The Blind Man

Healing of the blind man

9:1 And Jesus, passing by, saw a man blind from birth: [n. 1294]

9:2 And his disciples asked him: rabbi, who has sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? [n. 1295]

9:3 Jesus answered: neither this man nor his parents has sinned; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. [n. 1298]

9:4 I must do the works of him who sent me while it is day: the night comes, when no man is able to work. [n. 1303]

9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. [n. 1308]

9:6 When he had said these things, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle, and he spread the clay on his eyes, [n. 1309]

9:7 And he said to him: go, wash in the pool of Siloam, which means sent. He went therefore and washed, and he came back seeing. [n. 1309]

1293. After showing the enlightening power of his teaching by his own words, our Lord confirms this by his action, when he gives sight to one physically blind.

In regard to this three things are presented:

first, the man’s infirmity;

second, his healing, at when he had said these things, he spat on the ground;

third, a discussion among the Jews about this health, at therefore the neighbors (John 9:8).

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, the man’s infirmity is mentioned;

second, we see an inquiry about its cause, at and his disciples asked him.

1294. It should be noted in regard to the first that Jesus hid himself and left the temple, and when he was passing he saw the blind man: and Jesus, passing by, saw a man blind from birth. Three things are considered here. First, he passed by to avoid the anger of the Jews: do not kindle the coals of a sinner lest you be burned in his flaming fire (Sir 8:10). Second, he sought to soften their hardness of heart by working a miracle: if I had not done among them the works that no other man has done, they would not have sin (John 15:24). Third, he went on his way in order to confirm his words by working a sign; for our Lord’s works produce faith in the things that he says: he confirmed the message by the sign that attended it (Mark 16:20).

In the mystical sense, according to Augustine, this blind man is the human race. Sin is a spiritual blindness: their wickedness blinded them (Wis 2:21). The human race is blind from birth, because it contracted sin from its origin, for the blindness occurs through sin in the first man, from whom all of us draw our origin. We read, we were by nature, by natural origin, children of wrath (Eph 2:3).

1295. Then, at and his disciples asked him, the cause of this man’s infirmity is discussed:

first, the disciples ask about its cause;

second, Christ explains it: neither this man nor his parents has sinned.

1296. In regard to the first, three things are to be considered. The first is the reason for the disciples questioning Christ. According to Chrysostom, this was because Jesus, leaving the temple and seeing this blind man, looked at him intently, as though seeing in him an opportunity to manifest his power. And so the disciples seeing him look so intently at the blind man were impelled to question him.

Second, we see the seriousness of the disciples, because they say, rabbi, calling him teacher, to indicate that they are questioning him in order to learn.

Third, we see why they asked, who has sinned? when they inquire into the reason for the man’s blindness.

It must be said, according to Chrysostom, that because the Lord said to the paralytic, when he healed him, behold, you are made well: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to you (John 5:14), the disciples thought that his infirmity was due to sin. They also thought that every human illness arose from sin, as Eliphaz said: think now, who that was innocent ever perished? (Job 4:7). Therefore, they asked whether he had been born blind on account of his own sin or that of his parents. It does not seem to have been on account of his own sin, because no one sins before he is born, since souls do not exist before their bodies, nor do they sin, as some mistakenly think: though they were not yet born and had done nothing, either good or bad . . . not because of works but because of his call, she was told: the elder will serve the younger (Rom 9:11). Nor does it seem that he suffered on account of a sin of his parents, for we read: the fathers will not be put to death for their children, nor will the children be put to death for the fathers (Deut 24:16).

Note that people are punished with two kinds of punishment. One is spiritual and concerns the soul; the other is bodily and concerns the body. A child is never punished on account of his father with a spiritual punishment, because the soul of a child is not from his father but from God: all souls are mine, that is, by creation, the soul of the father as well as the soul of the child is mine: the soul that sins will be punished (Ezek 18:4). Augustine also says this in one of his letters. But a child is punished on account of his father with a bodily punishment, since he is of his father as far as his body is concerned. This is expressly shown when Sodom was destroyed, the children of the inhabitants of Sodom were killed on account of the sins of their parents (Gen 19). Again, the Lord very often threatened to destroy the children of the Jews on account of the sins of their parents.

