Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 50
50.1 Chapter XI. 55–57; XII PL 35, 1758
1. Yesterday’s lesson in the holy Gospel, on which we spake as the Lord enabled us, is followed by to-day’s, on which we purpose to speak in the same spirit of dependence. Some passages in the Scriptures are so clear as to require a hearer rather than an expounder: over such we need not tarry, that we may have sufficient time for those which necessarily demand a fuller consideration.
Hesternam lectionem sancti Evangelii, de qua locuti sumus quod Dominus dedit, hodierna sequitur, de qua locuturi sumus quod Dominus dabit. Quaedam in Scripturis tam manifesta sunt, ut potius auditorem quam expositorem desiderent: in eis nos immorari non oportet, ut necessariis in quibus immorandum est, tempus sufficiat.
50.2 PL 35, 1758
2. “And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand.” The Jews wished to have that feast-day crimsoned with the blood of the Lord. On it that Lamb was slain, who hath consecrated it as a feast-day for us by His own blood. There was a plot among the Jews about slaying Jesus: and He, who had come from heaven to suffer, wished to draw near to the place of His suffering, because the hour of His passion was at hand. Therefore “many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to sanctify themselves.” The Jews did so in accordance with the command of the Lord delivered by holy Moses in the law, that on the feast-day of the passover all should assemble from every part of the land, and be sanctified in celebrating the services of the day. But that celebration was a shadow of the future. And why a shadow? It was a prophetic intimation of the Christ to come, a prophecy of Him who on that day was to suffer for us: that so the shadow might vanish and the light come; that the sign might pass away, and the truth be retained. The Jews therefore held the passover in a shadowy form, but we in the light. For what need was there that the Lord should command them to slay a sheep on the very day of the feast, save only because of Him it was prophesied, “He is led as a sheep to the slaughter”? The door-posts of the Jews were sealed with the blood of the slaughtered animal: with the blood of Christ are our foreheads sealed. And that sealing—for it had a real significance—was said to keep away the destroyer from the houses that were sealed: Christ’s seal drives away the destroyer from us, if we receive the Saviour into our hearts. But why have I said this? Because many have their door-posts sealed while there is no inmate abiding within: they find it easy to have Christ’s seal in the forehead, and yet at heart refuse admission to His word. Therefore, brethren, I have said, and I repeat it, Christ’s seal driveth from us the destroyer, if only we have Christ as an inmate of our hearts. I have stated these things, lest any one’s thoughts should be turning on the meaning of these festivals of the Jews. The Lord therefore came as it were to the victim’s place, that the true passover might be ours, when we celebrated His passion as the real offering of the lamb.
Proximum ergo erat Pascha Judaeorum. Illum diem festum Judaei cruentum habere Domini sanguine voluerunt. Illo die festo occisus est Agnus, qui nobis eumdem diem festum suo sanguine consecravit. Consilium erat inter Judaeos de occidendo Jesu: ille qui de coelo venerat pati, propinquare voluit loco passionis, quia imminebat hora passionis. Ascenderunt ergo multi Jerosolymam de regione ante Pascha, ut sanctificarent seipsos. Hoc faciebant Judaei secundum praeceptum Domini, per sanctum Moysen in Lege mandatum, ut die festo quod Pascha erat, omnes undique convenirent, et illius diei celebratione sanctificarentur. Sed illa celebratio umbra erat futuri. Quia est, umbra futuri? Prophetia Christi venturi, prophetia pro nobis illo die passuri: ut transiret umbra, et lux veniret; ut transiret significatio, et veritas teneretur. Habebant ergo Judaei Pascha in umbra, nos in luce. Quid enim opus erat ut eis Dominus praeciperet per ipsum festum diem ovem occidere, nisi quia ille erat de quo prophetatum est, Sicut ovis ad immolandum ductus est . Sanguine occisi pecoris Judaeorum postes signati sunt; sanguine Christi frontes nostrae signantur. Et illa signatio, quia erat significatio, dicta est a domibus signatis exterminatorem prohibere : signum Christi a nobis repellit exterminatorem, si cor nostrum recipiat Salvatorem. Quare hoc dixi? Quia multi postes habent signatos, et intus non manet habitator: facile habent in fronte signum Christi, et corde non recipiunt verbum Christi. Ideo dixi, fratres, quod repeto, signum Christi a nobis repellit exterminatorem, si cor nostrum habeat Christum habitatorem. Haec dixi, ne quis forte cogitaret quid sibi vellent ista festa Judaeorum. Venit ergo Dominus tanquam ad victimam, ut verum Pascha nos haberemus, cum ejus passionem tanquam ovis immolationem celebraremus.
