of the glory of God, as the man born blind, below in the ninth chapter, and Lazarus who was dead, below in the eleventh chapter; and from such persons the Lord did not require a confession of faith, but rather healed them by pure liberality; and it is of the wondrous healing of such persons that John treats. Because, therefore, this man was of such a kind, he did not require faith from him.

But because this solution is against the Gloss, therefore it must be said that he only requires faith from those who seek salvation.

19. Now it was the Sabbath etc. After the miraculous healing of the paralytic has been described, here secondly the calumniation of the healing is described, in the description of which the Evangelist proceeds in this order. First is introduced the reproof of the healed man; second, the devolution of the calumny upon the healer; third, the manifestation of the healer; fourth, the persecution of him who was manifested; fifth, obstinacy in the persecution.

20. (Vers. 9.). The reproof of the healed man is therefore first introduced from the fact that he was carrying his mat on the day of the Sabbath, on which he had been made well. On account of which, intimating the occasion for calumny, the Evangelist says: Now it was the Sabbath on that day, namely on which he had been healed and was carrying his mat, and on this occasion the Jews were reproving him. Therefore he adds:

21. (Vers. 10.). The Jews therefore said to him who had been made well, calumniating him: It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to take up your mat. For to take up a mat seemed to be servile work, which was forbidden to be done on the Sabbath: Leviticus twenty-three: "The seventh day shall be more solemn and more holy; you shall do no servile work in it."

22. (Vers. 11.). He answered them. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the devolution of the calumny upon the healer, because that healed sick man excuses himself by the command of the healer. Therefore he says: He who made me well, by his power, he said to me: Take up your mat and walk, commanding by his own authority. And certainly, he who had so great a power well had the authority for so great a command; whence he said in Matthew nine: "But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, he said to the paralytic: Arise, take up your bed and go into your house." If he could forgive sins, then he could dispense from the precept concerning the Sabbath. But the Jews, not heeding this, inquire about him so that they might calumniate him. On account of which he says:

23. (Vers. 12.). They therefore asked him: Who is that man, a weak man, not God almighty, who said to you: Take up your bed and walk? who commanded against the Law, not who healed by power. They seek evil things, they are silent about good things: Proverbs 11: "He who seeks good things rises well at dawn: the searcher of evils shall be oppressed by them." And because they seek with evil intent, therefore they fail in their inquiry. Therefore he says:

24. (Vers. 13.). But he who had been made well did not know who it was: therefore they necessarily failed in their inquiry: the Psalm: "They failed who searched with scrutiny." Therefore it was said to the Jews below in the seventh chapter: "You will seek me, and you will not find me"; because they were not seeking in order to possess, but in order to persecute.

25. But Jesus withdrew. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the manifestation of Christ sought and not found, which was made not in the crowd, but in the Church. Therefore he says: But Jesus withdrew from the crowd gathered in the place, namely from the multitude that was in the place of healing: therefore that man did not know him, because he had remained in the crowd.

26. (Vers. 14.). Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, namely when he had withdrawn from the crowd. Augustine: "Placed in the crowd he did not recognize Jesus, but afterward in the temple": in which we are taught that whoever wishes to attain the vision of God should flee the crowd of his own affections and the wickedness of men and approach the temple of interior prayer. Hence at the raising of the girl he commanded the tumultuous crowd to be cast out, Matthew 9. And because the Lord's mercy anticipates us, he does not say that he himself found Jesus, but that Jesus found him: whence he did not even recognize him except through the instruction which he gave. Therefore he adds: Jesus says to him, instructing as a good physician: Behold, you have been made well, he recalls the benefit: now sin no more, he dissuades from sin: lest something worse befall you, he threatens with danger: Luke 11: "The last state of that man became worse than the first."

27. (Vers. 15.). That man went away. Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the persecution of the manifested Christ. For the Jews learned, through that man's report, that Christ had made him well. Hence he says: That man went away and announced to the Jews, who had namely inquired of him, that it was Jesus who had made him well. He did not say this by way of detraction or accusation, but by announcing the name of Christ: hence the Gloss: "He announces salvation to the Jews, that they might follow: but they on the contrary persecute." Therefore he adds:

28. (Vers. 16.). For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the Sabbath. For he seemed to wish to destroy their Law and to oppose the Lord, who had given the commandment concerning the keeping of the Sabbath: below in the ninth chapter: "This man is not from God, who does not keep the Sabbath": Luke 6: "The scribes and Pharisees were watching Jesus, whether he would heal on the Sabbath."

29. (Vers. 17.). But Jesus answered. Here the fifth point is touched upon, namely obstinacy in persecution, which followed upon the Lord's response showing that he was not breaking the Sabbath. On account of which he says: But Jesus answered them, namely the Jews who were persecuting him: My Father works even until now, even on the Sabbath, and yet does not break the Sabbath: and I work, namely by cooperating with the Father even on the Sabbath. If therefore God does not break the Sabbath, neither do I break it: Matthew 12: "The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath"; and because he is Lord, he can work on it without any reproach. From this response the Jews were hardened in malice, by which they ought to have been pacified. Therefore he adds, namely on account of this response:

30. (Vers. 18.). Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him: because they could not contradict his response, they sought to kill him: below in chapter seven: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you"? Because he not only broke the Sabbath, according to their judgment, but also called God his Father: his, in the singular: making himself equal to God, which they considered blasphemy: below in chapter ten: "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God"; making, as though he were not God, but was making himself God.

