Curing a bed•ed man at the pond of miracle, because he doth it on the Sabboth, the blind Ievves do persecute him, 7 and againe because he saith that God is his natural father. 19 He therevpon continueth saying, the Fathers operation and his to be in euery thing alone, and that he shal do greater things then these miraculous cures, to vvit, 21 quicken the dead in soule by sinne, as being appointed Iudge of al, 21 yea and quicken the dead in bodies also, incōtinent iudging al vprightly. 31 And that these are not bragges of his ovvne, but his vvitnesses to be, 33 Iohn Baptist, 36 his ovvne miraculous vvorkes, 37 his fathers voice at his baptisme, 39 the Scriptures also, namely of Moyses.
1After these things was a festival day of the Jews: and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.Dopo questo essendo la festa de' Giudei, Gesù se n'andò a Gerusalemme.AFTER these things there vvas a festiual day of the Ievves, and IESVS vvent vp to Hierusalem.Post hæc erat dies festus Judæorum, et ascendit Jesus Jerosolymam. 2Now there is at Jerusalem a pond, called Probatica, which in Hebrew is named Bethsaida, having five porches.E havvi in Gerusalemme la piscina probatica, che in lingua Ebrea si chiama Betsaida, la quale ha cinque porticati.And there is at Hierusalem `vpon' Probatica a pond vvhich in hebrevv is surnamed Bethsaida', hauing fiue porches.Est autem Jerosolymis probatica piscina, quæ cognominatur hebraice Bethsaida, quinque porticus habens. 3In these lay a great multitude of sick, of blind, of lame, of withered: waiting for the moving of the water.Ne' quali giaceva gran turba di malati, di ciechi, di zoppi, di paralitici, i quali aspettavano il movimento dell'acqua.In these lay a great multitude of sicke persons, of blinde, lame, vvithered, expecting the stirring of the vvater.In his jacebat multitudo magna languentium, cæcorum, claudorum, aridorum, exspectantium aquæ motum. 4And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water was made whole of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.Imperocché l'Angelo del Signore in un certo tempo scendeva nella piscina, e l'acqua era agitata. E chiunque fosse stato il primo a scendere nella piscina dopo il movimento dell'acqua, restava sano, qualunque fosse la malattia, dalla quale era detenuto.And an Angel of our Lord descended at a certaine time into the pond: and the vvater vvas stirred. And he that had gone dovvne first into the pond after the stirring of the vvater, vvas made vvhole of vvhatsoeuer infirmitie he vvas holden.Angelus autem Domini descendebat secundum tempus in piscinam, et movebatur aqua. Et qui prior descendisset in piscinam post motionem aquæ, sanus fiebat a quacumque detinebatur infirmitate. 5And there was a certain man there that had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity.Ed eravi un uomo il quale avea passati trentotto anni nella sua infermità.And there vvas a certaine man there that had been eight and thirtie yeres in his infirmitie.Erat autem quidam homo ibi triginta et octo annos habens in infirmitate sua. 6Him when Jesus had seen lying, and knew that he had been now a long time, he saith to him: Wilt thou be made whole?E Gesù mirato avendo costui, che se ne stava a giacere, e conoscendo, che era di età avanzata, gli disse: Vuoi tu essere risanato?Him vvhen IESVS had seen lying, & knevv that he had novv a long time, he saith to him, Vvilt thou be made vvhole?Hunc autem cum vidisset Jesus jacentem, et cognovisset quia jam multum tempus haberet, dicit ei: Vis sanus fieri ?
7The infirm man answered him: Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me.Risposegli l'infermo: Signore, io non ho uomo, che mi getti nella piscina, quando l'acqua è agitata: il perché quando io mi vi accosto, un altro vi scende prima di me.The sicke man ansvvered him, Lord, I haue no man, vvhen the vvater is troubled, to put me into the pond. For vvhiles I come, an other goeth dovvne before me.Respondit ei languidus: Domine, hominem non habeo, ut, cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam: dum venio enim ego, alius ante me descendit. 8Jesus saith to him: Arise, take up thy bed and walk.Dissegli Gesù: Alzati, prendi il tuo letticciuolo, e cammina.IESVS saith to him, Arise, take vp thy bed, and vvalke.Dicit ei Jesus: Surge, tolle grabatum tuum et ambula. 9And immediately the man was made whole: and he took up his bed and walked. And it was the sabbath that day.E in quell'istante colui diventò sano, prese il suo letticciuolo, e camminava. Or quel di era sabato.And forthvvith he vvas made vvhole: and he tooke vp his bed, and vvalked. And it vvas the Sabboth that day.Et statim sanus factus est homo ille: et sustulit grabatum suum, et ambulabat. Erat autem sabbatum in die illo. 10The Jews therefore said to him that was healed: It is the sabbath. It is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.Dicevan perciò i Giudei all'uomo risanato: E sabato, non è a te lecito di portare il tuo letticciuolo.The Ievves therfore said to him that vvas healed, It is the Sabboth, thou maist not take vp thy bed.Dicebant ergo Judæi illi qui sanatus fuerat: Sabbatum est, non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum. 11He answered them: He that made me whole, he said to me: Take up thy bed and walk.Ed egli rispose loro: Colui, che mi ha risanato, mi ha detto: Prendi il tuo letticciuolo, e cammina.He ansvvered them, He that made me vvhole, he said to me, Take vp thy bed, and vvalke.Respondit eis: Qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: Tolle grabatum tuum et ambula. 12They asked him therefore: Who is that man who said to thee: Take up thy bed and walk?Domandarongli adunque chi fosse quell'uomo, che gli avea detto: Prendi il tuo letticciuolo, e cammina?They asked him therfore, Vvhat is that man that said to thee, Take vp thy bed, and vvalke?Interrogaverunt ergo eum: Quis est ille homo qui dixit tibi: Tolle grabatum tuum et ambula ? 13But he who was healed knew not who it was: for Jesus went aside from the multitude standing in the place.Ma l'uomo risanato non sapeva, chi quegli fosse; perché Gesù si era scansato dalla turba, che era in quel luogo.But he that vvas made vvhole, knevv not vvho it vvas. For IESVS shronke aside from the multitude standing in the place.Is autem qui sanus fuerat effectus, nesciebat quis esset. Jesus enim declinavit a turba constituta in loco.
14Afterwards, Jesus findeth him in the temple and saith to him: Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee.Dopo di ciò trovollo Gesù nel tempio, e gli disse: Ecco che se' risanato: non peccar più, perché non ti avvenga qualche cosa di peggio.Aftervvard IESVS findeth him in the temple, and said to him, Behold thou art made vvhole: sinne no more, lest some vvorse thing chaunce to thee.Postea invenit eum Jesus in templo, et dixit illi: Ecce sanus factus es; jam noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat. 15The man went his way and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole.Quegli andò a dar nuova a' Giudei, come Gesù era quello, che l'avea risanato.That man vvent his vvay, and told the Ievves that it vvas IESVS that made him vvhole.Abiit ille homo, et nuntiavit Judæis quia Jesus esset, qui fecit eum sanum. 16Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.Per questo i Giudei perseguitavan Gesù, perché tali cose faceva in giorno di sabato.Therevpon the Ievves persecuted IESVS, because he did these things on the Sabboth.Propterea persequebantur Judæi Jesum, quia hæc faciebat in sabbato. 17But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work.Ma Gesù rispondeva loro: Il Padre mio opera sino a quest'oggi, e io opero.But IESVS ansvvered them, My father vvorketh vntil novv: and I doe vvorke.Jesus autem respondit eis: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor. 18Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.Per questo sempre più i Giudei cercavano di ucciderlo: mentre non solo rompeva il sabato, ma di più diceva, che Dio era il Padre suo, facendosi eguale a Dio. Rispose adunque Gesù, e disse loro:Therevpō therefore the Ievves sought the more to kil him: because he did not only breake the Sabboth, but also he said God was his father, making him self aequal to God.Propterea ergo magis quærebant eum Judæi interficere: quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, æqualem se faciens Deo. Respondit itaque Jesus, et dixit eis: 19Then Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.In verità, in verità vi dico: Non può il Figliuolo far da se cosa alcuna, se non l'ha veduta fare dal Padre: imperocché quello, che questi fa, lo fa parimente il Figliuolo.IESVS therfore ansvvered, and said to them, Amen, amen I say to you, The Sonne can not doe any thing of him self, but that vvhich he seeth the Father doing. For vvhat things soeuer he doeth, these the Sonne also doeth in like maner.Amen, amen dico vobis: non potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem: quæcumque enim ille fecerit, hæc et Filius similiter facit.
20For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder.Imperciocché il Padre ama il Figliuolo, e a lui manifesta tutto quello, che egli fa: e farà a lui vedere opere maggiori di queste, onde voi ne restiate stupefatti.For the Father loueth the Sonne, and shevveth him al things that him self doeth, and greater vvorkes then these vvil he shevv him, that you may marueil.Pater enim diligit Filium, et omnia demonstrat ei quæ ipse facit: et majora his demonstrabit ei opera, ut vos miremini. 21For as the Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.Conciossiachè siccome il Padre risuscita i morti, e rende ad essi la vita: così il Figliuolo rende la vita a quelli, che vuole.For as the Father doth raise the dead and quickeneth: so the Sonne also quickeneth vvhom he vvil.Sicut enim Pater suscitat mortuos, et vivificat, sic et Filius, quos vult, vivificat. 22For neither does the Father judge any man: but hath given all judgment to the Son.Imperocché il Padre non giudica alcuno: ma ha rimesso interamente nel Figliuolo il far giudizio,For neither doth the Father iudge any man: but al iudgement he hath giuen to the Sonne,Neque enim Pater judicat quemquam: sed omne judicium dedit Filio, 23That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who hath sent him.Affinchè tutti onorino il Figliuolo, come onorano il Padre: chi non onora il Figliuolo, non onora il Padre, che lo ha mandato.that al may honour the Sonne, as they doe honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Sonne, doth not honour the Father, vvho sent him.ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem; qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem, qui misit illum. 24Amen, amen, I say unto you that he who heareth my word and believeth him that sent me hath life everlasting: and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life.In verità, in verità vi dico, che chi ascolta la mia parola, e crede in lui, che mi ha mandato, ha la vita eterna, e non incorre nel giudizio, ma è passato da morte a vita.Amen, amen I say to you, that he vvhich heareth my vvord, and beleeueth him that sent me, hath life euerlasting. and he commeth not into iudgement, but shal passe' from death into life.Amen, amen dico vobis, quia qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam æternam, et in judicium non venit, sed transiit a morte in vitam. 25Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.In verità, in verità vi dico, che verrà il tempo, anzi è adesso, quando i morti udiranno la voce del Figliuolo di Dio: e quei, che l'avranno udita, viveranno.Amen, amen I say to you, that the houre commeth, and novv it is, vvhen the dead shal heare the voice of the Sonne of God, and they that haue heard, shal liue.Amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem Filii Dei: et qui audierint, vivent.
26For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself.Imperocché siccome il Padre ha in se stesso la vita: così ha dato al Figliuolo l'avere in se stesso la vita:For as the Father hath life in him self: so he hath giuen to the Sonne also to haue life in him self:Sicut enim Pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso: 27And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man.E gli ha dato podestà di far giudizio in quanto è Figliuolo dell'uomo.and he hath giuē him povver to doe iudgement also, because he is the Sonne of man.et potestatem dedit ei judicium facere, quia Filius hominis est. 28Wonder not at this: for the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.Non vi stupite di questo, perché verrà tempo, in cui tutti quelli, che sono ne' sepolcri, udiranno la voce del Figliuolo di Dio:Marueil not at this, because the houre commeth vvherein al that are in the graues, shal heare his voice,Nolite mirari hoc, quia venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt audient vocem Filii Dei: 29And they that have done good things shall come forth unto the resurrection of life: but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.E usciranno fuora quelli, che avranno fatto opere buone, risorgendo per vivere: quegli poi, che avran fatto opere male, risorgendo per essere condannati.and they that haue done good things, shal come forth into the resurrection of life: but they that haue done euil, into the resurrection of iudgement.et procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitæ; qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem judicii. 30I cannot of myself do any thing. As I hear, so I judge. And my judgment is just: because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.Non posso io fare da me cosa alcuna. Giudico secondo quel, che mi vien detto: e il mio giudizio è retto: perché non cerco il voler mio, ma il volere del Padre, che mi ha mandato.I can not of my self doe any thing. As I heare, so I iudge: and my iudgement is iust. because I seeke not my vvil, but the vvil of him that sent me.Non possum ego a meipso facere quidquam. Sicut audio, judico: et judicium meum justum est, quia non quæro voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me. 31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.Se io rendo testimonianza a me stesso, la testimonianza mia non è idonea.If I giue testimonie of my self, my testimonie is not true.Si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum. 32There is another that beareth witness of me: and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.Evvi un altro, che rende a ne testimonianza: e so, che è idonea la testimonianza, che egli a me rende.There is an other that giueth testimonie of me: and I knovv that the testimonie is true vvhich he giueth of me.Alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me: et scio quia verum est testimonium, quod perhibet de me.
33You sent to John: and he gave testimony to the truth.Voi avete mandato a interrogare Giovanni: ed egli ha reso testimonianza al vero.You sent to Iohn: and he gaue testimonie to the truth.Vos misistis ad Joannem, et testimonium perhibuit veritati. 34But I receive not testimony from man: but I say these things, that you may be saved.Io però non ricevo testimonianza, da un uomo: ma queste cose dicovi per vostra salute.But I receiue not testimonie of man: but I say these things that you may be saued.Ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio: sed hæc dico ut vos salvi sitis. 35He was a burning and a shining light: and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.Quegli era lampana ardente, e luminosa. E voi avete voluto per pochi momenti godere della sua luce.He vvas the lampe burning and shining. And you vvould for a time reioyce in his light.Ille erat lucerna ardens et lucens: vos autem voluistis ad horam exsultare in luce ejus. 36But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect, the works themselves which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me.Io però ho una testimonianza maggiore di quella di Giovanni. Imperocché le opere, che mi ha dato il Padre da adempire, queste opere stesse, le quali io fo, testificano a favor mio, che il Padre mi ha mandato:But I haue a greater testimonie then Iohn. For the vvorkes vvhich the Father hath giuen me to perfit them: the very vvorkes them selues vvhich I doe, giue testimonie of me, that the Father hath sent me.Ego autem habeo testimonium majus Joanne. Opera enim quæ dedit mihi Pater ut perficiam ea: ipsa opera, quæ ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, quia Pater misit me: 37And the Father himself who hath sent me hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.E il Padre, che mi ha mandato, egli stesso ha resa testimonianza a favor mio: e voi ne avete udita giammai la sua voce, né veduto il suo volto.And the Father that sent me, him self hath giuen testimonie of me. neither haue you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape,et qui misit me Pater, ipse testimonium perhibuit de me: neque vocem ejus umquam audistis, neque speciem ejus vidistis: 38And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not.E non avete abitante in voi la sua parola: perché non credete a chi egli ha mandato.and his vvord you haue not remaining in you: because vvhom he hath sent, him you beleeue not.et verbum ejus non habetis in vobis manens: quia quem misit ille, huic vos non creditis. 39Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.Voi andate investigando le Scritture, perché credete di avere in esse la vita eterna: e queste sono quelle, che parlano a favor mio:Search the scriptures, for you thinke in them to haue life euerlasting: and the same are they that giue testimonie of me:Scrutamini Scripturas, quia vos putatis in ipsis vitam æternam habere: et illæ sunt quæ testimonium perhibent de me:
40And you will not come to me that you may have life.E non volete venir a me per aver vita.and you vvil not come to me that you may haue life.et non vultis venire ad me ut vitam habeatis. 41I receive not glory from men.Io non accetto la gloria, che viene dagli uomini.Glorie of men I receiue not.Claritatem ab hominibus non accipio. 42But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you.Ma vi ho conosciuto, che non avete in voi amore di Dio.But I haue knovven you, that the loue of God you haue not in you.Sed cognovi vos, quia dilectionem Dei non habetis in vobis. 43I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.Io son venuto nel nome del Padre mio, e non mi ricevete: se un altro verrà di propria autorità, lo riceverete.I am come in the name of my Father, and you receiue me not: if an other shal come in his ovvne name, him you vvil receiue.Ego veni in nomine Patris mei, et non accipitis me; si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis. 44How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?Com'è possibile, che crediate voi, che andate mendicando gloria gli uni dagli altri, e non cercate quella gloria, che da Dio solo procede?Hovv can you beleeue, that receiue glorie one of an other: and the glorie vvhich is of God only, you seeke not?Quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis, et gloriam quæ a solo Deo est, non quæritis ? 45Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust.Non vi pensate, che sia per accusarvi io presso del Padre: havvi già chi vi accusa, quel Mosè, in cui voi vi confidate.Thinke not that I vvil accuse you to the Father. there is that accuseth you, Moyses, in vvhom you trust.Nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sim vos apud Patrem: est qui accusat vos Moyses, in quo vos speratis. 46For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.Imperocché se credeste a Mosè, a me ancora credeste: conciossiaché di me egli ha scritto.For if you did beleeue Moyses: you vvould perhaps beleeue me also, for of me he hath vvritten.Si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?Che se non credete a quel, che egli ha scritto, come crederete voi alle mie parole?And if you doe not beleeue his vvritings: hovv vvil you beleeue my vvordes?Si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis ?
5:1
about the year A.D. 31.
St. Chrysostom
Observe here the malice of the Pharisees; they were more hurt at the cure of the sick man, than at the violation of the sabbath. Therefore, they ask not, Who healed you; but, as if they wished to keep that out of sight, Who told you to take up you bed? (St. Chrysostom)
St. Augustine
But he answers: The same who healed me: Why should I not receive orders from him from whom I have received my health? (St. Augustine)
By the festival, mentioned in ver. 1, is generally understood the Passover; and this was the second from the commencement of Christ's ministry. St. Matthew calls it by this name, John 26:5; St. Mark, John 14:2. and 15:6; and St. Luke, John 23:17. For the first Passover, see above, John 2:13; for the third, John 6:4; for the fourth and last, Matthew 26:17. The first three are only mentioned by St. John, the fourth by all the evangelists.
5:2
Witham
Now there is at Jerusalem a pond, called Probatica.[Ver. 2. Probatica piscina: some Greek copies, probatike kolumbetra. But in the common copies, epi te probatike kolumbetra, that is propè piscinam, etc. Kolumbetra signifies lavacrum. See Legh's Crit. Sacra.] Some translate, the sheep-pond. It is true the Greek word signifies something belonging to sheep. But because the ancient Latin interpreter thought fit to retain the Greek, probatica, and also because of the different expositions, I have not changed the word. Some think it was so called, as being near the gate called the sheep-gate: others, as being near the sheep-market: others, because the sheep that were brought to be sacrificed, were washed in it; or, at least, that the blood and entrails of sheep and beast sacrificed, were thrown into it, or washed there. In the ordinary Greek copies we read thus: there is at, or near, the Probatica, a pond or fish-pond. In Hebrew it was called Bethsaida, a house for fishing: and in most Greek copies, Bethchesda, a house of mercy, (perhaps because of the cures done there) having five porches, covered and arched, for the convenience of the infirm that lay there, waiting for the motion of the water. (Witham)
St. Augustine
The word probaton, signifies a sheep. This pond is therefore called Probatica, because there the priests washed the sacrifices. (St. Augustine)
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
In imitation of this sick man, if we wish to return God thanks for his favours, or to enjoy the pleasure of his company, we must fly the crowd of vain and wicked thoughts that continually tempt us; we must avoid the company of the wicked, and fly to the sanctuary, that we may render our hearts worthy temples of that God who vouchsafes to visit us. (Alcuin)
5:4
Witham
And an angel of the Lord.[Ver. 4. Angelus Domini. The word kuriou, Domini, is found in several of the best Greek manuscripts though wanting in others. But that the cure was miraculous, see St. Chrysostom, om. ls. p. 207, tom. viii. Aggelos iatiken enetikei dunamin. St. Ambrose, lib. de initandis, ch. IV. St. Augustine (trac. XVII. in Joan.) credas hoc Angelica virtute ficri solere. St. Cyril on this place, Angeli descendentes de coelo piscinae aquam turbabant.] In many Greek copies is now wanting, of the Lord; but at least the ancient Fathers, and interpreters, expound it of a true angel, and of a miraculous cure: so that I cannot but wonder that so learned a man as Dr. Hammond, should rather judge these cures to have been natural. By the angel, he would have us to understand a messenger sent from the temple, who was to stir up the blood, and the grosser and thicker parts from the bottom of the pond, and that these cures were made much after the same manner, as, in some cases, persons find a cure by being put into the belly of a beast newly opened. Into what extravagant interpretations are men of learning sometimes led by their private judgment! What scholar of Galen or Hippocrates, ever pretended that this was a certain and infallible cure for all manner of diseases? Yet here we read: that he who got first into this pond, after the motion of the water, was healed, whatsoever distemper he was seized with. The blind are particularly named: Is this a certain remedy that restores sight to the blind? (Witham)
Haydock
The effect produced could not be natural, as only one was cured at each motion of the waters. The longing expectation of the suffering patients, is a mark of the persevering prayer with which poor sinners should solicit the cure of their spiritual infirmities. (Haydock)
5:5
Infirmity. The Greek, astheneia, signifies in its radical interpretation, a loss of strength: in this place it seems to denote a confirmed palsy.
5:6
Witham
Wilt thou be made whole? No doubt but the poor man desired nothing more. Christ put this question, to raise him to a lively faith and hope. (Witham)
5:8
Witham
Arise, take up thy bed, and walk. The man found himself healed at that very moment, and did as he was ordered, though it was the sabbath-day. The Jews blamed him for it: he told them, that he who had healed him, bade him do so. And who it was he knew not, till Jesus finding him in the temple, said to him: (ver. 14.) Sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee. Upon this he went, not out of malice, but out of gratitude, and told the Jews that Jesus had cured him. (Witham)
5:14
St. Chrysostom
Sin no more, etc. By these words our Saviour shews, that his infirmity was sent in punishment of his sins. When our souls are covered with the leprosy of sin, we are frequently insensible of our misfortune; whereas, as soon as the body is attacked with sickness, though ever so inconsiderable, we are not to be pacified till the physician has been consulted, and some remedy applied to remove, if possible, the complaint. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxxvii. in Joan.)
Haydock
Men are astonished that God, for so short a pleasure as is found in the perpetration of sin, should have decreed an everlasting punishment in the fire of hell; for they say, Shall I be punished for ever, for having indulged a sinful thought for a single moment? But their astonishment will cease, when they consider that punishments are not inflicted on sins in proportion to the length of time that was spent in their perpetration, but that they are proportioned to their malice. Now the malice of sin being infinite, aimed against the infinite majesty and infinite sanctity of God, the punishment, to be any ways commensurate, must be infinite. If, therefore, the sinner dies charged with the infinite debt of mortal sin unrepented of, as the time of mercy and repentance finishes with the present life, the sin must necessarily remain, God's hatred for sin must necessarily remain, and the punishment justly inflicted must necessarily continue. (Haydock)
These words are applicable to every penitent sinner, when he returns from the tribunal of confession, and shew how careful he ought to be not to relapse into his former sins. "For he who after pardon sins again, is unworthy of mercy; who being cured, makes himself sick again, and who being cleansed, defiles himself again." (Tom. 2:St. Chrysostom, de lapsu prim. hom.)
5:17
My father worketh until now:[Ver. 17. Pater meus usque modo operatur, ergazetai. See St. Chrysostom, om. le. on these words. St. Cyril, lib. II. in Joan. ch. VI. St. Augustine, trac. XVII. in Joan. etc.] and I work. The Jews looked upon it of obligation to do nothing on the sabbath, because God is said to have rested the seventh day; on which account the rest on the seventh day was commanded. Christ puts them in mind, that though it be said he rested the seventh day, (that is, produced no more new kinds of creatures) yet that God may be said to work always, by preserving and continually governing the world: and I, saith he, do all things that he doth, I work with him, being one and the same in nature and substance with him: nay, even as man, I do nothing but what is conformable to his will; and so you need not fear that I break the sabbath.
Witham
The Christian faith teacheth us, that Jesus Christ was both God and Man. The objections of the ancient and modern Arians, only shew that Christ was also truly a man, and that divers things which he speaks of himself, or which are said of him in the holy Scriptures, apply to him as man. Nothing is more certain, and agreed on by all. But at the same time we ought to take notice, that Christ has affirmed many things of himself, and many things are asserted of him in the Scriptures, which by no means could be applied to him unless he were also truly and properly one and the same God with his eternal Father. And these are the passages by which the Arians and Socinians might be convinced of their errors and blasphemies. (Witham)
St. Chrysostom
If Christ had not been the natural Son of God, these words, which he says in excuse of his seeming breach of the sabbath, would rather have increased the strength of their accusation. For no governor, when accused of any crime, excuses himself by saying the king does the same. But as the Son is equal to the Father, his excuse is a true one. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxxvii. in Joan.)
The rest God entered into after the creation, and which he was pleased to honour by that of the sabbath, is no hinderance to the operations of his power in the preservation of his works, nor to the operations of his grace in the sanctification of souls.
5:18
Witham
That God was his Father,[Ver. 18. Patrem suum, or proprium suum patrem, ton patera idio.] making himself equal to God. In divers places of the Old Testament, God is called the Father of the Israelites, and they his children: but here, and on several other occasions, the Jews very well saw, that he called God his Father in a quite different sense from that in which he could be said to be their Father; that his words made him equal to God, and that he made himself God. See John 10:33; John 19:7; Luke 22:70; etc. And therefore St. Augustine says on this verse: (Trac. xvii. in Joan.) Behold the Jews understand what the Arians do not. (Witham)
5:19
Witham
The Son cannot do any thing of himself,[Ver. 19. Non potest filius a se, etc. St. Chrysostom, om. le. (t. viii. p. 222.) a seipso nihil facit, neque pater a seipso facit, oude o pater aph eautou ti poion. See St. Cyril, lib. ii. in Joan. St. Augustine, trac. xvii. in Joan. on the same texts. St. Athanasius, orat. 2. cont. Arianos, tom. ii. p. 488. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. XXXVI. 584. tom. I. Ed. Par. an. 1630. St. Ambrose (tom. II. in Ps. CXVIII.) Nihil a se facit filius: quia per unitatem operationis, nec filius sine patre facit, nec sine filio pater. St. Hilary, lib. vii. De Trin. P. 927. Ed. Ben. But St. Jerome (tom. IV. part 2, p. 521. Ed. Ben.) Non possum facere a meipso, objiciebant Ariani; sed respondet Ecclesia, ex persona hominis haec dici, etc. St. Jerome does not mean that he had a human or created person, as the Nestorians pretend; but that these words were spoken, or might be understood of Christ, inasmuch as his human nature was united to his divine person.] but what he seeth the Father do. In like manner, (ver. 30.) Christ says, I can do nothing of myself. As I hear, so I judge. Again (Chap. 8:28.) I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these things. All these, and the like expressions, may be expounded, with Maldonatus and Petavius, (lib. 2:de Trin. John 4.) of Christ, as man. But the ancient Fathers commonly allowed them to be understood of Christ as God, and as the true Son of God proceeding from him from all eternity; as when it is said, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, it is true, because the eternal Son is not of himself, but always proceeds from the Father. 2. Because the works of all the three Persons, by which all things are produced and preserved, are inseparable. 3. When it is said, that the Son doth nothing, but what he seeth the Father doing: that he heareth, as the Father hath taught him, or shewed to him: these expressions bear not the same sense as when they are applied to men, or to an inferior or a scholar, who learns of his master, and follows him; but here, says St. Augustine, to see, to hear, to be taught by the Father, is no more than to proceed from him, to do and produce by the same action, all that the Father doth and produceth. This is the general interpretation of the ancient Fathers: St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine. The words immediately following, confirm this exposition, when it is said: For what things soever he (the Father) doth, these also in like manner the Son doth, that is the very same things by an unity of nature, of will, and of action: nor could these words be true, unless the Son was the same true God with the Father. (Witham)
St. Chrysostom
This must be understood, that he cannot do any thing contrary to the will of the Father. He does not say, "The Son does nothing of himself, but the Son can do nothing of himself, in order to shew their likeness and perfect equality." For by saying this, he does not betray any want of power in the Son; but, on the contrary, shews his great power. For when we say that God cannot sin, we do not esteem it a want of power; so when the Son says he cannot do any thing of himself, his meaning is, that he cannot do any thing contrary to the will of the Father; which certainly is a great perfection. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxxvii. in Joan.)
5:20
Witham
Greater works than these will he (the Father) shew him, etc. These words may also, with Maldonatus be expounded of Christ, as man; but the ancient interpreters understand them of Christ, as God, in this sense, that the Father, and the Son, or the Father by the Son, will shew greater miracles hereafter done by Christ, that more persons may admire and believe. (Witham)
5:21
Witham
For as the Father ... giveth life, so also the Son giveth life to whom he will; where these words, to give life to whom he will, shew the power of the Son and of the Father to be equal. (Witham)
St. Augustine
Our Saviour here mentions the greater works he spoke of in the preceding verse; for it is much more wonderful that the dead should rise, than that the sick should recover their health. We are not to understand these words, as if they meant some were raised to life by the Father, and others by the Son; but that the Father raises those whom the Son raises. And lest any one should understand this, that the Father makes use of the Son as his minister, through whose means he raises the dead, he immediately adds, etc. (St. Augustine, Tract. xxi. in Joan.)
St. Augustine
We see the lovers of this temporal and perishable life, labour to the utmost of their power, I will not say to avoid death, but merely to prolong their frail existence. If, therefore, men labour with so much solicitude, if they strain every nerve to prolong their lives but for a few years; how foolish and blind to their interest must those be, who live in such a manner as to be deprived of the light of eternal day! (St. Augustine, De verb. Dni. Serm. 64.)
5:22
Witham
Neither doth the Father judge any man. It is certain that God is the Judge of all, by divers places of the holy Scriptures; and to judge, belongs both to the Father and to the Son, as they are the same God: so that when it is added, that the Father hath given all judgment to the Son,[Ver. 22. Omne judicium dedit filio. St. Augustine expounds it (trac. xxi.) sed judicium manifestum. Pater occultus erit judex, filius manifestus, quià mani festè ad judicium veniet.] this is meant of the exterior exercise of his judgment upon all mankind at the end of the world, in as much as Christ then will return, in his human body, to judge all men, even as man, in their bodies. (Witham)
5:24
Witham
Hath everlasting life. That is, a title to an eternal inheritance of glory, by believing in the Father, and in the Son, and also in the Holy Ghost, as we are taught to believe at our baptism. (Witham)
5:25
Witham
The hour cometh ... when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. Though some understand this of the rising of Lazarus; others of those that rose with Christ at his resurrection: yet by these words, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, seems rather to be signified the general resurrection at the end of the world; and though it be said, that now is the hour, this may be spoken of the last age of the world; and, as St. John says, (1 John 2:18.) children, it is the last hour. In fine, some interpreters understand these words of a spiritual resurrection from sin, which Christ came to bring to the world. (Witham)
5:27
Witham
To execute judgment, because he is the Son of man; or, because, he is God made man, and is to come to judgment in a visible manner, to judge all men. (Witham)
5:29
Challoner
Unto the resurrection of judgment. That is, condemnation. (Challoner)
5:30
Witham
I can do nothing of myself, etc. See ver. 19. St. Chrysostom also take notice, that it may be no less with truth said of the Father, that he can do nothing of himself, nor without his Son, nor both of them without the Holy Ghost; because both they, and their actions, are inseparable. (Witham)
5:31
Witham
If I bear witness of myself, etc. Christ tells the Jews elsewhere, (chap. 8:14.) that though he should bear witness of himself, it would be true. But the sense of the words in this place is: I could allow you, that if I only gave testimony of myself you might seem to have some reason to except against my testimony: but now besides my own words, you have had also the testimony of John the Baptist, who divers times witnessed that I am the Messias, and the Son of God, come to take away the sins of the world. 2. You have had the testimony of my eternal Father, particularly at my baptism. 3. You have yet a greater testimony, by the works and miracles wrought before your eyes, and at the same time foretold by the prophets. 4. The prophets, and the Scriptures, which you search, or which I remit you to, to search them diligently, these also bear witness concerning me. (Witham)
5:38
You do not observe the commandment he gave you. (Deuteronomy 18:15. 19.) of listening to the prophet He would send you.
5:39
Challoner
Or, You search the Scriptures: (scrutamini; ereunate). It is not a command for all to read the Scriptures; but a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the Scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive him to whom all those Scriptures gave testimony, and through whom alone they could have that true life. (Challoner)
This hope is the cause and motive which leads to this study; and eternal life is the end they propose to themselves in it. Hence, from the context and mode of argumentation made use of, the indicative, you search, instead of the imperative mood, search ye, is best supported. Catholics are most unjustly accused of depriving the faithful of the use of the holy Scriptures. The council of Trent, (Session v., John 1:de reform.) makes this proviso; that in churches where there exists a prebendary, or benefice, set apart for lectures on sacred Scripture, the bishops, etc. shall compel those holding such benefice to expound the sacred Scriptures themselves, should they be equal to the duty; or, by a proper substitute, chosen by the bishop or local ordinary. Also in monasteries of monks, it is prescribed that if abbots neglect, let the bishops of the places compel their compliance; and in convents where studies can be conveniently prosecuted, let there be also a lecturer on Scripture appointed, to be chosen from the most able professors. Moreover, in public universities, where this most honorable and most necessary of all lectures has not been instituted, let the piety and charity of religious princes and governments provide for it; so that the Catholic faith may be defended and strengthened, and sound doctrine protected and propagated. And where the lecture has been instituted, but discontinued, let it be re-established. Moreover, no one was to be appointed to this office, whose life, morals, and learning had not been examined and approved by the bishop of the place, etc.
5:40
Witham
And you will not come to me. Christ now gives them reason why they do not receive him, and his doctrine, nor believe in him; because they are void of the love of God, full of self-love, envy, pride, seeking for praise and glory one from another. Hence you will not receive me, who come in the name of my Father, sent to redeem the world. But if another, such as false prophets, or even Antichrist himself, who will pretend to be the Messias, come in his own name, him you will receive. (Witham)
It is proper to remark, that the testimonies here adduced all rise gradually one above another, and make a body of evidence that must leave the incredulous Jews without excuse: for they pay no regard to Jesus Christ himself, nor to John the Baptist, nor to the evidence of miracles, nor to the voice of God, nor to the Scriptures, nor even to Moses himself.
5:2
Probatica.... That is, the sheep pond; either so called, because the sheep were washed therein, that were to be offered up in sacrifice in the temple, or because it was near the sheep gate. That this was a pond where miracles were wrought is evident from the sacred text; and also that the water had no natural virtue to heal, as one only of those put in after the motion of the water was restored to health; for if the water had the healing quality, the others would have the like benefit, being put into it about the same time.
5:29
Unto the resurrection of judgment.... That is, condemnation.
5:39
Or.... You search the scriptures. Scrutamini.... It is not a command for all to read the scriptures; but a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive him to whom all those scriptures gave testimony, and through whom alone they could have that true life.
5:1
Liturgia The Gospel vpō friday in the first vveeke of Lent.
5:2
2. A pond.) 1 Vertue of miracles giuen to creatures. This is as great a wonder and worke as was in the old Law, yet neuer recorded in the Scripture before: the conditions and circunstances of the same much to be distinctly weighed against the Miscreants of this time for many causes. First, that God without derogation to his honour, yea to the great cōmendation of it, doth giue vertue of miracles and cure to water or other creatures. Secondly, 2 The same giuē specially to sanctified creatures. that he giueth such vertues to these creatures specially which be by vse and occupying in sacred functions or otherwise, as it were sanctified: for this pond was it wherein the carcasses of sheepe (therfore called Probatica) & other beasts to be sacrificed, Hiero. de locis Hebr. post med. were first washed, to which being alwaies red (as S. Hierom saith) with the bloud of hostes, this force was giuen, for the commendation of the sacrifices of the Law there offered. How much more may we acknowledge such workes of God miraculously done in or about the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the new Testament, which faithlesse men wholy reiect and condemne for fables, because they know not the Scriptures nor the power of God Thirdly, 3 Miracles done at on time more thē at an other, specially ī greater solemnities. that this operation was giuen at one time more then an other, & rather on great festiual daies then other vulgar times (for this vvas the feast of Pasche or of Pentecost) as daies more sanctified, and vvhen the people made greater concourse: which shevveth that vve should not vvonder to see great miracles done at the Memories and feastes of Martyrs or other great Festiuities, more then at other places and times. Fourthly, 4 Angels and Sainctes patrones & Workers in places of miracles. that the Angels or some special Saincts are Presidents or Patrones of such places of miracle, and workers also vnder God of the effects that there extraordinarily be done. Which ought to make Christians lesse doubt, that the force of diuers waters in the world is iustly attributed by our forefathers and good stories to the prayers and presence of Saincts, which profane incredulous men referre onely to nature, vntruely pretending that God is more glorified by the workes of nature, which be of his ordinarie prouidence, then by the graces of Miracle giuen to his Saincts or Angels by his extraordinarie prouidence. Fifthly, 5 Miracles in certaine places, & wrought vpō thē that corporally visite the same See S. Augustine ep. 137. that miracles be not wrought on men by their faith onely and as wel by their presence, in spirit as in body, or vpon the parties desire or deuotion onely, according to the Heretikes pretext that God is a like present by his power and grace to euery man and place: and therfore that men neede not to go from their owne houses or countries to seeke holines or health at the places of Christs or his Saincts birth, death, memories: for none could haue benefite of this water but he that could touch it, and be in it corporally, and at that iust time when the water was in motion by the Angel. 6 Al reasonīg in these matters must yeld to Gods pleasure. Yea sixtly, we may consider that in such cases to make the matter more maruelous, rare, and more earnestly to be sought for, and to signifie to vs that God hath al such extraordinary operations in his owne wil and commaundement, without al rules of our reasons and questioning thereon, Hiero. con. Lucifer. c. • 10. 2. none could be healed but that person who first could get into the pond after the Angel came and stirred the same. 7 This water is a figure of Baptisme. Seuenthly, that these graces of corporal cures giuen to this water, prefigure the like force of the Sacrament of Baptisme for the cure of soules, though we neede not seeke correspondence thereof to the figure in euery point.
Lastly, Christ by his power of excellencie and prerogatiue could and did heale this poore man that could get no body to help him into the water, 8 Christ extraordinarily healeth and saueth vvithout creatures. because he earnestly and long desired the remedie by God appointed, but was excluded by necessitie: as our Lord saueth al such as die without Baptisme, if they in their owne persons earnestly intended, desired, and sought for the same.
By our latin text and the Greeke, this miraculous pond vvas in or vpon Probatica, that is, a place vvhere the sheepe to be sacrificed, vvere kept. But by other latin copies, S. Hierom, and some Greeke fathers, Probatica is the very pōd it self: so called, because the sheepe of sacrifice vvere there vvashed.
Bethesda,
5:6
multū tempus haberet,
5:14
14. Sinne no more.) We may gather hereby that this mans long infirmitie was for punishment of his sinnes, and that men often attribute their sicknes to other natural defects, and seeke for remedies of the world in vaine, Sinne the cause of sicknes and infirmities. when the sinne for which it was sent, remaineth, or is not repented of• and therfore that in al infirmities men should first turne to God & goe to their Ghostly father, and then call for the wordly Phisicions afterward.
5:24
is passed
5:25
Liturgia The Gospel vpō Alsoules day.
5:29
Not faith only, but good and il deedes shal be counted, and accordingly rewarded at the day of iudgement.
5:33
Concordanza Io. 1, 19.
5:34
34. I receiue not.) Our Maister meaneth that mans testimonie is not necessarie to him, nor that the truth of his Diuinitie dependeth on worldly witnesses or mens commendations: though to vs such testimonies be agreable and necessarie. and so for our instruction he vouchsaued to take the testimonies of Iohn the Baptist and Moyses and the Prophets: and departing out of this world, to send forth al his Apostles, and in them al Bishops and Lawful Pastors, to be his witnesses from Hierusalem to the ends of the world.
5:37
Concordanza Mt. 3, 17
5:39
39. Searche the Scriptures.) Neither Ievves nor Heretikes finde the truth, because they searche not the Scriptures deepely, but read superficially. He reprehendeth the Iewes, that reading daily the Scriptures and acknowledging that in them they should finde life and saluation, they yet looked ouer them so superficially that they could not finde therein him to be CHRIST their King, Lord, life, and Sauiour. For the special maisters & Scribes of the Ievves then, were like vnto our Heretikes novv, vvho be euer talking and turning and shuffling the Scriptures, but are of al men most ignorant in the deepe knovvledge thereof. And therfore our Maister referreth them not to the reading onely or learning them without booke, or hauing the sentences thereof gloriously painted or vvritten in their Temple, houses, or coates: but to the deepe searche of the meaning and mysteries of the Scriptures, vvhich are not so easily to be seen in the letter.
Catholikes searche the scriptures, and finde there, Peters & his successors Primacie, the real presence, the Priests power to forgiue sinnes, iustification by faith & good workes, Virginitie preferred before matrimonie, breach of the vow of cō tinencie damnable, voluntarie pouertie, Penā ce, almes, and good deedes meritorious, diuers rewardes I heauē accordīg to diuers merites, & such like.
5:43
He meaneth specially Antichrist How thē can the Pope be he, seing the Iewes receiue him not?
5:1
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
[9] And after that, was the feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… and this man was a Samaritan. Jesus answered and said, [38] Were not those that were cleansed ten? where then are the nine? Not one of them turned aside to come and praise God, but this man who is of a strange [39] people. He said unto him, Arise, and go thy way; for thy faith hath given thee life.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 2.22.3
… Then, again, withdrawing Himself [from Judæa], He is found in Samaria; on which occasion, too, He conversed with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance, cured the son of the centurion by a word, saying, “Go thy way, thy son liveth.” Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. An Answer to the Jews 13
… for it “had borne thorns ”—whereof that house of Israel had wrought a crown for Christ—and not “ righteousness , but a clamour ,”—the clamour whereby it had extorted His surrender to the cross. And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, “the law and the prophets were until John,” and the fishpool of Bethsaida
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Baptism 5
… while the evil angel holds frequent profane commerce with the selfsame element to man’s ruin. If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida.
sant'Alessandro di Alessandria † 326 d.C. Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 1.11
… Between which two, as holding the middle place, the only begotten nature of God, the Word by which the Father formed all things out of nothing, was begotten of the true Father Himself. As in a certain place the Lord Himself testified, saying, “Every one that loveth Him that begat, loveth Him also that is begotten of Him.”
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
… Guard, I pray you, the cleansing lest you should again have a hæmorrhage, and not be able to lay hold of Christ to steal salvation; for Christ does not like to be stolen from often, though He is very merciful. Yesterday you were flung upon a bed, exhausted and paralyzed, and you had no one when the water should be troubled to put you into the pool.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 29
This paralytic, however, was different from that one who is set forth in John.
5:2
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… That diseased one answered and said, Yea, my Lord, I have no man, when the water moveth, to put me into the bathing-place; but when I come, another goeth down before [16, 17] me. Jesus said unto him, Rise, take thy bed, and walk. And immediately that man was healed; and he rose, and carried his bed, and walked.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Colossians 5
It was necessary too that many things should prepare the way for Baptism; yea, thousands of things; those, for instance, in the Old Testament, those in the Pool,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 36
Ver. 2, 3 . “Now there is at Jerusalem a sheep pool, called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of halt, blind, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 1
… “The Spirit of the Lord,” says Moses, “moved upon the face of the waters,” from which it appears that there is no baptism without the Holy Ghost. Bethesda, the pool in Judea, could not cure the limbs of those who suffered from bodily weakness without the advent of an angel,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 7.3
… as He is light of the Father, who is light, and the fountain of life with God the Father, who is Himself assuredly the fountain of life. For “with Thee,” He says, “is the fountain of life, and in Thy light shall we see light.” Because, “as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 74.0
On the words of the Gospel, John v. 2 , “Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool,” etc.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.0
Again in John v. 2 , etc., on the five porches, where lay a great multitude of impotent folk, and of the pool of Siloa.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.17
… because good workmen are those in whom God worketh; so also we find a sort of literature among the Jews.…Moses wrote five books: but in the five porches encircling the pool,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 103.12
… the five books were given to Moses: the pool was surrounded by five porches; he brought forth the sick, that they might lie there, that they might be made known, not that they might be healed. The five porches discovered, but healed not, the sick; the pool healed when one descended, and this when it was disturbed:
5:3
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
[10] And there was in Jerusalem a place prepared for bathing, which was called in [11] Hebrew the House of Mercy, having five porches.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 84.10
… But what saith the Apostle? “Where sin abounded, grace hath much more abounded;” that is, the disease increased, the medicine became of more avail. Accordingly, my brethren, did those five porches of Solomon, in the middle of which the pool lay, heal the sick at all? The sick, says the Evangelist, lay in the five porches.
5:4
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
[10] And there was in Jerusalem a place prepared for bathing, which was called in [11] Hebrew the House of Mercy, having five porches. And there were laid in them much people of the sick, and blind, and lame, and paralysed, waiting for the moving [12] of the water.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 1.7
88. You read, too, in the Gospel that the Angel descended at the appointed time into the pool and troubled the water, and he who first went down into the pool was made whole.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Mysteries 4
22. Therefore it is said: “An angel of the Lord went down according to the season into the pool, and the water was troubled; and he who first after the troubling of the water went down into the pool was healed of whatsoever disease he was holden.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 11.2
… I beseech Thee through Him, who sitteth at Thy right hand, and “maketh intercession for us,” “in whom are hid all treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Him do I seek in Thy books. Of Him did Moses write;
5:5
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And there were laid in them much people of the sick, and blind, and lame, and paralysed, waiting for the moving [12] of the water. And the angel from time to time went down into the place of bathing, and moved the water; and the first that went down after the moving [13] of the water, every pain that he had was healed.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 2.23
… But they cannot maintain this; otherwise their primary and original Ogdoad will be included in the number of Æons who suffered together. Moreover, there was also a certain other person
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. Oration on the Palms 1
… For these thankless men saw, and by means of His miracles handled the wonder-working God, and yet remained in unbelief. They saw a man, blind from his birth, proclaiming to them the God who had restored his sight. They saw a paralytic, who had grown up, as it were, and become one with his infirmity, at His bidding loosed from his disease.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Three Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons 1
… And if thou seest a sinner punished, remember the paralytic who passed thirty eight years on his bed. For that that man was delivered over then to that disease through sin, hear Christ saying “Behold thou art made whole; sin no more lest a worse thing happen to thee.”
5:6
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And the angel from time to time went down into the place of bathing, and moved the water; and the first that went down after the moving [13] of the water, every pain that he had was healed. And a man was there who had a [14] disease for thirty-eight years.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 3.10
59. Nor does the Scripture in this place alone bear witness to the θεότης , that is, the Godhead of the Holy Spirit; but also the Lord Himself said in the Gospel: “The Spirit is God.” Which passage you, Arians, so expressly testify to be said concerning the Spirit, that you remove it from your copies,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 29
… and that man had his infirmity thirty and eight years, but concerning this, no such thing is mentioned; and the other was in a state destitute of protectors, but this had some to take care of him, who also took him up, and carried him. And to this He saith, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,” but to that He saith, “Wilt thou be made whole?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 64
To the one then He saith, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee;” but to these, “Wilt thou be made whole? Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Conferences of John Cassian 13.15
… “Go thy way, and as thou hast believed so be it unto thee.” To others hoping for restoration from the touch of His hem, He granted rich gifts of healing. To some, when asked, He bestowed remedies for their diseases. To others He afforded the means of healing unasked: others He urged on to hope, saying: “Willest thou to be made whole?”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Conferences of John Cassian 13.16
… “I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled,” the Lord in His pity granted pardon to his unbelief and ignorance, and restored him to his former health, not in the way which he expected, but in the way which He Himself willed, saying: “Arise, take up thy bed and go unto thine house.”
5:7
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… and the first that went down after the moving [13] of the water, every pain that he had was healed. And a man was there who had a [14] disease for thirty-eight years. And Jesus saw this man laid, and knew that he had [15] been thus a long time; and he said unto him, Wouldest thou be made whole?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homily on the Paralytic Let Down Through the Roof 1
… hast thou come to insult my distress, to reproach me and laugh me to scorn and make a mock of my calamity? He did not say or conceive anything of this kind but meekly replied “Yea Lord.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homily on the Paralytic Let Down Through the Roof 3
… to remind him of it He put him more on the alert against future events, and at the same time He made manifest to us all his patience and courage and wisdom, having reduced him to the necessity of publicly lamenting his calamity, and having displayed his own earnestness on the man’s behalf, “for while I am coming,” he says, “another steppeth down before me:”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 64
Thou mayest not say, “While I am coming, another steppeth down before me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.3
… Men saw the water; and from the motion of the troubled water they understood the presence of the Angel. If any one then went down, he was cured. Why then was not that sick man cured? Let us consider his own words; “I have no man,” he says, “when the water is moved, to put me into the pool, but while I am coming, another steppeth down.”
5:8
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And Jesus saw this man laid, and knew that he had [15] been thus a long time; and he said unto him, Wouldest thou be made whole? That diseased one answered and said, Yea, my Lord, I have no man, when the water moveth, to put me into the bathing-place; but when I come, another goeth down before [16, 17] me.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 37
Ver. 8 . “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 64
… How then did He work other miracles without prayer? saying, “Thou evil spirit, I charge thee, come out of him” ( Mark ix. 25 ); and, “I will, be thou clean” ( Mark i. 41 ); and, “Arise, take up thy bed” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.10
… “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another.” And because He came to give charity, and charity fulfilleth the Law, with good reason said He, “I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil.” He cured the sick man, and told him to carry his couch, and go unto his house.
5:9
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And Jesus saw this man laid, and knew that he had [15] been thus a long time; and he said unto him, Wouldest thou be made whole? That diseased one answered and said, Yea, my Lord, I have no man, when the water moveth, to put me into the bathing-place; but when I come, another goeth down before [16, 17] me. Jesus said unto him, Rise, take thy bed, and walk.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
… Thus, first, in the case of the blind man, He doth not so much as defend Himself to them, when He made the clay: and yet then also were they blaming Him; but the manner of the creation was enough to indicate the Lord and Owner of the law. Next, in the case of the paralytic, when he carried his bed, and they were finding fault,
5:10
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… Marvel not then at that: I mean the coming of the hour when all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: [37] those that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those that have done evil deeds , to the resurrection of judgement.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.8
… Now the Evangelist testifies that the Son is not lower [than the Father] by reason of being the Son; nay, he even declares that, in being the Son, He is equal, saying, “For the Jews sought to kill Him for this cause, that not only did He break the Sabbath, but even called God His own Father, making Himself equal to God.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 37
Ver. 10 . “It is the Sabbath day, it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed”; hear what he saith:
5:11
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
[18] And that day was a sabbath. And when the Jews saw that healed one, they said [19] unto him, It is a sabbath: thou hast no authority to carry thy bed.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 37
Ver. 11 . “He that made me whole, the Same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.”
5:12
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
[18] And that day was a sabbath. And when the Jews saw that healed one, they said [19] unto him, It is a sabbath: thou hast no authority to carry thy bed. And he answered and said unto them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take thy bed, [20] [Arabic, p. 86] and walk.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 37
Ver. 12, 13 . “What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk? And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed Himself away, a multitude being in that place.”
5:13
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And when the Jews saw that healed one, they said [19] unto him, It is a sabbath: thou hast no authority to carry thy bed. And he answered and said unto them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take thy bed, [20] [Arabic, p. 86] and walk. They asked him therefore, Who is this man that said unto thee, [21] Take thy bed, and walk?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homily on the Paralytic Let Down Through the Roof 4
… Because his failure to exhibit faith was not owing to indolence, or to insensibility of soul, but to ignorance of Christ and having never heard any miracle in which He was concerned either small or great. On this account therefore the man obtained indulgence: which in fact the evangelist obscurely intimates when he says, “for he wist not who it was,”
5:14
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… 86] and walk. They asked him therefore, Who is this man that said unto thee, [21] Take thy bed, and walk? But he that was healed knew not who it was; for Jesus had removed from that place to another, because of the press of the great multitude [22] which was in that place.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.36.6
… but He examines those who are called, [to ascertain] if they have on the garment fit and proper for the marriage of His Son, because nothing unbecoming or evil pleases Him. This is in accordance with what the Lord said to the man who had been healed: “Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 5.15.2
… and that men might not rise to such a pitch of madness as to feign another Father above the Creator. And thus also He healed by a word all the others who were in a weakly condition because of sin; to whom also He said, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee:”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. The Epistles of Cyprian 6.2
… even as faith itself and saving birth makes alive, not by being received, but by being preserved. Nor is it actually the attainment, but the perfecting, that keeps a man for God. The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, “Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. The Epistles of Cyprian 51.26
26. Or if he appoints himself a searcher and judge of the heart and reins, let him in all cases judge equally. And as he knows that it is written, “Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto thee,”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. On the Dress of Virgins 2
… The words of the Lord giving health and teaching, as well curing as warning, are: “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.28
In the Gospel according to John: “Lo, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto thee.”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.13
13. Jesus then means according to the Hebrew “Saviour,” but in the Greek tongue “The Healer;” since He is physician of souls and bodies, curer of spirits, curing the blind in body , and leading minds into light, healing the visibly lame, and guiding sinners’ steps to repentance, saying to the palsied, Sin no more , and, Take up thy bed and walk
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
… Today you have Him Who is in one Person Man and God, or rather God and Man. You were raised up from your bed, or rather you took up your bed, and publicly acknowledged the benefit. Do not again be thrown upon your bed by sinning, in the evil rest of a body paralyzed by its pleasures. But as you now are, so walk, mindful of the command,
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.13
… and in the Gospel of S. John, by liberating the soul also from its own malady after He had given health to the body, where He saith, “Thou art made whole, sin no more
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homily on the Paralytic Let Down Through the Roof 2
… And now observe after the cure what tenderness He displays. For He did not leave him and depart, but having found him in the temple he saith “behold! thou art made whole; sin no more lest some worse thing happen unto thee.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 43
… Therefore to the sick of the palsy also Christ said, “Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 64
To the one then He saith, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1
… when having been delivered from their former sins, herein they have more grievously provoked the Judge, that having been delivered from so great a disease, still they did not learn sobriety, but that has happened unto them, which Christ threatened to the paralytic man, saying, “Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
… “But it is not God that does this,” it may be said. How then came He to keep the man with a palsy for thirty and eight years in so great punishments? For that it was for sins that He punished him, hear what He says, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 37
… there Christ said, “Thy sins be forgiven thee,” but here He braced the body first, and then cared for the soul. In that case there was remission of sins, (for He saith, “Thy sins be forgiven thee,”) but in this, warning and threats to strengthen the man for the future; “Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 56
… and how, if his parents had sinned, would he have been punished? Whence then came they to put this question? Before, when He healed the paralytic, He said, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more.” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against the Pelagians 3.1
… and here we run that hereafter we may attain; there he shall receive the crown who in this world has proved the conqueror. And when we have been baptized we are told,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 4.3
… For good it is to confess unto Thee, and to say, “Be merciful unto me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee;” and not to abuse Thy goodness for a license to sin, but to remember the words of the Lord, “Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 52
… Now all the stages which I have here connected together in their successive links, have severally their proper voices in the sacred Scriptures. The law says: “Thou shall not covet.” Faith says: “Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.” Grace says: “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Conferences of John Cassian 6.11
… “I will send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the fury of creatures that trail upon the ground:” and “In vain have I struck your children: they have not received correction.” In the Psalms also: “Many are the scourges of the sinners:” and in the gospel: “Behold thou art made whole: now sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto thee.”
5:15
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… But he that was healed knew not who it was; for Jesus had removed from that place to another, because of the press of the great multitude [22] which was in that place. And after two days Jesus happened upon him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art whole: sin not again, lest there come upon [23] thee what is worse than the first.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
Ver. 15 . “The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus that had made him whole.”
5:16
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And after two days Jesus happened upon him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art whole: sin not again, lest there come upon [23] thee what is worse than the first. And that man went, and said to the Jews that it [24] was Jesus that had healed him.
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.44
44. Hear how the necessity for the reply arose:— And for this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He did these things on the Sabbath
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.15
… Such also is the passage in the Gospel according to John, ‘Therefore the more did the Jews persecute Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homily on the Paralytic Let Down Through the Roof 6
… This at any rate is what the Evangelist implied when he said that the Jews persecuted Jesus not only because He broke the Sabbath but also because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
Ver. 16 . “Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath day.” What then saith Christ?
Socrate Scolastico † 440 d.C. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 1.10
… and referred to the rigidness of that austere canon which declares, that it is not right persons who after baptism have committed a sin, which the sacred Scriptures denominate ‘a sin unto death’
5:17
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… sin not again, lest there come upon [23] thee what is worse than the first. And that man went, and said to the Jews that it [24] was Jesus that had healed him. And because of that the Jews persecuted Jesus and [25] sought to kill him, because he was doing this on the sabbath.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. An Answer to the Jews 9
… which works not even you deny that Christ did, inasmuch as you were wont to say that, “on account of the works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 21
… and elsewhere He is expressly called “the Christ, the Son of God,” and not the Father. He says, therefore,” My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work;” whilst to the Jews He remarks respecting the cure of the impotent man, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 28
… For He also is the image of God the Father; so that it is added, moreover, to these things, that “as the Father worketh, so also the Son worketh.”
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 31
… by which statement I do not mean to affirm that He rested because He was fatigued, but that He did so as having brought to its perfection every creature which He had resolved to introduce. And yet in the sequel it, the new law , says: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity 2.1
… Now the sentence and ordinance of God respecting the begetting of children is confessedly being fulfilled to this day, the Creator still fashioning man. For this is quite manifest, that God, like a painter, is at this very time working at the world, as the Lord also taught, “My Father worketh hitherto.”
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. From the Discourse on the Resurrection, Part I 1
… whom the ancients called Nature and Providence, because she, with constant provision and care, gives to all things birth and growth. “For,” says the Wisdom of God, “my Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 7.17
… and therefore He put His answer, in which He reproved their evil passion, into the form of an exposition of the whole mystery of our faith. For just before this, when He had healed the paralytic and they had passed their judgment upon Him that He was worthy of death for breaking the Sabbath, He had said, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.44
… Their anger was so kindled against Him, that they desired to kill Him, because He did His works on the Sabbath. But let us see also what the Lord answered, My Father worketh even until now, and I work
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Illud Omnia, &c. (On Luke x. 22.) 1
… x. 29 ), nor is the grass clothed without God ( ib. vi. 30 ), but at once the Father worketh, and the Son worketh hitherto (cf.
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. To the Bishops of Egypt 2
… (for since He is in essence like the Father, He cannot be a creature, but must be the Creator, as Himself hath said, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.16
… for ‘I was by Him disposing ;’ and ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.17
… but being the Image and Wisdom of the Father, He does the things of the Father. Nor hath He made the Son for the making of things created; for behold, though the Son exists, still the Father is seen to work, as the Lord Himself says, ‘My Father worketh hitherto and I work
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.15
22. For if, while He is not Son, we are sons, God is our Father and not His. How then does He appropriate the name instead, saying, ‘My Father,’ and ‘I from the Father
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 7.6
… this also, Behold the fowls of the heaven that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them ; and this, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.23
… For honouring His own Father the Only-begotten saith, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise . And again, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 30
… For in this sense I understand the words that whatsoever is done by the Father, these things doeth the Son likewise; not, that is, because of the likeness of the things done, but in respect of the Authority. This might well also be the meaning of the passage which says that the Father worketh hitherto and the Son also;
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.15
… Does he mean that which the Father and the Son execute, according to the word of the Lord Himself Who “hitherto worketh
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 2.12
136. Lastly, that one may not think that there is any difference of work either in time or in order between the Father and the Son, but may believe the oneness of the same operation, He says: “The works which I do He doeth.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.11
154. Now, I ask, wherein does He, through Whom are all things, appear less than He, of Whom are all things? Is it because He is declared to be the Worker? But the Father also works, for He is true who said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homily on the Paralytic Let Down Through the Roof 6
… “Why does this man blaspheme?” they say for “no man can forgive sins save God alone.” As they persecuted Him there because He broke the Sabbath, and took occasion from their reproaches to declare His equality with the Father in the form of a defence, saying “my Father worketh hitherto and I work,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 16
… nor here only doth He so, but elsewhere also again. Thus, since they accounted Him no less than an adversary of God, from this sort of reason, namely, His not keeping the sabbath; He, to heal such their suspicion, there also again sets forth His pleas, of which some indeed were proper to Himself; as when He saith, “My Father worketh, and I work;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 30
The fact is, He is signifying hereby that not He was transgressing the law, but they; as if He had said, “Wherefore accuse me? Because I bring sinners to amendment? Why then ye must accuse the Father also for this.” Much as He said also elsewhere, establishing this point: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work:”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 39
… wherefore He never breaks it without a cause, but giving reasonable excuses: that He might at once bring the law to an end, and not startle them. But there are occasions on which He even repeals it directly, and not with circumstance: as when He anoints with the clay the eyes of the blind man; as when He saith, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
… as man, when He saith, “If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law should not be broken;” (and He said not “that a man should be profited”); “are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?” As God again, when He saith, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… And yet even now they learned things that were much greater than this. And that you may see that this is strictly the case, look how many things I shall enumerate. What, I pray you, was greater than their having learned what they did learn? Thus, they learned that there is a Son of God, and that God has a Son equal with Himself in dignity (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 39
… Therefore according to them, neither was the Father a King before, governing our affairs: nor will it seem that the Son after these things will be a King. How then, first of all, concerning the Father doth the Son Himself say, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work:” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 3
… he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.” ( xiv. 9 .) And, “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” ( v. 23 .) “As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” ( v. 21 .) “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 36
… ciii. 20 , LXX.) Want of strength causeth much labor now, but then it was not so. For “he that hath entered into His rest, hath ceased,” saith one, “from his works, as God from His” ( Heb. iv. 10 ): not meaning here idleness, but the ceasing from labor. For God worketh even now, as Christ saith, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
Ver. 17 . “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
“Why then,” saith some one, “doth Christ so speak?” That His words may be readily received, and to clear the way for sublime sayings; therefore He mixeth these with those, and those with these. And observe how (He doth it); for it is good to see this from the beginning. He said, “My Father worketh, and I work” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 74
… x. 37 .) How then saith He here that the Father doeth them? To show this same thing, that there is no interval between the Father and the Son. What He saith is this: “The Father would not act in one way, and I in another.” Indeed in another place both He and the Father work; “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 126.1
… Whether souls created long since are kept in God’s storehouse as some ecclesiastical writers foolishly imagine; or whether they are formed by God and introduced into bodies day by day according to that saying in the Gospel: “my Father worketh hitherto and I work;”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 133.6
… For the same apostle says “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do.” And in the Gospel the Saviour says: “my Father worketh hitherto and I work.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 22
… Did they come by propagation, like brute beasts? So that, as body springs from body, so soul from soul. Or is it the case that rational creatures, longing for bodily existence, sink by degrees to earth, and at last are tied even to human bodies? Surely (as the Church teaches in accordance with the Saviour’s words,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 165.1
… or are souls kept in a divine treasure house wherein they were stored of old as some ecclesiastics, foolishly misled, believe? or are they daily created by God and sent into bodies, according to what is written in the gospel, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work”?
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 166.8
… that God even now makes each soul for each individual at the time of birth. To meet the objection to this view which might be taken from the fact that God finished the whole work of creation on the sixth day and rested on the seventh day, you quote the testimony of the words in the gospel, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 22.24
… But the other, conformation, is conferred in that work of His wherein “He worketh hitherto.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.6
… The Jews, in obedience to Moses, insisted strongly on this, and so would not even listen to Christ when He told them that God always works, and that no day is appointed for the intermission of His pure and unwearied energy, and that accordingly He Himself had to work incessantly even on Sabbath. "My Father," he says, "worketh always, and I too must work."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… For, a little before this, He had said to those who were impeaching Him with violating the Sabbath-day, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.25
… For if Christ only, what means His saying, “The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works.” For so it is said, “He doeth the works,” as if the Son doeth them not, but the Father who dwelleth in the Son. Why then in another place doth He say, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.4
4. The Jews then were troubled. What is this? “Why doeth He these things on the sabbath days?” And especially at those words of the Lord, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.6
… “My Father,” saith He, “worketh hitherto, and I work.” Their carnal sense touching the rest was troubled. For they thought that the Lord being wearied rested, that He should work no more. They hear, “My Father worketh even hitherto:” they are troubled. “And I work:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 20.2
… and hence the Jews, being troubled, were falsely accusing Him as a destroyer and transgressor of the law. He then said to them, “My Father worketh even until now, and I work.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 93.1
… But then we rest if we do good works. As a type of this, it is written of God, “God rested on the seventh day,” when He had made all His works very good. For He was not wearied, so as to need rest, nor hath He now left off to work, for our Lord Christ saith openly, “My Father worketh hitherto.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
From his discourse on the words “My Father worketh hitherto and I work”:
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 5.39
… that it is restrained by the rules of holy preaching from the lapses of wrong doing; that it bows down in heart to divine precepts, that in understanding it may be exalted; that it humbles itself even to the earth in prayer, lest in mind and soul it should lie upon the earth. Whose is this work but His who says, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work (
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.15
… But to whom shall we attribute this, My Father worketh hitherto and I work
5:18
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… sin not again, lest there come upon [23] thee what is worse than the first. And that man went, and said to the Jews that it [24] was Jesus that had healed him. And because of that the Jews persecuted Jesus and [25] sought to kill him, because he was doing this on the sabbath. And Jesus said unto [26] them, My Father worketh until now, and I also work.
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Synodis or On the Councils 1
… He says, Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His father, making Himself equal with God
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 7.15
15. Again, any one who is in doubt concerning this matter may gain from the Jews an accurate knowledge of Christ’s nature; or rather learn that He was truly born from the Gospel, where it is written, Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.43
43. But perhaps the godless unbeliever meets the pious believer with the assertion that we cannot understand of the true God a confession of powerlessness, such as, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen the Father doing . If the twofold anger
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.44
… But the wrath of the bystanders is now redoubled. Hear what follows, For this cause, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but because He called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.18
224. It is written, they say: “For the Father is greater than I.” It is also written: “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” It is written again that the Jews wished to kill Him, because He said He was the Son of God, making Himself equal with God.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 15
… As then things seemingly harmful do good to these, so do even things profitable harm those who love Him not. For instance, the exhibition of miracles and wisdom in His teaching only injured the Jews, as did the rightness of doctrine; and for the former they called Him a possessed person ( John viii. 48 ), for the other one that would be equal to God (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
Ver. 18 . “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 58
Observe how the Evangelist again brings forward their opinion and thoughts. This I say, because of that speech which they before uttered, when they said, “He maketh Himself equal to God.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 65
And, in truth, had sought to do so before; for the Evangelist saith, “Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 75.14
… Moreover, we read in the Gospel, “The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist.” Also, in another place: “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 82.18
… Thus, although we read that “the law and the prophets were until John,” and that “therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… What words are spoken on this occasion, and how ample is the discourse! Here we are met by the sentence, “The Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.3
… The Lord’s Passion was the troubling of the water. For the Jews were troubled when the Lord suffered. See, what was just now read had relation to this troubling. “The Jews wished to kill Him, not only because He did these things on the sabbaths, but because He called Himself the Son of God, making Himself equal with God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 20.4
4. Behold, then, we have now heard the Gospel, where He answered the Jews who were indignant “that He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.”
5:19
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And Jesus said unto [26] them, My Father worketh until now, and I also work. And because of this especially the Jews sought to kill him, not because he profaned the sabbath only; but for his saying also that God was his Father, and his making himself equal with God. [27]
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 15
… and that accordingly there are two—the Visible and the Invisible. It was the Son, therefore, who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men, and the Son who has always worked by the authority and will of the Father; because “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 21
… Verily I say unto you, that the hour is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and when they have heard it, they shall live. For as the Father hath eternal life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have eternal life in Himself; and He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen De Principiis 1.2.12
… as the Lord Jesus Christ also, who is the Wisdom of God, declares of Himself when He says, “The works which the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.21
… Against such views we must in the first place adduce the leading texts which prove the Son to be another than the Father, and that the Son must of necessity be the son of a Father, and the Father, the father of a Son. Then we may very properly refer to Christ’s declaration that He cannot do anything but what He sees the Father doing and saying,
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 14
… If Christ is only man, how is it that “what things the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise,”
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 21
… Or who says that He can again resuscitate and rebuild the destroyed temple of His body, except because He is the Word who is from the Father, who is with the Father, “by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made;” the imitator
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Church History of Eusebius 10.4.25
25. As to our first and great High Priest, it is said, ‘Whatsoever he seeth the Father doing those things likewise the Son also doeth.’
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Synodis or On the Councils 1
… the corner-stone of our faith, in spite of the fact that the Son Himself reveals His essential likeness with the Father in the words, For as the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself , as well as His likeness in activity by teaching us that What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 1.29
… And they profess to be quite clear about His meaning in this passage, since He also says, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen the Father doing
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 7.16
… For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.2
… And from His words, This is life eternal, that they should know Thee the only true God , they attempt to establish the theory that Christ is called God by a mere title, not as being very God. Further, to exclude Him from the proper nature of the true God, they quote, The Son can do nothing of Himself except that which He hath seen the Father do
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.43
43. But perhaps the godless unbeliever meets the pious believer with the assertion that we cannot understand of the true God a confession of powerlessness, such as, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen the Father doing
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.44
… Let us see, then, what the Lord replied to this double outburst of wrath, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen the Father doing: for what things soever He doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.72
… He never suffers weakness or change when He acts, for His power is boundless, as the Lord said, Father, all things are possible unto Thee . He can do more than human sense can conceive. The Lord does not deprive even Himself of the quality of omnipotence, for He says, What things soever the Father doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 11.12
… The One is in the Other: recognise, then, the divinity of God, the Begotten of God: the Father is greater than He: perceive, then, His acknowledgment of the Father’s authority. In the same way He says, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He hath seen the Father doing: for what things soever He doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. Homilies on the Psalms 53.7
… For strangers are risen up against Me and violent men have sought after My soul; they have not set God before their eyes . The Only-begotten Son of God, the Word of God and God the Word—although assuredly He could Himself do all things that the Father could, as He says: What things soever the Father doeth, the Son also doeth in like manner
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) 46
… 7. But being present with Him as His Wisdom and His Word, looking at the Father He fashioned the Universe, and organised it and gave it order; and, as He is the power of the Father, He gave all things strength to be, as the Saviour says
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica.) 7
… For example, He said of Himself, ‘I and the Father are one ,’ implying that things originate are not so. For we would ask those who allege the Ariminian Synod, whether a created essence can say, ‘what things I see my Father make, those I make also
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 8
… “I live through [by, A.V.] the Father,” and the power of God; “The Son hath power [can, A.V.] to do nothing of himself.”
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Letters 8.9
9. But another passage is also seized by those who are fighting against God to the perversion of their hearers: I mean the words “The Son can do nothing of Himself.”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.23
… For honouring His own Father the Only-begotten saith, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
But in opposition to all these, do you reckon up for me the expressions which make for your ignorant arrogance, such as “My God and your God,” or greater, or created, or made, or sanctified; Add, if you like, Servant and Obedient and Gave and Learnt, and was commanded, was sent, can do nothing of Himself, either say, or judge, or give, or will.
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 30
X. Sixthly, let it be asserted that it is written, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Letters 17
… and by this, after the enjoyment of those blessings, I was saddened in my journey back to my native land, estimating now the truth of the Lord’s words, that “the whole world lieth in wickedness
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 2.12
135. But if you contend that this is an argument for the weakness of the Holy Spirit, and for a kind of likeness to the lowliness of the body, you will also make it an argument to the injury of the Son, because the Son said of Himself: “As I hear I judge,” and “The Son can do nothing else than what He seeth the Father doing.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.2
13. The grace of His submission makes for agreement [with our teaching], and the acts of His power are not at variance therewith. For whatsoever things the Father doeth, the same also doeth the Son, in like manner.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.17
112. But how, unless the Father knew Him to be His true Son, should He commend to Him His will, for perfect co-operation, and His works, for perfect bringing in out in actuality? Seeing that the Son worketh the works which the Father doeth, and that the Son quickens whom He will,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.8
69. Most fitting was the answer which the Son of God made to these Jews, proving Himself the Son and equal of God. “Whatsoever things,” He said, “the Father hath done, the Son doeth also in like wise.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.4
39. Again , another objection that the Arians bring up, denying that the Power of the Father and the Son can be one and the same, is rested on His saying: “Verily, verily, I say unto you; the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen the Father doing.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.5
58. We see, then, that two sorts of impossibility furnish no explanation,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.2
34. Thus the Son alone does what the Father does; for it is written: “Whatsoever things I do, He doth.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 15
… For being Life itself ( αὐτοζωή ) ( Ps. xxxvi. 9 .), and a Well of good things of every kind, and with the same power as the Father, both to raise up the dead and to quicken them, and do all besides that He doth, how could He need to be a suppliant in order to help us? (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 17
… John x. 18 .) “I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again.” And Luke also in the Acts says, (c. i. 3 .) “To whom also He shewed Himself alive.” Wherefore then does Paul so speak? Because both the acts of the Son are imputed unto the Father, and the Father’s unto the Son. For He saith, (S.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Commentary on Galatians 1
… i. 3 .) or again, what in the opening of his Gospel the son of thunder sounded forth, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” ( John i. 1 ..) or what Jesus Himself oftentimes declared to the Jews, “that His power and authority was equal to the Father’s?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
Ver. 19 . “‘The Son can do nothing of Himself.’”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 49
… He that speaketh of himself, that is, who speaketh anything peculiar or different from others, speaketh on this account, that he may establish his own glory; but if I seek the glory of Him that sent Me, wherefore should I choose to teach other things?” Seest thou that there was a cause wherefore He said there too that He “did nothing of Himself”? (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 64
… Since if in order that they may not suppose Him to be an enemy of God, He often even uttereth words unsuited to Him, much more should He then have done so; but now, His saying, “That they should honor the Son even as they honor the Father” ( c. v. 23 ); His saying, “The works which He doeth, I do also” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 69.1
… or they remain undelivered and as it were still under the charge of misdoing, in which case Christ is proved to be powerless. But far be it from us to believe of the Almighty that He is powerless in aught. For “what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 1.6
… Yet the same Son saith, “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 2.1
… nor the same things in a different manner, as the body expresses the same letters, which the mind has thought; but “whatsoever things,” saith He, “the Father doeth, these same things also doeth the Son likewise.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 15.14
… nay, nay.” And therefore this Word is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which it is born is also in itself and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word. And this Word can never have anything false, because it is unchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Creed 5
… And being begotten perfect, if He groweth not, and remained not less, He is equal. For that ye may know Almighty begotten of Almighty, hear Him Who is Truth. That which of Itself Truth saith, is true. What saith Truth? What saith the Son, Who is Truth? “Whatsoever things the Father doeth, these also the Son likewise doeth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 1.4
… And the same John is also the only one who has recorded that witness which the Lord gave concerning Himself, when He said: “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also;” and, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me;” “that they may be one, even as we are one;” and, “Whatsoever the Father doeth, these same things doeth the Son likewise.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… because the Father does not work without the Son. And this is in accordance with what He states a little further on in the same passage, when these parties were incensed at His declaration, namely, “For what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.25
… Why then in another place doth He say, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” And a little after, “For what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.0
On the words of the Gospel, John v. 19 , “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.7
7. And He spake to men, and said what ye have now heard, “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 85.3
… they have them with one consent, do not thou introduce dissension. What He calleth the works of the Father, are His Own works; for, “Thine too are Mine,” for He speaketh of the works of That Father, to whom He said, “All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine.” So then, My works are Thine, and Thy works are Mine. “For what things soever the Father doeth;”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
“So the Word came down not naked, but after having been made flesh, not in the form of God, but in the form of a servant. This then is He who said that He could do nothing of Himself.
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
“If any one takes in reference to Godhead and not in reference to flesh the passage the ‘Son doeth what He seeth the Father do,’
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.8
… And just as we say both that the fire shines and again that the light of the fire shines, So all things whatsoever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.15
… But to whom shall we attribute this, My Father worketh hitherto and I work : and this, What things soever He seeth the Father doing, these also doeth the Son likewise
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.18
… For from Him He derives both His being and all that He has : His being was by generative and not by creative means, as, I came forth from the Father and am come , and I live by the Father . But all that He hath is not His by free gift or by teaching, but in a causal sense, as, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do
5:20
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… but for his saying also that God was his Father, and his making himself equal with God. [27] Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; what the Father doeth, [28] that the Son also doeth like him.
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 5
… as in the passage “Who will rise up for me against the evil doers?” and “What man is he that desireth life?” and “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?” So is it in the passage in question, “Who hath directed [lxx., known] the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath known him?” “For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things.”
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 8
… Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son. “For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things,”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.10
… Of His right hand—confess His power. Of His face—acknowledge His wisdom. These words are not to be understood, when we speak of God, as when we speak of bodies. The generation of the Son is incomprehensible, the Father begets impassibly, and yet of Himself and in ages inconceivably remote hath very God begotten very God. The Father loves the Son,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
Ver. 20 . “The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.8
… Let us then consider that first which I have put first: for he who adds what is wanting does not surely destroy what he finds, but rather confirms it by perfecting it; and accordingly He follows up with the statement, “Verily I say unto you,
5:21
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… [27] Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; what the Father doeth, [28] that the Son also doeth like him. The Father loveth his Son, and everything that he doeth he sheweth him: and more than these works will he shew him, that ye [29] may marvel.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 24
… Because “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world ” and, “I am the way: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me;” and, “No man can come to me, except the Father draw him;” and, “All things are delivered unto me by the Father;” and, “As the Father quickeneth (the dead), so also doth the Son;”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.50
50. But He proves abundantly that His will is free by the words, As the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom He will
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.13
… He who begat knoweth what He begat: and the Scriptures also testify that He who was begotten is God . For as the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself ; and, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father ; and, as the Father quickeneth whom He will, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.6
… here in the case of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as Their power resides in Their nature (for the Holy Spirit breathes “where He listeth ,” and “worketh all in all as He will ,” and the Son, by Whom all things were made, visible and invisible, in heaven and in earth, “did all things whatsoever He pleased ,” and “quickeneth whom He will
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 12.3
… And yet who in the world does not know that life-giving power proceeds to actual operation both in the Father and in the Son? “For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them,” He says, “even so the Son quickeneth whom He will
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 3.19
149. It is a prerogative of God to raise the dead. “For as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, so the Son also quickeneth whom He will.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.6
50. What indeed is there that the Father will have, but the Son will not, or that the Son will have, but the Father will not? “The Father quickeneth whom He will,” and the Son quickeneth whom He will, even as it is written.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.2
… We, however, can easily show that the words treat of the Son’s action, for the Son Himself indeed raised His own Body again, as He Himself said: “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it again.” And He Himself quickens us together with His Body: “For as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth Whom He will.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.10
… For what is the meaning of the words, “Even as He Himself liveth by the Father, so we also live by Him,” but that the Son so quickeneth a man, as the Father hath in the Son quickened human nature? “For as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will,”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.11
143. So the Son gives life as does the Father. “For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… Then again, that the disciples might not say, Why dost thou leave the matter in suspense? He adds, “Which the Father hath put in His own power.” And yet He declared the Father’s power and His to be one: as in the saying, “For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 29
… For as concerning the Father, the Son saith that “He raiseth up the dead and quickeneth;” in like manner also, concerning Himself, that “He quickeneth whom He will:” (S.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 39
… and this too in a suitable though reserved sense? For he becomes a Son and a divine Person, so He obeys; not humanly, but as one acting freely and having all authority. Otherwise how is he co-enthroned? How, “as the Father raiseth up, even so He, whom He will?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 3
… 11 ); and, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.” ( xiv. 9 .) And, “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” ( v. 23 .) “As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… And if the expression “by Him” is here used, it is put for no other reason but to prevent any one from supposing the Son to be Unbegotten. For that in respect of the title of Creator He is nothing inferior to the Father; hear from Himself, where He saith, “As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
Ver. 21 . “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 45
… ( Luke xii. 49 .) For if Thou also desirest this, it is very clear that Thy will and the Father’s is one. In another place also He saith, “For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 49
… I am not equal”; yet He said nothing of the kind, but, on the contrary, declared by what followed, that He is equal. For, “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 64
… x. 30 ), or that, “We are One,” or that, “He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.” ( c. xiv. 9 .) Thus also, when His discourse was concerning power, He said, “I and the Father are One”; and when His discourse was concerning authority, He said again, “For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He wilt” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 68
… then He cometh to them again, and again beginneth with words of humility. And where hath He done this? Nay, where hath He not done it? See, for instance, what He saith at the beginning, “As I hear, I judge.” ( c. v. 30 .) Then in a loftier tone, “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 69
Seest thou the humility of the words? For he that hath received a commandment is not his own master. Yet He saith, “As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 80
… xviii. 17 , LXX.,) and honoring others as righteous. Had He then the power at that time, and now had He lost it, and did He again receive it? What devil could assert this? But if His power was the same both then and now, (for, saith He, “as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will”—
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
… For when He [appears] as Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, “who also maketh intercession for us” ( Rom. viii. 34 ), he hints the same thing; the High Priest maketh intercession. For He “that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them,” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Nature and Grace 8
… Our Lord, for instance, raised Lazarus; He unquestionably was able to do so. But inasmuch as He did not raise up Judas must we therefore contend that He was unable to do so? He certainly was able, but He would not. For if He had been willing, He could have effected this too. For the Son quickeneth whomsoever He will.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 48.1
… whereas some admire the more ample fulfilment in the souls of men at the present time of those things which they hear of as having been wrought on their bodies. The Lord Himself saith, “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 85.5
… “That where I am, they may be also with Me.” We have escaped, there shall we be, where He is; there shall we be, we have escaped. Who can undo the “I Will” of the Almighty? You hear the will of His power, hear now the power of His will. “As the Father” saith He “raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 71.2
… raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” And so likewise, if in saying, “The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works,” He is on that account not to be regarded as distinct in person from the Father, let us listen to His other words, “What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 110.3
… What we have here is similar to what He says elsewhere, “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” And “whom,” but just the same as the Father? “For what things soever the Father doeth,” not other things, but “these also doeth the Son,” not in a different way, but “in like manner.”
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.15
… and this, What things soever He seeth the Father doing, these also doeth the Son likewise : and this, If ye believe not Me, believe My works : and this, The work which I do bear witness concerning Me : and this, As the Father raised up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will
5:22
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… what the Father doeth, [28] that the Son also doeth like him. The Father loveth his Son, and everything that he doeth he sheweth him: and more than these works will he shew him, that ye [29] may marvel. And as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, so the Son [30] also giveth life to whomsoever he will.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 16
… Whence it is written, “From the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” to whom “is given by the Father all power in heaven and on earth.” “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son”
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. Against the Heresy of One Noetus 6
… and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, “Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father;”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.29
… “What have we to do with Thee, Thou Son of David? why art Thou come hither to punish us before the time?” Likewise according to John: “The Father judgeth nothing, but hath given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent Him.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.34
In the Gospel according to John: “The Father judgeth nothing, but hath given all judgment unto the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent Him.”
Afraate † 346 d.C. Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 6.12
… For John said:— Not by measure did the Father give the Spirit to His Son, but loved Him and gave all into His hands . And also our Lord said:— All things have been delivered unto Me by My Father . Again he said:— The Father will not judge any man, but all judgment will He give unto His Son .
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.29
… What can we learn from it for the purposes of our enquiry? The Lord rained brimstone and fire from the Lord . It is The Lord from the Lord ; Scripture makes no distinction, by difference of name, between Their natures, but discriminates between Themselves. For we read in the Gospel, The Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 11.12
… To say that the Father gave, is a confession that He received His origin: but the unity of Himself with the Father is a property of His nature derived from that origin. Take another instance, He hath given all judgment unto the Son, that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Illud Omnia, &c. (On Luke x. 22.) 3
… So this expression is subversive of the perversity of the heterodox in saying that ‘if all things have been delivered to the Son, then the Father has ceased to have power over what is delivered, having appointed the Son in His place. For, in fact, the Father judgeth none, but hath given all judgment to the Son’ (
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life;’ and again, ‘All things were delivered unto Me of My Father, and no one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him;’ and again, ‘All that the Father hath given unto Me, shall come to Me
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 8
… Those that are confined in the darkness of ignorance He enlightens: for this reason He is true Light. Portioning requital in accordance with the desert of deeds, He judges: for this reason He is righteous Judge. “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 15.25
… or rather, even though thou speak not, it will convict thee. For thou shalt rise clothed with thine own sins, or else with thy righteous deeds. And this has the Judge Himself declared—for it is Christ who judges— for neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 30
IX. Fifthly, let it be alleged that it is said of Him that He receives life, judgment,
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 1-2.24
… If we think of royal power and worth the Son is King: if of a judge, ‘all judgment is committed to the Son
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.13
… For the Churchman and the heretic alike affirm that “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 6.3
… But if it was not the Father Who wrought the destruction of death, marvel not,—for all judgment also He hath committed unto the Son, Himself judging no man
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 11.2
… Is thine eye evil because I am good?” Of course no one will contest the point that to distribute recompense according to desert is the special function of the judge; and all the disciples of the Gospel agree that the Only-begotten God is Judge; “for the Father,” He saith, “judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. On 'Not Three Gods.' 1
… For as when we learn concerning the God of the universe, from the words of Scripture, that He judges all the earth , we say that He is the Judge of all things through the Son: and again, when we hear that the Father judgeth no man
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.10
… The generation of the Son is incomprehensible, the Father begets impassibly, and yet of Himself and in ages inconceivably remote hath very God begotten very God. The Father loves the Son, and you anxiously examine His Person; the Father is well pleased in Him, you, joining the Jews, look upon Him with an evil eye; the Father knows the Son,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.12
100. Howbeit , if our adversaries cannot be turned by kindness, let us summon them before the Judge. To what Judge, then, shall we go? Surely to Him Who hath the Judgment. To the Father, then? Nay, but “the Father judgeth no man, for He hath given all judgment to the Son.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.13
118. Let the Sabellian speak in his turn. “I consider Thee, by Thyself, to be at once Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” To whom the Lord: “Thou hearest neither the Father nor the Son. Is there any doubt on this matter? The Scripture itself teaches thee that it is the Father Who giveth over the judgment, and the Son Who judges.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.11
146. But to purpose. “How unsearchable,” saith the Apostle, “are His judgments!” Now if “the Father hath given all judgment to the Son,”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.5
65. But if they think that by saying, “For whom it hath been prepared of My Father,” He assigned greater power to His Father, or detracted aught from His own; let them say whether they think there is any detraction from the Father’s power, because the Son in the Gospel says of the Father: “The Father judgeth no man.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood 3.5
… For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, “Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?” What authority could be greater than this? “The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 52
… For if having heard so many sure signs and proofs ye still say, ‘thy witness is not true,’ if ye deem Moses worthy of credit, both as to what he speaketh concerning others and what he speaketh concerning himself, but Christ not so, this is to judge according to the flesh.” “But I judge no man.” He saith indeed also that “the Father judgeth no man.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2
… 10 .) Nowhere is there the saying “by whom,” or that “by Him He made the worlds.” What then? Were they not made by Him? Yes, but not, as thou sayest or imaginest, “as by an instrument”: nor as though He would not have made them unless the Father had reached out a hand to Him. For as He “judgeth no man” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
… Wherefore also when Paul says, “who also maketh intercession for us” ( Rom. viii. 34 ), he hints the same thing; the High Priest maketh intercession. For He “that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them,” ( John v. 21 ), and that “even as the Father” [doth], how [is it that] when there is need to save, He “maketh intercession”? (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 20.5
… that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father: he that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him;” He immediately adds, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death to life.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 20.30
… for though the Father will judge, He will judge by the coming of the Son. For He Himself, by His own manifested presence, “judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 1.9
… But in order to intimate the Trinity, some things are separately affirmed, the Persons being also each severally named; and yet are not to be understood as though the other Persons were excluded, on account of the unity of the same Trinity and the One substance and Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 1.13
… for according to this it is said, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” Whether this is said after that mode of speech which we have mentioned above, where it is said, “So hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 2.1
… as, for instance, that which says, “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself;” and that other: “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.11
… lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” I understand who the judge is: “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 43.4
4. “And I,” said He, “seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.” Whom does He wish to be understood but the Father? How, then, does He say in another place, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 54.5
… and if any of you have forgotten, recall it: and those of you who were absent then, but are present now, hear how it is that the Son saith, “I judge him not,” while in another place He says, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 99.1
… although then He will come in glory, and not in His original humility, yet in a way that will be conspicuous both to the good and to the bad. Hence He says further: “And He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 7.8
… Or whether He return on high, when the understanding of the truth leaves sinful Christians, for that of His coming it has been said, “Thinkest thou the Son of Man on His coming will find faith on the earth?” “The Lord” then “judgeth the people.” What Lord, but Jesus Christ? “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 19.11
11. “The judgments of the Lord are true, justified together.” The judgments of Him, who “judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.2
2. “O God, Thy judgment to the King give Thou, and Thy justice to the King’s Son” ( ver. 1 ). The Lord Himself in the Gospel saith, “The Father judgeth not any one, but all judgment He hath given to the Son:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 86.20
20. If therefore Thou art “true,” “Look upon me, and have mercy upon me: give power unto Thy servant.” Because Thou art “true,” “give power unto Thy servant” ( ver. 16 ). Let the time of patience pass away, the time of judgment come. How, “give power”? The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 3.7
… “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son as they honour the Father.”