50.3 PL 35, 1759
3. “Then sought they for Jesus:” but with evil intent. For happy are they who seek for Jesus in a way that is good. They sought for Him, with the intent that neither they nor we should have Him more: but in departing from them, He has been received by us. Some who seek Him are blamed, others who do so are commended; for it is the spirit animating the seeker that finds either praise or condemnation. Thence you have it also in the psalms, “Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul:” such are those who sought with evil purpose. But in another place he says, “Refuge hath failed me, and there is no one that seeketh after my soul.” Those who sought, and those who did not, are blamed alike. Therefore let us seek for Christ, that He may be ours, that we may keep Him, and not that we may slay Him; for these men sought to get hold of Him, but only for the purpose of speedily getting quit of Him for ever. “Therefore they sought for Him, and spake among themselves: What think ye, that He will not come to the feast?”
Quaerebant ergo Jesum: sed male. Beati enim qui quaerunt Jesum, sed bene. Illi quaerebant Jesum, ut nec ipsi haberent eum, nec nos: sed ab ipsis abscedentem suscepimus nos. Reprehenduntur qui quaerunt, laudantur qui quaerunt: animus enim quaerentis aut laudem invenit, aut damnationem. Habes enim et in Psalmis, Confundantur et revereantur, qui quaerunt animam meam : isti sunt qui male quaerebant. Alio autem loco dicit: Periit fuga a me, et non est qui requirat animam meam . Culpantur qui quaerebant, culpantur qui non quaerebant. Ergo quaeramus Christum ut habeamus; quaeramus ut teneamus, sed non ut occidamus: nam et illi ideo quaerebant ut tenerent, sed ut cito non haberent. Quaerebant ergo, et loquebantur inter se: Quid putatis, quia non venit ad diem festum?
50.4 PL 35, 1759
4. “Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where He were, he should show it, that they might take Him.” Let us for our parts show the Jews where Christ is. Would, indeed, that all the seed of those who had given commandment to have it shown them where Christ was, would but hear and apprehend! Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him. But since His word is true, “Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world,” He is away, and He is here; He has returned, and will not forsake us; for He has carried His body into heaven, but His majesty He has never withdrawn from the world.
Dederant autem pontifices et Pharisaei mandatum, ut si quis cognoverit ubi sit, indicet, ut apprehendant eum. Nos indicemus modo Judaeis, ubi sit Christus. Utinam velint audire et apprehendere quicumque sunt ex semine illorum, qui dederant mandatum ut indicaretur eis ubi esset Christus. Veniant ad Ecclesiam, audiant ubi sit Christus, et apprehendant eum. A nobis audiant, ex Evangelio audiant. Occisus est a parentibus eorum, sepultus est, resurrexit, a discipulis agnitus, ante oculos eorum ascendit in coelum, ibi sedet ad dexteram Patris; qui judicatus est, venturus est judex: audiant, et teneant. Respondent: Quomodo tenebo absentem; quomodo in coelum manum mittam, ut ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte, et tenuisti. Parentes tui tenuerunt carne, tu tene corde: quoniam Christus absens etiam praesens est. Nisi praesens esset, a nobis ipsis teneri non posset. Sed quoniam verum est, quod ait, Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi ; et abiit, et hic est; et rediit, et nos non deserit: corpus enim suum intulit coelo, majestatem non abstulit mundo.