QUESTIONS.


31. Question I. But the question is raised here: since the precept concerning the Sabbath is a precept of the first tablet, in which, as Bernard says, God cannot dispense, it seems that the Lord acted wrongly by breaking the Sabbath.

If you say that in the precept there is something moral and something ceremonial: and insofar as it is moral it pertains to the first tablet, and thus he did not break it; insofar as it is ceremonial it does not pertain to the Decalogue, and thus he did break it;

Then 1. the question is: what in it is moral, and what is ceremonial?

2. Likewise the question is: why does the third precept have a ceremonial observance annexed to it more than any other commandment of the Decalogue?

And it seems that it should not be mixed with it, just as shadow should not be mixed with truth.

I respond: It must be said that, as has been stated, the commandment concerning the Sabbath has something moral, and also has something ceremonial: and therefore in the Law it is placed not only among the moral precepts, but also among the ceremonial ones.

1. As to what is asked, namely what in it is moral and ceremonial: I say that in that commandment man is commanded to be free for God, so that he may become a temple of God through love, and this is the moral element. Furthermore, there is in it the signification of the day, and besides this the cessation from all servile works; and these two are ceremonial elements.

2. To what is asked — why does it have ceremony more closely joined to it? — Augustine responds, in his letter to Januarius, that it is the precept of love, because the third precept regards the third Person in the Trinity, and love is commanded therein. Therefore, to show that all ceremonial observances are to be referred to the love of God and neighbor and are to be explained toward that end, he joined ceremonial observance to the commandment of love. — Another reason can be given: that in the commandment of love the other commandments are directed and fulfilled.

Again, in devoting oneself to God and considering the divine law, a person becomes diligent in this kind of observance of the law. Because therefore in this commandment love and devotion to God are commanded, the observance of all commandments depends on this; and therefore, if this were neglected and given over to oblivion, the rest would be neglected. Therefore, lest it be given over to oblivion, the Lord designated a day; lest it also be neglected on account of other things, he commanded cessation from all other things; and this is ceremonial.

32. Question II. Likewise it is asked whether the Lord dissolved the commandment concerning the Sabbath with respect to ceremonial observance.

That he did not, it seems: because nothing is prohibited there except servile work, and the Lord did no servile work on it; whence in Luke fourteen the Lord shows that he did not dissolve it.

But that he did dissolve it, it seems: because the Jews persecuted him on account of this.

I respond: It must be said that the observance of what was ceremonial in the Sabbath was threefold, namely spiritual, literal, and customary. The spiritual he did not dissolve nor could he dissolve, but he fulfilled it; the literal he could have dissolved, yet he did not dissolve it, because he did no servile work; the customary he dissolved and commanded to be dissolved: he dissolved it when he made clay from spittle; he commanded it to be dissolved when he commanded the mat to be taken up. For this was not against the literal observance, but against the customary and superimposed one.

33. Question III. Likewise an objection is raised concerning what the Evangelist says, that the Jews persecuted Jesus because he did these things on the Sabbath: if the Lord could equally well do this on other days as on the Sabbath, it seems that the Lord himself stirred up the persecution of the Jews against himself for no fitting reason.

I respond: It must be said that the reason for this was the truth of doctrine. For because ceremonial observances were due to cease at Christ's coming, he who was the master of truth was obliged to teach this and show it through his life, so that the truth of the Gospel might remain with us.

The second reason was the severity of divine judgment: because, as is said below in chapter nine, for judgment I came into this world, etc. Because therefore from this the wicked were blinded unto procuring Christ's death, which was our salvation, while the good were enlightened to believe that he was the one who had given the Law and could dissolve it: therefore, etc.

The third reason was common necessity, because then the poor and simple gathered at the synagogues, whom the Lord was obliged to attract through miracles.

34. Question IV. Likewise it is asked concerning what the Lord answered: My Father works until now, and I work.

Against: Genesis 2: God rested from all the work that He had done: therefore it seems that there is a contradiction.

I respond: It must be said that there is the work of the first establishment, and this consists in the creation of those things which pertain to the completion of the universe, and it includes in itself creation, distinction, and adornment: and this was completed in six days. From this work God rested. Another is the work of conservation, and because things cannot be preserved in themselves, since they are by nature apt to be corrupted, this work consists in transmutation and propagation and the creation of souls: and by this work God works and cooperates with cooperating nature. And He speaks here of this work, from which He does not cease on the Sabbath.

35. Jesus therefore answered, etc. Above, the miraculous healing and its calumniation were described: here begins the third part of the chapter, in which the refutation of the calumniation is treated. For the Lord refutes the Jews who calumniate Him concerning the work of healing: and this by showing His omnipotent power in working.

And this part is divided into two, because first His power is shown and declared in general: second, in particular, at: Amen, amen, I say to you, that he who hears My word.

The power of the Son of God is therefore declared and manifested in this order. First, the origin of power is noted: second, the magnitude of power: third, the declaration of the magnitude: fourth, the reason for the declaration.