1297. To understand why one person is punished on account of the sins of another, we must realize that a punishment has two aspects: it is an injury and a remedy. Sometimes a part of the body is cut off to save the entire body. And a punishment of this kind causes an injury insofar as a part is cut off, but it is a remedy insofar as it saves the body itself. Still, a doctor never cuts off a superior member to save one which is inferior, but the other way around. Now in human matters, the soul is superior to the body, and the body is superior to external possessions. And so it never happens that someone is punished in his soul for the sake of his body, but rather he is punished in his body as a curing remedy for his soul. Therefore, God sometimes imposes physical punishments, or difficulties in external concerns, as a beneficial remedy for the soul. And then punishments of this kind are not given just as injuries, but as healing remedies. Thus, the killing of the children of Sodom was for the good of their souls: not because they deserved it, but so they would not be punished more severely for increasing their sins in a life spent in imitating their parents. And in this way some are often punished for the sins of their parents.

1298. Then when he says, Jesus answered, our Lord reveals the reason for the man’s infirmity:

first, he excludes the reason they assumed;

second, he mentions the real reason; and

third, he explains it.

1299. He excludes the reason they assumed when he says, neither this man nor his parents has sinned: for the disciples had assumed that this was the reason for his infirmity, as was said.

1300. He mentions the real reason when he says, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him, for through the works of God we are led to a knowledge of him: his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:20); for the works that the Father has given to me that I might perform them . . . give testimony about me (John 5:36). But the knowledge of God is man’s greatest good, since his happiness consists in this: now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3); let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me (Jer 9:24). If, therefore, an infirmity occurs in order that God’s works be manifested, and God is made known through this manifestation, it is clear that such bodily infirmities occur for a good purpose.

1301. It might seem that the manifestation of God’s works is not a sufficient reason for such an infirmity, especially since neither he nor his parents sinned. Therefore, some say that the words, that the works of God should be made manifest, do not indicate the reason but merely the sequence of events. The sense then being: the man was blind, and the works of God were manifested in his cure.

But this does not seem to be reasonable; and so it is better to say that the reason is being given. For evil is twofold: the evil of fault and of punishment. Now God does not cause the evil of fault, but permits it; yet he would not permit it unless he intended some good from it. So Augustine says in his Enchiridion: God is so good that he would never permit any evil to occur, unless he was so powerful as to draw some good from every evil. Therefore, he allows certain sins to be committed because he intends some good; in this way, he allows the rage of tyrants so that martyrs may be crowned. Much more, therefore, should it be said that the evil of punishment, which he causes, as it is said: does evil befall a city, unless the Lord has done it? (Amos 3:6) is never applied except for the good he intends. And among these goods the best is that the works of God be manifested, and from them that God be known. Therefore, it is not unfitting if he sends afflictions or allows sins to be committed in order that some good come from them.

1302. It should be noted, as Gregory says in I Morals, that God sends afflictions to men in five ways.

Sometimes they are the beginning of damnation: strike them with a double punishment (Jer 17:18). A sinner is struck with this kind of punishment in this life so that without interruption or end he might be punished in the other life. For example, Herod, who killed James, was punished in this life and also in hell (Acts 12:23).

Sometimes afflictions are sent as a correction, as we read: your discipline will teach me (Ps 17:36).

And sometimes a person is afflicted not to correct past wrongs, but to preserve him from future ones, as we read of Paul: and to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated (2 Cor 12:7).

Again, sometimes it is done to encourage virtue: as when a person’s past sins are not being corrected, nor future ones hindered, but he is led to a stronger love by knowing the power of the one who unexpectedly delivered him from some difficulty: virtue is made perfect in infirmity (2 Cor 12:9); patience has a perfect work (Jas 1:4).

And finally, sometimes afflictions are sent to manifest the divine glory; thus we read here, that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

1303. Next he explains the true reason: I must do the works of him who sent me while it is day. And because he had mentioned God’s works,

first he states the opportunity for manifesting God’s works;

second, he assigns the reason for this opportunity or need: the night comes, when no man is able to work; and

third, he explains this: as long as I am in the world.