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.13
The Deity, then, is quite unchangeable and invariable. For all things which are not in our hands He hath predetermined by His foreknowledge, each in its own proper and peculiar time and place. And accordingly the Father judgeth no one, but hath given all judgment to the Son
5:23
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… The Father loveth his Son, and everything that he doeth he sheweth him: and more than these works will he shew him, that ye [29] may marvel. And as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, so the Son [30] also giveth life to whomsoever he will. And the Father judgeth no man, but hath [31] given all judgement unto the Son;
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 8.9
… And so of the others, we ask proof that the right to be worshipped was given to them by the Most High God.” But if the same question is put to us in regard to the worship of Jesus, we will show that the right to be honoured was given to Him by God, “that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.2
… So would they, in obedience to the words of the Lord, He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.23
… is not, then, His glory the glory of the only God, if to receive Him steadfastly was to seek the glory of the only God? This very discourse is our witness: for at its beginning we read, That all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which sent Him
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 12.7
7. But to be in this way in the form of God is nothing else than to be equal with God: so that equality of honour is owed to the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is in the form of God, as He Himself says, That all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father Who sent Him
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Expositio Fidei. (Statement of Faith.) 1
… word not pronounced nor mental, nor an effluence of the Perfect, nor a dividing of the impassible Essence, nor an issue ; but absolutely perfect Son, living and powerful ( Heb. iv. 12 ), the true Image of the Father, equal in honour and glory. For this, he says, ‘is the will of the Father, that as they honour the Father, so they may honour the Son also’ (
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.9
… at the obstinacy which is added to their irreligion, that, whereas the term ‘unoriginate’ has the aforesaid good sense, and admits of being used religiously , they, in their own heresy, bring it forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father, and he who dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth the Father
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.24
… God ;’ and to one who asked, what was the great commandment in the Law, answering, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord ;’ and saying to the multitudes, ‘I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me ;’ and teaching the disciples, ‘My Father is greater than I,’ and ‘He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him that sent Me
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 6
… We ask them to listen to the Lord Himself, distinctly setting forth the equal dignity of His glory with the Father, in His words, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” and again, “When the Son cometh in the glory of his Father;” that they “should honour the Son even as they honour the Father;”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.13
… He who begat knoweth what He begat: and the Scriptures also testify that He who was begotten is God . For as the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself ; and, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 1-2.24
Can any one dare to speak of the divine and supreme Being in such a way that a less degree of honour in comparison is proved by the argument. “That all,” says the evangelist, “may honour the Son, as they honour the Father.
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.4
… removed from falsehood, he will of course be persuaded that He speaks the truth Who says, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me ,”—plainly, the One in His entirety, in the Other in His entirety, the Father not superabounding in the Son, the Son not being deficient in the Father,—and Who says also that the Son should be honoured as the Father is honoured
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 4.9
… while it considers as great and sublime the act of bringing Him down to equality with the creation that is in bondage with us. Empty complaints! Basil is slandered as dishonouring the Son, who honours Him even as he honours the Father
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 12.3
… See you how the course of their profane attack upon the Only-begotten Son has missed its mark, and is working round in natural consequence so as to be directed against the majesty of the Father? And this seems to me to be a necessary result of their method of proceeding. For if he that honoureth the Son honoureth the Father
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.9
61. Let Father and Son, therefore, be associated in worship, even as They are associated in Godhead; let not blasphemy put asunder those whom the close bond of generation hath joined together. Let us honour the Son, that we may honour the Father also, as it is written in the Gospel.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.9
74. I have no fears in the matter of that commonly advanced objection, that Christ is inferior because He was sent. For even if He be inferior, yet this is not so proved; on the other hand, His equal title to honour is in truth proved. Since all honour the Son as they honour the Father,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.14
123. What verdict do we look for from Christ? That do I know. Do I say, what verdict will He give? Nay, He hath already pronounced sentence. We have it in our hands. “Let all,” saith He, “honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, Who hath sent Him.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.6
68. We know well in what way He gave it; for how did the Son, who created all things out of nothing, receive it as though in want? Had He not the judgment of those whose natures He had made? The Father gave all judgment to the Son, “that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Concerning Virgins 3.1.4
… So He is the perfect Son of a perfect Father. For he who derogates from the power, derogates from Him Whose is the power. The Perfection of the Godhead does not admit of inequality. Love, then, Him Whom the Father loves, honour Him Whom the Father honours, for “he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 3
… As, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” ( xiv. 11 ); and, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.” ( xiv. 9 .) And, “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 4
… so that as far as you are concerned you have given the Father a beginning, and henceforth, according to your argument, not even the Father will be without beginning. See you that the word spoken by the Saviour is true, and the saying everywhere discovers its force? And what is that word? It is “He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 64
… Since if in order that they may not suppose Him to be an enemy of God, He often even uttereth words unsuited to Him, much more should He then have done so; but now, His saying, “That they should honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 33
… For in no other way it is offered except through the Son, or rather also through a contrite mind. All these things [are said] for the weak. For that the thanks belong to the Son is evident: since otherwise, how is the honor equal? “That all men” (He says) “should honor the Son even as they honor the Father.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.12
… Is the Father reproached, and not Christ Himself? Why have “the reproaches of men reproaching Thee fallen upon Me”? Because, “he that hath known Me, hath known the Father also:” because no one hath reviled Christ without reviling God: because no one honoureth the Father, except he that honoureth the Son also.
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.3
… The same idea is conveyed in the Psalms, where the saints say, ‘ In Thy light we shall see light .’ It is on this account that ‘ he who honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 2.48
… but if this be so, it is evident that the Father has not been unknown to any of them. But how could the Father be revealed to you, who do not believe in the Son, since the Father is known to none except him to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him? But the Son reveals the Father to those who honour the Son as they honour the Father.”
5:24
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, so the Son [30] also giveth life to whomsoever he will. And the Father judgeth no man, but hath [31] given all judgement unto the Son; that every man may honour the Son, as he honoureth the Father. And he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which [32] sent him.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37
… He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit : “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 5.10
10. For the name of Faith is in the form of speech one, but has two distinct senses. For there is one kind of faith, the dogmatic, involving an assent of the soul on some particular point: and it is profitable to the soul, as the Lord saith: He that heareth My words, and believeth Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and cometh not into judgment
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
Ver. 24 . “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
… I told you that ‘the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son’; I told you that men must ‘honor the Son as they honor the Father’; I told you that ‘he that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father’; I told you that ‘he that heareth My words and believeth them shall not see death, but hath passed from death unto life’ (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 55.2
… the meaning of the Hebrew word Pascha being, as those who are acquainted with it assure us, a passing over or transition. To this the Lord Himself designed to allude, when He said,” He that believeth in Me is passed from death to life.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 1.13
… but shall pass from death unto life.” Now this life eternal is that sight which does not belong to the bad. Then follows, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 77.4
… “He that believeth in Me,” saith He, “passeth from death unto life, and cometh not into judgment. Verily I say unto you, that the hour shall come, and now is, when the dead shall hear the Voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 9.1
… But then that confession will avail, not to the remedy of evils, but to the accumulation of damnation. Of these two judgments, the one hidden, the other manifest, the Lord seems to me to have spoken, where He says, “Whoso believeth on Me hath passed from death unto life, and shall not come into judgment;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 106.33
… But when the Jews suppose that that prophecy belongeth to their visible kingdom, because they know not how to rejoice in the hope of good things unseen, they are about to rush into the snares of him, of whom the Lord saith, “I am come in My Father’s Name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
From his discourse on the text “Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me hath everlasting life”:
5:25
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Tarsians 7
And that our bodies are to rise again, He shows when He says, “Verily I say unto you, that the hour cometh, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.”
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… that every man may honour the Son, as he honoureth the Father. And he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which [32] sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever heareth my word, and believeth in him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgement, but passeth from [33] [Arabic, p. 87] death unto life.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37
… for “the hour,” says He, “is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 65
… for the dew from thee is healing to them.” The Lord says, “Many in that day shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. A discourse by the most blessed Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, on the end of the world, and on Antichrist, and on the second coming of our lord Jesus Christ 36
… “The dead shall rise, and those in the tombs shall awake, and those in the earth shall rejoice.” And our Lord says: “Many in that day shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”
Afraate † 346 d.C. Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 8.3
… And He Who raises the dead dwells in heaven. Then when our Saviour shall come, whom shall He raise up from the earth? And why did He write for us:— The hour shall come, and now is, that the dead also shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and they shall live and come forth from their tombs ?
Afraate † 346 d.C. Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 8.15
… And this is the voice through which the dead shall live. Concerning it our Redeemer testifies, saying:— The hour shall come when even the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man and shall come forth from their tombs ;
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.22
… Is it not implied that He has the nature of God, when He says, Ye will not come to Me that ye may have life . Hear what He said of Himself in the same discourse, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Illud Omnia, &c. (On Luke x. 22.) 5
… ix. 6 ). The Only-begotten Son of God, then, is at once Father of the coming age, and mighty God, and Ruler. And it is shewn clearly that all things whatsoever the Father hath are His, and that as the Father gives life, the Son likewise is able to quicken whom He will. For ‘the dead,’ He says, ‘shall hear the voice of the Son, and shall live’ (cf.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
Ver. 25 . “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that have heard shall live.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 33
… he is sent to Gehenna, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. “The hairs of your head are numbered.” If the hairs, I suppose the teeth would be more easily numbered. But there is no object in numbering them if they are some day to perish.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 164
… “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 20.6
After that He adds the words, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 1.13
… which sight will be common to the ungodly and to the just. For He goes on to say, “And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 5.4
… and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself, so He hath given to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him power to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 17.4
… "When the Son of man," He says, "cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" Not, When I come, shall I find? Again, "The Son of man came eating and drinking;" not, I came. Again, "The hour shall come, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live;"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.12
… found a man sitting at the receipt of custom,” instead of “He found me.” John, too, says, “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true,” instead of “I am,” etc., or, “My testimony is true.” Yea, our Lord Himself very frequently uses the words, “The Son of man,” or, “The Son of God,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 77.0
On the words of the Gospel, John v. 25 ,“Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the son of God; and they that hear shall live,”etc.; and on the words of the apostle, “things which eye saw not,” etc., 1 Cor. ii. 9
5:26
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… 87] death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, An hour shall come, and now is also, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those [34] which hear shall live.
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 14
… If Christ is only man, how is it that “what things the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise,” when man cannot do works like to the heavenly operations of God? If Christ is only man, how is it that “even as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Synodis or On the Councils 1
II. “And if any one hearing the Son say, As the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.8
… Nor did He come into existence in obedience to a command as did created things, for He is the Only-begotten of the One God; and He has life in Himself, even as He that begot Him has life, for He says, As the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son to have life in Himself
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.10
… is greater than I , and I and the Father are One , and He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also , and The Father is in Me and I in the Father , and I went out from the Father , and Who is in the bosom of the Father , and Whatsoever the Father hath He hath delivered to the Son , and The Son hath life in Himself, even as the Father hath in Himself
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.11
11. The Son draws His life from that Father Who truly has life; the Only begotten from the Unbegotten, Offspring from Parent, Living from Living. As the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Himself
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.20
… It is the voice of the One God proclaiming Himself to be Father and Son; Father speaking in the Son and Son in the Father. Hence also He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also ; hence All that the Father hath, He hath given to the Son ; hence As the Father hath life in Himself so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 7.27
… For when He said, As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live through the Father , He taught that it is through the living Father that He has life in Himself. And, moreover, when He said, For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son also to have life in Himself
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Illud Omnia, &c. (On Luke x. 22.) 4
… and as it is not possible to say of Him ‘there was a time when He was not,’ nor ‘made of nothing,’ so it is not proper to say the like of the Son either. But rather, as the Father’s attributes are Everlastingness, Immortality, Eternity, and the being no creature, it follows that thus also we must think of the Son. For as it is written (
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.27
Chapter XXVII.—Texts Explained; Tenthly, Matthew xi. 27 ; John iii. 35 , &c. These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they are explained by ‘so’ in
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.13
… Only He who begat knoweth Him who was begotten, and He who is begotten of Him knoweth Him who begat. He who begat knoweth what He begat: and the Scriptures also testify that He who was begotten is God . For as the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 10.2
… Accordingly every one that yearns for eternal life when he has found the Son,—I mean the true Son, and not the Son falsely so called—has found in Him in its entirety what he longed for, because He is life and hath life in Himself
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.16
… The name “God,” then, is not to be used as a mere manner of address and mention, but with the understanding that you affirm, of the Son, that same Godhead which the Father hath, as it is written: “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son also to have life in Himself;”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.10
… “For as the Father hath Life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son also to have Life in Himself.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.2
… He has it in His essential Being; and He has it not as a temporal grace, but owing to His eternal Godhead. He has it not by way of a gift as a servant, but by peculiar right of His Generation, as the co-eternal Son. He has it, too, as has the Father. “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
But when you hear that “In Him was Life,” do not imagine Him a compound Being, since farther on he says of the Father also, “As the Father hath Life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son also to have Life” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
… For all that the Father is, this the Son is also, Begotten, and remaining a Son. And that thou mayest learn that “hath given” is the same as “hath begotten,” hear this very thing declared by another place. “As,” saith Christ, “the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
If then He was born a king, all His other attributes are by Generation, and He hath nothing which He received in addition. So that when thou hearest that, “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son also to have life” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 1.11
… According to the form of God, He and the Father are one; according to the form of a servant, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. According to the form of God, “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 1.12
… that He is one thing, and has another: but He is in such way as to be what He has . And this is said more plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 15.26
… Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 2.32
… “So hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 47.14
… But when the Son is said to receive of the Father what He possesses essentially in Himself, as it is said, “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 54.7
… and yet He received it not, because He is not of any one. But the Son received life as the Father’s gift, of whom He is: and so He Himself is what He has; for He has life, and is the life. Listen to Himself when He says, “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 70.1
… and as He is that life eternal, so is it in Him, that where He is there shall we be also, that is to say, in Himself. “For as the Father hath life in Himself,” and certainly that life which He has is in no wise different from what He is Himself as its possessor, “so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 99.4
… but both are one. Nor ought that to be called both, which is simply one. “As the Father hath life in Himself,” and He Himself is not something different from the life that is in Him; “so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
… us that Jesus said ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up…but He spake’ of His own ‘body.’ So it is clear to them that take heed that at the raising of the body the Son is said by Paul to have been raised from the dead, for he refers what concerns the body to the Son’s person, and just so when he says ‘the Father gave life to the Son’
5:27
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… 87] death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, An hour shall come, and now is also, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those [34] which hear shall live. And as the Father hath life in himself, likewise he gave to [35] the Son also that he might have life in himself,
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.40
… They did not make the matter very clear, but they considered that the demiurge was just, while the Father of Christ was good. That distinction may, I think, if carefully examined, be applied to the Father and the Son; the Son being righteousness, and having received power
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.4
… He is called Dead, not as having abode among the dead, as all in Hades, but as being alone free among the dead . He is called Son of Man, not as having had His generation from earth, as each of us, but as coming upon the clouds To Judge Both Quick and Dead
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.16
134. “And He hath given Him power to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
Ver. 27 . “Hath given Him authority to execute judgment also.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 75.5
… He doth govern times as Son of God. Hear how as Son of Man He hath received the time of judging. He saith in the Gospel, “He hath given to Him power to execute judgment, because Son of Man He is.”
5:28
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… Verily, verily, I say unto you, An hour shall come, and now is also, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those [34] which hear shall live. And as the Father hath life in himself, likewise he gave to [35] the Son also that he might have life in himself, and authority to do judgement also, [36] because he is the Son of man.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 5.13.1
… “The hour shall come, in which all the dead which are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth; those that have done good to the resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37
… Then again, when He says, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
“That He is the Son of Man ( v. 28 ), marvel not at this.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 64
[3.] This is that of which He spake, “The hour is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against the Pelagians 1.28
… another to be madly cruel towards adversaries. Wherefore, we sing in the first Psalm, “The impious do not rise in the judgment,” for they are already sentenced to destruction; “nor sinners in the counsel of the just.” To lose the glory of the resurrection is a different thing from perishing for ever. “The hour cometh,” he says,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 20.6
… For it is to show this He says, “because He is the Son of man.” And then follow the words for our purpose: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 20.23
… And many of them that sleep in the mound of earth shall arise, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting confusion. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and many of the just as the stars for ever.” This passage is very similar to the one we have quoted from the Gospel,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 43.9
… And so when the cry was made at midnight, “Behold, the Bridegroom cometh;” what follows? “Then all those virgins arose.” What is, “they” all arose? “The hour will come,” said the Lord Himself, “when all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 77.14
… Marvel not.” For this reason have I said this, because it behoves Him as Man to be judged by men. And what men shall He judge? Those whom He finds alive? Not only those, but what? “The hour shall come, when they that are in the graves.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 43.9
… Thou hast penal judgment spoken of in the Gospel: “He that believeth not is judged already;” and in another place, “The hour is coming, when those who are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 49.1
… So, indeed, He saith, “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.27
Moreover, even the Lord in the holy Gospels clearly allows that there is a resurrection of the bodies. For they that are in the graves, He says, shall hear His voice and shall come forth: they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation
5:29
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… and those [34] which hear shall live. And as the Father hath life in himself, likewise he gave to [35] the Son also that he might have life in himself, and authority to do judgement also, [36] because he is the Son of man. Marvel not then at that: I mean the coming of the hour when all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: [37]
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 50
… For it is not the resurrection that is directly denied to flesh and blood, but the kingdom of God, which is incidental to the resurrection (for there is a resurrection of judgment
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Church History of Eusebius 4.15.33
… whom we have received the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and of powers and of the whole creation and of the entire race of the righteous who live in thy presence, I bless thee that thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a portion in the number of the martyrs, in the cup of Christ, unto resurrection of eternal life,
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Letters 46.5
… when that terrible trumpet with its mighty voice shall wake those that have slept through the ages, and they that have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 16.9
… or rather more fearful because it is also just; when the thrones are set and the Ancient of days takes His seat, and the books are opened, and the fiery stream comes forth, and the light before Him, and the darkness prepared; and they that have done good shall go into the resurrection of life,
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.3
… Himself made clear for us the path of the resurrection from the dead, shall come in His own time in the glory of the Father to judge every soul in righteousness, when “all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 13
… How then must “all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ?” ( Rom. xiv. 10 ) or how will the account of hell be trustworthy? For if they that have not the Spirit rise not, there will not be a hell at all. What then is it which is said? All shall rise, yet not all to life, but some to punishment and some to life. (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 45
… xxii. 13 ,) and some are destroyed. (“Rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”) ( Matt. x. 28 .) And the expression, “I give eternal life” ( c. x. 28 ), declareth this; for they “that have done evil shall go forth to the resurrection of damnation, and they that have done good to the resurrection of life.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 166.23
… they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life,”—the resurrection, namely, of which it is said that “by one man came the resurrection of the dead,” and in which “all shall be made alive in Christ,”—“and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 21.1
… Neither is this order out of harmony with the divine writings, in which sometimes, indeed, the blessedness of the good is placed first, as in the words, “They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Enchiridion 55
… or we may understand the “quick” to mean the righteous, and the “dead” the unrighteous; for the righteous shall be judged as well as others. Now the judgment of God is sometimes taken in a bad sense, as, for example, “They that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.30
… but in the latter the temptation of probation. Another parallel occurs in the case of the term “judgment,” which must be taken in one way, where it is said, “They that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 77.15
… but they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.”
5:30
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Magnesians: Shorter and Longer Versions 7
As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, “I can of mine own self do nothing,”
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… Can it be that ye think that I will accuse you before the Father? Ye have one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom ye have [54] rejoiced. If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me also; Moses wrote of me. [55] And if ye believed not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.6.2
… For it is fitting that no such question should arise, and gather such strength, that it would indeed both change God, and destroy our faith in that Creator who supports us by means of His creation. For as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a firm and immoveable love towards the Father. In his book against Marcion, Justin
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. Against the Heresy of One Noetus 7
… For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if thou hast not known the image, which is the Son, how dost thou seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who “has been set forth was sent from the Father,
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.27
35 ( continued ). For, ‘The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand;’ and, ‘All things were given unto Me of My Father;’ and, ‘I can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, I judge
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 2.12
135. But if you contend that this is an argument for the weakness of the Holy Spirit, and for a kind of likeness to the lowliness of the body, you will also make it an argument to the injury of the Son, because the Son said of Himself: “As I hear I judge,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Against Marcionists and Manichæans 3
… And when He says “The words which I speak I speak not myself, but the Father which dwelleth in me, He doeth these works,” He indicates the same thing. And when He says “I have not come of myself” and “I can of my own self do nothing”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 3
… Do you not see Him, in order that none may imagine Him not to have been begotten, doing and saying everything to show that He was so, uttering words unworthy both of His dignity and His essence, and descending to the humble character of a Prophet? For the expression, “As I hear, I judge” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 30
… that is, “nothing that cometh from Him is false, but all is true.” Thus we when we are making curious enquiry into anything, often ask, “Didst thou hear it?” “Didst thou see it?” And if this be proved, the testimony is indubitable, and so when Christ Himself saith, “As I hear, I judge” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
… For what He saith is of this kind, that “that Essence admitteth not such things as these.” For just as when we also say, “it is impossible for God to do wrong,” we do not impute to Him any weakness, but confess in Him an unutterable power; so when He also saith, “I can of Mine own Self do nothing” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
Ver. 30 . “I can of Mine own self do nothing; as I hear I judge, and My judgment is just, because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of Him which sent Me.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 64
… When therefore He saith, “As the Father commanded Me, so I speak” ( c. xiv. 31 ); and, “I am not come of Myself” ( c. vii. 28 ), then they believe. That they did believe then is clear, from the Evangelist signifying this besides, and saying, “As He spake these words, many believed on Him.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 68
… then again He raiseth His language, and when He seeth that they are exasperated, He retireth; then He cometh to them again, and again beginneth with words of humility. And where hath He done this? Nay, where hath He not done it? See, for instance, what He saith at the beginning, “As I hear, I judge.” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against the Pelagians 2
John v. 30 . Even Christ says, “I cannot do anything by myself”; and
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 99.1
1. What is this that the Lord said of the Holy Spirit, when promising that He would come and teach His disciples all truth, or guide them into all truth: “For He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak”? For this is similar to what He said of Himself, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 12.8
… but I know Him, and keep His commandments.” The one says, “My rivers are mine and I made them:” the other: “I can do nothing of myself, but my Father who abideth in me, He doeth the works.”
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.18
… They are to be admonished to observe wisely how the Son of Man, Whose will is always one with the Father’s, that He may afford us an example of subduing our own will, says, I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me (
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.13
The Son is from the Father, and derives from Him all His properties: hence He cannot do ought of Himself
5:31
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
[38] I am not able of myself to do anything; but as I hear, I judge: and my judgement [39] is just; I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Prescription Against Heretics 23
… It is true that he tells us himself that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle, still this is not enough for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of Himself.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus i.48
… For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus, that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on that account said, “If I speak of Myself, My witness is not true.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. The Epistles of Cyprian 68.2
… Nor would any one put forward mischievous and adverse things against himself, but there may be a simple confidence of truth if, in what was announced of us, another is the announcer and witness. “If,” He says, “I bear witness of myself, my testimony is not true; but there is another who beareth witness of me.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.10
… now claiming for Himself oneness of Godhead with the Father, now taking upon Him all the frailty of human flesh; now saying that He has not His own doctrine, and now that He seeks not His own will; now pointing out that His testimony is not true, and now that it is true. For He Himself has said: “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 60
… for this cause then as a man He discourses with him. And indeed in many instances He replies to the secret thoughts of them that come unto Him; as when He saith, “We worship we know what;” and, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 55
[2.] What say the heretics here? That He heard the question, “Art thou greater than our father Abraham?” and dared not to say to them, “Yea, I am greater,” but did so in a covert manner. What then? Is His honor “nothing”? With respect to them it is nothing. And as He said, “My witness is not true” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
These are not the words of one speaking arrogantly, but of one confiding in the truth of what He had said. What therefore He said at the beginning, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 78.0
On the words of the Gospel, John v. 31 ,“If I bear witness of myself,” etc.; and on the words of the apostle, Galatians v. 16 , “Walk by the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth,” etc.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 78.1
1. We have heard the words of the holy Gospel; and this that the Lord Jesus saith, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true,”
5:32
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
[38] I am not able of myself to do anything; but as I hear, I judge: and my judgement [39] is just; I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me. I bear witness [40] of myself, and so my witness is not true.
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Synodis or On the Councils 1
IX. “And if any one, because the Father is never admitted to be the Son and the Son is never admitted to be the Father, when he says that the Son is other than the Father (because the Father is one Person and the Son another, inasmuch as it is said, There is another that beareth witness of Me, even the father who sent Me
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 6
And Christ also, after having said that “I receive not testimony from man” ( c. v. 34 ), in order that He may not seem to the foolish to clash with Himself, by declaring at one time “There is another that beareth witness of Me and I know that his witness is true” (
5:33
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
[38] I am not able of myself to do anything; but as I hear, I judge: and my judgement [39] is just; I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me. I bear witness [40] of myself, and so my witness is not true. It is another that beareth witness [41] of me; and I know that the witness which he beareth of me is true.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
Ver. 33 . “Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.9
… For the benefit of the blind the lamp gave witness to the Day. See how that He is a lamp; “Ye sent,” He said, “unto John, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light; he was a burning and a shining lamp.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 78.2
2. Therefore was John sought for to bear witness to the Truth; and ye have heard what He said; “Ye came unto John; he was a burning and a shining lamp, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.13
… “For Thy testimonies,” He saith, “are my study.” For this reason He had more understanding than all His teachers, because He studied the testimonies of God, which, as concerning Himself, He knew better than they, when He spoke these words: “Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man,” etc.
5:34
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… but as I hear, I judge: and my judgement [39] is just; I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me. I bear witness [40] of myself, and so my witness is not true. It is another that beareth witness [41] of me; and I know that the witness which he beareth of me is true. Ye have sent [42] unto John, and he hath borne witness of the truth.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Apparel of Women ii.13
Perhaps some (woman) will say: “To me it is not necessary to be approved by men; for I do not require the testimony of men:
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.5
5. And first let us inquire for what cause Jesus came down. Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou mayest be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 35
… viii. 19 ), the same did this demon: since he saw them becoming famous, here also he plays the hypocrite: by this means he thought to be allowed to remain in the body, if he should preach the same things. But if Christ “receive not testimony from man,” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 6
… Though if any still continue bewildered and confused, He will say to such an one what He said to John, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” ( Matt. iii. 15 ); and, if any be still further troubled, again He will say to him too what he said to the Jews, “But I receive not testimony from man.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 18
… his own object being in the mean time only to make Him known, and to persuade some to hear of eternal life. But to Him he leaves the greater testimony, that of works, as also He saith, “I receive not testimony of men. The works which My Father hath given Me, the same bear witness of Me.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
Ver. 34 . “But I receive not testimony from man.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 45
… 39 .) Here He showeth that He needeth not their service, that He came not for His own advantage, but for their salvation; and not to get honor from them. Which indeed He declared in a former address, saying, “I receive not honor from men” ( c. v. 41 ); and again, “These things I say that ye may be saved.” (
5:35
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… I bear witness [40] of myself, and so my witness is not true. It is another that beareth witness [41] of me; and I know that the witness which he beareth of me is true. Ye have sent [42] unto John, and he hath borne witness of the truth. But not from man do I seek [43] witness; but I say that ye may live.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, XLVII 1
The birth of John [the Baptist] brought the dumbness of Zacharias to an end. For he did not burden his father, when the voice issued forth from silence; but as when not believed it rendered him tongue-tied, so did the voice sounding out clearly set his father free, to whom he had both been announced and born. Now the voice and the burning light
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. An Answer to the Jews 9
… For the same John is called not merely an “angel” of Christ, but withal a “lamp” shining before Christ: for David predicts, “I have prepared the lamp for my Christ;” and him Christ Himself, coming “to fulfil the prophets,” called so to the Jews. “He was,” He says, “the burning and shining lamp;”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.15
15. This Christ, when He was come, the Jews denied, but the devils confessed. But His forefather David was not ignorant of Him, when he said, I have ordained a lamp for mine Anointed
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 39.5
XV. But John baptizes, Jesus comes to Him …perhaps to sanctify the Baptist himself, but certainly to bury the whole of the old Adam in the water; and before this and for the sake of this, to sanctify Jordan; for as He is Spirit and Flesh, so He consecrates us by Spirit and water.
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 43.75
75. I now turn to the New Testament, and comparing his life with those who are here illustrious, I shall find in the teachers a source of honour for their disciple. Who was the forerunner of Jesus? John, the voice of the Word, the lamp of the Light,
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 45
… Do you turn this benefit into a reproach to God? Will you deem Him little on this account, that He humbled Himself for your sake, and because to seek for that which had wandered the Good Shepherd, He who layeth down His life for the sheep, came upon the mountains and hills upon which you used to sacrifice,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
Ver. 35 . “He was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against Vigilantius 7
… And accordingly the virgins in the Gospel always have their lamps lighted. And the Apostles are told to have their loins girded, and their lamps burning in their hands. And of John Baptist we read,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 11
… even as “John was a burning and a shining light,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 32
… For in a transcendent, and yet very proper sense, He said of Himself, “ I Am that I Am. ” The statement therefore before us, “None is good save one, that is, God,” is used in some such way as that which is said of John, “He was not that light;” although the Lord calls him “a lamp,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… as He also says of John the Baptist, that “he was a burning and shining light.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 83.6
… “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John; he came to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not the Light:” who? John: who? John the Baptist. For of him saith John the Evangelist, “He was not the Light;” of whom the Lord saith, “He was a burning, and a shining lamp.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 2
… From man God seeks testimony, and God has man as a witness;—God has man as a witness, but on account of man: so infirm are we. By a lamp we seek the day; because John himself was called a lamp, the Lord saying, “He was a burning and a shining light; and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light: but I have greater witness than John.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 4
3. Yet because He appeared as it were in the night, in a mortal body, He lighted for Himself a lamp by which He might be seen. That lamp was John,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 5
… “We know not;” regarding that which they knew, they said, “We know not.” And the Lord said, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.” And the first enemies were confounded. How? By the lamp. Who was the lamp? John. Can we prove that he was the lamp? We can prove it; for the Lord says: “He was a burning and a shining lamp.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 35.2
… but He that is coming is mightier than I, whose shoe I am not worthy to loose.” See how the lamps submits itself to the Day. The Lord Himself bears witness that the same John was indeed a lamp: “He was,” saith He, “a burning and a shining lamp; and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 48.12
12. “And He went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; and there He abode. And many resorted unto Him, and said, John, indeed, did no miracle.” You remember what was said of John, that he was a light, and bore witness to the day.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 7.8
… By which addition he shows that this very thing, that the soul is righteous and harmless, she has not by herself, but by God who giveth brightness and light. For of this he says in another Psalm, “Thou, O Lord, wilt light my candle.” And of John it is said, that “he was not the light, but bore witness of the light.” “He was a burning and shining candle.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 132.20
… not to say, It is my work, I baptize; but, “He it is who baptizeth.” There is the horn of David: and that ye may know that there is the horn of David, heed what followeth: “I have ordained a lantern for mine Anointed.” What is a lantern? Ye already know the Lord’s words concerning John: “He was a burning and a shining light.”
5:36
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… It is another that beareth witness [41] of me; and I know that the witness which he beareth of me is true. Ye have sent [42] unto John, and he hath borne witness of the truth. But not from man do I seek [43] witness; but I say that ye may live. That was a lamp which shineth and [44] giveth light: and ye were pleased to glory now in his light.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 21
… Afterwards He goes on to say: “But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish—those very works bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me. And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath also borne witness of me.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.27
27. The Son speaks thus:— For the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works which I do, bear witness of Me that the Father hath sent Me ; and the Father Himself which hath sent Me hath borne witness of Me
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.20
… Ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. And ye have not His word abiding in you, for Whom He sent, Him ye believe not.
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is what the Saviour says, ‘I glorified Thee on the earth, I perfected the work which Thou hast given Me to do ;’ and again, ‘The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me;’ but ‘the works
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
Ver. 36 . “But I have greater witness than that of John.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.85
… Judah, we are told, came with his Adullamite shepherd, whose name was Iras; and Adullamite means, a testimony in water. So it was with this testimony that the Lord came, having indeed greater testimony than that of John;
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.15
… But to whom shall we attribute this, My Father worketh hitherto and I work : and this, What things soever He seeth the Father doing, these also doeth the Son likewise : and this, If ye believe not Me, believe My works : and this, The work which I do bear witness concerning Me
5:37
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… But not from man do I seek [43] witness; but I say that ye may live. That was a lamp which shineth and [44] giveth light: and ye were pleased to glory now in his light. But I have witness greater than that of John: the works which my Father hath given me to accomplish, [45] those works which I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 21
… “But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish—those very works bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me. And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath also borne witness of me.” But He at once adds, “Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape;”
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. The Refutation of All Heresies 5.3
… This, says he, is what is spoken: “We have heard his voice, no doubt, but we have not seen his shape.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.27
… for the works which He does could not possibly be done by any other than Him Who is sent by the Father. Yet the evidence of His works fails to convince the unbelieving that the Father sent Him. For He proceeds, And the Father Himself which hath sent Me hath borne witness of Me; and ye have neither heard His voice nor seen His shape
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.25
… for the Word is God, and He alone has the Form of the Father. Being then such, the Saviour Himself troubled the Jews with these words, ‘The Father Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me; ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His Form; and ye have not His Word abiding in you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 6.7
… for such a statement were blasphemous, and unworthy of the Divine substance. He foreknoweth the things that be; He is Holy, and Almighty, and excelleth all in goodness, and majesty, and wisdom: of Whom we can declare neither beginning, nor form, nor shape. For ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 12.3
… and it is secured by the dispensation carried out by the Lord in His human nature; not that the Father remained aloof, as heresy will have it, ineffective and inoperative during the time of this dispensation. For it is not this that He indicates Who said, “He that sent Me is with Me
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Mysteries 4
… “Be ye wise as serpents and simple as doves.” Rightly, then, did He descend like a dove, in order to admonish us that we ought to have the simplicity of the dove. And further we read of the likeness being put for the reality, both as regards Christ: “And was found in likeness as a man;” and as regards God the Father: “Nor have ye seen His likeness.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
Ver. 37 . “And the Father Himself, which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 74
… Wherefore Christ said, “No man hath seen God at any time” ( c. i. 18 ); and again, “Every man that hath heard and hath learned from God cometh unto Me.” ( c. vi. 45 .) “Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.” (
5:38
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… But I have witness greater than that of John: the works which my Father hath given me to accomplish, [45] those works which I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father which sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his [46] voice at any time, nor seen his appearance.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
Ver. 38 . “And ye have not His word abiding in you.”
5:39
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… the works which my Father hath given me to accomplish, [45] those works which I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father which sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his [46] voice at any time, nor seen his appearance. And his word abideth not in you; because [47] in him whom he hath sent ye do not believe.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.10
1. Wherefore also John does appropriately relate that the Lord said to the Jews: “Ye search the Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life; these are they which testify of me. And ye are not willing to come unto Me, that ye may have life.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Prescription Against Heretics 8
“They have,” says He, “Moses and Elias,” —in other words, the law and the prophets, which preach Christ; as also in another place He says plainly, “Search the Scriptures, in which ye expect (to find) salvation; for they testify of me;”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen De Principiis iv.1-2.19
… The careful (reader), however, will be in doubt as to certain points, being unable to show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour’s injunction to “search the Scriptures,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 3.33
… uttered concerning Him, and by the cures wrought in His name, and by the wisdom and knowledge which are in Him, and the deeper truths which are discovered by those who know how to ascend from a simple faith, and to investigate the meaning which lies in the divine Scriptures, agreeably to the injunctions of Jesus, who said, “Search the Scriptures,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 5.16
… it pleased God to save them that believe on Him, after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God,” —because such individuals are unable to see distinctly the sense of each particular passage, or unwilling to devote the necessary leisure to the investigation of Scripture, notwithstanding the injunction of Jesus, “Search the Scriptures.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 5.4
… Christ is written about even in the Pentateuch; He is spoken of in each of the Prophets, and in the Psalms, and, in a word, as the Saviour Himself says, in all the Scriptures. He refers us to them all, when He says:
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.12
… If the prophetic voice be nothing but sound, how does our Lord come to refer us to it as where He says,
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 1.19
… and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. Do not think that I accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye hope. For if ye had believed Moses, ye would also believe me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
san Gregorio Taumaturgo † 270 d.C. Four Homilies 2
… Thence come to us the brilliant splendours of the treasures of divine knowledge. “For this is life eternal, that we may know the true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.” And again, “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life.”
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity 8.4
… But to search out and explain the solution of them is beyond my powers. Nevertheless, let me venture, trusting in Him who commanded to search the Scriptures.
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. Oration on the Palms 1
IV. O ye disobedient as regards the wisdom of the just, turn your hearts to your children. Learn the mysteries of God; the very thing itself which is being done bears witness that it is God that is thus hymned by uninstructed tongues. Search the Scriptures, as ye have heard
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. To the Bishops of Egypt 1.4
… For the New Testament arose out of the Old, and bears witness to the Old; if then they reject this, how can they receive what proceeds from it? Thus Paul was an Apostle of the Gospel, ‘which God promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures :’ and our Lord Himself said, ‘ye search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom ; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God , and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, ‘Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 39
… In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Ephesians 6
What then, tell me, did not the Prophets know it? How then doth Christ say, that Moses and the Prophets wrote “these things concerning Me?” And again, “If ye believed Moses, ye would believe Me.” ( John v. 46 .) And again, “Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life, and these are they which bear witness of me.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 1 Timothy 1
… Therefore it is his advice that we should not be occupied with questions, since if we question, it is not faith; for faith sets reasoning at rest. But why then does Christ say, “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you” ( Matt. vii. 7 .); and, “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life”? (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 30
[2.] And why wonderest thou if He betake Himself to the Father, when He often resorts to the Prophets and the Scriptures? as when He saith, “They are they that testify of Me.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
Ver. 39 . “Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 45
… What is the reason? It is that when they heard that they were not to eat, they again disbelieved, and put forth by way of a cloak for their disbelief, that “it was a high saying.” Wherefore He saith, “Ye have seen Me, and believe not” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 51
… He then, desiring to show that He did not shun the proof from the Scriptures, again referreth them to the Scriptures. He had said before, “Search the Scriptures” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 59
… For he that useth not the Scriptures, but “climbeth up some other way,” that is, who cutteth out for himself another and an unusual way, “the same is a thief.” Seest thou from this too that Christ agreeth with the Father, in that He bringeth forward the Scriptures? On which account also He said to the Jews, “Search the Scriptures” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.31
… It is said, indeed, "Love wisdom, that ye may reign for ever." And if eternal life had not been clearly made known in the Old Testament, the Lord would not have said, as He did even to the unbelieving Jews: "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think that ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.0
On the words of the Gospel, John v. 39 , “Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life,” etc. Against the Donatists.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.1
1. Give heed, Beloved, to the lesson of the Gospel which has just sounded in our ears, whilst I speak a few words as God shall vouchsafe to me. The Lord Jesus was speaking to the Jews, and said to them, “Search the Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life, they testify of me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.29
… So then here also they that hoped as though by the merit of their own righteousness themselves to have been written in the book of God, they to whom is said, “Search the Scriptures, wherein ye think yourselves to have life eternal:”
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.17
It is one and the same God Whom both the Old and the New Testament proclaim, Who is praised and glorified in the Trinity: I am come , saith the Lord, not to destroy the law but to fulfil it . For He Himself worked out our salvation for which all Scripture and all mystery exists. And again, Search the Scriptures for they are they that testify of Me
5:40
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And the Father which sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his [46] voice at any time, nor seen his appearance. And his word abideth not in you; because [47] in him whom he hath sent ye do not believe. Search the scriptures, in which ye rejoice [48] that ye have eternal life;
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.22
… I receive not glory from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves. I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in His name , him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive glory from men, and the glory of Him, Who alone is God, ye seek not.
5:41
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… Ye have neither heard his [46] voice at any time, nor seen his appearance. And his word abideth not in you; because [47] in him whom he hath sent ye do not believe. Search the scriptures, in which ye rejoice [48] that ye have eternal life; and they bear witness of me; and ye do not wish to come to [49, 50] [Arabic, p. 88] me, that ye may have eternal life.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Titus 2
… Let not any one praise thee, for it profits nothing; and if he blame thee, it harms thee not. But with God praise and blame are attended with real gain and loss, whilst all is vain that proceeds from men. And herein we are made like unto God, that He needs not glory from men. “I receive not,” said Christ, “honor from men.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 41
Ver. 41 . “I receive not honor from men.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 42
… Why then saith the Prophet, “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass”? ( Zech. ix. 9 .) He spake of that Kingdom which is in the heavens, but not of this on earth; and on this account Christ saith, “I receive not honor from men.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 45
… 39 .) Here He showeth that He needeth not their service, that He came not for His own advantage, but for their salvation; and not to get honor from them. Which indeed He declared in a former address, saying, “I receive not honor from men” (
5:42
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And his word abideth not in you; because [47] in him whom he hath sent ye do not believe. Search the scriptures, in which ye rejoice [48] that ye have eternal life; and they bear witness of me; and ye do not wish to come to [49, 50] [Arabic, p. 88] me, that ye may have eternal life. I seek not praise of men.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 41
Ver. 42 . “But I know you that ye have not the love of God in you.”
5:43
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… because [47] in him whom he hath sent ye do not believe. Search the scriptures, in which ye rejoice [48] that ye have eternal life; and they bear witness of me; and ye do not wish to come to [49, 50] [Arabic, p. 88] me, that ye may have eternal life. I seek not praise of men. But I know [51] you, that the love of God is not in you.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 5.25.4
4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: “I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. An Answer to the Jews 13
… “The King with His glory ye shall see,”—that is, Christ, doing deeds of power in the glory of God the Father;
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 17
They more readily supposed that the Father acted in the Son’s name, than that the Son acted in the Father’s; although the Lord says Himself, “I am come in my Father’s name;”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 21
… And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath also borne witness of me.” But He at once adds, “Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape;” thus affirming that in former times it was not the Father, but the Son, who used to be seen and heard. Then He says at last: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received me.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 23
… “What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause is it that I am come to this hour; only, O Father, do Thou glorify Thy name” —in which He spake as the Son. (At another time) He said: “I am come in my Father’s name.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Prayer 3
The name of “God the Father” had been published to none. Even Moses, who had interrogated Him on that very point, had heard a different name. To us it has been revealed in the Son, for the Son is now the Father’s new name. “I am come,” saith He, “in the Father’s name;”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.6
… Observe Him, and obey Him, and be not disobedient to Him, and He will not be wanting to thee. For my Name is in Him.” Whence He Himself says in the Gospel: “I came in the name of my Father, and ye received me not. When another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Letters 210
… and at this they are highly delighted and elated, as though it were a discovery of their own. For it is said, “I came in my Father’s name and ye received me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.2
2. But the sons of the Jews by setting at nought Him that came, and looking for him who cometh in wickedness, rejected the true Messiah, and wait for the deceiver, themselves deceived; herein also the Saviour being found true, who said, I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: but if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 1.13
132. And that He might reveal that the Godhead is one and the Majesty one, because the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, and the Son did not come in one Name and the Holy Spirit in another, the Lord Himself said: “I am come in My Father’s Name, and ye did not receive Me, if another shall come in his own name ye will receive him.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 1
… It requires no one to point it out, so splendid will it be, even as the lightning needs no one to point it out. And He has spoken in a certain place also concerning Antichrist, when He said, “I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in His own name, Him ye will receive.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4
… For if thou believest not in Christ, much more oughtest thou not to believe in Antichrist. For the former said that He was sent from the Father, but the latter the contrary. For this reason Christ said, “I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name. him ye will receive.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 1 Timothy 7
… Why then, you ask, did they not believe? Because they would not: but His part was done. His suffering was a “Testimony,” he says; for He came, it is meant, “to bear witness to the truth” of the Father, and was slain. Thus not only the Father bore witness to Him, but He to the Father. “For I came,” He saith, “in my Father’s name.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 41
Ver. 43 . “I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him will ye receive.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 45
… v. 39 ); alluding partly to His miracles, partly to the testimony from the Scriptures; “For they,” He saith, “are they which testify of Me” (
Tirannio Rufino † 411 d.C. A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 34
… of whom the Lord Himself warned the Jews beforehand in the Gospels, “Because I am come in My Father’s Name, and ye received Me not, another will come in his own name, and him ye will receive.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.1
… The Lord Jesus was speaking to the Jews, and said to them, “Search the Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life, they testify of me.” Then a little after He said, “I am come in My Father’s Name, and ye have not received Me; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.7
7. It is said of Antichrist, and all understand of him what the Lord said, “I am come in My Father’s Name, and ye have not received Me; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 51.3
… As we find Scripture also saying in another place, “The Lord rained [upon Sodom fire] from the Lord.” But His own words are a better guide to our understanding, when He saith, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: another will come in his own name, and him ye will receive.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 118.20
20. “Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord” ( ver. 26 ). Cursed, therefore, is he that cometh in his own name; as He saith in the Gospel: “if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.26
… First, then, it is requisite that the Gospel should be preached among all nations, as the Lord said , and then he will come to refute the impious Jews. For the Lord said to them: I am come in My Father’s name and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive
5:44
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… and they bear witness of me; and ye do not wish to come to [49, 50] [Arabic, p. 88] me, that ye may have eternal life. I seek not praise of men. But I know [51] you, that the love of God is not in you. I am come in the name of my Father, and ye received me not; but if another come in his own name, that one will [52] ye receive.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Veiling of Virgins 2
… And, of course, that ought to have been chosen which keeps virgins veiled, as being known to God alone; who (besides that glory must be sought from God, not from men
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.22
22. For, in this very same discourse in which He pronounces that His works testify of Him that He was sent of the Father, and asserts that the Father testifies of Him, that He was sent from Him, He says, The honour of Him, Who alone is God, ye seek not
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.10
… For the very glory that was bestowed on the lawgiver was the glory of none other but of God Himself, which glory the Lord in the Gospel bids all to seek, when He blames those who value human glory highly and seek not the glory that cometh from God only
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… in like manner Christ acted. The disciples asked to have something, and He said He had it not. And on the first occasion he frightened them. Then again they asked to have it now: He said He had it not; and He did not frighten them now, but after having shown [the empty hands], He has done this, and gives them a plausible reason:
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 17
… 32 .) And the “whosoever” is put in all cases, that they might not say aught in reply. But there is nothing worse than vainglory. For it was this, this most especially, which proved their ruin. Whence Christ also said to them, “How can ye believe, which receive glory one of another, and seek not the glory which cometh of God only?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Second Corinthians 12
… For they feared, not lest they should be punished, but lest they should be put out of the synagogue. Wherefore He saith, “How can ye believe which receive glory one of another?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 1 Timothy 3
… For this we have the testimony of the Evangelist. “Many of the Jews believed on Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him. For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” ( John xii. 42, 43 .) And Christ again said to them, “How can ye believe, who receive honor one of another” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 3
… 40 .) And so they gave up their salvation to others. For it cannot be that he who is so zealous a slave to the glory of this present world can obtain the glory which is from God. Wherefore He rebuked them, saying, “How can ye believe, which receive honor of men, and seek not the honor which cometh from God?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 8
… it is able to make blind the eyes even of the wise, except they be sober; for if the taking of gifts can effect this, much more will the yet more violent feeling of this passion. Wherefore Jesus said to the Jews, “How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 28
… for even those among them who have boasted great things, and who have, as they say, mastered avarice or gluttony, have been, most of all men, the slaves of reputation, and this is the cause of all evils. Thus it is that the Jews also have continued Jews; for which cause Christ rebuked them and said, “How can ye believe, which receive honor from men?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
… And the Jews believed not because they received honor from one another, and sought not the honor which is from God. But let us, beloved, avoid this disease exceedingly and with all earnestness; for though we have ten thousand good qualities, this plague of vainglory is sufficient to bring them all to nought. (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 41
Ver. 44 . “How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 57
… Now the multitude was easily overlooked, as being of no great account in their synagogue, but the rulers being more conspicuous had the greater difficulty in speaking boldly, or some the love of rule restrained, others cowardice, and the fear of the many. Wherefore also He said, “How can ye believe who receive honor from men?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 69
… “Many,” it saith, “of the chief rulers also believed on Him, but because of the Jews they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue.” As He said also to them before, “How can ye believe which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 80
… for He was about to send them to the Gentiles. But if they will not allow this, but on account of this word “only” reject the Son from being true God, in this way as they proceed they reject Him from being God at all. For He also saith, “Ye seek not the glory which is from the only God.” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 22.27
27. You must also be careful to avoid the snare of a passion for vainglory. “How,” Jesus says, “can ye believe which receive glory one from another?”
Sulpicio Severo † 420 d.C. The Doubtful Letters of Sulpitius Severus 2.16
Take heed that ye love not human glory in any respect, lest your portion also be reckoned among those to whom it was said, “How
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 5.14
… For so hostile is this vice to pious faith, if the love of glory be greater in the heart than the fear or love of God, that the Lord said, “How can ye believe, who look for glory from one another, and do not seek the glory which is from God alone?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.1
… if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” Then a little after; “How can ye believe, who look for glory one from another, and seek not the glory which is of God only?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 93.2
… but for fear of the Jews they dared not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” And so they believed on Him, but not in the way He wished them to believe when He said: “How can ye believe, who expect honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 11.12
And so the Apostle warns us: “Be not desirous of vainglory.” And the Lord, rebuking the Pharisees, says, “How can ye believe, who receive glory from one another, and seek not the glory which comes from God alone?”
5:45
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… I seek not praise of men. But I know [51] you, that the love of God is not in you. I am come in the name of my Father, and ye received me not; but if another come in his own name, that one will [52] ye receive. And how can ye believe, while ye receive praise one from another, and [53] praise from God, the One, ye seek not?
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 45
… It was also to show this to be the case that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself spake in these terms: “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye hope. For had ye believed Moses, ye would indeed have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 48
… xxiii. 27 .) True, you will say: but if he had said it before he had been beaten, it would have betokened not anger, but boldness. But I have mentioned the reason of this. And (at this rate) we often find Christ Himself “speaking abusively” to the Jews when abused by them; as when He says, “Do not think that I will accuse you.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… Seest thou how to be wronged is better, though a man come even to be murdered? learn that to wrong is worse, though a man should be strong enough even to kill. He smote and cast down his brother, yet the latter was crowned, the former was punished. Abel was made away with and slain wrongfully, but he even when dead accused (comp.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 41
Ver. 45–47 . “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 48
… Did He not say, “Think not that I will accuse you to the Father? There is one that accuseth you, even Moses.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 51
… He then, desiring to show that He did not shun the proof from the Scriptures, again referreth them to the Scriptures. He had said before, “Search the Scriptures” ( c. v. 39 ); and again, “It is written in the Prophets, And they shall be taught of God” ( c. vi. 45 ); and, “Moses accuseth you” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.1
… “How can ye believe, who look for glory one from another, and seek not the glory which is of God only?” At last He saith, “I do not accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would haply believe Me also, for he wrote of Me. But seeing ye believe not his words, how can ye believe Me?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 29.8
… “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received me; another will come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
5:46
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Magnesians: Shorter and Longer Versions 9
If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;”
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… but if another come in his own name, that one will [52] ye receive. And how can ye believe, while ye receive praise one from another, and [53] praise from God, the One, ye seek not? Can it be that ye think that I will accuse you before the Father? Ye have one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom ye have [54] rejoiced.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.2.3
3. But since the writings ( literæ ) of Moses are the words of Christ, He does Himself declare to the Jews, as John has recorded in the Gospel: “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, neither will ye believe My words.”
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.10
… And ye are not willing to come unto Me, that ye may have life.” How therefore did the Scriptures testify of Him, unless they were from one and the same Father, instructing men beforehand as to the advent of His Son, and foretelling the salvation brought in by Him? “For if ye had believed Moses, ye would also have believed Me; for he wrote of Me;”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 2.4
… And what absurdity should there be in our system—that is, the Gospel—having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe My words?”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.12
… If the prophetic voice be nothing but sound, how does our Lord come to refer us to it as where He says, “Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which bear witness,” and
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.18
… For if they had believed Moses and the prophets they would have believed Christ, who showed that when men believed Moses and the prophets, belief in Christ logically followed, and that when men did not believe Christ they did not believe Moses.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.22
… And mark, further, that not openly but secretly and in prison does Herod put John to death. For even the present word of the Jews does not openly deny the prophecies, but virtually and in secret denies them, and is convicted of disbelieving them. For as “if they believed Moses they would have believed Jesus,”
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 41
… or rather, to speak in truth, which belong wholly to the same stock the one with the other? For, indeed, Moses first said to the people: “A Prophet will the Lord our God raise up unto you, like unto me.” And Jesus afterwards said: “For Moses spake of me.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 5.23
… Nay more: if you believed Moses, you would believe also in God, the Son of God; unless perchance you deny that it was of Him that Moses spoke. If you propose to deny that, you must listen to the words of God:— For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me also, for he wrote of Me
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. To the Bishops of Egypt 1.4
… And again, what is the Old Testament to the Jews, unless they acknowledge the Lord whose coming was expected according to it? For had they believed the writings of Moses, they would have believed the words of the Lord; for He said, ‘He wrote of Me
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 19
… The prophet, therefore, cried against them, saying, ‘Falsehood and faithlessness have prevailed among them.’ The Lord also therefore said concerning them, ‘The strange children have dealt falsely with Me; the strange children have waxen old .’ But how gently does He reprove them, saying, ‘Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me
sant'Efrem il Siro † 373 d.C. Ephraim Syrus: Three Homilies 1.32
… when he cried and said;— Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? Accordingly, his eyes were closed, because they could not see the persecution of Christ; but his ears were opened, because they could hear of His persecution. So then although the eyes of Moses were bodily eyes, as those of Paul, yet his inward eyes were Christian; for Moses wrote of Me ,
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 14
… for the law was given, “ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,” namely Moses, in accordance with the summons of the people, “Speak thou with us,…but let not God speak with us.” Thus faith in Moses is referred to the Lord, the Mediator between God and men, who said, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 11
… Because this was not believing, to decline receiving Him whom he preached. For so they thought they regarded their prophets and their lawgiver, nevertheless He said they had not regarded them, forasmuch as they received not Him, that was foretold by them. “For if ye had believed Moses,” saith He, “ye would have believed Me.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Ephesians 6
What then, tell me, did not the Prophets know it? How then doth Christ say, that Moses and the Prophets wrote “these things concerning Me?” And again, “If ye believed Moses, ye would believe Me.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Ephesians 10
… And again, they that before Christ’s coming pleased God, are “one body.” How so? Because they also knew Christ. Whence does this appear? “Your father Abraham,” saith He, “rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad.” ( John viii. 56 .) And again, “If ye had believed Moses,” He saith, “ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 58
“But this cannot be. Ye are neither Moses’ nor this Man’s; for were ye Moses’, ye would become this Man’s also.” Wherefore Christ before said unto them, because they were continually betaking themselves to these speeches, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 20.28
… He intends also that they learn to interpret the law spiritually, and find Christ in it, by whose judgment that separation between the good and the bad is to be made. For it is not without reason that the Lord Himself says to the Jews, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 3.11
… but the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ was by it prepared and pre-announced; and He Himself, as the Word of God, was in some wonderful and unspeakable manner in the angels, by whose disposition the Law itself was given. And hence He said in the Gospel, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.3
… If the law had been bad, the apostle would not have referred to it in praise of the Jews. And if Christ had not been preached by the law, the Lord Himself would not have said, "If ye believe Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me;"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.11
… Well, then, O thou full of all subtilty, when the Lord in the Gospel says, "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me also, for he wrote of me,"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 17.3
… But if you choose John as an authority regarding the law and the prophets, I ask you only to believe his testimony to them. It is John who writes that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ. It is in his Gospel we find the text already treated of: "If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me; for he wrote of me."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.7
… It is quite plain, and the New Testament leaves no doubt on the matter, what law and what prophets Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill. The law given by Moses is that which by Jesus Christ became grace and truth. The law given by Moses is that of which Christ says, "He wrote of me."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.9
9. Let the Church then say those last words also, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would believe me also; for he wrote of me;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 80.1
… The five loaves signified the five books of Moses’ Law. The old Law is barley compared to the Gospel wheat. In those books are great mysteries concerning Christ contained. Whence He saith Himself, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would believe Me also; for he wrote of Me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 30.6
… So consider us as you would two men, as both men; judge between us, but judge a true judgment; do not condemn him by honoring me, but honor me by understanding him. For this He said to them in another place: “If ye believed Moses ye would certainly believe me also, for he wrote of me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 44.12
… “But we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.” Would ye had known that “God spake to Moses!” ye would have also known that God preached by Moses. For ye have the Lord saying, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have also believed me; for he wrote of me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 90.2
… because, as I said, he was the Minister of the Testament that related to the old generation, and the Prophet of the Testament which appertained to the new. Jesus Himself, the Surety of that covenant, and the Bridegroom in the marriage which He entered into in that generation, saith, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me.”
5:47
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 22
… And how can ye believe, while ye receive praise one from another, and [53] praise from God, the One, ye seek not? Can it be that ye think that I will accuse you before the Father? Ye have one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom ye have [54] rejoiced. If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me also; Moses wrote of me. [55]
5:1
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Con. Evang. l. iv. c. 10
After the miracle in Galilee, He returns to Jerusalem: After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxvi. 1
The feast of Pentecost. Jesus always went up to Jerusalem at the time of the feasts, that it might be seen that He was not an enemy to, but an observer of, the Law. And it gave Him the opportunity of impressing the simple multitude by miracles and teaching: as great numbers used then to collect from the neighbouring towns. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep-market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
The pool by the sheep-market, is the place where the priest washed the animals that were going to be sacrificed.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxvi. 1
This pool was one among many types of that baptism, which was to purge away sin. First God enjoined water for the cleansing from the filth of the body, and from those defilements, which were not real, but legal, e. g. those from death, or leprosy, and the like. Afterwards infirmities were healed by water, as we read: In these (the porches) lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. This was a nearer approximation to the gift of baptism, when not only defilements are cleansed, but sicknesses healed. Types are of various ranks, just as in a court, some officers are nearer to the prince, others farther off. The water, however, did not heal by virtue of its own natural properties, (for if so the effect would have followed uniformly,) but by the descent of an Angel: For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water. In the same way, in Baptism, water does not act simply as water, but receives first the grace of the Holy Spirit, by means of which it cleanses us from all our sins. And the Angel troubled the water, and imparted a healing virtue to it, in order to prefigure to the Jews that far greater power of the Lord of the Angels, of healing the diseases of the soul. But then their infirmities prevented their applying the cure; for it follows, Whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. But now every one may attain this blessing, for it is not an Angel which troubleth the water, but the Lord of Angels, which worketh every where. Though the whole world come, grace fails not, but remains as full as ever; like the sun’s rays which give light all day, and every day, and yet are not spent. The sun’s light is not diminished by this bountiful expenditure: no more is the influence of the Holy Spirit by the largeness of its outpourings. Not more than one could be cured at the pool; God’s design being to put before men’s minds, and oblige them to dwell upon, the healing power of water; that from the effect of water on the body, they might believe more readily its power on the soul.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 1
It was a greater act in Christ, to heal the diseases of the soul, than the sicknesses of the perishable body. But as the soul itself did not know its Restorer, as it had eyes in the flesh to discern visible things, but not in the heart wherewith to know God; our Lord performed cures which could be seen, that He might afterwards work cures which could not be seen. He went to the place, where lay a multitude of sick, out of whom He chose one to heal: And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxiii. 1, 2
He did not, however, proceed immediately to heal him, but first tried by conversation to bring him into a believing state of mind. Not that He required faith in the first instance, as He did from the blind man, saying, Believe ye that I am able to do this? (Matt. 9:28) for the lame man could not well know who He was. Persons who in different ways had had the means of knowing Him, were asked this question, and properly so. But there were some who did not and could not know Him yet, but would be made to know Him by His miracles afterwards. And in their case the demand for faith is reserved till after those miracles have taken place: When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been a long time in that case, He saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? He does not ask this question for His own information, (this were unnecessary,) but to bring to light the great patience of the man, who for thirty and eight years had sat year after year by the place, in the hope of being cured; which sufficiently explains why Christ passed by the others, and went to him. And He does not say, Dost thou wish Me to heal thee? for the man had not as yet any idea that He was so great a Person. Nor on the other hand did the lame man suspect any mockery in the question, to make him take offence, and say, Hast thou come to vex me, by asking me if I would be made whole; but he answered mildly, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool; but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. He had no idea as yet that the Person who put this question to him would heal him, but thought that Christ might probably be of use in putting him into the water. But Christ’s word is sufficient, Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 7
Three distinct biddings. Rise, however, is not a command, but the conferring of the cure. Two commands were given upon his cure, take up thy bed, and walk.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxvi. 1, 2
Behold the richness of the Divine Wisdom. He not only heals, but bids him carry his bed also. This was to shew the cure was really miraculous, and not a mere effect of the imagination; for the man’s limbs must have become quite sound and compact, to allow him to take up his bed. The impotent man again did not deride and say, The Angel cometh down, and troubleth the water, and he only cureth one each time; dost Thou, who art a mere man, think that Thou canst do more than an Angel? On the contrary, he heard, believed Him who bade him, and was made whole: And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
There is a wide difference between our Lord’s mode of healing, and a physician’s. He acts by His word, and acts immediately: the other’s requires a long time for its completion.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxvii. 2
This was wonderful, but what follows more so. As yet he had no opposition to face. It is made more wonderful when we see him obeying Christ afterwards in spite of the rage and railing of the Jews: And on the same day was the sabbath. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day, it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 10
They did not charge our Lord with healing on the sabbath, for He would have replied that if an ox or an ass of theirs had fallen into a pit, would not they have taken it out on the sabbath day: but they addressed the man as he was carrying his bed, as if to say, Even if the healing could not be delayed, why enjoin the work? He shields himself under the authority of his Healer: He that made me whole, the Same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk: meaning, Why should not I receive a command, if I received a cure from Him?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxvii. 2
Had he been inclined to deal treacherously, he might have said, If it is a crime, accuse Him Who commanded it, and I will lay down my bed. And he would have concealed his cure, knowing, as he did, that their real cause of offence was not the breaking of the Sabbath, but the miracle. But he neither concealed it, nor asked for pardon, but boldly confessed the cure. They then ask spitefully; What man is that who said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk. They do not say, Who is it, who made thee whole? but only mention the offence. It follows, And he that was healed wist not who it was, for Jesus had conveyed Himself away, a multitude being in that place. This He had done first, because the man who had been made whole, was the best witness of the cure, and could give his testimony with less suspicion in our Lord’s absence; and secondly, that the fury of men might not be excited more than was necessary. For the mere sight of the object of envy, is no small incentive to envy. For these reasons He departed, and left them to examine the fact for themselves. Some are of opinion, that this is the same with the one who had the palsy, whom Matthew mentions. But he is not. For the latter had many to wait upon, and carry him, whereas this man had none. And the place where the miracle was performed, is different.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 1
Judging on low and human notions of this miracle, it is not at all a striking display of power, and only a moderate one of goodness. Of so many, who lay sick, only one was healed; though, had He chosen, He could have restored them all by a single word. How must we account for this? By supposing that His power and goodness were asserted more for imparting a knowledge of eternal salvation to the soul, than working a temporal cure on the body. That which received the temporal cure was certain to decay at last, when death arrived: whereas the soul which believed passed into life eternal. The pool and the water seem to me to signify the Jewish people: for John in the Apocalypse obviously uses water to express people. (Rev. 17:15.)
san Beda † 735 d.C. in v. cap. Joan.
It is fitly described as a sheep pool. By sheep are meant people, according to the passage, We are Thy people, and the sheep of Thy pasture. (Ps. 95:7)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 2
The water then, i. e. the people, was enclosed within five porches, i. e. the five books of Moses. But those books only betrayed the impotent, and did not recover them; that is to say, the Law convicted the sinner, but did not absolve him.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
Lastly, many kinds of impotent folk lay near the pool: the blind, i. e. those who are without the light of knowledge; the lame, i. e. those who have not strength to do what they are commanded; the withered, i. e. those who have not the marrow of heavenly love.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 3
So then Christ came to the Jewish people, and by means of mighty works, and profitable lessons, troubled the sinners, i. e. the water, and the stirring continued till He brought on His own passion. But He troubled the water, unknown to the world. For had they known Him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. 11) But the troubling of the water came on all at once, and it was not seen who troubled it. Again, to go down into the troubled water, is to believe humbly on our Lord’s passion. Only one was healed, to signify the unity of the Church: whoever came afterwards was not healed, to signify that whoever is out of this unity cannot be healed. Wo to them who hate unity, and raise sects. Again, he who was healed had had his infirmity thirty and eight years: this being a number which belongs to sickness, rather than to health. The number forty has a sacred character with us, and is significative of perfection. For the Law was given in Ten Commandments, and was to be preached throughout the whole world, which consists of four parts; and four multiplied into ten, make up the number forty. And the Law too is fulfilled by the Gospel, which is written in four books. So then if the number forty possesses the perfectness of the Law, and nothing fulfils the Law, except the twofold precept of love, why wonder at the impotence of him, who was two less than forty? Some man was necessary for his recovery; but it was a man who was God. He found the man falling short by the number two, and therefore gave two commandments, to fill up the deficiency. For the two precepts of our Lord signify love; the love of God being first in order of command, the love of our neighbour, in order of performance. Take up thy bed, our Lord saith, meaning, When thou wert impotent, thy neighbour carried thee; now thou art made whole, carry thy neighbour. And walk; but whither, except to the Lord thy God.
san Beda † 735 d.C. c. v. num. 30
What mean the words, Arise, and walk; except that thou shouldest raise thyself from thy torpor and indolence, and study to advance in good works. Take up thy bed, i. e. thy neighbour by which thou art carried, and bear him patiently thyself.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 9
Carry him then with whom thou walkest, that thou mayest come to Him with Whom thou desirest to abide. As yet however he wist not who Jesus was; just as we too believe in Him though we see Him not. Jesus again does not wish to be seen, but conveys Himself out of the crowd. It is in a kind of solitude of the mind, that God is seen: the crowd is noisy; this vision requires stillness.
Il testo latino
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Post miraculum in Galilaea factum, inde Hierosolymam redit; unde dicitur post haec erat dies festus Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus Hierosolymam
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Mihi videtur quod erat dies festus Pentecostes. Ascendit autem Iesus Hierosolymam semper in diebus festis, ut cum eis dies festos faciens non videatur legi contrarius, et ob hoc multitudinem simplicem per signa et doctrinam attrahat: maxime enim in diebus festis qui iuxta positi erant, concurrebant. Sequitur est autem Hierosolymis probatica piscina, quae cognominatur Hebraice Bethsaida, quinque porticus habens
Alcuinus
Probaton Graece, ovis dicitur; probatica ergo piscina pecuaria dicitur, ubi sacerdotes cadavera hostiarum abluebant
Chrysostomus
Decebat quidem Baptisma dari peccata purgans, cuius imago praescripta fuit in piscina et in aliis pluribus. Et primum quidem dedit Deus aquam expurgantem corporum sordes et inquinationes non existentes, sed opinatas, puta ea quae a funere, et quae a lepra, et quae ab aliis talibus; deinde infirmitates diversas per aquas facit solvi; unde sequitur in his iacebat multitudo magna languentium, caecorum, claudorum, aridorum expectantium aquae motum. Volens enim Deus propinquius adducere ad Baptismi donum, non adhuc inquinamenta solum mundat, sed etiam aegritudines sanat: sicut enim ministri qui prope regem sunt, his qui sunt a longe clariores sunt; ita et in figuris fit. Non autem simpliciter sanabat aquarum natura; semper enim hoc fieret; sed in Angeli descensione; unde sequitur Angelus autem domini descendebat secundum tempus in piscinam, et movebatur aqua. Sic enim et in baptizatis non simpliciter aqua operatur; sed cum spiritus sancti acceperit gratiam, tunc omnia solvit peccata. Angelus enim descendens turbabat aquam, et sanativam imponebat virtutem; ut discant Iudaei quoniam multo magis Angelorum dominus omnes aegritudines animae sanare potest. Sed tunc quidem infirmitas impedimentum volenti curari fiebat; subditur enim et qui prior descendisset in piscinam post motionem aquae, sanus fiebat a quacumque detinebatur infirmitate. Nunc autem unusquisque accedere potest: non enim Angelus est qui turbat aquam, sed Angelorum dominus, qui omnia operatur. Sed etsi orbis terrarum universus veniat, gratia non consumitur, sed similis manet: sicut enim solares radii per unamquamque illuminant diem, et non consumuntur, neque a multa largitione minor fit solis lux; ita et multo amplius spiritus sancti actio in nullo minuitur a multitudine eorum qui potiuntur ea. Hoc autem fiebat, scilicet ut unus tantum post motionem aquae sanaretur; ut qui didicerant quoniam in aqua aegritudines corporis sanabantur, in hoc per multum tempus exercitati, facile crederent quod et aegritudines animae aqua sanare potest
Augustinus in Ioannem
Plus est autem quod Christus vitia sanavit animarum, quam quod sanavit languores corporum mortuorum. Sed quia ipsa anima non eum noverat, a quo sananda erat, et oculos habebat in carne, unde facta corporalia videret, et nondum habebat in corde, unde Deum latenter cognosceret, fecit quod videri poterat, ut sanaretur unde videri non poterat. Ingressus est locum ubi iacebat multitudo languentium, de quibus elegit unum ut sanaret, de quo subditur erat autem quidam homo ibi triginta et octo annos habens in infirmitate sua
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Non autem confestim eum a principio sanavit; sed primum eum familiarem sibi fecit, per interrogationem futurae fidei faciens viam. Non autem expetit fidem, ut in caecis fecit, dicens: creditis quia possum hoc facere? Quia hic nondum noverat eum manifeste quis esset. Nam alii quidem ex aliis eius virtutem cognoscentes, convenienter haec audiebant; alii vero nondum eum cognoscentes, sed per signa eum cognituri, post miracula requiruntur de fide; unde sequitur hunc cum vidisset Iesus iacentem, et cognovisset quia multum iam tempus haberet, dicit ei: vis sanus fieri? Non hoc quaerit ut discat (hoc enim superfluum esset), sed ut ostenderet illius patientiam, qui triginta et octo annos habens, per unumquemque annum eripi ab aegritudine expectans, assidebat, et non desistebat; et ut cognoscamus propter quam causam dimittens alios, ad hunc venit. Et non dicit: vis, te curabo? Nondum enim aliquid magnum imaginabatur ille de Christo. Non autem turbatus est ad interrogationem, neque dixit: iniuriari mihi venisti, quando interrogas si volo sanus fieri; sed mansuete respondet; sequitur enim respondit ei languidus: domine, hominem non habeo, ut cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam; dum venio enim ego, alius ante me descendit. Non noverat quis esset qui interrogabat, neque quod curaturus esset eum; opinabatur autem fortasse utilem sibi fore Christum ad mittendum eum in aquam. Sed Christus ostendit quod verbo omnia potest facere; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: surge, tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula
Augustinus
Tria dixit: sed surge, non operis imperium fuit, sed operatio sanitatis; sano autem duo imperavit: tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula
Chrysostomus
Intuere divinae sapientiae superabundantiam. Non solum sanat, sed et lectum portare iubet: ut et credibile faceret miraculum, et nullus existimet phantasiam esse quod factum est. Non enim, nisi certissime et vehementer compacta essent membra, lectulum ferre possent. Audiens autem languidus quoniam cum potestate et velut iubens dixit surge, tolle grabatum tuum, non derisit dicens: Angelus descendit, et turbat aquam, et solum unum curat, tu autem homo existens ex solo praecepto speras te magis Angelis posse? Sed audivit et non discredidit ei qui iussit, et sanus factus est; unde sequitur et statim sanus factus est homo, et sustulit grabatum suum, et ambulabat
Beda
Multum quippe inter sanationem domini, et quae a medicis infertur, distare probatur: haec videlicet voce iubentis, et mox impletur; illa vero per multa temporis intervalla aliquoties perficitur
Chrysostomus
Igitur mirabile quidem est hoc; quae autem sequentur multo maiora erunt: nam in initio quidem nullo molestante suaderi non ita mirabile est, sicut quod post insanientibus Iudaeis et accusantibus, Christo obedivit, ut ostendit Evangelista consequenter, dicens erat autem sabbatum in illo die. Dicunt ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat: sabbatum est; non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum
Augustinus in Ioannem
Non calumniabantur domino quia sanum fecerat sabbato, quia eis respondere posset, quia si cuiusquam iumentum in puteum cecidisset utique die sabbati erueret illud et salvaret; sed ei qui portabat grabatum suum; quasi dicant: si sanitas non erat differenda, numquid et opus fuerat imperandum? Sed ille auctorem sanitatis suae obiciebat calumniatoribus; unde sequitur respondit eis: qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula; quasi dicat: quare non acciperem iussionem a quo acceperam sanitatem?
Chrysostomus
Nimirum si malignari vellet, poterat dicere: si crimen est, accusate eum qui iussit, et deponam lectulum; sed et curationem utique occultasset; etenim sciebat non ita eos id reprehendere ex sabbati solutione, sicut ex infirmitatis sanatione. Sed neque hoc occultavit, neque veniam petiit; sed clara voce beneficium confessus est. Illi vero maligne interrogaverunt; unde subditur interrogaverunt ergo eum: quis est ille homo qui dixit tibi: tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula? Non dicunt: quis est qui fecit te sanum? Sed in medium inducunt id quod transgressio aestimabatur. Sequitur is autem qui sanus fuerat effectus, nesciebat quis esset. Iesus autem declinavit a turba constituta in loco. Et primum quidem ut eo absente testimonium insuspicabile fieret; qui enim adeptus fuerat sanitatem, idoneus erat beneficii testis: demum ut non plus faceret furorem illorum accendi. Solus enim visus eius cui invidetur, non parvam invidentibus immittit scintillam. Propterea discedens permisit ab ipsis suum factum examinari. Quidam aestimant hunc paralyticum esse eum qui in Matthaeo positus est; sed non est: ille enim multos habebat sui curam habentes, et eum ferentes; hic autem nullum. Sed et locus utrorumque diversus est
Augustinus
Si quidem mediocri corde et humano ingenio consideremus hoc miraculum facientem, quod ad potestatem pertinet, non magnum aliquid fecit; et quod ad benignitatem, parum fecit. Tot iacebant, et unus curatus est, cum posset uno verbo omnes erigere. Quid ergo intelligendum est, nisi quia potestas illa et bonitas magis agebat quid animae in factis eius pro salute sempiterna intelligerent, quam quid pro temporali salute corpora mererentur? In illis enim factis quicquid temporaliter sanatum est, in membris mortalibus in fine defecit; anima quae credidit, ad vitam aeternam transitum fecit. Piscina ista et aqua illa populum mihi videtur significasse Iudaeorum: significari enim populus nomine aquarum, aperte nobis indicat Apocalypsis Ioannis
Beda
Bene autem piscina probatica fuisse describitur. Ille enim populus ovis nomine significatur, secundum illud: nos populus tuus, et oves gregis tui
Augustinus
Aqua ergo illa, idest populus ille, quinque libris Moysi tamquam quinque porticibus claudebatur; sed illi libri prodebant languidos, non sanabant: lex enim peccatores convincebat, non absolvebat
Beda
Denique multa genera languentium in eadem iacuerunt: caeci scilicet qui scientiae lumine carent; claudi, qui ad ea quae iubentur implenda, vires non habent; aridi, qui supernae dilectionis pinguedine carent
Augustinus
Venit autem Christus ad populum Iudaeorum, et faciendo magna, docendo utilia, turbavit peccatores, idest aquam, praesentia sua, et excitavit ad passionem suam. Sed latens turbavit: si enim cognovissent, nunquam gloriae dominum crucifixissent. Subito enim videbatur aqua turbata, et a quo turbabatur non videbatur. Descendere ergo in aquam turbatam, hoc est humiliter credere in domini passionem. Ibi sanatur unus, significans Ecclesiae unitatem; postea quisquis veniret non sanabatur; quia quisquis praeter unitatem fuerit, sanari non poterit. Vae illis qui oderunt unitatem, et partem sibi faciunt in hominibus. Habebat autem triginta et octo annos in infirmitate qui sanatus est: hic enim numerus ad languorem pertinet magis quam ad sanitatem. Quadragenarius enim numerus sacratus nobis in quadam perfectione commendatur: quia lex in decem praeceptis data est, et praedicanda erat per totum mundum, qui quatuor partibus commendatur: denarius autem per quatuor multiplicatus ad quadragenarium pervenit. Vel quia per Evangelium, quod quatuor libros habet, impletur lex. Si ergo quadragenarius numerus habet perfectionem legis, et lex non impletur nisi in gemino praecepto caritatis, quid miraris, quia languebat qui quadraginta, minus duos, habebat? Necessarius erat illi homo ad sanitatem, sed homo ille qui et Deus est: et quia illum iacentem duobus minus invenit, duo quaedam iubendo, quod minus erat implevit. In duobus enim domini iussis duo praecepta significata sunt caritatis. Dei dilectio prior est ordine praecipiendi, proximi autem dilectio prior est ordine faciendi. Dicit ergo tolle grabatum tuum; quasi diceret: cum esses languidus, portabat te proximus tuus: sanus factus es, porta proximum tuum. Dicit etiam ambula. Sed quo iter agis nisi ad dominum Deum tuum?
Beda
Quid enim est dicere surge et ambula, nisi a torpore et ignavia, in quibus prius iacebas, erigere, et in bonis operibus proficere stude? Tolle grabatum tuum, idest proximum tuum, a quo portaris, et ipse patienter tolera
Augustinus
Porta ergo eum cum quo ambulas, ut ad eum pervenias cum quo manere desideras. Ille autem nondum Iesum noverat, quia et nos credimus in eum quem non videmus; et ut non videatur declinat a turba. Quadam solitudine intentionis videtur Deus; turba strepitum habet; visio ista secretum desiderat
5:14
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxvii
The man, when healed, did not proceed to the market place, or give himself up to pleasure or vain glory, but, which was a great mark of religion, went to the temple: Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 11
The Lord Jesus saw him both in the crowd, and in the temple. The impotent man does not recognise Jesus in the crowd; but in the temple, being a sacred place, he does.
Alcuino † 804 d.C. in loc.
c. For if we would know our Maker’s grace, and attain to the sight of Him, we must avoid the crowd of evil thoughts and affections, convey ourselves out of the congregation of the wicked, and flee to the temple; in order that we may make ourselves the temple of God, souls whom God will visit, and in whom He will deign to dwell. And (He) said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxviii. 1
Here we learn in the first place, that his disease was the consequence of his sins. We are apt to bear with great indifference the diseases of our souls; but, should the body suffer ever so little hurt, we have recourse to the most energetic remedies. Wherefore God punishes the body for the offences of the soul. Secondly, we learn, that there is really a Hell. Thirdly, that it is a place of lasting and infinite punishment. Some say indeed, Because we have corrupted ourselves for a short time, shall we be tormented eternally? But see how long this man was tormented for his sins. Sin is not to be measured by length of time, but by the nature of the sin itself. And besides this we learn, that if, after undergoing a heavy punishment for our sins, we fall into them again, we shall incur another and a heavier punishment still: and justly; for one, who has undergone punishment, and has not been made better by it, proves himself to be a hardened person, and a despiser; and, as such, deserving of still greater torments. Nor let it embolden us, that we do not see all punished for their offences here: for if men do not suffer for their offences here, it is only a sign that their punishment will be the greater hereafter. Our diseases however do not always arise from sins; but only most commonly so. For some spring from other lax habits: some are sent for the sake of trial, as Job’s were. But why does Christ make mention of this palsied man’s sins? Some say, because he had been an accuser of Christ. And shall we say the same of the man afflicted with the palsy? For he too was told, Thy sins are forgiven thee? (Matt. 9:2) The truth is, Christ does not find fault with the man here for his past sins, but only warns him against future. In healing others, however, He makes no mention of sins at all: so that it would seem to be the case that the diseases of these men had arisen from their sins; whereas those of the others had come from natural causes only. Or perhaps through these, He admonishes all the rest. Or he may have admonished this man, knowing his great patience of mind, and that he would bear an admonition. It is a disclosure too of His divinity, for He implies in saying, Sin no more, that He knew what sins He had committed.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xviii. c. 12
Now that the man had seen Jesus, and knew Him to be the author of his recovery, he was not slow in preaching Him to others: The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus which had made him whole.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxviii. 2
He was not so insensible to the benefit, and the advice he had received, as to have any malignant aim in speaking this news. Had it been done to disparage Christ, he could have concealed the cure, and put forward the offence. But he does not mention Jesus’s saying, Take up thy bed, which was an offence in the eyes of the Jews; but told the Jews that it was Jesus which had made him whole.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. c. 13
This announcement enraged them, And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because He had done these things on the sabbath day. A plain bodily work had been done before their eyes, distinct from the healing of the man’s body, and which could not have been necessary, even if healing was; viz. the carrying of the bed. Wherefore our Lord openly says, that the sacrament of the Sabbath, the sign of observing one day out of seven, was only a temporary institution, which had attained its fulfilment in Him: But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work: as if He said, Do not suppose that My Father rested on the Sabbath in such a sense, as that from that time forth, He has ceased from working; for He worketh up to this time, though without labour, and so work I. God’s resting means only that He made no other creature, after the creation. The Scripture calls it rest, to remind us of the rest we shall enjoy after a life of good works here. And as God only when He had made man in His own image and similitude, and finished all His works, and seen that they were very good, rested on the seventh day: so do thou expect no rest, except thou return to the likeness in which thou wert made, but which thou hast lost by sin; i. e. unless thou doest good works.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. iv. Super Gen. ad litteram [c. xi.]
It may be said then, that the observance of the sabbath was imposed on the Jews, as the shadow of something to come; viz. that spiritual rest, which God, by the figure of His own rest promised to all who should perform good works.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C.
There will be a sabbath of the world, when the six ages, i. e. the six days, as it were, of the world, have passed: then will come that rest which is promised to the saints.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. iv. Gen. ad lit. c. xi.