50.5 PL 35, 1760
5. “Then Jesus, six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom Jesus raised from the dead. And there they made Him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that reclined at the table.” To prevent people thinking that the man had become a phantom, because he had risen from the dead, he was one of those who reclined at table; he was living, speaking, feasting: the truth was made manifest, and the unbelief of the Jews was confounded. The Lord, therefore, reclined at table with Lazarus and the others; and they were waited on by Martha, one of the sisters of Lazarus.
Jesus ergo ante sex dies Paschae venit Bethaniam, ubi fuerat Lazarus mortuus, quem suscitavit Jesus. Fecerunt autem ei ibi coenam, et Martha ministrabat: Lazarus vero unus erat ex discumbentibus. Ne putarent homines phantasma esse factum, quia mortuus resurrexit, unus erat ex recumbentibus; vivebat, loquebatur, epulabatur: veritas ostendebatur, infidelitas Judaeorum confundebatur. Discumbebat ergo Dominus cum Lazaro et caeteris, ministrabat Martha una ex sororibus Lazari.
50.6 PL 35, 1760
6. But “Mary,” the other sister of Lazarus, “took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.” Such was the incident, let us look into the mystery it imported. Whatever soul of you wishes to be truly faithful, anoint like Mary the feet of the Lord with precious ointment. That ointment was righteousness, and therefore it was [exactly] a pound weight: but it was ointment of pure nard [nardi pistici], very precious. From his calling it “pistici,” we ought to infer that there was some locality from which it derived its preciousness: but this does not exhaust its meaning, and it harmonizes well with a sacramental symbol. The root of the word [“pure”] in the Greek is by us called “faith.” Thou wert seeking to work righteousness: the just shall live by faith. Anoint the feet of Jesus: follow by a good life the Lord’s footsteps. Wipe them with thy hair: what thou hast of superfluity, give to the poor, and thou hast wiped the feet of the Lord; for the hair seems to be the superfluous part of the body. Thou hast something to spare of thy abundance: it is superfluous to thee, but necessary for the feet of the Lord. Perhaps on this earth the Lord’s feet are still in need. For of whom but of His members is He yet to say in the end, “Inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of mine, ye did it unto me”? Ye spent what was superfluous for yourselves, but ye have done what was grateful to my feet.
Maria vero, altera soror Lazari, accepit libram unguenti nardi pistici pretiosi, unxit pedes Jesu, et extersit capillis suis pedes ejus, et domus impleta est ex odore unguenti. Factum audivimus, mysterium requiramus. Quaecumque anima fidelis vis esse, cum Maria unge pedes Domini pretioso unguento. Unguentum illud justitia fuit, ideo libra fuit: erat autem unguentum nardi pistici pretiosi. Quod ait, pistici, locum aliquem credere debemus, unde hoc erat unguentum pretiosum: nec tamen hoc vacat, et sacramento optime consonat. Πίστις graece, fides dicitur. Quaerebas operari justitiam: justus ex fide vivit . Unge pedes Jesu: bene vivendo dominica sectare vestigia. Capillis terge: si habes superflua, da pauperibus, et Domini pedes tersisti; capilli enim superflua corporis videntur. Habes quod agas de superfluis tuis: tibi superflua sunt, sed Domini pedibus necessaria. Forte in terra Domini pedes indigent. De quibus enim nisi de membris suis in fine dicturus est, Cum uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis ? Superflua vestra impendistis, sed pedibus meis obsecuti estis.