1304. He says, therefore, this man was born blind that the works of God should be made manifest in him. And it was necessary that they be manifested, for I must do the works of him who sent me, which can refer to Christ according as he is a man; and then in this sense: I must do the works of him who sent me, that is, the works entrusted to me by my Father, as mentioned above: for the works that the Father has given to me (John 5:36). And below he says: Father, I have finished the work that you gave me to do (John 17:4). Or, these words can refer to Christ insofar as he is God; and then they indicate the equality of his power with that of the Father. Then the meaning is, I must do the works of him who sent me, that is, the works which I have from the Father. For everything that the Son does, even according to his divine nature, he has from his Father: the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he sees the Father doing (John 5:19).

1305. I must do the works of him who sent me while it is day. Our natural day is produced by the presence of the sun to the earth. But the Sun of Justice is Christ, our God: but for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness will rise (Mal 4:2). Therefore, as long as this Sun is present to us, the works of God can be done in us, for us, and by us. At one time this Sun was physically present to us; and then it was day: this is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it (Ps 118:24). Therefore, it was fitting to do the works of God. He is also present us by grace; and then it is the day of grace, when it is fitting to do the works of God, while it is day; the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light (Rom 13:12); those who sleep, sleep at night. You, however, are not in the night (1 Thess 5:7).

1306. If the presence of the sun produces day, and its absence night, then, since the sun is always present to itself, it is always day for the sun; and so for the sun, it is always the time for acting and illuminating. But with regard to ourselves, to whom it is sometimes present and at other times absent, it is not always acting and illuminating. In the same way for Christ, the Sun of Justice, it is always day and the time for acting; but not with respect to us, because we are not always able to receive his grace due to some obstacle on our part.

1307. He mentions why this is our opportunity when he says, the night comes, when no man is able to work. Just as there are two kinds of day, so there are two kinds of night. One is by the physical departure of the Sun of Justice, which is what the Apostles experienced when they were demoralized at the time of the passion, when Christ was physically taken from them: you will all fall away because of me this night (Matt 26:31). Then it was not the time for acting, but for suffering.

But it is better to say that even when Christ was physically absent because of his ascension, it was still day for the Apostles insofar as the Sun of Justice shone on them, and it was a time for working. And so night in this passage refers to that night which comes from the spiritual separation from the Sun of Justice, that is, by the separation from grace. This night is of two kinds. One is by the loss of actual grace through mortal sin: those who sleep, sleep at night (1 Thess 5:7). When this night comes, no one can perform works that merit eternal life. The other night is total, when one is deprived not only of actual grace by mortal sin, but even of the ability of obtaining grace because of an eternal damnation in hell. Here there is a vast night for those to whom it will be said: depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire (Matt 24:41). During this night no one can work, because it is not the time for meriting, but for receiving according to one’s merits. Therefore, while you are living, do now what you will want to have done then: whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought of knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going (Eccl 9:10).

1308. He gives the reason for what he has just said, saying, as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. This is like saying: if you want to know what is that day and what is that night of which I speak, I say that I am the light of the world, for my presence makes day, and my absence night; I am the light of the world (John 8:12). As long as I am in the world by my bodily presence: I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world: again I leave the world, and I go to the Father (John 16:28); I am the light of the world. And thus this day lasted until the ascension of Christ. Or again, as long as I am in the world spiritually by grace—I am with you until the consummation of the world (Matt 28:20)—I am the light of the world. And this day will last until the consummation of the world.

1309. Next, when the Evangelist says, when he had said these things, he spat on the ground, he describes the healing of the blind man. Here five things were done by Christ. First, he moistens the earth, he spat on the ground. Second, he made the clay, as we read, he made clay of the spittle. Third, Christ smeared the man’s eyes and he spread the clay on his eyes. Fourth, he commands the man to wash, with go, wash in the pool of Siloam. And fifth, the man’s sight is restored, and he came back seeing. Each of these has both a literal and a mystical explanation.

1310. The literal meaning is explained by Chrysostom in this way. Christ restored the man’s sight by spittle in order to show that he accomplished this by a power coming from himself, and that the miracle should not be attributed to anything else: power came forth from him (Luke 6:19). Although our Lord could have performed all his miracles by his mere word, because he commanded and they were created (Ps 148:5), he frequently used his body in them to show that, as an instrument of his divinity, it held a definite healing power.