The mystery of which rest the Lord Jesus Himself scaled by His burial: for He rested in His sepulchre on the sabbath, having on the sixth day finished all His work, inasmuch as He said, It is finished. (c. 19) What wonder then that God, to prefigure the day on which Christ was to rest in the grave, rested one day from His works, afterwards to carry on the work of governing the world. We may consider too that God, when He rested, rested from the work of creation simply, i. e. made no more new kinds of creatures: but that from that time till now, He has been carrying on the government of those creatures. For His power, as respects the government of heaven and earth, and all the things that He had made, did not cease on the seventh day: they would have perished immediately, without His government: because the power of the Creator is that on which the existence of every creature depends. If it ceased to govern, every species of creation would cease to exist: and all nature would go to nothing. For the world is not like a building, which stands after the architect has left it; it could not stand the twinkling of an eye, if God withdrew His governing hand. Therefore when our Lord says, My Father worketh hitherto, he means the continuation of the work; the holding together, and governing of the creation. It might have been different, had He said, Worketh even now. This would not have conveyed the sense of continuing. As it is we find it, Until now; i. e. from the time of the creation downwards.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. s. 15
He says then, as it were, to the Jews, Why think ye that I should not work on the sabbath? The sabbath day was instituted as a typed of Me. Ye observe the works of God: by Me all things were made. The Father made light, but He spoke, that it might be made. If He spoke, then He made it by the Word; and I am His Word. My Father worked when He made the world, and He worketh until now, governing the world: and as He made the world by Me, when He made it, so He governs it, by Me, now He governs it.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxviii. 2
Christ defended His disciples, by putting forward the example of their fellow-servant David: but He defends Himself by a reference to the Father. We may observe too that He does not defend Himself as man, nor yet purely as God, but sometimes as one, sometimes as the other; wishing both to he believed, both the dispensation of His humiliation, and the dignity of His Godhead; wherefore He shews His equality to the Father, both by calling Him His Father emphatically, (My Father,) and by declaring that He doeth the same things, that the Father doth, (And I work.) Therefore, it follows, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. s. 16
i. e. not in the secondary sense in which it is true of all of us, but as implying equality. For we all of us say to God, Our Father, Which art in heaven. (Matt. 6) And the Jews say, Thou art our Father. (Isaiah 63:16) They were not angry then because He called God His Father, but because He called Him so in a sense different from men.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Con. Ev. l. iv. c. x
The words, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, suppose Him to be equal to the Father. This being understood, it followed from the Father’s working, that the Son worked: inasmuch as the Father cloth nothing without the Son.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxviii. s. 3
Were He not the Son by nature, and of the same substance, this defence would be worse than the former accusation made. For no prefect could clear Himself from a transgression of the king’s law, by urging that the king broke it also. But, on the supposition of the Son’s equality to the Father, the defence is valid. It then follows, that as the Father worked on the Sabbath without doing wrong: the Son could do so likewise.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. s. 16
So, the Jews understood what the Arians do not. For the Arians say that the Son is not equal to the Father, and hence sprang up that heresy which afflicts the Church.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxviii. 3
Those however who are not well-disposed to this doctrine, do not admit that Christ made Himself equal to the Father, but only that the Jews thought He did. But let us consider what has gone before. That the Jews persecuted Christ, and that He broke the sabbath, and said that God was His Father, is unquestionably true. That which immediately follows then from these premises, viz. His making Himself equal with God, is true also.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Trin. c. 15
The Evangelist here explains why the Jews wished to kill Him.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
And again, had it been that our Lord Himself did not mean this, but that the Jews misunderstood Him, He would not have overlooked their mistake. Nor would the Evangelist have omitted to remark upon it, as he does upon our Lord’s speech, Destroy this temple. (c. 2.)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xvii. s. 16
The Jews however did not understand from our Lord that He was the Son of God, but only that He was equal with God; though Christ gave this as the result of His being the Son of God. It is from not seeing this, while they saw at the same time that equality was asserted, that they charged Him with making Himself equal with God: the truth being, that He did not make Himself equal, but the Father had begotten Him equal.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Curatus homo non secessit ad nundinas, neque voluptati aut vanae gloriae dedit seipsum; sed in templo conversabatur, quod maximae religionis est signum; unde dicitur postea invenit eum Iesus in templo
Augustinus in Ioannem
Dominus quidem Iesus et in turba eum videbat, et in templo. Ille autem languidus Iesum in turba non agnoscit, in templo agnoscit, in loco sacrato
Alcuinus
Quia si gratiam conditoris cognoscere volumus, et ad eius visionem venire, fugienda est turba cogitationum et affectuum pravorum; declinanda sunt pravorum conventicula, fugiendum est ad templum, ut nosipsos templum Dei studeamus facere, quos Deus invisere et in quibus manere dignetur. Sequitur et dixit illi: ecce sanus factus es; iam noli amplius peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat
Chrysostomus
Ubi prius discimus quod ex peccatis ei nata est haec aegritudo: quia enim saepius animam in nobis aegrotantem insensibiliter habemus, corpus autem, etsi parvam susceperit laesionem, omne facimus studium, ut ab infirmitate liberemur, propterea Deus punit corpus pro his quae anima deliquit; secundo vero quod verus est Gehennae sermo; tertio quod longum est et infinitum supplicium. Dicunt enim quidam: numquid quia in brevi temporis momento adulteratus sum, immortaliter crucior? Vide quod hic tanto tempore pro peccatis cruciabatur: non enim temporis mensura peccata iudicantur, sed ipsa delictorum natura. Cum his autem et illud discimus, quod si gravem sustineamus poenam pro prioribus peccatis, deinde in eadem inciderimus, graviora patiemur; et hoc decenter: qui enim neque supplicio factus est melior, ut insensibilis de reliquo et contemptor, ad maius ducetur tormentum. Si autem hic non omnes pro peccatis torquentur, non confidamus: nihil enim nos hic pati pro peccatis, signum est maioris illic futuri supplicii. Non autem omnes aegritudines sunt ex peccatis, sed plures. Quaedam enim et a pigritia fiunt, quaedam propter probationem, sicut in Iob. Sed propter quid paralytico huic Christus de peccatis mentionem facit? Quidam huic paralytico detrahentes, dicunt eum Christi fuisse accusatorem, et propter hoc haec audisse: quid igitur dicent de paralytico qui est apud Matthaeum? Etenim et illi dictum est: dimittuntur tibi peccata tua. Neque etiam Christus hunc incusat de praeteritis, sed ad futurum eum munit solum. Alios igitur curans, peccatorum non meminit: quia his paralyticis ex peccatis aegritudines sunt factae, aliis autem ex infirmitate naturali. Vel per hos reliquos omnes admonet. Cum his autem et illud est dicere, quoniam multam vidit inesse animae huius patientiam, et ut valentem suscipere admonitionem eum admonet. Tribuit autem signum ei propriae deitatis: dicendo enim non amplius pecces, ostendit se scire omnia quae ab eo facta erant delicta
Augustinus
Nunc autem ille, postea quam vidit Iesum, et cognovit eum auctorem salutis suae, non fuit piger in evangelizando quem viderat; unde sequitur abiit ille homo, et nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus erat qui fecit eum sanum
Chrysostomus
Non ita insensibilis erat ut post tantum beneficium et admonitionem maligna mente hoc dicat. Si enim detrahere vellet, sanitatem tacens, transgressionem dixisset; sed hoc non fecit: non enim dixit, quoniam Iesus est qui dixit tolle grabatum tuum, quod videbatur Iudaeis crimen esse; sed dixit: quoniam Iesus est qui me sanum fecit
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sic igitur ille annuntiabat, et illi insaniebant; unde sequitur propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia hoc faciebat in sabbato. Manifestum enim opus corporale factum erat ante oculos Iudaeorum, non sanitas corporis, sed deportatio grabati, quae non videbatur ita necessaria quemadmodum sanitas. Aperte ergo dicit dominus, sacramentum sabbati, et signum observandi unius diei ad tempus datum esse Iudaeis; impletionem vero ipsam sacramenti in illo venisse, cum sequitur Iesus autem respondit eis: pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor; quasi dicat: nolite putare quia sabbato ita requievit pater meus ut ex illo non operetur; sed sicut ipse nunc operatur sine labore, operor et ego. Sed ideo dictum est, Deum requievisse, quia iam creaturam nullam condebat postquam perfecta sunt omnia. Quietem vero propterea appellavit Scriptura, ut nos admoneret post bona opera quieturos. Et sicut Deus postquam fecit hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam, et perfecit omnia opera sua bona valde, requievit septimo die; sic et tibi requiem non speres, nisi cum redieris ad similitudinem in qua factus es, quam peccato perdidisti; et nisi cum bona fueris operatus
Augustinus super Genesim
Dici ergo probabiliter potest, ad servandum sabbatum Iudaeis fuisse praeceptum in umbra futuri, quae spiritualem requiem significaret; quam Deus exemplo quietis suae fidelibus bona opera facientibus arcana significatione pollicebatur
Augustinus super Ioannem
Erit enim sabbatum huius saeculi cum transierint sex aetates, quasi sex dies saeculi: tunc enim ventura est requies, quae promittitur sanctis
Augustinus super Genesim
Cuius etiam quietis ipse dominus Iesus mysterium sua sepultura confirmavit: ipso quippe die sabbati requievit in sepulchro, postquam sexto die consummavit opera sua, quando ait: consummatum est. Quid ergo mirum si Deus istum diem, quo erat Christus in sepultura quieturus, volens etiam hoc modo praenuntiare, ab operibus suis in uno die requievit, deinceps operaturus ordinem saeculorum? Potest etiam intelligi, Deum requievisse a condendis generibus creaturae, quia ultra iam non condidit aliqua genere nova. Deinceps autem usque nunc et ultra operatur eorumdem generum administrationem, quae tunc instituta sunt, non ut ipso saltem die septimo potentia eius a caeli et terrae omniumque rerum quas condiderat gubernatione cessaret; alioquin continuo dilaberentur: creatoris namque potentia causa est abstinendi omni creaturae, quae ab eis quae creata sunt regendis si aliquando cessaret, simul et eorum cessaret species, omnisque natura concideret. Neque enim sicut structuram aedium cum fabricaverit quis abscedit, atque illo cessante stat opus eius; ita mundus vix ictu oculi stare potest, si ei Deus regimen suum subtraxerit. Proinde quod dominus ait pater meus usque modo operatur, continuationem quamdam operis eius, quae universam creaturam continet atque administrat, ostendit. Aliter enim posset intelligi, si diceret: et nunc operatur; ubi non esset necesse ut operis continuationem acciperemus. Aliter autem cogit intelligi, cum ait usque nunc, ex illo scilicet quo cuncta cum conderet operatus est
Augustinus in Ioannem
Ergo tamquam diceret Iudaeis: quid expectatis ut non operer sabbato? Sabbati dies vobis ad significationem meam praeceptus est. Opera Dei attenditis, per me facta sunt omnia. Operatus est pater lucem; sed dixit ut fieret. Si dixit: verbo operatus est, et verbum eius ego sum. Pater meus et tunc operatus est cum fecit mundum, et usque nunc operatur cum regit mundum: ergo et per me fecit cum fecit, et per me regit cum regit
Chrysostomus
Et quidem Christus, cum discipulos excusare oportebat, David conservum eorum in medium ferebat; quando vero de seipso erat accusatio, ad patrem refugit. Considerandum etiam, quod neque ut homo solum excusat, sed neque ut Deus solum: sed quandoque hoc, quandoque illo modo. Volebat enim utrumque credi, et condescensionis dispensationem et deitatis dignitatem. Unde hic aequalitatem sui ad patrem ostendit, et in dicendo eum patrem singulariter (dicit enim pater meus) et in agendo eadem illi (dicit enim et ego operor); unde sequitur propterea ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum
Augustinus
Non quomodocumque, sed quia aequalem se fecit Deo: nam omnes dicimus Deo: pater noster, qui es in caelis. Legimus et Iudaeos dixisse: cum tu sis pater noster. Ergo non hic irascebantur quia patrem suum dicebat Deum, sed quod longe alio modo quam homines
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Dicendo enim pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor; quod ei esset aequalis voluit intelligi; consequens esse ostendens ut quoniam pater operatur, et filius operetur: quia pater sine filio non operatur
Chrysostomus
Si vero non naturalis esset filius, nec eiusdem substantiae, haec excusatio maior accusatione esset. Non enim praefectus regalem legem transgrediens poterit effugere, si accusatus se excuset dicens, quoniam et rex solvit legem. Sed quia par est dignitas filii ad patrem, propterea perfecta excusatio est. Sicut igitur pater operans sabbato, absolutus est a crimine, ita et filius
Augustinus in Ioannem
Ecce intelligunt Iudaei quod non intelligunt Ariani: Ariani quippe inaequalem dicunt filium patri, et inde haeresis pulsat Ecclesiam
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Qui vero nolunt cum bona mente hoc suscipere, dicunt quod Christus non fecit se aequalem Deo, sed Iudaei hoc suspicabantur; sed ad hoc per ea quae supra dicta sunt superveniamus. Manifestum enim est quod Iudaei persequebantur Christum, et quod solvebat sabbatum, et quod dicebat patrem suum Deum: unde et quod consequenter additur aequalem se faciens Deo, adhaeret praemissis in veritate
Hilarius de Trin
Expositio enim est Evangelistae causam demonstrantis cur dominum Iudaei interficere vellent
Chrysostomus
Et iterum, si ipse hoc ipsum volebat astruere, sed Iudaei hoc inaniter suspicabantur; non dimisisset dominus eorum mentem in errore, sed correxisset: neque enim Evangelista hoc tacuisset; sicut supra de eo quod dictum est: solvite templum hoc
Augustinus
Non tamen Iudaei intellexerunt Christum esse filium Dei; sed intellexerunt in verbis Christi, quia talis commendaretur filius Dei quod aequalis esset Deo. Quia ergo nesciebant, talem tamen praedicari agnoscebant; ideo dicit aequalem se faciens Deo. Non autem ipse se faciebat aequalem, sed ille illum genuerat aequalem
5:19
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Trin. c. 17
He refers to the charge of violating the sabbath, brought against Him. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; meaning that He had a precedent for claiming the right He did; and that what He did was in reality His Father’s doing, who acted in the Son. And to quiet the jealousy which had been raised, because by the use of His Father’s name He had made Himself equal with God, and to assert the excellency of His birth and nature, He says, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xviii. 3, 5
Some who would be thought Christians, the Arian heretics, who say that the very Son of God who took our flesh upon Him, was inferior to the Father, take advantage of these words to throw discredit upon our doctrine, and say, You see that when our Lord perceived the Jews to be indignant, because He seemed to make Himself equal with God, He gave such an answer as shewed that He was not equal. For they say, he who can do nothing but what he sees the Father do is not equal but inferior to the Father. But if there is a greater God, and a less God, (the Word being God,) we worship two Gods, and not onee.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Tr. c. 17.
Lest then that assertion of His equality, which must belong to Him, as by Name and Nature the Son, might throw doubt upon His Nativityf, He says that the Son can do nothing of Himself.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xx. 4
As if He said: Why are ye offended that I called God My Father, and that I make Myself equal with God? I am equal, but equal in such a sense as is consistent with His having begotten Me; with My being from Him, not Him from Me. With the Son, being and power are one and the same thing. The Substance of the Son then being of the Father, the power of the Son is of the Father also: and as the Son is not of Himself, so He can not of Himself. The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.— (xxi. 4). His seeing and His being born of the Father are the same. His vision is not distinct from His Substance, but the whole together is of the Father.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Tr. c. 17
That the wholesome order of our confession, i. e. that we believe in the Father and the Son, might remain, He shews the nature of His birth; viz. that He derived the power of acting not from an accession of strength supplied for each work, but by His own knowledge in the first instance. And this knowledge He derived not from any particular visible precedents, as if what the Father had done, the Son could do afterwards; but that the Son being born of the Father, and consequently conscious of the Father’s virtue and nature within Him, could do nothing but what He saw the Father do: as he here testifies; God does not see by bodily organs, but by the virtue of His nature.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. ii. de Tr. c. 3
If we understand this subordination of the Son to arise from the human nature, it will follow that the Father walked first upon the water, and did all the other things which the Son did in the flesh, in order that the Son might do them. Who can be so insane as to think thisd?
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xx. s. 6
Yet that walking of the flesh upon the sea was done by the Father through the Son. For when the flesh walked, and the Divinity of the Son guided, the Father was not absent, as the Son Himself saith below, The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. (c. 14) (s. 9). He guards however against the carnal interpretation of the words, The Son can do nothing of Himself. (v. 19) As if the case were like that of two artificers, master and disciple, one of whom made a chest, and the other made another like it, by adding, For whatsoever things he doeth, these doeth the Son likewise.He does not say, Whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son does other things like them, but the very same things. The Father made the world, the Son made the world, the Holy Ghost made the world. If the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, it follows that one and the same world was made by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. Thus it is the very same thing that the Son doeth. He adds likewise, to prevent another error arising. For the body seems to do the same things with the mind, but it does not do them in a like way, inasmuch as the body is subject, the soul governing, the body visible, the soul invisible. When a slave does a thing at the command of his master, the same thing is done by both; but is it in a like way? Now in the Father and Son there is not this difference; they do the same things, and in a like way. Father and Son act with the same power; so that the Son is equal to the Father.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Tr. c. 18
Or thus; All things and the same, He says, to shew the virtue of His nature, its being the same with God’s. That is the same nature, which can do all the same things. And as the Son does all the same things in a like way, the likeness of the works excludes the notion of the worker existing aloneg. Thus we come to a true idea of the Nativity, as our faith receives it: the likeness of the works bearing witness to the Nativity, their sameness to the Nature.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxviii. 4
Or thus; That the Son can do nothing of Himself, must be understood to mean, that He can do nothing contrary to, or displeasing to, the Father. And therefore He does not say that He does nothing contrary, but that He can do nothing; in order to shew His perfect likeness, and absolute equality to the Father. Nor is this a sign of weakness in the Son, but rather of goodness. For as when we say that it is impossible for God to sin, we do not charge Him with weakness, but bear witness to a certain ineffable goodness; so when the Son says, I can do nothing of myself, it only means, that He can do nothing contrary to the Father.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. contra Serm. Arianorum, c. 9. [xiv.]
This is not a sign of failing in Him, but of His abiding in His birth from the Father. And it is as high an attribute of the Almighty that He does not change, as it is that He does not die. The Son could do what He had not seen the Father doing, if He could do what the Father does not do through Him; i. e. if He could sin: a supposition inconsistent with the immutably good nature which was begotten from the Father. That He cannot do; this then is to be understood of Him, not in the sense of deficiency, but of power.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxviii. 4
And this is confirmed by what follows: For whatsoever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For if the Father does all things by Himself, so does the Son also, if this likewise is to stand good. You see how high a meaning these humble words bear. He gives His thoughts a humble dress purposely. For whenever He expressed Himself loftily, He was persecuted, as an enemy of God.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxi. s. 2
Having said that He did the same things that the Father did, and in a like way, He adds, For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth. And sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth: this has a reference to the words above; But what He seeth the Father do. But again, our human ideas are perplexed, and one may say, So then the Father first does something, that the Son may see what He does; just as an artificer teaches his son his art, and shews him what he makes, that he may be able to make the same after him. On this supposition, when the Father does a thing, the Son does not do it; in that the Son is beholding what His Father doeth. But we hold it as a fixed and incontrovertible truth, that the Father makes all things through the Son, and therefore He must shew them to the Son, before He makes them. And where does the Father shew the Son what He makes, except in the Son Himself, by whom He makes them? For if the Father makes a thing for a pattern, and the Son attends to the workmanship as it goes on, where is the indivisibility of the Trinity? The Father therefore does not shew the Son what He doeth by doing it, but by shewing doeth it, through the Son. The Son seeth, and the Father sheweth, before a thing is made, and from the shewing of the Father, and the seeing of the Son, that is made which is made; made by the Father, through the Son. But thou wilt say, I shew my Son what I wish him to make, and he makes it, and I make it through him. True; but before thou doest any thing, thou shewest it to thy son, that he may do it for thy example, and thou by him; but thou speakest to thy son words which are not thyself; whereas the Son Himself is the Word of the Father; and could He speak by the Word to the Word? Or, because the Son was the great Word, were lesser words to pass between the Father and the Son, or a certain sound and temporary creation, as it were, to go out of the mouth of the Father, and strike the ear of the Son? Put away these bodily notions, and if thou art simple, see the truth in simplicity. If thou canst not comprehend what God is, comprehend at least what He is not. Thou wilt have advanced no little way, if thou thinkest nothing that is untrue of God. See what I am saying exemplified in thine own mind. Thou hast memory, and thought, thy memory sheweth to thy thought Carthage: before thou perceivest what is in her, she sheweth it to thought, which is turned toward her: the memory then hath shewn, the thought hath perceived, and no words have passed between them, no outward sign been used. But whatever is in thy memory, thou receivest from without: that which the Father sheweth to the Son, He doth not receive from without; the whole goes on within; there being no creature existing without, but what the Father hath made by the Son. And the Father maketh by shewing, in that He maketh by the Son who sees. The Father’s shewing begets the Son’s seeing, as the Father begets the Son? Shewing begets seeing, not seeing shewing. But it would be more correct, and more spiritual, not to view the Father as distinct from His shewing, or the Son from His seeing.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Trin. c. 19
It must not be supposed that the Only Begotten God needed such shewing on account of ignorance. For the shewing here is only the doctrine of the nativityh; the self-existing Son, from the self-existing Father.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxi
For to see the Father is to see His Son. The Father so shews all His works to the Son, that the Son sees them from the Fatheri. For the birth of the Son is in His seeing: He sees from the same source, from which He is, and is born, and remains.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Trin. c. 19
Nor did the heavenly discourse lack the caution, to guard against our inferring from these words any difference in the nature of the Son and the Father. For He says that the works of the Father were shewn to Him, not that strength was supplied Him for the doing of them, in order to teach that this shewing is substantially nothing else than His birth; for that simultaneously with the Son Himself is born the Son’s knowledge of the works the Father will do through Him.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxi. s. 5
But now from Him whom we called coeternal with the Father, who saw the Father, and existed in that He saw, we return to the things of time, And He will shew him greater works than these. But if He will shew him, i. e. is about to shew him, He hath not yet shewn him: and when He does shew him, others also will see; (Tr. xix). for it follows, That ye may believe. It is difficult to see what the eternal Father can shew in time to the coeternal Son, Who knows all that exists within the Father’s mind. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. To raise the dead was a greater work than to heal the sick. But this is explained by consideriug that He Who a little before spoke as God, now begins to speak as man. As man, and therefore living in time, He will be shewn greater works in time. Bodies will rise again by the human dispensation by which the Son of God assumed manhood in time; but souls by virtue of the eternity of the Divine Substance. For which reason it was said before that the Father loved the Son, and shewed Him what things soever He did. For the Father shews the Son that souls are raised up; for they are raised up by the Father and the Son, even as they cannot live, except God give them life. (Tr. xxi). Or the Father is about to shew this to us, not to Him; according to what follows, That ye may believe. This being the reason why the Father would shew Him greater things than these. But why did He not say, shall shew you, instead of the Son? Because we are members of the Son, and He, as it were, learns in His members, even as He suffers in us. For as He says, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me: (Matt. 25:40) so, if we ask Him, how He, the Teacher of all things, learns, He replies, When one of the least of My brethren learns, I learn.
Il testo latino
Hilarius de Trin
Ad violati sabbati obiectum sibi reatum dixerat: pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor, ut usurpasse hoc ex auctoritate intelligeretur exempli; significans tamen hoc quod ipse ageret, patris opus esse intelligendum, quia ipse in se operaretur operante: et rursum adversum eam invidiam, quod se Deo aequasset paterni nominis usurpatione, volens et nativitatem confirmare, et naturae virtutem profiteri, respondit; unde dicitur respondit itaque Iesus, et dixit eis: amen, amen dico vobis: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quidam qui Christianos se haberi volunt, Ariani haeretici dicentes ipsum filium Dei qui suscepit carnem, minorem esse quam pater est, capiunt ex his verbis causam calumniae, et respondent nobis: videtis quia dominus Iesus cum adverteret Iudaeos ex hoc moveri, quia patri Deo aequalem se faceret, talia verba subiunxit, ut se aequalem non esse monstraret: qui enim non potest, inquiunt, a se facere quidquam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, utique minor est, non aequalis. Sed si Deus erat verbum, et est Deus maior et Deus minor, duos deos colimus, non unum Deum
Hilarius
Ne igitur exaequatio illa per nomen naturamque filii fidem nativitatis auferret, ait filium a se nihil facere posse
Augustinus in Ioannem
Tamquam diceret: quid scandalizati estis, quia patrem meum dixi Deum, et quia aequalem me feci Deo? Ita sum aequalis, ut ille me genuerit, non ut ille a me, sed ego ab illo sim. Filio hoc est esse quod posse. Quia ergo substantia filii de patre est, ideo potentia filii de patre est; quia ergo filius non est a se, ideo non potest a se. Sic ergo non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem: quia videre filii hoc est natum esse de patre; non alia visio est eius et alia substantia eius: totum quod est, de patre est
Hilarius
Ut autem maneret salutaris in patre et filio confessionis nostrae ordo, naturam nativitatis ostendit, quae potestatem efficiendi non per incrementa indultarum ad unumquodque opus virium sumeret, sed de cognitione praesumeret; praesumeret autem non de aliquo operis corporalis exemplo ut quod prius pater faceret, id postea filius facturus esset; sed cum ex patre filius esset natus per virtutis ac naturae in se paternae conscientiam, nihil nisi quod patrem facientem vidisset, filium facere posse testatus est. Non enim corporalibus modis Deus videt; sed visus ei omnis in virtute naturae est
Augustinus de Trin
Hoc autem si propterea dictum acceperimus quia in forma accepta ex creatura minor est filius; consequens erit ut prior pater super aquas ambulaverit, et cetera quae filius in carne apparens inter homines fecit, ut possit filius ea facere. Quis autem vel delirus ista sentiat?
Augustinus super Ioan
Ambulatio tamen illa carnis supra mare a patre fiebat per filium. Quando enim caro ambulabat, et divinitas filii gubernabat, pater absens non erat, cum filius dicat: pater in me manens ipse facit opera. Cum ergo dixisset non potest filius a se facere quidquam, ne forte carnalis subreperet intellectus, ut faceret sibi homo quasi duos fabros, unum magistrum, alterum discipulum, ut quomodo ille fecit arcam, iste faciat alteram, secutus ait quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit. Non ait: quaecumque pater facit, et filius alia similia facit; sed: haec eadem. Mundum pater, mundum filius, mundum spiritus sanctus. Si unus Deus pater, et filius, et spiritus sanctus, unus mundus factus a patre per filium in spiritu sancto. Haec ergo eadem facit. Addit autem similiter, ne alius error in animo nasceretur. Videtur enim corpus hoc idem facere quod animus, sed non similiter: animus enim imperat corpori: corpus visibile est, animus invisibilis. Ut faceret aliquid servus, iubente domino fecit: idem ab utroque factum est; sed numquid similiter? Non ergo sic pater, et filius; sed haec eadem facit, et similiter facit; ut intelligamus simili potentia facere filium eadem ipsa quae facit pater. Aequalis igitur est patri filius
Hilarius de Trin
Vel aliter. Omnia et eadem ad ostendendam naturae virtutem locutus est. Est igitur natura eadem, cum eadem omnia posse naturae sit. Ubi vero similiter per filium omnia eadem fiunt, similitudo operum solitudinem operantis exclusit. Haec igitur est verae nativitatis et fidei nostrae intelligentia, quia sub una hac significatione testantur et similiter facta nativitatem, et eadem facta naturam
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Totum quod dicitur a semetipso non potest filius facere quidquam, intelligendum est quia nihil contrarium patri, nihil alienum ab eo facere potest. Ideo autem non dicit quoniam nihil contrarium facit, sed quoniam non potest facere, ut hinc ostendat indissimilitudinem et certitudinem parilitatis. Non enim imbecillitatem filii, sed multam eius virtutem ostendit hoc verbum. Sicut enim cum dicimus: impossibile est Deum peccare, non imbecillitatem eius accusamus, sed ineffabilem quamdam virtutem eius testamur; ita cum dicit filius: non possum a meipso facere quidquam, hoc dicit, quoniam impossibile est eum facere aliquid contrarium patri
Augustinus contra Serm. Arian
Hoc autem non deficientis est, sed in eo quod de patre natus est, permanentis; tamque laudabile est omnipotentem non posse mutari, quam laudabile est quod omnipotens non potest mori. Posset enim filius facere quod non vidisset patrem facientem, si posset facere quod per illum non facit pater; hoc est, si posset peccare: neque naturae immutabiliter bonae quae a patre est genita conveniret. Hoc autem quia non potest, non deficienter non potest, sed potenter
Chrysostomus
His autem quae dicta sunt attestatur quod sequitur quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec similiter et filius facit. Si enim per seipsum pater omnia facit, et filius per seipsum facit, ut hoc quod dicit similiter, maneat; vides qualiter intelligentia est excelsa, humilitatis autem verba. Si enim humilius producit verba quaedam, non mireris: quia enim persequebantur eum excelsa audientes, et contrarium Deo esse aestimabant, parum per verba remisit
Augustinus in Ioannem
Cum ergo dixisset et se eadem facere, et similiter quae facit pater, subdit pater enim diligit filium, et omnia demonstrat ei quaecumque ipse facit. Ad hoc quod supra dixit nisi quod viderit patrem facere, videtur pertinere et quod omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit. Sed rursus mortalis cogitatio perturbatur: dicet enim aliquis: seorsum facit pater, ut possit filius videre quod facit; velut si faber doceat filium artem suam, et demonstret ei quicquid facit, ut possit et ipse facere quod viderit patrem facientem. Cum ergo pater facit, filius non facit, ut possit videre filius quod pater facit. Porro si fixum atque inconcussum tenemus, quia per filium omnia pater facit, antequam faciat demonstrat filio. Ubi etiam demonstrat filio pater quod facit, nisi in ipso filio, per quem facit? Si enim pater exemplo faciat, et filius attendat manus patris quemadmodum faciat, ubi est illa inseparabilitas Trinitatis? Non ergo faciendo demonstrat pater filio, sed demonstrando facit per filium. Videt enim patrem filius demonstrantem antequam aliquid fiat, et ex demonstratione patris, et visione filii fit quod fit a patre per filium. Sed dices: ostendo filio meo quod volo facere, et facit ipse, atque ego per ipsum. Sed verba dicturus es filio tuo. Sed ipse filius est verbum patris. Numquid ergo per verbum loqueretur ad verbum? An quia filius magnum est verbum, minora verba transitura erant inter patrem et filium, et sonus aliquis, et quasi creatura quaedam temporalis exitura erat ex ore patris, et percussura aurem filii? Remove omnia corporalia: simplicitatem vide, si simplex es; si non potes comprehendere quid sit Deus, vel hoc comprehendere quid non Deus sit. Multum proficies, si non aliud quam est senseris de Deo. In mente tua vide quod volo dicere: in qua video memoriam et cogitationem. Demonstrat memoria tua cogitationi tuae Carthaginem, et quod in illa erat antequam intenderes, conversae ad se cogitationi ostendit. Ecce facta est a memoria demonstratio, facta est in cogitatione visio, et nulla verba in medio cucurrerunt, nullum ex corpore signum datum est; sed tamen omnia quae in memoria tenes, forinsecus accepisti. Pater quae demonstrat filio, non accepit extrinsecus: intus totum agitur; quia nihil creaturarum esset extrinsecus, nisi pater hoc fecisset per filium; et eam pater demonstrando fecit, quia per filium videntem fecit. Sic ergo demonstrans pater filii visionem gignit, quemadmodum pater filium gignit. Demonstratio quippe generat visionem, non visio demonstrationem. Quod si purius et perfectius intueri valeremus, fortassis inveniremus nec aliud esse patrem, aliud eius demonstrationem, nec aliud filium, aliud eius visionem
Hilarius de Trin
Non igitur per ignorationem credendus est unigenitus Deus doctrina demonstrationis eguisse. Demonstratio enim operum nihil aliud hic nobis praeterquam nativitatis fidem ingerit, ut subsistentem filium ex subsistente Deo patre credamus
Augustinus
Videre enim patrem hoc est illi esse filium. Sic ergo demonstrat pater omnia quae facit filio, ut a patre videat omnia filius. Videndo enim natus est, et ab eo est illi videre a quo est illi esse, et natum esse, et permanere
Hilarius
Neque autem incircumspectum se caelestis sermo egit, ne forte diversae naturae significatio sub occasione dicti ambigui subreperet. Demonstrata enim potius opera patris esse ait domino, quam ad operationem eorum naturam virtutis adiectam, ut demonstratio ipsa nativitas esse doceretur, cui per dilectionem patris operum paternorum, quae per eum effici vellet, esset cognata cognitio
Augustinus
Sed ecce quem diximus patri coaeternum, videntem patrem, et videndo existentem, rursus nobis tempora nominat; nam sequitur et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera. Si autem demonstrabit, hoc est demonstraturus est, nondum demonstravit; et tunc filio demonstraturus est quando et istis; sequitur enim ut vos miremini. Et hoc difficile est videre, quomodo tamquam temporaliter filio coaeterno aliquando monstret aeternus pater omnia scienti quae sunt apud patrem. Quae sint autem illa maiora, facile est intelligere ex hoc quod subditur sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius quos vult vivificat. Maiora enim opera sunt mortuos suscitare, quam languidos sanare. Sed qui paulo ante loquebatur ut Deus, coepit loqui ut homo. Demonstrabit enim quasi temporaliter homini facto in tempore opera maiora, idest resurrectionem corporum. Corpora enim resurgent per dispensationem humanam; sed animae resurgent per substantiam Dei: participatione enim Dei fit anima beata, non participatione beatae animae. Quomodo enim anima, quae inferior Deo est, id quod ipsa inferius est, hoc est corpus, vivere facit, sic eamdem animam non facit beate vivere, nisi quod ipsa anima superius est, scilicet Deus. Unde et prius dictum est quod pater diligit filium, et demonstrat ei quae ipse facit. Demonstrat enim pater filio ut animae suscitentur, quia per patrem et filium suscitantur, nec possunt vivere nisi earum vita sit Deus. Vel nobis pater demonstraturus est, non illi; propterea subiungit ut vos miremini: in quo exposuit quid voluit dicere: et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera. Sed quare non dixit: demonstrabit vobis, sed filio? Quia et nos membra sumus filii, et ipse discit quodammodo in membris suis, quomodo et patitur in nobis: sicut enim dixit: quod uni ex minimis meis dedistis, mihi dedistis, ita si interrogetur a nobis: quando eris discens, cum tu doceas omnia? Respondet: cum unus ex minimis meis discit, ego disco
5:21
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxi. s. 5, 6
Having said that the Father would shew the Son greater works than these, He proceeds to describe these greater works: For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. These are plainly greater works, for it is more of a miracle that a dead man should rise again, than that a sick man should recover. We must not understand from the words, that some are raised by the Father, others by the Son; but that the Son raises to life the same whom the Father raiseth. And to guard against any one saying, The Father raises the dead by the Son, the former by His own power, the latter, like an instrument, by another power, He asserts distinctly the power of the Son: The Son quickeneth whom he will. Observe here not only the power of the Son, but also His will. Father and Son have the same power and will. The Father willeth nothing distinct from the Son; but both have the same will, even as they have the same substance.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. de Trin. vii. c. 19
For to will is the free power of a nature, which by the act of choice, resteth in the blessedness of perfect excellence.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxi. s. 11.
But who are these dead, whom the Father and Son raise to life? He alludes to the general resurrection which is to be; not to the resurrection of those few, who were raised to life, that the rest might believe; as Lazarus, who rose again, to die afterwards. Having said then, For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, to prevent our taking the words to refer to the dead whom He raised up for the sake of the miracle, and not to the resurrection to life eternal, He adds, For the Father judgeth no man; thus shewing that He spoke of that resurrection of the dead which would take place at the judgment. (Tr. xxiii. s. 13). Or the words, As the Father raiseth up the dead, &c.refer to the resurrection of the soul; For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, to the resurrection of the body. For the resurrection of the soul takes place by the substance of the Father and the Sonk, and therefore it is the work of the Father and the Son together: but the resurrection of the body takes place by a dispensation of the Son’s humanity, which is a temporal dispensation, and not coeternal with the Father. (Tr. xxi. s. 12.). But see how the Word of Christ leads the mind in different directions, not allowing it any carnal resting place; but by variety of motion exercising it, by exercise purifying it, by purifying enlarging its capacity, and after enlarging filling it. He said just before that the Father shewed what things soever He did to the Son. So I saw, as it were, the Father working, and the Son waiting: now again I see the Son working, the Father resting.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Trin. c. 29. [xiii.]
For this, viz. that the Father hath given all judgment unto the Son, does not mean that He begat the Son with this attribute, as is meant in the words, So hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. For if so, it would not be said, The Father judgeth no man, because, in that the Father begat the Son equal, He judgeth with the Son. What is meant is, that in the judgment, not the form of God but the form of the Son of man will appear; not because He will not judge Who hath given all judgment to the Son; since the Son says of Him below, There is one that seeketh and judgeth, (c. 8.) but the Father judgeth no man; i. e. no one will see Him in the judgment, but all will see the Son, because He is the Son of man, even the ungodly who will look on Him Whom they pierced. (Zech. 12)
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. de Trin vii. c. 20
Having said that the Son quickeneth whom He will, in order that we might not lose sight of the nativity, and think that He stood upon the ground of His own unborn power, He immediately adds, For the Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment unto the Son. In that all judgment is given to Him, both His nature, and His nativity are shewn; because only a self-existent nature can possess all things, and nativity cannot have any thing, except what is given it.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxviii. 1
As He gave Him life, i. e. begot Him living; so He gave Him judgment, i. e. begot Him a judge. Gave, it is said, that thou mayest not think Him unbegotten, and imagine two Fathers: All judgment, because He has the awarding both of punishment and reward.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Trin. c. 20
All judgment is given to Him, because He quickens whom He will. Nor can the judgment be looked on as taken away from the Father, inasmuch as the cause of His not judging is, that the judgment of the Son is His. For all judgment is given from the Father. And the reason for which He gives it, appears immediately after: That all men may honour the Son even as they honour the Father.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxix. 2
For, lest you should infer from hearing that the Author of His power was the Father, any difference of substance, or inequality of honour, He connects the honour of the Son with the honour of the Father, shewing that both have the same. But shall men then call Him the Father? God forbid; he who calls Him the Father, does not honour the Son equally with the Father, but confounds both.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. xxi. s. 13
First indeed, the Son appeared as a servant, and the Father was honoured as God. But the Son will be seen to be equal to the Father, that all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. 1But what if persons are found, who honour the Father, and do not honour the Son? It cannot be: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him. It is one thing to acknowledge God, as God; and another to acknowledge Him as the Father. When thou acknowledgest God the Creator, thou acknowledgest an almighty, supreme, eternal, invisible, immutable Spirit. When thou acknowledgest the Father, thou dost in reality acknowledge the Son; for He could not be the Father, had He not the Son. But if thou honour the Father as greater, the Son as less, so far as thou givest less honour to the Son, thou takest away from the honour of the Father. For thou in reality thinkest that the Father could not or would not beget the Son equal to Himself; which if He would not do, He was envious, if He could not, He was weak. (Tr. xxiii. s. 13). Or, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father; has a reference to the resurrection of souls, which is the work of the Son, as well as of the Father. But the resurrection of the body is meant in what comes after: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent Him. Here is no as; the man Christ is honoured, but not as the Father Who sent Him, since with respect to His manhood He Himself saith, My Father is greater than I. (Tr. xxi. s. 17). But some one will say, if the Son is sent by the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Leave thy fleshly actions, and understand a mission, not a separation. Human things deceive, divine things make clear; although even human things give testimony against thee, e. g. if a man offers marriage to a woman, and cannot obtain her by himself, he sends a friend, greater than himself, to urge his suit for him. But see the difference in human things. A man does not go with him whom he sends; but the Father Who sent the Son, never ceased to be with the Son; as we read, I am not alone, but the Father is with Me. (c. 16)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. iv. de Trin. c. 28. [xx.]
It is not, however, as being born of the Father, that the Son is said to be sent, but from His appearing in this world, as the Word made flesh; as He says, I went forth from the Father, and am come into the world: (John 16:28) or from His being received into our minds individually, as we readl, Send her, that she may be with me, and may labour with me.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Trin. c. 21
The conclusion then stands good against all the fury of heretical minds. He is the Son, because He does nothing of Himself: He is God, because, whatsoever things the Father doeth, He doeth the same; They are one, because They are equal in honour: He is not the Father, because He is sent.
Il testo latino
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quia dixerat quod maiora his opera pater demonstraturus est filio, quae sint maiora prosequitur, et dicit sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius quos vult vivificat. Plane maiora sunt ista: valde enim plus est ut resurgat mortuus quam ut convalescat aegrotus. Non autem sic hoc intelligamus ut alios a patre suscitari, alios a filio aestimemus; sed eosdem quos pater suscitat et vivificat, ipsos et filius suscitat et vivificat. Et ne quis diceret: suscitat pater mortuos per filium, ille tamquam potens, iste tamquam ex aliena potestate, tamquam minister facit aliquid; potestatem filii signavit dicens filius quos vult vivificat. Tenete hic non solum potestatem filii, verum etiam et voluntatem. Eadem enim patris et filii potestas est, et voluntas: non enim vult pater aliud quam filius; sed sicut illis una substantia, sic una voluntas est
Hilarius de Trin
Velle quidem naturae libertas est, quae ad perfectae virtutis beatitudinem cum arbitrii voluntate in libertate subsistat
Augustinus
Sed qui sunt isti mortui, quos vivificat pater et filius? Vult nobis insinuare resurrectionem mortuorum quam omnes expectamus, non illam quam quidam habuerunt, ut ceteri crederent; resurrexit enim Lazarus moriturus. Cum ergo dixisset sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, ne intelligeremus illam mortuorum resurrectionem quam fecit ad miraculum, non ad vitam aeternam, secutus ait neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, etc.: ut ostendat quia de illa resurrectione mortuorum dixerat quae futura est in iudicio. Vel aliter de resurrectione animarum dictum est sicut pater suscitat mortuos, et cetera. Resurrectione autem corporum sic dicit: neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, et cetera. Resurrectio enim animarum fit per substantiam patris et filii, et ideo id simul operantur pater et filius: resurrectio vero corporum fit per dispensationem humanitatis non patri coaeternam. Sed vide quomodo verbum Christi mentem nostram huc atque illuc ducit, et uno carnis loco remanere non sinit; ut versando exerceat, exercendo mundet, mundando capaces reddat, capaces factos impleat. Paulo enim ante dicebat, quia demonstrat pater filio quidquid facit. Videbam quasi patrem facientem, et filium expectantem: modo rursus video filium facientem, patrem vacantem
Augustinus de Trin
Non enim quod dicitur omne iudicium dedit filio, secundum illam locutionem dictum est qua dicitur sic dedit filio vitam habere in semetipso; ut significaret quia sic filium genuit. Si enim sic diceretur, non utique diceretur pater non iudicat quemquam; secundum hoc enim quod pater aequalem genuit filium, iudicat cum illo. Secundum hoc ergo dictum est, quod in iudicio non forma Dei, sed forma filii hominis apparebit; non quia non iudicabit qui dedit omne iudicium filio, cum de illo dicat filius: est qui quaerat et iudicet; sed ita dictum est pater non iudicat quemquam, ac si diceretur: patrem nemo videbit in iudicio, sed omnes filium, quia filius hominis est, ut possit et ab impiis videri, cum et illi videbunt in quem pupugerunt
Hilarius de Trin
Vel aliter. Quia dixerat et filius quos vult vivificat, ne non nativitatis videretur in se habere naturam, sed non natae potius potestatis iure subsistere, continuo subiecit neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit filio. Et in eo quod omne iudicium datum est, naturae nativitas demonstratur: quia et omnia habere sola natura possit indifferens, neque nativitas aliquid possit habere nisi datum sit
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sicut enim dedit vitam, idest genuit eum viventem, ita dedit iudicium, idest genuit eum iudicem. Dedit enim hic positum est, ne hunc ingenitum suspiceris, neque duos patres aestimes. Dicit autem omne iudicium, quia dominus est et puniendi et honorandi, ut voluerit
Hilarius
Datum est enim ei omne iudicium, quia vivificat quos vult. Neque ademptum patri iudicium potest videri, cum ipse non iudicet, quia filii iudicium ex iudicio est paterno. Ab eo enim datum omne iudicium est: sed dati iudicii causa non tacita est; sequitur enim ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem
Chrysostomus
Ne enim audiens quoniam patrem habet auctorem, dissimilitudinem substantiae aestimes, et honoris minorationem, complicat honorem filii patris honori, eumdem ostendens esse honorem patris et filii. Sed numquid patrem eum dicemus? Absit: qui enim patrem eum dicit, non adhuc filium ut patrem honorat, sed totum confundit
Augustinus
Et prius quidem filius videbatur ut servus, pater honorabatur ut Deus. Apparebit filius aequalis patri ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem. Sed quid, si inveniuntur qui patrem honorificant, et non honorificant filium? Non potest fieri; unde sequitur qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Aliud est enim cum tibi commendatur Deus, quia Deus est, et aliud cum tibi commendatur Deus, quia pater est. Cum tibi commendatur Deus creator, tibi commendatur omnipotens, spiritus quidam summus, aeternus, invisibilis, incommutabilis; cum vero tibi, quia pater est, commendatur, nihil tibi aliud quam filius commendatur; quia pater dici non potest, si filium non habet. Sed si forte patrem quidem honorificas tamquam maiorem, filium tamquam minorem, ibi tollis honorem patris, ubi minorem das filio. Quid enim tibi aliud videtur ita sentienti, nisi quia pater aequalem sibi filium generare aut noluit, aut non potuit? Si noluit, invidit; si non potuit, defecit. Vel aliter. Quod dicitur ut omnes honorificent filium sicut honorificant patrem, redditum est resurrectioni animarum, quam sic operatur filius sicut pater; sed propter resurrectionem corporum subditur qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Non dixit sic: honoratur enim homo Christus, sed non sicut pater Deus. Sed dicit aliquis: missus est filius, et maior est pater, quia misit. Recede a carne: missionem audi, non separationem. Res humanae fallunt homines, res divinae purgant; quamquam et ipsae res humanae dicant contra se testimonium; velut si quis uxorem velit petere, et per se non possit, amicum maiorem mittit qui eam petat. Et tamen attende quam sit aliud in rebus humanis: numquid enim homo pergit cum eo quem mittit? Pater autem qui misit filium, non recessit a filio, cum dicat: non sum solus, quia pater mecum est
Augustinus de Trin
Non autem eo ipso quod de patre natus est, missus dicitur filius; sed vel eo quod apparuit huic mundo, verbum caro factum; unde dicit: a patre exivi, et veni in hunc mundum: vel eo quod ex tempore cuiusdam mente percipitur, sicut dictum est. Mitte illam, ut mecum sit, et mecum laboret
Hilarius
Conclusa igitur sunt omnia adversum haeretici furoris ingenia. Filius est, quia a se nil facit: Deus est, quia quaecumque pater facit, et ipse eadem facit; unum sunt, quia exaequantur in honore: non est pater ipse, quia missus est
5:24
La Glossa
Having said that the Son quickeneth whom He will, He next shews that we attain to life through the Son: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxii. s. 2
If in hearing and believing is eternal life, how much more in understanding? But the step to our piety is faith, the fruit of faith, understanding. It is not, Believeth on Me, but on Him that sent Me. Why is one to hear His word, and believe another? Is it not that He means to say, His word is in Me? And what is, Heareth My word, but heareth Me? And it is, Believeth on Him that sent Me; as to say, He that believeth on Him, believeth on His Word, i. e. on Me, because I am the Word of the Father.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxix. 2
Or, He did not say, He that heareth My words, and believeth on Me; as they would have thought this empty boasting and arrogance. To say, Believeth on Him that sent Me, was a better way of making His discourse acceptable. To this end He says two things: one, that he who hears Him, believes on the Father; the other, that he who hears and believes shall not come into condemnation.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxii. s. 4. et sq.
But who is this favoured Person? Will there be any one better than the Apostle Paul, who says, We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ? (1 Cor. 6) Now judgment sometimes means punishment, sometimes trial. In the sense of trial, we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ: in the sense of condemnation we read, some shall not come into judgment; i. e. shall not be condemned. It follows, but is passed from death into life: not, is now passing, but hath passed from the death of unbelief, into the life of faith, from the death of sin, unto the life of righteousness. Or, it is so said perhaps, to prevent our supposing that faith would save us from bodily death, that penalty which we must pay for Adam’s transgression. He, in whom we all then were, heard the divine sentence, Thou shall surely die; (Gen. 2) nor can we evade it. But when we have suffered the death of the old man, we shall receive the life of the new, and by death make a passage to life. But to what life? (Tr. xix.). To life everlasting: the dead shall rise again at the end of the world, and enter into everlasting life. (Tr. xxii.). For this life does not deserve the name of life; only that life is true which is eternal.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Verb. Dom. Serm. lxiv
We see the lovers of this present transitory life so intent on its welfare, that when in danger of death, they will take any means to delay its approach, though they can not hope to drive it off altogether. If so much care and labour then is spent on gaining a little additional length of life, how ought we to strive after life eternal? And if they are thought wise, who endeavour in every way to put off death, though they can live but a few days longer; how foolish are they who so live, as to lose the eternal day?
Il testo latino
Glossa
Quia dixerat quod filius quos vult vivificat, consequenter ostendit qualiter per filium perveniatur ad vitam, dicens amen dico vobis, quia qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quandoquidem in audiendo et credendo vita aeterna est, multo magis in intelligendo. Sed gradus pietatis est fides, fidei fructus intellectus. Et non dixit: mihi; sed credit ei qui misit me. Quare verbum audit tuum, et credit alteri? Quid voluit dicere nisi quia verbum eius est in me? Et quid est audit verbum meum, nisi audit me? Credit autem ei qui misit me: quia cum illi credit, verbo eius credit, mihi credit, quia verbum patris ego sum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel non dixit: qui audit sermones meos, et credit mihi: aestimassent enim hoc esse tumorem et gloriationem verborum superfluam. Dicens autem credit ei qui misit me, susceptibilem faciebat suum sermonem. Ex duobus enim suum sermonem susceptibilem facit: et in hoc quod patri creditur ab eo qui ipsum audit, et in hoc quod multis bonis potietur; unde sequitur et in iudicium non venit
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sed quis est hic? Erit quisquam Paulo apostolo melior, qui ait: oportet nos exhiberi omnes ante tribunal Christi? Aliquando ergo iudicium poena dicitur, aliquando iudicium discretio dicitur. Ergo secundum iudicium discretionis oportet nos omnes exhiberi ante tribunal Christi; secundum iudicium damnationis hic dicitur in iudicium non venit; idest, non venit in damnationem. Sequitur sed transit a morte in vitam. Non nunc transit, sed iam transiit a morte infidelitatis ad vitam fidei, a morte iniquitatis ad vitam iustitiae. Vel aliter. Ne putares credendo te non moriturum secundum carnem, scias te mortem, quam debes supplicio Adam, persoluturum. Accepit enim ille, in quo tunc omnes fuimus: morte morieris nec potes evadere divinam sententiam. Sed cum persolveris mortem veteris hominis, suscipies vitam novi hominis, et transitum facies de morte ad vitam. Ad quam vitam? Ad aeternam: resurrecturi enim in fine saeculi, mortui in vitam aeternam transibunt: vita enim ista nec vita nominanda est, quia non est vera vita nisi quae est aeterna
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Videmus autem homines amatores praesentis vitae temporalis ac finiendae, sic pro illa laborare ut quando veniat mortis metus, quidquid possunt faciant, non ut auferant, sed ut differant mortem. Si ergo tanto labore, tanta cura agitur ut aliquantulum plus vivatur, quomodo agendum est ut semper vivatur? Et si prudentes dicuntur qui omnibus modis agunt ut differant mortem et vivant paucos dies, quam stulti sunt qui sic vivunt ut perdant aeternum diem?
5:25
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxiii. s. 14
Some one might ask thee, The Father quickeneth him who believes on Him; but what of thee? dost thou not quicken? Observe thou that the Son also quickens whom He will: Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxix. 2
After, The hour cometh, He adds, and now is; to let us know that it will not be long before it comes. For as in the future resurrection we shall be roused by hearing His voice speaking to us, so is it now.
Teofilatto † 1107
Here He speaks with a reference to those whom He was about to raise from the dead: viz. the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, the son of the widow, and Lazarus.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxii. s. 12
Or, He means to guard against our thinking, that the being passed from death to life, refers to the future resurrection; its meaning being, that he who believes is passed: and therefore He says, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, (what hour?) and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. He saith not, because they live, they hear; but in consequence of hearing, they come to life again. But what is hearing, but obeying? For they who believe and do according to the true faith, live, and are not dead; whereas those who believe not, or, believing, live a bad life, and have not love, are rather to be accounted dead. And yet that hour is still going on, and will go on, the same hour, to the end of the world: as John says, It is the last hour. (1 John 2:13)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C.
When the dead, i. e. unbelievers, shall hear the voice of the Son of God, i. e. the Gospel: and they that hear, i. e. who obey, shall live, i. e. be justified, and no longer remain in unbelief.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxii. s. 9
But some one will ask, Hath the Son life, whence those who believe will live? Hear His own words: As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. Life is original and absolute in Him, cometh from no other source, dependeth on no other power. He is not as if He were partaker of a life, which is not Himself; but has life in Himself: so as that He Himself is His own life. Hear, O dead soul, the Father, speaking by the Son: arise, that thou mayest receive that life which thou hast not in thyself, and enter into the first resurrection. For this life, which the Father and the Son are, pertaineth to the soul, and is not perceived by the body. The rational mind only discovers the life of wisdom.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
The heretics, driven hard by Scripture proofs, are obliged to attribute to the Son at any rate a likeness, in respect of virtue, to the Father. But they do not admit a likeness of nature, not being able to see that a likeness of virtue, could not arise but from a likeness of nature; as an inferior nature can never attain to the virtue of a higher and better one. And it cannot be denied that the Son of God has the same virtue with the Father, when He says, What things soever (the Father) doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise. But an express mention of the likeness of nature follows: As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. In life are comprehended nature and essence. And the Son, as He hath it, so hath He it given to Him. For the same which is life in both, is essence in both; and the life, i. e. essence, which is begotten from life, is born; though not born unlike the other. For, being life from life, it remains like in nature to its origin.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. xv. de Trin. c. 47. [xxvi.]
The Father must he understand not to have given life to the Son, who was existing without life, but so to have begotten Him, independently of time, that the life which He gave Him in begetting, was coeternal with His own.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vii. de Trin. c. 27, 28
Living born from living, hath the perfection of nativity, without the newness of nature. For there is nothing new implied in generation from living to living, the life not coming at its birth from nothing. And the life which derives its birth from life, must by the unity of nature, and the sacrament of a perfect birth, both be in the living being, and have the being who lives it, in itself. Weak human nature indeed is made up of unequal elements, and brought to life out of inanimate matter; nor does the human offspring live for some time after it is begotten. Neither does it wholly live from life, since much grows up in it insensibly, and decays insensibly. But in the case of God, the whole of what He is, lives: for God is life, and from life, can nothing be but what is living.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxii. s. 10
Given to the Son, then, has the meaning of, begat the Son; for He gave Him the life, by begetting. As He gave Him being, so He gave Him to have life in Himself; so that the Son did not stand in need of life to come to Him from without; but was in Himself the fulness of life, whence others, i. e. believers, received their life. What then is the difference between Them? This, that one gave, the other received.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxix. 3
The likeness is perfect in all but one respect, viz. that, in point of essence, one is the Father, the other the Son.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
For the person of the receiver, is distinct from that of the giver: it being inconceivable that one and the same person, should give to and receive from Himself. He who lives of Himself is one person: He who acknowledges an Author of His life is another.
Il testo latino
Augustinus in Ioannem
Posset aliquis dicere: ex patre aliquis vivificatur cui credit. Quid tu? Non vivificas? Vide quia et filius quos vult vivificat; unde dicit amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Cum autem dicat venit hora, ne forte longum suspiceris tempus, addidit et nunc est. Sicut enim in resurrectione futura vocem audientes praecipientem suscitabimur, ita et nunc fit
Theophylactus
Hoc enim dixit pro his quos a mortuis suscitaturus fuit, scilicet filia archisynagogi, filio viduae et Lazaro
Augustinus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Ne forte quia dixit transit de morte ad vitam, intelligamus hoc in futura resurrectione, ostendere volens quomodo transit qui credit, subiungit amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora. Quae hora? Et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent. Non inquit: quia vivunt, audiunt; sed audiendo reviviscunt. Quid est enim audient, nisi obedient? Qui enim credunt, et secundum veram fidem agunt, vivunt, et mortui non sunt; qui autem vel non credunt, vel credunt male viventes et caritatem non habentes, mortui potius deputandi sunt. Et tamen adhuc agitur hora ista, et usque ad finem saeculi ipsa hora una agitur, ut Ioannes dicit: novissima hora est
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Quando mortui, idest infideles, audient vocem filii Dei, idest Evangelium, et qui audierint, idest qui obedierint, vivent, idest iustificabuntur, et infideles iam non erunt
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sed quaeret aliquis: habet filius vitam unde vivant credentes? Audi ipsum dicentem sicut enim habet pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio habere vitam in semetipso. Vivere quippe suum in illo est, non aliunde, non alienum est; non quasi particeps sit vitae, quae non est quod ipse; sed habet vitam in semetipso, ut ipsa vita sibi sit ipse. Quid tu? Anima mortua eras. Audi patrem per filium: surge, ut in eo recipias vitam, quam non habes in te, qui habet vitam in semetipso; et sic agitur prima resurrectio. Haec enim vita, quod pater et filius est, ad animam pertinet. Non enim vitam illam sapientiae sentit corpus, sed mens rationalis
Hilarius de synodis
Conclusi quidem haeretici Scripturarum auctoritatibus, hoc solum tribuere solent filio, ut patri tantum virtute similis sit; tollunt autem ei similitudinem naturae; non intelligentes, non nisi ex naturae similitudine similitudinem esse virtutis: neque enim aliquando inferior natura superioris a se potiorisque naturae virtutem consequitur. Non autem potest negari quin filius Dei idem possit, cum dixerit quaecumque pater facit, eadem et filius facit similiter. Sed similitudini virtutis, naturae similitudo succedit, cum dixit sicut habet pater vitam in semetipso, ita et filio dedit habere vitam in semetipso. In vita, naturae et essentiae significatio est; quae sicut habetur, ita data esse docetur ad habendum. Quod enim in utroque vita est, id in utroque significatur essentia; et vita quae gignitur ex vita, idest essentia quae de essentia nascitur, dum non dissimilis nascitur, scilicet quia vita ex vita est, tenet in se originis suae indissimilem naturam
Augustinus de Trin
Intelligitur autem pater non sine vita existenti iam filio vitam dedisse; sed ita eum sine tempore genuisse ut vita quam pater filio gignendo dedit, coaeterna sit vitae eius qui dedit
Hilarius de Trin
Quod enim ex vivo vivum natum est, habet nativitatis perfectionem sine novitate naturae: non enim novum est quod ex vivo generatur in vivum, quia nec ex nihilo ad nativitatem vita quaesita est; et vita quae nativitatem sumit ex vita, necesse est per naturae unitatem, et perfectae nativitatis sacramentum, ut in vivente vivat, et in se habeat vitam viventem. Et quidem naturae humanae infirmitas ex disparibus comparatur, et ex inanimatis continetur ad vitam, nec statim in ea quod gignitur vivit, neque totum vivit ex vita, cum in ea multa sint quae sine naturae sensu, cum excreverint, desiccentur. In Deo vero totum quod est vivit: Deus enim vita est, et ex vita non potest quidquam esse nisi vivum
Augustinus in Ioannem
Ergo quod dicitur dedit filio, tale est ac si diceretur: genuit filium: generando enim dedit. Quomodo dedit ut esset, sic dedit ut vita esset in semetipso, ut non aliunde vita indigeret; sed ipse esset plenitudo vitae unde credentes alii viverent, dum viverent. Quid interest? Quia ille dedit, iste accepit
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vides indissimilitudinem, in uno solo differentiam ostendentem; in essendo hunc quidem patrem, illum vero filium
Hilarius de synodis
Discernitur enim persona accipientis et dantis: non enim potest intelligi ipse atque unus a se accepisse qui dederit: quia alius est sibi vivens, alius profitens se vivere per auctorem
5:27
Teofilatto † 1107
The Father granted the Son power not only to give life, but also to execute judgment. And hath given Him authority to execute judgment.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxix. s. 3
But why does He dwell so constantly on these subjects; judgment, resurrection, and life? Because these are the most powerful arguments for bringing men over to the faith, and the most likely ones to prevail with obstinate hearers. For one who is persuaded that he shall rise again, and be called by the Son to account for his misdeeds, will, though he know nothing more than this, be anxious to propitiate his Judge. It follows, Because He is the Son of man, marvel not at this. Paul of Samosata reads it, Hath given Him power to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man. But this connexion has no meaning; for He does not receive the power to judge because He is man, (as, on this supposition, what would prevent all men from being judges:) but because He is the ineffable Son of God; therefore is He Judge. We must read it then, Because He is the Son of man, marvel not at this. As Christ’s hearers thought him a mere man, and as what He asserted of Himself was too high to be true of men, or even angels, or any being short of God Himself, there was a strong obstacle in the way of their believing, which our Lord notices in order to remove it: Marvel not, He says, that He is the Son of man: and then adds the reason why they should not marvel: For the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. And why did He not say, Marvel not that He is the Son of man: because in truth He is the Son of God? Because, having given out that it was He who should raise men from the dead, the resurrection being a strictly divine work, He leaves His hearers to infer that He is God, and the Son of God. Persons in arguing often do this. When they have brought out grounds amply sufficient to prove the conclusion they want, they do not draw that conclusion themselves; but, to make the victory greater, leave the opponent to draw it. In referring above to the resurrection of Lazarus and the rest, he said nothing about judgment, for Lazarus did not rise again for judgment; whereas now, that He is speaking of the general resurrection, He brings in the mention of the judgment: And (they) shall come forth, He says, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. Having said above, He that heareth My words, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life; that men might not suppose from this, that belief was sufficient for salvation, He proceeds to speak of works: And they that have done good,—and they that have done evil.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxii. in Joan. s. 10, 11
Or thus: Inasmuch as the Word was in the beginning with God, the Father gave Him to have life in Himself; but inasmuch as the Word was made flesh of the Virgin Mary, being made man, He became the Son of man: and as the Son of man, He received power to execute judgment at the end of the world; at which time the bodies of the dead shall rise again. The souls then of the dead God raises by Christ the Son of God; their bodies by the same Christ, the Son of man. Wherefore He adds, Because He is the Son of man: for, as to the Son of God, He always had the power.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Ver. Dom. Ser. 64
At the judgment will appear the form of man, that form will judge, which was judged; He will sit a Judge Who stood before the judge; He will condemn the guilty, Who was condemned innocent. For it is proper that the judged should see their Judge. Now the judged consist of both good and bad; so that the form of the servant will be shewn to good and bad alike; the form of God to the good only. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. (Matt. 5:8)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xix. s. 14
None if the founders of false religious sects have been able to deny the resurrection of the soul, but many have denied the resurrection of the body; and, unless Thou, Lord Jesus, hadst declared it, what answer could we give the gainsayer? To set forth this truth, He says, Marvel not at this; (i. e. that He hath given power to the Son of man to execute judgment,) for the hour is coming, &c.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Ver. Dom. Ser. 64
He does not add, And now is, here; because this hour would be at the end of the world. Marvel not, i. e. marvel not, men will all be judged by a man. But what men? Not those only, whom He will find alive, For the hour cometh, in which all that are in their graves shall hear His voice.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Sup. Joan. Tr. xix. s. 17, 18
What can be plainer? Men’s bodies are in their graves, not their souls. Above when He said, The hour cometh, and added, and now is; He proceeds, When the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. He does not say, All the dead; for by the dead are meant the wicked, and the wicked have not all been brought to obey the Gospel. But in the end of the world all that are in their graves shall hear His voice, and come forth. He does not say, Shall live, as He said above, when He spoke of the eternal and blessed life; which all will not have, who shall come forth from their graves. This judgment was committed to Him because He was the Son of man. But what takes place in this judgment? They that have done good shall go unto the resurrection of life, i. e. to live with the Angels of God; they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment. Judgment here meaning damnation.
Il testo latino
Theophylactus
Non solum pater dedit filio quod vivificet, sed etiam quod iudicium faciat; unde dicit et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Cuius autem gratia circa hoc continue vertitur iudicium, dico et resurrectionem et vitam? Quoniam haec maxime omnium sunt quae possunt difficilem etiam auditorem ad credendum adducere. Qui enim persuasus est quoniam resurget, et filio dabit noxas eorum quae deliquit, etsi nihil aliud viderit, signum hoc suscipiens curret, benignum sibi iudicem faciens. Sequitur quia filius hominis est, nolite mirari hoc. Paulus quidem Samosatenus non ita ait; sed sic dedit ei potestatem iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Sed nullam convenientiam habet hoc dictum ita: non enim propterea suscepit iudicium quia homo est: quia quis prohibet omnes homines esse iudices? Sed quia ineffabilis Dei filius est, propterea et iudex est. Ita igitur legendum: quia filius hominis est, nolite mirari hoc: quia enim videbatur audientibus obstare his quae dicebantur: quoniam nihil plus aestimabant esse Christum quam purum hominem; quae vero dicebantur erant maiora quam secundum hominem, et etiam quam secundum Angelum, et erant solius Dei: ideo hanc opinionem solvens, dixit: ne miremini quia filius hominis est: et subdit causam quare non sit mirandum, dicens quia venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Et cuius gratia non dixit: ne miremini, quia filius hominis est: etenim et ipse filius Dei est? Si resurrectionem posuit, quasi scilicet opus dicens quod Dei proprium erat, dat audientibus ex eo syllogizare de reliquo, quoniam Deus erat, et Dei filius. Etenim qui argumenta complicant, cum partes ponentes nobiliter demonstraverint quod quaeritur, multoties non inducunt ipsi conclusionem, sed clariorem facientes victoriam, dimittunt illi qui contradicit, ut pro eis sententiam ferat. Igitur eius quidem quae secundum Lazarum resurrectionis supra reminiscens, de iudicio tacuit: non enim propter iudicium surrexit Lazarus: universalem vero resurrectionem inducens, iudicium posuit; unde sequitur et procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae; qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii. Quia enim supra dixerat: qui audit sermonem meum et credit ei qui misit me, in iudicium non venit, ut non aestimet quis quod credere sufficit ad salutem, adiecit haec et de vita, dum dicit et qui bona egerunt (...) et qui mala egerunt
Augustinus
Vel aliter. Inquantum erat verbum in principio apud Deum, dedit ei vitam habere in semetipso; sed quia verbum caro factum est ex virgine Maria, homo factus filius hominis est; et quia filius hominis est, accepit potestatem iudicium facere, quod scilicet erit in fine saeculi, et ibi erit resurrectio corporum mortuorum. Animas ergo suscitat Deus per Christum filium Dei, corpora suscitat per eumdem filium hominis; unde additur quia filius hominis est: nam secundum quod Dei filius est, semper habuit
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Ad iudicium enim forma hominis ventura est; forma illa iudicabit quae iudicata est: sedebit iudex qui stabat sub iudice, damnabit vero reos qui factus est falso reus. Rectum enim erat ut iudicandi viderent iudicem: iudicandi autem erant boni et mali: restabat ut in iudicio forma servi et bonis et malis ostenderetur, forma Dei solis bonis servaretur. Beati enim mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt
Augustinus in Ioannem
Omnes autem qui instituerunt alicuius etiam falsae religionis sectam, negare resurrectionem mentium non potuerunt; sed multi carnis resurrectionem negaverunt; et nisi tu, domine Iesu, dixeris eam, quid opponemus contradictoribus? Ad ipsam igitur ostendendam subdit nolite mirari hoc, scilicet quod dedit potestatem filio hominis iudicium faciendi, quia venit hora
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Hic non addit et nunc est, quia ista hora in fine saeculi erit. Nolite, inquam, mirari, quia dixit: oportet homines ab homine iudicari; sed quos homines? Non solum quos inveniet vivos; unde sequitur quia venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quid evidentius? Corpora sunt in monumentis, non animae. Superius etiam cum diceret venit hora, et adderet et nunc est, subiecit quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei. Non dixit: omnes mortui: mortuos enim iniquos voluit intelligi; sed non omnes iniqui obediunt Evangelio; at vero in fine omnes qui sunt in monumentis audient vocem eius, et procedent. Noluit dicere: et vivent, quod supra dixit, ubi vitam aeternam intelligi voluit et beatam, quam non omnes habebunt qui de monumentis procedent. Accepisti certe potestatem iudicandi, quia filius hominis es. Resurgent corpora; de ipso iudicio dic aliquid, et hoc audite qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae, vivere scilicet cum Angelis Dei; qui male egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii. Hic iudicium pro poena posuit
5:30
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xix. s. 19
We were about to ask Christ, Thou wilt judge, and the Father not judge: wilt not Thou then judge according to the Father? He anticipates us by saying, I can of Mine own Self do nothing.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxix. 4
That is, nothing that is a departure from, or that is unlike to, what the Father wishes, shall ye see done by Me, but as I hear, I judge. He is only shewing that it was impossible He should ever wish any thing but what the Father wished. I judge, His meaning is, as if it were My Father that judged.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxiii. s. 15
When He spoke of the resurrection of the soul, He did not say, Hear, but, See. (v. 19) Hear implies a command issuing from the Father. He speaks as man, who is inferior to the Father.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Serm. contr. Arrian. c. 9. [xiv.]
As I hear, I judge, is said with reference either to His human subordination, as the Son of man, or to that immutable and simple nature of the Sonship derived from the Father; in which nature hearing and seeing is identical with being. (ut sup. c. xvii.). Wherefore as He hears, He judges. The Word is begotten one with the Father, and therefore judges according to truth. (c. xviii). It follows, And My judgment is just, because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent Me. This is intended to take us back to that man (sc. Adam.) who, by seeking his own will, not the will of Him who made him, did not judge himself justly, but had a just judgment pronounced upon him. He did not believe that, by doing his own will, not God’s, he should die. So he did his own will, and died; because the judgment of God is just, which judgment the Son of God executes, by not seeking His own will, i. e. His will as being the Son of man. Not that He has no will in judging, but His will is not His own in such sense, as to be different from the Father’s.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xix. 19.
I seek not then Mine own will, i. e. the will of the Son of man, in opposition to God: for men do their own will, not God’s, when, to do what they wish, they violate God’s commands. But when they so do what they wish, as at the same time to follow the will of God, they do not their own will. Or, I seek not Mine own will: i. e. because I am not of myself, but of the Father.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxxix. 4
He shews that the Father’s will is not a different one from His own, but one and the same, as a ground of defence. Nor marvel if being hitherto thought no more than a mere man, He defends Himself in a somewhat human way, and shews his judgment to be just on the same ground which any other person would have taken; viz. that one who has his own ends in view, may incur suspicion of injustice, but that one who has not cannot.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xxi
The only Son says, I seek not Mine own will: and yet men wish to do their own will. Let us do the will of the Father, Christ, and Holy Ghost: for these have one will, power, and majesty.
Il testo latino
Augustinus in Ioannem
Dicturi eramus Christo: tu iudicabis, et pater non iudicabit; nonne ergo secundum patrem iudicabis? Et ideo adiecit non possum ego a me facere quidquam
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Hoc est, non extraneum neque dissimile his quae vult pater, a me fieri videbitis; sed sicut audio, iudico: in quo nihil aliud ostendit quam quoniam impossibile est eum aliquid aliud velle quam quod pater vult: hoc est, ita iudico ac si ipse pater esset qui iudicaret
Augustinus in Ioannem
Cum ageretur de resurrectione animarum, non dicebat audio, sed video. Audio enim nunc dicit, tamquam praecipientis patris imperium. Iam ergo sicut homo loquitur, quo maior est pater
Augustinus contra Arianos
Vel aliter. Dicit filius sicut audio iudico, sive ex humana subiectione, quia filius hominis est, sive secundum illam incommutabilem simplicemque naturam quae sic est filii, ut tamen ei de patre sit: in qua natura non est aliud audire, aliud videre, aliud esse. Unde ab illo est ei audire, et videre a quo illi est ipsum esse. Et ideo sicut audit iudicat: quia sicut genitum est verbum, ut idem verbum sit veritas, ita secundum veritatem iudicat. Sequitur et iudicium meum iustum est: quia non quaero voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me patris. Hoc enim dicens, ad illum hominem voluit referre intentionem nostram qui voluntatem suam quaerendo, non eius a quo factus est, non habuit iustum iudicium de seipso: sed iustum iudicium habitum est de ipso. Ipse quippe faciens voluntatem suam, non Dei, moriturum se esse non credidit; sed hoc iudicium eius iustum non fuit. Denique fecit, et mortuus est: quia iudicium Dei iustum est, quod iudicium facit Dei filius, non quaerendo voluntatem suam, cum sit etiam hominis filius: non quia ipsius in iudicando nulla voluntas est, sed quia non ita est voluntas eius propria ut sit a voluntate patris aliena
Augustinus in Ioannem
Non ego quaero voluntatem meam propriam, idest filii hominis, quae resistat Deo: faciunt enim homines voluntatem suam, non Dei, quando faciunt quod volunt, non quod iubet Deus. Quando autem ita faciunt quod volunt, ut tamen sequantur voluntatem Dei, non faciunt voluntatem suam. Vel ideo dicit filius non quaero voluntatem meam: quia Christus non est de se, sed de patre suo est
Chrysostomus
Ostendit enim non aliam esse patris voluntatem praeter suam, sed unam utriusque. Si vero humanius hoc loquitur, ne mireris: hominem enim purum adhuc eum aestimabant. Inde igitur suum iudicium iustum esse dixit, unde quilibet alius excusans dixisset; qui enim sua vult statuere, in suspicionem deveniet de corruptione iustitiae; qui vero non suis innititur, quam occasionem habebit ut iniusta iudicet?
Augustinus in Ioannem
Filius unicus dicit non quaero voluntatem meam: et homines volunt facere voluntatem suam. Faciamus ergo voluntatem patris, Christi, et spiritus sancti: quia horum una voluntas, una potestas, una maiestas est
5:31
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xl. 1
He now brings proof of those high declarations respecting Himself. He answers an objection: If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. These are Christ’s own words. But does not Christ in many places bear witness of Himself? And if all this is false, where is our hope of salvation? Whence shall we obtain truth, when the Truth Itself says, My witness is not true. We must believe then that true, here, is said, not with reference to the intrinsic value of His testimony, but to their suspicions; for the Jews might say, We do not believe Thee, because no one who bears witness to himself is to be depended on. In answer then, he puts forth three clear and irrefragable proofs, three witnesses as it were, to the truth of what He had said; the works which He had done, the testimony of the Father, and the preaching of John: putting the least of these foremost, i. e. the preaching of John: There is another that beareth witness of Me: and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of Me is true.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Verb. Dom. s. 43
He knew Himself that His witness of Himself was true, but in compassion to the weak and unbelieving, the Sun sought for candles, that their weak sight might not be dazzled by His full blaze. And therefore John was brought forward to give his testimony to the truth. Not that there is such testimony really, for whatever witnesses bear witness to Him, it is really He who bears witness to Himself; as it is His dwelling in the witnesses, which moves them so to give their witness to the truth.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Or thus; Christ, being both God and man, He shews the proper existence of both, by sometimes speaking according to the nature he took from man, sometimes according to the majesty of the Godhead. If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true: this is to be understood of His humanity; the sense being, If I, a man, bear witness of Myself, i. e. without God, My witness is not true: and then follows, There is another that beareth witness of Me. The Father bore witness of Christ, by the voice which was heard at the baptism, and at the transfiguration on the mount. And I know that His witness is true; because He is the God of truth. How then can His witness be otherwise than true?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xl. 2
But according to the former interpretation, they might say to Him, If Thy witness is not true, how sayest Thou, I know that the witness of John is true? But His answer meets the objection: Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness of the truth: as if to say: Ye would not have sent to John, if ye had not thought him worthy of credit. And what is more remarkable, they did send to him, not to ask Him about Christ, but about himself. For they who were sent out did not say, What sayest thou of Christ? but, Who art thou? what sayest thou of thyself? (c. 1:22) In so great admiration did they hold him.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
But he bore witness not to himself, but to the truth: as the friend of the truth, he bore witness to the truth, i. e. Christ. Our Lord, on His part, does not reject the witness of John, as not being necessary, but shews only that men ought not to give such attention to John as to forget that Christ’s witness was all that was necessary to Himself. But I receive not, He says, testimony from men.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
Because I do not want it. John, though he bore witness, did it not that Christ might increase, but that men might be brought to the knowledge of Him.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xl. 2
Even the witness of John was the witness of God: for what he said, God taught him. But to anticipate their asking how it appeared that God taught John, as if the Jews had objected that John’s witness might not be true, our Lord anticipates them by saying, “Ye sought him yourselves to enquire of him; that is why I use his testimony, for I need it not.” He adds, But these things I say that ye might be saved. As if He said, I being God, needed not this human kind of testimony. But, since ye attend more to him, and think him more worthy of credit than any one else, while ye do not believe me, though I work miracles; for this cause I remind you of his testimony. But had they not received John’s testimony? Before they have time to ask this, He answers it: He was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. He says this to shew, how lightly they had held by John, and how soon they had left him, thus preventing him from leading them to Christ. He calls him a candle, because John had not his light from himself, but from the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
John was a candle lighted by Christ, the Light, burning with faith and love, shining in word and deed. He was sent before, to confound the enemies of Christ, according to the Psalm, I have ordained a lantern for Mine Anointed; as for His enemies, I shall clothe them with shamem. (Ps. 131)
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xl. 2
I therefore direct you to John, not because I want his testimony, but that ye may be saved: for I have greater witness than that of John, i. e. that of my works; The works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
That He enlightens the blind, that He opens the deaf ear, looses the mouth of the dumb, casts out devils, raises the dead; these works bear witness of Christ.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. vi. de Trin. c. 27
The Only-begotten God shews Himself to be the Son, on the testimony not of man only, but of His own power. The works which He does, bear witness to His being sent from the Father. Therefore the obedience of the Son and the authority of the Father are set forth in Him who was sent. But the testimony of works not being sufficient evidence, it follows, And the Father Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. Open the Evangelic volumes, and examine their whole range: no testimony of the Father to the Son is given in any of the books, other than that He is the Son. So what a calumny is it in men now saying that this is only a name of adoption: thus making God a liar, and names unmeaning.
san Beda † 735 d.C. v. Joan.
By His mission we must understand His incarnation. Lastly, He shews that God is incorporeal, and cannot be seen by the bodily eye: Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
The Jews might say, We heard the voice of the Lord at Sinai, and saw Him under the appearance of fire. If God then bears witness of Thee, we should know His voice. To which He replies, I have the witness of the Father, though ye understand it not; because ye never heard His voice, or saw His shape.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xl. 3
How then says Moses, Ask—whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is: did ever people hear the voice of God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard and seen? (Deut. 4:32, 33) Isaiah too, and many others, are said to have seen Him. So what does Christ mean here? He means to impress upon them the philosophical doctrine, that God has neither voice, or appearance, or shape; but is superior to such modes of speaking of Him. For as in saying, Ye have never heard His voice, He does not mean to say that He has a voice, only not an audible one to them; so when He says, Nor have even His shape, no tangible, sensible, or visible shape is implied to belong to God: but all such mode of speaking is pronounced inapplicable to God.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
For it is not by the carnal ear, but by the spiritual understanding, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, that God is heard. And they did not hear the spiritual voice, because they did not love or obey Him, nor saw they His shape; inasmuch as that is not to be seen by the outward eye, but by faith and love.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xl. 3
But it was impossible for them to declare that they had received, and obeyed God’s commands: and therefore He adds, Ye have not His word abiding in you; i. e. the commandments, the law, and the prophets; though God instituted them, ye have them not. For if the Scriptures every where tell you to believe on Me, and ye believe not, it is manifest that His word is gone from you: For whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Or thus; they cannot have abiding in them the Word which was in the beginning, who came not to keep in mind, or fulfil in practice, that word of God which they hear. Having mentioned the testimonies of John, and the Father, and of His works, He adds now that of the Mosaic Law: Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of Me: as if He said, Ye think ye have eternal life in the Scriptures, and reject Me as being opposed to Moses: but you will find that Moses himself testifies to My being God, if you search the Scripture carefully. All Scripture indeed bears witness of Christ, whether by its types, or by prophets, or by the ministering of Angels. But the Jews did not believe these intimations of Christ, and therefore could not obtain eternal life: Ye will not come to Me, that ye may have life; meaning, The Scriptures bear witness of Me, but ye will not come to Me notwithstanding, i. e. ye will not believe on Me, and seek for salvation at My hands.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xl. 3
Or the connection may be given thus. They might say to Him, How, if we have never heard God’s voice, has God borne witness to you? So He says, Search the Scriptures; meaning that God had borne witness of Him by the Scriptures. He had borne witness indeed at the Jordan, and on the mount. But they did not hear the voice on the mount, and did not attend to it at the Jordan. Wherefore He sends them to the Scriptures, when they would also find the Father’s testimony. (Hom. xli. 1). He did not send them however to the Scriptures simply to read them, but to examine them attentively, because Scripture ever threw a shade over its own meaning, and did not display it on the surface. The treasure was, as it were, hidden from their eye. He does not say, For in them ye have eternal life, but, For in them ye think ye have eternal life; meaning that they did not reap much fruit from the Scriptures, thinking, as they did, that they should be saved by the mere reading of them, without faith. For which reason He adds, Ye will not come to Me; i. e. ye will not believe on Me.
san Beda † 735 d.C. in v. Joan.
That coming is put for believing we know, Come unto Him, and be lightened. He adds, That ye might have life; (Ps. 33) For, if the soul which sinneth dies, they were dead in soul and mind. And therefore He promises the life of the soul, i. e. eternal happiness.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia Christus magna de se enuntiaverat, quorum demonstratio non erat dicta, ad confirmationem eorum quae dicta sunt, oppositionem eorum inducit, dicens si ego testimonium perhibeo de me, testimonium meum non est verum. Quis autem non statim turbabitur, Christum audiens hoc dicentem? Etenim in multis locis apparet sibi ipsi testatus. Si igitur omnia haec falsa sunt, quae nobis erit spes salutis? Unde veritatem inveniemus, cum ipsa veritas dicat testimonium meum non est verum? Hoc igitur quod dicit non est verum, non quantum ad dignitatem suam, sed quantum ad illorum suspicionem loquebatur. Poterant enim ei Iudaei subinferre: quoniam tibi non credimus: nullus enim unquam sibi testans dignus est fide. Deinde post oppositionem alias dat responsiones manifestas et irrefragabiles, tres inducens testes eorum quae dicta sunt: opera quae ab ipso sunt facta, patris testimonium, et Ioannis praedicationem: et ponit priorem minorem, eam scilicet quae Ioannis; unde dicit alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me; et scio quoniam verum est testimonium eius quod perhibet de me
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Noverat enim ipse verum esse de se testimonium suum; sed propter infirmos et propter incredulos quaerebat sol lucernas: fulgorem quippe solis lippitudo eorum ferre non poterat; ideo quaesitus est Ioannes qui testimonium perhiberet veritati. Martyres nonne testes sunt Christi, ut testimonium perhibeant veritati? Sed si diligentius inspicimus, quando martyres perhibent illi testimonium, ipse sibi perhibet testimonium; ipse enim habitat in martyribus, ut perhibeant testimonium veritati
Alcuinus
Vel aliter. Quia Christus Deus erat et homo, utriusque naturae proprietatem ostendit: aliquando loquens secundum hoc quod ex hominibus assumpsit, aliquando secundum maiestatem divinitatis. Quod ergo ait si ego testimonium perhibeo de me ipso, testimonium meum non est verum, ex parte humanitatis est accipiendum; et est sensus: si ego homo de me perhibeo testimonium, scilicet absque Deo, testimonium meum non est verum; unde sequitur alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me. Pater enim testimonium perhibet de Christo, quia in Baptismo vox patris audita est, et in monte transfigurato Christo. Sequitur et scio quia verum est testimonium eius. Deus enim veritas est: ergo testimonium veritatis quid aliud potest esse quam verum?
Chrysostomus
Sed secundum priorem intellectum possent illi dicere: si non est verum testimonium tuum, quomodo dicis: quoniam novi quod est verum testimonium Ioannis? Unde ad eorum suspicionem respondet dicens vos misistis ad Ioannem, et testimonium perhibuit veritati; quasi dicat: non misissetis ad Ioannem, si eum dignum fide non opinaremini. Et, quod utique maius est, non miserunt ad eum interrogandum de Christo, sed de seipso. Qui enim missi sunt, non dixerunt: quid dicis de Christo? Sed: tu quis es? (...). Quid dicis de teipso? Ita magnam de homine admirationem habebant
Alcuinus
Ille autem testimonium perhibuit, non sibi, sed veritati; sicut amicus veritatis veritati Christo testimonium perhibuit. Non autem dominus refellit testimonium Ioannis, quod vere necessarium fuit; sed ostendit non ita debere homines in Ioannem intendere ut iam non putent solum Christum sibi esse necessarium; unde subdit ego autem non ab homine testimonium accepi
Beda
Quia non indigeo. Ioannes autem etsi testimonium perhibuit, non tamen ut Christus cresceret, sed ut homines ad ipsius cognitionem promoveret
Chrysostomus
Testimonium etiam Ioannis Dei testimonium erat: ab illo enim discens dixit quod dixit. Sed ne dicant: unde manifestum est quod a Deo didicit quod didicit? Eorum suspicionem correxit, dicens sed hoc dico ut vos salvi sitis, quasi dicat: ego quidem Deus existens, non indigebam huiusmodi testimonio humano: quia vero ei magis attenditis, et eum magis omnibus fide dignum putatis, mihi autem neque miracula facienti credidistis; propter hoc vobis commemoro testimonium illius: ut enim non dicant: quid igitur si ille dixit, nos autem non suscepimus? Ostendit quoniam non acceptaverunt quae ab eo dicta sunt; unde sequitur ille erat lucerna ardens et lucens: vos autem voluistis ad horam exultare in luce eius. Hoc autem quod dicit ad horam, facilitatem credendi ostendit, et quam cito ab eo resilierunt: quod si non fecissent, cito eos ad Iesum manuduxisset. Vocando autem eum lucernam, ostendit quoniam non ex se habebat lumen, sed a spiritus sancti gratia
Alcuinus
Ioannes enim erat lucerna illuminatus a Christo luce, ardens fide et dilectione, lucens verbo et actione: qui praemissus est, ut inimicos Christi confunderet, secundum illud: paravi lucernam Christo meo: inimicos eius induam confusione
Chrysostomus
Ad Ioannem igitur vos duco, non quasi illius indigens testimonio, sed ut vos salvemini: nam habeo maius testimonium Ioanne; et hoc est quod sequitur ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne. Hoc autem est quod est ab operibus; unde sequitur opera enim quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea, ipsa opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, quia misit me pater
Alcuinus
Quod enim caecos illuminat, aures aperit, ora mutorum resolvit, Daemonia fugat, mortuos suscitat: opera haec testimonium perhibent de Christo
Hilarius de Trin
Unigenitus enim Deus, non hominis testimonio tantum, sed etiam virtutis, docet esse se filium: opera enim eius quae facit, testantur eum a patre missum. Itaque filii obedientia et paterna auctoritas docentur in misso. Sed quia opera non sufficiunt in credibilibus ad testimonium, sequitur et qui misit me pater, ipse testimonium perhibet de me. Revolvite evangelica volumina, et omne eorum opus recensete: nullum aliud patris de filio testimonium extat in libris, quam quod hic sit filius suus. Quid infertur hodie calumniae, ut adoptio nominis sit, ut mendax Deus sit, ut nomina inania sint?
Beda in Ioannem
Missio autem incarnatio eius debet intelligi. Denique ostendit quod Deus incorporeus sit, et quod corporalibus et visibilibus oculis videri non possit; unde sequitur neque vocem eius unquam audistis, neque speciem eius vidistis
Alcuinus
Possent enim Iudaei dicere: nos soliti sumus vocem domini audire in Sina, et eum vidimus in specie ignis. Si ergo Deus perhibet testimonium de te, nos intelligeremus vocem domini. Contra hoc dicit: ego habeo testimonium a patre, quamvis non intelligatis: quia vos nunquam audistis vocem eius, neque speciem eius vidistis
Chrysostomus
Quomodo ergo Moyses dicit: si facta est aliquando huiusmodi res, ut audiret populus vocem Dei loquentis de medio ignis, sicut tu audisti et vidisti? Vidisse etiam eum dicuntur Isaias et alii plures. Quid ergo est quod nunc ait Christus? In philosophicum eos inducit dogma, paulatim ostendens quoniam neque vox circa Deum est neque species; sed superior et figuris est et loquelis talibus. Sicut enim dixit neque vocem eius audistis, propter hoc non indicat quod vocem emittat, sed non audibilem; ita dicens neque speciem eius vidistis, non hoc dicit quod speciem sensibilem habeat et visibilem, sed quoniam nihil horum est circa Deum
Alcuinus
Non enim carnalibus auribus, sed spirituali intelligentia per gratiam spiritus sancti audiri potest. Non ergo vocem spiritalem audierant, quoniam eum amare et praeceptis eius obedire nolebant; neque speciem eius viderunt, quia non exterioribus oculis videri potest, sed fide et dilectione
Chrysostomus
Sed neque possibile erat eis dicere quod praecepta eius suscepissent et servarent; ideoque subiungit et verbum eius non habetis in vobis manens, idest praecepta Dei, legem et prophetas: etsi enim ea Deus constituit, sed apud vos non sunt: et si Scripturae ubique docent ut mihi credatis, vos autem non creditis, manifestum est quod sermo eius deficit a vobis. Et propter hoc subdit quia quem misit ille, huic vos non creditis
Alcuinus
Vel aliter verbum quod in principio erat, non habent in se manens qui verbum Dei quod audiunt, et memoria tenere et opere implere contemnunt. Dixerat igitur se habere testimonium a Ioanne, ab operibus, a patre; addit et testimonium a lege quae data est per Moysen, dicens scrutamini Scripturas, in quibus putatis vitam aeternam habere; et illae sunt quae testimonium perhibent de me: quasi dicat: vos in Scripturis putatis vitam aeternam habere, et me quasi contrarium Moysi repudiatis: testimonio ipsius Moysi me esse Deum intelligere potestis, si ipsas Scripturas diligenter investigatis. Omnis enim Scriptura testimonium perhibet de Christo, sive per figuras, sive per prophetas, sive per Angelorum ministeria. Sed his Iudaei de Christo non crediderunt; et ideo vitam aeternam habere non possunt; unde sequitur et non vultis venire ad me, ut vitam habeatis; quasi dicat: Scripturae perhibent testimonium; et tamen per tot testimonia non vultis venire ad me; idest, non vultis mihi credere, et a me quaerere veram salutem
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter potest continuari. Possent illi dicere: qualiter si vocem eius non audivimus, Deus tibi testatus est? Et ideo dicit scrutamini Scripturas, ostendens quod per has testatus est Deus de eo: etenim in Iordane testatus est, et in monte. Sed vocem quidem factam in monte non audierunt, factam autem in Iordane audierunt, sed non attenderunt. Propterea mittit eos ad Scripturas, ostendens quoniam et patris testimonium illic est. Non autem ad lectionem simplicem Scripturarum, sed ad scrutationem exquisitam eos mittebat: quia ea quae de eo dicebantur in Scripturis, desuper obumbrabantur; neque in superficie exprimebantur, sed velut quidam thesaurus recondebantur. Non dicit autem: in quibus habetis vitam aeternam; sed in quibus aestimatis vos habere; ostendens quoniam non capiebant magnum fructum et nobilem ex Scripturis, sola lectione aestimantes se salvari, cum fide essent privati; propter quod subdit et non vultis venire ad me: quia ei credere nolebant
Beda
Quod autem venire pro credere ponatur, Psalmista ostendit dicens: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini. Subdit autem ut vitam habeatis: si enim anima quae peccat moritur, ipsi anima et mente mortui erant. Promittebat ergo illis vitam animae, vel felicitatis aeternae
5:41
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xli. 1
Our Lord having made mention of John, and the witness of God, and His own works, many, who did not see that His motive was to induce them to believe, might suspect Him of a desire for human glory, and therefore He says, I receive not honour from men: i. e. I do not want it. My nature is not such as to want that glory, which cometh from men. For if the Son receives no addition from the light of a candle, much more am not I in want of human glory.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Or, I receive not honour from men: i. e. I seek not human praise; for I came not to receive carnal honour from men, but to give spiritual honour to men. I do not bring forward this testimony then, because I seek my own glory; but because I compassionate your wanderings, and wish to bring you back to the way of truth. Hence what follows, But I know you that ye have not the love of God in you.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xli. 1
As if to say, I said this to prove that it is not from your love of God, that you persecute Me; for He bears witness to Me, by My own works, and by the Scriptures. So that, if ye loved God, as ye rejected Me, thinking Me against God, so now ye would come to Me. But ye do not love Him. And He proves this, not only from what they do now, but from what they will do in time to come: I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. He says plainly, I am come in the Father’s name, that they might never be able to plead ignorance as an excuse
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
As if He said, For this cause came I into the world, that through Me the name of the Father might be glorified; for I attribute all to Him. As then they would not receive Him, Who came to do His Father’s will; they had not the love of God. But Antichrist will come not in the Father’s name, but in his own, to seek, not the Father’s glory, but his own. And the Jews having rejected Christ, it was a fit punishment on them, that they should receive Antichrist, and believe a lie, as they would not believe the Truth.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Verb. Dom. Serm. 45. a med.
Hear John, As ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists. (1 John 2:18) But what dost thou dread in Antichrist, except that he will exalt his own name, and despise the name of the Lord? And what else does he do, who says, “I justify;” or those who say, “Unless we are good, ye must perisho?” Wherefore my life shall depend on Thee, and my salvation shall be fastened to Thee. Shall I so forget my foundation? Is not my rock Christ?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xli. 13.