50.7 PL 35, 1760
7. “And the house was filled with the odor.” The world is filled with the fame of a good character: for a good character is as a pleasant odor. Those who live wickedly and bear the name of Christians, do injury to Christ: of such it is said, that through them “the name of the Lord is blasphemed.” If through such God’s name is blasphemed, through the good the name of the Lord is honored. Listen to the apostle, when he says, “We are a sweet savor of Christ in every place.” As it is said also in the Song of Songs, “Thy name is as ointment poured forth.” Attend again to the apostle: “We are a sweet savor,” he says, “of Christ in every place, both in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are the savor of life unto life, to the other the savor of death unto death: and who is sufficient for these things?” The lesson of the holy Gospel before us affords us the opportunity of so speaking of that savor, that we on our part may give worthy utterance, and you diligent heed, to what is thus expressed by the apostle himself, “And who is sufficient for these things?” But have we any reason to infer from these words that we are qualified to attempt speaking on such a subject, or you to hear? We, indeed, are not so; but He is sufficient, who is pleased to speak by us what it may be for your profit to hear. The apostle, you see, is, as he calls himself, “a sweet savor:” but that sweet savor is “to some the savor of life unto life, and to others the savor of death unto death;” and yet all the while “a sweet savor” in itself. For he does not say, does he, To some we are a sweet savor unto life, to others an evil savor unto death? He called himself a sweet savor, not an evil; and represented himself as the same sweet savor, to some unto life, to others unto death. Happy they who find life in this sweet savor! but what misery can be greater than theirs, to whom the sweet savor is the messenger of death?
Domus autem impleta est odore; mundus impletus est fama bona: nam odor bonus, fama bona est. Qui male vivunt et christiani vocantur, injuriam Christo faciunt: de qualibus dictum est quod per eos nomen Domini blasphematur . Si per tales nomen Dei blasphematur, per bonos nomen Domini laudatur. Audi Apostolum: Christi bonus odor sumus, inquit, in omni loco. Dicitur et in Canticis canticorum. Unguentum effusum nomen tuum . Ad Apostolum revoca intentionem: Christi, inquit, bonus odor sumus in omni loco, et in his qui salvi fiunt, et in his qui pereunt; aliis sumus odor vitae in vitam, aliis odor mortis in mortem: et ad haec quis idoneus ? Occasionem nobis praebet praesens lectio sancti Evangelii de odore isto ita loqui, ut et a nobis sufficienter dicatur, et a vobis diligenter audiatur, Apostolo ipso ita dicente, Et ad haec quis idoneus? Ergo ut inde nos conemur loqui, numquid idonei sumus, aut vos audire haec idonei estis? Nos quidem idonei non sumus; sed idoneus est ille qui per nos dignetur dicere quod vobis prosit audire. Ecce Apostolus bonus odor est, sicut dicit ipse: sed ipse bonus odor aliis est odor vitae in vitam, aliis autem odor mortis in mortem; tamen bonus odor. Numquid enim ait, Aliis sumus bonus odor ad vitam, aliis malus odor ad mortem? Bonum odorem se dixit, non malum; et eumdem bonum odorem aliis ad vitam dixit, aliis ad mortem. Felices qui bono odore vivunt: quid autem infelicius illis qui bono odore moriuntur?
50.8 PL 35, 1761
8. And who is it, says some one, that is thus slain by the sweet savor? It is to this the apostle alludes in the words, “And who is sufficient for these things?” In what wonderful ways God brings it about that the good savor is fraught both with life to the good, and with death to the wicked; how it is so, so far as the Lord is pleased to inspire my thoughts (for it may still conceal a deeper meaning beyond my power to penetrate),—yet so far, I say, as my power of penetration has reached, you ought not to have the information withheld. The integrity of the Apostle Paul’s life and conduct, his preaching of righteousness in word and exhibition of it in works, his wondrous power as a teacher and his fidelity as a steward, were everywhere noised abroad: he was loved by some, and envied by others. For he himself tells us in a certain place of some, that they preached Christ not sincerely, but of envy; “thinking,” he says, “to add affliction to my bonds.” But what does he add? “Whether in pretence or in truth, let Christ be preached.” They preach who love me, they preach who hate me; in that good savor the former live, in it the others die: and yet by the preaching of both let the name of Christ be proclaimed, with this excellent savor let the world be filled. Hast thou been loving one whose conduct evidenced his goodness then in this good savor thou hast lived. Hast thou been envying such a one? then in this same savor thou hast died. But hast thou, pray, in thus choosing to die, converted this savor into an evil one? Turn from thine envious feelings, and the good savor will cease to slay thee.