36. (Vers. 18. 19.). First, therefore, the origin of the power of the Son of God is noted. For the Son of God says that He does not have the power of working from Himself, but from the Father. Therefore He says: Jesus therefore answered and said to them, namely to the Jews who were persecuting and calumniating Him: Amen, amen, I say to you, that is, truly and with certainty, the Son cannot do anything of Himself. For just as He does not have being from Himself, but from the Father, so neither does He have working from Himself, but from the Father: below in chapter eight: "Of Myself I do nothing." Except what He has seen the Father doing, that is, He can do only that which He received from the powerful Father, so that He might be able: below in chapter eight: "The things that I have seen with My Father, these I speak." And thus, whatever He can do, He can do from the Father, and He can do nothing else except what He received from the Father, so that He might be able.

37. For whatsoever etc. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the greatness of power, in that although the Son receives power from the Father, nevertheless He has as great power as the Father. Therefore He says: For whatsoever: I rightly said that the Son does "what He sees the Father doing"; for whatsoever things He does, these the Son also does likewise: likewise, uniformly and harmoniously: likewise, because equally powerfully. Whence in Colossians 1 it is said of the Son: "All things were created through Him and in Him"; because, as is said above in chapter 1, "without Him was made nothing." And the reason for the indivision in work is the indivision in essence and in love. Therefore He says:

38. (Vers. 20.). For the Father loves the Son. I rightly said that the Son can do all things which the Father also does: For the Father loves the Son. Therefore He supremely loves, because supremely one: below in chapter 10: "I and the Father are One": and because supremely one, therefore He communicates all things to the Son: therefore He adds: And He shows Him all things that He Himself does: He shows all things, that is, He communicates the power of every operation. And the reason for this communication is unity and love: above in chapter 3: "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand."

39. And greater things than these etc. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the declaration of the greatness of power, which is made through the greatness of the works which the Lord was going to show the Jews through the Son. Therefore He says: And greater things than these, supply: which have been shown to you, He will show Him works, that is, through Him He will show you, that you may marvel, at the greatness, supply: below in chapter 10: "Many good works I have shown you." And what these works are, He shows: namely the raising of the dead. Whence He says:

40. (Vers. 21.). For as the Father raises the dead and gives life, through omnipotent power: so the Son also gives life to whom He wills, through power equal to Him: below in chapter 11 is found the raising of Lazarus in body, and concerning the raising in soul it is said: "I am the resurrection and the life: he who believes in Me, even if he has died, shall live." An example of bodily raising is found likewise in Luke 7.

41. (Vers. 22.). For neither does the Father judge anyone. Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the reason for declaring His power: why, that is, God declares His power in the Son and through the Son. To show that He is equal to Himself and equally to be honored: and therefore He grants judgment to the Son. On account of which He says: For neither the Father: I rightly said that "He will show greater works than these, that you may marvel," because also for this reason He grants judgment. Therefore He says: For neither does the Father judge anyone, namely by appearing in judgment, but has given all judgment to the Son: Acts 10: "He is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead." And the reason for this is rendered as the honoring of the Son; whence He says:

42. (Vers. 23.). That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. On this, Proverbs seven: "My son, honor the Lord, and you shall prevail; fear no stranger besides Him." The Son of God is to be honored and feared by reason of His judicial power, because "He can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna," Matthew ten. And the reason why the Father wills the Son to be honored: because the honor of the Son is the Father's; therefore He says: He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent Him: below in chapter eight: "I honor My Father, and you have dishonored Me." Augustine: "If the Son were believed to be less than the Father, the Father would be dishonored, because either as envious He would not have willed to beget an equal, or as weak He could not have done so."

QUESTIONS.


43. Question I. The inquiry concerns what He says: The Son cannot do anything of Himself.

To the contrary: He who can act of himself is more powerful than he who acts from another; but the Father can act of Himself, the Son from another; therefore the Father is more powerful than the Son. — If you say: The greatness of power consists in virtue, not in the mode of having, and to have from oneself denotes only the mode of having, not the virtue, and thus it does not follow that the Father is more powerful than the Son: it is objected that what is had from oneself is had in a nobler mode than what is had from another; therefore if the Father has power from Himself, He has it in a nobler mode than the Son, who has it from another.

The response to this is that to have from another is in two modes: by participation, namely, or by emanation alone. To have from another by participation is a less noble mode, for the mode of participation is not equal to the mode of having by essence. In the other mode, to have from another is only by emanation, such that he who emanates has it by essence, just as he who gives; and this posits no ignobility whatsoever, but rather complete equality. For to have from the Father is as much a mark of nobility in the Son as to beget is in the Father. And thus the point is clear.

44. Question II. Likewise, the inquiry concerns what He says, that the Son can do nothing except what He has seen the Father doing; and again, that the Father shows the Son whatever He does.

1. Therefore, if by nature something exists before it is seen, the Father operates first, and afterwards the Son operates according to His operation as to an exemplar.

2. Likewise, if the Father can do absolutely nothing without the Son operating, how does He say that the Son operates as He sees the Father operating?

I respond: It must be said that the same thing is said when it is said: the Father shows to the Son, and: the Son sees the Father working; the only difference is with respect to the terms. It must be understood, however, that these words are transferred from creatures to God. Now the word showing implies a twofold property, and likewise the word seeing. One, namely, is the emanation of knowledge: because I see you working in this way, knowledge of working is left in me; the other is the exemplarity of antecedence: thus your operation and demonstration precedes my knowledge as an exemplar. I say therefore that by reason of the first condition it is transferred to the divine, namely by reason of emanation, but not by reason of antecedence. Hence, for the Father to show to the Son does not mean that the Father knows before the Son, but that the Father gives to the Son; likewise, for the Son to see the Father working does not mean that the Father works before, but that the Son has from the Father.