Here is the crowning proof of their impiety. He says, as it were, If it was the love of God that made you persecute me, you would persecute Antichrist much more: for he does not profess to be sent by the Father, or to come according to His will; but, on the contrary, usurping what does not belong to him, will proclaim himself to be God over all. It is manifest that your persecution of Me is from malice and hatred of God. Then He gives the reason of their unbelief: How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? another proof this, that theirs was not a zeal for God, but a gratification of their own passions.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
How faulty then is the boasting temper, and that eagerness for human praise, which likes to be thought to have what it has not, and would fain be thought to have all that it has, by its own strength. Men of such temper cannot believe; for in their hearts, they are bent solely on gaining praise, and setting themselves up above others.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
The best way of guarding against this sin, is to bring to our consciences the remembrance, that we are dust, and should ascribe all the good that we have not to ourselves, but to God. And we should endeavour always to be such, as we wish to appear to others. Then, as they might ask, Wilt thou accuse us then to the Father? He anticipates this question: Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xli. 2
For I am not come to condemn, but to save. There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom you trust. As He had said of the Scriptures above: In them ye think ye have eternal life. So now of Moses He says, In whom ye trust, always answering them out of their authorities. But they will say, How will he accuse us? What hast Thou to do with Moses, Thou who hast broken the sabbath? So He adds: For had ye believed Moses, ye would perhaps have believed Me, for he wrote of me, This is connected with what was said before. For where evidence that He came from God had been forced upon them by His words, by the voice of John, and the testimony of the Father, it was certain that Moses would condemn them; (alluding to Deut. 13:1.) for he had said, If any one shall come, doing miracles, leading men to God, and foretelling the future with certainty, you must obey him. Christ did all this, and they did not obey Him.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Perhaps, He says, in accommodation to our way of speaking, not because there is really any doubting in God. Moses prophesied of Christ, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up from among your brethren like unto me: Him shall ye hear. (Deut. 18:18)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. cont. Faust. l. xvi. c. 9
But, in fact, the whole that Moses wrote, was written of Christ, i. e. it has reference to Him principally; whether it point to Him by figurative actions, or expression; or set forth His grace and glory. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words.
Teofilatto † 1107
As if He said, He has even written, and has left his books among you, as a constant memento to you, lest you forget His words. And since you believe not his writings, how can ye believe My unwritten words?
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
From this we may infer too, that he who knows the commandments against stealing, and other crimes, and neglects them, will never fulfil the more perfect and refined precepts of the Gospel.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xli. 2
Indeed had they attended to His words, they ought and would have tried to learn from Him, what the things were which Moses had written of Him. But they are silent. For it is the nature of wickedness to defy persuasion. Do what you will, it retains its venom to the last.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia dominus supra meminit et Ioannis, et testimonii Dei, et operum suorum, ut eos ad seipsum attraheret, probabile erat multos suspicari quod haec diceret, gloriam hominum amans; et ideo contra hoc dicit claritatem ab homine non accipio; hoc est, non indigeo. Non enim est mea natura talis ut indigeat quae ab hominibus est gloria. Si enim sol a lucernae lumine non recipit adiectionem, multo magis ego humana gloria non indigeo
Alcuinus
Vel claritatem ab hominibus non accipio; idest, laudem humanam non quaero: non enim veni ut honorem ab hominibus acciperem carnalem, sed honorem hominibus darem spiritualem. Non ergo ideo hoc loquor ut gloriam meam quaeram, sed condoleo vobis errantibus, et volo vos reducere ad viam veritatis; unde dicit sed cognovi vos, quia dilectionem Dei non habetis in vobis
Chrysostomus
Quasi dicat: ideo hoc dixi, ut convincam vos quoniam propter amorem Dei me non persequimini: etenim ipse testatur mihi et per opera et per Scripturas. Oportebat igitur ut sicut me abiciebatis, aestimantes esse Deo contrarium, ita nunc ad me veniretis, si Deum amaretis; sed non amatis. Non autem ab his solum, sed etiam a futuris hoc ostendit, dicens ego veni in nomine patris mei, et non accepistis me. Si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis. Ideo dicit se in nomine patris venisse, ut omnem abscindat occasionem indevotionis
Alcuinus
Ac si dicat: ideo veni in mundum ut per me glorificetur nomen patris, quia patri omnia attribuo. Dilectionem ergo Dei non habebant, quia nolebant eum recipere qui patris venerat facere voluntatem. Antichristus autem veniet in nomine non patris, sed suo, ut non gloriam patris, sed suam quaerat. Quia enim Iudaei noluerunt recipere Christum, poena peccati huius congruet ut recipiant Antichristum; ut qui nolunt credere veritati, credant mendacio
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Sed audiamus et Ioannem: audisti quia Antichristus venit, et nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt. Quid autem expavescit in Antichristo, nisi quia nomen suum honoraturus est et nomen domini contempturus? Quid aliud facit qui dicit: ego iustifico, nisi boni fuerimus, peristis? Ergo vita mea ex te pendebit, et salus mea ex te religabitur. Ita ne oblitus sim fundamentum meum? Nonne petra erat Christus?
Chrysostomus
Sic igitur irrefragabilem indevotionis eorum ponit demonstrationem; quasi dicat: si ut amantes Deum me persequeremini, multo magis in Antichristo hoc vos facere oporteret: ille enim non dicit se a patre missum, neque secundum voluntatem illius venire; sed e contrario ea quae sibi non congruunt rapiens, super omnia Deum se esse dicet. Manifestum est igitur quod livoris persecutio erat qua Christum persequebantur, et odii in Deum. Deinde causam eorum infidelitatis ponit, dicens quomodo vos potestis credere qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis, et gloriam quae a solo Deo est non quaeritis? Hinc enim rursus ostendit quoniam non quae Dei sunt intendebant, sed propriam volebant passionem defendere
Alcuinus
Magnum igitur vitium est iactantia, et humanae laudis ambitio, quae de se vult aestimari quod de se non habet. Ideo enim non possunt credere, quia superba mens eorum laudari desiderat, et se super alios efferre
Beda
Hoc autem vitium melius caveri non potest, quam ut ad conscientias nostras redeamus, nosque pulverem esse consideremus; et si quid nobis boni inesse deprehendimus, non nobis, sed Deo ascribamus. Instruimur etiam ut semper nos tales exhibeamus quales ab aliis videri desideramus. Denique possent ipsi respondere: ergo accusabis nos apud patrem? Et ideo eorum quaestionem praeveniens subdit nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sim vos apud patrem
Chrysostomus
Quia scilicet non veni damnare, sed salvare. Est qui accusat vos, Moyses, in quo vos speratis. Sicut enim de Scripturis supra dixit in quibus putatis vitam aeternam habere, ita et de Moyse ait in quo vos speratis, ex propriis eos ubique capiens. Sed dicent: qualiter nos ille accusabit? Quid tibi et Moysi commune, qui sabbatum solvisti? Et ideo subdit si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit. Haec ex superioribus constitutionem habent: cum enim in confessionem deductum sit quod a Deo veni, ab operibus, a voce Ioannis, a patris testimonio, manifestum est quod Moyses eos accusabit; etenim dixit: si quis venerit signa faciens et ad Deum ducens, et futura praedicens cum veritate, oportet ei obedire. Christus autem haec omnia fecit; nec ei crediderunt
Alcuinus
forsitan autem more nostro posuit, non quia dubitatio sit in Deo. Scripsit autem de Christo Moyses dicens: prophetam vobis suscitabit Deus de fratribus vestris: tamquam me ipsum audietis
Augustinus contra Faustum
Sed et omne quod scripsit Moyses, de Christo est, idest, ad Christum omnino pertinet, sive quod eum figuris rerum vel gestarum vel dictarum praenuntiet, sive quod eius gratiam, gloriamque commendet. Sequitur si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis?
Theophylactus
Quasi dicat: ipse etiam scripsit, et apud vos libros reliquit, ut si forte oblivisceremini, de facili recordari possitis; et cum scriptis non credidistis, quomodo verbis meis non scriptis credetis?
Alcuinus
Ex hoc etiam colligitur, quia qui legis praecepta, quae rapinam et alia mala prohibent, implere negligunt, et dicta Evangelii, quae perfectiora et subtiliora sunt, implere non valent
Chrysostomus
Et quidem si attenderent his quae dicebantur, oportebat quaerere, et ab eo discere quae sunt illa quae Moyses de eo scripsit; sed silent: talis enim est nequitia, ut quicquid dicat aliquis vel faciat, maneat proprium venenum conservans
5:1
1. POST HAEC ERAT DIES FESTUS JUDAEORUM, ET ASCENDIT JESUS HIEROSOLYMAM. — Nota: Joannes hic multa Christi in Galilaea gesta omittit; scilicet plurima miracula, vocationem Apostolorum, sermonem Christi in monte et caetera quae narrat Matthaeus a cap. iv usque ad xii; nam quod cap. xii narrat Matthaeus de discipulis Christi evellentibus spicas, contigit post sequens festum, uti mox patebit. Ita Jansenius, Toletus, Franciscus Lucas et alii. Dies festus. — S. Chrysostomus, Cyrillus, Theophylactus, Euthymius et Maldonatus, putant fuisse Pentecosten. Melius S. Irenaeus, lib. II, cap. xxxix; Rupertus, Jansenius, Toletus et Franciscus Lucas censent fuisse Pascha, idque probatur primo, quia, cap. iv, vers. 35, dixit Jesus adhuc quatuor menses restare usque ad messem; ergo tunc necdum erat Pascha, sed festum grande primo futurum erat Pascha: igitur illud hic intelligitur; nam in Judaea messis fit inter Pascha et Pentecosten. Secundo, quia Pascha erat festum festorum. Ergo cum absolute dicitur: « Erat dies festus, » intelligit Pascha; hoc enim per antonomasiam et kat' exochen vocatur festum. Tertio, quia Christus post baptismum suum tres annos cum dimidio praedicavit, ut habet communis Doctorum sententia: hinc oportet in Evangeliis quatuor inveniri Paschata hujus temporis, sive horum trium annorum cum medio: primum scilicet Pascha expressit Joannes, ii, 13; secundum hic; tertium, cap. vi, 4; quartum paulo ante mortem, cap. xix, 14: alioqui si hic dies festus non fuit Pascha, tria duntaxat Christi Paschata ex Joanne colligere poteris. Quarto, quia, ut paulo ante dixi, Christus non potuit tam multa gerere a Pascha usque ad Pentecosten, quod est spatium septem hebdomadarum duntaxat, omnia scilicet quae narravit Joannes a cap. ii, 39, huc usque, et Matthaeus a cap. iv usque ad cap. xii; ergo anterius illa gesta sunt, scilicet a januario usque ad Pascha. Hic igitur finiuntur gesta primi anni praedicationis Christi et trium mensium, qui a die 6 januarii, quo ipse a Joanne baptizatus est, fluxere usque ad Pascha, quod in Nisan, sive in martio celebrabant. Finiuntur ergo hic acta Christi a baptismo usque ad secundum Pascha. Vide Chronotaxin quam Evangeliis praeposui.
5:2
2. EST AUTEM HIEROSOLYMIS PROBATICA PISCINA, QUAE COGNOMINATUR HEBRAICE BETHSAIDA, QUINQUE PORTICUS HABENS. — « Probatica, » graeca est vox, idem significans quod pecuaria vel ovina, πρόβατον enim est ovis. Ita dicta fuit haec piscina, tum quia erat juxta portam adjacentem templo, per quam scilicet greges ovium introducebantur immolandi in templo, de qua lib. II Esdrae, cap. III, vers. 1 et 32; tum quia in illa oves quotidie mane et vespere Deo sacrificandae congregabantur et abluebantur. Ita Theophylactus, Beda, Jansenius et S. Hieronymus in Locis Hebr. Piscina, — puta stagnum aquarum, quod pisces continebat, aut certe continere poterat, etiamsi actu non contineret. Unde Graece κολυμβήθρα, id est natatoria, dicitur, quod in ea pisces, quin et homines, natare possent, etiamsi actu non natarent. Ita S. Augustinus, tract. 20. Piscinam hanc exstruxit Salomon pro ministerio templi: unde a Josepho, lib. VI Belli, cap. VI: « Stagnum Salomonis » nuncupatur; in eo enim Nathinaei lavabant victimas quas tradebant sacerdotibus in templo offerendas. Originem hujus piscinae, ex vetusto codice manuscripto, miram recenset Genebrardus, in fine lib. I Chronol., edition. Paris. factae a Sebastiano Nivellio, anno Christi 1600, pag. 174, scilicet eo die quo conceptus est Christus, ingenti terrae motu concussum fuit templum, illoque fontem hunc e terra erupisse, arcana virtute praeditum, ut scabie pecudum elota etiam morbidos quoslibet ibidem ablutos sanaret; atque illum exaruisse, cum ex cedro, palma et oliva ibidem repertis, crux fabricata est, in qua crucifixus fuit Christus. Verum haec fabulosa videntur, et rabbinismum olent; Rabbini enim fabulosi sunt, et fabularum architecti. Minus improbabile est quod ait idem Genebrardus in Notis Chronolog., Beda in cap. II Esdrae, et ex iis Serarius, in lib. II Machab. cap. 1, Quaest. XIV, scilicet probaticam piscinam esse locum illum, in quo Jeremias abscondit ignem sacrum templi, quem post reditum e Babylone requirentes Judaei, pro igne invenerunt aquam crassam, quae a Nehemia effusa in lapides templi rursum versa est in ignem; ideoque rex Persarum, Darius Hystaspis, vel ejus nepos Artaxerces, eo loco, ut ait S. Ambrosius, lib. I Offic., cap. XIV, fecit templum, Graece hieron, id est sacrum, scilicet aedificium, quale erat haec piscina, eamque suis porticibus circumsepsit, ut habet Graecus, lib. II Machab. cap. 1, vers. 24. Verum haec piscina Nehemiae fuit antiquior, et a Salomone ad lotionem pecudum templi erecta; unde et opus Salomonicum a Josepho vocatur, ut dixi; nisi quis dicat piscinam prius quidem fuisse, sed eo tempore quo Jeremias in ea ignem sacrum abscondit, et Nehemias aquam crassam in eo inventam rursum in ignem convertit, accepisse hoc donum curandi quoslibet morbos a Deo; ideoque porticibus, columnis aliisque fabricis a rege Persarum auctam et illustratam fuisse. Verum haec incerta sunt, nec a quopiam veterum tradita. Nonnulli Graeci codices pro piscina habent πύλη, id est porta; sed S. Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, Cyrillus, Euthymius, S. Hieronymus et alii passim legunt κολυμβήθρα, id est natatoria piscina, sive stagnum. Syrus vertit, baptisterium, id est lavacrum. Bethsaida. — Ita legunt codices Romani, et ex Graecis S. Chrysostomus et Cyrillus, idque apposite; « Bethsaida » enim Hebr. idem est quod domus, id est locus (Hebraei enim omnem locum vocant domum) venationis, sive piscationis: beth enim est domus, tsaiid est venatio, quae hic erat piscium, hoc est, piscatio in piscina. Et hoc significat Graecum κολυμβήθρα, id est natatoria, in qua scilicet pisces natare solent, vel possunt; κολυμβᾶν enim est natare. Codices vero Graeci habent Βηθεσδά. Unde S. Hieronymus, in Locis Hebr. legit Bethesda, id est domus effusionis (esda enim est effusio, a Chald. seda, id est effudit), quod in illam aquae pluviae e tectis, atque aliae ex aquaeductibus effunderentur. Porro, Syrus legit beth-chesda, id est domus misericordiae (Hebr. enim chesed est misericordia), eo quod Deus misericordiam suam ibidem declararet in miseros aegros, quos sanabat, sive quod viri probi pauperes aegros ibidem jacentes, suis eleemosynis sublevarent. Porro, Arabicus habet, quae vocatur hebraice Bethsaida, cujus interpretatio est piscina ovium, in qua scilicet, non pisces, sed oves ablutas venabantur et capiebant, ad offerendum eas in templo. QUINQUE PORTICUS HABENS. — Porticus sunt loca superne tecta, inferne aperta ad ambulandum, item ad decumbendum vel quiescendum, ut scilicet aegri in iis quiescerent, tuti a pluvia aeque ac aestu solis, indeque in piscinam vicinam illico exilirent, dum angelus ejus aquam commovebat.
5:3
Unde sequitur: 3. IN HIS JACEBAT MULTITUDO MAGNA LANGUENTIUM (Graece ἀσθενούντων, id est aegrotantium) CAECORUM, CLAUDORUM, ARIDORUM (quibus manus, brachium, pes, vel alia pars corporis exaruerat, ut esset vitae motusque expers et ad usum inepta) EXSPECTANTIUM AQUAE MOTUM. — Nonnus: « Semper spectantes saltum excitatae et motae aquae, ut in aqua omnia sanante dissiparent molestum morbum, gnari illic esse effugium omnium morborum, etsi incurabilium scientiis humanis. » Tropologice Beda: Caeci, ait, sunt scientiae lumine carentes; claudi, qui ad ea quae vident implenda vires non habent; aridi sunt ii qui dilectionis supernae pinguedine carent: hos solus sanare potest Christus vi gratiae suae.
5:4
4. ANGELUS AUTEM DOMINI DESCENDEBAT SECUNDUM TEMPUS IN PISCINAM; ET MOVEBATUR AQUA. ET QUI PRIOR DESCENDISSET IN PISCINAM POST MOTIONEM AQUAE, SANUS FIEBAT A QUACUMQUE DETINEBATUR INFIRMITATE. — « Angelus, » sive Raphael, sive quis alius. Raphael enim, quia praeest mendendis corporibus, vocatur Raphael, id est medicina, vel medicus Dei. Unde Tobiam a caecitate curavit. Secundum tempus, — id est certo quodam tempore a Deo vel ab angelo destinato, sed hominibus incognito. Unde non videtur solidum, quod ait Cyrillus et Tertullianus, lib. De Baptismo, semel in anno duntaxat, scilicet in Pentecoste angelum in piscinam descendisse: sic enim non decubuissent juxta eam aegri, sed domi suae, indeque instante Pentecoste piscinam adiissent. Unde Euthymius: « Dicens, ait, statuto tempore, docuit quod non semper fiebat miraculum, sed certis temporibus, hominibus quidem incognitis, verum frequenter, ut opinor, in anno; propter hoc siquidem decumbebat in porticibus multitudo magna languentium. » MOVEBATUR AQUA. — Graece ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ, id est turbabat aquam. Ita Syrus; Arabicus, movebat aquam. « Motionis sonus, adesse angelos ad sanctificandam aquam significabat, » ait Cyrillus; « Ut esset indicium, quia descenderat angelus, movebatur aqua, » ait S. Ambrosius, lib. De iis qui initiantur myster., cap. 14. ET QUI PRIOR DESCENDISSET IN PISCINAM POST MOTIONEM AQUAE, SANUS FIEBAT, — ut ostenderet quid valeat labor et diligentia, quamque ad Dei beneficia captanda, celeres et agiles esse debeamus. Hinc ad manna colligendum oportebat surgere in aurora; nam orto sole liquescebat, « ut notum esset omnibus, quoniam oportet praevenire solem ad benedictionem tuam, et ad ortum lucis te adorare, » ait Sapient. cap. VI, 28. Vide ibi dicta. Deus enim sua dona vigilantibus et sedulis offert, non tardis et dormitantibus. Sic in stadio ille solus, qui aliis omnibus praecurrit, accipit bravium, I Corinth. cap. IX, 24. Julius Caesar in bellis plurimum valere celeritatem asserebat, ac per illam se tot et tanta perfecisse. Unde illud ejus dictum: « Veni, vidi, vici, » teste Plutarcho in Apophth. Roman. A QUACUMQUE DETINEBATUR INFIRMITATE. — Hinc patet hanc piscinae sanandi vim non fuisse a victimis in ea ablutis, nec a lignis in fundo jacentibus, ex quibus crux Christi sit fabricata, ut aliqui voluere, sed fuisse supernaturalem et miraculosam; nimirum voluit Deus hoc beneficium publicum populo fideli exhibere, sub tempus Christi (nam ante Christum, in veteri Testamento nulla ejus fit mentio), ut Christus aegrum ibidem sanans, ostenderet se esse Deum, qui vim hanc piscinae dedisset, ideoque sine illa aegrum curare posset. Quare videtur donum hoc Deus ab ingratis Judaeis abstulisse, cum ipsi Christum occiderunt; nam nulla deinceps ejus extat memoria. Unde Tertullianus, lib. Contra Judaeos, cap. XIII: « Piscina Bethsaidae, ait, usque ad adventum Christi curando invaletudines ab Israel, desiit a beneficiis deinde ex perseverantia furoris. » Allegorice: voluit Deus ut piscina haec esset index Passionis Christi ejusque baptismi. Sicut enim angelus descendebat in aquam; sic Christus descendit ad Passionem et tormenta, iisque quasi aquis immersus fuit et obrutus: unde sicut piscina rubebat sanguine victimarum, quae in ea abluebantur; sic Christus suo sanguine fuit rubicundus et crucifixus, Isaiae LXIII, 2, ut ejus merito baptismum (unde Syrus pro piscina vertit, baptisterium) instrueret, quo fideles aquis abluti, ab omni infirmitate spiritali curarentur. Ita Tertullianus, lib. De Baptismo cap. V; S. Ambrosius, lib. I De Spiritu Sancto, cap. VII, et S. Chrysostomus hic, quem audi: « Siquidem cum vellet Deus appropinquantis baptismatis fidem nos erudire, non solum pollutiones, sed etiam morbos per aquam expulit: propiores enim veritati imagines atque figurae, illustriores fuere quam vetustiores, » etc. Et Augustinus: « Descendere in aquam turbatam, inquit, hoc est, humiliter credere in Domini passionem. Ibi sanabatur unus, significans unitatem: postea quisquis veniret, non sanabatur, quia quisquis praeter unitatem fuerit, sanari non poterit. » Quaeres, cur post motionem, vel, ut Graece est, turbationem aquae sanabatur is solus qui prior in aquam descendebat? Respondeo: Causa litteralis fuit, ut significaretur hanc vim sanandi non provenire ab aquae natura, sed a motione angeli et a jussu Dei. Porro, motio haec angeli non imprimebat vim aliquam, vel qualitatem physicam, ad sanandum quoslibet morbos; hanc enim nec angelus poterat efficere, nec aqua recipere: motio haec ergo tantum signum erat virtutis, praeparationis et actionis divinae, quae aegrum illum sanatura erat, qui prior diligentia sua se movisset et in aquam descendisset, ibique Dei beneficium et miraculum, illi quasi occurrendo, primus excepisset. Motio haec ergo erat invitatio aegrorum, ad captandam sanitatem in aqua mota. Motio enim angeli excitabat omnes aegros ad se movendum, ut alter alterum praeveniret, essetque primus in aquam descendens. Qua in re magna erat omnium festinatio et turbatio. Apposite vero hoc signum motionis usurpavit angelus, quia virtus aquae dum movetur, acuitur fitque efficax et vivida. Vita enim in motu consistit; mors in quiete et torpore: hinc aquae vivae vocantur illae quae moventur et fluunt, ut sunt fontium et fluminum; mortuae vero quae stant et stagnant, uti sunt lacuum et piscinarum. Adde, instante sanitate, solet aeger turbari; confligit enim natura cum morbo, donec illum superet: quare morbus tunc summas et ultimas sui vires exerit et evomit. Tropologica causa fuit, ut significaretur peccatorem, cum a Deo convertitur et sanatur, prius solere in conscientia variis motibus timoris, pudoris, spei agitari et turbari; hisce enim Deus eum ad paenitentiam et contritionem commovet, ut per eam sanetur, uti docet Concilium Tridentinum. Allegorica causa fuit, ut significaretur Christus in aquis passionum agitandus et turbandus, qui per eas nobis sanitatem omnem spiritalem et corporalem meruit et impetravit: de quo mox plura.
5:5
5. ERAT AUTEM QUIDAM HOMO IBI, TRIGINTA ET OCTO ANNOS HABENS IN INFIRMITATE. — Graece ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, id est in morbo, in aegritudine; Arabicus, erat autem ibi vir infirmus per triginta octo annos; Syrus, qui trigesimum octavum annum agebat in mala valetudine. Infirmum hunc fuisse paralyticum asserit S. Chrysostomus, Euthymius et Leontius hic, ac S. Ambrosius, lib. II De Sacram., cap. I, ideoque allegorice gessisse typum generis humani, quod a lapsu Adae, per quinque annorum millia, plurimis infirmitatibus corporis et animae assidue affligitur. Tropologice: paralyticus hic repraesentat quemlibet in peccandi consuetudine inveteratum, ideoque suo vitio et habitu languidum, et ad omne bonum invalidum. Sicut enim paralysis dissolvit membrorum nexum et firmitatem, sic et consuetudo peccandi vires animae enervat; luxat et dissolvit, ut ab ea resurgere illique resistere nequeant, nisi potenti Dei gratia erigantur et roborentur. Hinc patet paralysim hanc naturaliter fuisse incurabilem, nec ulla arte per 38 annos curari potuisse, ideoque eam prae caeteris languentium morbis sibi curandam sumpsit Christus, ut immensam suam potentiam, aeque ac misericordiam in illa ostenderet. Sicut archiatri medicique praestantes infirmos gravissime aegrotantes, qui ab aliis curari nequivere, sibi curandos assumunt, ut in eis artis suae excellentiam ostendant. Qua de causa Christus Paulum in spiritu gravissimo infidelitatis morbo laborantem, prae aliis Judaeis incredulis et impiis sibi sanandum depoposcit, uti ipse docet initio epist. I ad Timoth. Vide ibi dicta: « Magnus, ait S. Augustinus, de coelo descendit medicus, quia magnus in terra jacebat aegrotus. » Symbola numeri 38 vide apud S. Augustinum hic, tract. 17, ubi inter cetera ait, eum esse symbolum infirmitatis, sicut quadragenarius symbolum est sanitatis et perfectionis. « Si ergo, ait, quadragenarius numerus habet perfectionem legis, et lex non impletur nisi in gemino praecepto charitatis; quid miraris quia languebat, qui ad quadraginta, duo minus habebat? » deerat enim duplex dilectio, Dei scilicet et proximi.
5:6
6. HUNC CUM VIDISSET JESUS JACENTEM, ET COGNOVISSET (tum ex ipso infirmo aliisque astantibus, tum ex scientia sua divina animae suae a Deo infusa) QUIA JAM MULTUM TEMPUS HABERET (infirmitatis et aegritudinis), DICIT EI: VIS SANUS FIERI? — Sciebat Christus omnino eum cupere sanari, quaerit tamen idipsum ex eo, primo, ut colloquio, indeque sanationi praebeat occasionem et initium: qua in re insignem suam clementiam ostendit, qui ab aegro non rogatus eum praevenit, et sanare satagit. « Magnum, ait Cyrillus, misericordiae Christi est argumentum, non exspectare semper laborantium preces, sed sua misericordia praevenire. » Secundo, ut desiderium sanitatis in aegro excitaret, ac spem opis sibi a Christo afferendae. Haec enim erat congrua dispositio ad recipiendam sanitatem. Tertio, ut in eo attentionem ad instans sanationis miraculum acueret; ut scilicet aegrum faceret attentum ad dicta et facta Christi, ex iisque certo cognosceret se non a piscina, nec a medicina, sed a solo Christo, qui omnem piscinae et medicinae vim superat, curatum esse, ideoque in eum quasi Prophetam ac Messiam crederet, veniamque peccatorum paenitens peteret et impetraret. Hinc juxta piscinam sanatricem eum sanavit, sed sine tactu piscinae, ut ostenderet se esse illum qui piscinae hanc vim dedisset, ideoque sine piscina, solo verbo posset sanare: ac consequenter se esse omnipotentem, ac Deum verum.
5:7
7. RESPONDIT EI LANGUIDUS: DOMINE, HOMINEM NON HABEO, UT, CUM TURBATA FUERIT AQUA, MITTAT ME IN PISCINAM: DUM VENIO ENIM EGO, ALIUS ANTE ME DESCENDIT. — Ad quaestionem Christi aeger directe non respondet; praesupponit enim ut omnibus notum, se optare sanitatem, sed de modo eam nanciscendi per piscinam sermonem injicit, q. d. Ego ob paralysim ad piscinam ire nequeo, homines qui me eo deferant non habeo; sum enim pauper: tu si in hac re me adjuvare possis, adjuva; putabat enim Christum quaerendo: « Vis sanus fieri? » hoc velle, q. d. Vis ut ego te in piscinam deferam, angelo aquam movente, ut in ea sanus fias? Nondum enim cognoscebat Jesum ejusque potentiam et virtutem, quia nunquam eum viderat. HOMINEM NON HABEO. — Paulo aliter Syrus: etiam, Domine (cupio sanus fieri), hominem autem non habeo; et Arabicus: utique, Domine, sed non est mihi homo. Pulchre S. Augustinus: « Vere, ait, necessarius erat ille homo (Jesus) ad salutem, sed homo ille, qui et Deus est. » Tropologice: pauperes saepe non habent hominem a quo adjuventur; sed divites et potentes, quorum gratiam et bursam omnes aucupantur.
5:8
8. DICIT EI JESUS: SURGE, TOLLE GRABATUM TUUM, ET AMBULA. — « Surge, » sanus a morbo, « tolle grabatum, » id est lectum tuum (ut dixi Marc. II, 4,) qui te hucusque tulit, « et ambula, » ut velut fortis lecti tui bajulus, cum eo domum redeas. Hic sermo Christi fuit practicus et efficax. Dicendo enim: « Surge, » aegrum erexit et sanavit. « Non operis imperium fuit, ait Augustinus, sed operatio sanitatis. » Et S. Cyrillus: « Non est hominis tanta potestas et virtus; solius Dei proprium est, ut sic imperare possit. » Jussit Christus eum tollere grabatum, ut omnibus constaret eum esse a se sanatum, imo validum et fortem subito effectum, ut lecti esset portitor. Unde notat hic Euthymius solere Christum post facta a se miracula, quiddam addere, ex quo miraculi veritas et magnitudo cerneretur. Sic hic paralyticum jussit tollere grabatum suum, quod non nisi sanatus, imo fortis ac validus facere potuisset. Sic post multiplicatos a se panes jussit fragmenta panibus majora colligi, Matth. XIV, 20. Sic leproso a se sanato dixit: « Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, » Matth. VIII, 4. Sic suscitatae a se puellae jussit dari manducare, Marci V, 43. Sic aquam in vinum conversam praecepit ferri architriclino, qui optimum esse vinum pronuntiavit, Joan. II, 8. Moraliter Beda: Surge e torpore et ignavia, in quibus prius jacebas, et in bonis operibus proficere stude. Tropologice: S. Gregorius, hom. 12 in Ezech., haec applicat peccatoribus per paenitentiam justificatis, qui priorum peccatorum, justo Dei judicio, tentationes adhuc patiuntur: « Aegro, inquit, ad salutem reducto praecipitur: Tolle grabatum tuum, id est porta lectum, in quo portatus es; quia necesse est, ut sanatus quisque portet contumeliam carnis, in qua prius jacebat aegrotus. Quid est ergo dicere: Tolle grabatum tuum, et vade in domum tuam, nisi porta tentationes carnis, in quibus hactenus jacuisti, ac revertere ad conscientiam tuam, ut videas quae fecisti? » Sic S. Maria Aegyptiaca per septemdecim annos graves carnis tentationes passa est jam conversa, quia totidem annis prius impudice vixerat, uti habet ejus Vita. Peccata ergo sui ipsorum sunt carnifices, et justi ultores. Quod antea libuit, postea cruciat; quod fecisti volens, idem deinceps patieris nolens. Symbolice: S. Augustinus, tract. 17: « Surge, » inquit, hoc est dilige Deum, qui sursum est; « tolle grabatum tuum, » hoc est, dilige proximum, infirmitates ejus portando, juxta illud: « Alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi, » Galat. VI. « Cum esses languidus, ait S. Augustinus, portabat te proximus tuus: sanus factus es, porta proximum tuum, etc. Porta ergo eum cum quo ambulas, ut ad eum pervenias, cum quo manere desideras. »
5:9
9. ET STATIM (Syrus, eo momento; Christus enim, quia Deus, in instanti sanabat, ut ostenderet hanc sanitatem, non naturaliter, sed vi supernaturali, per miraculum fieri ab omnipotentia Dei) SANUS FACTUS EST HOMO ILLE, ET SUSTULIT GRABATUM SUUM (Nonnus, onerosum humerale) ET AMBULABAT. ERAT AUTEM SABBATUM IN DIE ILLO. — Studio sanavit Christus in sabbato, tum quia sabbatum erat summum apud Judaeos festum, quod proinde prae aliis sanctificare oportet bonis operibus, quale erat hic sanatio aegri adeo afflicti, tam benefica, tam potens et divina; tum quia per hoc Judaeis ostendere volebat se dominum esse sabbati, jubendo ut in illo tolleret grabatum, quod erat lege vetitum, ideoque se esse Messiam ac Deum; tum quia sabbatum erat dies dicata quieti et laudi Dei. Quietem autem a doloribus aegro huic praestitit Christus, ideoque magnam et laudandi Deum occasionem eodem die subministravit.
5:10
10. DICEBANT ERGO JUDAEI ILLI QUI SANATUS FUERAT: SABBATUM EST, NON LICET TIBI TOLLERE GRABATUM TUUM. — Nonnus: « Et dicebant cum clamore proferentes criminatricem vocem: Sabbatum est, quod oportet unumquemque hominum transigere totum in otio: non est tibi fas lectum tollere. » In genere verum dicunt; apud Judaeos enim summa erat religio sabbati, ideoque omne opus in illo erat vetitum, ut patet Exod. XX, 8; ac nominatim gestatio onerum eo die prohibetur a Jeremia, cap. XVII, 21 et seq.: « Nolite, ait, portare pondera in die sabbati, nec inferatis per portas Jerusalem; » et a Nehemia, II Esdrae XIII, 45. Christus tamen contrarium hic praecipit aegro a se sanato, tum quia ipse dominus erat sabbati, ac proinde in ejus lege dispensare poterat; tum maxime quia opus vetitum a lege in sabbato, erat opus servile, non autem opus pium et divinum, quale hic erat, quod aeger sanatus suum tolleret lectum: illud enim ei jussit Christus hoc fine, ut omnes qui in sabbato turmatim confluebant ad templum, miraculum hoc agnoscerent, indeque Jesum ejus auctorem esse Messiam colligerent, illique gratias agerent et in eum crederent. Unde sequitur:
5:11
11. RESPONDIT EIS: QUI ME SANUM FECIT, ILLE MIHI DIXIT: TOLLE GRABATUM TUUM, ET AMBULA. — Subintellige: ille autem fuit vir divinus; et divina virtute me sanavit: ergo Deo charus est et amicus, nec quidquam praecipit quod Deo displiceat, sed quod Deo gratum esse cognoscit; operatur enim cum Deo et ex Deo. « Non acciperem jussionem, ait S. Augustinus, a quo acceperam sanitatem? » Justa fuit haec aegri excusatio, quam Judaei intelligere et acceptare debuissent; sed superbia occaecati illam capere noluerunt, ideoque peccarunt, et Christum persequentes in reatum et gehennam corruerunt.
5:12
12. INTERROGAVERUNT ERGO EUM: QUIS EST ILLE HOMO, QUI DIXIT TIBI: TOLLE GRABATUM TUUM, ET AMBULA? — Indignantes et minabundi hoc dicunt, q. d. Quis est ille audax et insolens, qui contra legem audet tibi praecipere ut in sabbato tollas grabatum tuum? Utique ille homo non est a Deo, qui sabbatum a Deo sancitum non custodit. Ita illi ex caeco legis suae, quam non intelligebant, praejudicio; cum ex altera parte cogitare debuissent illum qui aegrum per miraculum sanaverat, hoc non nisi singulari Dei auctoritate et ope facere potuisse, ac proinde a Deo pariter accepisse jus dicendi eidem in sabbato: « Tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. »
5:13
13. IS AUTEM QUI SANUS EFFECTUS FUERAT, NESCIEBAT QUIS ESSET: JESUS ENIM DECLINAVIT A TURBA CONSTITUTA IN LOCO. — Quasi dicat: Sanatus benefactorem suum indicare non poterat, quia Jesus, miraculo patrato, a turba congregata se subduxit, ne tumultui aut vanae gloriae occasionem praeberet.
5:14
14. POSTEA INVENIT EUM JESUS IN TEMPLO, ET DIXIT ILLI: ECCE SANUS FACTUS ES; JAM NOLI PECCARE, NE DETERIUS TIBI ALIQUID CONTINGAT. — Memento dicti Sirach: « Qui delinquit in conspectu ejus, qui fecit eum, incidet in manus medici. » Vide ibi dicta. Dixi saepe; nam subinde Deus viris sanctis morbos immittit, ut eorum patientiam probet, augeat et coronet, uti immisit S. Job, cujus tota disputatio cum amicis in hoc cardine versatur, ut amicis urgentibus ipsum peccatis suis causam tot morbis dedisse, ipse ex adverso contendat se a peccatis esse immunem, nec morbos illos commeruisse. Atque Deus cap. ult., ipsi causam adjudicat, amicos vero condemnat. Item patuit in caeco nato, cap. ix, 3, de quo ait Christus: « Neque hic peccavit, neque parentes ejus, sed ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo. » Porro Christus, sicut corpus hujus aegri sanavit ad piscinam, sic sua inspiratione interna atque hac monitione externa, sanavit ejus animam in templo: inspiravit enim memoriam peccatorum juventutis suae, quibus morbum tam longum meruit movitque cor ejus; ut de eis contereretur et veniam a Deo peteret, itaque justificaretur; imo ideo Christus corpus ejus sanavit, ut ejus animam sanaret, uti fecit S. Magdalenae: sicut dixi Lucae vii et viii. « Qui foris ab infirmitate, ipse etiam intus salvavit a scelere, » ait Beda. NE DETERIUS TIBI ALIQUID CONTINGAT. — « Qui enim priori supplicio non est emendatus, ait Theophylactus, ad majora tormenta servatur, tanquam insensatus et contemptor; » idque « sive in praesenti vita, sive in futura, sive in utraque, inquit Euthymius: pejor est morbo recidiva morbi. » Sic pejor est culpa recidiva culpae, ob majorem ingratitudinem, audaciam, impudentiam; item quia iteratio peccati inducit proclivitatem ad illud peccatum frequentandum, ac tandem consuetudinem et habitum, cui vix resistere potest peccator.
5:15
15. ABIIT ILLE HOMO, ET NUNTIAVIT JUDAEIS QUIA JESUS ESSET, QUI FECIT EUM SANUM. — « Nuntiavit, » non ex malevolentia, sed affectu gratitudinis, ne auctorem tanti beneficii celaret. Ita S. Augustinus, Chrysostomus et alii. « Abiit et nuntiavit, ait Euthymius, non tanquam iniquus, ut proderet, sed tanquam gratus, ut benefactorem divulgaret. Nam quia crimen incurrere se putabat, si tacuisset, ad beneficium praedicandum accessit. » Addit Cyrillus, « ut non ignorarent medicum, si quis etiam eorum curari desideraret. »
5:16
16. PROPTEREA PERSEQUEBANTUR JUDAEI (praesertim Scribae et Pharisaei. Addunt aliqui codices Graeci, item Syrus et Arabicus: Et quaerebant eum interficere) JESUM, QUIA HAEC FACIEBAT IN SABBATO. « Propterea, » id est eo praetextu; vera enim causa erat invidia. Unde Euthymius: « Quantum ad id quod apparebat, inquit, propter hoc; quantum vero ad id quod occultum erat, propter invidiam. » Invidebant enim Jesu hanc gloriam, dolebantque eum a populo sibi praeferri: indignabantur vero sua scelera ab eo reprehendi ejusque sanctitate refelli. Ipsi enim volebant haberi et coli ut Rabbini et legis doctores, atque ut oracula sapientiae et sanctitatis: quare Christum eorum scelera detegentem, quasi eos infamantem, oderant et persequebantur calumniis, detractionibus, minis, et tandem eum ad crucem adegerunt.
5:17
17. JESUS AUTEM RESPONDIT ILLIS: PATER MEUS USQUE MODO OPERATUR, ET EGO OPEROR. « Pater operatur, inquit S. Augustinus, lib. IV De Genesi ad litteram, cap. XII, et creaturae praebens congruam gubernationem et apud se habens aeternam tranquillitatem (quia, ut idem alibi ait, quietus operatur, et operans quiescit); » et nonnullis interjectis: « Creatoris namque potentia et virtus, causa subsistendi est omni creaturae: quae virtus ab eis quae creata sunt regendis, si aliquando cessaret, simul et illorum cessaret species, omnisque natura concideret. » Sicut lumen in aere cessat et evanescit, si sol radios suos, quibus lumen producit et conservat, subtrahat. Sensus est, q. d. Vos, o Scribae, mihi objicitis legem sabbaticae quietis, quam Deus vobis praecepit, eo quod ipse in sabbato quieverit ab omni opere suo, Genes. II. Verum respondeo Deum in sabbato quievisse duntaxat a novis rerum speciebus producendis, non autem ita, quin usque modo per omnia sabbata operatus sit et continue operetur; scilicet mundum et omnia quae in eo sunt gubernando, conservando, coelos movendo, unam rem ex alia producendo, viventia alendo, sanando, etc. Id quod summi est beneficii, idemque est opus non servile, sed liberale, pium et divinum, ac proinde sabbato licitum, imo sabbatum ornans et sanctificans: ita et ego, qui sum Filius Dei Patris, illi aequalis et homoousios, eadem cum illo operor, ac semper operatus sum: nec ego sine Patre, nec Pater sine me operari potest. Ita S. Augustinus, Cyrillus, Chrysostomus, Beda et alii. Nota hebraismum: « Et ego operor, » hoc est sic vel similiter, aut pariter ego operor; et enim cum sit nota conjunctionis, quando similia conjungit, nota est comparationis et similitudinis, idemque est quod sic, uti passim fit in Proverbiis.
5:18
18. PROPTEREA ERGO MAGIS QUAEREBANT EUM JUDAEI INTERFICERE; QUIA NON SOLUM SOLVEBAT SABBATUM, SED ET PATREM SUUM DICEBAT DEUM, AEQUALEM SE FACIENS DEO. RESPONDIT ITAQUE JESUS, ET DIXIT EIS. « Patrem suum; » Graece πατέρα ἴδιον, id est patrem proprium, quia naturalem. Christus enim solus est Filius Dei proprius et naturalis; angeli vero et homines sancti sunt filii Dei, asciti duntaxat, et a Deo gratis adoptati. Ita Cyrillus. Unde Arabicus vertit, quoniam dicebat, quia Deus Pater meus est. AEQUALEM SE FACIENS DEO, — quia dixerat se non similia, sed idem omnino operari, quod operatur Pater, ideoque illi per omnia cooperari, non ut famulum, sed ut Filium Patri homoousium. Ita Chrysostomus. Et Cyrillus: « Hominem, ait, esse videntes, et habitantem in eo Deum non cognoscentes, ferre non poterant singulari modo Deum ab eo patrem appellari: » nimirum, ut ait Beda, « quod is, quem verum per infirmitatem carnis hominem cognoverant, verum se Dei Filium credi vellet, id est non gratia adoptatum, ut caeteros Sanctos, sed natura Patri per omnia aequalem, non substantia, sed persona distantem; quia putabant Jesum praedicando se facere quod non esset, non veraciter intimare quod esset. Commoti sunt ergo Judaei et indignati sunt; merito quidem, quod audebat homo aequalem se facere Deo; sed ideo immerito, quia in homine non intelligebant Deum. » Voluerunt ergo pontifices et Scribae Jesum occidere, quia timebant, ne crescente gloria Jesu, ipsorum auctoritas decresceret, imo ne Jesus persuadens populo se esse Deum, a populo pontificibus praeponeretur, ac tandem praeficeretur, itaque eos exauctoraret, et novos sacerdotes et pontifices suos induceret, ut reipsa ab eo factum videmus.
5:19
19. AMEN, AMEN DICO VOBIS: NON POTEST FILIUS A SE FACERE QUIDQUAM, NISI QUOD VIDERIT PATREM FACIENTEM: QUAECUMQUE ENIM ILLE FECERIT, HAEC ET FILIUS SIMILITER FACIT. « Non potest, » « non ob potentiae defectum, ait Euthymius, sed propter inseparabilitatem; nam impossibile est Filium facere quidquam quod non facit Pater. » Sic et S. Chrysostomus et S. Augustinus. « Nisi: » haec vox hic non est exceptiva, sed adversativa, idemque significat quod sed tantum. Idem significat Matth. xii, 4; Galat. ii, 6, et infra cap. xv, vers. 4. QUOD VIDERIT. — Graece βλέπῃ, id est videat; Syrus et Arabicus videt; non enim prius quam operetur, sed simul videt Patrem operantem, dum cum illo operatur: Christus enim qua Deus non simile, sed idem numero opus cum Patre producit. Eadem enim actio est Patris et Filii, quam uterque simul videt et simul operatur. Actio autem, non vero unio hypostatica, nec ea quae illam sequuntur, quia unio haec non actionis, sed termini rationem habet. Quare, licet tota S. Trinitas, puta Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, actione sua divina operati sint hanc unionem, tamen unio ipsa ad solum Filium terminata est, non ad Patrem et Spiritum Sanctum. Quocirca solus Filius incarnatus est, passus, mortuus, etc., non Pater, vel Spiritus Sanctus. Nota: Christus hic tantum vult dicere se a Deo Patre accipere divinam ejus essentiam, potentiam, scientiam et operationem, quasi ab auctore suo, ac proinde utitur voce viderit, quasi Filius non faciat quidquam, nisi quod videt facere Patrem, sive quod videt esse opus Patris sui. Solent enim filii et discipuli inspicere et imitari voluntatem et facta parentum et magistrorum; eorum enim sunt quasi simiae. Loquitur enim Christus anthropopathice, sive more hominum moderate, et congrue filio, sive ut decet apud homines loqui de patre filium, apud Judaeos arrogantes et captiosos, ne eos sat contra se irritatos, magis irritet et in suam necem provocet. Adde, theologice et proprie Christum uti voce viderit, quia ipse a Patre procedit ut Verbum, quod est terminus visionis et cognitionis notionalis Dei Patris. Pater enim videns et intelligens se et omnia, producit et gignit Verbum, illique suam visionem et actionem hoc ipso communicat. Nil ergo videt aut facit Filius, nisi quod videt Patrem videre aut facere. Ipse enim est Verbum et idea: in quo, quasi termino, Pater exprimit et imprimit omnem suam visionem et cognitionem, tam speculativam, quam practicam. Sensus ergo est, q. d. Quidquid ego operor, hoc idem Pater operatur, idque eadem omnino visione, cognitione, voluntate, potentia et actione; quare si me accusatis quod sabbato sanaverim paralyticum, Deum quoque Patrem accusatis: ille enim mecum hoc est operatus, quia ipse in me et per me omnia operatur; imo ego omne opus meum a Patre accepi. Quare si creditis Deum Patrem omnia recte, sapienter et sancte operari, idem de me credatis oportet; ac proinde hanc sanationem aegri in sabbato fuisse opus prudenter factum, sanctum et divinum. SIMILITER FACIT, — scilicet simili, imo eodem prorsus modo, eadem libertate, eadem potentia, eodem dominio, eadem auctoritate, ait S. Gregorius Nazianzenus, orat. 2 De Filio. Unde S. Augustinus: « Non, inquit, cum ille (Pater) fecerit, alia Filius similiter facit; sed quaecumque ille fecerit, haec et Filius similiter facit. Si haec facit Filius quae fecerit Pater, per Filium facit Pater. » Et Cyrillus: « Similiter operantur, inquit, quae omnino ejusdem naturae sunt: quae autem diversas essendi habent rationes, in iis idem operationis modus esse non potest. Sicut ergo Deus de Deo vero, eadem quae Pater similiter facere potest. »
5:20
20. PATER ENIM DILIGIT FILIUM, ET OMNIA DEMONSTRAT EI QUAE IPSE FACIT: ET MAJORA HIS DEMONSTRABIT EI OPERA, UT VOS MIREMINI. « Demonstrat, » non sicut praeceptor discipulo, ait Euthymius, sed sicut pater filio, ac Deus Deo. « Demonstrat » ergo, id est dat, communicat, praesertim quia, ut dixi, Filius a Patre per demonstrationem, id est per intellectum et visionem procedit quasi Verbum. Sic demonstrare pro dare, exhibere, tribuere sumitur, I Reg. xiv, 12; Exod. xxxiii, 19; Psal. iv, 8; Psal. xix, 5. Hunc esse sensum patet ex sequent. Porro Pater « demonstrat, » id est communicat omnia Filio, tum qua Deo, non libera dilectione, sed naturaliter ex foecunditate naturae divinae, cujus signum maximum apud homines est dilectio: qui enim omnia sua filio apud homines communicat, hoc ipso dat signum evidens, quod ipsum summe diligat; tum communicat omnia Filio qua incarnato et homini, cujus communicationis non signum, sed causa est dilectio: « Demonstrare Patrem Filio, ait Beda, est per Filium facere quae facit. » Praeclare S. Athanasius, in disput. Contra Arium, lib. I: « Dedit, ait, Filio Pater omnipotens omnipotentiam, majestatem majestati, virtutem dedit virtuti, prudentiam dedit prudenti, praescientiam praescienti, aeternitatem aeternitati, divinitatem divinitati, aequalitatem aequalitati, immortalitatem immortalitati, invisibilitatem invisibilitati, regi regnum, vitam vitae; et non aliam ab ea quam habet dedit, et quantum habet, tantam dedit. » Quaeres, cur demonstrare et ostendere hic et alibi sumatur pro donare et communicare? Respondeo: Primo, quia Deus demonstrando Filio se suaque opera, ei communicat suam scientiam, et consequenter suam essentiam. Scientia enim Dei idem est cum sua essentia. Ad haec demonstrando illuminat Filium, hoc est suam sapientiae omnisque boni lucem, totumque se illi communicat: Deus enim est lux increata et immensa, uti docet S. Joannes, epist. I, cap. I, vers. 5. Denique demonstrando, id est intelligendo producit Verbum, id est Filium, quia in Deo res nobilissima est intellectus, ac nobilissima actio est intelligere, illuminare, demonstrare. Nobilissima enim et princeps animae potentia est intellectus et ratio, quae voluntati imperat eamque caecam dirigit, et per illam omnes sensus caeterasque animae vires movet et regit. Hinc illa sapientum axiomata: Mens universa efficit. Rationis est gubernare. Quantum quisque valet ingenio, tantum habet de imperio. Intellectus enim res concipiendo et intelligendo, sibi per conceptum et intellectionem illas omnes vivaciter incorporat, et quasi possidet; res enim omnes in se vivo quodam modo concipit, earumque speciem in se efformat, quae rerum bonitatem et pulchritudinem omnem illi repraesentat. Quocirca intellectus est oculus mentis; sicut ergo oculus in corpore est sensus nobilissimus, vivacissimus, efficacissimus, qui rerum omnium formas sibi incorporat; sic multo magis idem facit intellectus in mente. Quocirca Beati in coelo per intellectum intelligendo et videndo Deum, eum sibi incorporant, illum possident, illoque beantur. Haec ergo est ratio hujus phrasis, qua ostendere et demonstrare sumitur pro dare, communicare, ac in possessionem rei ostensae et demonstratae inducere. Est catachresis et metalepsis. Hoc est quod ait Aristoteles et Philosophi: « Intellectus intelligendo fit omnia, » quia per vivam rerum conceptionem, illis sese et sibi illas assimilat, itaque illas tenet et occupat, facitque ut in ipso melius et nobilius existant, quam sint in seipsis; in seipsis enim saepe sunt inanimes et mortuae, in intellectu autem sunt animatae et vivae, vivuntque actu summe vitali et praestantissimo. Denique Christus hic apposite contra Judaeos calumniantes, quod aegrum sanasset in sabbato, ad majus argumenti pondus et nervum, utitur verbo demonstrandi, q. d. Deus sapientissimus demonstravit mihi hoc opus sanandi in sabbato esse opus suum, id est divinum, piissimum et sanctissimum, cur ergo vos, o Scribae, illud reprehenditis et cavillamini? quis enim audeat esse reprehensor illius, cujus Deus est demonstrator? Ergone sapientiores estis Deo, ac Deum ipsum vultis docere, imo castigare? o insaniam! o insanam temeritatem et superbiam! ET MAJORA HIS DEMONSTRABIT, — et demonstrando dabit et communicabit. « Majora » haec sunt praeclariora mysteria et miracula, ac praesertim mortuorum suscitatio, et potestas judiciaria judicandi omnes homines. Quae duo hic subjicit Christus. UT VOS MIREMINI, — non dicit, ut vos credatis; quia Scribae et Judaei, visis tot Christi miraculis, mirati sunt ejus vim et potentiam, sed tamen odio et invidia excaecati, in eum ut Messiam credere noluerunt: Christus tamen ea illa mente et fine fecit, ut in se crederent. Ita Cyrillus. Sic etiamnum faciunt haeretici; nimirum mirantur Sanctorum orthodoxorum sapientiam, sanctitatem, miracula; sed tamen eorum fidem sequi, et mores imitari nolunt. Haec est haeresis et erroris caecitas, obstinatio et malignitas.
5:21
21. SICUT ENIM PATER SUSCITAT MORTUOS, ET VIVIFICAT: SIC ET FILIUS, QUOS VULT, VIVIFICAT. Ecce hoc est primum majus opus, quod Christus Patrem sibi Filio demonstraturum, id est communicaturum, dixit. Nam, ut ait S. Augustinus: « Majora sunt opera mortuos suscitare, quam languidos sanare. » Et S. Cyrillus: « Nolite, ait, mirari hoc, quod unus longo morbo dissolutus, verbo corroboratus, grabatum etiam tulit et abiit, cum mortem omnino destructurus sim et orbem terrarum judicaturus. » SIC ET FILIUS, QUOS VULT, VIVIFICAT. — Tacite significat se esse Deum, Patri aequalem in potestate et libertate suscitandi et vivificandi quoscumque voluerit. « Illa particula, Sicut Pater, ait Chrysostomus, indiscretam potestatem; illa autem, Quos vult, aequalem demonstrat. » Similiter Theophylactus: « Verbum, Quos vult, indicat suae cum Patre potestatis aequalitatem. » Quos vult. — Non alios vult Pater vivificare, alios vero Filius; sed eosdem, quia ejus voluntas conformis, imo eadem numero est cum voluntate Patris. Ita S. Augustinus. VIVIFICAT. — Id est a morte suscitat, tum in hac vita, ut suscitavit Lazarum ac filium viduae; tum in die judicii omnes omnino suscitabit: Sanctos quidem ad vitam aeternam, impios vero ad gehennam et mortem aeternam, ut patebit vers. 25 et 28.
5:22
22. NEQUE ENIM PATER JUDICAT QUEMQUAM, SED OMNE JUDICIUM DEDIT FILIO. Enim omittit Arabicus, sed habet Graecus, et apte; novum enim argumentum suggerit. Est enim haec secunda ratio qua Christus se probat esse Deum, estque secundum opus majus, quod Patrem sibi demonstraturum, id est daturum, dixit vers. 20. Primum enim est suscitare mortuos; secundum est potestas judiciaria, quam solus Christus homo accepit a Patre in sua incarnatione, ac solus visibiliter in omnes exercebit in die judicii. Ita Beda, Chrysostomus et Cyrillus, quem audi: « Aliud quoddam divinum atque praecipuum affert argumentum, quo se natura et vere Deum ostendit. Cui enim orbem terrarum judicare alii convenit, quam soli Deo, quem solum ad judicandum divina Scriptura vocat, dicens: Exsurge, Deus: judica terram? » Psal. LXXXI, vers. 3. Et rursus: « Quoniam Deus judex est, alium humiliat, et alium exaltat, » Psal. XLVII, vers. 6. FILIO SUO, — uni secum Deo, sed per incarnationem homini facto. « Ac si diceretur, ait Augustinus, lib. I De Trinitate, XIII, Patrem nemo videbit in judicio vivorum et mortuorum, sed omnes Filium, quia Filius hominis est, ut possit et ab impiis videri, cum et illi videbunt in quem pupugerunt. » Dices: Christus creatus est judex ut homo, juxta illud: « Qui constitutus est a Deo judex vivorum et mortuorum, » Act. x, 42; ergo non recte Christus ex eo quod sit judex, probat se esse Deum. Respondeo, recte id eum probare, quia potestas judiciaria propria est Deo; est enim summa et juris amplissimi: quare Deus eam communicare noluit, nec congrue potuit puro homini, sed Christo soli, qui Deus est et homo. Ipse enim ut Deus, summam habet auctoritatem judicandi; ut homo vero, habet facultatem judicium hoc visibiliter coram hominibus salvandis et damnandis exercendi; judex enim debet videri a reo ejusque sententia ab eo audiri.
5:23
23. UT OMNES HONORIFICENT FILIUM, SICUT HONORIFICANT PATREM: QUI NON HONORIFICAT FILIUM, NON HONORIFICAT PATREM, QUI MISIT ILLUM. Judaei enim qui hic noluerunt honorificare Filium Dei, nec eum ut talem agnoscere, in die judicii videntes ejus majestatem et potestatem in judicando divinam, inviti cogentur eum ut Deum agnoscere, honorificare et adorare. SICUT HONORIFICANT PATREM. — Sicut significat aequalitatem, non similitudinem, quia assimilat eos qui sunt ejusdem naturae, id est eos sibi mutuo coaequat, scilicet Filium Patri. « Nam, ut ait S. Cyrillus, si ipse omnia est quae Pater, quantum ad Deitatis majestatem pertinet, quomodo par non erit aequaliter cum Patre honorari, cui ad identitatem substantiae nihil prorsus deest? » Sic et S. Augustinus, Chrysostomus, Theophylactus et alii. Hinc contra Arianos patet Christum esse Deum, ideoque eadem adoratione adorandum, qua adoratur Pater, scilicet latria. QUI NON HONORIFICAT FILIUM, NON HONORIFICAT PATREM, QUI MISIT ILLUM, — tum quia negando Filium, negat et Patrem; pater enim et filius sunt correlativa, nec pater esse potest, qui filium non habet: in Deo vero qui negat Filium Dei esse Filium, negat Deum Patrem vere et proprie esse Patrem, ac genuisse; taciteque asserit ei defuisse vim generandi Filium sibi consubstantialem et aequalem; tum quia Pater « misit Filium » in mundum, ut per eum honoraretur, ut scilicet agnosceretur esse Pater proprie dictus, ac genuisse Filium sibi homousion, cum eoque eadem latria adoraretur: qui ergo negat Filium esse Deum, negat Patrem genuisse Deum, quae summa est Patris injuria et blasphemia. Aufert enim Patri generationem sibi parem et se dignam, ac pro divina et increata, creatam et exilem ei attribuit: quare negat eum esse Patrem proprium et divinum.
5:24
24. AMEN, AMEN DICO VOBIS, QUIA QUI VERBUM MEUM AUDIT, ET CREDIT EI QUI MISIT ME, HABET VITAM AETERNAM, ET IN JUDICIUM NON VENIT, SED TRANSIIT A MORTE IN VITAM. — « Amen, amen. » Geminatio haec attentionem excitat. Significat enim rem quam asserit non tantum esse certissimam, sed et summe necessariam ad salutem aeternam. Vide dicta cap. III, 3. « Quia, » id est quod. « Audit, » ita ut credat et obediat verbo meo. Unde subdit: « Et credit ei qui misit me, » ac consequenter credit mihi quasi Filio, a Patre in mundum ad ejus salutem misso. Non dicit: « Et credit mihi, » sed amplius. Dicendo enim: « Et credit ei qui misit me, » involvit mysterium sanctae Trinitatis et Incarnationis: quae duo sunt praecipua fidei capita et summe ad salutem necessaria. Ille enim qui misit Filium, est Deus Pater: jam Pater et Filius juncti necessario spirant Spiritum Sanctum: en tibi tota sancta Trinitas. Habet vitam aeternam. — « Habet, » jure, merito et spe, sed necdum in re. « Habet » ergo, id est certo habebit, si in fide perseveret illique congruenter vivat usque ad mortem. Vide dicta cap. III, vers. 16. Et in judicium non venit, (id est in condemnationem, puta in gehennam) — non vadit. Vide dicta cap. III, vers. 17. Transiit (id est certo transibit, utitur praeterito pro futuro ob rei certitudinem, q. d. Certo et infallibiliter transibit, perinde ac si jam transisset) a morte (corporis temporaria) in vitam aeternam, — beatam in coelis; licet enim reprobi damnandi, suscitandi sint quoque ad vitam, ut ardeant in gehenna, tamen haec vita gehennalis, continua potius erit mors, quam vita. Nam, ut ait S. Augustinus, lib. VI De Civit. Dei, cap. XII, « nulla major et pejor est mors, quam ubi non moritur mors. » In gehenna ergo erit mors vitalis, et vita mortalis, hoc est semper moriens, et nunquam mortua. Rursum planius, q. d. Qui credit et obedit Deo Patri et Filio ab eo misso, « transiit a morte » animae per peccatum mortuae, ad vitam tam spiritualem gratiae, ut post mortem naturalem transeat ad vitam gloriae.
5:25
25. AMEN, AMEN DICO VOBIS, QUIA VENIT HORA, ET NUNC EST, QUANDO MORTUI AUDIENT VOCEM FILII DEI, ET QUI AUDIERINT, VIVENT. — « Ne longo post futurum arbitreris, inquit Chrysostomus, subdit: Et nunc est. » Nam si futura tantum annuntiaret, non immerito esset dubitandum, sed se in terris cum ipsis conversante, haec ventura dicit. Nam, ut ait Theophylactus: « Dicit hic de iis (tribus) quos suscitaturus erat, ut de filio viduae, filia Archisynagogi et Lazaro, » et maxime de Lazaro; hunc enim in Judaea suscitaturus erat, caeteros duos vero in Galilaea. Christus enim hic loquitur in Judaea Judaeis, et hoc significat « et nunc est. » Assurgit enim Christus a resurrectione spiritali animarum e peccato ad vitam gratiae factam a se, ad resurrectionem corporum a se factam, dum ipse adhuc in terris viveret, indeque vers. 28, assurgit ad plenam resurrectionem et gloriam corporum, quam faciet in die judicii. Nam ex potestate suscitandi animas a morte peccati ad vitam gratiae, tanquam ex re majori et difficiliori, probat Christus se habere potestatem suscitandi corpora: quod minus et facilius est. Ita Toletus, Jansenius et Franciscus Lucas ex S. Chrysostomo et Theophylacto; licet S. Cyrillus, Maldonatus et alii censentes hic agi de resurrectione communi et universali, vi « et nunc est » accipiant de die judicii extremi. Totum enim tempus legis novae S. Joannes, epist. I, cap. II, vers. 18, vocat horam (id est tempus) novissimam; quia scilicet hoc est ultimus hominum status, ac proinde omnia quae in eo fiunt, videntur adesse quasi praesentia, et nunc hac hora fieri. Alii addunt Christum loqui de Sanctis, quos moriens et resurgens a morte suscitavit, Matth. cap. XXVII, vers. 52. Plenissimus erit sensus, si de omnibus omnino a Christo suscitatis et suscitandis intelligas. Et qui audierint, — id est qui senserint vim vocis Christi, sive qui illi obedient, perinde ac si audirent vocem Filii Dei, qui vocat ea quae non sunt quasi ea quae sunt. Est catachresis. Constat enim mortuos non audire, ac prius debere a morte suscitari, antequam vocem audire possint. Vivent. — Resurgent vi et virtute vocis Christi.
5:26
26. SICUT ENIM PATER HABET VITAM IN SEMETIPSO; SIC DEDIT ET FILIO HABERE VITAM IN SEMETIPSO. — « Habere vitam in semetipso » tria significat. Primo, habere vitam a se suaque essentia, non ab alio; Dei enim essentia est vita, et vita est essentia. Deus ergo essentialiter et per essentiam est ipsa vita, essentialis, increata et immensa. Ita S. Augustinus hic, tract. 19: « Quid est, inquit, Habet Pater vitam in semetipso? Non alibi habet vitam, sed in semetipso: vivere quippe suum in illo est, et non aliunde. Non alienum est, non quasi mutuatur vitam, neque quasi particeps fit vitae quae non est quod ipse, sed habet vitam in semetipso, ut ipsa vita sibi sit ipse. » Secundo, habere Deum vitam in se, est esse fontem omnis vitae, ex quo scilicet omnis angelorum, hominum, animalium et plantarum vita, quasi ex uberrimo et vitali fonte profluat, nec aliunde profluere possit. Ita S. Euthymius. « Habere vitam in semetipso, » ait, hoc est ad modum fontis scaturire facit vitam, juxta illud: « Quoniam apud te est fons vitae, » Psal. XXXV, vers. 10. Tertio, quod ex primo et secundo consequitur, « habere vitam in se, » est habere vitam in sua potestate, esse dominum vitae, dominari viventibus omnibus, ut eis vitam dare, conservare, auferre ad libitum possit. Hinc patet unitas essentiae, puta Deitatis, in Patre et Filio: nam alioqui si Filius haberet aliam essentiam a Patre, haberet vitam in alio, scilicet in Patre, qui vitam illi dedit; jam autem habet vitam in semetipso, id est in sua essentia divina, quam proinde eamdem omnino habet cum Patre. Ita Chrysostomus: « Ecce, ait, quomodo in nullo prorsus differt, » nisi quod alter Pater est, alter Filius. Sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso, — quia Filius Deus est, idque juxta tres modos jam recensitos. « Ut vita ejus non esset egens vita, ait Augustinus, ne participando intelligatur habere vitam; si enim participando haberet vitam, posset et amittendo esse sine vita: hoc in Filio ne accipias, ne cogites, ne credas. Manet ergo Pater vita, manet et Filius vita: Pater vita in semetipso, non a Filio; Filius vita in semetipso, sed a Patre. » Porro, S. Cyrillus id ipsum explicat de Christo, non qua Deus, sed qua homo est, q. d. Christus, qua homo est, habet vitam in semetipso, hoc est, vitae et necis in omnes habet potestatem, vitae necisque omnium est dominus; ipse enim a Patre constitutus est judex vivorum et mortuorum. Unde sequitur:
5:27
27. ET POTESTATEM DEDIT EI JUDICIUM FACERE, QUIA FILIUS HOMINIS EST. — q. d. Quia Christus qua Deus, habet vitam in semetipso, hinc qua homo, habet potestatem judicandi omnes. « Quia » enim hic specificative sumitur, non reduplicative, ideoque valet quod « quatenus, » ut si « quia » sumatur pro « quod cum; » secundo tamen et nervosius, « quia » accipias reduplicative et causaliter, ut sonat. Dat enim causam cur Deus dederit Christo potestatem judiciariam. Causa est, quia Christus Filius hominis est, quia incarnari dignatus est homoque fieri, q. d. Voluit Deus homines per Christum hominem judicare, ut congruum esset judicium, congruoque modo, scilicet sensibili et humano, fieret, utque sicut ipse per Christum hominem mundum salvat, sic et per ipsum eumdem judicet; hominem, inquam, illum, qui cum Deus esset, vitam humanam induit, eamque pro hominum salute morti exposuit et prodigit. Quare ipse tanta sui exinanitione, qua voluit fieri homo, morique pro hominibus, meruit hanc exaltationem judiciariae potestatis, ut omnium sit judex, qui omnium fuit salvator. Ita Toletus, Jansenius, Maldonatus et alii. Audi S. Augustinum: « Secundum quod Filius est Dei, sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic et dedit Filio vitam habere in semetipso; secundum autem quod Filius hominis est, potestatem dedit ei judicium faciendi. » Et paulo post: « Secundum hoc accepit potestatem judicandi, quia Filius hominis est; nam secundum quod Dei Filius est, semper habuit hanc potestatem. » Causam duplicem addit. Prior est: « Adjectum erat, ait, ut judicandi viderent judicem; judicandi autem erant boni et mali: restabat, ut in judicio forma servi bonis et malis ostenderetur, forma Dei solis bonis servaretur. » Posterior: « Forma illa erit judex, quae stetit sub judice: illa judicabit, quae judicata est; judicata est enim inique, judicabit juste. »
5:28
28. NOLITE MIRARI HOC, QUIA VENIT HORA, IN QUA OMNES QUI IN MONUMENTIS SUNT, AUDIENT VOCEM FILII DEI. — « Hora, » id est tempus legis Evangelicae, quae omnium est, ultima et novissima, in cujus fine fiet resurrectio mortuorum et universale judicium, ut dixi vers. 25. Qui in monumentis sunt, — puta mortui et sepulti, sub quibus etiam mortuos insepultos accipe. Nam, ut ait S. Augustinus, « ab his qui naturaliter sepulti sunt, etiam eos significavit, qui naturaliter sepulti non sunt. » Audient, — hoc est, sentient sententiam, vim et efficaciam vocis Christi. Vocem Filii Dei. — Erit haec vox tubalis Archangeli, forte Michaelis: « Surgite, mortui, venite ad judicium, » idem concrepantibus et consonantibus aliis aliorum angelorum tubis et vocibus. Dicitur vox Dei et Christi, quia ejus jussu, sed angelorum ministerio, formabitur in aere, ita ut per totum orbem resonet, ab eoque efficaciam suscitandi mortuos accipiet, quasi ejus instrumentum, saltem morale. Non enim est necesse huic tubae vim physicam suscitandi mortuos tribuere. De hac voce et tuba plura dixi I Thessal. IV, 16.
5:29
29. ET PROCEDENT QUI BONA FECERUNT, IN RESURRECTIONEM VITAE (beatae et aeternae): QUI VERO MALA EGERUNT, IN RESURRECTIONEM JUDICII, — id est condemnationis et gehennae, q. d. Boni resurgent ad gloriam, mali ad gehennam. Procedent. — Graece ekporeuontai, id est egredientur, scilicet e suis monumentis et sepulcris resurgent, tendentque ad vallem Josaphat juxta Jerusalem, in qua fiet judicium universale, ut ibi a Christo judice pro meritis coelo vel inferno adjudicentur. Objicit hic Christus Judaeis sibi incredulis et rebellibus, suam potestatem judiciariam, ut ejus metu eos terreat, conterat et convertat, aeque ac fecit in fine vitae, cum a Caipha Pontifice adjuratus, an esset Filius Dei, respondit se esse, ideoque ad mortem condemnandus addidit: « Verumtamen dico vobis, amodo videbitis Filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei, et venientem in nubibus coeli, » Matth. XXVI, 64. Nulla enim terribilior res est et efficacior ad promovendum hominum animos, ut paenitentiam agant vitamque sanctam instituant, quam viva repraesentatio judicii extremi. Quocirca Christus ascendens in coelum, per angelos jussit Apostolos praedicare suum ad judicium reditum, Actor. I, 11; ideoque eumdem Paulus Areopagitis inculcavit, ac inter alios S. Dionysium convertit, Act. XVII, 31. In judicio enim cuique jacietur alea aeternitatis, vel beatissimae vel miserrimae. « In omnibus operibus tuis ergo memorare novissima tua, et in aeternum non peccabis, » Eccli. VII, 40. Vide ibi dicta. Sane fatalis ille dies mundi ultimus erit decretorius, et horizon aeternitatis, qui probos ab improbis disterminabit et longissime separabit, atque probos omni felicitate cumulabit, improbos omni calamitate obruet, idque in aeternum. Hoc mirum et miserabile divortium assidue cogita, stude sanctitati, vive aeternitati.
5:30
30. NON POSSUM EGO A MEIPSO FACERE QUIDQUAM. SICUT AUDIO, JUDICO, ET JUDICIUM MEUM JUSTUM EST: QUIA NON QUAERO VOLUNTATEM MEAM, SED VOLUNTATEM EJUS QUI MISIT ME. — Demonstrat Christus judicium suum, quo qua homo omnes homines judicabit, fore justum, ex eo quod ipse aliud judicare et velle non possit, quam id quod judicat et vult Pater. Nam ipse, qua Deus, idem numero habet judicium, eamdem numero mentem et voluntatem divinam, quam habet Pater: qua homo vero, totus regitur a deitate et Verbo inhabitante, ut aliud judicare et velle nequeat, quam id quod ejus deitas, quasi praeses judicat et vult. Ita S. Augustinus, S. Chrysostomus, Euthymius et alii. Sicut audio (a Patre verissime judicante judicandum esse), sic judico — semper, ac praesertim sic judicabo in die judicii. « Audio » ergo idem est quod cognosco, intelligo, video; in divinis enim idem est audire et videre, imo idem est in mente; mens enim eminenter continet visum, auditum caeterosque sensus. Ostendit suum judicium, quo omnes judicabit, fore verum, quia non ex suo, sed ex Dei Patris judicio, quod constat esse verissimum et aequissimum, judicabit. Unde subdit: « Et, » id est itaque, vel idcirco, « judicium meum justum est. » Ita S. Chrysostomus: « Per auditum, ait, nihil aliud intelligitur, quam nihil aliud posse, quam quod Pater, q. d. Ita judico, ac si Pater ipse judex sit. » Quia non quaero voluntatem meam (scilicet solam, aut a Patris voluntate diversam, talem enim non habeo), sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me, — nam voluntas mea divina eadem numero est cum voluntate Patris: voluntas autem mea humana voluntati divinae plane conformis est, ab eaque per omnia dirigitur: quare aliud ab illa velle et judicare nequit. Ita S. Augustinus: « Non quia, inquit, ipsius in judicando nulla voluntas est, sed quia non est ita voluntas ejus propria, ut sit a Patris voluntate aliena. » Nam, ut ait Cyrillus, « illius voluntatem quasi regulam in omnibus sequitur, » ideoque, ait Euthymius, « illius voluntas etiam mea est. » Dat causam a priori, cur suum judicium futurum sit justum; quia scilicet voluntas ejus plane subjecta et conformis est voluntati divinae, eo quod subsistat in persona divina Verbi, ab eaque regatur: voluntas enim flectit regitque intellectum, ejusque judicium, quocumque vult. Quare si voluntas humana conformis sit voluntati divinae, etiam intellectus et judicium humanum conformia erunt intellectui et judicio divino; praesertim quia in Deo, in re idem omnino est intellectus et judicium, quod voluntas; in Deo enim omnes potentiae omniaque attributa in re idem sunt cum essentia divina, ex qua, quasi ex fonte suo, imo quasi ex omnis boni oceano promanant, in eoque essentialiter coeunt et uniuntur: quare ipsa infallibilis est omnis veritatis et justitiae norma ac regula, quam Christus in omnibus sequitur, nec ab ea vel hilum deviare potest, ideoque tam voluntas ejus, quam intellectus et judicium rectissima, verissima et justissima sunt, et erunt semper.
5:31
31. SI EGO TESTIMONIUM PERHIBEO DE MEIPSO (quod sim Filius Dei, ideoque qua homo, Dei judicio et voluntati per omnia conformis), TESTIMONIUM MEUM NON EST VERUM, — id est legitimum, juridicum et fide dignum. « Verum » enim hic non opponitur falso, sed illegitimo, infido, incerto; respondet enim Hebr. neeman, id est fidele, congruum et fide dignum. Fieri enim potest, ut quis verissimum de seipso dicat testimonium, sed tamen apud homines fide careat, propter suspicionem de nimio sui ipsius amore, ait Euthymius. Est prolepsis, sive occupatio, qua Christus occurrit tacitae objectioni Scribarum dicentium: Tu, o Jesu, praedicas te esse Filium Dei, ideoque sequi in omnibus Dei judicium; at non credimus tibi, nisi Dei, vel virorum fide dignorum testimonio id probes; tuum enim testimonium, in re tua tibique propria, nobis suspectum videtur, nec fide dignum. Respondet Jesus: Fateor vobisque concedo testimonium meum de meipso non esse legitimum, nec fide dignum, si ego solus ex me ipso hoc testificor: do vobis ergo ut mihi soli non credatis; at ego non solus, sed plures alii fide digni idem de me testificantur, ut patebit vers. sequenti. Loquitur enim Christus magis ex confessione et ex communi Judaeorum sensu, quam ex suo, ut patet Joan. VIII, 13. Ubi Judaei Christo in faciem objiciunt dicuntque: « Tu de teipso testimonium perhibes, testimonium tuum non est verum. » Quibus respondet Christus, vers. 14 et 16: « Verum est testimonium meum, etc., quia solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater. » Ita S. Cyrillus, Chrysostomus, Leontius, Theophylactus, Euthymius et alii.
5:32
32. ALIUS EST QUI TESTIMONIUM PERHIBET DE ME: ET SCIO QUIA VERUM EST TESTIMONIUM QUOD PERHIBET DE ME. — « Alius, » scilicet Deus Pater, qui in baptismo meo coelitus intonuit: « Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui, » Matth. III, 17. Ita S. Cyrillus, Beda, Rupertus; rursum « alius, » scilicet Joannes Baptista mihi attestatur, ut sequitur. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Leontius, Theophylactus, Euthymius, Jansenius, Maldonatus et alii. « Alius » ergo, id est alii sunt, qui testificantur me esse Filium Dei; scilicet Deus Pater, Joannes Baptista, Moses, Prophetae atque opera mea divina et miraculosa; hos enim omnes testes in sequentibus pro se producit Christus, ut probet se esse Messiam et Dei Filium. Et scio quia verum est. — q. d. Ego pro me hisce testibus non egeo; scio enim ex scientia propria et divina verum esse id quod testantur, scilicet me esse Filium Dei. Quare ego eorum testimonium produco, non propter me, sed propter vos, ut mihi tot testimoniis probato fidem adhibeatis.
5:33
33. VOS MISISTIS AD JOANNEM (cap. I, vers. 19), ET TESTIMONIUM PERHIBUIT VERITATI. — q. d. Vos misistis legatos ad Joannem, quasi ad virum vestra opinione sanctum et omni fide dignum, ut eum rogaretis an ipse esset Messias: Joannes respondit non se, sed me esse Messiam, hocque testimonium non dedit meae amicitiae aut gratiae (nam me ante non viderat), sed « veritati. » Ipsum enim nil dare gratiae, sed omnino veritati, vos ipsi existimastis, cum eum pro Messia recipere voluistis: « ergo testimonium ejus refellere non potestis, » ait Euthymius. Plane convincit Scribas hic Christus ex Joannis testificatione, utpote apud Judaeos certa et irrefragabili, se esse Messiam.
5:34
34. EGO AUTEM NON AB HOMINE TESTIMONIUM ACCIPIO. — q. d. Ego pro me teste Joanne non egeo; sum enim Deus Deique Filius, cui Joannes, Moses et Prophetae credere debent, ab eoque doceri, omnemque gratiam et auctoritatem accipere. Rursum, ut ait Cyrillus: « Ostendit sibi nullius hominis testimonium esse necessarium, cum a splendore signorum ac gloria, natura Deus demonstretur, » q. d. Ego cum sim Deus, hominum testimonio, commendatione, celebratione, non indigeo. Ita Theophylactus, Leontius, Maldonatus, Jansenius et alii. Sed haec dico ut vos salvi sitis. — Hoc est, ut ait S. Chrysostomus: « Ego hominis non indigeo testimonio, cum Deus sim: verum cum Joannes tantae apud vos auctoritatis sit, cum tanquam Prophetam admiremini, mihi autem ut miracula facienti non credatis; idcirco ejus testimonium vobis in memoriam reduco, omniaque facio ut vos alliciam et salvos faciam. »
5:35
35. ILLE ERAT LUCERNA (Graece ho lychnos, id est illa lucerna, scilicet eximia et singularis) ARDENS ET LUCENS. VOS AUTEM VOLUISTIS AD HORAM EXULTARE IN LUCE EJUS. — Joannes non erat ipsa lux ex se lucens (hoc enim erat ipse Christus, Joan. I, 9), sed erat lucerna, quae lumine a Christo accepto in se Dei cognitione et amore ardebat, aliis vero exemplo sanctitatis et fervore praedicationis lucebat. Joannem enim misit Deus post longum per plura saecula, Prophetarum omnium silentium, quasi coelestem Prophetam, qui tenebras ignorantiae Judaeorum velut lucerna illuminaret; eisque veram lucem, puta Christum Dominum, ostenderet, eique facem praeferret. Ita S. Cyrillus, Leontius, Theophylactus et Euthymius. Christus ergo est sol justitiae, Joannes quasi stella et luna a sole illuminata. Lux enim naturaliter unigenitus est, qui ex luce, id est ex substantia Patris, effulsit, ait Cyrillus. Joannes vero lucerna fuit, quia luxit luce ab eo derivata et participata; luxit, inquam, oleo, id est gratia Spiritus Sancti, quae instar olei, animas nostras, quasi lucernas ingressa, nutrit, conservat, auget. Unde ejus typus fuit lucerna oleo ardens in templo, ante Deum residentem in Sancto sanctorum; sic enim Joannes lucet ante Christum. Lucerna ergo ardens ac lucens semper in tabernaculo testimonii fuit Joannes Baptista, ait Cyrillus. Vide dicta Exodi XXV, 31. Moraliter: S. Bernardus, serm. De S. Joanne Baptista, docet sanctos viros et praedicatores, prius in seipsis debere ardere charitate et zelo; antequam aliis praedicando luceant, « Est enim, ait, tantum lucere vanum, tantum ardere parum; ardere et lucere perfectum. » Et inferius: « Ille erat lucerna ardens et lucens. Non ait: Lucens et ardens, quia Joannis ex fervore splendor, non fervor prodiit ex splendore; sunt enim qui non eo lucent, quia fervent, sed magis fervent ut luceant. At isti plane non fervent charitatis spiritu, sed studio vanitatis. » Ac mox triplicem in Joanne ardorem et splendorem assignans, subjicit: « Ardens enim erat in seipso vehementi austeritate conversationis: erga Christum intimo quodam et pleno fervore devotionis; erga peccantes proximos constantia libera increpationis; luxit nihilominus, ut paucis dixerim, exemplo, digito, verbo; et seipsum ostendens ad imitationem, et luminare majus, quod latebat, ad peccatorum remissionem, et ipsas quoque tenebras nostras illuminans. » Et mox: « Considera hominem angelico promissum oraculo, conceptum miraculo, sanctificatum in utero, et novum in novo homine paenitentiae mirare fervorem. » Audi Alcuinum hic: « Joannes erat lucerna, illuminatus a Christo luce, ardens fide et dilectione, lucens verbo et actione; qui praemissus est, ut inimicos Christi confunderet, secundum illud: Paravi lucernam Christo meo, inimicos ejus induam confusione. » Talis fuit S. Athanasius; unde S. Gregorius Nazianzenus, orat. 21, quae est de laudibus Athanasii, ipsum nuncupat oculum mundi, praelatum sacerdotum, ducem et magistrum Confessorum, vocem sublimem, firmam fidei columnam, post Joannem Baptistam secundam lucernam lucentem et ardentem. Additque: Athanasius « percutientibus erat adamas (per invictam patientiam), dissidentibus magnes, » eos ad se alliciens et inter se concilians. Et inferius: « Virgines, inquit, eum ut pronubum laudent, conjuges moderatorem, Anachoretae excitatorem, Coenobitae legislatorem, simplices deductorem, speculationi dediti Theologum, hilares fraenum, calamitosi consolatorem, canities baculum, juventus paedagogum, paupertas largitorem, divitiae dispensatorem, aegrotantes medicum, sani valetudinis custodem; omnes denique eum qui omnibus omnia factus est, ut omnes, vel quamplurimos lucrifaceret. » Et anterius: « Ipse, ait, Abrahae, Isaac, Jacob, Mosis, Davidis, Samuelis, Eliae, Elisaei caeterorumque Sanctorum virtutes, in unam sui ipsius complexus animam, unum ex omnibus virtutis simulacrum numeris omnibus absolutum edidit. » Talis quoque fuit S. Basilius, de quo idem Nazianzenus, orat. 20. « Basilii vox, ait, erat tonitru, quia vita ejus erat fulgur. » Quia vita fulgurabat, ideo voce tonabat. Vos autem voluistis ad horam (ad modicum tempus) exultare in luce ejus. — q. d. Initio praedicante Joanne cum tanta vitae sanctitate et zelo, gavisi estis et exultastis, quod tantus Propheta coelitus exortus esset, quem sperabatis fore vestrum Messiam; sed ubi Joannes vestra scelera taxare coepit, ac indicare me esse Messiam, me, inquam, pauperem et humilem, vos Joannem sprevistis, nec testimonio ejus de me credidistis; quia si credidissetis, me pro Messia recepissetis. Hoc est quod ait Lucas, cap. VII, 30: « Pharisaei autem et legisperiti consilium Dei spreverunt in semetipsis, non baptizati ab eo, » scilicet Joanne. Ita S. Cyrillus, Chrysostomus et alii.
5:36
36. EGO AUTEM HABEO TESTIMONIUM MAJUS JOANNE. OPERA ENIM, QUAE DEDIT MIHI PATER UT PERFICIAM EA; IPSA OPERA, QUAE EGO FACIO, TESTIMONIUM PERHIBENT DE ME, QUIA PATER MISIT ME. — « Majus Joanne, » id est majus testimonio Joannis. « Majus, » id est certius, efficacius, magis convincens me esse Messiam, Dei Filium, a Deo missum ad hominum salutem. Hoc majus testimonium sunt mea opera, id est miracula, « quae dedit mihi Pater, » ut iis probem me ab eo missum. Nam « Joannis testimonium poterat quispiam calumniari, tanquam ad gratiam factum, ait Euthymius; verum opera omni suspicione libera, cunctorum ora contentiosa obturant. » « Opera enim etiam insanis persuaderent, » inquit Chrysostomus. Addit S. Cyrillus: « Quoniam ergo non dignus vobis Joannes fide videtur, majorem testem offero, cujus splendor mentis vestrae oculos ita perstringat, ut nihil omnino dicere possitis: non enim verbis, nec auctoritate hominum rem meam approbo, sed miraculorum splendore ac gratia, me ex Deo natura et natura Deum ostendo. » Opera (miracula) quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, — quia miracula (quale fuit recens paralytici sanatio, v. g. ait Theophylactus) mea sunt opera supernaturalia, quae a nulla creata causa fieri possunt, sed Deo soli sunt propria: unde ipsa sunt quasi sigillum Dei, quibus ipse mihi testimonium perhibet meamque doctrinam obsignat et confirmat. « Quia sunt opera solius divinae virtutis, » ait Euthymius. Unde Lyranus: « Firmum, ait, testimonium est per opera soli Deo possibilia, qui non potest testis esse falsitatis. » Sic et S. Chrysostomus, Cyrillus et alii. Hinc sequitur Judaeos potuisse et debuisse certo cognoscere Jesum esse Messiam, sive Christum et Dei Filium, ex miraculis quae patrabat. Primo, quia Jesus illa faciebat hoc fine et scopo, ut iis probaret se esse Christum et Deum. Hoc ergo evidens erat in attestante, scilicet in miraculis, quae testabantur ipsum dicere verum, scilicet se esse Deum Deique Filium. Secundo, quia Jesus fecit omnia miracula quae Prophetae praedixerunt a Christo esse facienda, uti ipse ostendit Matth. XI, vers. 4 et 5. Tertio, quia, licet aliqui Prophetae et viri sancti nonnulla miracula ediderint, non tamen tot et tanta, quot et quanta edidit Jesus. Rursum Prophetae faciebant miracula non sua virtute, sed invocatione Dei; Christus autem sua virtute, sua auctoritate, suo jussu et imperio quasi Dominus illa efficiebat. Inde ergo facile erat cognoscere ipsum esse Messiam et Deum. Ita S. Athanasius, lib. De Incarnat. Verbi. Hinc etiam multi e Judaeis ipsum ut talem agnoverunt; alii tamen, praesertim Principes et Scribae, licet secreto et sedate omnia Jesu gesta considerantes, iis convincerentur ipsum esse Messiam; tamen alias ira et invidia contra eum acti caecatique, ipsum ut talem non agnoverunt, aut potius agnoscere noluerunt. Igitur duobus maxime modis miracula Jesu probant eum esse Deum. Primum, ratione modi faciendi, ut dixi, quod praepotenti illa vi, sibi propria, uteretur in peragendis miraculis. Deinde nonnulla etiam sibi miracula reservavit, quae ipsa sui natura convincunt et demonstrant eum esse Deum: qualia sunt, quod natus est de Virgine; quod secreta cordium, et quid esset in homine, nosset, et sciret omnia, quae causa fuit quamobrem Apostoli dicerent se credere quod a Deo exiisset. Item, quod futura omnia quae in passione, morte et post resurrectionem juxta Scripturam eventura erant, praedixit: quod, cum voluit, animam suam in cruce posuit, ac deinde tertia die resumpsit; quod ascendit in coelum; quod misit Spiritum Sanctum; denique quod mirificam illam vim patrandorum miraculorum in Apostolos et septuaginta duos discipulos transfudit. Hoc quoque singulare in Christo, eique soli servatum, quod dicturus sum, vis scilicet et potestas semper et ubique prompta parata, et nusquam restricta, tam grandia edendi miracula, tam incredibilia et naturae facultatem superantia, tam plena et perfecta, tam salutaria, tam vera, tam certa ac clara, tam divina ac convenientia Filio Dei. Inter quae maxime eminet salutifera illa et praesentanea virtus sanandi omnes morbos omnium, uti diximus, quotquot eum adibant sanitatis recuperandae gratia, omnibus locis, omni tempore. Haec absoluta potentia et perpetua virtus, solius est Christi. Nec in veteri Testamento Eliae, aut Elisaeo, aut etiam in legis promulgatione Moysi, aut angelis unquam concessa fuit: quippe qui tantum ex intervallo miracula ediderunt, ut ex historiarum collatione constat. Praeterea miracula eorum certo numero comprehendebantur: Christi miraculorum continua series erat, nec ullus numerus iniri poterat. Ita S. Augustinus, epist. 3 ad Volusianum; S. Cyrillus et Chrysostomus, quos citat et sequitur S. Thomas, III part., Quaest. XLIII, art. 4. Quibus adde ea quae Christi mortem quasi effectus consecuta sunt, uti fuere totius mundi per duodecim Apostolos piscatores ad Christum conversio, fervor fidelium primitivae Ecclesiae, Actor. II et seq., Martyrum innumerorum invictum robur, imo in tormentis exultatio, etiam puerorum, virginum et feminarum, etc. Quae omnia clamant Christum ut Dei Filium esse colendum, amandum et adorandum, utpote qui solus haec opera divina Deoque propria efficeret. Haec est gloria Verbi incarnati, quam celebrat S. Joannes, cap. I, vers. 14 Evangel.