Et quis est, ait aliquis, quem bonus odor occilit? Hoc est quod ait Apostolus, Et ad haec quis idoneus? Quomodo ea facit Deus miris modis, ut bono odore et boni vivant, et mali moriantur; quomodo sit, quantum Dominus inspirare dignatur (nam fortasse ibi lateat altior intellectus, qui a me non potest penetrari); tamen quo usque penetrare potui, vobis non debet denegari. Paulum apostolum bene agentem, bene viventem, justitiam verbo praedicantem, opere demonstrantem, doctorem mirabilem, fidelem dispensatorem, fama usquequaque disseminabat: quidam diligebant, quidam invidebant. Nam ipse quodam loco ait de quibusdam, quod non caste, sed per invidiam Christum annuntiarent; existimantes, inquit, tribulationem suscitare vinculis meis. Sed quid ait? Sive occasione, sive veritate Christus annuntietur . Annuntiant qui me amant, annuntiant qui mihi invident; illi bono odore vivunt, et illi bono odore moriuntur: tamen utrisque praedicantibus nomen Christi annuntietur, odore optimo mundus impleatur. Amasti bene agentem, vixisti bono odore: invidisti bene agenti, mortuus es bono odore. Numquid quia mori voluisti, ideo odorem illum malum esse fecisti? Noli invidere, et non te occidet bonus odor.
50.9 PL 35, 1761
9. And now, lastly, listen to what we have here, how this ointment was to some a sweet savor unto life, and to others a sweet savor unto death. When the pious Mary had rendered this grateful service to the Lord, straightway one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was yet to betray Him, said, “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” Alas for thee, wretched man! the sweet savor hath slain thee. For the cause that led him so to speak is disclosed by the holy evangelist. But we, too, might have supposed, had not the real state of his mind been revealed in the Gospel, that the care of the poor might have induced him so to speak. Not so. What then? Hearken to a true witness: “This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the money bag, and bare what was put therein.” Did he bear it about, or bear it away? For the common service he bore it, as a thief he bore it away.
Denique audi et hic ex unguento isto, quomodo aliis erat odor bonus in vitam, aliis odor bonus in mortem. Posteaquam hoc fecit religiosa Maria ad Domini obsequium, continuo unus ex discipulis ejus, Judas Iscariotes, qui eum erat traditurus, dixit: Quare hoc unguentum non veniit trecentis denariis, et datum est egenis? Vae tibi, miser! bonus odor occidit te. Quare enim hoc dixerit, Evangelista sanctus aperuit. Putaremus autem et nos, si mens ipsius nobis per Evangelium non proderetur, pauperum cura hoc illum dicere potuisse. Non ita est. Sed quid? Audi testem veracem: Dixit autem hoc, non quia de egenis pertinebat ad illum; sed quia fur erat, et loculos habens, et ea quae mittebantur portabat. Portabat, an exportabat? Sed ministerio portabat, furto exportabat .