45. Question III. There is a question about what he says: Whatever the Father does, these things the Son likewise does.

To the contrary: 1. The Father generates the Son: therefore the Son generates the Son.

If you say that to generate does not denote an operation but a relation: it is objected that to send the Son denotes an operation: therefore if whatever operation the Father does, the Son also does: if the Father sends the Son: therefore the Son also does.

2. Likewise, if the Trinity is entirely undivided in substance and operation: since manifestation and appearance come about through operation, how can the Trinity appear or manifest itself determinately in any one of its hypostases? It seems in no way possible.

For understanding these matters, it must be known that certain words said of God denote a pure relation, such as to generate; certain denote a pure action, such as to create; certain denote action and relation, such as to send; certain denote action and signification, such as to appear.

I say therefore that when it is said: Whatever the Father does, it is understood with respect to operation, which is common and essential. If therefore a word signifying merely action is inferred, the inference is good; but if merely relation, the inference is entirely sophistical through a figure of speech. But if a word signifying action and relation: even though the inference would hold by reason of action, it fails by reason of the relation included therein, such as to send and to become incarnate. Similarly concerning a word implying action and signification, it fails by reason of signification. For as Augustine says, even though every action and appearance is from the three, nevertheless one specially signifies the Father, another the Son.

An example is found in the name intelligence, which is produced by the operation of three powers, namely memory, intelligence, and will, and yet signifies one of them. So it is also in the matter at hand, and thus it is clear.

46. Question IV. Likewise, there is an inquiry concerning that reasoning that the Father shows all things to the Son because He loves the Son. To show to the Son is to generate the Son, as Augustine says. Therefore either to love is taken there notionally or essentially. If notionally, the statement is false, because common spiration is not the reason for emanating through generation, since generation is prior according to the order of understanding. If essentially, it is still false, because the essence is not the reason for emanation nor for relation: for then the Son would generate.

I respond: It must be said that when it is stated, the Father shows all things to the Son, I note that He shows, and I note that He shows all things. I say therefore that the reason for showing all things is love, not as the reason for showing simply, but as the reason for showing all things. Love is taken essentially and signifies the supreme unity of the Father with the Son: and because there is supreme unity in essence, therefore there is complete indivision in operation: and therefore it is necessary that the Son cooperates with the Father in all things. Therefore He rightly says: He shows all things, because He supremely loves.

47. Amen, amen, I say to you, that whoever etc. The Lord declared His power in general: here He begins to declare it in particular, descending to the power of giving life and to the power of judging: therefore this part has two parts. In the first He declares His power in giving life: in the second, His power in judging, at that place: And He gave Him authority to execute judgment etc. The power of giving life regards the kindness of mercy: the power of judging regards the severity of justice.

Therefore He describes the power of giving life in this order: first, whom He gives life to; second, how He gives life; third, by what power He gives life. And the first regards the object, the second regards the act, and the third regards the power. In these three consists the perfect knowledge of a power, namely in power, operation, and object.

48. (Vers. 24.). First, therefore, he determines whom he vivifies, namely with the life of the soul, since not all, but believers. These are those who hear the word of God and, having heard, believe; therefore he says: Amen, amen I say to you, that is, truly: That he who hears my word, disposing himself to faith, because, Romans 10, "faith comes from hearing"; and believes in him who sent me, consenting to what has been heard: below, chapter 12: "He who believes in me does not believe in me, but in him who sent me"; he indeed has eternal life: above, chapter 3: "He who believes in the Son of God has eternal life" — eternal life, not punishment. Whence he also adds: And does not come into judgment, into the judgment of death, namely: but passes from death to life; from death, that is, from the present life, which is death, he passes to eternal life without the judgment of condemnation; above, chapter 3: "He who believes in him is not judged." But the present life is called death, because, as is said in Romans 8, "the body is dead on account of sin." From this death the just pass to life, for whom to die temporally is to pass over: below, chapter 13, concerning Christ the head: "Knowing that his hour had come to pass from this world to the Father." Concerning this the just glory in the Psalm: "And let all who hope in you rejoice: they shall exult forever, and you shall dwell in them. And all who love your name shall glory in you, for you shall bless the just."

49. (Vers. 25.). Amen, amen I say to you. Here the second point is touched upon, namely how he vivifies, namely through internal inspiration, which whoever hears is vivified; therefore he says: The hour comes and now is, namely, of grace, which now is: concerning which, Romans 13: "It is the hour for us now to rise from sleep" — from the sleep, namely, of sin and death: when the dead, through fault, shall hear the voice of the Son of God, through internal inspiration: Ephesians 5: "Rise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten you." And those who hear shall live, through grace, because his word vivifies those who hear: below, chapter 10: "My sheep hear my voice, and I give them eternal life"; and this I give and preserve by the word: Deuteronomy 8: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

50. (Vers. 26.). For as the Father etc. The third point is touched upon here, namely by what power he gives life, since by his own power according to the Divinity given to him by the Father through generation: whence he says: For as etc. I have rightly said that the Son gives life: for as the Father has life in himself, that is, by essence: so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself, that is, by essence, not by participation. And because that which is life by essence pours life into all things, as Dionysius says; therefore the Son is able of himself to give life. Whence below in the eleventh chapter: "I am the resurrection and the life: he who believes in me, even if he shall have died, shall live": similarly below in the fourteenth chapter: "I am the way, the truth, and the life"; I am not living by another's life, but I am life, giving others to live.