He made clay from his spittle to show that he who had formed the entire first man can reform the deficient members of a man. Thus, just as he formed the first man from clay, so he made clay to re-form the eyes of the one born blind.

He rubbed the clay on the eyes of the one born blind to show, by healing what is most important in bodies, that he was the creator of bodies. For man is more excellent than all other bodily substances; and among his members, the head is the more excellent; and among the organs of the head, the eye is more excellent than the others: the eye is the lamp of the body (Matt 6:22). Therefore, by repairing the eye, which is more excellent than the other bodily members, he showed that he was the creator of the entire man and of all corporeal nature. He said, go, wash in the pool of Siloam, so that it would not seem that the clay he rubbed on the eyes had the power to heal them. Thus, as long as he had the clay on his eyes, the man did not see, but saw only after he washed.

He sent him some distance to wash, to the pool of Siloam, first, to overcome the obstinacy of the Jews. For he had to cross the city, and so all would see the blind man going with the clay on his eyes, and then returning with his sight restored. Second, he did this to acclaim the obedience and faith of the blind man; for perhaps he had frequently had clay put on his face, and had often washed in the pool of Siloam, and yet had not seen. So he could have said: clay usually makes me worse, and I have often washed in the pool but was never helped, as we read of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:10). Yet he did not argue, but simply obeyed. Thus it follows, he went therefore and washed. The reason why he sent him to the pool of Siloam was because the Jewish people were signified by that water: because this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently (Isa 8:6) Therefore, he sent him to Siloam to show that he still loved the Jewish people.

The effect follows, because he came back seeing. This was predicted: then the eyes of the blind will be opened (Isa 35:5).

1311. Augustine gives the mystical and allegorical explanation. He says that the spittle, which is saliva that descends from the head, signifies the Word of God, who proceeds from the Father, the head of all things: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High (Sir 24:3). Therefore, the Lord made clay from spittle and the earth when the Word was made flesh. He spread the clay on his eyes, that is, of the human race. And the eyes are the eyes of the heart, anointed by faith in the incarnation of Christ. But the blind man did not yet see, because the anointing produced a catechumen, who has faith but has not yet been baptized. So he sends him to the pool of Siloam to wash and receive his sight, i.e., to be baptized, and in baptism to receive full enlightenment. Thus, according to Dionysius, baptism is an enlightenment: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be clean from all your uncleanness (Ezek 36:25). And so this Gospel is appropriately read in Lent, on Holy Saturday, when those about to be baptized are examined. Nor is it without reason that the Evangelist adds the meaning of the pool, saying, which means sent, because whoever is baptized must be baptized in Christ, who was sent by the Father: as many of you as were baptized in Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:27). For if Christ had not been sent, none of us would have been freed from sin.

According to Gregory, however, the spittle signifies the savor of intimate contemplation, which flows from the head into the mouth, because due to the love of our Creator we have been touched even in this life with the savor of revelation. Thus the Lord mixed spittle with earth and restored sight to the man born blind, since supernatural grace illuminates our carnal understanding by the admixture of his contemplation, and heals our understanding from its original blindness.

The blind man’s testimony

9:8 Therefore the neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar, said: is this not he who sat and begged? Some said: this is he. [n. 1313]

9:9 Others said: no, but he is like him. But he said: I am he. [n. 1314]

9:10 Therefore they said to him: how were your eyes opened? [n. 1316]

9:11 He answered: that man who is called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes, and said to me: go to the pool of Siloam and wash. And I went, and I washed, and I see. [n. 1318]

9:12 And they said to him: where is he? He said: I do not know. [n. 1319]

9:13 They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees. [n. 1320]

9:14 Now it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. [n. 1322]

9:15 Again therefore the Pharisees asked him how he had received his sight. He said to them: he put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see. [n. 1323]

9:16 Some of the Pharisees said: this man is not of God, who does not keep the Sabbath. But others said: how is a man who is a sinner able to do such miracles? And there was division among them. [n. 1325]

9:17 They said therefore to the blind man again: what do you say about him who opened your eyes? And he said: he is a prophet. [n. 1329]

9:18 The Jews then did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight. [n. 1330]

9:19 And they asked them, saying: is this your son, who you say was born blind? How does he now see? [n. 1332]

9:20 His parents answered them and said: we know that this is our son and that he was born blind: [n. 1333]

9:21 But how he now sees we do not know nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him: he is of age, let him speak for himself. [n. 1333]

9:22 His parents said these things, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. [n. 1334]

9:23 Therefore his parents said: he is of age, ask him. [n. 1334]

1312. After the description of the miraculous healing of the blind man, the Evangelist tells of the miracle being examined.