50.10 PL 35, 1761
10. Look now, and learn that this Judas did not become perverted only at the time when he yielded to the bribery of the Jews and betrayed his Lord. For not a few, inattentive to the Gospel, suppose that Judas only perished when he accepted money from the Jews to betray the Lord. It was not then that he perished, but he was already a thief, and a reprobate, when following the Lord; for it was with his body and not with his heart that he followed. He made up the apostolic number of twelve, but had no part in the apostolic blessedness: he had been made the twelfth in semblance, and on his departure, and the succession of another, the apostolic reality was completed, and the entireness of the number conserved. What lesson then, my brethren, did our Lord Jesus Christ wish to impress on His Church, when it pleased Him to have one castaway among the twelve, but this, that we should bear with the wicked, and refrain from dividing the body of Christ? Here you have Judas among the saints,—that Judas, mark you! who was a thief, yea—do not overlook it—not a thief of any ordinary type, but a thief and a sacrilegist: a robber of money bags, but of such as were the Lord’s; of money bags, but of such as were sacred. If there is a distinction made in the public courts between such crimes as ordinary theft and peculation,—for by peculation we mean the theft of public property; and private theft is not visited with the same sentence as public,—how much more severe ought to be the sentence on the sacrilegious thief, who has dared to steal, not from places of any ordinary kind, but to steal from the Church? He who thieves from the Church, stands side by side with the castaway Judas. Such was this man Judas, and yet he went in and out with the eleven holy disciples. With them he came even to the table of the Lord: he was permitted to have intercourse with them, but he could not contaminate them. Of one bread did both Peter and Judas partake, and yet what communion had the believer with the infidel? Peter’s partaking was unto life, but that of Judas unto death. For that good bread was just like the sweet savor. For as the sweet savor, so also does the good bread give life to the good, and bring death to the wicked. “For he that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself:” “judgment to himself,” not to thee. If, then, it is judgment to himself, not to thee, bear as one that is good with him that is evil, that thou mayest attain unto the rewards of the good, and be not hurled into the punishment of the wicked.
Ecce audite quia Judas iste non tunc perversus factus est, quando a Judaeis corruptus Dominum tradidit. Plerique enim incuriosi Evangelii, existimant tunc periisse Judam, quando accepit a Judaeis pecuniam ut Dominum traderet. Non tunc periit, jam fur erat, et Dominum perditus sequebatur; quia non corde, sed corpore sequebatur. Duodenarium numerum Apostolorum implebat, apostolicam beatitudinem non habebat, ad imaginem fuerat duodecimus: quo decedente, et alio succedente, et suppleta est apostolica veritas, et numeri permansit integritas . Quid ergo voluit Dominus noster Jesus Christus, fratres mei, admonere Ecclesiam suam, quando unum perditum inter duodecim habere voluit, nisi ut malos toleremus, nec corpus Christi dividamus? Ecce inter sanctos est Judas, ecce fur est Judas, et, ne contemnas, fur et sacrilegus, non qualiscumque fur: fur loculorum, sed dominicorum; loculorum, sed sacrorum. Si crimina discernuntur in foro, qualiscumque furti et peculatus; peculatus enim dicitur furtum de re publica; et non sic judicatur furtum rei privatae quomodo publicae: quanto vehementius judicandus est fur sacrilegus, qui ausus fuerit non undecumque tollere, sed de Ecclesia tollere? Qui aliquid de Ecclesia furatur, Judae perdito comparatur. Talis erat iste Judas, et tamen cum sanctis discipulis undecim intrabat et exibat. Ad ipsam dominicam coenam pariter accessit: conversari cum eis potuit, eos inquinare non potuit. De uno pane et Petrus et Judas accepit, et tamen quae pars fideli cum infideli? Petrus enim accepit ad vitam, Judas ad mortem. Quomodo enim ille odor bonus, sic ille cibus bonus. Sicut ergo odor bonus, ita et cibus bonus, bonos vivificat, malos mortificat. Qui enim manducaverit indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit : judicium sibi, non tibi. Si judicium sibi, non tibi; tolera malum bonus, ut venias ad praemia bonorum, ne mittaris in poenam malorum.
50.11 PL 35, 1762
11. Lay to heart our Lord’s example while living with man upon earth. Why had He a money bag, who was ministered unto by angels, save to intimate that His Church was destined thereafter to have her repository for money? Why gave He admission to a thief, save to teach His Church patiently to bear with thieves? But he who had formed the habit of abstracting money from the bag, did not hesitate for money received to sell the Lord Himself. But let us see what answer our Lord gave to such words. See, brethren: He does not say to him, Thou speakest so on account of thy thievishness. He knew him to be a thief, yet did not betray him, but rather endured him, and showed us an example of patience in tolerating the wicked in the Church. “Then said Jesus to him: Let her keep it against the day of my burial.” He announced that His own death was at hand.