51. And he gave him power. He has declared his power in giving life; here he declares his power in judging: and indeed he does this in this order. For first he touches upon by what power he judges: second, whom he judges: third, how he judges, according to those three things according to which the power of giving life was described.

(Vers. 27.). First, therefore, he determines by what power he judges, since by the power conferred upon him according to his humanity by the Father. Therefore he says: And he gave him power, namely the Father to the Son, to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man: therefore in his humanity, so that the reprobate may see him in judgment, who cannot see God: Revelation 1: "Every eye shall see him, and they who pierced him"; therefore in his humanity, because in his humanity he was judged: Job 36: "Your cause has been judged as that of the wicked; you shall receive judgment and cause."

52. (Vers. 28.). Do not marvel at this. The second point is touched upon here, namely whom he judges: because, although he must raise all, he will nevertheless not judge all, but the wicked; whence he says: Do not marvel at this, namely at what has been said, that he gave him power to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man; because the hour comes, namely the end of the age: Job 14: "Man, when he has fallen asleep, shall not rise again until the heavens are worn away"; in which all who are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son of God. If the dead shall hear, it is established that they shall rise at his voice; 1 Thessalonians 4: "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a command and with the voice of the Archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead who are in Christ shall rise first." And although all shall rise, nevertheless not all shall be judged: therefore he says:

53. (Vers. 29.). And they who have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life: because they shall be raised for this purpose, that they may live; but those who have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment, that is, of damnation; these, namely, the Lord shall judge; 2 Maccabees 7: "It is better, being put to death by men, to await hope from God, to be raised again by him; but for you there shall be no resurrection unto life"; this is said to Antiochus; not unto life, but unto judgment; 1 Corinthians 5: "Those who are outside, God shall judge," who are outside through an evil life; Daniel 12: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some unto eternal life, and others unto reproach."

54. (Vers. 30.). I cannot of myself. Here the third point is touched upon, namely how he judges: because justly, not according to his own will by declining from the will of God, as men do who pervert judgment. Therefore he says: I cannot of myself do anything, and thus neither judge; but as I hear, I judge, that is, as I receive from the Father, and from this it follows that he judges justly. Therefore he says: And my judgment is just, because it does not decline from the rule of justice through discord of will; and this is: Because I do not seek my own will, in judging, namely, but the will of him who sent me, that is, of God the Father, who is just; whence below in chapter 8: "He who sent me is truthful"; and afterward: "I always do the things that are pleasing to him"; and therefore justly, because, Deuteronomy 32: "God is faithful and without any iniquity, just and right"; in the Psalm: "The Lord is just in all his ways," etc.

QUESTIONS.


55. Question I. It is asked here: according to which nature was the power of judging given to the Son? — That it was according to the human nature, it seems:

1. From the text: And he gave him power to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man.

2. Likewise, Augustine: "He gave him the power of judgment by sending him into the flesh."

But to the contrary: 1. Deuteronomy 32: Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, says the Lord; therefore vengeance belongs to God alone; therefore if judgment is vengeance, it therefore belongs to the Son according to the divine nature.

2. And this is shown from the text: The Father has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father; but the Son is not to be honored as the Father according to the human nature, but only according to the divine; therefore, etc.

I respond: It must be said that the power of judging is twofold, namely of authority and of ministry. The first belongs to the whole Trinity, but that of ministry belongs to the Son sitting and appearing in judgment, and this according to the human nature, and it is of this that he speaks here.

1. Therefore, as to the objection: Vengeance is mine, etc., this does not exclude the incarnate Son, but a mere man.

2. To the objection concerning honor, it must be said that the person of the Son seemed to have descended on account of the humiliation of the incarnation: therefore the Father willed that in the same humanity in which he appeared lowly, he should judge, so that no one would despise him incarnate, but would fear him as the Father, as one whose sentence remains inviolable: hence he makes judgment through his humanity to be feared through his divinity.

56. Question II. It is further asked whether it belongs to the Son alone to judge.

That it does, seems clear from the text: The Father has given all judgment to the Son; and Acts 10: He it is who was appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead; and 1 Corinthians 4: He who judges me is the Lord: therefore if he alone is our Lord, it belongs to him alone to judge.

To the contrary: 1. 1 Corinthians 11: If we judged ourselves, we would certainly not be judged: therefore it belongs to us to judge ourselves.

2. Likewise, regarding others, Matthew 19: You shall sit upon twelve thrones etc. was said to the Apostles: likewise, 1 Corinthians 6: Do you not know that we shall judge angels?

To this it must be said that in judgment there is examination, there is approbation, and there is also the passing of sentence or determination.

The first act, namely of examination, pertains to all, and on account of this the Apostle says that they ought to prove themselves, that is, to examine themselves.

The second, namely of approbation or reprobation, pertains to the perfect, because they will approve and reprove, and by comparison with them the wicked will be reproved: but this not in the present, but in the future: hence the Apostle says that such judgment in the present time is before the time: 1 Corinthians 4: Do not judge before the time.