5:37
37. ET QUI MISIT ME PATER, IPSE TESTIMONIUM PERHIBUIT DE ME: NEQUE VOCEM EJUS UNQUAM AUDISTIS, NEQUE SPECIEM EJUS VIDISTIS. — « Testimonium perhibuit, » cum in meo baptismo coelitus intonuit: « Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui, » Matth. cap. III, vers. 17. Ita S. Chrysostomus. Rursum « testimonium perhibuit de me, » per Scripturas, puta per Mosen et Prophetas, qui de me meisque operibus ante tot centenos annos prophetarunt, uti mox explicat Christus, vers. 39. Ita Theophylactus, Nonnus, Euthymius et alii. Addit S. Augustinus et S. Hilarius, lib. VI De Trinit., Patrem testificari Jesu, quod ipse sit Filius Dei, cum ejus operibus, id est miraculis cooperatur, eique vim illa operandi tribuit. Verum hoc testimonium includitur in ipsis miraculis, de quibus egit versu praeced. Nota: Christus hic praeter testimonium Joannis, tria alia majora adducit, quibus se probat esse Messiam: primum, ex miraculis, vers. 36; secundum, ex voce Patris in baptismo; tertium, ex Scripturis, vers. 39.
5:38
38. ET VERBUM EJUS NON HABETIS IN VOBIS MANENS (Arabicus, non est firmatum in vobis), QUIA QUEM MISIT ILLE, HUIC VOS NON CREDITIS. — Connexio, et consequenter argumentatio horum verborum est obscura, quam proinde varii varie elucidant. Primo, plane et genuine sic exponas, ut sit occupatio et concessio, q. d. Vos, o Scribae, mihi alleganti testimonium Dei Patris de me, objicietis vos illud non audisse, eo quod vocem Dei propriam et naturalem non audiveritis, nec speciem et faciem ejus videritis, sicut vidit Moses, legem a Deo accipiens in Sina, Exod. XIX, cui proinde vos credere asseritis. Respondeo: Concedo id quod dicitis, sed addo quod nemo, ne Moses quidem, nec majores vestri legem a Deo accipientes in Sina, audierunt propriam Dei vocem, nec ejus speciem et faciem viderunt; sed tantum copiosum ignem, quo tegebatur Deus, viderint, et vocem in aere ab angelo vice Dei formatam audierint. Ego enim solus, qui sum Filius Dei naturalis, ideoque Deo intimus, vocem ejus propriam audivi, et speciem, sive faciem ejus divinam vidi, et video assidue; sed tamen vos urgeo et convinco quod verbum Dei mihi attestantis audistis, cum in baptismo meo Deus Pater publico sono edixit: « Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui, » Matth. III, 17. Rursum quod verbum Dei de me audistis in S. Scripturis, puta in Mose et Prophetis, qui me esse Messiam et Deum attestantur. Verum vos, licet hoc Dei de me verbum et testimonium audiveritis, illud tamen non habetis in vobis manens, quia illud non penetratis mente, non capitis, non intelligitis, non comprehenditis, non creditis, eo quod id me, velut a Deo Patre missum, credere nolitis: qua in re graviter erratis et peccatis. Si enim verbum angeli, vice Dei cum Mose quasi servo suo loquentis, audistis illique creditis; multo magis verbum Dei mihi attestantis quod sim ejus Filius, audire illique credere deberetis, praesertim cum Moses mihi testimonium perhibeat meque a vobis audiri jubeat, ut sequitur. Ita Euthymius: « Cum sermo, ait, qui per legem datus est ac Prophetas, clamet quod Pater Filium suum missurus sit ad salutem vestram, et quod vos illi credere oporteat, vos huic quem ille misit, non credentes, non auscultatis praedicto ejus sermoni, ac proinde nec habetis in vobis manentem. » Hic sensus videtur clarus, planus et genuinus. Secundo, tamen S. Hilarius, lib. IX De Trinit., totum hunc locum sic nectit et explicat, q. d. Propterea vocem ejus non audistis, nec speciem vidistis, nec verbum ejus manet in vobis, quia mihi non creditis, quasi dictum sit: Si mihi crederetis, vocem Patris audiretis, et speciem videretis; qui enim videt me, videt et Patrem; similiter qui audit me, audit et Patrem, et verbum Patris in eo manet. Tertio, S. Cyrillus et Chrysostomus censent haec dici a Christo ad confundendos Judaeos, jactantes quod Deum audissent et vidissent in Sina decalogum promulgantem, q. d. Erratis, et falso jactatis, o Judaei; vos Deum audisse et vidisse in Sina; nam Deus purus est spiritus, qui nec vocem, nec speciem propriam habet, sicut habet homo: quare illa vox quam audistis, et species ignis quam vidistis in Sina, non fuit vox, nec species vera et propria Dei, sed symbolum et signum duntaxat corporeum, vobis corporatis et rudibus arcanam et invisibilem deitatem, instar umbrae repraesentans. Quarto, S. Athanasius, lib. IV Contra Arianos, per verbum, Graece λόγον, intelligit Christum Dei Filium, qui est verbum Patris quem apte jungi cum specie et forma Dei asserit, eo quod ipse character sit et viva imago Patris, sensumque esse, q. d. Vos vocem Dei non audistis, nec formam vidistis, et cum superesset vobis modus unus, ut in me, qui sum Verbum Patris et imago ejus substantiae, quemque qui videt, videt et Patrem, crederetis, hunc modum contemnitis et non creditis mihi: propterea Patris cognitionem non habetis, et divina notitia privati estis. Quinto, Toletus, q. d. Vos, o Judaei, perterriti voce tubali angeli et igne fulgurante in Sina, petiistis vocem hanc terribilem amplius non audire, nec ignem horribilem videre, sed ut Deus vobis per Mosen quasi internuntium loqueretur, idque a Deo obtinuistis; sed verbum et pactum ejus, ad quod vos obligastis, non servatis: acceptastis quidem pactum ejus, nempe vos audituros quem ille miserit Prophetam de gente vestra; at verbum et pactum ejus non manet in vobis, quia quod pepigistis, implere non vultis. Ecce enim ego sum quem ille misit, et vos non mihi creditis, nec auditis me, sicut promisistis. Verum primus sensus maxime videtur congruus et appositus.
5:39
39. SCRUTAMINI SCRIPTURAS, QUIA VOS PUTATIS IN IPSIS VITAM AETERNAM HABERE; ET ILLAE SUNT QUAE TESTIMONIUM PERHIBENT DE ME. — « SCRUTAMINI, » tam in Graeco quam in Latino, potest esse modi indicativi et imperativi: in indicativo modo accipit Cyrillus, q. d. Vos, o Scribae, assidue scrutamini et versatis Scripturas, quae testimonium perhibent de me; sed vos illud capere et intelligere non curatis, quia ad me venire non vultis. Melius S. Augustinus, S. Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, Euthymius et alii accipiunt in imperativo, q. d. Vestigate Scripturas, et in iis invenietis Deum Patrem mihi perhibere testimonium. Porro, per vi « scrutamini, » Christus, ait Chrysostomus, « Judaeos ad Scripturarum non simplicem et nudam lectionem, sed ad investigationem perquam diligentem relegavit; non enim dixit: Legite Scripturas, sed scrutamini, » id est diligenter quaerite, et quasi effodite latentes in ea de me rebusque divinis thesauros, sicut qui scrutantur venas auri et argenti, terram effodiunt ut aurum inveniant. « Effodere profundius jubet, ut ea quae alte in modum thesauri recondita sunt, possint invenire, » ait ex S. Chrysostomo Euthymius. Sic et Theophylactus. « Dixerat eis, ait, verbum Dei, hoc est Scripturae, quae de me testantur, non sunt in vobis. Igitur quomodo poterunt habere verbum Dei? inquit: Scrutamini Scripturas. » Sic Scripturas scrutabantur ii quibus praedicabat Paulus, Actor. XVII, 11, sed sincere et solius veritatis cognoscendae studio: quare in Scripturis invenerunt Christum; quem eis praedicabat Paulus. QUIA VOS PUTATIS IN IPSIS (id est in earum intelligentia, fide et observatione) VITAM AETERNAM HABERE. — Si quis enim credat et faciat quae jubet Scriptura, vitam aeternam assequetur. Hinc patet Judaeos plerosque, ac nominatim Pharisaeos, credidisse animae immortalitatem aliamque post hanc superesse vitam, in qua probis vita aeterna, improbis mors aeterna, a Deo irroganda sit. Dico plerosque; nam Sadducaei haec omnia negabant, ut patet Actor. XXIII, 8. Et (id est etenim; Hebraeum enim vau, id est et, saepe est causale, idemque valet quod nam, quia, etenim. Ita Euthymius; dat enim causam cur dixerit: « Scrutamini Scripturas; » quia scilicet) ILLAE SUNT QUAE TESTIMONIUM PERHIBENT DE ME, — scilicet multae ad litteram, plures in sensu allegorico et mystico; quia « finis legis est Christus, » Rom. X, 4; nam, ut ait Petrus, « huic omnes Prophetae testimonium perhibent, remissionem peccatorum accipere per nomen ejus, omnes qui credunt in eum, » Actor. X, 43. Lector ergo sacrae Scripturae, ac praesertim interpres, doctor et praedicator, scrutetur Scripturas, et in omnibus inveniet Christum vel in veritate apertum, vel sub umbris et figuris opertum, celatum et velatum. Vide nostrum Josephum Acostam, lib. De Christo revelato, ac S. Cyprianum, lib. De Testimonio contra Judaeos.
5:40
40. ET (tamen) NON VULTIS VENIRE AD ME UT VITAM HABEATIS, — q. d. Non vultis mihi adhaerere, in me credere, meam doctrinam et legem capessere, ut vitam aeternam a Scriptura praedicatam acquiratis. Ad illam enim ego solus sum via, veritas et vita, Joan. XIV, 6.
5:41
41. CLARITATEM (Graece doxan, id est gloriam) AB HOMINIBUS NON ACCIPIO. — Est occupatio; q. d. Vos, o Scribae, suspicamini et mihi objicitis quod ego tam magnifica de me praedicem, meamque dignitatem et auctoritatem tam impense probare coner ex studio vanae gloriae, quod scilicet vener auram populi, ab eoque glorificari, magnusque, imo Filius Dei haberi cupiam. Respondeo, me haec de meipso praedicare, non propter me ut gloriam hominum aucuper, sed propter vos, ut scilicet vos salvem; vestrae enim salutis sum avidus, illamque sitio: scio enim neminem posse salvari et vitam aeternam possidere, nisi per me, utpote quem Deus constituit mundi Salvatorem. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Cyrillus, Leontius et alii, idque patet ex sequentibus.
5:42
42. SED COGNOVI VOS, QUIA DILECTIONEM DEI NON HABETIS IN VOBIS, — q. d. Scio et penetro intima cordis vestri (sum enim cardiognostes et cordium inspector, quia Deus), videoque in iis nil esse amoris divini, sed illa plena esse ambitione, avaritia, superbia: quae est causa cur tam clara testimonia, quae ego pro me profero, accipere et in me credere nolitis, q. d. Radix vestrae incredulitatis et obstinationis non est mea gloriae ambitio, sed vestra vesterque defectus charitatis. Si enim vere Deum diligeretis eique uni placere studeretis, utique me ab eo missum et tam clare in Scriptura descriptum agnosceretis. Sic et hodie haeresis causa in multis est vitiatus amor; quia scilicet multi amant libertatem carnis, quam docet haeresis, nec amant Deum, qui eam stringit et vetat. Aliter haec cum praecedentibus nectit Cyrillus, q. d. Non haec magna de me praedicavi propter claritatem, ut scilicet humanam laudem aucuper, sed ut cognoscatis (sicut ego cognosco) dilectionem Dei non esse in vobis, qua privati, quomodo poteritis ad me, qui Filius sum Dei, venire? Aliter quoque Chrysostomus et Euthymius, q. d. Vos, o Scribae, me persequimini, non ex zelo Dei, quod Deum Deique honorem diligatis, sed ex odio et invidia; nam ego tot testimoniis probavi me esse a Deo missum. Aliter denique Toletus et Maldonatus, q. d. Ego praedico me esse Messiam et Dei Filium, non quod quaeram vanam hominum gloriam, sed quia cognovi, id est cognosco, vos dilectionem Dei, quae ad vitam aeternam ducit, non habere; ut scilicet ad dilectionem hanc per fidem, qua in me credatis, adducam.
5:43
43. EGO VENI IN NOMINE PATRIS MEI, ET NON ACCIPITIS ME: SI ALIUS VENERIT IN NOMINE SUO, ILLUM ACCIPIETIS. — « In nomine Patris, » quasi Filius missus a Deo Patre, ut ejus nomine et auctoritate, atque ad illius unius laudem et gloriam impleam illa quae ipse vobis de Messia promisit; nimirum ut per illum Dei notitiam, gratiam, salutem et vitam aeternam vobis largiatur; idque tot testimoniis quae Pater mihi dedit, vobis clare probavi; et tamen « non accipitis me, » sed ut pseudoprophetam refutatis: quare justo Dei judicio fiet, ut, si alius pseudopropheta ad vos venerit, non missus a Deo, sed « in nomine suo, » id est sua auctoritate, sua ambitione, sua audacia sese ingerens, fingens jactansque se esse Messiam, illum ut talem recipiatis. « Alius » ergo hic erit Antichristus, cui credent Judaei, qui Christum respuerunt, juxta illud Pauli, II Thessal. II, 10: « Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio, ut judicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati. » Vide ibi dicta. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Cyrillus, Augustinus, Beda, Leontius et passim veteres. Rursum, « alius » quilibet pseudopropheta, fingens se esse Christum, ideoque Antichristi praecursor hic accipi potest, qualis fuit paulo post Christum Aegyptius ille, qui triginta hominum millia post se duxit in exitium, de quo Josephus, lib. II Belli, cap. XII. Item Ben chosba, id est filius mendacii, qui se falso vocabat Barchocabas, id est filium stellae, sub Adriano Imperatore, de quo Eusebius, lib. IV Histor., cap. VI.
5:44
44. QUOMODO VOS POTESTIS CREDERE, QUI GLORIAM AB INVICEM ACCIPITIS; ET GLORIAM QUAE A SOLO DEO EST, NON QUAERITIS? — q. d. Vos gloriam humanam, brevem et exilem captatis: quare me spernitis, qui gloriam humanam contemno et contemnendam doceo; sectandam vero esse divinam et aeternam, quam Deus Sanctis inchoat in terra, sed perficiet in coelo, ubi eos omni gloria cumulabit ac beabit. Ita Theophylactus. Rursum, q. d. Vos vultis coli a populo, quasi sapientes summique legis doctores, ac religiosissimi ejus observatores: quare non vultis mihi subjici meique fieri discipuli. Ambitio ergo est, quae vos excaecat et in infidelitate vestra obdurat.
5:45
45. NOLITE PUTARE QUIA EGO ACCUSATURUS SIM VOS APUD PATREM: EST QUI ACCUSAT VOS MOYSES, IN QUO VOS SPERATIS. — Audi Cyrillum: « Non opus est alio accusatore, sed etiam caeteris omnibus silentibus, solam Moysis legem, ad condemnationem non credentium in se Judaeorum sufficere asserit. » Mosen nominat, quia Judaei totam suam fidem et spem in Moyse locabant. Unde dicebant: « Nos Moysi discipuli sumus: nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus, hunc autem nescimus unde sit, » Joan. IX, 28. Quare Christus « sagaciter hoc in ipsorum caput retorquet, » ait Euthymius. Unde sequitur:
5:46
46. SI ENIM CREDERETIS MOYSI, CREDERETIS FORSITAN ET MIHI: DE ME ENIM ILLE SCRIPSIT. — « FORSITAN: » sic Interpres noster vertere solet Graecum an, id est utique; quod proinde confirmantis est, non dubitantis, q. d. Si Moysi crederetis, utique mihi quoque crederetis. Quare veteres nonnulli non legunt « forsitan. » Vide dicta Matth. XI, 23. DE ME ENIM ILLE SCRIPSIT, — tum in Levitico totoque Pentateucho; nam omnes ejus caeremoniae et historiae fere me praefigurarunt: ita S. Chrysostomus et Cyrillus; tum clare et diserte de me scripsit Deuter. XVIII, 15 et 18, dicens: « Prophetam suscitabo eis de medio fratrum suorum, similem tui, et ponam verba mea in ore ejus; qui autem verba ejus, quae loquetur in nomine meo, audire noluerit, ego ultor existam. » Haec enim scripsit de Christo Moses. Et tempus venturi Messiae ex oraculo Jacobi assignat dicens: « Non auferetur sceptrum de Juda, et dux de femore ejus, donec veniat qui mittendus est. » Jam autem a Juda sceptrum defecerat translatumque erat ad Herodem: ergo erat jam tempus adventus Messiae.
5:47
47. SI AUTEM ILLIUS LITTERIS NON CREDITIS: QUOMODO VERBIS MEIS CREDETIS? — Est argumentum ad hominem; Judaei enim Mosen praeferebant Christo; quare recte contra eos argumentatur: Si vos Moysis, quem vos summi facitis, litteris quas de me scripsit, non creditis, multo minus meis verbis credetis. Frustra ergo tot testimonia profero, cum vos in mei odio et rebellione obfirmatos obstinatosque videam. Sermonem ergo finio, taceo et abeo.
5:1
Supra dominus egit de regeneratione spirituali; hic agit consequenter de beneficiis quae regeneratis spiritualiter conferuntur a Deo. Sed his qui carnaliter generantur tria conferuntur a parentibus carnalibus: scilicet vita, nutrimentum et doctrina sive disciplina; et haec tria a Christo etiam regenerati spiritualiter percipiunt. Primo quidem spiritualem vitam; secundo vero spirituale nutrimentum; tertio spiritualem doctrinam. Secundum hoc ergo de tribus hic agitur. Primo de collatione spiritualis vitae; secundo de collatione spiritualis cibi; et hoc infra VI, ibi post haec abiit Iesus etc.; tertio de spirituali doctrina, infra VII post haec ambulabat Iesus. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit signum visibile, in quo manifestatur virtus Christi factiva et reparativa vitae, secundum consuetudinem huius Evangelii, in quo semper doctrinae Christi adiungitur aliquod visibile factum, pertinens ad illud de quo est doctrina, ut sic ex visibilibus invisibilia innotescant. Secundo ponitur occasio doctrinae proponendae, ibi erat autem sabbatum et cetera. Tertio ponitur ipsa doctrina, ibi respondit itaque Iesus: amen, amen dico vobis et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describitur locus miraculi perpetrati; secundo infirmitas, ibi erat autem ibi homo etc.; tertio restitutio sanitatis, ibi dixit ei Iesus: surge, tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. Locus autem miraculi describitur dupliciter, scilicet generalis et specialis. Generalis locus est Ierosolyma; et ideo dicit: post haec, idest post miraculum in Galilaea factum, erat dies festus Iudaeorum; scilicet Pentecostes, secundum Chrysostomum: nam supra fit mentio de festo Paschae, quando ierat in Ierusalem. Nunc ergo in sequenti festo Pentecostes, ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam, iterato: nam, sicut legitur Ex. XXIII, 17, mandatum erat a domino, ut omne masculinum generis Iudaeorum tribus vicibus in anno, scilicet in die festo Paschae, Pentecostes, Scenopegiae, in templo praesentaretur. Et in istis festis dominus in Ierusalem ascendit propter duo: scilicet ne videretur legi fore contrarius, sicut ipse dixerat, Matth. c. V, 17: non veni legem solvere, sed adimplere: et ut multitudinem populi illuc concurrentis in diebus festis ad Deum per signa et doctrinam trahat, secundum illud Ps. CVIII, v. 30: in medio multorum laudabo eum: et alibi annuntiabo iustitiam tuam in Ecclesia magna. Unde et ipse dicit, infra XVIII, 20: ego palam locutus sum mundo.
5:2
Locus autem specialis miraculi fuit probatica piscina; et ideo dicit: est Ierosolymis probatica piscina etc., quae quidem describitur ex quatuor, scilicet ex nomine, ex dispositione, ex inhabitatione, et ex virtute. Ex nomine quidem cum dicit probatica piscina: probaton enim Graece ovis dicitur. Probatica ergo piscina, quasi oviaria, vel pecuaria dicitur, ex eo quod sacerdotes cadavera bestiarum, et praecipue ovium, quae ut plurimum in sacrificiis offerebantur, ibi abluebant: et ideo Hebraice cognominabatur Bethsaida, idest domus ovium. Erat enim prope templum ex aquis pluvialibus collecta. Mystice autem, secundum Chrysostomum, haec piscina Baptismum praefigurabat: nam dominus volens gratiam baptismalem in diversis praefigurare, primo quidem dedit aquam expurgantem corporis sordes, quae erant ex tactu immundorum secundum legem, de qua habetur Num. XIX. Secundo dedit virtutem huic piscinae quae repraesentat expressius quam aqua illa virtutem Baptismi, non solum ab immunditiis carnis sanando, sed etiam ab infirmitatibus corporis salvando: nam quanto figurae fuerunt propinquiores veritati, tanto expressiores erant. Signabat ergo virtutem Baptismi: quia sicut aqua illa per hoc quod lavabat corpora, habebat virtutem ex Angelo, non natura propria, infirmitatem sanandi, ita aqua Baptismi habet virtutem sanandi et abluendi animam a peccatis; Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis nostris. Et inde est quod passio Christi per sacrificia veteris legis praefigurata, in Baptismo repraesentatur; Rom. VI, 3: quicumque baptizati estis in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati estis et cetera. Secundum Augustinum vero, aqua illius piscinae significabat statum populi Iudaeorum, secundum illud Apoc. XVII, 15: aquae multae, populi multi. Nam populus gentium non erat inclusus sub limite divinae legis, sed unusquisque ambulabat secundum vanitatem cordis sui, secundum illud Eph. IV, 17. Populus vero Iudaeorum conclusus erat sub cultu unius Dei, secundum illud Gal. III, 23: conclusi in eam fidem quae revelanda erat. Et ideo iste populus significabatur per aquam in piscina conclusam. Et dicitur probatica, quia ipsi erant speciales oves Dei, secundum illud Ps. XCIV, 7: nos autem populus eius, et oves pascuae eius. Ex dispositione autem describitur, quia erat quinque porticus habens, scilicet per circuitum, ut multi sacerdotes absque impedimento commode starent ad lavandum cadavera bestiarum. Per hos quinque porticus mystice significantur, secundum Chrysostomum, quinque vulnera corporis Christi, de quibus dicitur infra XX, 27: mitte manum tuam in latus meum, et noli esse incredulus, sed fidelis. Secundum Augustinum vero, quinque libri Moysi. Ex inhabitatione autem describitur, quia in his, scilicet porticibus, iacebat multitudo magna languentium, caecorum, claudorum, aridorum et cetera. Cuius litteralis ratio est propter concursum omnium infirmorum ad virtutem aquae: quae quia continue non sanabat, nec multos simul, oportebat quod multi illic expectantes morarentur. Per hoc autem mystice significatur, secundum Augustinum, quod lex non poterat peccata sanare, secundum illud Hebr. X, 4: impossibile est per sanguinem hircorum aut taurorum peccata purgari. Sed ostendebat ea tantum, secundum illud Rom. III, 20: per legem enim cognitio peccati. Et ideo iacebant in ea infirmi diversis infirmitatibus, curari non valentes. Quae quidem describuntur quantum ad quatuor. Primo quidem quantum ad situm, quia iacebant prostrati, scilicet per peccata inhaerendo terrenis: qui enim iacet, ex toto inhaeret terrae; Matth. IX, 36: misertus est eorum, quia erant vexati et iacentes, quasi oves non habentes pastorem. Iusti autem non iacent, sed recti ad caelestia stant; Ps. XIX, 9: ipsi, scilicet peccatores, obligati sunt, et ceciderunt; nos autem, scilicet iusti surreximus, et erecti sumus.
5:3
Secundo quantum ad numerum quia multi, unde dicit: multitudo magna; Eccle. I, 15: perversi difficile corriguntur, et stultorum infinitus est numerus. Et Matth. VII, 13: lata est via quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi incedunt per eam. Tertio quantum ad dispositionem seu habitum infirmorum. Et ponit quatuor quae homo per peccatum incurrit. Primo enim homo ex hoc quod subiicitur passionibus peccatorum ei praedominantibus, efficitur languidus: et quantum ad hoc dicit languentium. Unde et a Tullio passiones animae, puta irae et concupiscentiae, et huiusmodi, quaedam aegritudines animae dicuntur. Unde Ps. VI, 3, dicebat: miserere mei, domine quoniam infirmus sum. Secundo vero ex dominio passionum et victoria in homine excaecatur ratio per consensum: et quantum ad hoc dicit caecorum, scilicet per peccata, secundum illud Sap. II, v. 21: excaecavit eos malitia eorum; Ps. LVII, v. 9: supercecidit ignis, scilicet irae et concupiscentiae, et non viderunt solem. Tertio, homo languens et caecus efficitur instabilis in suis operibus, et est quasi claudus; unde dicitur Prov. XI, 18: impius facit opus instabile. Et quantum ad hoc dicit claudorum; III Reg. XVIII, 21: usquequo claudicatis in duas partes? Quarto homo sic languidus, caecus intellectu, claudus in effectu, efficitur aridus in affectu, inquantum exsiccatur in eo omnis pinguedo devotionis, quam petebat Psalmus LXII, 6, dicens: sicut adipe et pinguedine repleatur anima mea. Et quantum ad hoc dicit aridorum; Ps. XXI, 16: aruit tamquam testa virtus mea. Sed sunt aliqui sic affecti languore peccati, qui non expectant aquae motum, in peccatis suis requiescentes, secundum illud Sap. XIV, 22: in magno viventes inscientiae bello, tot et tanta mala pacem appellant. De quibus dicitur Prov. II, 14: laetantur cum male fecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis. Cuius ratio est, quia non abhorrent peccata; nec peccant ex ignorantia, seu infirmitate, sed ex certa malitia. Isti autem, utpote non ex malitia peccantes, non quiescebant in peccatis sed per desiderium expectabant aquae motum. Unde dicit et expectantium; Iob XIV, 14: cunctis diebus quibus nunc milito, expecto donec veniat immutatio mea. Sic et illi qui erant in veteri testamento expectabant Christum, secundum illud Gen., penult., 18: salutare tuum expectabo, domine.
5:4
Ex virtute vero describitur piscina, quia sanat ab omni infirmitate corporali, virtute Angeli descendentis; et ideo dicit Angelus autem domini secundum tempus descendebat in piscinam. Et quidem virtus piscinae in aliquo concordat cum Baptismo, et in aliquo differt. Concordat quidem in duobus. Primo quidem in occultatione virtutis: nam virtus aquae huius piscinae non erat ex natura sua, alias semper sanasset, sed ex aliqua virtute occulta, scilicet ex Angelo; unde dicitur, quod Angelus domini secundum tempus descendebat in piscinam. Et similiter aqua Baptismi, ex eo quod aqua non habet virtutem purgativam animarum, sed ex occulta virtute spiritus sancti, secundum illud supra III, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Secundo concordat in effectu, quia sicut aqua Baptismi sanat, ita et ista piscina sanabat: et ideo dicit, quod qui prior descendisset, sanus fiebat. Ideo autem virtutem sanandi corpora aquae istius piscinae Deus contulit, ut homines abluendo, per salutem corporalem assuescerent quaerere spiritualem. Differt autem quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad id cuius virtute hoc fiebat: quia aqua piscinae conferebat sanitatem virtute Angeli; aqua vero Baptismi virtute increata, non solum spiritus sancti, sed etiam Trinitatis. Unde etiam Matth. III, 16 s. super dominum baptizatum tota Trinitas affuit: pater in voce, filius in persona, spiritus sanctus in columbae specie. Et inde est quod in nostro Baptismo fit invocatio Trinitatis. Secundo differt quantum ad efficaciam: quia aqua piscinae non habuit virtutem sanativam continue, sed secundum tempus, idest determinato tempore; aqua vero Baptismi continuam abluendi virtutem habet, secundum illud Zach. XIII, 1: erit fons patens domui Iacob, et habitantibus Ierusalem, in ablutionem peccatoris et menstruatae. Tertio quantum ad multitudinem sanandorum: quia ad motum aquae illius piscinae, sanabatur tantum unus; sed ad motum aquae Baptismi sanantur omnes. Nec mirum, quia virtus illius aquae, cum sit creata, finita est, et finitum habet effectum; in hac vero aqua virtus est infinita ad infinitas animas, si essent, abluendas; Ez. XXXVI, 25: effundam super vos aquam mundam, et mundabimini ab omnibus inquinamentis vestris. Secundum vero Augustinum, per Angelum istum intelligitur Christus, secundum illud Is. IX, 6, secundum aliam litteram: vocabitur magni consilii Angelus. Sicut ille Angelus secundum tempus descendebat in piscinam, ita et Christus secundum determinatum tempus a patre descendit in mundum; Is. XIV, v. 1: prope est ut veniat tempus eius, et dies eius non elongabuntur; Gal. IV, 4: at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere, factum sub lege. Item sicut ille Angelus non videbatur nisi motu aquae, ita etiam Christus secundum divinitatem non cognoscebatur: quia si cognovissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent: I Cor. II, 8. Nam Is. XLV, 15, dicitur: vere tu es Deus absconditus. Et ideo videbatur aqua turbata sed a quo turbaretur non videbatur, quia infirmitatem Christi videntes, divinitatem eius non cognoscebant. Et sicut ille qui descendebat in piscinam sanus fiebat; ita et qui humiliter credit in Deum, eius passione sanatur; Rom. III, 24: iustificati per fidem per redemptionem quae est in Christo, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Sanabatur autem unus tantum, quia nullus sanari potest nisi in ecclesiastica unitate; Eph. IV, 5: unus Deus, una fides, unum Baptisma. Vae ergo illis qui oderunt unitatem, et partes sibi faciunt in hominibus.
5:5
Consequenter cum dicit, erat autem quidam homo ibi triginta et octo annos in infirmitate habens, ponit infirmitatem, et primo ponitur diuturna infirmitas; secundo ostenditur causa diuturnae infirmitatis, ibi hunc cum vidisset ergo Iesus et cetera. Infirmitas diuturna erat, quia homo erat habens triginta octo annos in infirmitate sua. Quod satis pulchre introducitur: homo qui curari non poterat a piscina, curandus tamen a Christo; quia quos lex sanare non poterat, Christus perfecte sanat, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 3: nam quod impossibile erat legi in quo infirmabatur per carnem, mittens Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati, de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis. Eccli. XXXVI, 6: innova signa, et immuta mirabilia. Congruit autem iste numerus infirmitati, ad languorem pertinens magis quam ad sanitatem: nam, secundum Augustinum, quadragenarius numerus consecratur ad designandam perfectionem iustitiae, quae in observatione legis consistit. Lex autem in decem praeceptis data est, et praedicanda erat in quatuor partibus mundi, vel implenda per quatuor Evangelia, secundum illud Rom. X, v. 4: finis legis Christus. Quia ergo denarius per quatuor multiplicatus pervenit ad quadragenarium, recte perfecta iustitia designatur: subtractis ergo duobus a quadragenario numero efficiuntur triginta octo. Haec autem duo sunt duo praecepta caritatis, quibus impletur omnis perfecta iustitia. Et ideo homo iste languebat, quia de quadraginta, duo minus habebat, idest imperfectam iustitiam: quia, ut dicitur Matth. XXII, 40: in his duobus pendent lex et prophetae.
5:6
Consequenter cum dicit hunc cum vidisset Iesus, exquiritur causa diuturnae infirmitatis. Et primo ponitur interrogatio domini; secundo responsio languidi, ibi respondit ei languidus. Dixit ergo: hunc, scilicet hominem, cum vidisset Iesus iacentem, non solum oculo corporis, sed etiam miserationis, qualiter videri petebat David dicens: respice in me, domine, et miserere mei. Et cognovisset quia multum tempus haberet, in infirmitate; quod est contra cor Christi, et infirmi, secundum illud Eccli. X, v. 11: languor prolixior gravat medicum. Dixit ei: vis sanus fieri? Non quasi ignorans, nam satis constare poterat quod sanus fieri volebat, sed ut excitet desiderium infirmi, et ut ostendat patientiam, qui tot annis expectavit eripi ab aegritudine, non desistens, et ex hoc cognoscatur dignior ad sanandum; Ps. XXX, 25: viriliter agite, et confortetur cor vestrum, omnes qui speratis in Deo. Excitat autem desiderium: quia stabilius tenetur quod cum desiderio percipitur et facilius acquiritur nobis; Matth. VII: pulsate, per desiderium, et aperietur vobis. Sed notandum, quod dominus a ceteris fidem requirit; Matth. IX, 28: creditis quod possum hoc facere vobis? Sed in isto nihil tale facit: quia illi quidem audierant aliqua de miraculis Iesu, iste autem nondum: et ideo fidem ab eo non requirit, nisi post factum miraculum. Responsio languidi ponitur cum dicit: domine, hominem non habeo. Et duo insinuat, quae causa erant diuturnae infirmitatis: scilicet paupertatem et debilitatem. Quia enim pauper erat, non poterat habere hominem qui mitteret eum in piscinam; unde dicit domine, hominem non habeo et cetera. Et forte, secundum Chrysostomum, opinabatur sibi Christum utilem fore ad mittendum eum in aquam.
5:7
Quia vero debilis erat, et festinanter ire non poterat, praeveniebatur ab alio; unde dicit dum venio enim ego, alius ante me descendit. Et sic poterat dicere cum Iob VI, 13: ecce non est auxilium mihi in me. Per hoc significatur quod non erat aliquis homo purus qui humanum genus salvare posset, quia omnes peccaverunt, et egerunt gratia Dei, quousque veniret Christus Deus et homo, per quem sanaretur.
5:8
Consequenter cum dicit surge, tolle grabatum tuum, ponitur restitutio sanitatis, seu perpetratio miraculi. Et primo ponitur mandatum domini; secundo obedientia hominis, ibi et statim sanus factus est homo et cetera. Praecipit autem dominus naturae, et voluntati hominis; haec enim duo sub potestate eius sunt. Naturae praecipit, cum dicit surge: non enim hoc voluntati praecipitur, quia hoc non erat in eius potestate, sed naturae, quam dominus praecipiendo immutavit, dando ei virtutem qua surgere posset. Voluntati vero duo praecipit, scilicet tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. Et quidem, quantum ad litteram, haec duo praecepit, ut ostendat perfectam sanitatem homini restitutam. In omnibus enim miraculis, secundum optimum illius naturae, dominus perfectum opus fecit; Deut. XXXII, 4, dicitur: Dei perfecta sunt opera. Iste autem in duobus defecerat: scilicet in viribus propriis, se sustinere non valens, unde dominus eum iacentem invenit; et in subsidio aliorum, unde dicebat hominem non habeo. Ut ergo perfecta sanitas innotesceret, ei qui se sustinere non valebat, praecipit ut lectum suum tollat; et ei qui ambulare non poterat, praecepit ut ambulet. Nihilominus tamen haec tria in iustificatione dominus praecipit. Primo quod surgat recedendo a peccato; Eph. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge a mortuis. Secundo praecipitur tolle grabatum, satisfaciendo de commissis. Per grabatum enim, in quo homo requiescit, significatur peccatum. Tollit ergo homo grabatum suum, quando fert onus poenitentiae sibi pro peccato impositum; Mich. c. VII, 9: iram domini portabo, quoniam peccavi ei. Tertio ut ambulet proficiendo in bono, secundum illud Ps. LXXXIII, 8: ibunt de virtute in virtutem. Secundum Augustinum, duo deficiebant isti languido, scilicet praecepta geminae caritatis: et ideo voluntati, quae caritate perficitur, duo mandat, scilicet tollere grabatum, et ambulare. Primum pertinet ad dilectionem proximi, quae prior est ordine faciendi; secundum ad dilectionem Dei, quae prior est ordine praecipiendi. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum tolle grabatum tuum, quasi dicat: quando infirmus es, proximus tuus sustinet te, et patienter fovet ut grabatus infirmum; Rom. XV, 1: debemus nos firmiores, imbecillitates infirmorum sustinere, et non nobis ipsis placere. Quando ergo sanus factus es, tolle grabatum tuum, idest, sustine et supporta proximum tuum, qui te infirmum portabat; Gal. VI, 2: alter alterius onera portate. Quantum vero ad secundum, dicit ambula, appropinquando ad Deum. Unde in Ps. LXXXIII, v. 8, dicitur: ibunt de virtute in virtutem; et sequitur: videbitur Deus deorum in Sion; infra XII, 35: ambulate dum lucem habetis.
5:9
Consequenter cum dicit et statim sanus factus est homo ille, ponitur obedientia: et primo vere quia statim factus est homo sanus. Nec mirum, quia ipse est verbum per quod caelum et terra facta sunt; Ps. CXLVIII, 5: dixit, et facta sunt. Et alibi: verbo domini caeli firmati sunt. Secundo voluntas: et primo, quia sustulit grabatum suum; secundo, quia ambulabat; Ex. XXIV, 7: omnia quaecumque praecepit dominus faciemus, et erimus obedientes.
Posito miraculo visibili, per quod ostenditur virtus Christi ad reparandam vitam spiritualem, hic ponitur occasio doctrinae Christi; quae quidem occasio sumitur ex persecutione Iudaeorum contra Christum mota. Cuius quidem persecutionis duplex causa fuit ex parte Iudaeorum invidentium Christo. Prima quidem operatio pietatis; secunda vero doctrina veritatis, ibi Iesus autem respondit eis: pater meus usque modo operatur et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo praemittitur occasio persecutionis; secundo ponitur calumnia illata contra curatum, ibi dicebant ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat etc.; tertio ponitur calumnia illata contra Christum, ibi interrogaverunt eum: quis est ille homo? et cetera. Occasio autem persecutionis inductae contra Christum sumitur ex eo quod in sabbato curavit; et ideo dicit Evangelista erat autem sabbatum in die illo, quando miraculum fecit Iesus, quando grabatum tollere iussit. Assignatur autem triplex ratio quare dominus in sabbato operari incepit. Una ab Ambrosio super Lucam, Christus enim ad hoc venit, ut opus creationis, scilicet hominem, deformatum repararet. Inde autem incipere debebat, ubi actor in creationis opus consummatum creaverat: hoc autem fuit in die sabbati, ut dicitur Gen. I; et ideo, ut Christus ostenderet se reparatorem totius creaturae, incepit in sabbato. Alia ratio est, quia dies sabbati celebratur a Iudaeis in memoriam primae creationis. Christus autem venit, ut quasi novam creaturam faceret, secundum illud Gal. ult., 15: in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio, neque praeputium aliquid valet; sed nova creatura, per gratiam, quae fit per spiritum sanctum, secundum illud Ps. CIII, 30: emittes spiritum tuum, et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem terrae. Volens ergo Christus ostendere, per eum recreationem fieri, in sabbato operatur; Iac. I, 18: ut simus initium aliquod creaturae. Tertia ratio est, ut ostenderet se facturum quod lex facere non poterat; Rom. VIII, 3: nam quod impossibile erat legi, in quo infirmabatur per carnem, misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati. Et infra ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis. Iudaei autem nihil operabantur in sabbato, in figura quod quaedam quae erant sabbati, consummanda erant, quae per legem fieri non poterant. Et hoc patet in quatuor, quae Deus erga diem sabbati ordinavit. Nam diem sabbati sanctificavit, diem sabbati benedixit, in eo opera sua consummavit, et in eo requievit. Quae quidem lex facere non potuit, nam sanctificare non poterat. Unde Ps. XI, 1, dicebat: salvum me fac, domine, quoniam defecit sanctus. Neque etiam benedicere; quinimmo qui sunt ex operibus legis, sub maledicto sunt, ut dicitur Gal. III, 10. Nec consummare et perficere: quia neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex: Hebr. VII, 19. Nec etiam perfectam quietem praestare: quia, ut dicitur Hebr. IV, 8: nam si eis Iesus requiem praestitisset, numquam de alia loqueretur. Haec ergo quae lex facere non potuit, Christus fecit: ipsum enim populum sanctificavit per passionem. Heb. XIII, 12: Iesus ut per suum sanguinem sanctificaret populum, extra portam passus est. Ipse benedixit per gratiae infusionem; Ephes. I, 3: benedictus Deus pater domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui benedixit nos in omni benedictione spirituali in caelestibus in Christo. Ipse consummavit per perfectae iustitiae instructionem; Matth. V, v. 48: estote perfecti, sicut et pater caelestis perfectus est. Ipse introduxit in veram requiem; Hebr. IV, 3: nos qui credimus, ingrediemur in requiem, quemadmodum dixit: sicut iuravi in ira mea, si introibunt in requiem meam. Ipsi ergo competit in die sabbati operari, qui, quae ad sabbatum pertinent, perficere potest, a quibus lex impotens quiescebat.
5:10
Consequenter ponit calumniam illatam contra curatum, cum dicit: dicebant ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat et cetera. Et primo ponitur calumniae contra curatum illatio; secundo subditur curati excusatio, ibi respondit eis: qui me sanum fecit et cetera. Calumniam autem inferunt contra istum de hoc quod in sabbato grabatum portat, sed non de curatione; unde dicunt sabbatum est, non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum. Cuius ratio multiplex potest assignari. Una, quia Iudaei frequenter Christo de curatione in die sabbati calumniam inferentes, confutati erant a Christo, per hoc quod ipsi etiam iumenta de puteo in die sabbati eruebant et salvabant, ut habetur Lc. XIV, 15. Et ideo de curatione tamquam de re utili et necessaria tacent; de portatione vero lecti, quae non necessaria videbatur, calumniantur; quasi dicant: si sanitas non erat differenda, quid erat necessarium lectum portare, seu portari praecipere? Alia ratio est, quia dominus dixerat, contra eos concludens, quod licet sabbato benefacere. Et ideo, quia curari non est benefacere sed bene pati, curatum potius quam curantem calumniantur. Tertia ratio est, quia hoc in lege videtur prohibitum esse Iudaeis, ne aliquid in die sabbati operentur; specialiter tamen portatio onerum in die sabbati prohibetur. Ier. XVII, 21: ne portetis onera in die sabbati. Et ideo specialiter calumniati sunt portationem in die sabbati, utpote dicto prophetae contrariam. Sed hoc tamen mandatum prophetae mysticum est: nam per onera non portanda intendebat eos inducere ut in die sabbati requiescerent ab oneribus peccatorum; de quibus dicitur in Ps. XXXVII, 5: iniquitates meae sicut onus grave gravatae sunt super me. Unde, quia iam erat tempus solvendi figuras occultas, mandat Christus isti grabatum tollere, idest proximum in infirmitate sustentare, secundum illud Gal. VI, 2: alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi.
5:11
Consequenter ponitur excusatio curati, cum subditur respondit eis: qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit. Et quidem prudenter se excusat: numquam enim adeo bene probatur doctrina esse divinitus, sicut per ostensionem miraculorum, quae nonnisi divinitus fieri possunt. Mc. ult., 20: illi autem profecti praedicaverunt ubique, domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante, sequentibus signis. Et ideo iste, auctorem sanitatis suae calumniantibus, obiiciebat dicens qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit; quasi dicat: vos dicitis prohibitum esse ne onus portetur in sabbato, et hoc auctoritate divina; sed mihi eadem auctoritate est impositum ut tollam grabatum: nam ille, qui me salvum fecit, et per sanitatem restitutam se divinam virtutem habere ostendit, mihi dixit: tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. Et ideo mandatis eius qui tantae est virtutis, et qui mihi tale beneficium contulit, merito teneor obedire. Ps. CXVIII, 93: in aeternum non obliviscar iustificationes tuas, quia in ipsis vivificasti me. Consequenter dicit interrogaverunt ergo eum. Quia curatum hominem calumniari non poterant, Christi curationem calumniari nituntur: per hunc enim se excusaverat homo ille. Et quia eum determinate quis esset, non indicaverat, maligne interrogabant ab eo qui esset. Et ideo circa hoc primo agitur de Christi inquisitione; secundo de eius inventione, ibi postea invenit eum Iesus; tertio de eius persecutione, ibi propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum. Circa primum tria ponuntur: scilicet Iudaeorum inquisitio, curati ignorantia et ignorantiae causa. Quantum ad primum dicitur: interrogabant ergo eum Iudaei, scilicet non bona intentione, ut proficiant, sed maligno animo, ut persequantur et perdant. Infra VIII, 21: quaeretis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Et hanc eorum malitiam eorum verba manifestant.
5:12
Cum enim dominus et sanari languidum, et grabatum tolli iusserit, primum divinae virtutis ostensivum et irrefragabile signum subticent; aliud quod contra legem videtur, replicant, dicentes quis est ille homo qui dixit tibi: tolle grabatum tuum et ambula? Eccli. XI, 33: bona in mala pervertens, insidiatur, et in electis imponit, scilicet imponere nititur maculam. Quantum ad secundum dicit qui autem sanus factus fuerat, nesciebat qui esset. Sanus iste significat fideles per gratiam Christi sanatos. Ephes. II, 8: gratia salvati estis. Qui quidem nesciunt Christum quis est, sed effectum tantum eius cognoscunt. II Cor. c. V, 6: quamdiu sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a domino: per fidem enim ambulamus, et non per speciem. Sed tunc cognoscemus Christum quis est, quando videbimus eum sicuti est: I Io. III, 2.
5:13
Huius autem ignorantiae causam assignat quantum ad tria, cum dicit Iesus autem declinavit a turba constituta in loco. Quod quidem causam habet litteralem et mysticam. Litteralem quidem quantum ad duo. Primo ut daret nobis exemplum occultandi opera nostra bona et non quaerendi in eis hominum favorem, secundum illud Matth. VI, 1: attendite ne iustitiam vestram faciatis coram hominibus. Secundo ut declinemus et fugiamus oculos invidorum ab omnibus operibus nostris, ne ex hoc eorum invidia crescat; Eccli. VIII, 14: ne contra faciem stes contumeliosi, ne sedeat quasi insidiator ori tuo. Mysticam vero quantum ad duo. Primo, ut det intelligere quod Christus non de facili invenitur in hominum multitudine et in turbine curarum temporalium, sed in spirituali secreto. Osee II, 14: ducam eam in solitudinem, et ibi loquar ad cor eius. Nam verba sapientium audiuntur in silentio, ut dicitur Eccle. IX, 17. Secundo, ut insinuet quod Christus debebat declinare a Iudaeis ad gentes; Is. VIII, 17: abscondit faciem suam parumper a Iacob, idest subtraxit veritatis suae notitiam a populo Iudaeorum. Consequenter agitur de inventione Christi, cum dicit postea invenit eum Iesus in templo. Et primo dicit quod invenitur; secundo insinuat quod inventus docet; tertio quod post doctrinam manifestatur. Quantum ad inventionem duo ponit, scilicet modum inveniendi, et locum. Modus quidem est mirabilis, quia non invenitur nisi inveniat, unde dicit postea, scilicet quae dicta sunt, invenit eum Iesus: nam homo sua virtute Christum invenire non potest, nisi ei se Christus praesentet. Unde etiam Ps. CXVIII, 176 dicebat: require servum tuum. Sap. VI, 14: praeoccupat eos qui se concupiscunt. Locus autem in quo invenitur Christus est venerabilis, quia in templo, secundum illud Ps. X, 5: dominus in templo sancto suo. Nam et mater eius in templo eum invenit, Lc. II, 46 et hoc quia in his quae patris sui sunt, oportebat eum esse. In quo datur nobis intelligi quod curatus iste non ad vanitatem, sed ad religionis studium conversus, templum frequentans, in ipso Christum cognoscit: quia si ad conditoris cognitionem venire volumus, fugienda est turba pravorum affectuum, et declinanda sunt malorum conventicula, et fugiendum est ad templum cordis nostri, quod Deus invisere et habitare dignatur.
5:14
Consequenter inventus docet; unde et dixit illi: ecce sanus factus es, iam noli peccare. Ubi primo commemorat impensum beneficium; secundo proponit sanum consilium; tertio ostendit imminens periculum. Sed beneficium est admirabile, quia subita restitutio sanitatis. Unde dicitur ecce iam sanus factus es. Et ideo semper oportet in memoria teneri, secundum illud Is. LXIII, v. 7: miserationum domini recordabor. Consilium vero utile, quia iam amplius noli peccare; Eccli. XXI, 1: fili, peccasti, ne adiicias iterum. Quare dominus isti paralytico et aliis quibusdam ab eo curatis mentionem facit de peccatis, et non aliis? Ideo scilicet ut ostendat per hoc, infirmitates aliquibus, ex peccatis prioribus provenire, secundum illud I Cor. XI, v. 30: ideo multi imbecilles et infirmi, et dormiunt multi. Per quod etiam se esse Deum ostendit, peccata et occulta cordium manifestans. Prov. XV, 11: Infernus et perditio coram illo: quanto magis corda filiorum hominum? Istis ergo solis mentionem de peccatis facit et non aliis ab eo curatis, quia non omnes infirmitates propter peccata priora proveniunt; sed quaedam ex naturali dispositione, quaedam propter probationem, sicut in Iob. Vel de istis tantum mentionem fecit, quia magis praeparati erant ad correctionem. Prov. c. IX, 8: noli arguere derisorem, ne oderit te: argue sapientem, et diliget te. Vel in istis, omnibus aliis hoc mandavit. Periculum autem imminens erat terribile, unde dicit ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat. Quod quidem dupliciter intelligi potest, secundum duo quae in isto praecesserunt. Primo enim punitus fuit per prolixum morbum; secundo consecutus fuit magnum beneficium. Et ideo ad utrumque referri potest quod dicitur. Ad primum quidem: quia cum aliquis pro peccato punitur et ex ipsa poena a peccato non retrahitur, iustum est ut gravius puniatur. Et ideo dicit noli amplius peccare, quia si peccaveris deterius tibi continget. Ier. c. II, 30: frustra percussi filios vestros: disciplinam non receperunt. Ad secundum vero: quia qui post beneficia recepta ad peccata prolabitur, gravioris supplicii reus efficitur propter ingratitudinem, secundum illud II Pet. II, 20: melius erat eis viam veritatis non agnoscere, quam post agnitionem retrorsum converti. Similiter etiam quia postquam homo ad peccatum semel redierit, facilius peccat; secundum illud Mt. XII, v. 45: fiunt novissima hominis illius peiora prioribus. Ier. II, 20: a saeculo fregisti iugum, rupisti vinculum, dixisti: non serviam.
5:15
Consequenter ponitur inventi manifestatio, cum subditur abiit ille homo et annuntiavit et cetera. Et secundum quosdam posset intelligi, ut Chrysostomus dicit, quod ex malitia manifestasset eum; sed hoc non videtur probabile, scilicet quod post tantum beneficium ita ingratus esset. Nuntiavit ergo Iudaeis, quia Iesus esset qui fecit eum sanum, ut manifestaret Christi virtutem ad sanandum. Ps. LXV, 16: venite, et narrabo (...) quanta fecit dominus animae meae. Et hoc patet, quia illi interrogaverunt eum, quis iusserit grabatum tollere. Iste autem annuntiavit eis quod Iesus fecit eum sanum.
5:16
Consequenter cum dicit propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, ponitur persecutio contra Christum, quae est propter quoddam opus pietatis in sabbato exhibitum; unde dicit propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia haec faciebat in sabbato. Ps. CXVIII, 161: principes persecuti sunt me gratis. Consequenter cum dicit Iesus autem respondit eis etc., ponitur secunda causa persecutionis, quae sumitur ex doctrina. Et primo ponitur doctrina veritatis; secundo persecutio Iudaicae pravitatis, ibi propterea ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere. Doctrinam autem veritatis proponit dominus, excusando se de solutione sabbati. Sed notandum est, quod dominus de huius solutione aliquando quidem excusavit se, aliquando discipulos suos. Et discipulos quidem, quia homines puri erant, excusavit per similitudinem hominum, scilicet per exemplum sacerdotum, qui operabantur in templo in die sabbati, et sabbatum non solvebant. Et David, qui sub Achimelech sacerdote in die sabbati a facie Saulis fugiens, panes propositionis accepit de templo, ut habetur I Reg. XXI, v. 1 ss. Se vero, quia homo erat et Deus, aliquando per similitudinem hominum excusavit a solutione sabbati. Lc. XIV, 5: quis vestrum, si ceciderit bos aut asinus suus in puteum, non continuo extrahet eum in die sabbati?
5:17
Aliquando vero, et praecipue in hoc loco, excusat se per similitudinem Dei, dicens pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor; quasi dicat: nolite putare quod in sabbato ita requieverit pater meus, ut ex illo non operetur; sed sicut ipse et nunc sine labore operatur, ita et ego operor. In quo excludit falsum intellectum Iudaeorum, qui volentes conformari Deo, nihil in die sabbati operantur, ac si Deus ipso die omnino destiterit operari. Et quidem licet in sabbato requieverit a novis creaturis condendis, nihilominus tamen semper et continue usque modo operatur, creaturas in esse conservando. Unde et signanter verbo requietionis Moyses est usus post opera Dei, a quibus condendis requievit, ut signaret spiritualem requiem, quam Deus exemplo quietis suae fidelibus postea qui bona fecerint opera, arcana significatione pollicebatur. Unde dici potest, illud mandatum in umbra futuri fuisse praeceptum. Signanter autem dicit usque nunc operatur; non autem operatus est, ut designet continuationem divini operis. Nam possent imaginari Deum esse causam mundi, sicut artifex est causa domus, quantum ad fieri tantum: ut sicut domus manet, etiam cessante operatione artificis, ita et mundus subsistere posset, influxu divino cessante. Sed, secundum Augustinum, Deus ita est causa omnium creaturarum quod sit etiam causa subsistendi; quia si eius potentia ad momentum cessaret, simul et illarum cessarent species omnes, quas natura continet: sicut si dicerem, quod aer tamdiu illuminatur quamdiu lumen solis manet in ipso. Cuius quidem ratio est, quia ea quae causam habent, quantum ad fieri solum, cessante causa subsistere possunt; ea vero quae non solum fieri, sed etiam subsistentiae causam habent, continua conservatione causae indigent. Excludit etiam per hoc quod dicit pater meus usque modo operatur, opinionem quorumdam dicentium, quod Deus mediantibus secundis causis res producit; quod est contra illud Is. XXVI, 12: omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis, domine. Sicut ergo pater meus, in principio instituendo naturam, usque modo operatur, eadem operatione ipsam continendo et conservando, et ego operor, quia sum patris verbum, per quod omnia operatur; Gen. I, 3: dixit Deus: fiat lux. Unde sicut primam institutionem rerum per verbum operatus est, ita et ipsarum conservationem. Et sic si ipse usque modo operatur, et ego operor, quia sum verbum patris, per quod omnia fiunt et conservantur.
5:18
Consequenter cum dicit propterea ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, ponitur persecutio ex doctrina proveniens: quia propter ipsam doctrinam Iudaei magis, idest avidiori animo, ferventiori zelo, quaerebant eum interficere. Duo enim crimina in lege morte punita fuerunt: scilicet crimen solutionis sabbati, unde ille qui collegit ligna in sabbato lapidatus est, Num. XV, 32, et crimen blasphemiae, unde dicitur Lev. XXIV, 14: educ blasphemum extra castra (...) et lapidet eum omnis multitudo filiorum Israel. Blasphemiam autem isti reputabant quod homo diceret se esse Deum; infra X, 33: de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia, quia homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum. Et haec duo crimina imponebant Christo: unum scilicet quia solvebat sabbatum, aliud quia dicebat se aequalem Deo. Unde dicit, quod ideo quaerebant eum occidere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed etiam patrem suum dicebat Deum. Sed quia etiam alii iusti Deum patrem suum dicunt: Ier. III, 19: patrem vocabis me, ideo non solum dicunt quod patrem suum dicebat Deum, sed addunt quod pertinet ad blasphemiam aequalem se faciens Deo, quod ex hoc colligunt quod dixit: pater meus operatur, et ego operor. Deum patrem suum dicit, ut det intelligere quod pater eius est per naturam, aliorum autem per adoptionem: secundum quem modum loquitur infra XX, 17: vado ad patrem meum, scilicet per naturam, et patrem vestrum, scilicet per gratiam. Item ad similitudinem eius se operari dicit, solvens per hoc calumniam Iudaeorum de solutione sabbati: quae non esset conveniens excusatio, nisi aequalis auctoritatis esset in operando cum Deo. Et ideo dicunt quod facit se aequalem Deo. Et quidem magna est Arianorum caecitas, qui in verbis domini non possunt intelligere quod Iudaei intelligunt, dicentes Christum Deo patre minorem esse. Sed Ariani dicunt, quod Christus non fecit se aequalem Deo, sed Iudaei hoc suspicabantur. Sed per ea quae dicta sunt in ipso textu, aliter etiam manifestum est. Nam Evangelista dicit quod Iudaei persequebantur Christum, quia solvebat sabbatum, et quia dicebat patrem suum Deum, et quia faciebat se aequalem Deo. Aut ergo Christus est mendax, aut est aequalis Deo. Sed si est aequalis Deo, ergo Christus Deus est per naturam. Dicit autem Evangelista se aequalem faciens Deo, non quod ipse aequalem se Deo faceret, quia per aeternam generationem aequalis erat Deo; sed secundum intentionem Iudaeorum loquens, qui non credentes Christum esse filium Dei per naturam, intellexerunt ex verbis eius quod se diceret Dei filium, quasi volens se aequalem Deo facere, cum tamen hoc eum esse non crederent; infra c. X, 33: tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum; idest, dicis te esse Deum: quod interpretatur ac si tu ipse facias teipsum Deum.
5:19
Hic tradit doctrinam de potestate vivificativa. Et primo ponitur ipsa doctrina; secundo confirmatio eius, ibi si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit doctrinam eius de potestate vivificativa in communi; secundo in speciali, ibi et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo insinuat potestatis suae originem; secundo ipsius potestatis magnitudinem, ibi quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit. Tertio assignat utriusque rationem, ibi pater enim diligit filium. Considerandum autem circa primum, quod Ariani ex his verbis quae hic dominus dicit non potest filius a se facere quidquam etc., errorem suum confirmare nituntur, scilicet quod filius minor sit patre, quia, secundum quod Evangelista dixit, Iudaei persequebantur Christum, quia faciebat se aequalem Deo. Quod videns dominus, Iudaeos ex hoc moveri, volens hoc excludere, ut Ariani dicunt, talia verba subiunxit, ut se aequalem patri non esse monstraret, dicens: amen, amen dico vobis, non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem; quasi dicat: non intelligatis me per hoc quod dixi pater meus operatur, et ego operor, sic operari quasi ego sim ei aequalis, quia nihil possum facere a meipso. Quia ergo filius non potest facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, utique minor est patre, ut ipsi dicunt. Sed hic intellectus falsus est et erroneus: quia si filius non esset aequalis patri, tunc non esset filius idem cum patre, quod est contra illud, infra X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus. Nam aequalitas attenditur secundum magnitudinem, quae in divinis est ipsa essentia. Unde si esset patri inaequalis, differret ab eo secundum essentiam. Ad verum autem huius intellectum, sciendum est, quod in his quae in filio minorationem importare videntur, posset dici ab aliquibus haec de Christo dicta esse secundum naturam assumptam, sicut dicitur infra XIV, v. 28: pater maior me est. Unde secundum hoc vellent dicere, quod hoc quod dominus dicit non potest filius a se facere quidquam, intelligendum est de filio secundum naturam assumptam. Quod quidem stare non potest, quia secundum hoc oporteret dicere quod omnia quae filius Dei fecit in natura assumpta, pater ante eum fecisset; puta quod siccis pedibus super mare ambulasset, sicut Christus ambulavit, alias non diceretur nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Sed si dicatur, quod quaecumque Christus in carne fecit, etiam Deus pater fecit, inquantum in eo pater operatur, secundum illud, infra XIV, 10: pater autem in me manens ipse facit opera; ut sit sensus: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, in seipso, scilicet filio. Sed nec hoc stare potest, quia secundum hoc ea quae sequuntur, non possent ei adaptari, scilicet quaecumque ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit. Numquam enim secundum naturam assumptam filius creavit mundum, sicut pater creavit. Non ergo ad naturam assumptam referendum est quod dicitur. Secundum Augustinum autem, alius modus est intelligendi ea quae videntur in filio minorationem importare, licet non importent: ut scilicet referantur ad originem filii a patre. Quia licet filius sit aequalis patri per omnia, tamen hoc ipsum habet a patre per aeternam generationem; sed pater a nullo habet, cum sit ingenitus. Unde secundum hoc continuatur sic. Quid scandalizati estis, quia patrem meum dixi Deum, et quia aequalem me feci Deo? Amen, amen dico vobis, non potest filius a seipso facere quidquam; quasi dicat: ita sum aequalis patri, ut ab illo sim, non ille a me; et quidquid ego habeo ut faciam, est mihi a patre. Secundum hunc ergo modum in his verbis fit mentio de potestate filii, per hoc verbum potest, et de eius operatione per hoc verbum facere. Et ideo utrumque potest hic intelligi: ut scilicet ostendatur primo derivatio potestatis filii a patre; secundo vero ut ostendatur conformitas operationis filii ad operationem patris. Quantum ad primum, exponit Hilarius hoc modo. Supra dominus dixit se esse aequalem patri. Sed aliqui haeretici propter auctoritates Scripturae, quae dicunt unitatem et aequalitatem filii ad patrem, attribuunt filio quod sit ingenitus, sicut Sabelliani, dicentes filium esse idem cum patre in persona. Ne ergo hoc intelligas, dicit: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nam potentia filii idem est quod natura eius. Ab eo ergo filius habet posse a quo habet esse; esse autem habet a patre, infra XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum: a quo etiam habet naturam, quia Deus est de Deo, ergo ab eo habet posse. Sic ergo hoc quod dicit: non potest filius facere quidquam, nisi quod patrem viderit facientem, tantum valet ac si dicatur: filius, sicut non habet esse nisi a patre, ita nec posse facere aliquid nisi a patre. In naturalibus enim ab eodem aliquid accipit posse operari a quo recipit esse, sicut ignis ab eo recipit quod possit ascendere sursum a quo recipit formam et esse. Nec tamen per hoc quod dicit non potest filius a se facere quidquam, importatur inaequalitas: quia hoc pertinet ad relationem; quaestio autem aequalitatis et inaequalitatis pertinet ad quantitatem. Per hoc autem quod dicit nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, posset alicui falsus intellectus subintrare, ut crederet filium hoc modo facere, quia vidit patrem facientem; scilicet, quod pater primo fecit, hoc viso, filius postea inceperit facere; ad modum duorum fabrorum, magistri scilicet et discipuli, qui arcam facit secundum modum quem viderit magistrum facere. Quod quidem non est verum de verbo; nam supra dicitur: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Ergo pater non fecit aliquid, ita quod filius videret fieri, et addisceret. Sed hoc dictum est ut designetur communicatio paternitatis filio per generationem, quae convenienter designatur hoc verbo viderit, quia per visum et auditum in nos ab alio scientia transfunditur. Nam per visum quidem scientiam a rebus accipimus, per auditum vero a sermonibus. Filius autem non est aliud quam sapientia, secundum illud Eccli. XXIV, 5: ego ex ore altissimi prodii primogenita ante omnem creaturam. Et sic derivatio filii a patre nihil aliud est quam derivatio divinae sapientiae. Quia ergo visio designat derivationem cognitionis et sapientiae ab alio, recte per visionem generatio filii a patre designatur, ut sic nihil aliud sit filium videre patrem facientem, quam procedere intelligibili processione a patre operante. Potest autem et de huiusmodi, secundum Hilarium, alia ratio assignari; scilicet, ut per hoc quod dicit viderit, excludatur omnis imperfectio a generatione filii vel verbi; nam in generatione materiali illud quod generatur, paulatim per incrementa temporum ab imperfecto ad perfectum perducitur: non enim iam perfectum est aliquid quando generari incipit. Sed hoc in generatione aeterna locum non habet, cum sit generatio perfecti a perfecto. Et ideo dicit nisi quod viderit filius patrem facientem. Cum enim videre sit actus perfecti, manifestum est quod filius statim perfectus genitus est, tamquam statim videns, et non per incrementa temporum ad perfectum perducitur. Quantum vero ad secundum exponit Chrysostomus, scilicet ad ostendendum conformitatem patris ad filium, quantum ad operationem, hoc modo. Dico quod licet mihi operari in sabbato, quia et pater meus continue operatur, cui non possum operari contrarium; et hoc quia non potest filius a se facere quidquam et cetera. Tunc enim quis aliquid a se facit, cum in faciendo non se conformat alteri. Quicumque autem est ab alio, si discordat ab eo, peccat; infra VII, 18: qui a semetipso loquitur, gloriam propriam quaerit. Quicumque ergo existens ab alio, a semetipso operatur, peccat; filius autem est a patre: ergo si operatur a semetipso, peccat; quod est impossibile. Per hoc ergo quod dicit dominus, filius non potest a se facere quidquam etc., nihil aliud insinuat, quam quod filius non potest peccare. Quasi dicat: iniuste persequimini me de solutione sabbati, quia non possum peccare, quia non operor contraria patri meo. Utramque autem expositionem, scilicet Hilarii et Chrysostomi, facit Augustinus, licet in diversis locis. Consequenter cum dicit quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit, ponitur magnitudo potestatis Christi et excludit in his tria circa potestatem suam: scilicet particularitatem, diversitatem et imperfectionem. Particularitatem: quia, cum sint diversa agentia in mundo, et agens primum universale virtutem habeat super omnia agentia, alia vero agentia, quae sunt ab ipso, tanto particularis virtutis sint, quanto sunt inferiora in ordine causalitatis, posset ex hoc aliquis credere, quod cum filius non sit a se, habeat potestatem particularem respectu aliquorum existentium, et non universalem respectu omnium, sicut habet pater. Et ideo hoc excludens dicit quaecumque enim ille, idest pater, fecerit, idest ad omnia ad quae se extendit potestas patris, extendit se etiam potestas filii. Supra I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Diversitatem vero, quia aliquando unum, ab alio existens, potest quidem facere quaecumque ille a quo est facit, nihilominus tamen illa quae facit, non sunt eadem cum illis quae ille a quo est facit. Sicut si unus ignis existens ab alio, potest facere quaecumque alius facit, puta comburere, sed tamen alia comburit iste, alia ille, licet eadem sit combustio utriusque secundum speciem. Ne ergo intelligas sic operationem filii diversam esse ab operatione patris, dicit haec, idest non diversa, sed eadem. Imperfectionem vero, quia quandoque contingit aliquod unum et idem ex duobus agentibus fieri, sed ab uno quidem sicut a principali et perfecto, ab alio vero sicut ab instrumento et imperfecto; sed non similiter, quia aliter agit principale agens, et aliter instrumentum, quia instrumentum imperfecte agit, utpote in virtute alterius. Ne ergo sic intelligas filium facere quaecumque facit pater, addit similiter, idest, potestate qua pater facit, facit et filius; quia eadem virtus et eadem perfectio est in patre et filio; Prov. VIII, 30: cum eo eram cuncta componens. Consequenter cum dicit pater enim diligit filium, assignat rationem utriusque, scilicet originis et magnitudinis potestatis filii; quae quidem ratio assignatur ex dilectione patris, qui diligit filium; unde dicit: pater enim diligit filium. Sed ad sciendum quomodo dilectio patris ad filium sit ratio originis, seu communicationis potestatis filii, attendendum est, quod dupliciter aliquid diligitur. Cum enim bonum solum sit amabile, aliquod bonum potest se dupliciter ad amorem habere, scilicet vel ut causa amoris, vel ut ab amore causatum. In nobis autem bonum causat amorem; nam causa amoris nostri ad aliquem est bonitas eius. Non enim ideo bonus est, quia nos eum diligimus; sed ideo diligimus eum, quia bonus est: unde in nobis amor causatur a bono. Sed in Deo aliter est, quia ipse amor Dei est causa bonitatis in rebus dilectis: quia enim Deus diligit nos, ideo boni sumus, nam amare nihil est aliud quam velle bonum alicui. Cum ergo voluntas Dei sit causa rerum, quia omnia quaecumque voluit, dominus, fecit, ut dicit Ps. CXIII, 3, manifestum est quod amor Dei, causa est bonitatis in rebus. Unde Dionysius dicit, VI cap. de divinis nominibus, quod divinus amor non permisit eum sine germine esse. Ergo si consideremus originem filii, videamus utrum amor quo pater diligit filium, sit principium originis vel procedat ab ea. Amor autem in divinis dupliciter accipitur; scilicet essentialiter, secundum quod pater diligit et filius et spiritus sanctus; et notionaliter, seu personaliter, secundum quod spiritus sanctus procedit ut amor. Sed neutro horum modorum amor dictus, potest esse principium originis filii. Nam secundum quod accipitur essentialiter, sic importat actum voluntatis. Si ergo esset principium originis filii, sequeretur quod pater genuisset filium voluntate, non natura: quod est erroneum. Similiter etiam nec amor notionaliter sumptus, qua pertinet ad spiritum sanctum, quia tunc sequeretur quod spiritus sanctus esset principium filii: quod est erroneum; immo nullus haereticus hoc dixit. Licet enim amor notionaliter sumptus sit principium omnium donorum quae nobis donantur a Deo, non tamen est principium filii, sed potius ipse a patre filioque procedit. Sic ergo dicendum, quod ratio ista non sumitur ex dilectione ut ex principio, sed ut ex signo. Cum enim similitudo sit causa dilectionis (omne enim animal diligit simile sibi): ubi invenitur perfecta similitudo Dei, ibi invenitur etiam perfecta dilectio Dei. Perfecta autem similitudo patris in filio est secundum illud Coloss. I, 15: qui est imago invisibilis Dei; Hebr. I, 3: qui cum sit splendor, gloria et figura substantiae eius. Perfecte ergo filius a patre diligitur: et ideo quia perfecte diligit eum, signum est quod pater omnia ostenderit ei et communicaverit ei suam potestatem et naturam. Et de huius dilectione dicitur supra II, 35: pater diligit filium, et omnia dedit in manu eius. Et Matth. III, 17: hic est filius meus dilectus.
5:20
Circa hoc autem quod sequitur et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit, sciendum est, quod dupliciter potest aliquis alicui sua opera demonstrare. Vel quantum ad visum, sicut artifex ea quae facit demonstrat discipulo; vel quantum ad auditum, sicut quando verbo instruit eum. Quocumque ergo istorum modorum accipiatur demonstrat, sequi potest duplex inconveniens: quod tamen non est in ista demonstratione, qua pater demonstrat filio. Si enim pater dicatur demonstrare filio quantum ad visum, primo quidem sequitur in istis inferioribus quod prius operetur aliquid quod alteri demonstrat; deinde quod seorsum ab eo cui demonstrat. Sed pater non demonstrat filio ea quae prius facit, quia ipse filius dicit Prov. VIII, 22: dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum, antequam quidquam faceret. Neque etiam ea quae seorsum a filio facit: quia pater omnia operatur per filium; supra I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Si autem accipiatur demonstratio quantum ad auditum, duo videntur sequi: nam qui verbo docet, primo demonstrat ignoranti; deinde verbum est inter demonstrantem et cui fit demonstratio. Sed neutro modo pater demonstrat filio: non enim sicut ignoranti, cum filius sit sapientia patris, I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam; nec aliquo alio verbo medio, quia ipse filius est verbum patris, supra I: verbum erat apud Deum. Dicitur ergo pater omnia quae facit demonstrare filio, inquantum communicat ei notitiam omnium suorum operum: sic enim magister dicitur demonstrare discipulo, inquantum dat ei notitiam eorum quae facit. Unde, secundum Augustinum, demonstrare patrem filio, nihil aliud est quam patrem generare filium. Et filium videre quae pater facit, nihil aliud est quam filium esse et naturam a patre recipere. Potest tamen dici demonstratio illa similis visuali, inquantum ipse filius est splendor visionis paternae, ut dicitur Hebr. I, 3: nam pater videns se et intelligens, concipit filium, qui est conceptus huius visionis. Potest etiam esse similis ei quae fit per auditum, inquantum filius procedit a patre ut verbum. Ut si dicatur quod pater omnia demonstrat filio, inquantum producit ipsum ut splendorem, et conceptum suae sapientiae, et verbum. Hoc ergo quod dicit demonstrat, refertur ad illud quod supra dixit: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Hoc vero quod dicit omnia, refertur ad illud quod dixit: quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec similiter et filius facit.
Ostensa potestate filii in communi, hic consequenter ostendit eam in speciali, et primo dominus manifestat suam potestatem vivificativam; secundo manifestat quaedam praedicta, quae videbantur obscura, ibi sicut enim pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit filio vitam habere in semetipso. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit filium habere potestatem vivificativam; secundo docet modum percipiendi vitam a filio, ibi amen, amen dico vobis, quia qui verbum meum audit et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit potestatem vivificativam filii; secundo dicti rationem assignat, ibi neque enim pater iudicat quemquam; tertio ostendit effectum exinde provenientem, ibi ut omnes honorificent filium et cetera. Et circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit potestatem vivificativam in communi; secundo exprimit eam, ibi sicut enim pater et cetera. Quantum ad primum dicit maiora his demonstrabit; quasi dicat: miramini et turbamini de potestate filii in sanatione languidi; sed adhuc pater maiora his demonstrabit opera, scilicet in suscitatione mortuorum, ut vos miremini. Sed ex his verbis insurgit dubitatio quantum ad duo: primo quidem quantum ad hoc quod dicit demonstrabit: nam hoc quod supra dictum est, quod pater omnia demonstrat filio, refertur ad aeternam generationem: quomodo ergo hic dicit demonstrabit, cum filius sit ei coaeternus, et in aeternitate non sit accipere futurum? Secundo vero quantum ad hoc quod dicit ut vos miremini. Si enim ideo demonstraturus est ut Iudaei mirentur, tunc filio demonstraturus est simul et istis, alias non mirarentur, nisi viderent; cum tamen filius ab aeterno omnia viderit apud patrem. Et ideo dicendum est, quod hoc exponitur tripliciter. Uno modo, secundum Augustinum, ut referatur haec demonstratio fienda discipulis. Consuetus enim modus loquendi est Christi, ut aliquando attribuat sibi fieri quod fit membris suis, secundum illud Matth. XXV, v. 40: quod uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis. Et tunc est sensus: vos vidistis filium magna facientem in curatione languidi, et miramini; sed adhuc maiora his pater demonstrabit ei, in membris, scilicet discipulis; infra XIV, 12: et maiora horum faciet. Dicit ergo ut vos miremini: quia ex miraculis discipulorum Iudaei intantum mirati sunt quod maxima multitudo eorum conversa est ad fidem, sicut habetur Act. I. Alio modo, secundum Augustinum, sic, ut scilicet referatur ad Christum secundum naturam assumptam. In Christo enim est et natura divina et natura humana; et secundum utramque habet a patre potestatem vivificativam; sed aliter et aliter, quia secundum divinitatem habet potestatem vivificandi animas, sed secundum naturam assumptam vivificat corpora unde Augustinus: verbum vivificat animas, sed verbum caro factum vivificat corpora. Nam resurrectio Christi, et mysteria quae Christus implevit in carne, sunt causa futurae resurrectionis corporum; Eph. II, 5: convivificavit nos in Christo; I Cor. XV, 12: si autem Christus praedicatur quod resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo quidam dicunt in vobis, quoniam resurrectio mortuorum non est? Sed primum habet ab aeterno, et hoc ostendit cum supra dixit: et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit; quae quidem omnia demonstrat carni; sed alia ex tempore, et quantum ad hoc dicit: et maiora his demonstrabit ei, idest demonstratur potestas eius in hoc quod maiora faciet, suscitando mortuos: quosdam quidem hic, sicut Lazarum, puellam et unicum matris; omnes tandem in die iudicii. Tertio modo ut referatur ad Christum secundum naturam divinam, secundum illum modum quo in Scriptura dici consuetum est, tunc aliquid fieri quando innotescit; sicut illud Matth. ult., 18: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Cum enim Christus ab aeterno habuerit potestatem plenissimam, quia quaecumque pater facit, similiter et filius facit, dicit tamen, post resurrectionem domini potestatem datam esse: non quia tunc tantum eam recepit, sed quia per resurrectionis gloriam tunc maxime innotuit. Secundum hoc ergo dicit sibi potestatem dari, secundum quod eam exequitur in opere, ut dicatur: et maiora demonstrabit ei opera; idest, sibi data per executionem ostendet: et hoc vobis mirantibus, quando scilicet qui vobis videtur ut homo tantum, apparebit virtutis divinae et Deus. Est autem verbum demonstrationis accipiendum ut verbum visionis, secundum quod supra expositum est. Consequenter cum dicit sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos (...) sic et filius, explicat in speciali potestatem vivificativam filii, ostendens quae sunt illa maiora quae pater filio demonstrabit. Ubi sciendum est quod divina virtus in veteri testamento ex hoc praecipue commendatur quod Deus est auctor vitae; I Reg. II, 6: dominus mortificat, et vivificat. Et Deut. c. XXXII, 39: ego occidam, et ego vivere faciam.
5:21
Quam quidem virtutem sicut habet pater, sic habet et filius, et ideo dicit sicut pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius quos vult vivificat; quasi dicat: haec sunt maiora quae pater filio demonstrabit, scilicet ut mortuos vivificet. Plane maiora sunt ista valde: quia plus est ut resurgat mortuus, quam ut convalescat aegrotus. Sic ergo filius quos vult vivificat, et primam vitam viventibus dando, et mortuos suscitando. Nec tamen putemus alios a patre suscitari et alios a filio, sed eosdem quos pater suscitat et vivificat, filius suscitat et vivificat: quia pater, sicut omnia operatur per filium, qui est virtus eius, ita et omnes vivificat per filium, qui est vita, ut dicit infra XIV, 6: ego sum via, veritas et vita. Non tamen per filium suscitat et vivificat mortuos sicut per instrumentum, quia secundum hoc filius non esset constitutus in suae potestatis arbitrio. Et ideo ut hoc excludat, dicit: filius quos vult vivificat; idest, in suae potestatis arbitrio est vivificare quod vult. Nam non aliud vult filius quam pater: sicut enim est illis una substantia, sic est illis una voluntas; unde Matth.: c. XX, 15, dicit: an non licet mihi quod volo facere? Consequenter cum dicit neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, assignat rationem dicti, manifestans suam potestatem. Sed attendendum est, quod ex hoc loco usque ad finem sunt duae expositiones: una est Augustini, alia Hilarii et Chrysostomi. Secundum Augustinum quidem exponitur sic. Dixerat dominus supra, quod sicut pater suscitat mortuos ita et filius. Sed ne intelligeres illam mortuorum resuscitationem tantum qua aliquos ad hanc vitam resuscitavit ad miraculi ostensionem et non illam qua resuscitat ad vitam aeternam, ideo ducit eos ad altiorem considerationem alterius, scilicet resurrectionis quae erit in futuro iudicio. Unde et specialiter de iudicio mentionem facit, dicens neque enim pater iudicat quemquam. Potest et aliter, secundum eumdem, sub eodem sensu continuari, ut secundum hoc quod dixit sicut pater resuscitat mortuos, sic et filius etc., referatur ad resurrectionem animarum, quam facit filius inquantum est verbum; hoc vero quod dicit neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, referatur ad resurrectionem corporum, quam facit inquantum verbum caro factum est. Resurrectio enim animarum fit per personam patris et filii; unde et simul nominat patrem et filium, dicens sicut pater suscitat (...) sic et filius. Resurrectio vero corporum per dispensationem humanitatis patri non coaeternam: et ideo soli filio iudicium attribuit. Sed attende mirabilem varietatem verborum: nam primo proponitur nobis pater operans et filius vacans, scilicet cum dicitur: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem; hic vero e converso proponitur filius operans, et pater vacans: neque enim pater iudicat quemquam; sed omne iudicium dedit filio et cetera. In quo datur intelligi, quod alio modo loquitur hic et alio modo ibi. Nam ibi loquitur de operatione quae est patris et filii, unde dicit quod a se non facit quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem; hic vero loquitur de operatione qua filius secundum quod homo iudicat et non pater: unde dicit quod omne iudicium dedit filio. Nam pater in iudicio non apparebit; quia secundum iustitiam Deus in propria natura iudicandis omnibus apparere non potest: quia cum visio divina sit beatitudo nostra, si mali Deum in propria natura viderent, iam essent beati. Apparebit ergo solus filius, qui solus habet naturam assumptam. Ipse ergo solus iudicat, qui solus omnibus apparebit; sed tamen auctoritate patris; Act. X, 42: hic est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum. Et in Ps. LXXI, 1: Deus, iudicium tuum regi da. Consequenter cum dicit ut omnes honorificent filium, ponit effectum qui provenit ex potestate filii, et primo ponit fructum consequentiae; secundo excludit contradictionem, ibi qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Dicit ergo: ideo pater omne iudicium dedit filio, secundum humanam naturam, quia in incarnatione se filius exinanivit formam servi accipiens, in qua inhonoratus est ab hominibus, secundum illud infra VIII, 49: ego honorifico patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me. Ideo ergo in ipsa natura assumpta datum est ei iudicium, ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem. Tunc enim videbunt filium hominis venientem cum potestate magna et maiestate: Lc. XXI, 27. Et Apoc. VII, 11: ceciderunt in facies suas, et adoraverunt, dicentes: benedictio, et claritas, et sapientia, et gratiarum actio, honor, virtus et fortitudo Deo nostro. Sed posset aliquis dicere: volo honorificare patrem, et non curare de filio. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Aliud enim est honorare Deum ratione qua Deus est, aliud honorare patrem. Nam bene potest aliquis honorare Deum inquantum creator, omnipotens et incommutabilis, absque hoc quod honoret et filium. Sed honorare Deum ut patrem nullus potest quin honorificet filium: nam pater dici non potest si filium non habet. Sed si inhonoras filium dividendo eius virtutem, inhonoras et patrem: ibi enim tollis virtutem patri, ubi minorem das filio. Vel aliter, secundum eumdem: Christo debetur duplex honor: scilicet secundum divinitatem, secundum quam debetur ei honor aequalis patri; et quantum ad hoc dicit ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem: alius debetur ei secundum humanitatem, sed non aequalis patri; et de isto dicit qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Unde ibi signanter dicitur sicut; hic autem non dicit sicut, sed simpliciter dicit filium esse honorandum; Lc. X, 16: qui vos spernit, me spernit; qui autem me spernit, spernit eum qui misit me. Secundum autem Hilarium et Chrysostomum, exponitur magis ad litteram, quamvis parum mutetur, hoc modo. Dominus supra dicit: filius quos vult vivificat. Quicumque aliquid facit pro libero voluntatis arbitrio, agit ex proprio iudicio. Supra vero dictum est quod omnia quaecumque facit pater haec et filius similiter facit. Ergo filius de omnibus habet liberum voluntatis arbitrium, quia ex proprio iudicio procedit. Et ideo statim facit mentionem de iudicio, dicens neque pater iudicat quemquam, seorsum scilicet a filio. Et hoc modo loquendi usus est dominus infra XII, 47: ego non iudico vos, scilicet solum, sed sermo quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit vos in novissimo. Sed omne iudicium dedit filio, sicut et dedit ei omnia. Sicut enim dedit ei vitam, et genuit eum viventem, ita dedit ei omne iudicium, idest genuit eum iudicem; infra ibid., 30: sicut audio iudico; idest, sicut habeo esse a patre, ita et iudicium. Ratio huius est, quia filius nihil aliud est, ut dictum est supra, quam conceptus paternae sapientiae; unusquisque autem per conceptum suae sapientiae iudicat: unde sicut pater omnia per filium facit, ita et omnia per ipsum iudicat. Et fructus huius est ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem; idest, exhibeant ei cultum latriae, sicut patri. Cetera vero non mutantur. Sed attendenda est, secundum Hilarium, mirabilis connexio verborum, ut errores contra aeternam generationem confutentur. Duae namque haereses contra ipsam generationem aeternam exortae fuerunt. Una Arii dicentis filium minorem patre; quod est contra aequalitatem et unitatem. Alia Sabellii dicentis non esse distinctionem personarum in divinis; quod est contra originem. Et ideo ubicumque facit mentionem de unitate et aequalitate, statim addit et distinctionem personarum secundum originem, et e converso. Unde, quia innuit originem personarum, dicens: non potest filius a seipso facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, ne crederes inaequalitatem, statim subiungit: quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit.
5:22
Et, e converso, cum innuit aequalitatem, dicens: sicut pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, ita et filius quos vult vivificat, ne discredas originem et filium genitum, subiungit: neque enim pater iudicat quemquam; sed omne iudicium dedit filio.
5:23
Eodem modo cum insinuat aequalitatem personarum, dicens ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem, statim subiungit de missione, in qua demonstratur origo, dicens qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem, qui misit illum, non per separationem a seipso. Missionem audi, infra VIII, 29: qui misit me, mecum est, et non reliquit me solum. Supra ostendit dominus se habere virtutem vivificativam; hic ostendit modum quo aliquis ab ipso vitam participare potest, et primo ponit modum, quomodo aliquis per ipsum vitam participet; secundo huiusmodi adimpletionem praenuntiat, ibi amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora. Circa primum considerandum est, quod sunt quatuor gradus vitae. Unus quidem invenitur in plantis, quae nutriuntur, augentur et generantur et generant; alius in animalibus, quae tantum sentiunt; alius vero in his quae moventur, quae sunt animalia perfecta; ulterius vero est aliud genus vitae in his quae intelligunt. Tot ergo existentibus gradibus vitae, impossibile est vel vitam quae est in plantis, vel eam quae est in sensu, aut eam quae est ex motu, esse primam vitam. Nam prima vita debet esse per se vita, non participata. Nulla autem vita potest esse talis nisi sola vita intellectualis, aliae autem tres communes sunt corporali et spirituali creaturae; corpus autem quod vivit, non est ipsa vita; sed vitam participans: et ideo vita intellectualis est prima vita, quae est vita spiritualis, quae immediate percipitur a primo vitae principio, unde dicitur vita sapientiae. Et propter hoc in Scripturis vita attribuitur sapientiae. Prov. VIII, 35: qui me invenerit, inveniet vitam, et hauriet salutem a domino. Sic ergo vitam a Christo, qui est Dei sapientia, participamus, inquantum anima nostra ab ipso sapientiam percipit. Haec autem vita intellectualis perficitur in vera cognitione divinae sapientiae, quae est vita aeterna. Infra XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Sed ad nullam sapientiam potest homo pervenire nisi per fidem: unde in scientiis nullus ad sapientiam pervenit, nisi prius fidem adhibeat dictis a magistro. Si ergo nos volumus ad illam vitam sapientiae pervenire, oportet nos per fidem credere ea quae ab illa nobis proponuntur. Ad Hebr. XI, 6: oportet accedentem ad Deum credere quia est, et inquirentibus se remunerator sit. Is. XXVIII, 16, secundum aliam litteram: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis.