Exemplum Domini accipite conversantis in terra. Quare habuit loculos cui Angeli ministraverunt, nisi quia Ecclesia ipsius loculos suos habitura erat? Quare furem admisit, nisi ut ejus Ecclesia fures patienter toleret? Sed ille qui consueverat de loculis pecuniam tollere, non dubitavit accepta pecunia ipsum Dominum vendere. Videamus quid ad ista Dominus respondeat. Videte, fratres: non illi ait, Propter furta tua dicis ista. Furem noverat, nec prodebat; sed potius tolerabat, et ad perferendos malos in Ecclesia nobis exemplum patientiae demonstrabat. Dixit ergo ei Jesus: Sine illam, ut in diem sepulturae meae servet illud. Moriturum se denuntiavit.
50.12 PL 35, 1762
12. But what follows? “For the poor ye have always with you, but me ye will not have always.” We can certainly understand, “the poor ye have always;” what He has thus said is true. When were the poor wanting in the Church? “But me ye will not have always;” what does He mean by this? How are we to understand, “Me ye will not have always”? Don’t be alarmed: it was addressed to Judas. Why, then, did He not say, thou wilt have, but, ye will have? Because Judas is not here a unit. One wicked man represents the whole body of the wicked; in the same way as Peter, the whole body of the good, yea, the body of the Church, but in respect to the good. For if in Peter’s case there were no sacramental symbol of the Church, the Lord would not have said to him, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” If this was said only to Peter, it gives no ground of action to the Church. But if such is the case also in the Church, that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven,—for when the Church excommunicates, the excommunicated person is bound in heaven; when one is reconciled by the Church, the person so reconciled is loosed in heaven:—if such, then, is the case in the Church, Peter, in receiving the keys, represented the holy Church. If, then, in the person of Peter were represented the good in the Church, and in Judas’ person were represented the bad in the Church, then to these latter was it said, “But me ye will not have always.” But what means the “not always;” and what, the “always”? If thou art good, if thou belongest to the body represented by Peter, thou hast Christ both now and hereafter: now by faith, by sign, by the sacrament of baptism, by the bread and wine of the altar. Thou hast Christ now, but thou wilt have Him always; for when thou hast gone hence, thou wilt come to Him who said to the robber, “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” But if thou livest wickedly, thou mayest seem to have Christ now, because thou enterest the Church, signest thyself with the sign of Christ, art baptized with the baptism of Christ, minglest thyself with the members of Christ, and approachest His altar: now thou hast Christ, but by living wickedly thou wilt not have Him always.
Sed quid est quod sequitur? Pauperes enim semper habebitis vobiscum, me autem non semper habebitis. Intelligimus quidem, Pauperes semper habebitis: quod dixit, verum est. Quando Ecclesia sine pauperibus? Me autem non semper habebitis, quid sibi vult? Quomodo intelligendum est, Me autem non semper habebitis? Nolite expavescere; Judae dictum est. Quare ergo non dixit, habebis; sed, habebitis? Quia non unus est Judas. Unus malus corpus malorum significat; quomodo Petrus corpus bonorum, imo corpus Ecclesiae, sed in bonis. Nam si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae sacramentum, non ei diceret Dominus, Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum: quaecumque solveris in terra, soluta erunt et in coelo; et quaecumque ligaveris in terra, ligata erunt et in coelo . Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia. Si autem et in Ecclesia fit, ut quae in terra ligantur, in coelo ligentur, et quae solvuntur in terra, solvantur in coelo: quia cum excommunicat Ecclesia, in coelo ligatur excommunicatus; cum reconciliatur ab Ecclesia, in coelo solvitur reconciliatus: si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit. Si in Petri persona significati sunt in Ecclesia boni, in Judae persona significati sunt in Ecclesia mali; ipsis dictum est, Me autem non semper habebitis. Quid est enim, non semper? Et quid est, semper? Si bonus es, si ad corpus pertines, quod significat Petrus; habes Christum et in praesenti et in futuro: in praesenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum, in praesenti per Baptismatis sacramentum, in praesenti per altaris cibum et potum. Habes Christum in praesenti, sed habebis semper; quia cum hinc exieris, ad illum venies qui dixit latroni, Hodie mecum eris in paradiso . Si autem male versaris, videris habere in praesenti Christum, quia intras Ecclesiam, signas te signo Christi, baptizaris baptismo Christi, misces te membris Christi, accedis ad altare Christi: in praesenti habes Christum, sed male vivendo non semper habebis.