The third act, namely of determination, belongs to the Son alone, because he himself will promulgate the sentence. No one exercises this act except by usurpation and rashly: hence the Lord forbids it in Matthew 7: Do not judge; and the Apostle in Romans 14: Who are you to judge another's servant? — I say therefore that when he says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, this is understood of the judgment of determination, not of examination or approbation.

57. Question III. It is further asked concerning those to be judged, namely who will be judged. — That only the wicked, seems clear from the text: He does not come into judgment, but passes over; and above in chapter three: He who believes in him is not judged.

To the contrary: 2 Corinthians 5: We shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ.

I respond: It must be said that the judgment of determination is taken commonly, and thus it comprehends the sentence of salvation and of punishment, and thus all will be judged: it is taken properly for damnation, and thus it is taken here: Those who have done evil shall come forth to the resurrection of judgment, that is, of damnation: similarly above in chapter three.

58. Question IV. Likewise, concerning the manner of judging:

1. That he judges as he hears

Against: Isaiah 11: He shall not judge according to the hearing of the ears.

2. Likewise he says that not according to his own will, but God's: therefore his will is discordant from the will of God.

I respond to the first: He does not judge according to exterior hearing and report, but according to interior hearing and paternal illumination.

To the second it must be said that this has two grounds of truth: I do not seek my own singular will, either because he has it but does not seek it, or because he does not have it nor does he seek it: and he speaks in this latter sense, while the objector objects in the first sense.

59. If I bear witness etc. This is the fourth part of the chapter, in which is determined the corroboration of the aforesaid confutation, which was made by manifold testimony approving what the Lord said above. And this part has two sections: because first is adduced the certainty of the testimonies; second, the rebuke of the unbelieving Jews, at: And you will not come to me.

The first part has two sections: because first the Lord, although he could adduce his own testimony, declines; second, he adduces the testimonies of others, at: You sent etc.

(Vers. 31.). He therefore declines his own testimony, because they would not believe it, regarding it as uncertain: whence he says: If I bear witness of myself, my testimony is not true, that is, it is not efficacious for believing, especially if I alone bear witness; whence below in chapter eight: "The Pharisees said to him: You bear witness of yourself; your testimony is not true." Yet true testimonies are not lacking to me: whence he adds:

60. (Vers. 32.). There is another who bears witness of me, namely the Father, or also John, and concerning both is rightly understood what follows: And I know that the testimony which he bears of me is true: because he testifies as one who is certain. For the Father gives true testimony, because, as is said below in chapter eight, "he who sent me is truthful." John likewise is certain: whence above in chapter one, John said: "I saw and bore witness that this is the Son of God"; Proverbs 12: "He who speaks what he knows is a judge of justice, but he who lies is a fraudulent witness."

61. You sent etc. The Lord declined his own testimony; here secondly he adduces the testimony of another. And because in the mouth of many witnesses the testimony is firm, therefore this part has four parts according to the four testimonies which he adduces. The first is of John; the second is of works; the third, divine; and the fourth, of the Scriptures. And these testimonies are distinguished: because the first is pronounced, the second exhibited, the third inspired, and the fourth written.

(Vers. 33.). First, therefore, He adduces the testimony of John, which had been rendered to them at their own request: thus He says: You sent to John: he did not put himself forward, but responded at your request, above in chapter one: "And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him," etc. And he bore witness to the truth, as a faithful witness: Proverbs 14: "A faithful witness will not lie." And lest the Lord should seem to beg for human testimony, He adds:

62. (Vers. 34.). But I do not receive testimony from man, supply: on account of any need of My own: Psalm: "I said to the Lord: You are my God, for You have no need of my goods"; but I recall it for the sake of your salvation. Whence He also says: But these things I say, that you may be saved, namely by believing in Me through his testimony, because, as it is said in Mark 16, "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved." And truly they ought to have believed at John's testimony; whence He adds:

63. (Vers. 35.). He was a burning lamp, through grace, and shining, through doctrine: or: burning, through interior charity, shining, through exterior uprightness of life. Bernard: "To burn only is too little; to shine only is vain; but to shine and to burn is perfect." Therefore John was most fittingly signified by Elijah: Ecclesiasticus 48: "Elijah arose like fire, and his word burned like a torch." To such a one, therefore, shining so perfectly, faith ought to have been given, which the Jews did not do: whence He says: But you were willing to rejoice for a time in his light, that is, that you might believe his teaching and testimony and imitate his life, which you observed for a short while: Matthew 11: "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say: He has a demon"; Matthew 21: "John came to you in the way of justice, and you did not believe him. But the publicans and harlots believed him."

64. (Vers. 36.). But I have testimony. Here the second testimony is touched upon, namely that of works, which is greater than the aforesaid. Therefore He says: But I have testimony greater than John, because it is more persuasive for believing in Me. For the very works, which the Father has given Me, because from Him I received being and working: that I may accomplish them, that is, make them perfect: because "the works of God are perfect," Deuteronomy 32. The very works which I do, by My own power, bear witness concerning Me, that the Father has sent Me, as God His Son, because He communicated such great works to Him: below in chapter 15: "If I had not come and done among them the works which no other man has done, they would not have sin." These works are to be believed, that the Father sent Him; below in chapter 14: "The Father abiding in Me, He does the works"; and again: "If you do not believe Me, believe the works."