5:24
Et ideo dominus congrue modum perveniendi ad vitam ostendit esse per fidem, dicens qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam. Et primo ponit meritum fidei; secundo subdit praemium eius, ibi habet vitam aeternam. Circa meritum fidei primo ponit illud per quod fides introducitur; secundo illud cui fides innititur. Introducitur quidem fides per verbum hominis; Rom. X, 17: fides ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Christi. Innititur autem fides non verbo hominis sed ipsi Deo; Gen. c. XV, 6: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam; Eccli. II, 8: qui timetis Deum, credite illi. Sic nos introducit per verbum hominis ad credendum, non ipsi homini qui loquitur, sed Deo cuius verba loquitur; I Thess. II, 13: cum accepissetis a nobis verbum auditus Dei, accepistis illud non sicut verbum hominum, sed, sicut vere est, verbum Dei. Et haec duo dominus ponit. Primo illud per quod fides introducitur; unde dicit qui verbum meum audit, quod introducit ad fidem. Secundo illud cui innititur, cum dicit et credit ei qui misit me, non mihi, sed illi in cuius virtute loquor. Quae quidem verba possunt competere Christo secundum quod homo inquantum per verbum eius humanum homines conversi sunt ad fidem; et secundum quod Deus, inquantum Christus est verbum Dei. Cum enim Christus sit verbum Dei, manifestum est quod audientes Christum audiebant verbum Dei et per consequens credebant Deo. Et hoc est quod dicit: qui audit verbum meum, idest me verbum Dei, et credit ei, idest patri cuius sum verbum. Praemium autem fidei ponit cum subdit habet vitam aeternam. Et ponit tria quae nos habebimus in gloria, sed ordine retrogrado. Primo enim consequemur resurrectionem ex mortuis; secundo liberationem a futuro iudicio; tertio vitam aeternam: quia, ut dicitur Matth. XXV, 46 post iudicium ibunt iusti in vitam aeternam. Et haec tria ponit ad fidei praemium pertinere: et primo tertium tamquam magis desideratum. Unde dicit qui credit, scilicet per fidem, habet vitam aeternam, quae consistit in plena Dei visione. Et dignum est ut qui credit propter Deum his quae non videt, perducatur ad plenam eorum visionem; infra c. XX, 31: haec scripta sunt ut credatis (...) et ut credentes vitam habeatis in nomine eius. Secundo ponit secundum, cum dicit et in iudicium non veniet. Sed contra hoc est quod apostolus dicit II Cor. V, 10: omnes nos astare oportet ante tribunal Christi, etiam ipsos apostolos: ergo qui credit, in iudicium veniet. Sed dicendum, quod duplex est iudicium. Scilicet condemnationis, et in isto non venient qui fide formata in Deum credunt: de quo dicebat Ps. CXLII, 2: non intres in iudicium cum servo tuo, quia non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens; supra III, 18: qui credit non iudicatur. Est etiam iudicium discretionis vel discussionis, et ad istud oportet nos omnes ante tribunal Christi exhibere, ut dicit apostolus; et de isto dicitur in Ps. XLII: iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam. Tertio ponit praemium, cum dicit sed transit a morte in vitam, vel transiet, secundum aliam litteram. Quod quidem potest exponi dupliciter. Primo ut referatur ad resurrectionem animae et sic planus est sensus quasi dicat: non solum per fidem adipiscitur vitam aeternam et liberatur a iudicio, sed etiam remissionem peccatorum consequitur. Unde dicit sed transit de infidelitate ad fidem, de iniustitia ad iustitiam; I Io. III, 14: nos scimus quoniam translati sumus de morte ad vitam. Secundo ut referatur ad resurrectionem corporum; et tunc est expositivum huius quod dicit habet vitam aeternam. Posset enim ex hoc aliquis credere quod qui credit in Deum, numquam moreretur, sed viveret in aeternum; quod esse non potest, quia omnes homines solvere oportet debitum primae praevaricationis, secundum illud Ps. LXXXVIII, 49: quis est homo qui vivet, et non videbit mortem? Et ideo non est intelligendum, eum qui credit sic habere vitam aeternam, quasi numquam moriturus; sed quia de hac vita transiet per mortem in vitam, idest per mortem corporis reparabitur in vitam aeternam. Vel transiet quantum ad causam: quia quando homo credit, iam habet meritum gloriosae resurrectionis; Is. XXVI, 19: vivent mortui tui, interfecti tui resurgent. Et tunc soluti a morte veteris hominis suscipiemus vitam novi hominis, scilicet Christi. Amen, amen dico vobis et cetera. Quia possent aliqui dubitare utrum aliqui de morte ad vitam transirent, ideo dominus praenuntiat huiusmodi adimpletionem dicens: dico quod transiet de morte in vitam, et hoc iam ante impletur.
5:25
Et hoc est quod dicit: amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora, non fatali necessitate subiecta, sed a Deo praeordinata; I Io. II, 18: novissima hora est. Et ne credatur distare subiungit et nunc est (Rom. XIII, 11: hora est iam nos de somno surgere), hora scilicet nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent. Quod potest dupliciter exponi. Uno modo ut referatur ad resurrectionem corporis et dicatur venit hora, et nunc est etc., quasi dicat: verum est quod omnes finaliter resurgent, sed etiam nunc est hora, quando aliqui, quos resuscitaturus erat dominus, audient vocem eius. Sic audivit Lazarus quando dictum est ei, veni foras, ut dicitur infra XI, 43; sic audivit filia archisynagogi, ut dicitur Matth. IX, 18 et filius viduae, ut habetur Lc. VII, 12. Et ideo, dicit signanter et nunc est, quia per me iam incipiunt mortui resuscitari. Alio modo, secundum Augustinum, ut hoc quod dicit nunc est, referatur ad resurrectionem animae. Nam, sicut dictum est supra, duplex est resurrectio: scilicet corporum, quae erit; et hoc nondum est sed erit in iudicio futuro; alia est animarum, de morte infidelitatis ad vitam fidei, et iniustitiae ad iustitiam; et hoc iam nunc est. Et ideo dicit venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui, scilicet infideles et peccatores, audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent, secundum veram fidem. Sed duo mirabilia in his verbis implicari videntur. Unum, cum dicit mortuos audire; aliud cum subdit, eos per auditum reviviscere, quasi prior sit auditus quam vita, cum tamen auditus sit quidam actus vitae. Sed si hoc referamus ad resurrectionem, verum est quod mortui audient, idest obedient voci filii Dei. Vox enim expressiva est interioris conceptus. Tota autem natura ad nutum obedit voluntati divinae; Rom. IV, 17: vocat ea quae non sunt, tamquam ea quae sunt. Secundum hoc ergo ligna, lapides et omnia, non solum ossa arida, sed et cineres corporum mortuorum audient vocem filii Dei, inquantum ad nutum ei obedient. Et hoc non convenit Christo inquantum est filius hominis sed inquantum est filius Dei, quia verbo Dei omnia obediunt. Et ideo signanter dicit filii Dei; Matth. VIII, 27: qualis est hic, quia mare et venti obediunt ei? Si vero referatur ad resurrectionem animarum, rationem habet quod dicitur: nam vox filii Dei, qua interius per inspirationem vel exterius per praedicationem suam et aliorum, corda fidelium movet, habet vim vivificativam, infra VI, 64: verba quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt, et sic vivificat mortuos, dum iustificat impios. Et quia auditus est via ad vitam vel naturae per obedientiam, ad reparationem scilicet naturae, vel auditus fidei ad reparationem vitae et iustitiae, ideo dicit et qui audierint, per obedientiam quantum ad resurrectionem corporum, vel per fidem quantum ad resurrectionem animarum, vivent, in corpore in aeterna vita et in iustitia in vita gratiae et cetera.
5:26
Supra ostendit dominus se habere potestatem vivificativam et iudiciariam, et explicavit utramque per effectum, hic manifestat quomodo utraque potestas sibi competat, et primo ostendit hoc de potestate vivificativa; secundo de potestate iudiciaria, ibi et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere. Dicit ergo primo: dico quod sicut pater suscitat mortuos ita et ego, et qui audit verbum meum, habet vitam aeternam: et hoc ideo habeo, quia sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic et filio dedit habere vitam in semetipso. Circa quod sciendum est, quod aliqui vivunt, sed non habent vitam in semetipsis sicut Paulus Gal. II, 20: quod autem nunc vivo, in fide filii Dei vivo. Et iterum: vivo ego, iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus. Vivebat ergo, sed non in semetipso, sed in alio per quem vivebat; sicut et corpus vivit, sed non habet vitam in semetipso, sed in anima per quam vivit. Illud ergo in semetipso vitam habet, quod habet vitam essentialem non participatam, idest quod ipsum est vita. In quolibet autem genere rerum, quod est per essentiam, est causa eorum quae sunt per participationem, sicut ignis est causa omnium ignitorum. Quod ergo est per essentiam vita, est causa et principium omnis vitae in viventibus. Et ideo ad hoc quod aliquod sit principium vitae requiritur quod sit per essentiam vita. Et ideo congrue manifestat dominus se totius vitae principium, dicens se habere vitam in semetipso, idest per essentiam, cum dicit sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, idest sicut est vivens per essentiam, ita et filius. Ideo sicut pater est causa vitae, ita filius suus. Ostendit autem aequalitatem filii ad patrem, cum dicit sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso; et distinctionem, cum dicit dedit filio. Sunt enim aequales in vita pater et filius; sed distinguuntur, quia pater dat, filius accipit. Nec est intelligendum, quod filius a patre dante accipiat vitam, quasi praeexistat eam non habens, sicut in istis inferioribus materia prima existens accipit formam, et subiectum subiicitur accidenti: quia nihil in filio praeexistens est acceptioni vitae. Nam, sicut Hilarius dicit, filius nihil habet nisi natum, idest quod per nativitatem accepit. Et cum sit ipsa vita, ideo intelligendum est dedit filio vitam, idest, produxit filium vitam. Sicut si dicatur: mens dat verbo vitam, non quasi verbum praeexistat et postea vitam recipiat, sed quia produxit verbum in eadem vita qua ipsa vivit. Destruuntur autem per haec verba tres errores, secundum Hilarium. Primo Arianorum, qui dicentes filium minorem patre, coacti sunt per hoc quod supra dictum est quaecumque pater fecerit, haec et filius facit, dicere, quod filius sit aequalis patri in virtute; sed tamen adhuc negant eum esse aequalem sibi in natura. Sed ecce quod etiam in hoc confutantur, per hoc quod dicitur sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio vitam habere in semetipso. Nam cum vita pertineat ad naturam, si filius habet vitam in semetipso sicut et pater, manifestum est quod tenet in se originis suae indivisibilem et aequalem cum patre naturam. Secundus error eorum, quantum ad hoc quod negabant filii coaeternitatem ad patrem, dicentes, filium ex tempore incepisse: quod destruitur inquantum dicit filius vitam habet in semetipso. Nam in omnibus viventibus quorum generatio est in tempore, semper est invenire aliquid quod aliquando fuit non vivens; sed in filio quidquid est, est ipsa vita et ideo sic accepit ipsam vitam, quod vitam habet in semetipso, ut semper fuerit vivens. Tertio per hoc quod dicit dedit, destruitur error Sabellii negantis distinctionem personarum. Si enim pater vitam dedit filio, manifestum est quod alius est pater qui dedit, et alius filius qui accepit.
5:27
Consequenter cum dicit et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, manifestat se habere iudiciariam potestatem, et primo manifestat suam potestatem iudiciariam; secundo rationem dictorum assignat, ibi non possum ego a me facere quidquam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit potestatis iudiciariae originem; secundo ostendit iudicii aequitatem, ibi et procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae. Circa primum notandum est, quod hoc quod dicit potestatem dedit ei, potest legi dupliciter. Uno modo secundum Chrysostomum, alio modo secundum Augustinum. Si autem legatur secundum Chrysostomum, tunc haec pars dividitur in duas. Primo proponit iudiciariae potestatis derivationem; secundo excludit dubitationem, ibi quia filius hominis est. Sciendum est autem, quod haec littera sic punctatur secundum Chrysostomum: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, postea resumitur quia filius hominis est, nolite mirari hoc. Et huius punctationis ratio est, quia Paulus Samosatenus, quidam antiquus haereticus, qui sicut et Photinus dicebat Christum purum hominem esse, et initium sumpsisse ex virgine, punctabat sic: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est, et postea resumitur: nolite mirari hoc, quia venit hora etc., quasi intelligens per hoc quod ideo necesse fuit dari potestatem iudiciariam Christo, quia filius hominis est, idest purus homo, cui ex se non convenit iudicare homines. Et ideo oportet quod si iudicat alios, sibi detur potestas iudicandi. Sed hoc, secundum Chrysostomum, non potest stare, quia nullam convenientiam habet quod dicitur. Si enim ideo suscepit potestatem iudiciariam, quia homo est, tunc pari ratione, cum cuilibet homini conveniat iudiciaria potestas per humanam naturam, non plus competet Christo quam aliis hominibus. Non ergo sic legendum est; sed dicendum, quod quia est ineffabilis Dei filius, propterea et iudex est. Et hoc est quod dicit: non solum dedit ei pater quod vivificat; sed etiam potestatem dedit ei, per aeternam generationem, iudicium facere, sicut per eam dedit ei vitam habere in semetipso; Act. X, 42: hic est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum. Dubitationem excludit cum dicit nolite mirari hoc: et primo movet eam; secundo excludit, ibi, quia venit hora et cetera. Dubitatio autem oriebatur in cordibus Iudaeorum, quia aestimantes Christum nihil plus esse quam purum hominem, ea vero, quae dicebantur de eo, erant supra hominem, et etiam supra Angelum, mirabantur cum audirent. Et ideo dicit nolite mirari hoc, scilicet quod dixi, quod filius vivificat mortuos et habet iudiciariam potestatem, propter hoc quia filius hominis est. Et de hoc mirabantur, quia purum hominem aestimantes, videbant in eo facta divina; Matth. VIII, 27: mirabantur omnes dicentes: qualis est hic, quia venti et mare obediunt ei? Et subdit causam quare non mirentur, quia scilicet ipse idem qui est filius hominis, est filius Dei. Et licet, secundum Chrysostomum, non exprimatur ista propositio, scilicet quod idem est filius hominis qui est filius Dei, ponit tamen dominus illud ex quo propositio illa de necessitate sequitur: sicut videmus, quod syllogizantes in doctrinis frequenter non proponunt intentum principaliter, sed illud ex quo de necessitate sequitur. Et ideo dominus non dicit quod ipse est filius Dei, sed quod filius hominis talis est quod ad vocem eius suscitantur omnes mortui: ex quo necessario sequitur quod sit filius Dei, nam suscitare mortuos est opus proprium Dei.
5:28
Et ideo dicit nolite mirari, quia venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Sed non dicit et nunc est, ut supra dixit; neque quia ista hora nunc non est. Similiter hic dicit omnes, quod non dixerat supra: quia in prima resurrectione aliquos tantum resuscitavit, scilicet Lazarum, filium viduae, et puellam; sed tunc in futura resurrectione, quae erit tempore iudicii, omnes audient vocem filii Dei, et resurgent; Ezech. c. XXXVII, 12: aperiam tumulos vestros, et educam vos de sepulcris vestris. Secundum autem Augustinus, loquitur sic punctando: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est, et postea subditur nolite mirari hoc. Et secundum hoc dividitur in duas partes. In prima enim tangitur collatio iudiciariae potestatis facta filio hominis; secundo manifestatur per maioris potestatis collationem, ibi nolite mirari hoc. Circa primum sciendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod supra locutus est de resurrectione animarum, quae fit per filium Dei; hic vero loquitur de resurrectione corporum, quae fit per filium hominis. Et quia universalis resurrectio corporum futura est tempore iudicii, ideo hic praemittit de iudicio, dicens: potestatem dedit ei, scilicet Christo, iudicium facere, et hoc quia filius hominis est, idest secundum humanam naturam. Unde et post resurrectionem dicit, Matth. ult., c. 18: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Est autem data iudiciaria potestas Christo secundum quod homo, propter tria. Primo ut ab omnibus videretur: necesse est enim iudicem a iudicandis videri. Iudicabuntur autem boni et mali, et boni quidem Christum videbunt secundum divinitatem et humanitatem; mali autem eum secundum divinitatem videre non poterunt, quia haec visio est beatitudo sanctorum, nec videtur nisi a mundis corde, ut dicitur Matth. V, 8: beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Et ideo ut videatur in iudicio non solum a bonis, sed etiam a malis, iudicabit in forma humana; Apoc. I, 7: videbit eum omnis oculus, et qui eum pupugerunt. Secundo, quia per humilitatem passionis promeruit gloriam exaltationis. Unde sicut ille qui mortuus est, resurrexit, ita forma illa iudicabit quae iudicata est, et sedebit iudex in iudicio hominum qui stetit sub iudice homine; damnabit vere reos qui factus est falso reus, ut dicit Augustinus libro de verbis domini. Iob XXXVI, c. 17: causa tua quasi impii iudicata est; sed iudicium causamque recipies. Tertio ad insinuandum iudicis clementiam. Quod homo iudicetur a Deo, videtur valde terribile: horrendum est enim incidere in manus Dei viventis, ut dicitur Hebr. X, 31; sed quod homo iudicem habeat hominem, confidentiam praebet: et ideo ut iudicis experiaris clementiam, hominem habebis iudicem; Hebr. IV, 15: non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris. Sic ergo dedit potestatem Christo, iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Sed hoc quidem nolite mirari, quia maiorem potestatem contulit ei, scilicet resuscitandi mortuos; unde dicit: quia venit hora, scilicet novissima, quae erit in fine mundi; Ez. VII, 7: venit tempus, prope est dies occisionis; in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt audient vocem filii Dei. Supra autem non dixit omnes, quia ibi loquebatur de resurrectione spirituali, secundum quam non omnes in primo adventu resurrexerunt; quia II Thess. III, 2, dicitur: non enim omnium est fides. Hic vero loquitur de resurrectione corporum secundum quam omnes resurgemus, I Cor. XV, 20 ss. sed addit qui in monumentis sunt, quod supra non dixerat: quia animae non sunt in monumentis, sed corpora, quorum tunc resurrectio erit. Omnes ergo qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Vox ista erit sensibile signum filii Dei, ad quam omnes suscitabuntur; I Thess. IV, 15: dominus veniet in iussu Archangeli, et in tuba Dei. Et simile habetur I Cor. XV, 52, Matth. XXV, 6: media nocte clamor factus est. Quae quidem vox habebit virtutem ex divinitate Christi; Ps. LXVII, 34: dabit voci suae vocem virtutis. Quia ergo Augustinus dicit, quod resurrectio corporum fit per verbum carnem factum, resurrectio animarum per verbum, ut dictum est supra; ideo quaerendum est quomodo hoc intelligatur. Aut enim subintelligitur de causa prima, aut de causa meritoria. Si quidem de causa prima, constat quod divinitas Christi est causa corporalis et spiritualis resurrectionis, idest corporum et animarum, secundum illud Deut. XXXII, 39: ego occidam, et ego vivere faciam. Si vero de causa meritoria, tunc humanitas Christi est causa utriusque resurrectionis: quia per mysteria quae in carne Christi completa sunt, reparamur non solum quantum ad corpora ad vitam incorruptibilem, sed etiam quantum ad animas ad vitam spiritualem; Rom. IV, 25: traditus est propter nostras iniquitates, et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram. Non ergo videtur verum quod dicit Augustinus. Sed dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur de causa exemplari et de causa qua illud quod vivificatur, conformatur vivificatori: nam omne illud quod per aliud vivit, conformatur ei per quod vivit. Resurrectio autem animarum non est per hoc quod animae conformantur humanitati Christi, sed verbo, quia vita animae est per solum verbum; et ideo dicit animarum resurrectionem fieri per verbum. Resurrectio vero corporum erit per hoc quod corpora nostra conformabuntur corpori Christi per vitam gloriae, videlicet per claritatem corporum; secundum illud Phil. III, v. 21: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, configuratum corpori claritatis suae. Et secundum hoc dicit resurrectionem corporum fieri per verbum carnem factum.
5:29
Consequenter cum dicit et procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae, ostendit aequalitatem iudicii, quia boni praemiabuntur, unde dicit procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectione vitae, idest ad hoc quod vivant in aeterna gloria, mali autem damnabuntur; unde dicit qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii; idest, resurgent in condemnationem; Matth. XXV, 46: ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, scilicet mali, iusti autem in vitam aeternam; Dan. XII, 2: multi ex his qui in terrae pulvere dormierant, resurgent: quidam quidem ad vitam, alii autem ad opprobrium sempiternum, ut videant semper. Et nota, quod supra loquens de resurrectione animarum, dicit: qui audierint vivent, hic vero dicit quod procedent; et hoc propter malos, qui vadunt in condemnationem: nam vita eorum non est dicenda vita, sed potius mors aeterna. Similiter etiam supra fecit mentionem de fide tantum, dicens: qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, et in iudicium non venit; hic ne credas solam fidem sine operibus ad salutem sufficere, facit mentionem de omnibus operibus, dicens qui bona fecerunt, procedent in resurrectionem vitae; quasi dicat: non qui credit tantum, sed qui cum fide bona operatur, procedit in resurrectionem vitae; Iac. II, 26: fides sine operibus mortua est. Consequenter cum dicit non possum ego a me ipso facere quidquam, assignat rationem praemissorum. Duo autem praemiserat, scilicet originem potestatis, et aequitatem iudicii; et ideo utriusque causam assignat. Primo de primo. Secundo de secundo, ibi et iudicium meum iustum est.
5:30
Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod hoc quod dicit non possum ego a meipso facere quidquam, potest dupliciter legi, etiam secundum Augustinum. Primo ut referatur ad filium hominis hoc modo: tu dicis quod habes potestatem resuscitandi mortuos, quia filius hominis es, sed numquid hoc est tibi inquantum tu es filius hominis? Non, quia non possum ego a meipso facere quidquam; sed sicut audio, iudico. Non dicit, sicut video, secundum quod supra dixerat: filius non potest a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, sed dicit sicut audio: nam audire idem est in hoc loco quod obedire. Obedire autem pertinet ad illum cui fit imperium. Imperare autem pertinet ad superiorem. Et ideo, quia Christus inquantum homo minor est patre, dicit sicut audio; idest, secundum quod inspiratur a Deo in anima mea. De ipso auditu dicit Ps. LXXXIV, 9: audiam quid loquatur in me dominus Deus. Supra autem, quia loquebatur de se secundum quod est verbum Dei, dixit viderit. Consequenter cum dicit et iudicium meum iustum est, manifestat aequitatem iudicii. Dixerat enim: et procedent qui bona fecerunt in resurrectionem vitae, sed posset aliquis dicere: numquid faciet gratiam aliquibus minus puniendo, et plus remunerando? Ideo respondet quod non, dicens: quia iudicium meum verum est. Cuius ratio est quia non quaero voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me. In domino enim Iesu Christo sunt duae voluntates. Una divina quam habet eamdem cum patre; alia humana, quae est sibi propria, sicut est proprium eius esse hominem. Voluntas humana fertur in bonum proprium; sed in Christo per rectitudinem rationis regebatur et regulabatur, ut semper in omnibus voluntati divinae conformaretur; et ideo dicit: non quaero implere voluntatem meam propriam, quae, quantum in se est, inclinatur ad bonum proprium, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me, patris; Ps. XXXIX, 9: ut facerem voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, volui; Matth. XXVI, 39: non quod ego volo, sed quod tu vis. Et si quidem diligenter attenditur, dominus veram rationem assignat iusti iudicii, dicens quia non quaero voluntatem meam: non enim iudicium alicuius est iniustum, quando procedit ab eo secundum regulam legis; voluntas autem divina regula est, et lex voluntatis creatae: et ideo voluntas creata, et ratio quae regulatur secundum regulam divinae voluntatis, iusta est, et iudicium eius iustum. Secundo vero exponitur ut referatur ad filium Dei, et manet eadem divisio quae prius posita est. Dixit ergo Christus inquantum verbum manifestans originem suae potestatis: non possum ego a me facere quidquam, eo modo sicut supra dixit: non potest filius a se facere quidquam; nam suum facere, et suum posse, est suum esse; esse autem est ei ab alio, scilicet a patre: et ideo, sicut non est a se, ita a se non potest facere quidquam; infra VIII, 28: a meipso facio nihil. Hoc autem quod dicit sed sicut audio, iudico, eodem modo exponendum est sicut illud supra nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Nos enim scientiam, seu cognitionem aliquam accipimus per visum et per auditum (isti enim duo sensus maxime serviunt disciplinae), sed quia in nobis alius est visus, alius auditus; ideo aliter accipimus scientiam per visum, quia inveniendo; aliter per auditum, quia addiscendo. In filio vero Dei idem est auditus et visus; et ideo sive dicatur audit, sive vidit, idem significat secundum acceptionem scientiae. Et quia iudicium in qualibet natura intellectuali ex scientia procedit, signanter dicit sicut audio, iudico; idest, sicut cognitionem simul cum esse a patre accepi, sic iudico; infra XV, 15: omnia quae audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis. Manifestans vero iudicii aequitatem, dicit et iudicium meum verum est. Cuius ratio est, quia non quaero voluntatem meam. Sed numquid non est eadem voluntas patris et filii? Sed dicendum, quod eadem quidem voluntas est utriusque, sed tamen pater non habet voluntatem ab alio, filius vero habet ab alio, scilicet a patre. Sic ergo filius implet voluntatem suam ut alterius, idest ab alio habens; pater vero ut suam, idest non habens ab alio: et ideo dicit non quaero voluntatem meam, quae sit mihi originaliter a me ipso, sed quae est mihi ab alio, scilicet a patre.
5:31
Posita doctrina circa potestatem filii vivificativam, hic consequenter confirmat eam, et primo confirmat quae de excellentia potestatis suae dixerat, per multiplex testimonium; secundo redarguit eorum tarditatem ad credendum, ibi claritatem ab hominibus non accipio et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit necessitatem inducendi testimonium; secundo inducit ipsa testimonia, ibi alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me. Necessitas testimonii inducendi erat ex parte Iudaeorum qui ei non credebant; et propter hoc dicit si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum. Sed admirationis praebet materiam quod dicitur. Nam sicut dominus de se, infra XIV, v. 6 dicit, ipse est veritas: quomodo ergo testimonium eius non est verum? Si veritas est, cui credetur si veritati non creditur? Et ideo dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod dominus hic de se loquitur secundum aliorum opinionem, ut sit sensus: si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum, quantum ad vestram reputationem, qui non accipitis illud quod de me dico, nisi per aliud testimonium confirmetur; infra VIII, 13: tu de teipso testimonium dicis: testimonium tuum non est verum.
5:32
Consequenter cum dicit alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me, inducit testimonia, et primo testimonium humanum; secundo testimonium divinum, ibi ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit testimonium Ioannis; secundo rationem testimonii assignat, ibi ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit testimonium; secundo commendat eius testimonium, ibi scio quia verum est testimonium eius. Testem inducit dicens alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me. Iste alius, secundum Chrysostomum, est Ioannes Baptista, de quo dicitur supra I, 6: fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Ioannes: hic venit in testimonium ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Testificationem autem commendat cum dicit et scio quia verum est testimonium eius. Et hoc a duobus. Primo a veritate; secundo ab auctoritate: quia fuit ab eis requisitum, ibi vos misistis ad Ioannem. A veritate quidem commendat eius testimonium, dicens et scio, idest pro certo experior, quia verum est testimonium eius, scilicet Ioannis, quod perhibet de me. Sic enim pater eius Zacharias prophetavit de eo, Lc. I, 76: praeibis enim ante faciem domini parare vias eius, ad dandam scientiam salutis plebi eius. Constat autem quod testimonium mendax non est salutiferum, sed mortiferum: quia mendacium est causa mortis; Sap. 2, 11: os quod mentitur occidit animam. Si ergo testimonium Ioannis est ad dandam scientiam salutis plebi eius, verum est testimonium eius. Sed secundum Glossam aliter: si testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum. Supra Christus locutus est de se secundum quod Deus, hic vero loquitur secundum quod homo. Et est sensus: si ego, homo scilicet, testimonium de me perhibeo, scilicet absque Deo, idest quod Deus pater non perhibeat; tunc sequitur quod testimonium meum non est verum: nam verbum humanum nisi a Deo fulciatur, nihil veritatis habet, secundum illud Rom. c. III, 4: est autem Deus verax, omnis autem homo mendax. Unde si intelligamus Christum ut hominem a deitate separatum et ei non conformem, et in essentia eius mendacium invenitur et in verbis; infra VIII, v. 14: si ego testimonium perhibeo de me ipso, verum testimonium meum; infra: quia solus non sum; sed ego, et qui misit me pater. Et ideo quia non erat solus, sed cum patre, verum est testimonium eius. Unde ut ostendat testimonium eius veritatem non habere ex eius humanitate secundum se, sed inquantum est coniuncta divinitati et verbo Dei, dicit sed alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me: non Ioannes, sed pater, secundum istam expositionem: quia si testimonium Christi hominis de se non est verum et efficax, multo minus esset efficax testimonium Ioannis. Non ergo certificatur testimonio Ioannis, sed testimonio patris: unde iste alius qui testimonium perhibet, intelligitur pater. Et scio quia verum est testimonium eius, nam ipse veritas est; I Io. I, v. 5: Deus lux est, idest veritas, et tenebrae, mendacii, in eo non sunt ullae. Sed prima expositio, quae Chrysostomi est, magis est litteralis.
5:33
Commendat etiam testimonium Ioannis ab auctoritate, quia fuit requisitum a Iudaeis, cum dicit vos misistis ad Ioannem; quasi diceret: scio quia verum est testimonium eius nec vos debetis illud repudiare, quia propter magnam auctoritatem qua erat apud vos Ioannes requisivistis ab eo testimonium de me; quod non fecissetis, si eum dignum fide non opinaremini. Supra I, 19: miserunt Iudaei ab Ierosolymis sacerdotes et Levitas ad Ioannem. Et Ioannes tunc testimonium perhibuit, non sibi, sed veritati, idest mihi. Sicut amicus veritatis veritati Christo testimonium perhibuit; supra I, 20: confessus est, et non negavit: confessus est, quia non sum ego Christus.
5:34
Consequenter cum dicit ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio, assignat rationem testimonii Ioannis inducti, et primo excludit rationem opinatam; secundo asserit veram, ibi sed hoc dico ut vos salvi sitis. Ratio autem inducti testimonii posset ab aliquo credi esse certificatio de Christo, propter eius insufficentiam; et ideo hanc excludit dicens ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio. Ubi sciendum est, quod in scientiis aliquando probatur aliquid per minus notum secundum se, sed magis notum quoad nos; aliquando per aliquid magis notum secundum se et simpliciter. Sicut in hoc loco debebat quidem probari quod Christus esset Deus: et licet veritas Christi esset magis nota secundum se et simpliciter, nihilominus tamen probatur testimonio Ioannis, quod quantum ad Iudaeos magis notum erat. Et ideo Christus secundum se testimonio Ioannis non indigebat, et hoc est quod dicit testimonium ab homine non accipio. Sed contra hoc videtur, quia Is. c. XLIII, 10: vos testes mei, dicit dominus; Act. I, 8: eritis mihi testes in omni Iudaea et Samaria, et usque ad ultimum terrae. Quomodo ergo dicit hic testimonium ab homine non accipio? Sed dicendum, quod hoc dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo ut sit sensus non accipio ab homine testimonium, quasi sim illo tantum contentus; sed habeo maius testimonium, scilicet divinum; I Cor. IV, 3: mihi autem pro minimo est ut a vobis iudicer; Ier. XVII, 16: diem hominis, idest claritatem humanam, non desideravit: tu scis. Alio modo testimonium ab homine non accipio, inquantum scilicet testificans est homo, sed inquantum est illustratus a Deo ad testificandum; supra I, 6: fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Ioannes; I Thess. II, 6: non quaerentes ab hominibus gloriam; infra VIII, v. 50: ego gloriam meam non quaero. Sic ergo accipio testimonium Ioannis, non inquantum fuit homo, sed inquantum missus et illustratus a Deo ad testificandum. Tertio modo, et melius, ego testimonium non accipio ab homine, idest, testimonio humano; quantum ex me est, auctoritatem non accipio ab aliquo, sed a Deo, qui demonstrat me clarum. Consequenter cum dicit sed haec dico ut vos salvi sitis, asserit rationem veram, quae erat ipsorum salus: et primo ponit rationem; secundo exponit eam. Ratio vero inducti testimonii erat, ut Iudaei credentes Christo, testimonio Ioannis salvarentur; et ideo dicit: non accipio testimonium Ioannis propter me, sed haec dico ut salvi sitis; I Tim. II, 4: vult omnes homines salvos fieri; et ibid. I, 15: Christus Iesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere. Et exponit quod dicit salvi sitis: quia scilicet induco testimonium a vobis acceptatum.
5:35
Et ideo cum dicit ille erat lucerna ardens et lucens, ponit Ioannis acceptationem: et primo ponit quod Ioannes fuit testis secundum se acceptus; secundo quomodo fuit acceptatus apud eos, ibi vos autem voluistis ad horam exultare in luce eius. Quod autem Ioannes fuerit secundum se acceptus testis, ostendit per tria quae eum perficiebant. Primum pertinet ad conditionem naturae et hoc cum dicit ille erat lucerna; secundum pertinet ad perfectionem affectus, quia ardens; tertium ad perfectionem intellectus, quia lucens. Erat ergo in natura perfectus, quia lucerna, idest, illustratus gratia, et illustratus luce verbi Dei. Differt enim lucerna a luce: nam lux est quae per seipsam lucet; lucerna vero quae non per se lucet, sed per participationem lucet. Lux autem vera Christus est, ut dicitur supra I, 9: erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem. Ioannes autem lux non erat, ut ibidem dicitur, sed lucerna, quia illustratus erat, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, ducendo ad Christum: de qua lucerna dicitur in Ps. CXXXI, 17: paravi lucernam Christo meo. Sed erat in eo affectus ardens et fervens, unde dicit ardens. Nam aliqui sunt lucernae solum quantum ad officium, sed quantum ad affectum sunt extinctae: nam sicut lucerna lucere non potest nisi igne accendatur, ita lucerna spiritualis non lucet nisi prius ardeat et inflammetur igne caritatis. Et ideo ardor praemittitur illustrationi, quia per ardorem caritatis datur cognitio veritatis; infra XIV, 23: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, et pater meus diliget eum: et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus; infra XV, 15: vos autem dixi amicos, quia omnia quae audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis. Eccli. II, 20: qui timetis Deum, diligite illum, et illuminabuntur corda vestra. Nam ignis duo habet: scilicet quod ardet et splendet. Ardor autem ignis significat dilectionem propter tria. Primo quidem, quia ignis inter omnia corpora est magis activus: sic et ardor caritatis, intantum quod nihil eius impetum ferre potest, secundum illud II Cor. V, v. 14: caritas Christi urget nos. Secundo, quia sicut ignis per hoc quod est maxime sensitivus, facit multum aestuare, ita et caritas aestum causat quousque homo consequatur intentum; Cant. ult., 6: lampades eius lampades ignis atque flammarum. Tertio sicut ignis est sursum ductivus, ita et caritas, intantum quod coniungit nos Deo; I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Erat etiam intellectus lucens. Primo quidem per veritatis cognitionem interius; Is. c. LVIII, 11: implebit splendoribus idest, splendere faciet. Secundo per praedicationem exterius; Phili II, 15: inter quos lucetis tamquam luminaria in mundo, verbum vitae continentes. Tertio per bonorum operum manifestationem; Matth. V, 16: sic luceat lux vestra coram hominibus, ut videant opera vestra bona. Quia ergo sic Ioannes acceptabilis erat secundum se, quia erat lucerna non extincta, sed ardens, non tenebrosa, sed lucens; dignus est quod et apud vos acceptaretur. Quod quidem ita fuit, quia vos voluistis exultare ad horam in luce eius. Et congrue exultationem luci adiungit: quia in illo homo exultat in quo maxime delectatur; nihil autem est in rebus corporalibus delectabilius luce, secundum illud Eccle. XI, 7: delectabile est oculis videre solem. Dicit autem voluistis exultare, quiescendo et ponendo in eo finem, credendo eum Christum; sed tamen ad horam, quia in hoc fuistis instabiles: nam videntes Ioannem homines ad alium, non ad se, ducere, aversi estis ab eo. Unde dicitur Matth. XXI, 32 quod Iudaei non crediderunt in Ioannem. Sunt enim de illis de quibus dicitur Matth. XIII, quia ad tempus credunt. Consequenter cum dicit ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne, ponit testimonium divinum, et primo inducit eius magnitudinem; secundo prosequitur de ipso, ibi opera quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: dico quod ego quantum est ex me, non accipio ab homine testimonium, sed propter vos; nam ego habeo testimonium maius Ioanne, scilicet Dei, quod est maius testimonium quam Ioannis; I Io. ult., 9: si testimonium hominum accipimus, testimonium Dei maius est. Maius, inquam, propter maiorem auctoritatem, maiorem cognitionem, et infallibiliorem veritatem: nam Deus mentiri non potest. Non est Deus ut homo, ut mentiatur: Num. XXIII, 19.
5:36
Testimonium autem prosequitur cum dicit opera enim quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea et cetera. Tripliciter autem testificatus est Deus de Christo: scilicet per opera, per seipsum et per Scripturas, et ideo primo ponit modum testificandi quantum ad opera miraculorum; secundo modum testificandi per seipsum, ibi et qui misit me pater, ipse testimonium perhibuit; tertio per Scripturas, ibi scrutamini Scripturas et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: habeo aliud testimonium maius Ioanne; et hoc quantum ad opera, quia opera miraculorum quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea. Sciendum est enim, quod naturale est homini virtutem et naturas rerum ex earum actionibus cognoscere: et ideo convenienter dominus per opera quae ipse facit, dicit se posse cognosci qualis sit. Cum ergo ipse propria virtute divina faceret, credendum erat in eo esse virtutem divinam; infra XV, 24: si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent, scilicet infidelitatis. Et ideo ad sui cognitionem per opera sua ducit, dicens opera quae dedit mihi, in verbo, pater, per aeternam generationem dando mihi virtutem sibi aequalem. Vel dedit mihi, in conceptione, dando ut sim una persona Dei et hominis, ut perficiam ea idest, ut propria virtute faciam: quod dicit ad differentiam aliorum qui miracula faciunt non propria virtute, sed impetrando a Deo. Unde Petrus dicebat Act. III, 6: in nomine Iesu Christi Nazareni surge. Et ideo ipsi non perficiunt, sed Deus; Christus vero propria virtute ea perficiebat; infra XI, 43: Lazare, veni foras. Et ideo opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me; infra X, 38. Si mihi non creditis, saltem operibus credite. Quod autem opera miraculorum sint testimonia Dei, dicitur Mc. ult., 20: domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis.
5:37
Consequenter cum dicit et qui misit me pater, ipse testimonium perhibuit de me, ponit secundum modum testificandi per ipsum Deum, et primo ponit ipsum modum; secundo ostendit eos huiusmodi non esse capaces, ibi neque vocem eius unquam audistis et cetera. Dicit ergo: non solum opera quae dedit mihi pater, testimonium perhibent de me, sed ipse qui misit me, pater, testimonium perhibuit de me, in Iordane, quando fuit baptizatus, ut habetur Matth. IV, 5, et in monte, quando transfiguratus est, ut dicitur Matth. XVII, 5. Utrobique enim vox patris audita est: hic est filius meus dilectus. Et ideo credendum est ei, sicut vero et naturali filio Dei; I Io. ult., 9: hoc testimonium Dei, quod maius est, quia testificatus est de filio suo. Et sic, qui non credit eum esse filium Dei, non credit Dei testimonio. Sed posset aliquis dicere, quod Deus etiam aliis testimonium perhibuit per seipsum, sicut Moysi in monte, cum quo locutus est, cunctis audientibus; testimonium vero numquam audivimus, et ideo dicit dominus, quod neque vocem eius unquam audistis et cetera. Sed contra Deut. IV, 33, dicitur: si factum est aliquando res huiuscemodi, ut audiret populus vocem domini Dei loquentis de medio ignis, sicut tu audisti et vidisti. Quid est ergo quod nunc dicit Christus neque vocem eius unquam audistis? Respondeo, secundum Chrysostomum, quod dominus eos in philosophica consideratione constituens, vult ostendere, quod Deus testificatur alicui dupliciter, scilicet sensibiliter et intelligibiliter. Sensibiliter quidem, sicut per vocem sensibilem tantum; et hoc modo testificatus fuit Moysi in monte Sinai; Deut. IV, 12: vocem eius audistis, et formam penitus non vidistis. Item per sensibilem speciem, sicut apparuit Abrahae Gen. XXVI, et Is. VI, 1: vidi dominum sedentem supra solium excelsum et elevatum. Sed tamen in istis visionibus nec vox corporalis nec figura Dei est sicut cuiusdam animalis, sed effective, inquantum a Deo formatur: nam cum Deus sit spiritus, neque vocem sensibilem de se emittit, nec figurari potest. Intelligibiliter autem testificatur inspirando in cordibus aliquorum quod credere debeant et tenere; Ps. LXXXIV, 9: audiam quid loquatur in me dominus Deus; Osee II, v. 4: ducam eam in solitudinem, et ibi loquar ad cor eius. Primo ergo testificationis capaces fuistis: nec mirum, quia non fuerunt Dei nisi effective, ut dictum est, voces illae et species. Sed non intelligibilis illius vocis. Neque vocem eius unquam audistis etc., idest participes eius non fuistis; infra VI, 45: omnis qui audit a patre et didicit, venit ad me.
5:38
Sed vos non venitis ad me; ergo non audistis vocem eius, nec vidistis speciem eius; idest non habuistis istud testimonium intelligibile, et ideo subdit et verbum eius non habetis in vobis manens; idest, non habetis verbum interius inspiratum. Et haec ratio est, quia quem misit ille, idest pater, huic vos non creditis. Verbum enim Dei ducit ad Christum: nam ipse Christus est naturale Dei verbum. Omne autem verbum a Deo inspiratum, est quaedam participata similitudo illius. Cum ergo omnis similitudo participata ducat in suum principium, manifestum est quod omne verbum inspiratum a Deo ducit ad Christum. Et ideo, quia vos non ducimini ad me, non habetis verbum Dei, inspiratum, in vobis manens; infra: qui non credit in filium Dei, non habet vitam in se manentem. Et dicit manens, quia cum nullus sit quin aliquam veritatem habeat a Deo, illi tantum habent veritatem, et verbum in ipsis manens, quibus intantum cognitio proficit ut perducantur ad veri et naturalis verbi cognitionem. Vel per hoc quod dicit neque vocem eius unquam audistis, ostenditur triplex modus quo a Deo aliquid revelatur alicui. Quia vel per vocem sensibilem, et sic testificatus est Christo in Iordane et in monte, ut dictum est II Petri I, 16: speculatores facti illius magnitudinis, voce lapsa de caelo a magnifica gloria. Et hanc Iudaei non audierunt. Vel per visionem suae essentiae; et hanc revelat beatis. Et hanc speciem ipsi non viderunt, quia II Cor. V, 6: quamdiu sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a domino et cetera. Vel per interius verbum inspirando; et hoc etiam ipsi non habebant.
5:39
Consequenter cum dicit scrutamini Scripturas, ponit tertium modum quo Deus testificatus est Christo per Scripturas, et primo inducit Scripturarum testimonium; secundo ostendit eos fructu huius testimonii non esse capaces, ibi et non vultis venire ad me et cetera. Dicit ergo scrutamini Scripturas, quasi dicat: vos non habetis verbum Dei in cordibus vestris, sed in Scripturis; et ideo oportet vos illud alibi quaerere. Et ideo scrutamini Scripturas; scilicet veteris testamenti. Nam fides Christi in veteri testamento continebatur, sed non in superficie, quia in profundo obumbrata figura latebat; II Cor. III, 15: usque in hodiernum diem ipsum velamen habentes. Et ideo signanter dicit scrutamini, quasi in profundum quaeratis; Prov. II, 4: si quaesieris eam quasi pecuniam, et sicut thesauros effoderis illam, tunc intelliges timorem domini, et scientiam Dei invenies; Ps. CXVIII, 69: da mihi intellectum, et scrutabor mandata tua. Ratio autem scrutinii ex vestra opinione sumitur quia putatis in eis, scilicet Scripturis, vitam aeternam habere, ex hoc quod dicitur Ez. XVIII, 19: qui fecerit iudicia mea, vita vivet. Sed estis decepti; quia licet praecepta veteris legis vitalia sint, non tamen vitam habent in seipsis; sed intantum dicuntur vitalia inquantum ducunt ad me Christum; cum tamen vos utamini eis tamquam in se vitam habentibus: quod decepit vos. Nam illae, scilicet Scripturae, sunt quae testimonium perhibent de me; idest, intantum vitalia sunt inquantum ad meam cognitionem ducunt. Vel apertis prophetiis, sicut Is. VII, 14: ecce virgo concipiet, et iterum Deut. XVIII, v. 15: prophetam suscitabit vobis dominus Deus et cetera. Unde dicitur Actor. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. Vel operationibus prophetarum mysticis: unde dicitur Oseae XII, 10: in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum. Vel in sacramentis et figuris; sicut est immolatio agni, et alia figuralia sacramenta legis; Hebr. X, 1: umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum et cetera. Et ideo, quia Scripturae veteris testamenti multipliciter testimonium perhibent de Christo, dicit apostolus, Rom. I, 2: quod ante promiserat per prophetas in Scripturis sanctis de filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem.
5:40
Sed fructum quem in Scripturis putatis habere, scilicet vitam aeternam, consequi non poteritis, quia testimoniis Scripturae de me non credentes, non vultis venire ad me; idest, non vultis credere mihi, in quem est fructus illarum Scripturarum, ut in me vitam habeatis, quam ego do credentibus in me; infra X, 28: ego vitam aeternam do eis; Eccli. IV, 12: sapientia filiis suis vitam inspirat; Prov. VIII, 35: qui me invenerit inveniet vitam, et hauriet salutem a domino.
5:41
Postquam Deus excellentiam suae potestatis confirmavit testimoniis hominum, Dei et Scripturarum, hic consequenter eorum tarditatem ad credendum redarguit. Duplici autem occasione Iudaei persequebantur Christum: propter solutionem sabbati, in quo videbatur contrarius legi; et quia dicebat se Dei filium, in quo videbatur contrarius Deo. Unde propter reverentiam quam habebant ad Deum, et propter zelum quem habebant ad legem Moysi, persequebantur. Et ideo dominus intendit ostendere quod non propter hoc eum persequebantur, sed propter contrarium. Unde primo ostendit irreverentiam ipsorum ad Deum esse causam incredulitatis ipsorum; secundo quod irreverentia, quam habebant ad Moysen, fuit causa incredulitatis ipsorum, ibi nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sum vos apud patrem. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit irreverentiam ipsorum ad Deum; secundo ostendit quod hoc sit causa incredulitatis ipsorum, ibi quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis? Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit eorum indevotionem ad Deum; secundo manifestat eam per signum, ibi ego veni in nomine patris mei. Circa primum duo facit. Primo excludit intentionem opinatam, quae ex verbis praemissis accipi posset; secundo asserit veram, ibi sed cognovi vos et cetera. Intentio opinata est, quod quia dominus supra commemoraverat tot testimonia de seipso, scilicet Ioannis, Dei, et operum suorum, et Scripturarum, posset opinari a Iudaeis quod hoc fecerit quasi quaerens humanam gloriam. Contra hoc dicit claritatem ab hominibus non accipio; idest, laudem humanam non quaero. Non enim veni ut exemplum darem quaerendi gloriam hominum; I Thess. II, 6: neque quaerentes ab hominibus gloriam: Deus testis est. Vel claritatem ab hominibus non accipio, idest, claritate humana non indigeo, quia ab aeterno claritatem habeo apud patrem; infra XVII, 5: clarifica me pater, claritate quam habui antequam mundus fieret. Non enim veni clarificari ab hominibus, sed potius eos clarificare, cum a me omnis claritas procedat. Sap. c. VIII, 10: habebo per hanc sapientiam claritatem. Dicitur autem Deus clarificari et gloriari ab hominibus, secundum illud Eccli. XLIII, v. 32: glorificantes Deum quantumcumque potestis, praevalebit adhuc, non ut ipse propter hoc gloriosior fiat, sed inquantum gloriosus apparet in nobis. Non est ergo haec causa propositorum testimoniorum, sed alia est: quia cognovi, idest cognoscere feci, quia non habetis dilectionem Dei in vobis, quam habere vos fingitis, unde non propter Dei amorem me persequimini. Nam tunc propter Deum me persequeremini, si Deus et Scriptura non mihi testimonium perhiberent; sed ipse Deus mihi testatur et per opera, et per Scripturas, et per seipsum, ut dictum est; et ideo si Deum amaretis, oporteret ut sicut me abiicitis, ita ad me veniretis. Non ergo diligitis Deum. Vel aliter sed cognovi vos, quasi dicat: non induxi huiusmodi testimonia, indigens vestra clarificatione; sed scio, et condoleo vobis errantibus, qui non diligitis Deum, et volo vos reducere ad viam veritatis; infra XV, 24: nunc autem et viderunt, et oderunt et me et patrem; Ps. LXXIII, 23: superbia eorum, qui te oderunt, ascendit semper. Sed sciendum, quod Deus in seipso a nullo potest haberi odio, nec secundum omnes effectus suos, cum omne bonum, quod est in rebus, sit a Deo, et impossibile sit quod aliquis habeat odium omnis boni, quin ad minus esse et vivere diligat. Sed tamen aliquem effectum Dei odio aliquis habet, inquantum suo appetitui contrariatur, ut poenam, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Et secundum hoc dicitur habere Deum odio.
5:42
Signum autem quod dilectionem Dei non habent, ponit cum dicit ego veni in nomine patris mei, et non accepistis me, et primo ponit unum signum de praesenti; secundo aliud de futuro, ibi si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis.
5:43
Signum de praesenti sumitur ex eius adventu; et ideo dicit ego veni in nomine patris mei, quasi diceret: manifeste apparet quod dico, nam si aliquis diligit dominum suum, manifestum est quod honorat et recipit eum qui venit ex parte sua, et honorem eius quaerit; sed ego veni in nomine patris mei, manifestando nomen eius mundo; infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus quos dedisti mihi, et vos non accepistis me, ergo non diligitis eum. Dicitur autem filius manifestare patrem suum hominibus, quia licet pater inquantum Deus, notus esset, secundum illud Ps. LXXV, v. 1: notus in Iudaea Deus, tamen inquantum est naturalis pater filii, non erat notus ante adventum Christi: et ideo Salomon quaerebat, Prov. XXX, 4: quod nomen eius, et quod nomen filii eius nosti? Signum de futuro sumitur ex adventu Antichristi. Possent autem Iudaei dicere: licet tu venias in nomine eius, ideo tamen non te recepimus, quia nullum volumus recipere nisi ipsum Deum patrem. Sed contra hoc dicit dominus, quod hoc non potest esse, quia vos recipietis alium, qui non veniet in nomine patris, sed in nomine sui ipsius; et, quod plus est veniet in nomine, non patris, sed suo: quia non quaeret gloriam patris, sed suam propriam; nec patri attribuet quae faciet, sed sibi, II Thess. II, 4: qui adversatur et extollitur supra omne quod dicitur aut quod colitur Deus. Et illum accipietis, unde ibidem subditur: mittet Deus illis operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio. Et hoc ideo, quia doctrinam veritatis non receperunt, ut salvi fierent; unde dicit Glossa: quia Iudaei noluerunt accipere Christum, poena peccati huius congrue erit ut recipiant Antichristum: ut qui noluerunt credere veritati, credant mendacio. Sed secundum Augustinum, potest hoc intelligi de haereticis et falsis doctoribus, qui doctrinam ex corde suo proferunt, et non ex ore Dei; qui nomen suum laudant, et nomen Dei contemnunt: de quibus dicitur I Io. II, 18: audistis quia Antichristus venit; et nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt. Manifestum est ergo quod persecutio qua me persequimini, non est ex dilectione Dei, sed ex odio et livore ad eum procedit: et ex hoc eorum incredulitas causabatur.
5:44
Et ideo concludit quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis? Idest gloriam humanam, et eam quae a solo Deo est, non quaeritis? Quae est vera gloria. Ideo autem credere non poterant in Christum, quia cum superba mens eorum gloriam et laudem appeteret, se super alios efferri reputabant in gloriam, et dedecus in Christum credere qui abiectus videbatur et pauper; et ideo ei credere non poterant. Sed ille in eum credere potest qui cor habens humile, solius Dei gloriam quaerit, et ei placere appetit. Et ideo, sicut infra XII, 42, dicitur: multi ex principibus crediderunt in eum; sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur, ut de synagoga non eiicerentur. Ex quo apparet quod multum periculosa est inanis gloria. Unde dicit Tullius: cavenda est homini gloria, quae aufert omnem libertatem, pro qua magnanimis viris omnis debet esse contentio. Et ideo dicit Glossa: magnum vitium est iactantia et humanae laudis ambitio, quae de se vult aestimari quae de se non habet. Consequenter cum dicit nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sum vos, ostendit quod non habent zelum ad Moysen, et primo ostendit quomodo Moyses erat eis contrarius; secundo rationem contrarietatis assignat, ibi si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi. Circa primum duo facit. Primo removet opinatum zelum; secundo asserit verum, ibi est qui accusat vos Moyses. Quantum ad primum dicit nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sum vos apud patrem. Cuius quidem dicti est triplex ratio. Una, quod filius Dei non venit in mundum ut condemnet mundum, sed ut salvet; et ideo dicit nolite putare quod venerim ad condemnandum, sed ad liberandum; supra III, v. 17: non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, idest ut condemnet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Et ideo sanguis Christi non clamat accusationem, sed remissionem, Hebr. XII, v. 24: habemus sanguinem Christi melius clamantem quam Abel, qui clamat accusando; Rom. VIII, 33: quis accusabit adversus electos Dei? Christus est qui iustificat, quis est qui condemnet? Secundo modo nolite putare quod ego accusaturus sum vos apud patrem, quia non ero accusator, sed iudex. Supra eodem: pater omne iudicium dedit filio. Tertio modo nolite putare quod ego, tantum scilicet, accusaturus sum vos apud patrem de hoc quod facitis mihi; sed etiam Moyses accusabit vos de hoc quod non creditis ei in his quae de me dixit.
5:45
Et ideo subdit est qui accusat vos Moyses, in quo speratis, quia creditis per praecepta eius salvari. Accusat autem eos Moyses dupliciter. Materialiter, quia ex hoc quod praetergressi sunt mandata eius, sunt accusandi; Rom. II, 12: quicumque in lege peccaverunt, per legem iudicabuntur. Item accusat eos, quia Moyses et alii sancti potestatem habebunt in iudicio; Ps. XLIX, 6: gladii ancipites in manibus eorum et cetera.
5:46
Rationem contrarietatis ponit dicens si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi, ut patet Deut. XVIII, 15: prophetam suscitabit Deus de gente tua et de fratribus tuis sicut me: ipsum audies, et in omnibus sacrificiis, quae erant figura Christi. Et dicit forsitan, ad designandum voluntatem liberi arbitrii: non quod in Deo sit aliquod dubium.
5:47
Consequenter cum dicit si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis? Ponit signum huius contrarietatis sumptum a maiori, negando per comparationem ad duo. Primo personae ad personam: licet enim Christus simpliciter maior esset Moyse, tamen in reputatione Iudaeorum Moyses erat maior, et ideo dicit si non creditis Moysi, nec mihi credetis. Secundo per comparationem ad modum tradendi: quia Moyses praecepta dedit in scriptis, quae possunt diutius meditari, nec tradi oblivioni de facili; et ideo magis obligant ad credendum. Christus vero tradidit verbis; et quantum ad hoc dicit si non creditis litteris illius, quarum libros apud vos habetis, quomodo credetis verbis meis?
5:1
v. 1 post haec o μετὰ ταῦτα qua dictione (ut distinguitur ab altera μετὰ τοῦτο) longius A temporisintervallum indicari aliqui censent, erat dies festus ludaeorum et ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam; ἡ ἑορτή vide lect. var.; « magna nos Ioannes molestia contentioneque liberasset, si vel unum adiecisset verbum, quo quis ille Iudaeorum dies fuisset festus declarasset » (Maid.). Ea de re disceptatum est, disceptatur, disceptabitur. Ut statim dicam quod sentio, mihi cum multis probabilius videtur intelligi secundum pascha in vita Iesu publica. Pascha quippe vocat diem festum 4,45, diem festum ludaeorum 6,^* et 11,56 et 12,19; ad hunc festum diem ascendit in urbem 2,13 et hoc loco quoque iter in urbem propter festum fieri indicatur; et cum ad tertium pascha in vita publica non ascendat, ratio ab: evangelista sedulo notatur 7,1. Uti itaque in primo paschate se manifestavit Iudaeis 2,13 seq., ita in secundo quoque modo etiam insigniore. Atque pascha hoc loco intelligunt /renaeus (2, 92,3; M. 1,183) et uti videtur, Eusebius, quia in Chron. dicit ex loanne colligi Iesum per tres annos praedicasse; in Demonst. ev. assignat tres annos et semis (M. 19,536; 22,625) Rup. Ians. Tol. Salmeron (t. 6 tract. 18), Lap. Tir. I. Grimm; eam sententiam probabiliorem habent Bar..Sa, Gordonus, Calm. Corl. Fil. Adde 6,& commemorari tertium pascha in vita publica Christi , 2,13 fieri mentionem primi ; proin si inter haec de festo Iuiisgrum die sermo fit ad quem ascenditur in urbem, quasi per se memoriae offertur alterum pascha. In 6,& autem non secundum, sed tertium pascha indicari, colligitur ex evangelio Lucae. Nam multiplicatio panis, de qua 6,5 seq. narraturea est quae Luc. 9,11 seq. refertur. Sed quia Lucas xa0c5zc , ex ordine, scribit, facile fit computatio : Luc. 4,11 Iesus revertitur post primum pascha mense decembri in Galilaeam (cf. loan. 4,35), Luc. 6,1 ex narratione colligitur tempus post pascha stantibus segetibus , proin indicatur alterum pascha in vita publica; Luc. 9,11 tempus est ex Ioan. 6,& ante pascha; ergo hoc loco habetur tertium pascha. Unde simul apparet falsum esse quod saepe iactatur, ab explicátione Ioan. 5,1 colligi per quot annos Christus docuerit.
Christus sanat infirmum iacentem ad piscinam Bethesda eumque iubet grabatum tollere et ambulare. Quod cum die sabbati fecisset et lam Cyr. notat evangelistam consulto velle efferre fide Samaritanorum et Galilaeorum exposita , quae fuerit Iudaeorum ingenii ac morum differentia. Hi quippe cum Iesum patrato miraculo admirari deberent eique credere, illico ad caedem deposcunt et benefactorem suum impie persequuntur. Oppositionem et odium nobilium quod iam cernitur oC 9,18 et 4,1 in dies magis auctum esse hic clare apparet;
5:2
v. 2 est autem lerosolymis probatica piscina, IX secundum hanc lectionem ipsa piscina vocabatur προδατιχή, « ἃ nobis tur, cur dictum sit : in his iacebat; cum enim sermo factus sit de piscina et de aegrotis, potius exspectares ibi designari fontem medicae salubritatis et proinde aegros non in aedificio iacere, sed in aquis salubribus lavari. Pari necessitate debet addi v. &, quo ratio redditur, cur éiSpectaverint aquae motum et quo tandem responsio paralytici intelligitur, quae sine hoc v. & verum esset aenigma;
5:4
v. & angelus autem, melius profecto graece γάρ, enim (rush), Domini descendebat secundum tempus xaxà χαιρόν, certis et opportunis temporis momentis, incertum quibus (Maid. Lap.) tn piscinam et movebatur aqua (et movebat aquam, vide lect. var.); et qui prior descendisset in piscinam post motionem aquae , sanus fiebat a quacumque detinebatur infirmitate. Cum sat multi hunc versum interpolationis loco habeant (etiam Schz. Schg. qui putat a Papia esse additum), monendum est, eum plane necessarium esse, ne responsio aegroti v. 7 plane sit obscura. Nam ibi sermo fit de aquae motione, de descensu in aquam turbatam; de eo quod alius ante eum descendit et quod ipse non habeat quemquam a quo mittatur in piscinam. Iam haec omnia plane nequeunt intelligi et proferuntur ad admirationem legentium, nisi ea praemittuntur quae revera hic leguntur in v. &. Evangelista enim ita facit aegrotum illum loquentem, ut aperte supponat eos qui legunt iam scire qua ratione ibi sanitas acquiratur. Insuper attende quomodo alias evangelista ea explicet quae Iudaeis quidem nota sunt, alienigenis non item (cf. 1,38.41; 2,6 etc.) et quanta accuratione singula quaeque describere soleat in rebus enarrandis (cf. 2,1-10. 15. 16; 3,2. 93; &,5. 86. 52 etc.). Quare incredibile est talem scriptorem nunc subito omni declaratione omissa ea ponere in ore loquentis quae nequeant intelligi. Accedunt testimonia sat gravia et multa (vide lect. var.). Quaerunt, descenderitque vere angelus, sitne sanatio illa effecta vi naturali aquis salubribus et medicatis insita, an vero miraculo. Non desunt, qui evangelistam solum ex populari opinione loqui asserant; plebem scil. ex eo quod aqua quandoque subito ebulliret, cuius rei . causa tum ignorabatur, angeli opera id effici falso conclusisse; aquas ' illas.fuisse salubres; vaporibus autem erumpentibus, quibus aqua movebatur, vim salutiferam esse auctam, ita ut qui primi in illam motionem se coniicerent sanarentur (ita fere Schg. Schz. et plerumque acatholici). Verum ita a verborum proprietate et veritate mirum quantum receditur et hyperbolae statuuntur nimiae. Ubi enim est fons medicatus qui sufficiat curandis caecis (vel plane, vel maximam partem Jumine privatis), claudis, aridis e& demum quibuslibet infirmitatibus? et si illa vis est naturalis, cur unus solum sanatur? Opinatur ScAg. nunquam alterum quendam tentamen fecisse; id quod sane omnem excedit fidem ; uti enim hominum natura est, profecto quam primum animadvertunt aliquem modo quodam sanari, alii quoque eundem modum.adoptant. Quare incredibile est nunquam plures insiluisse in &quam motam vel primo.sanato non alium et alium tentasse, perduraretne vis salubris. Unde nisi tria haec : primus, sanus fiebat, ἃ quacumque infirmitate, negare volueris vel contra omnem verborum pro- | prietatem tamquam exaggerationem nimiam explicare, miraculum X*...; | agnoscas necesse est. Sin &utemr. aliquam verborum proprietatem retia nere vis miraculo negato , rem asseris inauditam nullo simili exemplo unquam probatam. At descenditne angelus, utique ἃ nullo visus, quia tum tandem cum turbata fuit.aqua, aegroti descendere incipiebant (v. 7)? neque enim angelum, sed aquae motum dicuntur exspectasse v. 3, ergo non in angelum, sed in aquae motum erant intenti (Maid.). Quo ergo modo sciri potuit esse angelum qui movebat aquam? Respondet Maid. : « ex communi traditione qua quidquid praeter naturam fiebat per angelum fieri credebatur, nisi quis malit a Deo id fuisse per revelationem declaratum ». (Quodsi miraculum agnoscas, id divina virtüte sed ministerio angelico esse patratum, haud difficile tibi persuadebis. At cur solum unus sanabatur? respondeo : cur ad unum filium viduae suscitandum Elias mittitur? cur unus Naaman a lepra sanatur (cf. 3 Reg. 17,19. ἃ Reg. 5,9. Luc. 4,25-27)? cur unum hoc loco Christus sanat? Praeterea planum est sanatione unius declarari miraculum modo apertiore. Si enim vis illegguis inesset, non uni, sed pluribus saltem quandoque auxilium praestaretur, cum vires naturales necessario agant et constanter. . Adnotat Estius hunc locum obiiciendum iis, qui Deum omni loco aequaliter preces exaudire contendentes visitationem certorum locorum reprehendant; ostendi enim hoc exemplo Deum non tantum certo loco. sed etiam certo tempore miraculum concessisse, ita ut qui locum et tempus illud non observaret sanitatem non consequeretur; v. 5 erat ἮΝ autem quidam homo ἰδὲ triginta et octo annos habens tn infirmitate vol sua; non quod per tot annos ibi fuerit, sed evangelista solum dicit eum N per tot annos aegrotasse, ut Mald. notat contra CAr. Theoph. Tol. qui us putant per tot annosibi iacuisse; hominem fuisse paralyticum censent v (cf. Chr. Cyr. Euth. Ammonius, Aug. Bon. Mald. Bar.)idque ex v. 7 dum venio ego etc. comprobatur;
5:6
v. 6 hunc cum vidisset Iesus iacentem ! et cognovtsset quta tam multum tempus haberet , quomodo cognoverit, Deus Adam : ubi 659 οἱ Cain : ubiest Abel frater tuus, ut indignationem - contra eos manifestaret, et Deut. 39 : ubi sunt dii eorum, in quibus habebant fiduciam, est interrogatio exprobrationis cuiusdam ; loan. 8 : ubi sunt qui te accusabant, est animi benevoli et liberare volentis; insuper interrogationes aliqua alia denotant, sicut in eisdem patet exemplis positis » (To/.). Immerito censet ScAg. interrogationem debuisse videri duram, quasi accusaretur ibi iacere non ob morbum, sed ut ^ morbum praetendens mendicaret. ΤῊΣ Interrogatione illa Iesus animi commiserationem pandit et ita homo ' eam intellexit, uti ex eius responsione patet v. 7 responditeilanguidus: “ἃ domine , Iesus enim eum prae se ferebat habitum , eam vultus dignitax tem, ut reverentiam inspiraret; insuper sicut benigne eum alloquitur, ita iam incipit occulta gratia eius animum imbuere; Áomtinem non habeo , non habeo quemquam, ut cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam, βάλῃ me iaciat, celerrime mittat; dum venio enim ego, Cu alius ante me descendit ; utpote paralysi constrictus aegre et lente se x movet; exponit miseriam; quem allocutus est dominum, non audet rogare, uL se mittat in piscinam ad aquae motionem neque ut maneat donec iterum aqua moveatur. Recole singula responsionis verba non posse intelligi nisi praecedat explicatio in v. & data. Sed ipsa miseriae declaratione implicite petit, ut sibi provideatur (Caz.). Neque frustra;
5:8
v. 8 dicit ei Iesus : surge, tolle grabatum tuum et ambula; qui dicit, ei quoque fidem inspirat, ut verbis tanta auctoritate prolatis credat
5:9
DU - Si evangelista scribit v. 2 est autem etc. non sequitur piscinam eo A. modo quo describitur exstitisse tempore illo; adhibetur praesens in 2: US narratione, ut res quasi praesens sistatur ob oculos (cf. 1,29 βλέπει, LE λέγει; 1,53 εὑρίσχει etc.); v. 9 et statim sanus factus est homo ille, sensit scil. se sanum , robustum, omni membrorum paralysi subito amota, et sustulit grabatum suum et ambulabat, quae duo argumento sunt virium receptarum. Iesus autem consulto statim declinat a turba (v. 13).
explicationem adoptant, ut rem vere gestam negent. Ita aegrotum 38 annorum esse populum iudaicum Zoltzmann ex Deut. 2,14 colligit; quinque libros Moysi designari quinque porticibus, in quibus iaceat aeger impotens ut veniat ad aquam vitae, Zoenig quoque docet (cf. Schz.). Verum Ioannem referre velle rem vere gestam evidens est. Putarunt quidam, ut Chr. notat, sanationem esse eandem de qua narrant Matth. 9,4 et Marc. 2,3. Sed solum in eo conveniunt quod utrobique para- - lyticus iubetur surgere et ferre grabatum; reliqua omnia maxime sunt diversa. Verum illud unum recentioribus quibusdam sufficiebat, ut dicerent hanc nostram narrationem efformatam esse ex illa synopticorum et maiore miraculo auctam. At quod gratis (et frivole) asseritur, gratis quoque negatur. Insuper hic quoque valet illud quod supra monui : nativa veritatis simplicitas ipsa narratione adeo accurata et quasi. oculis subiecta proditur. Ut subsequentis disceptationis occasio indicetur, additur : eratautem sabbatum in die illo ; quam rigorose scribae et pharisaei sabbati legem observari iusserint, satis ex synopticis patet (Matth. 19,9. 10 etc.), cum prohiberent ne quis sabbato curaretur Luc. 13,14; praeterea ea in re poterant provocare ad id quod Dominus per Ieremiam praecepit : nolite portare pondera in die sabbati et nolite eiicere onera de domibus vestris. in die sabbati (ler. 17,91. 99);
5:10
v. 10 dicebant ergo Iudaei i. e. magistratus, primores, synedristae vel eorum legati (Ca:. Corl. Schz.), uti ex v. 15. 16 quoque colligitur, 4//t qui sanatus fuerat : sabbatum est, non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum; sapienter
5:11
v. 11 respondit eis : qui me sanum fecit , ille mihi dizit : tolle grabatum tuum et ambula, bene rationem reddit homo simplex et bene ratiocinatur : qui tantam habet a Deo virtutem, ut verbo me sanare potuerit, eius sane mandato et auctoritati obediendum est, neque is quidquam praecipiet quod contra legem sit (cf. Thom. Tol., qui monet solam rationem accepti beneficii non sufficere ad excusationem, .cur illi obediat). Verum post tam diuturnum morbum subito sanitati restitutus prae gaudio nihil de sabbato cogitat, in id unum intentus ut faciat quod iussus erat. Ita enim homines simplices agere solént; neque tamen propterea interpretes reprehendendi sunt, quod ostendunt eum, licet inscium et sine multa reflexione, ea dixisse quibus verum ac rectum enuntiatur ratiocinium. « Illi vero quam improbe se gesserint consideres velim : non enim dixerunt : quis te sanum fecit? sed hoc omisso cum strepitu magno transgressionem illam in medium adducunt » (CÀr.)
5:12
v. 12 interrogaverunt ergo eum : quis est 1lle homo, verba iam produnt contemptum et indignationem , qui dizit tibi : tolle grabatum. tuum et ambula? « mala quaerunt; bona tacent » (Bon.); id scil. efferunt quod facilius ansam praebet accusationi; « non itaque iam illi obiiciebant quod die sabbati sanus factus esset homo, sed quod portabat grabatum suum ; si sanitas non erat differenda, numquid et opus fuerat imperandum » (Aug.)? Est quippe ingenium invidiae, ut sit caeca in bonis, in malis oculata (Mald.);
5:13
v. 13 is autem qui sanus fuerat effectus nesciebat quis esset; Iesus enim declinavit a turba constituta in loco ; ἐξένευσεν accipi potest tamquam sensum plusquamperfecti referens, quae notio ab aoristo non est prorsus aliena (cf. Wner, $ 40,5); attamen non est necesse ; sufficit ut id efferatur quod in ipsa sanatione factum esse intelligitur. Iesus statim se turbae subducit; vult enim ut sanatio prius ab ipso homine Iudaeis nota fiat (uti cap. 9; cf. Schz.) et gestatione grabati illorum aemulatio provocetur. Hanc disceptationem cum synedristis consulto voluit provocare; excitationem autem turbae propter sanationem evitare; ad utrumque utile erat, ut statim se subduceret. Ille autem pie se mox contulit in templum Deo gratias acturus pro beneficio accepto. Ei alterum quoque idque maius largitur Iesus bene- . ficium
5:14
v. 1& postea invenit eum Iesus in templo et dixit illi : ecce sanus factus es; tam noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat; ws scil. ne posthac pecces; maiorem minatur poenam, scil. non corporis tantum, verum poenam gehennae (Chr. Theoph. Schz.) et simul ostendit eum propter peccata aegrotasse (Euth.) et fieri posse, ut si venia accepta iterum deliquerit iam non veniam consequatur, sed atrocius puniatur in hac vita et in altera. Didicit homo a quo sanatus esset;
5:15
v. 15 abiit ille homo et nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus esset qui fecit eum sanum ; cur abierit, varie explanant; certe non ductus malitia, ut magistratui eum denuntiaret a quo iussus erat tollere grabatum , ut aliqui putarunt; « non enim tam stupidus et ingratus erat, ut post tantum beneficium cum admonitione coniunctum beneficum proderet et maligno animo ita loqueretur » (CÀr.). Neque abit, ut se apud magistratum purgaret et excusaret (Ket/, Weiss); id enim iam praestitit, rationem illisreddens, cur tolleret grabatum. Eos itaque adit, quia nuncad quaestionem a magistratu sibi positam respondere potest ; homo ille simplex probabilissime se sensit ex obedientia et reverentia impulsum , ut quod illi scire volebant iis nuntiaret. Qua mente illi rogaverint , non advertit. Alii opinantur eum. voluisse cum quadam contumacia maiorem Iesu auctoritatem apud illos asserere ; alii, animum gratum ostendere gloria Iesu narrata et manifestata et benefactorem suum omnibus notum facere (cf. Chr. Cyr. Euth. Thom. lans. Cai. Lap. Corl. Schg. Schz.). Cum scribae et pharisaei iam sola sanatione sabbatum violari contenderent, uti ex synopticis patet et infra 7,23 clare enuntiatur, eo maiore ira et indignatione replebantur, quia Iesus grabatum tollere hominem iusserat, proinde apertam sabbati violationem (ut ipsi putabant) palam ac publice inducere ac sancire velle videbatur
5:16
v. 16 propterea. persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia haec faciebat in sabbato, haec , duo itaque videntur ob oculos habere etsanationem et praeceptum illud ut palam ab homine sabbatum violetur. Et tali praecepto Iesus consulto voluit disceptationem cum illis provocare. Nam, ut /ans. merito notat, sabbato non licuit alioquin lectum tollere, sed erat contra legem (Mald.). Unde malitiae Iudaeorum ansa praebebatur. Nam si rem voluissent perpendere, ex ipsa sanatione miraculo aperto facta debebant concludere nullatenus illa gestatione sabbatum violari. Hac enim gestatione et veritas sanationis demonstrabatur et publicum edebatur testimonium accepti a Deo beneficii; erat itaque opus ad Dei gloriam cultumque pertinens, ac proinde aeque licuit sabbato ac v. g. victimas caedere ad sacrificia offerenda (lans. Mald.). Ea porro gestatione, ut ' Tol. notat, divina virtus maxime elucebat; si enim die sequenti onus portasset , non visus esset in momento tantas vires post tam diuturnum morbum recepisse; ut ergo notum esset eum brevissimo momento ad plenum robur esse restitutum ; iussus est portare, idque sabbato, ut oculos multorum in se converteret et opus Dei manifestum fieret. eu 2s ASSAI id eodem 4E. EAM DEM ADU
5:17
v. 17 Iesus autem respondit ets : Pater meus usque modo operatur et ego operor; operatur conservatione, gubernatione rerum creatarum, usque modo continuationem operationis indicat ab exordio rerum per cuncta saecula. Hanc Dei operationem qua omnibus providet, omnia conservat, regit, continuo beneficia praestat naturalia et supernaturalia, effert, ut falsam opinionem destruat, qua cessationem Dei ab opere creationis (Gen. 2,2) in medium afferebant pro strictissima cessatione ct requie sabbatina. Cum autem addit et ego operor, Patri se aequalem significat; nam « nisi Dei Filius esset verus et eiusdem naturae (τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας), defensio foret accusatione deterior; siquis enim praefectus qui regiam legem transgrederetur accusatus responderet ipsum regem illam esse transgressum, non utique absolveretur, imo maiori esset crimini obnoxius. Verum hic quoniam par est dignitas, defensio legitima omnino est; eadem ratione qua Deum crimine liberatis et me liberate » (CÀr.). Uti alias se esse dominum sabbati affirmat (Matth. 19,8. Marc. 2,28. Luc. 6,5), ita hoc loco; at modo sublimiore : sicut Pater meus operatur continuo etiam in sabbato, ita etiam ego operor. Alias accusationem sabbati violati refutat ostendens se opus pietatis effecisse, vel provocans ad exemplum Davidis, ad opera sacerdotum in templo (cf. Matth. 12,3 seq. Luc. 154,5); hoc autem loco accusationem repellit ratione suae divinitatis. praesumat » (Theod. M.). Affirmat itaque divinam suam dignitatem et auctoritatem , Patrise aequalem declarans. Iam si talis hominem iubet sabbato grabatum tollere, quis sana mente de violata lege sabbati conqueri vel cogitare potest? Eo mandato abrogationem legis sabbatinae indicari aliqui existimant (cf. Epiphanius, haer. 66,84; M. 49, 165; Schz.). Iudaei verba Christi rite intelligunt. At non ad fidem, sed ad maius odium incitantur
Ansam itaque Iudaei, scribae et pharisaei, avide arripiebant invidia impulsi, quia Iesus contra eorum auctoritatem agere videbatur neque ab ipsis docendi agendique potestatem quaesierat (cf. 2,18). Testimonium scil. quod eià baptista datum erat despexerunt; invidia illa et superbia obcaecati signa eius pariter negligunt. In Iesum itaque ob mandatum illud invehuntur;
5:18
v. 18 propterea ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere i. e. avidiore animo, ferventiore zelo (Thom.), quia non QoS QUE uat: Tes A22 ΣΝ TAS ovk Us Saar na Area 3 s FEMA 2 ads solum solvebat sabbatum sanatione praestita et multo magis mandato illo dato (Cai.), quo publicum contemptum sabbati in eorum opinione prae se tulit hominemque induxit ad violandum sabbatum cum multorum offensione, — ita illi prae odio caeci rem considerant, sed et patrem suum ἴδιον proprium dicebat Deum aequalem se faciens Deo; Iudaei verbum illud v. 17 rite intellexerunt; Christus revera suam cum Patre aequalitatem clare enuntiat (Chr. Cyr. Schz.); « nullam sane. habent Iudaei excusationem quod Christus non sit aperte locutus; ecce ipsi quaerunt interficere quia fatentur eum affirmasse, se patrem habere Deum sibi aequalem » (Tol.). Adnotant veteres multo melius Arianis Iudaeos verba Christi intellexisse. Christus itaque adeo clare loquitur, ut cogantur Iudaei aut eum adorare aut tamquam maxime blasphemum lapidare (ScAg.); verum testimoniis baptistae et ipsis signis ἃ Christo patratis facillime cognoscere poterant ac debebant eum non esse blasphemum. Insuper Christus non dedignatur homines licet adeo malevolos et contumaces docere pluribus. Negat Weiss indicari aequalitatem naturae; Christum solum sibi attribuere aequalitatem iuris et libertatis cum Patre. Sed qua ratione potest quis sibi attribuere eandem iuris ac libertatis cum Deo aequalitatem? num potest creatura hoc sibi attribuere? qui hoc sibi attribuit et sein eodem cum Deo gradu . collocat (ut Weiss loquitur), is aut Deus esse debet aut maxime blasphemus aut insanus est. Iudaei autem ex modo, quo de patre proprio loquitur, concluserunt : aequalem se facit Deo; idque recte. Atque eam filiationem talem esse, ut habeat eandem cum Patre naturam iam aperte declarat. Ex exprobratione enim Iudaeorum occasionem capit, ut demonstret qualis sit sua natura (Theod. M.); respondit itaque Iesus et dizit eis :
5:19
v. 19 amen, amen dico vobis, rem - certissimam et verissimam assevero et vobis annuntio (7o/.), non polest Filius a se facere quidquam , nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem; quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et Filius similiter facit; « quis unquam angelorum aut hominum hoc de seipso protestari potuit » (Rup.)? iste filius alio plane modo se habet ad suum patrem; filii enim alii et a se facere possunt multa, quae non viderint patres facere ; neque quae patres faciunt, haec eadem filii faciunt. Declarat itaque Christus se esse Filium qui eandem cum Patre habeat numero naturam , et proin eandem potestatem , voluntatem, operationem. Et hac ratione clarius explicat. quod supra dixerat: Pater meus usque modo operatur et ego operor, simulque apertissime confirmat quod ludaei concluserant (v. 18). Dicit itaque fieri nullatenus posse, ut Filius quidquam aliud faciat, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem. Illud non potest non arguit defectum potentiae, sed summam Filii perfectionem; nam primo si- gnificat eum in nulla re posse Deo esse contrarium , dein indicatur satis eadem Patris et Filii natura; nam quod non potest ἃ se facere quidquam, hoc ipsum est propter eandem numero cum Patre naturam; omnis enim rationalis natura ideo potest aliquid facere a se, vel ex se, quia habet aliam a Deo naturam (Jans. Cai. )- Proinde dicit : nihil facio quod non faciat Pater meus et ab eo accipio et habeo quidquid ego facio; et quidquid Filius facit, simul etiam Pater facit; una est ergo utriusque operatio, sed Filius eam habet a Patre, id quod indicat dicens : nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem. « Nam quando dicimus : facio quod video aliquem facere, significamus quandam communicationem faciendi ab eo quem facere videmus; quia igitur Filius facit illud idem quod Pater, sed virtutem faciendi accipit a Patre, propterea dicitur facere quod videt Patrem facere et hoc est : non a semetipso facere » (To/l.). Vel, ut Thom. explicat, per visum scientiam ἃ rebus accipimus; visio itaque designat derivationem cognitionis et scientiae ab alio, unde recte exprimitur ea voce Filium accipere potentiam et operationem a Patre. Dicitur autem facientem, ut intelligatur Filium simul facere, et cum facere sit eius qui exsequitur, subiectio quoque seu subordinatio filii ad patrem excluditur (Caz:.). Sententiae neganti adiungitur sententia affirmans, qua magnitudo potestatis Christi exprimitur (Thom.), et quod dictum est : Filium facere quod videt Patrem facientem declaratur et probatur : quaecumque enim... cuncta itaque quae Pater facit, Filius quoque facit, idque ὁμοίως 1. e. ita utidem quoqueoperandi modushabeatur (Cyr.); proinde denuo asseritur una numero natura, potentia, operatio Patris et Filii; « in eo enim quod potest eadem per omnia facere quae sunt Dei ac Patris et operari eodem modo ac Pater, identitatem probat substantiae eorum (τῆς οὐσίας ἑαυτῶν μαρτυρεῖ ταυτότητα); quibus autem essendi ratio est diversa, his utique non erit idem in omnibus operationis modus ὁ τῆς ἐνεργείας τρόπος οὐχ 5 αὐτὸς » (Cyr. sim. Chr. etc.). Neque obstat quod Pater habet a se, Filius a Patre essentiam ac potentiam; nam eadem est in utroque; propterea sicut idem est Deus, ita eadem dignitate et auctoritate operantur. Haerebant aliqui in verbo facere, multa quippe fecisse Filium quae nunquam eadem Patrem facientem vidisset; Filium enim esse natum, assumpsisse humanam naturam, esse mortuum, resurrexisse; quibus responderi potest, « Patrem non solum volendo, sed vere etiam agendo fecisse quidquid fecit Filius, fecisse tamen ut causam efficientem, non ut terminum : Filius natus est, Pater generavit; Filius naturam humanam sumpsit, Pater dedit; Filius mortuus est, Pater eum tradidit; Filius resurrexit, Pater eum suscitavit. Itaque in omnibus his rebus eadem a Patre et Filio actio edita est; sed propterea Filius, non Pater, genitus, incarnatus, mortuus, suscitatus esse dicitur, quia haec nomina non solum actiones, sed actionum etiam terminos significant, qui Filio propter personae distinctionem, quae terminus est, non Patri conveniunt » (Mald.). Homines qui inter se amant, mutüo sibi omnia communicant, nihil Sibi occultant; tali argumento etiam utitur Christus ad persuadendum quod modo dixerat
5:20
v. 20 Pater enim diligit Filium et omnia demon- - Strat ei quae ipse facit; omnia ei demonstrat, quia cognitionem quam habet Filius Pater dat; Pater enim communicat Filio scientiam cum essentia et hoc est demonstrare (To/.); « demonstrat Pater se ipsum totum in Filii natura exprimens; unde Christus ait.: nemo novit quis sit Filius nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis novit quis sit nisi Filius (cf. Matth. 11,97); est quidem in utroque cognitio utriusque, non doctrina, sed natura (οὐ διδαχτῶς, ἀλλὰ φυσιχῶς) » (Cyr.); demonstrat ei omnia, in quantum ei communicat notitiam omnium operum (7Àom. Mald. Ians.). Dilectio dicit unitatem summam Patris ad Filium ; summa autem unitas est in essentia, ideoque omnimoda indivisio in operatione et propterea necesse est ut Filius in omnibus Patri cooperetur (Bon.). Dilectio dicit communicationem bonorum; ita inter homines; quare Christus eodem argumento utitur ut signo et probatione; non autem quod amor proprie sit causa, sed quia amor est causa cognitionis no- Strae, ita ut intelligamus Patrem omnia cum Filio communicare; vult enim Pater naturaliter Filio omne ac summum bonum. Hac ratione ex summa illa cum Patre coniunctione Christus ea explicat quae eousque fecit; at maiora quoque a se exhibenda esse , ex eadem cum Patre unione declarat : δὲ maiora his demonstrabit ei opera, ut vos miremini « de his quae me nunc videtis facere hostiliter invidentes me occidere quaeritis, quod me iubente languidus in sabbato sanus surrexit et sustulit grabatum suum etambulavit » (Rup.). Eousque sanationes Christus aliaque signa coram ludaeis patravit; maiora se facturum annuntiat, scil. resuscitationem mortuorum et iudicium; de his enim loquitur in subsequentibus, quae quia futura sunt, verbo futuri temporis utitur demonstrab:t, loquens more humano et effectum designans opusque externum, quod ipse in natura humana exsequetur. Hisce efficietur, ut vos miremini, « tum magis stupebitis (χαταπλαγήσεσθε), divinam gloriam et virtutem in me cernentes, quem blasphemiae crimine nuncinvolvitis et persequi non veremini » (Cyr.); cf. Matth. 26,64. Incipit declarare, quaenam sint illa maiora
5:21
v. 21 sicut entm Pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et Filius quos vult vivificat; in subsequentibus sermo infertur de morte peccati, de vita gratiae et de mortuis in sepulcris eorumque resurrectione ; quare optimum erit hanc priorem sententiam accipere modo generali et indeterminato. Denuo una utriusque operatio designatur; neque enim 'alios Filius ac Pater vivificat; sed Filius quos vult vivificat, una ergo utriusque voluntas (Patr.), par potestas (CÀr.), propria aequalisque auctoritas (Mald.). In resurrectione mortuorum omnes suscitabuntur; quare altera sententia videtur intelligi debere de vivificatione spirituali, de vita gratiae : Filius quos vult ad vitam gratiae et gloriae suscitat. Membrum prius de suscitatione mortuorum postea v. 28 etiam de Filio enuntiatur. Affertur dein ratio, cur dictum sit quos vult vivificat, unde iam per se elucet non omnes ad vitam gratiae et gloriae iri suscitatum. Ratio est quia ipse est iudex qui unicuique secundum opera sua retribuet; quare ex eius iudicandi munere consequitur quibus velit dare vitam gloriae;
5:22
v. 22 neque enim Pater iudicat quemquam , sed omne tudicium dedit Filio, qui scil. iudicium revera exsequitur, sententiam profert; Pater dicitur non iudicare, non quod revera non iudicet, quia actiones ad extra sunt SS. Trinitati communes, sed quia non iudicat sumpta persona iudicis, non loquitur hominibus neque ritu externo formaque iudiciali iudicat, sicut Filius iudicat in natura assumpta (cf. Mald.); dicitur dedit, quia humanae Christi naturae, Christo homini haec auctoritas collata, hoc munus demandatum est. Pater autem Filium in humana natura hominibus sese sistentem iudicem et arbitrum vitae et mortis esse voluit,
5:23
v. 23 4t omnes honorificent Filium, sicut. honorificant Patrem, qui scil. mortificat et vivificat; ego, inquit Dominus, occidam et ego vivere faciam; Deus noster Deus salvos faciendi et Domini Domini exitus mortis (1 Reg. 2,6. Deut. 32,39. Ps. 67,91; Ians.), sicut x305; quemadmodum, eadem scil. ratione, quia Filius Patri est consubstantialis, uti in v. 19 expressum est; utrique par et aequalis honor est tribuendus, quia una eademque natura et divinitas est utriusque. Unde pariter consequitur : qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem qui misit eum, nec enim alia ratione missus est quam quia Filius decreto Patris homo factus est, unde factum, ut homo ille qui idem Deus aequalis Patri erat parem honorem Patri mereretur (Maid.). Si quis ei honorem detrahit, Patrem iniuria afficit, qui ad genus humanum docendum et redimendum Filium sibi aequalem misit, cuius itaque contemptus in Patrem redundat. lam explicat quomodo Filius vivificet
5:24
v. 24 amen, amen dico vobis, quia qui verbum meum audit et credit ei qui misit me, nam qui Filio misso credit eo ipso mittenti quoque credit; at effert id Christus quo magis Iudaeis inculcet, si sibi non credant eos ne Deo ipsi quidem credere, Aabet vitam aeternam , habet scil. vitam gratiae, qua habet ius ad vitam beatam aeternam, habet vitam illam, quae natura sua et destinatione tendit ad aeternam beatitatem, et tn tudictum non venit , sed transiit a morte in vitam; fide itaque transitus ille a morte spirituali ad vitam instituitur; iudicium vero fit ibi, ubi est iniuria; at qui vivit coram Deo, iam non est inimicus Dei, non venit in condemnationem. Et iam nunc tempus esse, quando oportet audire verbum eius, sollemni attestatione profitetur
5:25
v. 25 amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora et nunc est quando mortui audient vocem Filit Dei, ad aures eorum qui spiritualiter mortui sunt vox eius afferetur, et qui audierint, obsecuti fuerint, vocem illam susceperint, vivent scil. habebunt vitam veram spiritualem, uti in v. 9& dictum est. Verba haec explicanda esse cum Aug. Rup. Bon. Corl. Schz. Fil. de resurrectione spirituali, suadetur connexione cum antecedentibus, porro addito illo e? nunc est, quod in v. 28 ubi de resurrectione corporali agitur non apponitur, dein quia explicite effertur et qui audierint vivent , quo loquendi modo satis indicatur fore ut non omnes mortui perveniant ad vitam. Alia plane ratione in v. 28 : audient et proceexplicare vel generali vel de resurrectione aliquorum (iuvenis in Naim, Lazari; cf. Chr. Cyr. Theoph. Euth. Alb. Tol. Cai. lans. Mald. Lap. Schg.); at discrimen inter v. 25 et 28 bene advertendum est. Et cur Filius possit vivificare, ratio et probatio affertur v. 25, et nunc est, 15 qua omnes qui in monumentis , in sepulcris, sunt, audient vocem Filii Dei, cf. 1 Thess. 4,15 ipse Dominus in iussu ἐν κελεύσματι, in clamore excitatorio (cum classico) et in voce archangeli et in tuba Dei descendet de coelo;
5:26
v. 26 stcut enim Pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso ; cf. 1,5 in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum. Disceptant sintne verba intelligenda de Filio, de Verbo increato (Chr. Aug. Bed. Bon. Alb. Thom. Tol. Cai. Lap.) an de Filio incarnato (Cyr. Mald. Schz.). Qui de Incarnatione explicant, monent esse locutionem eandem quae habeatur in v. 27, in quo de Christo homine aperte sit sermo. Attamen magnum adest discrimen. Nam in v. 27 agitur de munere externo iudicium instituendi, quod utique Christus in huniana natura obit; hic vero sermo est de vita quam habet in semetipso; sicut Incarnatione, sed Verbum habens vitam in semetipso naturam humanam assumpsit et in natura humana vitam supernaturalem credentibus largitur. Uti in v. 91. 29, ita hic mentio infertur iudicii , illius scil. muneris messiani. Christus enim omnibus offerens gratiam et vitam causa est salutis; verum iis qui non credunt exsistet iudex
5:27
v. 27 et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quale iudicium intelligatur, declaratur in v. 29, quia filius hominis est, quia Messias est; vide ad Dan. 7,13. 1^; Messiam autem fore iudicem vaticiniis quoque praedic- tum est Ps. 71,2. 1s. 11.6: 63.3. 6. Per Christum hommem Deus homines salvari vult, per hominem pariter homines iudicari vult iudicio rituque externo 'cf. Mattb. 25,31 seq. . Cum graece habeatur h. l. Z5. ἀνόρώτ:. sine articulo, monent aliqui filium bominis non significare Christum, uti alias, sed generaliter hominem | Ma/d. lans. Schz.); proin hoc loco id solum enuntiari ez 1. e. Filio Dei datam esse potestatem faciendi iudicium quia homo est, oportere enim iudicem dum ius dicit videri a iudicandis, id quod fier non posset, nisi iudex in humana appareret natura, cum magna iudicandorum pars sit reproba, qui Deum videre non possint (cf. Cai.). Verum haec ratio est inefficax; potuit enim Deus, ut in vetere foedere, apparere per angelum in forma visibili. Neque defectus articuli obstat, quominus υζὸς ἀνηρώκου explicetur, uti alias cum articulo; nam Dan. 7,13 et apud Theod. et LXX eodem modo legitur, uti hic; dein defectus articuli etiam declarari potest quia 5; a. praedicatam grammaticale est, ubi articulus omnino deesse potest, licet etiam poni possit. « Dixerat iudicii potestatem sibi datam a Patre; at quia audientnum cordibus verbum hoc incredibile visum est, vel forsan, dum haec audirent, gestu aliquo exteriore ut incredibile refutarunt adiunxit » (Tol.)