50.13 PL 35, 1763
13. It may be also understood in this way: “The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.” The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, “Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.” But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, “ye will not have Him always.” And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven, and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, “Me ye will not have always.” In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes. In whichever way, then, it was said, “But me ye will not have always,” it can no longer, I suppose, after this twofold solution, remain as a subject of doubt.
Potest et sic intelligi: Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum, me autem non semper habebitis. Accipiant hoc et boni, sed non sint solliciti: loquebatur enim de praesentia corporis sui. Nam secundum majestatem suam, secundum providentiam, secundum ineffabilem et invisibilem gratiam, impletur quod ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque in consummationem saeculi . Secundum carnem vero quam Verbum assumpsit, secundum id quod de Virgine natus est, secundum id quod a Judaeis prehensus est, quod ligno confixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis involutus, quod in sepulcro conditus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? Quoniam conversatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis, et eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo, ascendit in coelum , et non est hic. Ibi est enim, sedet ad dexteram Patris: et hic est, non enim recessit praesentia majestatis. Aliter: secundum praesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum; secundum praesentiam carnis, recte dictum est discipulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus: modo fide tenet, oculis non videt. Ergo sive ita dictum est, Me autem non semper habebitis, quaestio sicut arbitror jam nulla est, quae duobus modis soluta est.
50.14 PL 35, 1763
14. Let us listen to the other few points that remain: “Much people of the Jews therefore knew that He was there: and they came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead.” They were drawn by curiosity, not by charity: they came and saw. Hearken to the strange scheming of human vanity. Having seen Lazarus as one raised from the dead,—for the fame of such a miracle of the Lord’s had been accompanied everywhere with so much evidence of its genuineness, and it had been so openly performed, that they could neither conceal nor deny what had been done,—only think of the plan they hit upon. “But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” O foolish consultation and blinded rage! Could not Christ the Lord, who was able to raise the dead, raise also the slain? When you were preparing a violent death for Lazarus, were you at the same time denuding the Lord of His power? If you think a dead man one thing, a murdered man another, look you only to this, that the Lord made both, and raised Lazarus to life when dead, and Himself when slain.
Caetera quae pauca remanent, audiamus: Cognovit ergo turba multa ex Judaeis quia illic est: et venerunt, non propter Jesum tantum, sed ut Lazarum viderent, quem suscitavit Jesus a mortuis. Curiositas eos adduxit, non charitas: venerunt, et viderunt. Audite mirabile consilium vanitatis. Viso Lazaro resuscitato, quia tantum miraculum Domini tanta erat evidentia diffamatum, tanta manifestatione declaratum, ut non possent vel occultare quod factum est, vel negare, quid invenerunt videte. Cogitaverunt autem principes sacerdotum ut et Lazarum interficerent; quia multi propter illum abibant ex Judaeis, et credebant in Jesum. O stulta cogitatio, et caeca saevitia! Dominus Christus qui suscitare potuit mortuum, non posset occisum? Quando Lazaro inferebatis necem, numquid auferebatis Domino potestatem? Si aliud vobis videtur mortuus, aliud occisus; ecce Dominus utrumque fecit, et Lazarum mortuum, et seipsum suscitavit occisum.