65. (Vers. 37.). And the Father who sent me etc. Here the third testimony is touched upon, namely the divine, which he also calls paternal; on account of which he says: And the Father who sent me, through the incarnation, has borne testimony concerning me, through internal inspiration: because, as is said below in the sixth chapter, "no one comes to me unless the Father draws him." Whence he reveals and testifies with an intelligible voice, which the carnal Jews could neither hear nor see him speaking. Therefore he says: You have never heard his voice, through revelation of the mind: as Peter heard, Matthew 16: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven." Nor have you seen his form, through open vision: Exodus 33: "No man shall see me and live"; and above in the first chapter: "No one has ever seen God."

66. (Vers. 38.). And you do not have his word abiding in you, namely through faith: whence the reason is also added: Because the one whom he sent, you do not believe in him. And the one whom he sent is the Word and abides in hearts through faith: Ephesians 3: "That Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts"; Isaiah 9: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it fell upon Israel"; it did not abide in Jacob, because his own did not receive him.

67. (Vers. 39.). Search the Scriptures. Here the fourth testimony is touched upon, namely that of the Scriptures, to which the Lord exhorts and arouses to diligence and spiritual understanding; on account of which he says: Search the Scriptures, that is, discern the interior meaning, because, as the Apostle says in 2 Corinthians 3, "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." And he adds the reason why they ought to search: In which you think you have eternal life, that is, through which you think to know, and through this to have eternal life, because through them you think to know God, who is eternal life: Wisdom 15: "To know you is consummate justice, and to know your justice and your power is the root of immortality." Christ says that these Scriptures testify of him: whence he also adds: They are the ones that bear testimony concerning me, namely all the Scriptures of the Old Testament: Luke, the last chapter: "It is necessary that all things be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me," said the Lord Jesus: Acts 18 says of Apollos that "he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing through the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ."

QUESTIONS.


68. Question I. It is asked concerning what he says: If I bear testimony concerning myself, my testimony is not true.

To the contrary: 1. Numbers 23: God is not as a man, that he should lie: therefore if Christ is God, therefore etc.

2. Likewise, below in the eighth chapter: If I bear testimony concerning myself, my testimony is true: and here he says that it is not true: therefore etc.

The response to this is threefold. The first response is by pressing upon the subject: if I according to human nature bear witness concerning myself, my testimony is not true; it is nevertheless true according to the divine. — But this does not resolve the matter, because just as he does not lie according to the divine nature, neither does he according to the human.

Therefore the response is given by pressing upon the predicate: my testimony is not true, that is, it is not efficacious nor will it be accepted as true; nevertheless it is true, because I speak the truth. And so it is understood such that it is called true according to the reality, but not true according to the Jews' acceptance.

Otherwise the response is that this word is to be understood precisely: if I bear witness concerning myself, supply: I alone, my testimony is not efficacious; but if I with another, it is efficacious; whence he says below: Because I am not alone. Therefore, since above he had commended himself by his own testimony, showing his power, to strengthen this he brings forward the testimonies of others.

69. Question II. Likewise there is a question concerning the testimony of works: The works, he says, which I do, bear witness concerning me.

But the Prophets did the same works, such as miracles, and the Apostles following him did the same and greater ones; therefore if through works it could be sufficiently known that he was the Christ, by the same reasoning this could be said of anyone.

I respond: It must be said that the miracles of the good and of the wicked can be distinguished, as Augustine says. They could therefore know that the miracles and works of Christ were those of a good and holy man; but Christ was saying that he was God; but no good man, remaining good, can make himself equal to God — rather, he is a thief; therefore if they could know Christ to be holy through his works, and through his words, that he was the Christ, the works were a sufficient testimony that Christ spoke the truth, and through this, that he was the Christ. Similarly concerning other good men, that they spoke the truth; but they did not speak about themselves, but about Christ, as the Apostles did.

Otherwise it is said that the works were not a compelling testimony, but a persuading one, and similarly the testimony of John and of Scripture; but the testimony of the Father through revelation is compelling.

70. Question III. There is a question concerning the testimony of the Father.

For he says that you have neither heard his voice nor seen his form; he says this to the Jews.

To the contrary: Were not many present when, in Luke chapter three, a voice was made from heaven in a sensible manner: You are my beloved Son?

Likewise, Deuteronomy chapter five: We heard his voice from the midst of the fire.

Likewise, Exodus chapter twenty: You have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven.

I respond: It must be said that God speaks in two ways and appears in two ways: in one way in himself and through himself, and thus he speaks through an internal revelation of the mind in a certain ineffable manner, yet nevertheless in a certain intelligible manner, and thus he does not speak to the wicked; in another way through a subject creature, and thus he spoke in the giving of the Law. In this second way they saw in the subject creature and heard sensibly, but not in the first way: and it is about this that he speaks here. Whence Augustine says on this: The Father bears witness: "He who outwardly displayed me as visible to the eyes of men, inwardly kindled the hearts of men to know me."

71. Question IV. It can also be asked about the sufficiency and order of these testimonies. — And it should be noted that the first testimony, namely that of John, was introductory; the second, namely that of works, advancing; the third, namely that of the Father, compelling; the fourth, namely that of Scripture, establishing in truth. And from these there results one complete and perfect testimony, and they are arranged in graduated order according to the stated conditions.