5:28
v. 28 nolite mirari hoc, et ita hoc ad v. 27 referunt Aug. Bon. Cai. Mald. Schz., alii ad v. 245-27 (Ians. Corl.); ne igitur hoc vobis incredibile videatur, perpendite, quid mihi commissum «sit, quta venit hora ἔρχεται, veniet, nota cum Aug. hic non addi, uti
5:29
v. 29 et procedent qui bona fecerunt In resurrectionem vitae , resurgent in vitam aeternam; qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem tudicii , resurgent ad iudicium condemnationis; cf. Matth. 25,46. | « Ecce ad caput redit et argumentationis partes ex una complexione cingit, dum dicit » (Rup.)
5:30
v. 30 non possum ego a meipso facere quidquam, cf. v. 19; sicut audio tudico , « Christus audiebat ut Deus quia scientiam habebat a Patre eandem cum Patris scientia; audiebat ut homo qui scientiam humanam habebat a divinitate communicaftam; iudicabat ergo, sicut audiebat et non a seipso solo; non ergo ignorare aliquid poterat, quo iudicium minus rectum ferretur » (Tol.); similiter in v. 19. 20 dicitur videre, demonstrare de operibus quae Filius & Patre se accipere affirmat; simul asserit se non aliud velle quam quod Pater velit (CAr. Cyr.). Uti Cai. notat, triplici ex capite potest iudicium a iusto declinare, vel ex parte potentiae, vel ex parte intellectus, vel ex parte voluntatis. Prinum remotum est, dum dicit : non possum facere nisi quod faciat Pater; alterum, dum dicit; sicut audio iudico, scientia scil. a Patre accepta; tertium excluditur et iudicium iustum ostenditur, quia non quaero voluntatem meam , sed voluntatem eius qui misit me; « potuit dicere : sed voluntatem Patris; maluit dicere : eius qui misit me, quia etsi idem est, tamen hoc est magis emphaticum; explicat enim tacite causam, cur ex eius voluntate iudicare debeat, non solum quia Pater est, sed quia se ad hoc ipsum miserat, ut iudicaret » (Maid.). Recte monet Patr. esse considerandum, « quod Christus in superioribus versibus de Filio locutus est adhibita semper tertia persona; nunc primam orationis partem concludens primara personam usurpat, tum ut ostendat non de alio se locutum esse nisi de se, tum quia iam transeundum est ad alteram partem, in qua propositum urgendum gensque incitanda ad credendum iis quae ipse de se dixerat ».
5:31
v. 31 si ego testimonium perhibeo de me ipso , testimonium meum non est verum, vestra scil. opinione, non est efficax ad persuadendum , non reputatur proverbium de seipso testimonium perhibere, quia tale non haberetur verum. Id igitur [Iudaeis concedit ut non ab eis exigat sibi fidem adhibendam esse propter solam suam assertionem ; immo eis dicit : nullatenus postulo, ut nunc meis verbis iisque solis fidem adhibeatis. Ita loqui solet is qui aliis iam male in se affectis aliquid persuadere vult : non opus est ut mihi credatis, credere oportebit gravissimis aliorum testimoniis. Unde Christus quoque ludaeis sibi offensis opponit
Sublimia de se enuntiavit. Uti alias, ita hic quoque Iudaei poterant vel explicitis verbis vel tacite ei oggerere : tu de teipso testimonium tionem praeoccupans (Chr. Ewuth. Cyr. Tol. [ans.) dicit
5:32
v. 32 alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me et scio quia verum est tegtimogruum est post v. 31 : non ego, sed alius, quo loquendi modo et attentionem excitat et gravitatem testimonii huius eiusque vim iam indicat. Intelligit vero .a/twum non loannem baptistam (Chr. Thom. Ians.), uti ex v. 34 consequitur, neque Moysen, prophetas, baptistam, Patrem (Matld. ScAg.), sed Patrem solum (Cyr. Bed. Rup. Patr. Schz. Fil.), prout ex v. 36 seq. patet; et ipsa locutio ad unum spectat, non ad plures | 10AN. 5,32-34. 7208 simul. Utique plures de eo testimonium perhibebant; at in omnibus unus Pater testatus est qui scil. eis revelavit et in eis locutus est (cf. 1,33. Hebr. 1,1). Et quam grave sit huius a/itus testimonium , ingeritur audientibus dum dicit : e£ sc:o; cf. 8,16; qua locutione eos exstimulat, ut eius testimonium serio apud se expendant. ludaei audientes v. 39 non poterant non cogitare de Ioanne baptista; quare Iesus pergit
5:33
v. 33 vos misistis ad Ioannem; vos ipsi illius testimonium expetiistis; « non misisselis autem, nisi fide dignum existimassetis » (Chr.), et testimonium perhibuit veritati, respondit veritatem, negans se esse Christum et affirmans et exhortans : dirigite viam Domini; ipse est qui post me veriturus est etc. 1,93-27. « Non igitur est cur iudicetis me solum de me testimonium proferre, nec cur illud repellatis « (Τοί.). Christus autem τὴν μαρτυρίαν illud ipsum testimonium quod nunc proferre vult et quo nunc coram ludaeis uti vult non sunon capto meum testimonium ab homine; quod homo de me testificatus est, nunc non pro me in medium affero, ac si in eo solo veritas mei testimonii consisteret vobisque eam persuadere vellem, vel quasi pro me esset necessarium (Cat.); sed haec dico, ut vos salvi sitis, haec scil. v. 33; dum enim verba baptistae et eius vitae sanctitatem sibi in memoriam revocant, fieri potest, ut promptiores fiant ad fidem Iesu, cui ille testimoniuin perhibuit, adhibendam. Quanta enim sedulitate ad eum confluxerint tam multi et quam sanctam vitam ille degerit, in omnium animis est repositum. Saepius explicatur : non egeo, non indigeo testimonio ab homine edito (Chr. Tol. Mald. Ians.); at λαμδάνω hoc non dicit. Alii ita : non sumo testimonium ab homine, quia quamvis baptistae testimonium esset a Deo inspiratum adeoque divinum, tamen eius inspiratio facile in dubium ab aliis vocari possit (Keil). Et revera, uti Chr. notat, Ioannis testimonium Dei erat testimonium; ab eo enim didicerat ea quae dicebat (1,33); « sed ne dicerent : unde constat eum a Deo didicisse, et hinc adversum starent, eorum ora vehementer reprimit et adhuc contra illorum opinionem edisserit ». Imo aliis videtur Christus ea locutione magis augere vim testimonii eamque asserere : non αὖ homine accipio testimonium; id indignum Messia; sed Christus non potest carere testimonio Ioannis qui ad id perhibendum missus est (1,7. 8); quare ea locutione volunt enuntiari a Christo baptistam locutum esse inspiratione divina et Deum per ipsum testimonium perhibuisse de Christo (cf. Fi.). Atque baptistae testimonium illis quam maxime potuisse esse saluti declarat ex dignitate et munere Ioannis; proinde simul asserit eos (c dA. 5,35... | merito ad eum misisse et debuisse eius testimonium amplecti v. 35 ?/le erat lucerna ardens et lucens, ἦν; ita indicat eum iam non in publica praedicatione versari; ergo ante alterum in vita Iesu publica pascha ὁ λύχνος illa lucerna determinata, illis a Deo data, qua iis demonstraretur via ad regnum Dei et Messiam, qua e tenebris peccatorum et a caligine falsae de suae stirpis dignitate opinionis erepti ad lucem Messiae adducerentur; et haec lucerna magna claritate illuxit ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, ardens amore, lucens verbo et opere (Rup. Bon. Cai.) ; ai merito censet Mald. unum idemque designari; eo enim quod ardet lucerna etiam lucet; designatur lucerna clara, lucens, quae ad commonrepetita sententia maiorem habet emphasin; nam quod quidam subtiliter distinguunt, nescio an aliquod faciant operae pretium »; vos. autem voluistis ad horam exzsultare in luce eius luce eius i. e. annuntiatione appropinquantis regni Dei exsultabant per breve tempus, dum sibi regnum Dei promitterent temporale, pompa et fastu illustre; eam itaque annuntiationem ab initio cum gaudio accipiebant; at mox ab exspectatione sua deiiciebantur, cum baptista poenitentiam praetationem radicitus everteret (cf. Matth. 3,7-12). Volebant enim temporalem regni praeripere felicitatem, carnali sensu regnum Christi terrenum fore sperantes (Rup.). Eorum itaque inconstantiae, qua se ab Ioanne averterant, opponit testimonium quod habet multo maius et continuo coram ipsis exhibitum et perdurans
5:36
v. 36 ego autem habeo testimonium ma1us Ioanne 1. e. habeo testimonium quod maius est testimonio Ioannis; et ita incipit exponere quod in v. 32 affirmaverat; opera enim quae dedit mihi Pater, ut perficiam ea, ipsa opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, quia Pater misit me, opera scil. messiana, miracula, sanationes, ea quae discipulis loannis exposuit : caeci vident... mortui resurgunt, pauperes evangelizantur (Matth. 11,5), ἵνα τελειώσω ostendit praeter ea quae iam perfecerit alia sibi superesse quae ἃ Patre commissa explere debet, cum emphasi urget ea ipsa quae coram eis continuo faciat sibi esse testimonium sufficiens missionis a Patre acceptae. Si autem a Patre missus est, dein ea quae dicit vera sunt et Iudaei, ad quos a Patre missus est debent ei credere. Cum ita ad opera sua provocet, quae in hoc evangelio paucissima eousque commemorata sunt, evangelista synopticorum narrationem notam esse supponit. per auditum, visum, inspirationem v. 38; eos autem noluisse audire vocem Dei loquentis in Scripturis et in operibus Christi, neque speciem eius in Christo apparentem voluisse videre, neque suscepisse internam ad se Dei revelationem (cf. Fi/.); similiter praeter alia Zhom. : ostenditur triplex modus quo Deus aliquid revelatur alicui (Cai.). Vel Christum loqui per modum concessionis : Pater testatus est de me; fateor vos eius vocem non audivisse etc.; vel per increpationem : vocem audire noluistis eumque minime cognoscitis (cf. Patr.). Alii demum (7ol. Corl.) recurrunt explicationis gratia ad Deut. 18,15-19 : populum iam non auditurum vocem Domini nec visurum eius manifestationem per fulgur et ignem, sed Dominum eis missurum prophetam; Dominum servasse pactum; ipsos minime servasse, quia prophetae a Domino misso non crederent. Sed quorsum haec hoc loco allegentur, equidem non video. Magis obvium est quod habet Calm. : occupari obiectionem : illud ne obiicite : testem hunc quem praedicas nunquam vidimus, audivimus nunquam! Obiectioni obviam ire Christum etiam Chr. censet : « ne itaque dicerent Deum Moysi locutum esse (hoc namque dixerunt), hunc autem nescimus, unde sit, neque vocem neque speciem habere Deum asserit ». Dixerat eos non habere verbum Dei in se manens. Id iam probat plane verum esse quamvis assidue et minutatim sacras litteras scrutentur;
5:39
v. 39 scrutamint Scripturas quia vos putatis tn ipsis vitam aeternam λαbere , ἐρευνᾶτε, Scrutamini non est imperativus, sed indicativus (Cyr- Tol. Corl. Schg. Schz. Fil.), sicut cetera verba in hac pericopa in indicativo sunt, qui modus unice quoque ad sententiam adiectam congruit : quia vos putatis ; ergo indicat qua opinione imbuti diligenter scrutentur. Si voluisset exhortari, debuit dicere : quia in illis est vita, et debuit dicere in
5:40
v. 40 : et venite ad me. Neque opus erat illos exhortari ad scrutandum, verum addendum erat, si voluisset adhortari , ut abiecta superbia scrutarentur pie; nam traditionibus illis scribarum et pharisaeorum satis apparet quam minutatim et perverse scrutati sint imponentes onera importabilia in humeros hominum (Matth. 93,4. Luc. 11, 46) et Iosephus quoque pharisaeos vocat τοὺς δοχοῦντας μετὰ ἀχριδείας ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα (Bell. iud. 9,8. 14; cf. Antiq. 17,9. 4). Scrutantur autem eo modo, quia vus putatis, « non dicit habetis, sed putatis habere, ostendens illos non obsequi sed ex sola lectione gloriari » (CAr.). Haec dici a Christo in modum reprehendentis : vos putatis... merito asserunt Chr. Rup. Mald. Schz.; illis credita erant eloquia Dei (Rom. 3,2); at sicut falso et vane sibi promittebant salutem ex origine abrahamitica, ita in ipsis Scripturis 1. e. in earum possessione sibi iam datum esse ius ad vitam aeternam existimabant. Ad quam perversitatem sua pervenerint scrutatione docet apostolus : ignorantes enim iustitiam Dei et suam quaerentes statuere iustitiae Dei non sunt subiecti (Rom. 10,3). Dein ostendit illos verbum Dei non habere in se; nam et i//ae sunt quae testimontum perhibent de me ; si itaque verbum Dei seu scripturas haberent in animis suis, si ea doctrina revera essent imbuti , etiam testimonium de Iesu intelligerent et amplecterentur; tum perspicerent non in possessione librorum (sicut neque in origine abrahamitica), sed in Messia reponi et collocari vitam aeternam. Verum plane contrarium apud eos cernitur v. &0 e non vultis venire ad me, ad quem tot testimoniis libri sacri vos remittunt, ut vitam habeatis scil. veram, beatam, salutem, quam per Messiam generi humano esse afferendam pariter sacri libri testantur. Unde probatum est quod in v. 38 dicitur : non habetis verbum Dei in vobis, quia mihi non creditis. Ita deiis valet illud apostoli : obtusi sunt sensus eorum ; usque in hodiernum diem, cum legitur Moyses, velamen positum est super cor eorum (2 Cor. 3,15. 15). « Non ὁ id vobis contemptum mei in Scripturis tam aperte commendati exprobravi dicens nolle vos venire ad me, quod vener laudem humanam, sed quod exploratum habeam destitutos vos esse dilectione Dei, quam si haberetis, obviis me ulnis exciperetis et simul cum Deo diligeretis » (8,42; Jans. sim. Tol.) v. &1 claritatem 3:52» gloriam αὐ hominibus non accipto ; hoc dicit « quia credibile erat multos suspica - turos esse quod gloriam captaret » (Cyr.); qua enim ipsi aegritudine laborabant, eandem quoque in Salvatore reperiri putabant (Cyr. ; sim. Rup. Cai. Ians.). Eo sensu facile adnectitur sententia antecedentibus et viam quasi sternit ad sequentia. Minus commode fluit quod Mald. praefert, esse repetitionem et conclusionem per epiphonema sententiae v. 36: «itaque verum estquod dixi me habere testimonium maiusIoanne, neque enim ab hominibus gloriam accipio ». Dein transitum ad v. 42 ita Mald. construit : ego quidem me Servatorem esse mundi divinis probavi testimoniis; scio tamen apud vos ne divina quidem testimonia valitura , quia dilectionem Dei non habetis. Sed aptius connectunt lans. Tol. , uti modo notatum est;
5:42
v. &9 sed cognovi vos quia dilectionem Dei non habetis in vobis; expertes enim cum sitis dilectionis in Deum, quomodo veniretis ad me Filium Dei unigenitum (Cyr.)? Atque eos ab ea in Deum dilectione abesse et suis inhiare cupiditatibus terrenisque desideriis demonstrat in subsequentibus
5:43
v. 43 ego veni in nomine Patris mei, missus a Patre, eius auctoritate et mandato ad opus perficiendum quod Pater a me fieri vult; unde si Deum diligerent, talem a Deo legatum susciperent; e£ non accipitis me; verum 5i alius venerit in nomine suo sibi ipsi arrogans auctoritatem ad ca peragenda quae ipse sibi pro sua populique superbia proposuit, qui itaque revera suo nomine venit, etsi se divinitus missum iactet , i//um accipietis ; aperte alludit Christus ad multos illos qui postmodum ex- Sstiterunt pseudochristos, qui cupiditatibus populi blandientes libertatem, gloriam, regnum temporale promittebant et populutin misere perdebant; cf. Marc. 13,6 et quae ad illum locum notavi. Multi hunc alium de antichristo intelligunt (CAr. Euth. Bed. Rup. Thom. Bon. Tol.); at sane non est, cur de illo solo cogitetur; potius intelligi debet quicumque falsus doctor populum seducit (Aug. Thom.); et merito alii mentionem inferunt illius Aegyptii, de quo losephus (Bell. iud. 4,18,5) et Barchocab (lans. Lap. ) Atque in quantum sibi ipsi aditum salutis occludant, magna cum emphasi effert
5:44
v. && quomodo vos potestis credere, attende gradauonem ad ν. &0 (non vultis) qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis et gloriam quae a solo Deo est non quaeritis? ambitio eorum et superbia et appetentia laudis et honoris apud homines ita iam eorum animos occupavit, ut de Dei approbatione et de illa gloria quae ab uno Deo dari potest nullatenus curent. In ea vero animorum affectione perspicuum est eos non posse credere, sibi persuadere Messiam apparere in humilitate, assentiri doctrinae Iesu de humilitate, de sui abnegatione, relinquere notionem de regno Messiae temporali etc. Et quantopere pharisaei laudis fuerint appetentes, vide Matth. 23,5 seq. Luc. 11,53. En impedimentum perveniendi ad fidem et simul etiam occasio et causa fidei amittendae, nam superbis Deus resistit, humilibus dat gratiam! Assignatur in hac emphatica Christi locutione quomodo potestis... documentum praeclarum iis quorum est alios ad fidem adducere et in fide suscepta retinere. Utique ambitiosi et superbia tumentes nolunt in captivitatem redigere intellectum in obsequium Christi (2 Cor. 10,4). Demum et eorum gloriationem de sacris litteris v. 39 destruit et Moysen, quem contra Christum et eius agendi modum tamquam accusatorem producebant (cf. v. 10), ipsorum esse accusatorem dicit
5:45
v. 45 nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sim vos apud Patrem; locutio esl praesertim post v. 22.27 emphatica; omnino non opus est me accusatore; iam enim praesto est alius, ille idem quem vestrum patronum ac defensorem arbitramini: est qui accusat vos, ἔστιν exsistit, adest ὁ xxxv yzρῶν ὑμῶν accusator vester, qui hoc in se munus assumit, Moyses in quo vos speratis ἠλπίχατε in quo spem collocastis et collocatam habetis, de cuius patrocinio vobis gratulamini, quia scrutamini mandata eius et legem eius traditionibus vestris quasi sepe ad arctissimam observantiam circumdedisüs. Atque eos minime Moysi credere affirmat quamvis de eo glorientur eiusque legem se accurate servare iactent adeoque Moysen suum apud Deum patronum celebrent. lta simul probat cur Moyses sit eorum accusator et quam merito eos accuset
5:46
v. 46 si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan ἐπιστεύετε ἂν (non itaque forsitan , sed potius : profecto, utique) et mzAt, crederetis utique et mihi (uti d habet); de me entm ille scripsit; cf. Gen. 3,15; 12,3; 18,18; 22,18; 49,10. Num. 25,17. Deut. 18,15 seq. ubi praecipitur, ut prophetae a Deo per miraculum comprobato obedientia praestetur: qui autem verba eius quae loquetur in nomine meo audire noluerit, ego ultor exsistam « Quid enim ille dixit? annon : quod si quis signa faciens venerit qui ad Deum ducat futuraque vere pronuntiet , ipsi credere oporteat? annon Christus haec omnia fecit? signa cum omni veritate edidit, omnes traxit ad Deum, praedictiones ex rerum eventu asseruit » (Chr.). Si itaque Moysi non credunt quem tamen vehementer honorare et laudare et venerari se iactant, quomodo Christo credent quem inholitteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis? argumentum est, ut Tol. dicit, a maiore negative, non absolute, sed secundum opinionem illorum ; illi enim pluris faciebant Moysen quam Iesum. Gravissima itaque in eos accusatio profertur eos scil. ne sacris litteris quidem, de quibus adeo gloriantur, fidem adhibere; falso eos fiduciam fovere in Moysen, eos ab ipso Moyse repudiari. Unde iam satis clare enuntiatur eos iri reiectum a Deo, iam non posse esse eius populum electum. Ad hanc autem perditionem adducuntur sua ambitione ac superbia (v. &4). — Notandum hac Christi locutione et argumentatione clarissime affirmari scripsisse Moysen eiusque scripta exstare apud Iudaeos; insuper attende, quo sensu haec Christi verba a Iudaeis intelligi debuerint et intelligi Christus sciverit. Iudaei ad quos Christus loquitur sunt synedristae, nobiles auctoritate praediti, uti patet ex v. 10. 16. 18. Iesum clare divinitatem asseruisse etiam ex synopticis elucet (cf. Matth. 11,97), et praesertim ex quaestione a Caipha posita : dic nobis, si tu es Christus filius Dei; nam filius Dei hoc loco seusu theocratico intelligi nequit, cum eo sensu omnes sint et dicantur filii Dei, imo Israel primogenitus filius Dei (cf. Ex. 4,99. 2 Reg. 7,15. Is. 1,9 etc.); porro Messiam esse filium Dei sensu theocratico valde inutiliter asseritur et tale quid addi quod ei cum omnibus sit commune, non potest in ea quaestione supponi, quae certe testimonium Iesu de se ipso exquirit. — Si autem Iesus suam cum Patre aequalitatem. docere voluit, modo aptissimo eam ita proponit et explicat, uti in hac disceptatione cernitur, docens se habere eandem operationem cum Patre v. 17, idque declarans v. 19 seq. et illustrans : se solum facere posse quod viderit Patrem facientem et cuncta quoque facere quae Pater faciat; omnia sibi communicari a Patre; eundem sibi competere honorem, eandem vitam etc. Quae deinde testimonio operum probat vere a se dici et testimonio sacrarum litterarum. Unde simul patet Iudaeos aut ipsi debere credere aut planea Deo reiici. Ita Iesus est in resurrectionem aut in ruinam.
5:1
Quelle est cette fête? D'abord la question textuelle. 11 faut lire ἑορτή sans article, ear l’article ne s'appuie que sur NE etc. oh, sah. Cyr. c'est-à-dire des autorités égyptiennes, ou antiochiennes de second ordre, tandis que ἑορτή ἃ ABD, ΥΘ etc., Chrysostome. Origène cite ἑορτή (Pr. 265, 18) et s'il met ensuite l'article (Pr. 284, 27; 293, 25), c'est qu'il se réfère à une fête dont ïl vient de parler. De plus Jo. n'écrit jamais ἑορτή sans article; les copistes ont dû l'ajouter, plutôt que le retrancher. Il y avait une autre raison de l'ajouter : ne pas laisser cette fête sans détermination, mais en faire la fête par excellence ou la Pàque (Loisy, Calmes). Cela posé, dans l’ordre actuel des chapp. 1v, v et vi, si on devait lire ἡ ἑορτή, il semble que ce ne pourrait être que la fête principale, déjà nommée (π, 13.23; 1v, 48), et non la fête des tabernacles, qui sera mentionnée plus tard sous son nom (vu, 2), σκηνοπηγία (contre Zahn), ni une autre moindre. En lisant ἑορτή comme l'exige la critique textuelle, ce ne peut être la Pâque, malgré l'opinion d'frénée (M, xx, 3) : Et post hoc iterum secunda vice ascendit in diem festum paschae in Hierusalem, quando paralyticum.… euravit. Ce ne peut être non plus la fête des Pourim (contre Schanz) au mois de mars, car l'expression « une fête »… suivie de ävéén indique une des trois grandes solennités pour lesquelles on montait à Jérusalem. Et si Jésus est monté pour la dédicace (termes différents x, 22), il serait bien étonnant qu'il se soit associé à la fête des Pourim, réjouissance qui avait souvent un caractère très profane. La Pâque étant exclue et les Tabernacles, pour les raisons indiquées, il reste la Pentecôte, dont le nom grec πεντηχοστή était connu des Grecs (Tob. ur, 1; ΠῚ Macch. xu, 32; Josèphe, Philon), mais n'avait rien d'officiel (Cyr. Belser). Il y aurait lieu de sous-entendre une Pâque si l'on regarde 1v, 38 comme marquant une date fixe, environ janvier. Maïs si c'est, comme nous pensons, une marsère de proverbe, cette Pentecôte est celle qui a suivi l'expulsion des vendeurs. Jésus a pu séjourner environ un mois aux bords du Jourdain, revenir en Galilée par Naplouse après son passage si remarqué à Jérusalem (1v, 45) et retourner à Jérusalem pour la Pentecôte. Mais si l'on place Le chap. vi avant le chap. v, avec la lecon à ἑορτή, ce sera la fête de Pâque annoncée comme prochaine dans vi, 4. Si au contraire on lit ἑορτή, Jésus aura laissé Assen la Pâque et sera venu pour la Pentecôte. De toute façon il n'y aura qu'une Pâque outre celle qui suit le miracle de Cana et celle de la Passion, même si Jésus avait passé en Samarie en janvier, avant l'unique Pâque de νι, 4 et de v, 1
5:2
Βηζαθα plutôt que Βηθζαθα (THS) et non Βηθεσδα (V).
Grosse difficulté textuelle. Premier cas : nous lisons ἐπὶ τῇ προδατικῇ avec la grande majorité des témoins, car la suppression de ext τὴ (N ὦ Vg.-Clém.) est une correction pour éviter une difficulté; de même la suppression de ἐπὶ τὴ προδατιχη (syrsin); εν tn ( D @ αὐ ff?) est bien soutenu, mais ne donne aucun sens. Ce premier point peut être regardé comme résolu. — De même à ἐπιλεyouévn est sûr au lieu de τὸ λεγόμενον de Tisch. soutenu seulement par N. La leçon τὸ λεγόμενον avait pour but de distinguer un édifice commençant par Beth, « maison », de la piscine; scrupule d’ailleurs mal fondé, vu le grand nombre de noms très divers qui peuvent commencer par Beth, en hébreu et en araméen (comme «maison des mains » pour « gants » etc.). — Pour le nom propre il ya en présence : βηθσαιδα (B © boh. sah Va Tert. Jér.) suspect à cause de l’étymologic trop facile (maison de pêche) surtout pour le latin piscine, et trop restreint comme tradition; βηϑεσδα (A G les Antiochiens et les syriens) trop exclusivement syrien, et suspect aussi par l’étymologie facile (maison de miséricorde). Ces deux leçons rejetées sans trop d'hésitation, il reste à choisir entre deux formes, en atha ou etha. Le son e se trouve sous la forme Βελζεθα (D dr), betzeta (ὃ), bethzetha (ff?), bethzeta ou bethzeda (trois mss. de la vg.); à ma connaissance la forme bezetha ne se trouve nulle part. Le son ὦ est incontestablement mieux attesté : il se trouve sous la forme Βηθζαθχ {préférée par THS) dans NL 33 (betzatha), mais sous la forme Βηζαθα dans Eusèbe (Onom.) et dans e : bezatha. On trouve le même flottement entre a et e dans Josèphe, du moins Niese donne à la nouvelle colline de Jérusalem le nom de Βεζεθά (Bell. IT, xv, 5; 11, χιχ, ὁ; V, 1v, 2 (bis); V, v, 8), mais il signale la variante Βεζαθα. Jamais Josèphe n'a Βηθζαθα ni Βηθζεθα. Si le même nom est visé, il faudra donc adopter a avec les meilleurs mss. de Jo.,et supprimer 8 avec Josèphe, car la présence du θ s’explique par la tendance à compléter cette lecon dans le sens des autres, βηθσαῖδα, βηθεσδα. Nous lisons donc βηζαθα, comme Eusèbe, qui connaissait la prononciation de Jérusalem. L'étymologie, déjà indiquée par M. Conder a été solidement établie par M. Burkitt (The Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names, p. 20); c'est l’araméen NTYTA « coupure », ou ΝΩ͂Ν « coupure, fente ». En effet Bezetha ou Bezalha) était le nom d'un quartier nouveau, séparé de la ville par un fossé: Josèphe (Bell. V, 1v, 2) καὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τὰ προσάρχτια πρὸς τῷ λόφῳ euro ose (réunissant à la ville) Er” οὐχ ὀλίγον προῆλθον, καὶ τέταρτον περιοιχηθῆναι λόφον, ὃς καλεῖται Βεζεθά, κείμενος μὲν ἀντικρὺ τὴς Ἀντωνίας, ἀποτεμνόμενος δ᾽ ὀρύγματι βαθεῖ, — ἀποτεμνόμενος nous met sur la voie de l’étymologie. Parmi les noms des communes de France on trouve Le Fossé, La Fosse, Fosses, Rochetaillée, eétc.; en Palestine Pierre-encise. Il est vrai que Josèphe aussitôt après βεζεθά ἃ écrit τὸ γεόχτιστον μέρος, ὃ μεθερμηνευόμενον Ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ καινὴ λέγοιτ᾽ dv πόλις, Mais ce n'est là qu'un équivalent, aussi peu sérieux que ἀσαρθα rendu par πεντεχοστήν (Ant. II, x, 6). — On sait qu'on a retrouvé la piscine aux cinq portiques à l’église de Sainte-Anne, située précisément au nord-est de l’ancienne ville, et non loin de l’Antonia (Vincenr et AëeL, Jérusalem, Il, #). En araméen cette piscine ἃ très bien pu s'appeler piscine de Bezeltha ou Bezatha (laraméen expliquerait même les deux formes), c'est-à-dire du nouveau quartier portant ce nom, quelque chose comme Fossanova en Italie. — Le texte ainsi établi, il semble que ἐπὶ τῇ προθατιχῇ signifie « contre la Porte des Brebis », en sous-entendant « porte La porte des brebis (II Esdr. σιν, 1. 32; xxn1, 39) ἡ πύλη ἡ προθατιχή était bien au nord du temple. On lit dans la vie de Polycarpe par Pionius (ive s.) 3, ἐπὶ τὴν καλουμένην ᾿Ἐφεσιαχήν, le mot πύλη étant sous-entendu. La porte qui appartenait à l'enceinte du Temple ayant été détruite, il se peut que la piscine, étant d'utilité publique, ait été épargnée ou même restaurée par les Romains. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que les Pères, depuis Origène, appliquent le nom de probatique, non point à la porte, mais à la piscine, et c'est sûrement de là qu'est venue la variante qui supprime ἐπὶ τῇ. Il faut surtout citer Origène (Pr. 533) μετὰ γὰρ τὰς ἐν κύχλῳ τεσσάρας μέσην εἶχεν ἑτέραν. προδατικὴ δὲ κολυμδήθρα ἐλέγετο ἀπὸ ποῦ τὰ προσαγόμενα πρόδατα ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἐχεῖ συναθροίζεσθαι, χαὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θυομένων τῶν προδάτων ἐν ἐχείνῳ πλύνεσθαι τῷ ὕδατι τὰ ἔγκατα, Origène ne connaissait donc qu'une piscine, qu'il nommait probatique; malheureusement le nom araméen n'a pas été conservé dans ses œuvres. — ἐπιλεγομένη (leçon certaine) n’est pas synonyme de μεθερμηνευόμενον (Jo. 1, 38. 42; Me. v, 43, ete.), comme si le nom de la piscine probatique {d'après la leçon de la Ve.- Clém.) était en araméen Bethsetha, par exemple Nn‘w ΠῚ « maison de ja brebis ». ἐδραιστί, en hébreu, ou plutôt en araméen, selon toutes les variantes. Loisy : « La piscine, disent les interprètes, était sans doute enfermée dans une construction pentagonale » (p. 200). Puis il suggère que les cinq portiques sont une invention du symbolisme : « Les anciens qui voyaient dans la source un symbole du judaïsme, et dans les cinq portiques une allusion aux cinq livres de la Loi, rencontraient probablement la pensée de l’évangéliste » (p. 200). Tout cela est fort léger. Origène avait déjà noté que quatre portiques flanquaient le rectangle de la piscine, et que le cinquième la coupait én deux : disposition qui a été inconstestablement révélée par les fouilles. Mais lui-même ne parlait plus de la porte, qui avait dû disparaître. Jo. s'exprime donc ici comme un témoin de l'état des lieux, et son ἔστιν, sans indiquer nullement qu’il ἃ écrit avant la ruine de Jérusalem est une indication qu'il se transporte par le souvenir au temps de Jésus ou plutôt qu'il vise une situation inchangée. On trouvera dans la Jérusalem des Pères Vincent et Abel une restauration appuyée sur les monuments et conforme au texte de Jo. (Op.l., p. 685 ss. et pl. LXXV). 3, δχδεχομένων ... κίνησιν (V) plutôt que o#. (THS). 4. le texte d'après V.; om. ΤΗΝ.
5:3
Question textuelle célèbre. Sans parler de l'addition de παραλυτίιχων par D a be, qui semble avoir pour but de désigner d'avance la catégorie à laquelle appartiendra le malade, les mots ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν sont omis par N BACL trois cursifs, syrcur. (sin. manque) sah. ᾳ. Maïs ils figurent dans la masse, dans Θ, dans la Vg. (WW ne citent aucun ms. pour l’omission), et aussi dans D et dans W qui n’ont pas le v. 4. On peut donc estimer avec Calmes qu’ils sont authentiques, alors même que le v. 4 ne le serait pas. Le texte nous montre donc des infirmes de toute sorte rangés sous les portiques. IL est sans exemple que des eaux thermales aient guéri des aveugles, mais une vague espérance pouvait en attirer là quelques-uns, d'autant que les anciens aîtribuaient assez souvent aux eaux médicin ales une vertu surnaturelle chez les païens c'était l'influence du génie des eaux; chez les Juifs on devait penser à un ange. Le mouvement des eaux était probablement celui de nouvelles eaux plus pures, retenues jusqu'alors par une vanne et qui alors entraient dans la piscine. L'opinion commune était que ces eaux sortant de la terre plus récemment avaient plus de vertu curative. D'ailleurs la science reconnait à certaines eaux, surtout thermales, des propriétés radioactives qui se renouvellent à la source et disparaissent ensuite rapidement.
5:4
Om. par Ν BCD 33 157134 sah. syrcur. q, mais si l'addition est cette fois dans A elle est absente de W ἢ] et la Ve. de WW, qui justifient l'omission soit par l'autorité de plusieurs mss., soit par la divergence des trois formes qui représentent le v. dans les mss. Nous en citerons deux : angelus autem domini secundum tempus descendebat in piscinam et movebat uquam . qui ergo primus descendisseé posé motum aquae sanus fiebat n quocumque languore tenebaiur ou bien : angelus autem secundum tempus lavabatur in natatoria et movebatur aqua et qui prior descendisset in natatoriam post motionem aquae sanus fiebat a languore quocumque tenebatur. Ces variations prouvent que Jérôme n'avait pas ἢχό un texte, car elles sont l'écho des variantes du grec, plus nombreuses que dans le reste de l’évangile, ce qui est naturellement aussi un argument contre l'authenticité du grec. D'après Soden : de ly«p; om. γὰρ; add. χυριου D. γαρ; add. τοῦ θεου; om. xata καιρὸν; EAoueTO Î. χατεῦαινεν ; ἐταράσσετο ἐ. εταραοσεν; eysveto À. eyiveto; otw ἐ, w; o av L. δηποτε, δηποντοῦυν sans parler des transposilions. D'après les règles de la critique textuelle on ne peut donc admettre ce versel (avec THS contre V). Parmi les Pères, le plus ancien témoignage est de Tertullien (de baptismo 3) : piscinam Bethsaïidam angelus interveniens commovebat, qui pourrait en somme être une interprétation personnelle ou reçue du v. 3. C'est ce que suggère le texte d’Aug. qui ne lisait certainement pas le v. ὦ comme authentique, puisque l’ange était pour lui une conjecture : Subifo enim videbatur aqua turbata, et a quo turbabatur, non videbatur. Cnevas hoG angelica virtute fieri solere. Cf. Ephrem, Moes. p. 146. — Pour le verset, Ambroise (de myst. π, 330; de sacram. n, 335) avec la forme movebatur aqua. De même Chrys.; Cyr. (sans le commenter). Parmi les catholiques, le v. n'est pas admis par Schegg, Schanz, Mader, Calmes, Ms Le Camus, Belser (qui l'attribue à un disciple de Jean). . Quant aux raisons internes, on prétend (Kn., etc.) que sans ces mots le v. 7 est inintelligible. Ce n’est sûrement pas le cas si on admet le v. 3. Mëme en supprimant 3b, il faudrait seulement supposer un récit incomplet, mais pas plus énigmatique que mt, 25 ou tant d'autres passages dont l'interprétation est controversée. Contre l’authenticilé on fera observer que si Dieu envoyait un ange pour donner aux eaux une vertu curalive, il serait étrange que ce miracle ait été ἀπ fois pour toutes limité à un seul cas. Et d’autre part ce grand ” nombre de miracles successifs, devenus comme naturels, affaiblirait singulièrement l'effet du miracle de Jésus. On peut regarder ce verset comme une interpolation sans contrevenir au décret du Goncile de Trente, car ce n'est point une des parties de l'Écriture alors controversées, et il est plus probable qu’il ne fait pas partie de la Vulgate hiéronymienne. L'interpolation est d'ailleurs extrèmement adroite, bien faite pour rendre les faits plus plausibles par un recours au surnaturel. Ms Le Camus (après Schanz) y voit l'expression d’une opinion populaire. L'ange n’est pas nécessairement l'ange des eaux (Apoc. avr, 3), qui est préposé aux eaux comme un autre aux vents (Apoc. vu, 1). — Mogqaddasi, cité par Wellhausen, attribue les inondations du Tigre à ce qu'un ange y plonge le doigt (αι, 3), et aussi le flux sensible à Bassora à l'immersion du pied d’un ange (xxiv, 18); ce sont de vagues traditions sur des faits naturels. Sur d'autres cas de sources thermales regardées comme miraculeuses, cf. Vincenr δὲ Avec, Jérusalem, n, 4, Ὁ. 888. — ἐν avec le datif après χατέδαινεν ἃ des répondants dans la koinè, mais s’expliquerait mieux avec ἐλούετο, Le bain de l'ange aura paru choquant et aura été remplacé par une descente. — ταράσσω agiter, faire bouillouner (Is. xxiv, 44), et non pas troubler (les latins movebatur, jamais turbabat ou turbabatur sauf aur : conturbabat). — κατὰ καιρόν en soi peut signifier au temps voulu par Dieu (Rom. v, 6), mais il s'entend très normalement de choses périodiques, réglées à des intervalles fixes, comme les recensements : ταῖς χατὰ καιρὸν κατ᾽ οἰκ(ίαν) [ἀ]πογραίφαϊς) (Pap. Lond. 974, en 305-6 ap. J.-C. dans M4f.), ou sans dates fixes, de temps en temps. Ici on ne peut guère parler de dates fixes (Tert. ἰ ἐκ unum semel anno), encore moins d'heures (Belser, à la Pentecôte ἃ 9 heures, midi, 3 heures); mais, puisqu'il y a tant de gens qui attendent, il faut que l'ange soit descendu assez souvent et avec une certaine régularité. — γόσημα est un hapax dans le N. T., mais l'expression κατέχεσθαι γοσήματι se frouve.
5:5
ἔχων se rapporte au temps de la maladie, et non pas directement à ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, cf. χι, 17, Épictète IT, xv, 5 : ἤδη τρίτην ἡμέραν ἔχοντος αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀποχῆς. H serait exagéré de dire avec Irénée (II, xxur, 3) que cet homme était demeuré tout ce temps à la piscine. Il y était depuis assez longtemps, c'est tout ce qu’on peut dire. Sa maladie n’est pas indiquée, mais Les Pères le nomment couramment le paralytique, et c'est ce qui paraît résulter du νυ. 7, comparé avec Mt. 1x, 6. — On a cherché le sens symbolique de ces trente-huit ans et cité Dt. 11, 14, qui met trente-huit ans de Cadès-Barné au torrent de Zared. Mais la date normale du séjour dans le désert après la sortie d'Égypte est de quarante ans. Il faudrait donc dire avec Apollinaire (Cafena) que Jésus lui fait grâce de deux ans sur le. temps normal des grands châtiments. Mais comment appliquer cela au peuple juif? A-t-il été guéri deux ans avant la passion du Sauveur? Cyrille dit seulement (Catena) que cette longue maladie symbolise l'infidélité des Juifs toujours guérissable. C'est tout ce qu'on peut avancer, mais cela n'explique pas le chiffre, lequel n’est donné ici que comme un détail de fait, attirant la commisération spéciale de Jésus. Peut-être aussi Jo. a-t-il cité ce chiffre comme indiquant une situation qui n'était pas encore désespérée : quarante est un chiffre
5:6
Sùrement Jo. attribue à Jésus une connaissance surnaturelle, qui paraîtra ici même (14), mais yvoës s'entend plus simplement d’une connaissance naturelle, comme dans 1v, 1. On peut en déduire que Jésus s’est informé, même qu'il a interrogé le malade lui-même sur le temps qu'il avait déjà passé là, et il ne sera Pas sans vraisemblance de dire que le Sauveur est venu pour causer avec ces malades et les conscier. En tout cas Jo. ne dit pas qu’il soit venu expressément pour faire le miracle. Peut-être, comme dans son entretien avec la Samaritaine, a=t-il été amené par les circonstances et Par Sa compassion à secourir ce malheureux. La question de Jésus n'est point tellement étrange qu'elle ne puisse s'expliquer que par le symbolisme ou dans un sens spirituel (Bauer, Loisy). Évidemment le malade désire la guérison; si donc Jésus l'interroge, c'est pour le faire réfléchir sur la manière dont il peut être guéri; c’est une avance, une suggestion que celui qui pose la question peut donner la satisfaclion souhaitée.
5:7
Le malade ne répond pas oui, ce qu'il sentait être superflu; mais il ne Juge pas non plus la question oiseuse ou impertinente; il voit très bien qu'on lui demande : veux-tu vraiment étre guéri, en prends-{u les moyens, et, comme rien ne lui laisse soupconner que Jésus puisse faire un miracle, il répond qu’il fait bien ce qu'il peut, mais qu'il ne peut rien. Il aurait besoin de quelqu'un qui le portât rapidement vers l'eau; βάλλειν, jeter dans l’eau (Ρ. Oxyrh. v, 840, ΕΒ. 1908, p. 539 s.), mais ici plutôt « conduire » (Le. χα, 58, etc.). Lui-même ne se meut que difficilement; quand il est prêt à descendre, un autre l’a déjà précédé. Si l'on table sur le v. 4, cela s'explique assurément une longue expérience avait appris que le premier était ordinairement guéri, mais le premier seul. Mais vainement chercherait-on dans la Bible et dans l'histoire chrétienne authentique un phénomène surnaturel de cette sorte, D'autre part si les eaux médicinales ont plus d'efficacité en sortant de la source, on n'est pas autorisé à restreindre cette efficacité à une seule personne. On est donc réduit à supposer que l'autorité compétente ne permettait qu’à une personne chaque fois de tenter la guérison, peut-être l’arrivée des eaux qui mettaient la piscine en mouvement se produisait-elle sur un point déterminé, où il n’y avait place que pour une personne; ou bien les autorités, moins confiantes que Le vulgaire dans la vertu des eaux, voulaient-elles éviter l’encombrement et un désordre inutile? — ἵνα pour ὅς.
5:8
Les paroles de Jésus rappellent la guérison du paralytique dans les synoptiques, spécialement d’après la formule de Mc. qui a, lui aussi, le χράδαττος (Me. n, 9 55.; Mt. 1x, 5 ss. , Le. v, 23 ss.). Loisy : « C’est la guérison du paralytique de Capharnaüm, transportée à Jérusalem, non pour le grossissement du miracle, mais pour une meilleure adaptation à la leçon symbolique » (p. 203). Autant vaudrait dire que Jo. a inventé un miracle tout exprès, car il n'y ἃ de semblable que cette formule, très naturelle en pareil cas, et dont Jo. ἃ pu en effet employer les termes comme traditionnels. Ge n’est pas seulement le lieu de la scène qui est différent; c'est la portée doctrinale du récit. Dans les synoptiques le scandale naît de la rémission des péchés; ici de la violation du sabbat, liée à la formule « prends ton grabat ». À Bezatha le péché n’est qu’un incident relevé après coup. Aussi Loisy finit par conclure que « c’est la combinaison, avec le paralytique de Capharnaüm, de la guérison sabbatique »... (Me. πι, 1-6 et par.) Cela ferait bien des recherches érudites ! Jo. aurait eu meilleur compte d'inventer, car son récit n'eût pas été autorisé par une allusion aussi énigmatique à deux miracles si différents. Sur une combinaison de l'exégèse postérieure, cf. Haracx, Marcion, p. 110" n. 24. Du point de vue de la critique, qui nous empêcherait de dire qu’ «une tradition indépendante, touchant un miracle hiérosolymitain, ait été surchargée de traits empruntés aux premiers évangiles »? (contre Loisy, p. 203). La précision exceptionnelle du lieu garantit un souvenir précis. 11, rien avant ἀπεχριθὴ (TV) et non ος δε (H) ou ο δε (5). 12. om. οὖν a. αὐτὸν (TH) plutôt que add. (SV). 92) La guérison s'opère, l’homme en a conscience et obéit. ἃ la différence du miracle de Gapharnaüm, différence que peut-être Jo. a voulu souligner, le malade n'a pas été apporté dans son lit pour implorer un miracle, mais il y était depuis longtemps, et il n'a même pas compris d’abord que Jésus lui offrait la guérison. 9b-48. DISCUSSION AVEC LES JUIFS SUR LE SABBAT. 9b) La guérison du paralytique n'est pas représentée par Jo. comme un σημεῖον (nm, 11; τν, 54); c'était simplement une œuvre de miséricorde (Zahn). Aussi avait-elle passé pour ainsi dire inaperçue, Jésus s'élant retiré aussitôt. Il n'est même pas dit que ses adversaires aient vu le miracle. Mais, comme il était naturel, le malade guéri ἃ dù communiquer aux autres sa joie, mettre un certain temps à ramasser sa couche et ses accessoires. Or c'était un jour de sabbat.
5:10
Les Juifs, c'est-à-dire ceux qui représentent l'hostilité à Jésus, les chefs spirituels et temporels du peuple, comme toujours dans Jo. Ils s'adressent au délinquant, d'autant qu'ils n’ont peut-être pas entendu l'ordre qui lui a été donné. On lit dans Jérémie (xvn, 21 ss.) que le prophète avait interdit de la part de Dieu de porter des fardeaux le jour du sabbat, mais hors des portes de Jérusalem, c'est-à-dire pour des transactions commerciales, comme l’explique la mesure prise par Néhémie de fermer 165 portes (Neh. xut, 9 ss.). L'acte prescrit par Jésus était beaucoup plus inoffensif. Il n’était pas assujetti à la loi du sabbat, maïs elle pouvait s'entendre plus ou moins strictement. Les Pharisiens la faisaient pratiquer en toute rigueur; une jurisprudence plus douce n'était pas contraire à la Loi. Il semble que Jésus n'aurait pas ordonné au malade quelque chose qui dût paraître évidemment une transgression grave. #1) La réponse de l'homme décline la question de principe. H s’en rapporte à l'autorité de celui qui a fait un miracle. Non qu'il ait l'intention de le desservir. Peut-être imagine-t-il, dans sa simplicité, que son raisonnement convaincra les enquêteurs. Il répète textuellement les paroles de Jésus qui l'ont frappé. — ἐχεῖνος, car Jésus est éloigné. Jo. pratique volentiers l’asyndeton; aussi la vraie leçon pourrait bien être ἀπεχριθη (D elc.) avec TV, et non prem. ο δε (RG ete.) avec 5, ou ος Ge (AB), 19) ὃ ἄνθρωπος, avec une nuance de dédain; cf. Pap. Berl. 1208 1. 25 (27-26 av. J.-C.) ἵνα δὲ εἰδῇς τὸ ὄρθοιον (le premier haut fait), τοῦ ἀνθρώ[που (MM). Les Juifs ne disent pas « celui qui t'a guéri », mais répètent les termes qu'ils jugent délictueux et étranges.
5:13
τίς ἐστιν et mon τίς ἦν (D, probablement d’après le latin esse!) car la personnalité ne change pas. — ëxvéw, littéralement s'échapper à la nage, d'où s'échapper, ou simplement se retirer, se mettre à l'écart (Justin, €, Typhon, 1x, 3). L'aor. est pour notre plus-que-parfait, l'action s'étant accomplie d'un seul coup et sans laisser de suites. En effet il faut que Jésus se soit retiré dès le premier moment pour que le malade n'ait pas eu le temps de lui parler et de lui demander à qui il devait sa guérison. Pourquoi ce départ soudain ? La mention de la foule peut être là pour expliquer que ce départ ne fut pas remarqué, mais plutôt encore pour en donner la raison : Jésus ne se soucie pas de se manifester devant tant de monde.
5:14
μετὰ ταῦτα, comme au v. 1; cette fois il semble que le délai fut très court. Mais ce n’est pas une raison pour dire avec Loisy que le paralytique avait porté son lit dans la cour du Temple. Ce savant prête une absurdité à Jo. pour conclure au symbolisme : le paralytique ἃ porté son lit dans le Temple parce qu'il est le peuple juif dont le Temple est la maison! Nous ne savons même pas si les Juifs n’ont pas obligé le malade à laisser son lit où il était. En tout cas ilne pouvait le porter que dans sa maison discrètement, au lieu de braver l'opinion en traversant le Temple. Lui-même y est sans doute venu pour rendre grâce à Dieu. Fésus le trouve (cf. 1, 41. 43) comme par hasard, mais non sans un “dessein providentiel, dans le hiéron, c’est-à-dire dans l'un des parvis du Temple. “La monition suppose que le péché avait causé la maladie (Sir. xxxvim, 15) et relève la connaissance surnaturelle de Jésus, qui d'ailleurs savait que ce n'est pas toujours le cas (1x, 4-3). On s'étonne que le péché soit en cause seulement à propos de ce paralytique et de eelui des synoptiques (Mt. 1x, 2 et parall.); mais n'est-ce pas à dessein que Jo. a évité de désigner ta maladie? On ne peut 17. om. Ἰήσους p. o de (TH) ou add. (SV). donc insister sur cette ressemblance. Il n’est pas dit que le malade était alors dans l'état de péché, comme si la guérison équivalait à la rémission des péchés, Mais il pourrait faire de sa santé un mauvais usage, comme autrefois, et encourir la réprobation dans le monde à venir; Jésus ne se préoccupe pas d’une rechute physique, mais du salut de cet homme : il est venu pour sauver (ru, 11; τν, 42). -
5:15
εἰπεν (TH) plutôt que ανηγγεῖλεν (SV).
Si le miraculé avait voulu dénoncer Jésus ou seulement s'excuser, il aurait dit : Voilà celui qui m'a donné l'ordre de porter mon grabat. Il agit donc dans la simplicité de sa reconnaissance, tellement conscient de l'évidence du miracle, qu'il prête aux autres quelque chose de ses sentiments. Jo. ἃ donc opposé sa gratitude à l’obstination des Juifs (Aug., Chrys., Schans, Loisy, etc.). Maïs alors comment cet homme pourrait-il représenter le peuple juif?
5:16
διὰ τοῦτα, suivi de ὅτι v, 8, vi, 65; vint, 47; x, 47; xu, 18. 39; 1 Jo. au, 1. Dans Le plupart des cas, il ne semble pas que διὰ τοῦτο se rapporte à ce qui précède (Bauer), sauf à être expliqué de nouveau par ὅτι, mais plutôt que διὰ τοῦτο se rapporte d'avance à ce qui est enfin expliqué par ὅτι, comme le prouve xv, 19, qui est dans l'ordre inverse. Dans notre cas on dirait que le καί lie nécessairement à ce qui précède, mais alors on ne sait comment expliquer les imparfaits, ἐδίωχον, ἐποίει... Loisy ἃ dit très bien : « On peut tordre cette phrase dans tous les sens. on n'arrive pas à Ia faire tenir naturellement dans le cadre de l'incident rapporté, s'il ne s'agit que d'un incident. Tout va bien, si derrière la circonstance présente on voit la carrière du Christ. » (p. 207), c'est-à-dire les premières controverses synoptiques sur le sabbat (Mt. x, #4), car il est tout à fait superflu d'ajouter — ce qui importe le plus pour Loisy «et les débuts du christianisme poursuivi par ia haine des Juifs ». Donc ici Jo. résume d'un mot le motif principal de la persécution des Juifs, un certain nombre de faits semblables (ταῦτα) que Jésus faisait (ἐποίει) le jour du sabbat, ce qui serait très naturel si le chap. v avait été à l’origine placé après le ch. va, Dès lors le καί du début est plutôt explicatif que copulatif, aussi a-t-il été omis par la Vg. D'ailleurs dans la perspective du récit de Jo. cette remarque comprend naturellement le dernier incident, et met les Juifs en présence de Jésus à la façon de mécontents qui demandent compte d'un délit.
5:17
C'est à leur grief que Jésus répond. D'après Aug., il aurait déclaré que le sabbat n'existe plus : Aperte ergo Dominus dicat sacramentum sabbati, et signum observandi unius diei ad tempus datum esse Judaeis: impletionem vero ipsem sacramenti in illo venisse. Mais cette explication dépasse les termes du texte. On voit plus loin (wir, 49-24) que Jésus a tenu plutôt à montrer aux Juifs qu'il ne violait pas le sabbat ni la loi de Moïse. Ce doit étre ici le cas. Le sabbat a été établi comme une imitation du repos de Dieu après la création (Gen. ar, 4-3; Ex. xx, 11; xxx, 17), et cependant il est certain que Dieu agit toujours (Philon, souvent), toute l’histoire d'Israël en est une preuve; autrement il ne serait pas le Dieu vivant. La conciliation de ces deux vérités préoccupait les sages d'Israël, en particulier Aristobule, cité par Eusèbe (Praep. ev. xut, 12, 11) τὸ τὲ διασαφούμενον διὰ τῆς νομοθεσίας ἀποπεπαυχέναι τὸν θεὸν ἐν αὐτῇ, τοῦτο οὐχ , ὥς τινες ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, μηχέτι ποιεῖν τι τὸν θεὸν καθέστηχεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ καταπεπαυχέναι τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν οὕτως εἰς πάντα τὸν χρόνον τεταχέναι (cf. CLÉM. AL. Sérom. VE xvi, Stählin, p. 504). — L'ordre de la création établi, il n'y avait plus qu’à le conserver. Dans Berechit rabba XI (Wünsche, p. 48), la création terminée, Dieu ne cesse pas pour cela de s'occuper des justes et des pécheurs. Mais quelle que soit la solution de cette difficulté seripturaire, 16 fait de l’action de Dieu prouvait que son repos ne devait pas être entendu d'une façon absolue, et par une conséquence naturelle on devait en dire autant du sabbat (Zahn, Tillm.). I y avait lieu de distinguer entre ce qui était contraire ou conforme à l'esprit de la Loi. Or, si le Père agit jusqu’à présent, c’est-à-dire continue à agir, il en est de même du Fils. Telle qu'elle pouvait être comprise à première vue, cette parole n'affirmait pas l'unité d'action pour le Père οἱ le Fils, mais bien le droit pour le Fils d'agir e Père, droit qu’il n'hésitait pas à exercer. Jésus, comme son Père, agit, comme l et si l’action du Père n’est point en contradiction avec le repos que lui attribue l'Écriture, l’action du Fils dans sa manière de traiter le sabbat n'est point con- {raire à l'esprit de cette institution. Si cette parole est profonde et mérite d'être sondée, il ne faut pas perdre de vue la parfaite simplicité des termes. Rien de métaphysique en apparence, Dieu est comparé à un ouvrier qui travaille, et son Fils, en guérissant, travaille lui aussi à sa manière, même le jour du sabbat. En résultera-t-il l’abrogation du sabbat? Cela n'est pas dit, ni même suggéré. ue le Fils est libre et maître. C’est une autre forme, moins précise, Mais on voit q κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαθδάτου ὁ de la déclaration qui est dans les synoptiques Mt. xu, 8 et parall). — ἀπεκρίνατο, forme moyenne, seuleυἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ( ς ἄρτι, « jusqu'au moment présent ment dans ce contexte (ν. 19) dans Jo. — ἕω ἡ; mais ce moment peut (α, 10; xvi, 24; Mt. χι, 12, I Cor. τν, 13; Ὑ1|, 1; αν, 6 durer (I Jo. un, 9).
5:18
C'est également après les controverses sur le sabbat, spécialement après la guérison de l’homme à la main desséchée dans les synoptiques (Mt. χα, 9-14 et parall.), que les Pharisiens prennent 18 résolution de faire périr Jésus. Elle est mieux expliquée dans Jo., puisqu'ils le regardent comme un blasphémateur. lis ont très bien compris ce qui était clair dans la réponse de Jésus, qu’il nommait Dieu son Père à un titre si particulier qu'il se mettait sur le même rang que lui, ce qui pour eux était un blasphème : ef. Philon (Leg. allag. 18 49) φίλαυτος δὲ καὶ ἄθεος ὃ νοῦς οἰόμενας ἔσος εἶναι θεῷ. On voit que sa théorie du Lagos ne le disposait nullement à l’idée de l'incarnation de ce Logos; on pouvait, par abus, donner au Logos de nom le Dieu; de la part d'un homme, s'égaler à Dieu, comme a fait par exemple Caligula, c'est un blasphème. C’en était un aussi pour Jo., aussi a-t-il pris soin de nous dire que le Verbe est Dieu (1, 4). — διὰ τοῦτο est expliqué par ὅτι — μᾶλλον, non pas acriori animo (Schanz), mais « encore plus pour cette autre raison », « plus qu'auparavant » cf. xx, 8 etc. — ἴδιον ne signifie pas « son », car tout Israélite pouvait nommer Dieu son père, mais « son propre père, son père à lui », dans le sens de l'égalité. La dernière incise n’est pas une affirmation de l'évangéliste, mais ce qui fonde le grief des Juifs : pour eux, un homme qui s'égale à Dieu dit un nor-sens.
5:19
ἀπεχρίνατο n'indique pas que Jésus répond par un discours dogmatique à des gens qui veulent le tuer (Loisy). Ce mot reprend le v. 17, comme un développement et une explication. Jésus voit la mauvaise impression produite par sa parole, les sentiments de haine qu’elle ἃ fait naître; il s'attache, autant qu'il est en lui, à montrer qu'il n’a rien dit qui ne répondit à la réalité de sa mission. Il ne rétracte rien, car sa conduite est précisément celle qui convient au Fils, par rapport au Père. La question du sabbat ἃ servi de point de départ, mais elle cède la place à une question plus haute, celle du droit de Jésus d'agir et de parler comme il le fait. — La seconde partie du verset n’est qu’une manière différente d'affirmer la proposition du v. 17, mais avec une nuance d’apologie, Le Fils ne dépasse pas ses pouvoirs en agissant ainsi, puisqu'il ne fait rien de sa propre initiative (ἀφ᾽ ξαυτοῦ), mais seulement ce qu'il voit faire au Père. Dans les choses humaines, un fils pourrait excéder en faisant ce qu'il voit faire à son père; il n'en est pas ainsi du Fils de Dieu, ce qui suppose qu'il est légal de son Père. Étant Fils cependant, l'initiative ne lui appartient pas. Parole mystérieuse, qui paraît justifiée par la sNtuation particulière du Fils incarné, d'autant plus que celui qui parle a dit : « Ma nourriture est de faire la volonté de celui qui m’a envoyé » (ιν, 34). On ne peut en déduire, semble-t-il, sans faire appel à d’autres principes, que l’action du Fils est essentiellement l’action du Père. Cependant ὁμοίως ne veut pas dire : « de la même manière », comme ferait un disciple imitateur, mais plutôt « aussi bien » (Jo. vr, 41 ; xx, 13) « également, » « semblablement » : c’est-à-dire, positis ponendis : le Père conserve le monde; le Fils dans l'état d'incarnation guérit par exemple le jour du sabbat et fait les œuvres que lui indique la pratique du Père, Il n'était donc pas légitime d'en déduire avec les Ariens que le Fils, comme tel, avait appris de son Père à la manière d’un disciple, en soutenant à la suite de Philon la distinction des natures, puisque le Père sert de modèle à son Logos : τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ πρεσδύτατον υἱὸν ὁ τῶν ὅλων ἀνέτειλε πατήρ, ὃν ἑτέρωθι πρωτόγονον ὠνόμασε, καὶ ὁ γεννηθεὶς μέντοι, μιμούμενος τὰς τοῦ πατρὸς ὁδούς, πρὸς παραδείγματα ἀρχέτυπα ἐχείνου βλέπων ἐμόρφου τὰ εἴδη (de conf. ling. 8. 63; M. I, 414). — Bauer cite Aristide (Discours sur Athéné, or. xxxvu, 6) οὕτως δ᾽ ἔστιν αἰδέσιμος τῷ πατρὶ καὶ πάντων χεχοινώνηχε... 28 ὁπότ᾽ ἔξεστι τὰ τοῦ Διὸς ἔργα χοινὰ τοῦ Διὸς εἶναι φῆσαι καὶ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς. L'idée du rhéteur (né en 129 ap. J.-C.) est que Zeus a tellement favorisé Athéna qu'elle est, pour ainsi dire, la vertu de Zeus, à laquelle on peut attribuer les œuvres de Zeus. S'il y ἃ là plus qu'une figure de rhétorique, il faut y voir un progrès de la fusion des dieux dans une grande force plus ou moins personnelle, plus ou moins mêlée au monde.
5:20
Le v. 19 supposait déjà que ce que le Père fait est connu du Fils. I nous est dit maintenant que cette ouverture provient de l'amour du Père pour le Fils. Plus haut (ur, 35) l’évangéliste avait déjà parlé de cet amour du Père pour le Fils, raison de lui tout donner. lei c'est la raison de lui montrer tous les secrets, et, comme le thème est l’action divine, spécialement de lui montrer tout ce que le Père fait lui-même. La confiance justifie les confidences ; elles coulent de source dans l'affection; sans même y prendre garde, celui qui aime se plaît aussi à dire tout ce qu'il fait. Ce ne sont pas des rapports de maître à élève, mais l'abandon de l’amour. — On ne saurait, en saine théologie (Thomas), regarder l'amour du Père pour le Fils comme la raison de la génération du Fils pour rester dans ce domaine éternel, il faut recourir à des subtilités qui s’éloignent du texte. Le plus simple est donc d'entendre le Fils du Verbe Incarné, non pas pour sa nature humaine précisément, mais en raison de la dépendance acceptée par le Fils du fait de l’Incarnation (même Schanz). Entre les deux parties du verset, il est sous-entendu que le Fils agit selon ce que lui montre son Père : c’est ainsi que déjà il a fait des miracles. Mais le Père lui montrera, et par conséquent il fera des œuvres plus grandes, comme Jésus l'avait annoncé à Philippe (1, 50 s.). Ces œuvres, destinées à faire naitre la foi (x, 11), n'auront pas toujours ce résultat : les Juifs (δ μεῖς) seront hien obligés de s’en étonner, d'en être frappés, mais Jésus aurait voulu davantage; aussi ἵνα exprime-t-il ici le résultat, plutôt que la finalité. Cet étonnement, plutôt de la stupeur que de l’admiration, suppose que les œuvres auront un caractère d'évidence, comme les miracles, ce qui n'exclut pas l’action spirituelle dans les âmes, le changement des mœurs, qu’on peut aisément constater.
5:21
La première chose que le Fils doit opérer, c’est de rendre la vie aux morts. Ést-ce dans le sens physique, comme la résurrection de Lazare ou la résurrection générale, ou bien le passage de la mort spirituelle à la vie? Les termes sont sans doute généraux à dessein, de manière à comprendre aussi la résurrection spirituelle. Il en sera question plus loin (24), puis plus explicitement de la résurrection générale des corps (28). On trouve dans l'A. Ὁ. la même manière de parler vaguement du pouvoir souverain de Dieu sur la vie (Dt. xxxu, 89; 1 Regn. π, 6; Tobie xur, 2), soit qu'il guérisse ceux qui Louchent déjà aux portes de la mort, comme souvent dans les Psaumes, soit qu'il doive ressusciter réellement des morts (Is. xxvi, 19; Dan. xn, 2), où que larésurrection soit le symbole de la guérison spirituelle d'Israël (Os. γι, 2; ΕΖ, xxxvi, 1-14). Le Père a donc ce pouvoir souverain, et le Fils l’a aussi : ζωοποιεῖ, qui comprend l'acte antécédent de faire lever (ἐγείρει) les morts, insiste moins sur la résurrection physique, et prépare ce qui suit. — οὺς ϑέλει marque bien le pouvoir souverain du Fils, non point pour l'égaler au Père dans l'initiative ou pour marquer l'indépendance par rapport au Père, mais « ceux qu'il veut », par son libre choix, comme ferait le Père. fl n'est pas dit que chacun d'eux ressuscite ceux qu’il veut, ni expressément que leur action soit la même. D'après ce qui suit, le Fils incarné fera dans Fhnmanilé (cf. vi, 37) ce que la religion attribuait à Dieu.
5:22
La perspective de la résurrection évoque la pensée du jugement. La fonction de juge de l'humanité n'est pas moins divine que celle de donner la vie (Ps. Lexx, 8; LXXxU, 8, etc.) : donc on doit rendre au Fils les mêmes honneurs qu'au Pèro; les lui refuser sous prétexte qu'il n'est qu'un délégué serait offenser le Père qui l'a envoyé, car le Fils n’est pas le ministre du Père, mais son égal, quoiqu'il tienne le jugement de lui. — Tel doit bien étre le sens des deux versets, qu'on ne peut guère entendre seulement d'un discernement (κρίσις) en vue de la vie spirituelle. Le Fils étant dès à présent investi des pouvoirs de juge, c'est dès à présent qu'on devrait lui rendre honneur. — οὐδὲ γάρ est difficile. Ge ne peut être : « il ne juge pas non plus », puisque le Père vivifie. Il semble que le γάρ est parallèle à celui du v. 21. Car de même que le Père vivifie, de même le Fils vivifie. On s'attend à : Car aussi, de même qu'il juge, de même le Fils juge. Mais ce n'est pas ce qu'il fallait dire, puisque le Père ne juge pas, mais remet tout le jugement au Fils. La phrase étant nécative, οὐδέ remplace ὥσπερ. Il s’agit toujours des œuvres que Dieu montre au Fils pour qu’il les fasse, seulement on ne saurait dire du jugement que le Père le faitle premier: donc : « mais d'autre part, comme il ne juge pas, il a donné », etc. On verra plus loin que néanmoins, même dans le jugement, le Fils n’a pas l’initiative (80). — πᾶσαν tout ce qui regarde le jugement ou peut ressortir au jugement (cf. Mt. vir, 22. 23; xvr, 27; xxiv, 37-51; xxv, 31-46; Act. x, 42, etc.).
5:23
La première partie du v. pourrait encore être en situation, Jésus marquant: pour l’avenir que le Fils doit recevoir un culte égal au Père. Mais la deuxième partie suppose que actuellement il en est qui n'honorent pas le Fils, c'est-à-dire ne lui rendent pas le culte divin : ceux-là doivent savoir qu'en agissant ainsi ils ne rendent pas à Dieu le culte qui lui est dû, à ce Dieu qui a envoyé le Fils.
5:24
Cf. πα, 17. Le v. se soude pour le sens au v. 21; il développe la doctrine johannine par exceilence, mais dont on ne doit pas douter qu'elle ἃ été proposée par Jésus, avec une force d’affirmation particulière. Celui qui croit ἃ déjà la vie en lui, ét par conséquent il ἃ passé de la mort à la vie sans avoir à redouter le jugement comme s'il était accusé. — Quand Jésus parle, Dieu enseigne en lui : celui qui croit, par l'adhésion de toute son âme, ἃ déjà la vie éternelle, c'est-à-dire une vie que le Fils lui a donnée; il n’est donc pas dans la situation de ceux qui sont traînés en justice, εἰς χρίσιν ἄγεσθαι (Dirr. Or. graec. 669, L. 39, 1 av. J.-C. dans Η 21). Par l'acte de foi, celui qui était mort recoit la vie; la métaphore (μεταδαίνειν) implique un passage du séjour des morts à celui des vivants. Mème mot dans I Jo. 11, 14, où la charité remplace la foi, tant il est vrai que la foi ici nommée comprend la charité. La résurrection spirituelle était déjà insinuée dens Le. xv, 32. — Cf. Philon, de Poster. Caint $ 43; M 1 p. 234 oc γὰρ ὁ θεὸς εὐαρεστήσαντας αὐτῷ μετεδίδασε καὶ μετέθηχε ἐκ φθαρτῶν εἰς ἀθάνατα γένη, παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς οὐχέθ᾽ εὑρίσχονται (Bauer); mais il s’agit dans Philon du passage physique à l'immortalité (à propos d'Hénoch).
5:25
ακουσουσιν (HT) plutôt que axovowst (5) ou αχουσονται (V).
Ce v. parle encore (Aug. etc.) de la résurrection spirituelle. Déjà l'œuvre est commencée, at νῦν ἐστιν, ce qu'on ne peut entendre ni de la résurrection générale, ni de celle de Lazare. Les morts sont ceux qui étaient dans le domaine de la mort. La voix du Fils est la prédication de Jésus. Ce ne sont pas tous ces morts spirituels qui entendent cette voix comme il faut tous entendent, mais seulement ceux qui ont entendu de la bonne façon vivront; même manière de donner deux sens à &xovav dans Mt. x, 13. Ce double sens est souligné par l’article devant éxoÿsavrss; l’article est en effet un indice que tous n’entendront pas de la même façon, et par conséquent ce n’est pas ici le thème du jugement dernier (contre Zahn).
5:26
On pourrait estimer que pour la première fois dans ce discours, il est question de l'origine éternelle du Fils par rapport au Père. Nous ne l'avons pas reconnue, malgré l'autorité d'Augustin, dans les mots « voir » et « montrer » (49-20), mais le mot « donner la vie » paraît très clair dans ce sens, et rappelle 1, 4. Le logos qui avait la vie serait ici le Fils qui la reçoit de son Père dans l'éternité. Nous n'osons rejeter ce sens à cause de l'autorité de quelques Pères, quoiqu’on puisse alléguer qu'ils ont cherché partout des arguments contre l'Arianisme, mais il nous semble que Cyrille d’AL. ἃ plus justement entendu ces mots du Verbe incarné dans le contexte présent, — si vrais qu'ils soient en euxmêmes du Verbe (1, 4). Jusqu'à présent c'est Jésus qui parle, et il établit son droit à donner la vie, parce qu'il la tient du Père, èt aussi à juger, parce qu'il en a reçu le pouvoir comme homme : tout cela se tient (Mald., Schanz, Calmes). Boxey tout court indiquerait bien la génération divine; mais ἔδωχεν ἔχειν s'entend mieux d'une qualité destinée à être communiquée à d’autres. Ce verset explique pourquoi le Fils donne la vie : c'est qu'il l'a reçue pour l'avoir en lui comme elle est dans le Père, et comme une Source pour les autres. Euthymius ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀντὶ τοῦ πηγάζει (cité par Μαϊα.). Comme le Père est source de vie envers le Fils, — le Fils dans sa mission, comme envoyé par le Père, pourra donner la vie. Le premier don, comme dit Maldonat, est l'union hypostalique eo ipso, quod homo ille factus est Deus, omnem quam Deus habebat postesiatem naturaliter habuit, 8390. em. ἐξ α΄ vache (TH) où αὐ. SV). "ἘΝ 5τ᾽ Π ny pas de raison pour mettre un point avant ce verset (PSV); um point en han H° suffit largement, comme à compnis Cyr, : δέδωκξ μοὶ τὸ δύνασθαι ξωργονεῖν ὃ [Τατὸς, δέδοχὲ por τὰ κρένειν ἐπ᾿ ἐξουσίας, — noie ποιεῖν, C'est prononcer le jugement, ce jugement auquel πὸ sont pas conduits comme aCCuSés Ceux qui ont déjà recu Ia vie. Ce sera done par le Fait an jugement de condamnation, là fenction anusière de celui qui n'est pes venu pour juger, mais pour sauver ? {πὸ το. La même opposition parallélique entre la vie et le jugement se Ξ retrouvera au v. 29. Malgré ce parallélisme, ls clause ὅτι υἱὸς α΄ ἐστίν sepapporte Ὁ spécialement au jagement. L'acte de vivifier est un acte du Fils comme Dieu, le pouvoir de juger est le terme de le carrière du Fils devenu vraiment un fils d'homme. L'expression des sypontiques est ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου : l'absence des deux articles atiénue ke caractère messianique de l'expression. et énsiste eur Fhumaine nature (Cf. Conur. Me. p. cxxxv). Pourquoi? Probablement parcs que le jugement est le dernier acte de l'histoire de l'humanité rachetée par le Christ. C'est à celui qui était mort pour ia sauver qu'il appartenait de juger eeux qui auraient rejeté le salut. Ou bien este pour fermer là bouche aux pécheurs en leur imposent le jugement d'u homme? Dieu, infaiment parfait, trouverait des taches en ses anges. Un homme sera, selon noire manière de pasler, plus enclin à l'induigence, ef. Heb. iv, 15. On ne saurait admettre l'explication de Cyr. Eakn : il a reçu IR vie et le pouvoir, parce qu'il me 165 avattipas étant hormme : τὴν éfrixr εὐθὺς τοῦ δεδέγθαι λέγειν ἑαυτὸν ἔξερνούεκενος τὴν οὐδὲν ἔχουσαν ἐξ ξπυτὲς ξυδουποτετα, La pensée serait banale, car Crrille ne voulai pas dire qu'un Remme comme tel à reçu ei exercé ces dans. C'est te que soutenait Paul de Samosate, et c'est pour écarter ce sens que Chrye. et les Antiochiens ont rattaché cetie clause à ce qui suit: précaution qui n'était pas nécessaire et qui changeaït la ponctuation naturelle.
5:28
Jésus remarque sans doute chez ses auditeurs un étonnement peu sempathique, cf. m, 7. De quoi s'étonnaient-ils? La cuérison du parairtique est trop éloignée, ce qui regerde le fils de l'homme est trop spécial, On peut hésiter entre le contenu du τ. 27 (Aus. Male. Sekan:! et tout l'ensemble @e A9 A7 ἕαδε. La question doit être résolue d'après l'anglagie de πὶ. T : τοῦτο doit être la proposition principale qu'il s'agit d'expliquer ou de Gépascer : or cette preposition est celle du v. 98, [8 dernière qui ait été solennellement alfrmée Vous vous étonnez que le Fils fasse entendre sa voix aux morts (spirituels), œæ sorte que quelques-uns l’entendent comme il faut. Il y aura plus étonnant quand tous les morts entendront cette voix, etc. En contraste avec μὴ θαυμάσῃς (ur, 7) il y a ici μὴ θαυμάζετε « ne vous étonnez pas comme vous faites », car il y: aura mieux. La résurrection physique n'étant pas commencée comme celle des âmes, Jésus ne répète pas καὶ νῦν ἐστιν, qu'il ne faut pas sous-entendre. Ce qu'il y ἃ d'étonnant, ce n'est pas la résurrection de la chair, à laquelle croyaient les Juifs, mais qu’elle se produise à la voix du Fils, qui appartient, comme ils le voient, à la nature humaine.
5:29
Si l'on était tenté d'expliquer le v. 28 de la résurrection spirituelle, le doute cesserait ici. Ce sont bien là les fins dernières de l'humanité, le jugement sans appel sur les bonnes et les mauvaises actions. On a vu une sorte d’antinomie entre les deux doctrines de la résurrection spirituelle et de la résurrection physique, comme si la première avait supplanté la seconde dans l'esprit de Jo. Loisy regarde les vv. 28 et 29 comme une addition postérieure. En fait les deux notions se complètent. La vie spirituelle du croyant est déjà le commencement de la vie éternelle, mais elle n'empêche pas la mort du corps. À la fin du tempt, le corps ressuscité sera associé à cette vie. L'harmonie est telle entre le v. 24 et le v. 29, que les justes ne sont pas, à proprement parler, soumis au jugement : ils vont à la vie; les autres ressuscitent pour être jugés. Le gén. χρίσεως est moins naturel que le gén. ζωῆς, où la résurrection vient de la vie et complète la vie, tout en conduisant à la vie; d'après ἀνάστασις εἰς ζωήν (Τ Macch. var, 14), on s'attendrait à εἰς χρίσιν : mais le parallélisme ἃ amené la même tournure. Comme dans Mt. xxv, le discernement porte sur les bonnes et les mauvaises terium tradilionnel le plus large. Il va sans dire que ceux actions. C’est le cri e s’excluent du salut (nr, 36). qui ne veulent pas croir ontemporains à la résurrection du corps, cf. Le Mes- _— Sur la foi des Juifs sianisme.… p. 110-188. partie du discours par une inclusio
5:30
Ce verset termine la première caractérisée. Οὐ δύναμαι correspond ἃ où δύναται (49), dans le même sentiment du Fils incarné, qui désormais parle à la première personne. Seulement le discours s'est spécialisé. Au début c'était l'action du Père qui servait de modèle; le Fils agissait selon qu'il voyait. Maintenant que le Fils est juge, se conforme au jugement qu'il entend prononcer par le Père. C'est toujours cet accent de modestie et de dépendance proportionné à la nature humaine, souligné par Cyrille. Les Juifs savaient que le jugement appartenait à Dieu : qu'ils ne s’étonnent pas; c'est bien Dieu qui juge, puisque le fils de l’homme ne fait que se conformer à sa volonté. Le ton extrêmement humble de ce verset, où n'apparait plus que l’envoyé de Dieu exécuteur de la volonté de celui qui l'a envoyé est sûrement une raison d'entendre aussi le v. 26 du Fils incarné, plutôt que de sa génération éternelle.
5:31
Dans vm, 14, Jésus revendiquera énergiquement la valeur de son propre témoignage, qui en effet, pour nous, est le plus décisif. Mais au point où il en était, discutant pour la première fois avec les Juifs sur les preuves de sa mission comme envoyé de Dieu au titre unique de Fils, il accepte le principe qu'ils énonceront plus loin (vu, 13), et qui est d’ailleurs généralement reçu. — Bauer cite Démosthène c. Steph. (non authentique) τι, 9 μαρτυρεῖν γὰρ οἱ νόμοι οὐκ ἐῶσιν αὐτὸν αὑτῷ. Cicéron, pro Roscio xxxvr, 108, applique cette règle même à Scipion l’Africain,
5:32
Mais c'est un autre qui témoigne. Ce ne peut être Jean-Baptiste (Chrys.) ἃ cause du v. 34. Il faut donc que ce soit déjà le Père (Aug. Cyr. opinion commune), dont le témoignage apparaît ici comme un premier rayon, pour éveiller l'attention. — La lecon οἴδατε (T) dans ND e a q syreur. ἃ sûrement remplacé οἶδα comme beaucoup plus facile. On ne comprend pas au premier abord comment après le v. 34 Jésus en appelle à sa propre connaissance des choses (Zahn). Mais on voit plus loin qu'en réalité les Juifs ne recoivent pas 16 témoignage du Père. En attendant de préciser en quoi consiste ce témoignage et quelle est sa valeur, Jésus pouvait bien dire qu'il en avait une claire conscience; ce n'est pas témoigner pour soi-même en sa faveur, mais affirmer qu'on est sûr d'être soutenu par un témoignage décisif. Ce témoignage est toujours rendu et ἃ une valeur permanente (μαρτυρεῖ au présent).
5:33
Au contraire le témoignage du Baptiste est au passé. IL y ἃ une antithèse entre ὑμεῖς ici et ἐγώ au v. suivant. Vous étiez disposés à vous contenter du témoignage de Jean; moi je suis plus difficile en ma propre cause, mais je puis vous l'opposer puisque vous avez montré votre confiance en lui par votre ambassade; et il a rendu un témoignage dont l'expression appartient au passé, mais qui demeure (μεμαρτύρηκεν, le parfait); cf. xvmr, 37; II Jo. 3, L'ailusion à l’ambassade est là pour prouver que les Juifs acceptaient le message de Jean, dans cette occasion il n'a pas désigné Jésus ouvertement; mais Jo. a bien le droit de se référer tacitement aux autres affirmations du Baptiste, entre autres 1, 29-34, sans parler de son discours à ses disciples (nr, 27-30).
5:34
Plusieurs ont essayé d'atténuer la première partie de cette déclaration (Cyr. Mald.). ne pouvant comprendre comment le témoignage du Précurseur, ordonné dans les desseins de Dieu, n'avait pas une valeur décisive (cf. τ, 7). À l'autre extrême, Calmes a compris : Je vous donne cet avertissement dans votre intérèt, qui est de ne pas attribuer trop d'importance au témoignage de Jean. ΤΙ semble que la vérité soit cette fois encore une opinion moyenne. En rigueur, aucun témoignage humain ne suffit à prouver la mission du Christ; du moins il refuse de s'appuyer sur lui, non seulement pour sa conviction personnelle, ce qui est bien évident, mais comme argument dont dépendra la foi en sa mission. Cependant le témoignage de Jean n'était pas sans valeur. Jésus le rappelle dans l'intérêt spirituel des Juifs. 11 mettait vraiment sur la voie, il conduisait à la foi, en dernière ligne que sur l'autorité du Père (cf. Schanz, Kn., qui ne doit reposer Loisy, ete.). — λαμδάνω n'est donc pas : je n'ai pas besoin du témoignage de Jean, je pourrais m'en passer (Mald.), mais positivement : je ne m'en sers pas. — ταῦτα ce qui regarde Jean au v. 33, el non mon refus du témoignage humain (Caimes).
5:35
Comme dans Mt. et Le., Jésus parle honorablement du Baptiste. Il n'était pas la lumière; nous le savions déjà (r, 8). Mais dans la nuit, avant que le soleil se lève, on est bien aise d’avoir une lampe, ὁ λύχνος avec l’article, la lampe dont on se sert en pareil cas. L'imparfait ἦν indique que Jean était déjà mort. καιό- marquent la chaleur et la lumière, et non simplement que la uevos καὶ φαίνων, t, ce qui serait ἥρμμένος (ef. Le. vin, 46); il faut Jampe ayant été allumée brillai C’est une allusion au zèle donc comparer σέλας χαιομένοιο πυρός (Iliade xix, 376). 87. εκεινος (TH) ou autos (SV). brûlant du Baptiste pour la pénitence, en même temps qu’à la révélation qu'il avait communiquée sur le Christ. Sur cette comparaison, cf. 11 Regn. xxt, 17; 1 Petr. τ, 19. Spécialement à propos d'Élie, type de Jean (Lc. 1, 17; Mt. xvu, 11 s.; Me. 1x, 11 s.), dans Sir. xLvin, 1 καὶ ἀνέστη Ἠλίας προφήτης ὡς πῦρ, καὶ ὃ λύγος αὐτοῦ ὡς λαμπὰς ἐκαίετο, — Ce n'est pas sans dessein que Jésus ne parle plus ensuite de la chaleur de la flamme, mais seulement de la lumière. Cette lumière ἃ attiré les Juifs; ils s'en sont approchés avec joie, esprant qu'elle annonçait le réveil de leurs espérances. Mais leur joie a été de courte durée, πρὸς ὥραν, οἵ. IL Cor. vn, 8; Gal. 11,5; Philem. 15. Ils n'ont pas laissé à cette parole ardente le temps de les pénétrer intérieurement; ils y ont pris plaisir un moment, puis ils ont pensé à autre chose. g
5:36
μείζων (5) et non μείζω (HTV). ν
De même que dans Mt. (σι, δ) οἱ Le. (vu, 22), l'hommage rendu au Baptiste: est en contact avec le lémoignage que ses propres œuvresrendentau Christ; parmi ces œuvres la résurrectian des morts est indiquée dans les deux synoptiques, et aussi la bonne nouvelle annoncée aux pauvres. Ici les œuvres ne sont pas énumérées, c’est toute la mission du Christ. En effet τελειοῦν est plus qu'accomplir, c’est conduire au terme, achever et parachever; cf. 1v, 34; xval, 4. Avec ce parti pris de dépendance envers le Père, si caractéristique de tout le discours, et en même temps d'action propre, Jésus dit que ces œuvres lui ont été données, et cependant qu'il les fait. C'est la vraie preuve qu’ila été envoyé par son Père. Le fondement de l'argumentation est dans l'opinion reçue de tous : tant valent les œuvres, tant vaut l’homme. — μείζων est à l'accusatif, comme il est évident : le ν ajouté librement et sans raison par l'usage hellénistique (MouzToN, Prol, 49) a été supprimé pour la correction par quelques mss. La construction μείζων τοῦ Ἰωάννου signifierait à la lettre que Jésus est mieux attesté que Jean (Zuhn, Bauer). Mais la comparaison est plulôt entre le témoignage de Jean et celui des œuvres (γάρ). C'est donc la comparaison abrégée (cf. Mt. v, 20), bien connue même des classiques (cf. ΕΒ. 19411, p. 83).