72. And you are not willing to come to me etc. The certainty of the testimonies having been set forth, here is set forth the rebuke of the unbelieving Jews. Now the Lord rebukes the Jews on four counts: first, namely for the lack of divine love; second, for the blindness of false love; third, for the appetite for vain honor; fourth, for the lack of faith.

(Vers. 40.). First, therefore, he rebukes them for the lack of divine love, the sign of which is that they do not come to him whom God sent; whence he says: And you are not willing to come to me, that you may have life. Thus I have sufficient testimonies, yet you are not willing to come to me; rather, hating me, you flee: below in chapter eight: "Why do you not understand my speech? Because you cannot hear my word." Nor does he accuse them of not coming on account of his own glory; whence he says:

73. (Vers. 41.). I do not receive glory from men, but from the Father: below in chapter seventeen: "Father, glorify your Son"; therefore I do not accuse you on account of love of my own glory, but on account of the lack of divine love; whence he says:

74. (Vers. 42.). But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you, but rather hatred: below in chapter fifteen: "Now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father." And such people are worthy of rebuke, because they lack the wedding garment: Matthew twenty-two: "Friend, how did you come in here, not having a wedding garment?"

75. (Vers. 43.). I came in the name etc. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the blindness of false love: because they did not receive the humble one, but will receive the proud one; whence he says: I came in the name of my Father, that is, seeking his glory, not my own: below in chapter eight: "I do not seek my own glory." And you did not receive me: me, that is, the humble one: above in chapter one: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." If another shall come in his own name, such as the antichrist, who will seek his own glory, because it is said in Second Thessalonians chapter two: "He is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God." Him you will receive, blinded, that is, by the just judgment of God; Second Thessalonians chapter two: "God shall send them the operation of error, that they may believe a lie." And the reason for this is that they were unwilling to believe the truth.

76. (Vers. 44.). How can you believe etc. Here thirdly he reproves them for their appetite for vain honor, by reason of which they were unfit to believe in the truth, because they were seeking vanity: on account of which he says: How can you believe, namely in the truth, you who receive glory from one another, clinging to vanity? For human glory is vanity; Isaiah chapter forty: "All flesh is grass, and all its glory is as the flower of grass": and from the appetite for vanity a man is rendered unfit for faith in the truth: whence in the Psalm: "O sons of men, how long will you be heavy of heart? Why do you love vanity and seek after falsehood?" Thus you seek false glory, and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek, that is, true glory. This is from God alone: the Psalm: "The Lord will give grace and glory." Therefore it is said in Second Corinthians chapter ten: "Let him who glories, glory in the Lord: for not he who commends himself is approved, but he whom God commends."

77. (Vers. 45.). Do not think. Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the defect of faith among the Jews, not only for believing Christ, but also Moses: on account of which they were accused not only by Christ, but also by Moses. Therefore he says: Do not think that I shall accuse you before the Father: because I did not come to accuse, but to pardon. Whence he himself is the propitiation, not the accuser: First John chapter two: "He himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Nor yet do they lack an accuser: therefore he says: There is another who accuses you, Moses, in whom you hope, as his disciples: below in chapter nine: "We are disciples of Moses: we know that God spoke to Moses." He accuses you, because, that is, you do not believe him. Whence he says:

78. (Vers. 46.). For if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: perhaps is a mark of freedom: and truly me: for he wrote of me: Deuteronomy eighteen: "The Lord will raise up a prophet for you from your nation: you shall hear him, just as you hear me." And he will accuse you, because you do not believe in him. Whence he says:

79. (Vers. 47.). But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? As if to say: you will not. Luke sixteen: "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe even if someone should rise from the dead."

QUESTIONS.



80. Question I. There is a question about what he says: I do not receive glory from men.

1. Because in the last chapter below it is said of Peter: Signifying by what death he would glorify God. Therefore men glorify God.

2. Likewise, Philippians one: Christ will be magnified in my body whether by death or by life.

I respond: It must be said that there is a difference between saying to be glorified in a man and through a man and by a man. To be glorified in a man is to reveal one's glory to a man; to be glorified through a man is to be made known to others through him; to be glorified by a man is for some glory to be given and increased to oneself by a man. The first two ways are true, but the third is false.

81. Question II. Likewise there is a question about what he says: I will not accuse you before the Father.

On the contrary: 1. Christ is just and cannot not be just: therefore just as it belongs to him to praise the good, so also to accuse the wicked.

2. Likewise, Jeremiah twenty-nine: I am the judge and the witness: therefore if it belongs to a true witness to accuse the wicked, etc.

I respond: It must be said that Christ, so far as it was in his power, offered himself by his death: and because he offered himself for all, therefore so far as it depends on him, he accuses no one. Whence the Gloss says: "The blood of Christ accuses no one, but cries out for pardon; the blood of Abel cries out for vengeance," the teaching of Moses cries out for vengeance. Whence it must be understood that he does not accuse of himself, but on account of our fault. — Or it must be said that he does not accuse primarily and principally: but Moses accuses more principally, Moses whom they do not believe when he foretells Christ.

82. Question III. Likewise there is a question about the Lord's argument: If you do not believe the writings of Moses, how will you believe my words?

It appears to be an argument from the lesser by negation.

I respond: Although it is lesser absolutely, nevertheless for the Jews it is not lesser, but greater.