5:37
Le témoignage du Père n'est pas celui qu'il a rendu à Jésus au baptême, car il ne se-trouve pas mentionné expressément dans Jo., si ce n’est comme contenu dans le témoignage du Baptiste (1, 32-84). D'ailleurs le contexte suivant montre bien qu'il s'agit des Ecritures (Schanz, Zahm, etc. après Cyr.). Ce qui suit est difficile. Le contexte semble indiquer : « mais ce témoignage du Père, vous ne l'avez pas compris ». Celte idée est exprimée d'abord par deux négations : vous n'avez jamais entendu la voix du Père et vous ne l’avez jamais vu. Chrys. Cyr. l’entendent à la lettre de toute l'histoire d'Israël. Vos pères, même les plus favorisés, ont entendu à l’'Horeb des voix, et ils ont eu des visions; mais en réalité ils n’ont pas entendu ni vu Dieu, que personne ne peut voir (1, 18). C’est très certain, mais peut-on le reprocher aux Juifs ou à n’importe qui? Et si ce n'est pas un reproche, comment cela se soude-t-il à ce qui suit? — Zahn restreint l'allocution à ceux qui sont présents. Il ne saurait être question de voir Dieu; mais ils n’ont pas même été gratifiés de ces apparitions dont parle l'Éeri- {ure ; raison de plus pour eux (καί), — el c'est ici que commence le reproche, — de s'appliquer à la parole de Dieu contenue dans l'Écriture, ce qu'ils n’ont pas fait. Mais si καί peut bien signifier une réserve, il ne peut marquer une opposition aussi complète; les trois choses sont sur le même plan. — Schanz (Tillmann) adoucit les termes : les Juifs n'ont jamais écouté de bon cœur lenseignement divin; ils n’ont pas su voir Dieu qui conduisait toutes leurs destinées, etc. — Ce sens est très facile, mais peu littéral et hors de propos. Il n’est pas question ici de l'enseignement de Dieu, mais de son témoignage. Entendre sa voix pourrait encore être pris largement, mais voir sa forme ne peut étre qu’au sens littéral. — Ii nous semble que Jésus répond à l’infidélité des Juifs sous-entendue : Vous refusez ce témoignage... de quel droit? vous n'avez jamais entendu la voix de Dieu, vous n'avez eu aucune apparition (εἶδος)... quelle qu'ait été la vraie nature des anciennes manifestations. D’après Cyrille d’AL. (de même Loisy) Jo. aurait voulu montrer que les textes mosaïques sur les apparitions et autres manifestations du Sinaï ne devaient pas être pris trop à la lettre; c’est un indice que la fête est bien la Pentecôte (Olivieri).
5:38
N'ayant ni vu ni entendu Dieu, ils ne peuvent même pas (καί... οὐ) alléguer que 88 parole demeure en eux, COMME une chose vivante et un principe de vie, puisqu'ils refusent de croire à celui qu’il ἃ envoyé, et que ses Ecritures annonçaient, comme il va être dit. Pour ceux qui croient, la Parole de Dieu subsiste en eux; elle a atteint son but, en préparant l'avènement du l'ils; pour les Juifs ce n'est plus qu’un objet d'étude. Ces paroles ne sont pas plus dures que ce qu'on lit dans Jérémie : « Comment dites-vous : Nous sommes sages, nous possédons la Joi de lahvé? Vraiment la voici changée en mensonge par le style menteur des scribes. Les sages sont confondus, consternés, pris au piège, parce qu'ils ont rejeté la parole de lahvé » (Trad. Condamin). Depuis ce temps les scribes avaient accentué toujours davantage les privilèges de celui qui étudie la Loi, œuvre sainte par excellence. Pour ce sens de μένειν, cf. χν, Τὶ; 1 Jo. u, 14. 24; mr, 47; 11 Jo. à. — ὅτι est plutôt un signe qu'une cause (Mald.). L4. ογ1. θεου p. uovou, plutôt que add. (THSV).
5:39
Les modernes sont d'accord que ἐραυνᾶτε n'est point un impératif, mais un indicatif présent, comme tous les autres verbes de ce contexte. On s'étonne que l'impératif ait séduit tous les anciens, sauf Cyrille, car Jésus ne refusait pas aux Juifs le zèle de l'Écriture. Il ne 16 blâmait pas non plus entièrement, mais il le jugeait cependant mal inspiré. Les Juifs estiment qu'ils ont dans les Écritures Ja vie éternelle. Ce n'est pas comme si l'on disait d'un savant qu'il fait de l’étude sa fin dernière, mais parce qu'ils les croient suffisantes pour les conduire à la vie éternelle et toute l'humanité avec eux. Loin d'attendre un Messie dont la révélation serait plus complète, et qui était même le terme de l’ancienne révélation, ils n’envisageaient le Messie que comme l'instrument de Dieu pour faire prévaloir leur Loi dans le monde. Or en réalité les Écritures témoignent d'un Messie qu'ils devront écouter, et qui en réalité est le Fils de Dieu; c'est en lui, non dans les Écritures seules, que se trouve la vie (nr, 46). — καί « et précisément
5:40
Mais les Juifs ne veulent pas chercher cette vie en Jésus, précisément à cause de leur engouement exagéré pour la valeur intrinsèque de la Loi. Ou plus probablement, à cause de ce qui suit, où θέλετε a-t-il un sens plus général pour des raisons à eux, les Juifs ne veulent pas croire. — καί « et cependant s’il se rapporte à la dernière incise; « ensuite de quoi », s’il se rapporte à 39a. &1-47. Ces versets forment un groupe distinct; ils sont destinés à expliquer pourquoi les Juifs refusent de reconnaître l'envoyé du Père; c'est qu'ils sont mal disposés envers Dieu lui-même, et en conséquence envers Moïse qui contient son témoignage. S'ils croyaient vraiment en Moïse, ils croiraient en Jésus. Mais ils sont empêchés par l'orgueil qui paralyse en eux l'amour de Dieu.
5:41
On dit volontiers (Bauer) qu'ici Jésus passe de la défensive à l'offensive; il attaque. Mais cette attaque elle-même ne fait que répondre à une accusation sous-entendue. Les Juifs, jugeant la prétention de Jésus extravagante, se posaient en défenseurs de la gloire de Dieu, dont l'honneur leur était confié. C'est ce que Jésus ne veut pas admettre. L'incrédulité des Juifs n’est pas fondée; leur mobile non plus n'est pas pur. Et d'abord leur reproche à Jésus de rechercher la gloire n’est pas juste. Il n’a que faire de cette gloire que donnent les hommes; ce n'est pas pour se faire honneur de ses disciples qu'il les invite à venir à lui. Si les Juifs le soupconnent, dit Cyrille, c'est qu'eux-mêmes son affligés de cette maladie. — cf. I Thess., 5, 6.
5:42
L'amour pour Dieu (Schanz, etc.) comme dans 1 Jo., 11, 15; πι, 473 1v, 12, v, 3, et non l'amour venant de Dieu (Zahn) d’après I Jo. 1v, 7-12. C'est parce qu'ils prétextent leur zèle pour Dieu que les Juifs refusent de croire en son Fils. Or ils ne l'aiment pas tant! Il n’est pas question de la charité témoignée par Jésus au malade, qui a excité la haine des Juifs (contre Zahn) : il n’est plus dans la perspective. D'ailleurs le Sauveur ne donne d’autre preuve de son affirmation que sa connaissance surnaturelle, qui pénètre en eux (ἐν ἑαυτοῖς plus fort que ἐν ὑμῖν (38). Qu'ils interrogent leur conscience sur la pureté de leur intention! Il n’y a donc pas un lien étroit entre 42 et 43.
5:43
Illogisme de leur conduite. Jésus revendique la dignité de Fils : du moins ajoute-t-il qu'il vient au nom de son Père, avec son témoignage, et insiste-t-il sur sa dépendance vis-à-vis des desseins du Père. Et si quelqu'un se présente (évidemment comme Messie) en son nom propre d'homme qui se croit une grande mission, ils le recevront. Ce n’est pas que ce faux Messie ne se présente au nom de Dieu, mais il ne fera pas ses œuvres, et l'événement montrera que les espérances étaient trompeuses. ἄλλος sans article désigne un faux Messie quelconque (cf. Mt. ΧΣΙΝ, 24; Me. x, 22). La liste en est longue, et les Juifs sont-ils seulement las d'espérer? Prophétie assurément étonnante, et bien propre à mettre en lumière leur aveugle obstination.. — Il est vrai que les Pères ont pensé à une personne particulière, à savoir l’Antéchrist; plusieurs critiques modernes le remplacent par Bar-Cochébas (133 ap. J.-C.); ensuite de quoi Bauer envisage froidement la composition de l'évangile vers le quatrième quart du πϑ 5. Mais à supposer que ἄλλος sans article puisse désigner un particulier, il eût fallu écrire : « quand un autre viendra », ce qui viserait bien une personne. « Si un autre vient » (cf. vi, 62) laisse la personne dans 16 vague. — Cyrille d'Al. ἃ bien remarqué la ressemblance de cette argumentation avec Π Thess., m1, 10-12.
5:44
Pas de lien très étroit avec ce qui précède. On dirait d'un retour au v. ἀϊ. Mais ce n’est pas une contre-attaque, comme pour dire : moi je ne cherche pas la gloire, c'est plutôt vous. Gar 16 ton est celui de la commisération. Les Juifs ne croient pas. Pourquoi? Ils ne veulent pas (40); mais les malheureux ne peuvent même pas, tant qu'ils sont dominés par la vanité et l’orgueil. Dans toute cette partie du discours, les Juifs sont très spécialement les Pharisiens, et plus nettement les docteurs de la Loi. La gloire n'est donc pas l'hommage rendu par les hommes à des héros, mais celui que se rendent entre eux (παρὰ ἀλλήλων) des leltrés ou des savants. Au fond cela seul compte pour eux, Popinion de la foule leur étant indifférente. Ce qui n’est peut-être que vanité chez des gens de leitres, est plutôt de lorgueil, encore que puéril, chez des intellectuels fiers de leur supériorité. Rien de plus flaiteur pour un docteur de la Loi que d'être cité par un confrère comme une autorité, fixant une tradition qui en fait l'emportera peut-être sur l'Écriture (Le Messianisme… p. 143). Cette disposition à régenter l'opinion exclut l'humilité nécessaire pour accepter de croire. Ges maîtres sont bien éloignés de se réfugier dans ce silence et cette obscurité οἱ l'on est avide de recevoir la lumière de Dieu et son approbation. Cette δόξα n'est pas semblable à l'autre, aussi n’y a-t-il pas seulement τὴν δόξαν παρὰ τοῦ, mais bien τὴν δόξαν τὴν x, la gloire telle qu'on peut la recevoir du Père, peutêre longtemps sans aucun éclat extérieur, étant seulement le suffrage intime ὃ Dieu dans la conscience. — On attendrait donc : la gloire qui vient de Dieu sul, en grec παρὰ μόνου τοῦ θεοῦ, ou παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μονοῦ. Le texte recu qui est aussi celui des critiques ἃ τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ, « du dieu unique », idée qu'on n'attend pas ici. Nous pensons qu’il faut omettre θεοῦ avec B W a ὃ sak. boh. Or. Eus. Adam. Did. C’est encore la conception de l'unité (de Dieu), maïs en tant qu'opposée aux suffrages multiples des hommes, ce qui est plus dans le contexte (Zahn) --ὑμεῖς, « vous, comme des gens qui ». — ζητεῖτε remplacé dans N par ζητοῦντες qui serait plus normal.
5:45
Celui qui est investi des fonctions de juge (v, 22) ne saurait descendre au rôle d'accusateur. Ce n’est pas l'intention de Jésus de porter cette affaire an tribunal de son Père, Il y a là un accusateur, à savoir Moïse, et qui remplit déjà son office (κατηγορῶν). En tant qu'accusateur au lieu et place du Christ, Moïse est une personne. En tant qu'objet de l'espérance des Juifs, — ce qui était dit des Écritures (39), — Moïse est nommé pour ces Écritures elles-mêmes.
5:46
Et en effet, la foi des Juifs portait moins sur la personne de Moïse que sur la parole du Dieu qui l'avait inspiré et lui avait révélé ses desseins. Cependant c’est bien comme auteur de l'Écriture qu'il paraît de nouveau en personne (ἐκεῖνος). Strictement parlant, Moïse n'est pas indiqué ici comme l’auteur de tout le Pentateuque, mais seulement comme l’auteur des prophéties messianiques du Pentateuque. Les Juifs faisaient une place à part à la Loi qu'ils lisaient et étudiaient beaucoup plus que les autres livres, comme la source principale de la révélation et la règle de leur vie morale et sociale. En fait la Loi contenait des allusions au salut qui était proposé par Jésus (Gen. πα 455 Χπ, ὃ: xtux, 40), et tout le soin que Dieu avait pris d'Israël devait aboulir au salut. Les prophètes avaient été autorisés d'avance par Moïse (Dt. xvmn, 15). Moïse domine donc toute l'Écriture, et qui croyait en Moïse devait croire en celui qui faisait les œuvres annoncées. — ἄν n'indique pas le doute, exprimé sans raison par forsitan (Vg).
5:47
Assurément les Juifs prétendaient croire en Moïse comme législateur mais ils ne lui faisaient pas confiance quand il orientait leur foi vers l'avenir. Si tout était réglé à jamais, toute révélation close, pourquoi fallait-il attendre un autre prophète? Il n'y avait plus de place après Moïse que pour des exégèles comme eux. — Il semble qu'il n'y ἃ pas opposition entre la lettre et la parole, comme s’il était impossible de croire à la parole vivante quand on ne croit pas même à la lettre, mais tout au plus entre cette lettre auguste et une parole nouvelle, ce qui revient à mettre l'opposition principale entre ἐκείνου et ἐμοῖς. Caractère historique du discours. Il n'y a pas à dissimuler la haute portée théologique du discours, une des bases scripturaires du traité de la Trinité. Dans la première partie, Jésus parle du Fils; dans la seconde, il dit « Je»; mais il est bien évident que c’est toujours de lui-même qu'il parle comme Fils de Dieu. Les auditeurs ne pouvaient distinguer ses relations éternelles comme Fils de ses relations actuelles comme Fils envoyé : il n’en est pas moins vrai qu'il revendique l'égalité d'action avec son Père (19), l'identité de vie (21) et les mêmes honneurs (23) Seulement tout cela vient du Père. Et cependant il ἃ a nature humaine (27); et l'on peut estimer aisément que c’est pour cela qu'il fait la volonté du Père, puisque c’est pour cela qu'il est juge (27) et juge comme le lui suggère le Père (30). Le soin évident de ne nommer Dieu que dans les rapports des Juifs avec Lui (42.44), tandis que pour le Fils il est simplement le Père, est une indication très claire que les rapports spéciaux du Père et du Fils consistent en ce qu'ils ont la même nature. En regard de celle situation incomparable du Fils, le. pouvoir de ressusciter des morts, qui avait été accordé aux Prophètes (HE Regn. sv, 22; IV Regn.1v, 33; Eccli. xLvin. 5) et celui de rendre le jugement selon la pensée de Dieu, ne sont point ce qu'il y ἃ de plus relevé. Tout cela sans préjudice de l'humilité de celui qui est un fils d'homme, ni des sentiments du Fils pour le Père. Jésus accepte l'égalité avec Dieu que les Juifs lui reprochent de s’être arrogée, sans déroger en rien à la profonde soumission due à Dieu par la nature humaine, et sans méconnaître la situation spéciale que l'incarnation fait au Fils par rapport au Père. Or c’est précisément cette sublimité théologique que l'on allègue pour reluser à ce discours un caractère historique. Il aurait été composé par l’évangéliste étienne et la venger des attaques des Juifs. A pour promulguer la doctrine chr ait pas moins un vrai miracle. Gar c'est un le prendre ainsi ce discours n'en ser miracle intellectuel que, quelques soixante ans après [ἃ mort de Jésus, ce qu regarde sa personne ait été non pas défini en termes techniques ou métaphysiques, mais exposé avec cette simplicité et une sûreté excluant toute retouche. I! faut de plus reconnaître que l'égalité entre le Père et le Fils, qui constitue l’idée principale de la première partie a été exprimée par Mt. αι, 25-21) οἱ Le. (x, 24-22), tandis que la qualité de Fils de Dieu à un titre spécial et unique fait tout le fond de l’évangile de Mc. Quant à la deuxième partie, M. Loisy en écrit : « Le salut n'est pas dans l'Écriture, il est dans Ia foi au Christ, qui est annoncé par l’Écriture. C’est la doctrine de Paul, mais dégagée de la dispute sur les observances, entièrement sûre d'elle-même, indiscutée, devenue le fondement du christianisme » (p. 219). Or c’est l'évidence en effet que la première prédication chrétienne, aussilôt après la résurrection, ἃ roulé sur la foi au Christ, annoncé par l'Écriture. La question qui s’est posée depuis regardait seulement la valeur des observances. Rien ne prouve que le discours du ch. v en soit « dégagé »; on dira plutôt qu'il contient la solution en germe, et encore moins clairement que les paroles de Jésus dans Me. (vu, 14-23) et Mt. (xv, 10-20) sur les aliments. Que l'Écriture ait annoncé le Messie, c'élait la foi commune des Juifs, et d’après les synoptiques, Jésus luimême leur ἃ montré que l'Écriture témoignait de lui dans un sens qu'ils ne comprenaient pas (Mf. xxr, 42; xxu1, 43 et paral.). C'est aussi d'après Mt. (χι, 4) et Le. (να, 22) qu'il a fait appel au pouvoir démonstratif de ses œuvres, et si Mc. raconte tant de miracles, c'est pour prouver que Jésus est le Fils de Dieu. Le témoignage du Baptiste n'était qu'un premier indice; c'est plutôt Jésus qui ἃ rendu témoignage à son précurseur, et dans les synoptiques (Mt. xr, 7-10; Le. νη, 24-21) plus longuement que dans Jo. Le fond du discours tout entier est donc déjà dans les synoptiques. Ce qu'il y ἃ de nouveau, c'est la manière. Aussi ne prétendons-nous pas que cetle manière ne d'‘pende pas en partie de la personnalité de l'évangéliste. Mais il n’y ἃ aucune raison de refuser le caractère historique d’un discours comme celui-là dans Ja circonstance indiquée. À vrai dire le miracle appelait plutôt une discussion sur le sabbat. Mais dès le début la queslion s'élève et change d'aspect. Le mécontentement des Juifs oblige Jésus à se justifier : il n’a en rien dépassé sa mission c'est eux qui ont tort de ne pas reconnaître l'autorité que lui donnent ses miracles. La distribution du discours en deux parties est claire; maïs la suite des idées ne l’est pas toujours. Il ressemble plutôt à une improvisation contrainte à des diversions par la résistance de l'auditoire, qu’à une composition méditée à loisir. On peut d’ailleurs estimer que Jo. ἃ omis quelques transitions, et aussi qu'il ἃ ajouté des pensées qui ne faisaient pas partie de ce contexte. Mais que Jésus ait eu cette explication de principe avec les Juifs, c'est ce qu'on ne saurait nier sans parti pris. Cette explication paraîtra d'autant mieux adaptée à la circonstance qu'on l’entendra, avec saint Cyrille, plutôt de la situation qui résulte pour le Fils de sa mission dans la chair, que des rapports qui résultent pour lui dès l'éternité de sa génération comme Verbe et Fils. Chapitre vi. Le PAIN DE vie. Ce chapitre est consacré au pain de vie. Il débule par le récit de la multiplication des pains et se termine par la promulgation de lEucharistie. La déclaration centrale : « Je suis le pain de vie » (35), est amenée par l’allusion des Galiléens à la manne (31), occasionnée elle-même par le miracle des pains. Elle est reprise au v. 51, pour servir de point de départ immédiat à l’enseignement eucharistique. Tout cela forme un tout, avec le souci de préparer les esprits à l’aete de foi en la nourriture réelle et spirituelle qu'est le corps du Sauveur avec son sang. On peut cependant estimer que l'épisode de Jésus sur les eaux (16-21) n'est pas indispensable à ce cycle pour sa valeur doctrinale. Sans doute la personne de Jésus en est rehaussée, mais ce n'était pas une raison suffisante, après les miracles déjà racontés, pour introduire ici cet épisode que les Galiléens ont seulement soupçonné, si Jo. n'avait eu qu'un but théologique ou symbolique. I] ἃ raconté le fait simplement parce qu'il s'était passé après la multiplication des pains et avant le grand entretien avec les Galiléens, qui avait eu lieu à Capharnaüm. C'est un des cas où il est clair qu'il a tenu compte des exigences de l'histoire. Tout le reste est sur le même thème; nous poserons plus loin la question de la composition du grand discours.
5:1
ỷ. 1. POST HÆC ERAT DIES FESTUS JUDEORUM. La fête des Juifs étant arrivée, JESUS alla à Jérusalem. Quelle étoit cette Fête des Juifs? Quelques Anciens ont crû que c’étoit la Pentecôte : Mais d’autres fou-tiennent que c’est la Fête de Pâque ; & c’est l’opinion qui nous paroît la plus probable. Plusieurs bons manuscrits Grecs portent l’article qui désigne la grande Fête, la principale, la Fête par excellence, qui étoit la Pâque parmi les Juifs. Et quand cet article ne s’y trouveroit pas, on n’en pourroit rien inférer contre la Pâque ; puisque cette Fête se trouve quelquefois marquée dans le Grec de Joseph, & des Evangélistes, par le simple nom de Fête, sans article. L’ordre des temps le rapporte très-bien à notre sentiment ; & si ce n’est point la Fête de Pâque, on ne peut bonnement marquer aucune autre Fête à laquelle conviennent toutes les circonstances de celle-ci. Quelques-uns veulent que ce soit la Fête des Sorts, qui se célébroit le 15. du mois Adar : mais on n’apporte aucune raison pour appuyer cette conjecture.
5:2
ỷ. 2. EST AUTEM JEROSOLYMIS PROBATICA PISCINA. Or il y a dans Jérusalem la piscine des brebis. Quelques exemplaires Grecs lisent : Il y avoit. En effet saint Jean écrivit son Evangile plusieurs années après la ruine de Jérusalem, & dans un tems où cette piscine n’étoit plus dans cette ville. Mais on appelloit toujours Jérusalem, la place où elle étoit auparavant. Et quant à la piscine, on l’y a montré toujours depuis. Elle ne fut point détruite avec la ville. Seulement on démolit les bâtimens qui l’environnoient. Saint Jérôme parle de cette piscine. Le Voyageur Benjamin, & Brocard l’ont vûe. Nos Voyageurs en font aussi mention. Elle étoit à l’Orient de la ville, près la vallée de Josaphat, & la porte du troupeau. Elle étoit pleine des eaux de la fontaine de Siloë, qui a sa source près de-là.
PROBATICA PISCINA, vient du Grec, & signifie, une piscine des brebis. On prétend qu’elle portoit ce nom, à cause que l’on y lavoit les moutons, les agneaux, ou les brebis que l’on devoit offrir en sacrifice. D’autres croyent qu’on y lavoit feulement les intestins, & les entrailles des animaux qu’on avoit immolez dans le Temple. Quelques uns lisent ainsi le Texte Grec : Or il y avoit à Jérusalem à la porte des brebis, ou du troupeau, une piscine nommée Bethesda. L’Ecriture parle en plus d’un endroit de cette porte du troupeau & on dit qu’elle tiroit son nom des animaux qu’on menoit au Temple pour les sacrifices. Mais la plûpart des Exemplaires Latins, l’Arabe, l’Ethiopien, saint Chrysostome, Théodore de Mopsueste, Ammonius, Théophylacte, saint Jérôme, Béde, font conformes à la Vulgate ; & cette leçon fait un assez bon sens. Toutefois il est dur de donner ici deux noms à cette piscine ; un Grec, c’est probatica, qui signifie des brebis ; & l’autre Hébreu, Bethesda, qui veut dire la maison de miséricorde. C’est peut-être la même piscine qui est nommée piscine de Siloë dans Néhémie. Ligfoot veut que cette piscine, ou ce savoir ait été destiné, non à laver les victimes, ni avant, ni après le sacrifice ; mais à baigner ceux qui avoient contracté quelques soüillures. Cette piscine étoit appellée Bethsaïda, selon les Exemplaires Latins ; & Bethesda, selon les Grecs. On ne convient pas quelle est la meilleure leçon. Betsaida signifie la maison de la pêche, peut-être à cause qu’il y avoit dans cette piscine quelques poissons ; ou plûtôt, parce qu’elle étoit comme un réservoir. Quelques Manuscrits Grecs, le Cophte, l’Ethiopien, Theophylacte, Tertullien, saint Euchère suivent cette manière de lire, aussi-bien que la Vulgate. Mais la plûpart sont pour Bethesda, qui signifie, la maison de miséricorde ; à cause des pauvres, & des malades qui étoient toujours au tour de cette piscine, attendant le mouvement de l’eau, pour se jeter dedans, & recevoir la santé. Cette piscine avoit cinq portiques ; c’est-à-dire, autour d’elle étoit un bâtiment à cinq portiques, bâti pour le logement des malades, & pour la commodité de ceux qui venoient pour s’y baigner, ou pour y laver autre chose.
5:3
ỷ. 3. IN HIS JACEBAT MULTITUDO MAGNA LAN- GUENTIUM. Dans lesquelles étoient couchez un grand nombre de malades, d’aveugles, de boiteux, de ceux qui avoient les membres desséchés. Toutes ces fortes de maladies étoient guéries miraculeusement, lorsque l’Ange du Seigneur venoit remuër l’eau. Le premier qui pouvoit se jetter dans l’eau, après le remuëment de l’Ange, étoit infailliblement guéri. D’où vient qu’il y avoit là grand nombre de malades qui attendoient l’heureux moment pour se jetter dans la piscine.
5:4
ỷ. 4. ANGELUS DESCENDEBAT SECUNDUM TEMPUS. L’Ange du Seigneur en un certain tems descendoit dans cette piscine. On ne convient point du tems auquel l’Ange descendoit; si c’étoit aux trois principales Fêtes de l’année, ou seulement à la Pentecôte, ou à Pâque, ou dans quelque autre Fête; ou enfin dans des tems incertains, & connus seulement de Dieu. De-là dépend la résolution d’une autre question; sçavoir, si les malades demeuroient toujours sous les portiques de la piscine, ou si on ne les y apportoit qu’aux jours où l’on présumoit que l’eau seroit remuée par le moyen de l’Ange. La manière dont le Paralytique répond au Sauveur ici ỷ. 7. montre, ce me semble, que les malades y demeuroient toujours, jusqu’à ce qu’ils eussent obtenu la santé: Seigneur, dit-il, je n’ai personne pour me jeter dans la piscine après que l’eau a été troublée; & pendant le tems que je mets à y aller, un autre y descendant avant moi. Si l’heure, & le jour de la descente de l’Ange eussent été réglés, ce Paralytique, qui avoit du monde pour l’apporter à la piscine, pusqu’il n’y pouvoit venir de lui-même, en auroit eu aussi sans doute pour le jetter dans l’eau, & n’auroit pas été là trente huit ans, sans y pouvoir descendre, parce qu’il n’avoit pas le moyen d’entretenir auprès de foi un homme, qui dans le moment que l’eau étoit troublée, le jettât dans la piscine, avant qu’un autre y descendit. On dispute aussi sur l’Ange qui descendoit pour troubler l’eau de la piscine. On demande si c’étoit un bon, ou un mauvais Ange; s’il descendoit d’une manière sensible, & sous une forme corporelle. Quelques-uns ont cru que c’étoit un simple homme qui venoit troubler l’eau dans laquelle on avoit lavé les victimes égorgées, & leurs intestins, & qu’il étoit appellé Ange du Seigneur, parce qu’il étoit envoyé du Temple, & à cause de l’effet qui suivoit, & qu’on croyoit miraculeux. Hammond conjecture qu’il étoit purement naturel; & que le sang, & la graisse qui étoient dans cette eau, étant échauffez, & remuez, pouvoient causer dans les humeurs de celui qui descendoit alors dans la piscine, un mouvement capable de lui rendre la santé. Mais on s’en rapporte aux plus habiles Physiciens, & aux Médecins les plus contraires aux miracles, si un aveugle, un boiteux, un paralytique de trente-huit ans; car ce n’est pas sans raison que l’Évangéliste a specifié ces circonstances; peut tout d’un coup recevoir la guérison, en se plongeant dans une piscine où l’on avoit lavé les corps, & les intestins de quelques animaux égorgée. Mais cela même qu’on suppose qu’on y lavoit les intestins des victimes, est démenti par les Auteurs Juifs, qui enseignent qu’on ne les lavoit que dans le Temple. D’autres ont soupçonné que ce qui est dit ici d’un Ange qui venoit troubler l’eau, n’est qu’une manière de parler populaire des Hébreux, lesquels ont accoutumé de donner le nom d’Ange à la vertu de Dieu. Suivant cette hypothèse, il faudroit dire que l’Ange du Seigneur qui venoit troubler l’eau, n’étoit autre que la vertu invisible de Dieu, qui faisoit cet effet, & qui lui imprimoit une qualité propre à guérir les maladies par des voies surnaturelles. Quelques-uns ont cru que c’étoit l’Archange Raphaël, nommé la Médecine de Dieu, & destiné principalement à la guérison des maladies. Maldonat croit qu’il ne descendoit pas sous une forme visible. En effet l’Evangile ne dit pas que l’on vit l’Ange ; mais seulement que l’eau étoit troublée, & que le premier malade qui descendoit, étoit guéri. Or si l’Ange ne paroît point, comment pouvoit-on savoir que c’étoit un Ange qui venoit troubler l’eau ? Il répond que l’on pouvoit savoir cela par tradition, ou même par quelque révélation particulière. Au reste on ne trouve aucun vestige de cette piscine miraculeuse ni dans Joseph, ni dans Philon, ni dans les Auteurs Juifs. Il y a apparence qu’elle n’étoit pas ancienne, ou que l’Ange ne descendoit que rarement ; ce qui a fait qu’on ne s’est point appliqué à relever les miracles qui y arrivoient. On remarque que ce verset ne se lit point dans l’ancien Manuscrit Grec, & Latin de Cambridge, ni dans deux Exemplaires Coptes de la Bibliothéque du Roi, ni dans un Manuscrit Grec de M. de Colbert ; & que dans quelques autres Exemplaires, il se voit non dans le Texte, mais seulement à la marge. Dans quelques autres Manuscrits, on lit ici : Car en certains tems l’Ange du Seigneur se baignoit dans la piscine, & troublolt l’eau. Béde, & après lui Génébrard, & Serrarius ont crû, du moins ils ont rapporté comme une ancienne tradition, que la piscine probatique étoit le même endroit où Jérémie cacha le feu sacré, un peu avant la destruction du Temple par Nabuchodonosor ; & d’où on le retira après la captivité, les Prêtres ayant trouvé de l’eau bourbeuse, au lieu du feu. Brocard dit que cette piscine avoit été construite par Salomon, & que les Nathinéens, ou serviteurs du Temple, y lavoient les victimes qu’ils présentoient aux Prêtres pour être offertes en sacrifice. Le même Génébrard que l’on a cité plus haut, allégué un ancien Manuscrit, qui portoit que l’eau de cette fontaine avoit été produite par un tremblement de terre, qui arriva au jour de la Conception de JESUS-CHRIST ; & que la vertu de l’eau, & l’eau elle-même ne subsistèrent que jusqu’au jour de sa Pasion. Mais nous rangeons tout cela au rang des contes fabuleux, inventez par l’ignorance, & autorisez par la superstition.
QUI PRIOR DESCENDISSET, SANUS FIEBAT. Celui qui y entroit le premier, étoit guéri, quelque maladie qu’il eût. Ce n’étoit donc pas un effet naturel dans cette eau, ni un effet permanent. Les Peres remarquent que cette piscine étoit une figure du baptême institué par JESUS-CHRIST, dans lequel toutes les maladies de nos ames font pleinement guéries; je veux dire, tous les péchez, tant le péché originel, que les actuels: Car la concupiscence, qui est une peine du péché, demeure en nous jusqu’à la mort, pour nous donner matière de mérite, & d’exercice.
5:5
ỷ. 5. TRIGINTA ET OCTO ANNOS HABENS IN INFIRMITATE. Qui étoit malade depuis trente-huit ans. L’Evangéliste ne nous dit pas quelle étoit sa maladie. Quelques-uns ont conjecturé qu’il étoit aveugle: mais la plûpart croyent qu’il étoit paralytique; & que ne pouvant se remuer, il étoit toujours prévenu par quelqu’autre plus habile, ou mieux secouru par ceux qui les gardoient. Ce nombre de trente-huit ans de maladie est remarquable, pour relever la grandeur du miracle.
5:6
ỷ. 6. VIS SANUS FIERI? Voulez-vous être guéri. JESUS-CHRIST par cette demande veut exciter en lui la foi, l’espérance, le désir de la santé; il veut lui faire faire réflexion sur son état si malheureux. Les Prédicateurs doivent ainsi aller remuer les cœurs des pécheurs endurcis: Voulezvous être guéri? Songez que vous êtes malade, & que votre mal n’est pas sans reméde. Pensez sérieusement à recourir au médecin. Le Sauveur nous dit souvent la même chose au fond du cœur par ses inspirations.
5:8
ỷ. 8. TOLLE GRABATUM TUUM, ET AMBULA. Emportez votre lit, & marchez. JESUS commande en Maître, & en Dieu, en parlant à la maladie. Il n’exige point la foi de la part de ce malade, qui ne le connoissoit pas, & ne l’avoit point où prêcher: mais il lui donne assez à connoître qui il est, par la manière pleine d’autorité dont il lui commande d’emporter son grabat, quoiqu’il fût le jour du Sabbat. Il lui insinuoit deux choses. La première, qu’il étoit plus puissant que l’Ange qui venoit troubler l’eau de la piscine, & lui communiquer la vertu de guérir un seul malade; puisque par sa seule parole, il lui rendoit la santé, & la vigueur de se soutenir, pour emporter son lit, & pour marcher. La seconde, qu’il étoit Maître du Sabbat, & qu’il avoit droit de dispenser de l’observation des Loix cérémonielles, & même de les supprimer entièrement. On remarque que le Sauveur avoit coutume, après les miracles qu’il avoit fait, d’y joindre quelques circonstances, qui en attestoient la vérité. Après la multiplication des cinq pains, il veut qu’on ramasse les restes, qui se trouvèrent plus abondans que les pains mêmes qu’il avoit multipliez. Après le changement de l’eau en vin à Cana, il ordonne qu’on en porte au Maître d’hôtel, pour le goûter. Lorsqu’il avoit guéri des lépreux, il les envoyoit aux Prêtres, pour être témoins de leur guérison. Ici il ne se contente pas d’avoir guéri le paralytique ; il lui commande de se lever, de marcher, d’emporter son lit.
5:9
ỷ. 9. ERAT AUTEM SABBATUM. Or ce jour-là étoit un jour de Sabbat. On fait que la Loi désendoit toute œuvre servile au jour du Sabbat. Le repos y étoit commandé rigoureusement ; & en particulier, on ne permettoit pas d’y porter aucun fardeau. M. Toynard croit que ceci arriva le 11. de Nisan, qui étoit le jour de Sabbat d’avant la Fête de Pâque, qui se célèbra le Mercredy 14. de Nyfan, 28. Mars. Mais d’où vient que le Sauveur ordonnoit à cet homme de porter son lit ce jour-là ? N’auroit-il pas suffi, après l’avoir guéri, de lui dire de s’en retourner dans sa maison ? les Commentateurs répondent 1°. Qu’il vouloit montrer par-là qu’il étoit Maître du Sabbat Dominus est Filius hominis etiam Sabbathi. 2°. Cette action n’étoit pas contraire à l’esprit de la Loi, quoiqu’elle lui parût contraire prise à la lettre. Le Sabbat étoit fait pour honorer Dieu. Or cette action étoit un monument public de sa puissance, & de sa bonté. 3°. Il étoit de la sagelle du Sauveur de faire en forte que les preuves de sa Divinité, que les miracles fussent connus d’un très-grand nombre de personnes sur tout dans Jérusalem, qui étoit la Capitale du pays ; & le centre de la Religion des Juifs. Or le prodige de la guérison de cet homme ne pouvoit devenir plus éclattant que par la circonstance du jour du Sabbat, & par celle du transport du lit par le paralytique guéri.
5:11
ỷ. 11. QUI ME SANUM FECIT, &c. Celui qui m’a guéri, m’a dit : Emportez votre lit. Ce malade guéri par JESUS-CHRIST, raïsonne fort juste. Celui qui m’a rendu la santé est certainement un saint homme, ou un Prophète, ou le Messie lui-même ; car il ne le connoissoit pas distinctement. Or s’il y avoit eu du mal à marcher, & à emporter mon lit, il l’auroit sçu, sans doute, & ne m’auroit pas commandé de le faire ; il n’y a donc point de mal. Non acciperem jussionem, à quo acceperam sanitatem ? dit saint Augustin.
5:13
ỷ. 13. JESUS DECLINAVIT A TURBA. JESUS s’étoit retiré de la foule. Aussi-tôt qu’il eut fait ce miracle, il se retira, & ne parut plus sur la place. Le terme Grec de l’Original porte : Mais JESUS s’échappa lorsqu’il vit qu’il s’élevoit du tumulte dans ce lieu. JESUS ayant vu que le peuple s’attroupoit, & commençoit à faire du bruit, à cause que cet homme emportoît son lit, se retira seettement de la foule, il se sauva. Ou bien : JESUS s’échappa ; parce qu’il y avoit beaucoup de monde dans cet endroit. Il eut la facilité de se sauver sans être apperçu, à cause de la foule qui se trouva là, soit qu’elle s’y soit assemblée au bruit du miracle, ou au bruit de ceux qui reprenoient cet homme d’emporter son lit. Ou enfin, il se retira, parce qu’il y avoit là beaucoup de monde, voulant éviter les applaudissemens, & les loüanges de la multitude.
5:14
ỷ. 14. INVENIT EUM JESUS IN TEMPOLO. JESUS trouva cet homme dans le Temple. Le premier dessein de JESUS-CHRIST en guérissant ce malade, étoit de donner des preuves publiques de sa Divinité, & de sa puissance ; & le deuxième étoit de rendre à ce malade la santé de l’âme, après lui avoir donnée celle du corps. Tandis qu’on ne le connoît pas comme Auteur de cette guérison, on n’en put rien conclure en faveur de sa qualité de Messie ; & tandis que le malade ne sçut pas qui l’avoit guéri, il ne tira aucun avantage de sa santé pour le salut de son âme. JESUS lui déclare donc ici que c’est lui qui lui a rendu la santé, & en même tems il lui apprend deux choses. La première, que la maladie étoit une fuite de ses péchez ; & la seconde, que s’il ne travailloit à se corriger, il pourroit lui arriver pis. Vous voyez que vous êtes guéri, ne péchez plus à l’avenir, de peur qu’il ne vous arrive quelque chose de pis. Cette déclaration prouvoit distinctement sa Divinité, puisqu’il pénétroit dans le passé, & dans l’avenir.
5:15
ỷ. 15. ABIIT HOMO, ET NUNTIAVIT JUDEIS, &c. Cet homme alla trouver les Juifs, & leur dit que c’étoit JESUS qui l’avoit guéri. Il crut devoir cela à la reconnoissance du bienfait qu’il avoit reçu. Il publia par tout que JESUS étoit le Médecin tout-puissant, qui l’avoit guéri. Il n’eut garde de leur répéter que c’étoit lui qui lui avoit commandé d’emporter son lit, il savoit le tumulte que cela avoit causé ; il se contente de rendre témoignage à la vérité.
5:16
ỷ. 16. PROPTEREA PERSEQUENTUR. C’est pour cette raison que les Juifs persecutoient JESUS ; parce qu’il faisoit ces choses le jour du Sabbat, qu’il guérissoit, qu’il disfoit aux malades d’emporter leur lit. Voilà tout son crime; ou plûtôt, voilà le seul prétexte que leur jalusie, & leur animosité pûrent inventer, pour colorer leurs persécutions, & leur mauvaise volonté. Les Exemplaires Grecs ajoutent qu’ils cherchoient à faire mourir JESUS.
5:17
ỷ. 17. JESUS RESPONDIT EIS. JESUS leur dit : Mon Pere ne cesse point d’agir jusqu’à présent, & j’agis aussi incessamment. Comme les Juifs lui faisoient des reproches de ce qu’il violoit le Sabbat, il leur répondoit par un raisonnement, qui prouve qu’il est Dieu, & par consequent maître de dispenser de l’observation du Sabbat : Mon Pere, & moi dit-il nous travaillons sans cesse à la conservation, & au gouvernement de l’univers ; & nous y travaillons sans aucun égard au jour du Sabbat. L’observation du repos de ce jour ne nous regarde point. J’ai donc droit de commander à un homme, qui travaille à la gloire de mon Pere, & à la mienne, & sur qui j’exerce ma puissance, & celle de mon Pere, d’emporter son lit, nonobstant la Loi du Sabbat. Si la seule raison que vous avez pour observer le repos du Sabbat, est de sanctifier un jour, où Dieu même s’est reposé, après avoir créé le monde, cette raison ne peut empêcher ni mon Pere, ni moi d’agir le jour du Sabbat, comme un autre jour. Sa puissance est infinie, & indépendante. Il opére toujours quand il veut, & comme il veut, sans que personne puisse lui imposer des Loix, ni l’obliger à l’action, ou au repos Et comme je suis son Verbe, & sa Sagesse, & qu’il ne peut agir sans moi, comme je ne puis agir sans lui, la Loi du Sabbat n’est pas pour moi, non plus que pour lui.
5:18
ỷ. 18. PATREM SUUM DICEBAT DEUM, ÆQUAEM SE, &c. Il disoit que Dieu étoit son Pere, se faisant ainsi égal à Dieu. Les Juifs comprirent fort bien où alloit le raisonnement de JESUS-CHRIST, & qu’il prouvoit que Dieu étoit son Pere, qu’il étoit égal à Dieu, & qu’il étoit le vrai Messie, Sauveur de tout le monde. Ils songèrent donc à le faire mourir non-seulement comme violateur du Sabbat; car c’étoit déjà un crime digne de mort; mais beaucoup plus pour le prétendu blaphème qu’il commettoit, en se disant Dieu, & égal à Dieu.
5:19
ỷ. 19. NON POTEST FILIUS A SE FACERE QUIDQUAM. Le Fils ne peut rien faire de lui-même. JESUS-CHRIST continué son discours interrompu par le ỷ. 18. qui doit être lû en parenthèse : J’agis toujours inséparablement de mon Pere. Comme je ne puis rien faire sans lui, aussi il ne peut rien faire sans moi. Je ne fais que ce que je lui vois faire. Nos vûës, nos actions, notre puissance font entièrement les mêmes. Tout ce que le Pere fait, le Fils le fait aussi comme lui: Nihil à se facit Filius, quia per unitatem operationis, nec Filius sine Patre facit, nec sine Filio Pater.
NON POTEST FILIUS A SE FACERE QUIDQUAM. Le Fils ne peut rien faire de lui-même ; il ne fait que ce qu’il voit faire au Pere. Les Ariens concluoient de ce passage, que le Fils étoit inférieur au Pere. Mais on leur repondoit en trois manières. 1°. Le Fils de Dieu étant le Verbe, & la Sagesse par laquelle Dieu a créé toutes choses ; le Pere n’a rien fait sans lui ; & tout ce que le Pere a fait, le Fils le lui a vu faire, & l’a fait avec lui. Il n’est donc pas inférieur au Pere. 2°. Le Fils non-seulement ne fait rien ; mais aussi ne peut rien faire que ce qu’il voit fait au Pere. Or il est impossible que le Pere fasse jamais le mal, ni qu’il tombe dans aucune imperfection : Donc le Fils est Dieu ; car s’il n’est pas Dieu, il peut faire ce que le Pere ne peut pas ; il n’est ni infallible, ni impeccable, ni exempt de défauts, ni tout puissant. 3°. Enfin il montre par là que quelque union, & quelque égalité de nature, & de puissance qui se rencontrent entre le Pere, & lui, ils ne sont pas toutefois une même personne, puisque le Fils voit le Pere qui agit, & qu’il ne fait que ce qu’il voit faire au Pere. Il est aisé d’en conclure que si le Fils est coupable du violement du Sabbat, le Pere l’est aussi.
5:20
ỷ. 20. PATER DILIGIT FILIUM. Le Pere aime le Fils, & lui montre ce qu’il fait. Le Pere ne fait rien sans la participation du Fils, ni le Fils sans la participation du Pere. Le Sauveur parle ici d’une manière humaine, comme s’il étoit le Disciple, & l’imitateur du Pere. Il l’écoute comme son Maître ; il le considère comme son modèle ; il ne fait que ce qu’il lui voit faire ; & le Pere comme un Maître plein d’affection, n’a rien de caché pour lui. Mais de peur qu’on ne s’imaginât qu’il étoit inférieur au Pere, & qu’il en dépendoit dans ses opérations, il ajoute que le Pere lui fera voir des actions plus extraordinaires que celle qu’il a faite, en guérissant l’homme paralytique depuis trente-huit ans. Le Fils à l’imitation du Pere, ressuscitera les morts, & convertira les pécheurs les plus endurcis. En même-tems qu’il relève la grandeur du Pere, il fait conserver le degré d’égalité, & de puissance qu’il a avec lui. Si le Pere est le Maître, & le modèle de son Fils en tant qu’homme, le Fils est parfaitement égal au Pere en tant que Dieu.
5:21
ỷ. 21. SICUT PATER SUSCITAT MORTUOS. Comme le Pere ressuscite les morts, ainsi le Fils donne la vie à qui il lui plaît. Voilà encore l’égalité de puissance, & d’indépendance bien marquée. Le Pere a ressuscité les morts par les Prophètes Elie, & Elifée; le Fils les ressuscitera de même par sa propre vertu, par lui-même, & par ses Apôtres. S’il peut cela il peut bien dispenser de l’observation du Sabbat. Il donne la resurrection des morts, comme un exemple de ces merveilles qu’il devoit faire, & qui devoient être beaucoup plus grandes que ce qu’on lui avoit vû faire jusqu’alors; car il n’avoit point encore ressuscité de morts. Il ajoute qu’il donne la vie à qui il lui plaît, pour montrer sa puissance absolue, & indépendante.
5:22
ỷ. 22. NEQUE ENIM PATER JUDICAT QUEMQUAM. Le Pere ne juge personne; mais il a donné au Fils tout pouvoir de juger. Le Pere ne juge pas seul; il a communiqué au Fils le pouvoir de juger avec lui. Ceci confirme ce qu’il a dit ci-devant, versets 17. 19. que le Pere n’agit point sans Le Fils, ni le Fils sans le Pere. Leur pouvoir est égal ; leurs actions font communes. Le Fils de Dieu a reçu ce pouvoir de juger avec le Pere dans sa génération éternelle avant tous les siécles. Quelques-uns veulent que le Fils de Dieu ait reçu le pouvoir de juger comme Dieu homme, lors qu’après la résurrection le Pere l’établit juge. Grolius croit qu’on peut aussi l’entendre dans un premier sens, de la vengeance que le Fils de Dieu doit exercer sur la ville de Jérusalem, qui fera une figure d’un autre Jugement, qu’il exercera sur tous les hommes à la fin du monde. JESUS-CHRIST mêle l’ordinaire ces deux objets, lorsqu’il parle de l’exercice de la vengeance.
5:23
ỷ. 23. UT OMNES HONORIFICENT FILIUM. Afin que tous honorent le Fils, comme ils honorent le Pere. Les Juifs n’avoient pas une connoissance distincte de la Divinité du Messie. Ils l’attendoient comme un grand Prince, & un puissant Monarque : mais ils ne songeoient point à lui rendre des honneurs divins, & à le regarder comme le Juge tout-puissant des vivans, & des morts. JESUS-CHRIST les veut tirer de cette erreur. Il leur apprend que le Fils de l’homme, le Christ, le Verbe, le Messie est égal au Pere en puissance, & en autorité ; qu’il fait les mêmes œuvres que le Pere, & qu’il juge comme lui tous les hommes : Par conséquent, qu’il mérite les mêmes respects, & les mêmes adorations que le Pere ; & il les mérite, parce qu’il est Fils de l’homme, comme il le dit au ỷ. 27. c’est-à-dire, parce qu’étant égal à Dieu, il s’est rabaissé jusqu’à prendre une forme humaine, & à paroître comme un serviteur ; se rendant obéissant jusqu’à la mort, & à la mort de la Croix. C’est pourquoi Dieu l’a élevé, & lui a donné un nom au-dessus de tout nom ; afin qu’au nom de JESUS, tout genoû fléchisse dans le Ciel, sur la terre, & dans l’enfer.
QUI NON HONORIFICAT FILIUM. Celui qui n’honore point le Fils, n’honore point le Pere qui l’a envoyé. Ce seroit peu d’honorer le Fils, parce que le Pere l’a envoyé ; & de borner là l’honneur qu’on lui rend ; nous devons honorer par ce même motif, les Apôtres, & tous ceux qui viennent au nom du Seigneur. Mais il faut rendre au Fils un honneur égal à celui qu’on rend au Pere, parce que le Pere, & le Fils font égaux en puissance, & ne font qu’une même essence.
5:24
ỷ. 24. QUI VERBUM MEUM AUDIT. Celui qui entend ma parole, & croit en celui qui m’a envoyé, a la vie éternelle. Entendre la parole du Fils de Dieu, croire en lui, c’est entendre les ordres du Pere, & croire au Pere. L’un, & l’autre donne la vie éternelle. On ne peut croire au Fils, sans croire au Pere qui l’a envoyé ; & on ne peut avoir part à la vie éternelle, si on ne croit à l’un, & à l’autre. Par cette créance, on passe de la mort à la vie ; car si celui qui ne croit point, est dans un état de mort, il est clair que celui qui croit, & qui passe de l’infidélité à la foi, passe de la mort à la vie.
5:25
ỷ. 25. MORTUI AUDIENT VOCEM FILII DEI. Les morts entendront la voix du Fils de Dieu ; & ceux qui l’entendront, vivront. Il vient de comparer ceux qui font de l’infidélité, pour embrasser la foi, à des gens qui passent de la mort à la vie. Ici il continuë dans la même allégorie : L’heure est venue que les morts, ceux qui sont dans les ténébres de l’infidélité, resusciteront, & viendront à la foi. Et comment y viendront-ils? En écoutant la voix du Fils de Dieu, en le rendant les festateurs, & les Disciples. Les morts en cet endroit, marquent ou les Juifs, ou les payens, ou les uns, & les autres. Nul d’entre eux ne peut parvenir à la vie, que par la foi en JESUS-CHRIST. D’autres entendent ceci de la résurrection réelle des morts que le Sauveur a ressuscitez durant sa vie. Il confirme ce qu’il a dit au ỷ. 21. que comme le Pere ressuscite les morts, aussi le Fils donne la vie à qui il lui plaît. Maldonat croit qu’il regarde la dernière résurrection, qui doit arriver à la fin du monde. Mais comment peut-il dire en ce sens que l’heure vient, & qu’elle est déjà venue, que les morts entendront la voix du Fils de Dieu? La première explication me paroît la plus littérale, & la mieux liée avec ce qui précède.
5:26
ỷ. 26. SICUT PATER HABET VITAM IN SEMETIPSO. Comme le Pere a la vie en lui-même, il a aussi donné au Fils d’avoir la vie en lui-même. Les hommes jouïssent de la vie par un effet de la bonté de Dieu; mais ils n’en jouïssent que pour un tems. C’est un bien passager, & emprunté. Le Fils de Dieu a la vie, & il l’a en lui-même, & par lui-même; non depuis un tems, ni pour un certain terme; mais de toute éternité, & pour toujours, de même que son Pere éternel. Comme le Pere est la source de la vie, qu’il est la vie essentielle, le Fils l’est aussi. Il la donne à qui il veut. Nul ne vit que par lui, soit que l’on entende la vie du corps, ou la vie de l’ame par la sanctification, & par la foi; ou enfin la résurrection. JESUS-CHRIST est la voie, la vérité, & la vie.
5:27
ỷ. 27. POTESTATEM JUDICIUM FACERE. Il lui a donné même le pouvoir de juger, parce qu’il est le Fils de l’homme. (ỷ. 28.) Ne vous étonnez pas de ceci. Saint Chrysostome, & Theophylacte ponctüent le Texte autrement : Et il lui a donné le pouvoir de juger. Ne vous étonnez point que ce soit le Fils de l’homme. Saint Chrysostome désaprouve même la manière dont nous lisons ordinairement ce Texte, prétendant que c’est une invention de Paul de Samosate. Mais on l’explique fort bien dans un sens Catholique, en disant que JESUS-CHRIST comme homme, a reçu du Pere la puissance de juger ; parce qu’en cette qualité de Juge, il doit paroître d’une manière visible assis sur un tribunal, & faire comparoître en sa présence tous les hommes au Jugement dernier. Saint Augustin croit qu’il paroîtra comme homme, & comme Juge à tous les hommes, & comme Dieu seulement aux Elûs : In Judicio forma servi & bonis, & malis ostendetur ; forma Dei solis bonis servabitur. En tant que Dieu, le Fils a par lui-même la puissance de juger le monde : mais comme Fils de l’homme, il l’a reçu du Pere, puisqu’en cette qualité il tient tout de lui. Judicium facere, se prend aussi pour exercer la vengeance, pour regner. Le Fils de Dieu en qualité d’homme, est établi Roi sur tout l’univers. Il doit exercer contre les Juifs incrédules la vengeance terrible, dont il les ménace si souvent dans l’Evangile.
5:28
ỷ. 28. NOLITE MIRARI HOC. Ne vous étonnez point de cela. Ne soyez pas surpris que je vous dise que le Fils de l’homme a reçu du Pere la puissance d’exercer sa vengeance sur les Juifs rébelles, & incrédules ; je vais vous dire quelque chose de plus fort: Il est établi Juge de tous les hommes au Jugement dernier, & universel. Le tems viendra que les morts qui sont dans les sépulcres, entendront la voix du Fils de l’homme, qui les ressuscitera par sa puissance, & qui envoyera ses Anges, pour les rassembler devant lui en jugement. Alors ỷ. 29. ceux qui auront fait des bonnes œuvres, sortiront de leurs tombeaux, pour ressusciter à la vie; & ceux qui en auront fait de mauvaises, en sortiront, pour ressusciter à leur condamnation. Tous les hommes ressusciteront, & paraîtront devant mon tribunal: mais je ferai la distinction des bons, & des méchans, des boucs, & des agneaux. Je mettrai les bons à ma droite, & je les placerai dans le Ciel; je mettrai les mechans à ma gauche, & les enverrai dans les feux éternel, qui est préparé au Démon, & à ses Anges. Chacun fera jugé, justifié, ou condamné suivant ses œuvres bonnes ou mauvaises.
5:30
ỷ. 30. NON POSSUMA ME IPSO FACERE QUIDQUAM. Je ne puis rien faire de moi-même. De peur qu’on s’imaginât que le Pere, & lui jugent séparément, ou que son jugement pourra ne s’accorder pas avec celui du Pere, il dit qu’il ne fait rien sans son Pere; qu’il ne juge que suivant ce qu’il apprend de lui; que son jugement est toujours juste, & infaillible; en un mot que s’il juge, ce n’est point comme homme, mais comme Dieu; ce n’est point par une autorité humaine, mais par la puissance divine.
QUIA NON QUERO VOLUNTATEM MEAM. Parce que je ne cherche point ma volonté; mais la volonté de celui qui m’a envoyé. Voici la preuve de l’équité, & de l’infaillibilité de son jugement; c’est qu’il ne juge que suivant la volonté, & les lumières du Pere Eternel. Or cette volonté est incapable d’égarement. Ces lumières ne sont point sujettes à l’erreur. Le jugement du Fils est donc infaillible. Les juges ordinaires se laissent corrompre ou par l’avarice, ou par l’amitié, ou par l’ambition, ou par la haine; ils se trompent faute de lumière, & de pénétration. Rien de pareil dans celui qui est Dieu, & qui ne fuit que les lumières, & la volonté de Dieu.
5:31
ỷ. 31. SI EGO TESTIMONIUM PERHIBEO DE ME IPSO. Si je rend témoignage de moi, mon témoignage n’est point véritable. Si j’étois seul, & que je ne parlasse que de mon propre fond; si je n’étois pas un avec mon Pere, vous pourriez recuser mon témoignage; un seul témoin, sur tout en sa propre cause, est toujours récusable: mais mon témoignage est soutenu de celui de mon Pere. Puisque mon Pere, & moi ne sommes qu’un, que son témoignage est le mien, que je ne parle que suivant ses lumières, & que je n’agis que suivant sa volonté, vous ne pouvez rejeter mon témoignage, sans faire injure non-seulement à moi, mais encore à celui qui m’a envoyé. C’est en conséquence de ce principe qu’il dit ailleurs, qu’encore qu’il se rende témoignage à foi-même, son témoignage toutefois est véritable.
5:32
ỷ. 32. ALIUS EST QUI TESTIMONIUM PERHIBET DE ME. Il y en a un autre qui rend témoignage de moi. C’est mon Pere qui confirme mon témoignage par le sien, qui parle en moi, par moi, & avec moi. Ou cet autre témoin est saint Jean-Baptiste que vous avez consulté, & qui vous a répondu que j’étois le Messie que vous attendiez. ỷ. 33. Vous avez envoyé à Jean, & il a rendu témoignage à la vérité.
5:34
ỷ. 34. EGO NON AB HOMINE TESTIMONIUM ACCIPIO. Pour moi ce n’est pas d’un homme que je reçois témoignage. Je n’ai que faire du témoignage ni de Jean, ni d’aucun autre homme ; ce n’est point là ce que je cherche ; j’ai celui du Pere, qui est d’un tout autre poids. Il suffit seul pour me concilier toute la créance, & pour me donner toute l’autorité dont j’ai besoin. Si donc je vous ai parlé de Jean, c’est afin que vous soyez sauvés. Ce n’est point pour moi, c’est pour vôtre avantage que je vous ai produit son témoignage ; afin que vous appreniez qui je suis, & que vous ne vous rendiez pas coupables de vôtre propre mort, en ne me recevant pas. Comparez la première Ep. de S. Jean Ch. v. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
5:35
ỷ. 35. ILLE ERAT LUCERNA ARDENS, ET LUCENS. Il étoit une lampe ardente, & luisante. Jean-Baptiste avoit été mis en prison quatre mois auparavant. Cette lumière étoit comme éclipsée, & mise sous le boisseau. Bien-tôt elle devoit être entièrement éteinte par sa mort. J e s u s fait l’éloge de son Précurseur, pour donner plus de crédit à son témoignage. Ne regardez point Jean-Baptiste comme un homme du commun, & ne dites pas que vous ne faites pas plus de cas de son témoignage, que du mien. Cet homme étoit une lumière ardente, & brillante. Vous-mêmes vous l’avez reconnu, puisque vous avez voulu vous réjouir pour un peu de tems à la lueur de sa lumière. Et plût à Dieu que vous eussiez été plus persévérans dans l’estime que sa vertu a d’abord excitée dans vous-mêmes. Vous l’avez vû avec admiration ; vous l’avez suivi avec zéle : mais cela n’a duré qu’un peu de tems. La liberté avec laquelle il a découvert, & repris vos défords, vous en a bien-tôt dégoûté. Voluiflis ad horam exultare in luce ejus. Vous lui avez ensuite tourné le dos, & vous avez dit que c’étoit un possédé. Vos Pharisiens l’ont méprisé dans eux-mêmes. Enfin vous l’avez traité indignement, & vous lui avez fait tout le mal qu’il vous a plû.
5:36
ỷ. 36. EGO HABEO TESTIMONIUM MAJUS JOANNE. Mais j’ai un témoignage plus grand que celui de Jean. Quelque décisif que soit le jugement d’un homme comme Jean-Baptiste, qui étoit la lumière d’Israël, le miracle de la grace, rempli de l’esprit d’Elie, Prophète, & plufque Prophète, puisqu’il annonçoit non la venue future, mais la présence du Messie ; toutefois je ne suis pas réduit à ce seul témoignage ; j’ai celui de mon Pere, qui est vôtre Dieu : Témoignage infallible, & irréfragable. Et comment prouvoi-je que le Pere dépose en ma faveur ? Je le prouve par mes œuvres, par mes miracles, qui affûrent ma mission, & qui rendent témoignage à sa puissance, & à la mienne, puisque nous n’agissons pas féparement l’un de l’autre. Si j’ai pû guérir un homme perclus depuis trente-huit ans, c’est une preuve de ma puissance ; & si je l’ai fait au nom de Dieu, & pour rendre gloire à Dieu, & à la vérité ; si j’ai le témoignage du Pere, & celui de Jean-Baptiste, je ne suis point un faux Prophète, & un imposteur. Pourquoi ne croyez-vous donc pas que j’aye pû légitimement dispenser de l’observance du Sabbat ? Les Prophètes eux-mêmes n’en peuvent-ils pas dispenser en certains cas, suivant vos Docteurs ?
5:37
ỷ. 37. QUI MISIT ME PATER, IPSE TESTIMONIUM PERHIBET DE ME. Mon Pere qui m’a envoyé, a rendu lui-même témoignage de moi, non-seulement par les Ecritures de Moyse, & des Prophètes ; mais aussi par une voix venue du Ciel au jour de mon baptême; & enfin par les prodiges que j’opére tous les jours en son nom. Voilà mes titres; voilà mes preuves.
NEQUE VOCEM EJUS UNQUAM AUDISTIS. Vous n’avez jamais ouï sa voix, ni rien vû qui le représentât. Quand je vous dis que Dieu m’a rendu témoignage, n’allez pas vous imaginer qu’il ait paru dans le monde sous une forme sensible, ni qu’il y ait fait entendre sa voix, en conversant parmi les hommes. Ne me dites point : Nous n’avons ni vû, ni entendu ce prétendu témoignage que vous nous alléguez. Le Pere n’est pas visible aux yeux du corps ; sa voix n’est point intelligible aux oreilles de la chair. Si vous m’alléguez qu’il a autrefois paru à vos peres, à Abraham, à Jacob & à Moyse, & que vos Ancêtres ont entendu sa voix sur le mont Sinaï, je vous répondrai hardiment que ce qui a paru aux Patriarches, n’étoit point la vraie figure de Dieu, & que la voix que vos peres ont ouïe, n’étoit pas sa voix. C’étoit une figure corporelle qu’un Ange avoit empruntée, & une voix qu’il formoit en l’air, & aux oreilles des Hébreux. Je ne nie pas que le témoignage qu’il rendoit alors, ne fût vrai : mais celui qu’il m’a rendu dans la Loi, & dans les Prophètes, dans les apparitions, & dans les promesses qu’il a faites aux Patriarches; celui qu’il m’a rendu par Jean-Baptiste, & qu’il ne cesse de me rendre par les œuvres miraculeuses que je fais, ne sont pas moins certains, ni moins véritables. Toutes ces apparitions, & ces visions me regardoient; tout cela dépose en ma faveur.
5:38
ỷ. 38. VERBUM EJUS NON HABETIS IN VOBIS MANENS. Sa parole ne demeure point en vous, parce que vous ne croyez point à celui qu’il a envoyé. Vous vous flattez vainement d’avoir dans les faits Livres la parole de Dieu. Si vous la possédiez véritablement ; si vous en pénétriez le sens ; vous croiriez en celui que le Pere a envoyé, vous croiriez en moi, puisque je suis annoncé dans tout l’ancien Testament. C’est dans ces divins Ecrits où vous devriez remarquer le témoignage du Pere en ma faveur.
5:39
ỷ. 39. SCRUTAMINI SCRIPTURAS. Lisez avec soin les Ecritures, puisque vous croyez y trouver la vie éternelle. Vous ne doutez point que les Livres facez que vous avez en main, ne contiennent ce que vous devez croire, & ce que vous devez faire, & qu’en les suivant, vous ne trouviez la vie éternelle. Je n’ai garde de vouloir rien diminuer de leur autorité. Lisez-les attentivement, & vous y trouverez que Dieu m’y rend témoignage. Il me prédit, il me décrit, il m’annonce. Mais il ne suffit pas de les lire superficiellement ; il faut les approfondir : Scrutamini Scripturas. Quelques-uns lisent le Texte par l’indicatif : Vous lisez les Ecritures avec application, parce que vous croyez y trouver la vie éternelle : Mais vous ne les pénétrez point. C’est pour vous un Livre scellé ; vous n’en avez point la clef. Si vous l’aviez, vous m’y reconnoitriez, puisqu’il me rend témoignage à chaque page. Les Juifs du tems de notre Seigneur ne s’occupoient gueres qu’à chercher des allégories dans l’Ecriture, comme on le voit par Philon.
5:40
ỷ. 40. NON VULTIS VENIRE AD ME. Vous ne voulez pas venir à moi, pour avoir la vie. Vous résistez à l’évidence des Ecritures, & au témoignage du Saint Esprit, qui parle de moi dans vos Ecritures. Vous refusez de venir à moi, & vous vous fermez volontairement l’entrée à la vie. Vous esperes en vain de trouver la vie, & le bonheur dans la pratique de vos cérémonies. Cela a été bon pendant un certain tems : mais aujourd’hui Dieu demande de vous toute autre chose.
5:41
ỷ. 41. CLARITATEM AB HOMINIBUS NON ACCIPIO. Je ne tire point ma gloire des hommes. Ce n’est pas que je me mette beaucoup en peine de l’opinion des hommes, ni que j’aye besoin de vôtre aveu, pour affûrer mon autorité, ni pour me procurer de la gloire ; je ne parle ni par interêt, ni par vanité ; je n’ai en vûë que vôtre bonheur, & vôtre salut.
5:42
ỷ. 42. SED COGNOVI VOS. Mais je vous connois ; je sai que vous n’avez point en vous l’amour de Dieu. Ne me dites point que ce qui vous empêche de me recevoir, est que je me rens égal à Dieu ; & que l’amour, & le souverain respect que vous avez pour lui, ne vous permettent pas de donner le nom de Dieu à un autre : Que le zéle même de sa gloire vous engage à vous opposer de toutes vos forces à mes prétentions ; je fai le fond de vos cœurs ; je connois vos vraies dispositions. Ce n’est ni l’amour de Dieu, ni le zéle de sa gloire qui vous animent, c’est un esprit de jalousie, & d’ignorance. Vous lisez les Ecritures ; mais vous n’en approfondissez pas les sens. Si vous les compreniez bien, vous y verriez que le Messie doit être Dieu, & Fils de Dieu ; & homme, & fils de David.
5:43
ỷ. 43. EGO VENI IN NOMINE PATRIS MEI. Je suis venu au nom de mon Pere, & vous ne me recevez pas. Preuve de ce que je viens de vous dire, de vôtre défaut de charité; c’est que vous refûtez à la vérité que je vous prêche, que vous ne recevez point le témoignage que le Pere me rend dans ses Ecritures, par les Prophêtes, & par mes œuvres; & s’il en venoit un autre en son propre nom, sans avoir ni le témoignage des Ecritures, ni celui des miracles, ni aucune preuve d’une veritable mission, vous le recevriez; pourvu qu’il vou-lût flatter vos penchans, & qu’il s’étudiât à gagner vôtre ef-time par des moyens indignes, & criminels. Les Juifs n’ont que trop souvent justifié ce reproche que JESUS-CHRIST leur fait, lorsqu’ils ont suivi, reçû, soutenu tant de faux Prophêtes, & de féduteurs, pendant qu’ils per-fécutoient, qu’ils lapidoient, qu’ils mettoient à mort les vrais Prophêtes, qui leur reprochoient leurs désordres. La plûpart des Anciens ont expliqué ceci comme une prophétie de la venue de l’Ante-Christ, qui doit être reçû par les Juifs avec un zélé, & un empressement extraordinaire. Il viendra en son propre nom, n’ayant aucun des vrais caracté-res du Messie, & toutefois plusieurs s’attacheront à lui.
5:44
ỷ. 44. QUOMODO VOS POTESTIS CREDERE? Comment pouvez-vous croire, vous qui recherchez la gloire des hommes, & qui ne recherchez pas la gloire de Dieu? Le plus grand obstacle qui ait empêché les Savans, & les Prêtres Juifs de se soumettre à l’Evangile, a été leur vanité, & leur amour pro-pre. Avides des louanges des hommes, envoyez de la vai-ne estime qu’ils avoient d’eux-mêmes, ils n’ont pû souffrir que JESUS-CHRIST ne leur marquât pas une grande con-fidération, qu’il n’approuvât pas leur conduite, qu’il relevât leurs excez, qu’il découvrit leur turpitude. Cela les indisposa d’abord contre sa personne, puis insensiblement ils passèrent à la haine, & à la perfection ouverte; & leur passion étant montée à l’excès, ils alièrent jusqu’à le faire mourir d’une manière ignominieuse; ils ne pûrent souffrir qu’il les rabaissât aux yeux du peuple, & qu’il renversât l’idole de leur orgüeil. S’ils n’avoient cherché que la gloire qui vient de Dieu, la solide gloire, qui consiste dans l’humilité, dans le mépris de soi-même & dans la soumission de nos esprits, & de nos cœurs à la révélation, à la Loi, & à la volonté de Dieu; ils auroient pû recevoir l’Evangile, & mériter le bonheur des enfans de Dieu.
5:45
ỷ. 45. NOLITE PUTARE QUIA EGO ACCUSATURUS SUM VOS. Ne pensez pas que ce soit moi qui vous doive accuser devant le Pere: vous avez un accusateur qui est Moyse; il vous accusera d’infidélité, & d’incrédulité, puisque vous ne voulez pas croire en moi, qui vous suis annoncé par lui. C’est en vain que vous mettez votre confiance en Moyse, & que vous vous flattez d’être sauvez par l’observation de ses Loix; il fera le premier à vous condamner devant le Pere céleste. Ses Loix mêmes s’éleveront en quelque forte contre vous.
5:46
ỷ. 46. SI ENIM CREDERETIS MOYSI. Car si vous croyiez Moyse, vous me croiriez aussi, parce que c’est de moi qu’il a écrit. Il m’a rendu témoignage dans ses Livres, lorsqu’il rapporte, par exemple, ces paroles de Jacob à son fils Judas: Le sceptre ne sortira point de Judas, & un chef ne manquera point dans sa race, jusqu’à la venue de celui qui doit être envoyé, & qui doit être l’attente des nations. Et ailleurs: Le Seigneur vôtre Dieu suscitera du milieu de vôtre nation, & de vos freres, un Prophète comme moi ; vous l’écouterez. Moyse a peint le Messie dans une infinité de simbolés, & de figures qui se rencontrent dans l’histoire des Patriarches, & dans les Loix cérémonielles qui regardent les sacrifices. Tout cela réprésentoit la vie, les souffrances, la mort, & la résurrection du Sauveur. De plus il vous a donné des marques pour distinguer les vrais, & les faux Prophètes ; si vous vouliez les mettre en usage à mon sujet, vous reconnoîtriez bien-tôt que je ne suis pas du nombre de ceux dont on doit se désier.
5:47
ỷ. 47. SI ILLIUS LITTERIS NON CREDITIS. Si vous ne croyez pas ce qu’il a écrit, comment croirez-vous ce que je vous dis ? Ce n’est pas que mon autorité soit moindre que la sienne ; mais elle vous est moins connuë. Si vous croyez tout de bon, & par une créance effective à Moyse, vous me croiriez aussi. Les Juifs croyoient sans doute à Moyse, & peut-être y étoient-ils un peu trop attachés ; ce n’est pas ce que JESUS-CHRIST leur reproche : mais il se plaint qu’ils ne prenoient pas comme il faut le sens de ses Loix, & qu’ils ne tiroient pas deses paroles les conséquences naturelles qu’ils en devoient tirer, pour reconnoître le Messie aux caractères qu’il leur en avoit tracés.
5:1
BETHSAIDA (BETHESDA, BEZATHA, BETHZATHA)
BETHSAIDA (Bethesda, Bezatha, Bethzatha). - Piscina di Gerusalemme, presso la quale Gesù guarì il paralitico da 38 anni (Io. 5, 1-9). Il testo greco (la Volgata è inesatta) la dice vicina alla [porta] probatica (= « delle pecore »: cf. Neh. 3, 1.31; 12, 38). Il suo nome è stato conservato in tre forme: la 1ª (della …
Un ulteriore argomento ci viene dai tre testi (Io. 4, 35; 5, 1; 6, 4), che sono legati tra loro con l'espressione μετὰ ταῦτα (Io. 5, 1; 6, 1). Ne deriva infatti che tra il mese di febbr. dopo la prima Pasqua (Io. 2, 13) e la penultima Pasqua …
… sottrarre al tesoro del Tempio le somme necessarie alla costruzione dell'acquedotto, che dalle sorgenti di Ethan conduceva l'acqua a G. Dei luoghi ricordati nel Vangelo sono sicuramente conosciuti la piscina di Siloc (Io. 9, 7) e quella di Bezetha (v.; Io. 5, 1). Assicurati da antica tradizione sono l'orto del Gethsemani e il Cenacolo; ma incerto resta ancora il luogo del processo religioso di Gesù al palazzo di Caifa e del processo civile al pretorio.
… agli occhi, nella categoria del divino; d'ora innanzi essi vedranno sempre più G. nella luce di Dio: Egli è il Santo di Dio, che partecipa in maniera unica e incomunicabile alla santità di Dio (F. Prat, I, p. 400). I fatti di Gerusalemme per la festa (Io. 5, 1-47) e la seconda parte del ministero di Galilea confermano la fede degli Apostoli, che si manifesta solennemente a Cesarea di Filippo, con il riconoscimento espresso della filiazione …
Spesso occorre anche nel Nuovo Testamento la metafora del p. e del gregge (Mt. 9, 36, 10, 6; 15, 24; Lc. 12, 32; Io. 21, 16-17). Il gregge del Signore è commesso ai presbiteri e ai vescovi (Act. 20, 28). Si comprende perciò come abbia avuto un grande sviluppo iconografico la parabola del B. P. (Io. 5, 1-18). Già nella voce Gesù Cristo L. Kollwitz ha illustrato quanto nell'iconografia cristiana sia antica l'immagine di Cristo quale B. P., simbolo del
… Una tradizione antica, orientale e occidentale, ha identificato, sulla base di alcuni codici greci e della Volgata («est autem Ierosolymis p. piscina quae cognominatur hebraice Bethsaida» : Io. 5, 1), la P. con la piscina dove Gesù guarì il paralitico da 38 anni. …
5:2
BETHSAMES (EBR. BÉTH-ÉMEF « CASA DEL SOLE »)
BETHSAIDA - Piscina alla porta delle pecore, « probatica » (Io. 5, 2).
MATTEO, APOSTOLO, EVANGELISTA, SANTO
… Questa non era più l'antica lingua ebraica (come pensano Schegg, Belser, Cladder e altri), ma l'aramaica, detta anch'essa comunemente « ebraica » nel Nuovo Testamento (Io. 5, 2; 19, 17; Act. 21, 40), negli scritti di Flavio Giuseppe (Antiq. …
5:8
risci, contro i quali insorge spesso Gesù (cf. Mt. 12, 1 sgg.; Lc. 13, 10 sgg.; 14, 1-6; Io. 5, 8 sgg.; 9, 14 sgg., ecc.), il quale dichiara che il s. è per gli uomini, non questi schiavi di quello (Mc. 2, 27). Il culmine della meticolosità è raggiunto nella Mishāh, che contiene un …
5:12
… Presenta un testo ibrido: Mt.-Lc. 8, 13-24 si avvicinano a A(niticheno) (in Matteo, su 1505 varianti, 1205 concordano con A: le altre con B e D in Luca, 1112 con A, 189 con D, e 98 con B). Io. 5, 12-fine, e Lc. 1, 1-8, 12 concordano con B (rec. esichiana Giovanni 987 con B e 8 con A; in Io. 5-10 prevale prima B poi N. Luca, 347 con D, 126 con D e 4 con A). Mc. 1, 1-5, …
5:14
… Gesù risana « tutto l'uomo » (Is. 7, 23); guarisce l'anima prima del corpo (Lc. 5, 20; 7, 48; Io. 5, 14); il suo sangue monda la lebbra del peccato (I Io. 1, 7, 9); egli è l'agnello che toglie il peccato del mondo (Io. 1, 29), sicché più nulla di condannabile c'è in coloro che sono stati …
… Durante la cerimonia viene cantato qualche versetto del salmo 118 intercalato da una antifona tolta da Io. 13, 4; 5, 14.
5:16
… sua esperienza religiosa di un ravvivamento di quello che, secondo lui, costituisce il cristianesimo primitivo (First Century Christianism): adunarsi in gruppi sotto la guida immediata dello Spirito Santo, confessare vicendevolmente i propri peccati (Io. 5, 16; Eph. 4, 25), consacrarsi interamente a Cristo e indurre altri a convertirsi alla medesima vita. …
5:17
… ma esplicitamente vi fa intervenire anche il Figlio, dicendo s. Giovanni del Verbo « Tutto fu fatto per lui, e senza di lui niente fu fatto » (Io. 1, 3). Gesù poi insiste nell'affermare l'unità di operazione come di natura tra il Padre e se stesso (Io. 5, 17-21; 10, 38, ecc.). …
… 17). Se i nostri rapporti con Dio sono di figli adottivi, quelli di Cristo sono, invece, di figlio naturale; ciò che, del resto, risulta evidente da quelle testimonianze nella quale Cristo si afferma uguale al padre nel potere, nel volere, nella natura (Io. 5, 17-27; 16, 15; 10, 30). Così hanno interpretato il pensiero di Cristo i suoi uditori, amici come Pietro (Mt. 16, 16), o nemici come i sinedriti (Mt. 26, 63 sg.).
rola è verità » (Io. 17, 17); « La grazia e la verità sono venute mediante Gesù Cristo » (ibid. 5, 17). Da Gesù Cristo scaturisce, mediante la gerarchia e il ministero sacerdotale, il « perfezionamento dei santi » (Eph. 4, 12). Cristo-Capo santifica la Chiesa-Corpo (ibid. 5, 26; Hebr. …
5:18
dove viene interrogato se sia il C., e il Figlio di Dio. Le due interrogazioni sono ben distinte, e il senso dato da Caifa alla seconda è se sia il figlio naturale di Dio, nel senso inteso dai Salmi (2, 7) e da G. stesso (Io. 5, 18). G. con l'espressione «vedrete il Figlio dell'uomo sedere alla destra della Potenza e venire sulle nubi del cielo» (Mt. 26, 64) risponde affermativamente alle due domande: l'allusione …
… ed., Parigi 1931, pp. 79-121); non trova detrattori, tranne che negli scribi e nei farisei (i quali l'accusarono di golosità [Mt. 11, 19], di illegalità, particolarmente di violazione del sabato [Io. 5, 18; 9, 16] e di bestemmia [Mc. 2, 7; Mt. 26, 27; Io. 5, 18]; anzi arrivarono persino a chiamarlo indemoniato [Io. 7, 20; 8, 48-49; 10, 20; cf. Mt. 12, 24]) e in alcuni neo-protestanti liberali (DThC, VIII, coll. 1381-82).
5:19
Tale simbolismo è notato espressamente nel IV Vangelo: la guarigione del paralitico della piscina preannunzia il potere di G. di dare la vita (Io. 5, 19-30); la risurrezione di Lazzaro simboleggia il fatto che G. è la risurrezione e la vita per quelli che credono in lui (ibid. 11, 25); la guarigione del cieco nato, che G. è la luce del …
5:20
… Descrive l'età messianica, in cui le persecuzioni e tribolazioni danno occasione alla «testimonianza» fedele sull'esempio di Gesù (1, 5), finché ai tribunali umani subentrerà il giudizio di Dio (cf. Io. 3, 14-21; 5, 20-29; 8, 34-36; 15, 18-27; 16, 16-33; 17, 9-23).
5:21
… propria divinità appellandosi al suo potere, comune al Padre, di far risorgere i morti: « ... In verità, in verità vi dico che è giunta l'ora, ed è questa, in cui i morti udiranno la voce del Figlio di Dio e coloro che l'avranno udita vivranno... » (Io. 5, 21, 25, 28-29). Nel discorso tenuto nella Sinagoga di Cafarnao Gesù pose un intimo rapporto tra la sua carne eucaristica e la r. somatica (ibid. 6, 39-40) e di nuovo si attribuì il …
5:22
3. Natura del g. d. particolare. — Il giudice è Gesù Cristo, non soltanto come Dio, ma anche come uomo (cf. Mt. 28, 18; Io. 5, 22; Act. 10, 42). L'anima, nell'istante del giudizio, non vede la Divinità intuitivamente, altrimenti sarebbe già beata, né vede l'umanità del Redentore, ma, attraverso una luce infusa, …
5:24
Come semplici immagini sono «cieli nuovi e terra nuova», per esprimere il profondo rinnovamento che opererà tra gli uomini il Messia (Is. 65, 17; 66, 22; II Pt. 3, 13; cf. la παλεντεύσια di Mt. 19, 28; la καπνή κτίσις di Gal. 6, 15; II Cor. 5, 17; il passaggio da morte a vita di Io. 5, 24-28; E. B. Allo, op. cit., p. 325). Infine i vari elementi (angeli, nube, fuoco, ecc.) che accompagnano le manifestazioni di Dio giudice (Is. 34, 10; 66, 15; Dan. 7, 13 sgg., ecc.; Mt. …
… invece non crederà sarà condannato» (Mc. 16, 16); la f. equivale, secondo G. Cristo, alla risurrezione dalla morte spirituale della colpa: «Chi crede in me, anche se è morto, ritorna alla vita, e chiunque crede in me non morirà in eterno» (Io. 11, 26; 5, 24; 6 passim); agli occhi di Cristo il peccato per eccellenza è la ripulsa volontaria della f. (Io. 16, 9) e gli uomini perciò diventano giusti e rimangono peccatori secondo che credono …
… G. esige, come assoluta condizione di salvezza, la fede in lui e nel Padre (Io. 5, 24; 6, 29). La fede che egli esige non è un'adesione del solo intelletto, ma di tutto l'uomo (G. usò per lo più la espressione πιστεύω εἰς, più forte che πιστεύω τινι: si crede anche …
… speranze giudaiche, che Gesù respinge, ma dal regno di Dio che è spirituale e trascendente (Lc. 17, 21; Io. 18, 36) e dalla vita eterna, in cui si attua la felicità perfetta, ma che già sulla terra si realizza inizialmente in chi crede in Cristo (Io. 3, 36; 5, 24; 6, 47). Qui è il punto cruciale del messaggio e dell'opera della s. Se secondo il cristianesimo la s. viene da Cristo e consiste in Cristo, spontaneamente si domanda che cosa sia …
5:26
Con questa rinascita si incomincia a vivere di quella vita che, nella sua pienezza, è posseduta dal Padre, dal Padre viene trasmessa, sempre nella sua pienezza, al Figlio, e dal Padre e dal Figlio allo Spirito Santo (Io. 5, 26). Questa vita, che è il tema dominante di tutto il Vangelo di s. Giovanni (J. B. Frey, Le concept de «vie» dans l'évangile de s. Jean, in Biblica, 1 [1920], pp. 37-58; 211-39). Gesù …
5:27
… Pertanto Gesù Cristo professa di averla ricevuta dal Padre: « E gli ha dato il potere di giudicare, perché è il figlio dell'uomo » (Io. 5, 27); s. Paolo ricorda che « Dio gli ha assoggettato tutto » (I Cor. 15, 28). Propriamente parlando, la r., di cui si tratta, risiede nella natura umana di Cristo; in caso contrario non …
5:29
… Gesù ne parlò spesso nella sua predicazione (Mt. 11, 22-23; 12, 41; 16, 27; 26, 64; Lc. 10, 12-14; 11, 31-32; Io. 5, 29; 12, 48) e ne descrisse con magnificenza i particolari nel discorso escatologico: «Quando il Figlio dell'Uomo verrà nella sua gloria e tutti gli Angeli con lui, egli siederà sul trono …
5:30
Nella Scrittura vivissime sono le lodi all'o., nota distintiva del Redentore, causa della giustificazione, mentre avverte che dalla disobbedienza deriva ogni male (Rom. 5, 19; Phil. 2, 8; Hebr. 5, 8; Lc. 2, 49; Io. 4, 34; 5, 30 ecc.).
5:32
Battista e il Padre: Io. 5, 32-35. 36-38), il quale Mosè « scrisse » (aoristo: attività passata di uno scrittore; altrimenti il libro « porta scritto », perfetto).
5:35
… G. segna il termine della legge e dei profeti e dà il via alla nuova èra evangelica (Mt. 11, 7-9, 11; Lc. 7, 24-28; Mt. 9, 13 sg.; 17, 12; Mc. 9, 12 sg.; Io. 5, 35). Precede il Messia per rendergli testimonianza e, predicando e battezzando le folle d'Israele, le dispone alla conversione dell'anima ed a produrre frutti di opere buone, per poter …
5:36
Ai capi del giudaismo, mormoranti perché fa i miracoli di sabato, risponde: «Io ho una testimonianza maggiore di Giovanni: le opere infatti che il Padre mi ha dato di compiere, queste opere che io compio (cioè i prodigi) attestano su di me che il Padre mi ha mandato» (Io. 5, 36). E altrove: «Se non compio le opere del Padre mio (cioè, opere singolari, divine, miracolose), non vogliate credermi; ma se le compio, e a me non volete credere, credete alle opere, …
5:43
… Gesù preannunzia molti pseudocristi (cf. Deut. 18, 20) e pseudoprofeti (Mt. 24, 11, 25; Mc. 13, 22; Io. 5, 43 b), le cui dottrine e prodigi d'impostura svieranno molti: questi stanno all'A. come la 2ª Bestia di Apoc. 13 sta alla 1ª Bestia. …
… Re (Lc. 23, 2, 35, 39; Io. 18, 33, 37; 19, 14 sg. 19-21). Nei Vangeli, Gesù non insiste pubblicamente sul suo titolo di C. prima della sua Passione, ma mette in guardia contro gli anticristi (v.) che usurperanno tal nome (Mt. 25, 5, 23 sg.; cf. Io. 5, 43b), e con chiara allusione rivendica a sé l'appellativo ὁ Χριστός (Mt. 24, 42; 23, 10; 24, 5; Mc. 9, 41 [senz'articolo, come in s. Paolo I Cor. 1, 12; 3, 23; II Cor. 16, 7]; 12, 35; 13, 21).
TESSALONICESI, EPISTOLE I-II AI
… Iud., VI, 3). Gesù aveva detto ai giudei che essi, rifiutando la sua parola, avrebbero accolto qualunque altro pseudomessa (Io. 5, 43); ciò si andava realizzando, e i giudei (II Thess. 2, 12), «che non conoscono Dio, che non obbediscono al vangelo di N. Signore» subiranno il tremendo castigo (ibid. 1, 7-9). Ai …
5:45
… Quale lo si ha ora? In altri casi si ha una garanzia generica: le parole di Gesù in Io. 5, 45-47, affermando l'esistenza nel P. di qualche profezia messianica (diretta o tipica, non è precisato), dicono che tale profezia è testimonianza per Gesù stesso di Mosè (che è affiancato …
5:46
… Mosè» (Mc. 12, 26), della «Legge di Mosè», ecc.; si riferisce a prescrizioni del P. come comandi di Mosè (Mt. 8, 4; 19, 8); dichiara che Mosè «scrisse di lui», ma i Giudei non credono in lui, perché non credono nemmeno agli «scritti» (τράμματα) di Mosè (Io. 5, 46 sg.). …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · Douay-Rheims originale (Reims 1582), trascrizione EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Pubblico dominio.