First, the miracle is examined by the people;

second, by the Pharisees and rulers: they brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees;

and third, on account of his confession the blind man is instructed and commended by Christ: Jesus heard that they had cast him out (John 9:35).

In regard to the first, the Evangelist mentions three things:

first, we see an inquiry about the person who received his sight;

second, about the restoration itself: therefore they said to him.

and third about the one who restored his sight, at and they said to him: where is he?

In regard to the first he does three things:

first, we have a question about the one who received his sight;

second, the different opinions about this are given;

third, the question is settled.

1313. The question is asked by the people. He says, therefore the neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar said: is this not he who sat and begged?

Here two things are to be considered. One is that due to the greatness of the miracle, it was considered incredible. So we read: from the beginning of the world it has not been heard that any man has opened the eyes of one born blind (John 9:32). This fulfills for them what is said: I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told (Hab 1:5).

Second, we should note the wonderful compassion of God, because our Lord performs miracles not only for the powerful, but also for outcasts, since he healed, with great pity, those who begged. This shows that he who came for our salvation rejected no one because of their poverty: has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom? (Jas 2:5). Thus they explicitly say, is this not he who sat and begged? This is like saying: he is an outcast and does not deserve to be cured. But the opposite is said: the giants who were born there . . . God did not choose them (Bar 3:26).

1314. The opinions of the people are presented when he says, some said: this is he, because they had often seen him begging, and later hurrying through the town when he went to the pool with the clay on his eyes. Thus they could not deny that it was he. But others were on the contrary opinion, so they said, no, but he is like him. The reason for this, as Augustine says, is that the man’s appearance changed when he regained his sight, for nothing is so characteristic as the expression a person gets from his eyes: a sensible man is known by his face (Sir 19:29).

1315. The question is settled by the blind man because he, the blind man, said, I am he, the one who used to beg. His voice was grateful, lest he should be guilty of ingratitude. For since he could not be ungrateful for such a great favor and was unable to show any other sign of gratitude than to constantly declare that he had been cured by Christ, he said, I am he, the one who was blind and begged; and now I see: bless the God of heaven, give glory to him in the sight of all that live, for he has shown his mercy to you (Tob 12:6).

1316. Then: they said therefore to him: how were your eyes opened? We see the investigation of the act, which was the restoration of the man’s sight.

First, we have the question asked by the Jews;

second, the answer of the blind man: he answered: that man who is called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes.

1317. They continue: if you are the blind man who used to beg, then tell us, how were your eyes opened? This question came from their vain curiosity because neither the one who was cured nor we ourselves know how it was done: do not meddle in what is beyond your tasks (Sir 3:23).

1318. The blind man’s answer was remarkable; he says, that man who is called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes, and said to me: go to the pool of Siloam and wash. In his answer he first points out the person who gave him his sight, saying that man who is called Jesus. He was right in calling him a man; he knew that he was a man, and he was a true man: born in the likeness of man (Phil 2:7). For although he had not seen Jesus, because he had left while still blind to go to Siloam, he knew him from listening and from the conversations of others about him.

Second, he tells what was done, saying, he made clay and anointed my eyes. Here he shows that he is truthful, not asserting what is not certain. For our Lord had made clay from spittle, but he did not know this; yet through his sense of touch he recognized the clay which was made and placed over his eyes. So he did not say, he made clay from spittle, but only, made clay and anointed my eyes: that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands . . . we proclaim also to you (1 John 1:1).

Third, he mentions the command, saying, and said to me, go to the pool of Siloam and wash. This was also necessary for us, for if we wish to be cleansed from our blindness of heart, it is necessary that we be spiritually washed; wash yourselves; make yourselves clean (Isa 1:16).

Fourth, he shows his obedience, saying, and I went, and I washed. He is saying in effect: because I heard this command and desired to see, I obeyed. And it is no wonder, because we read: for the commandment, that is, when obeyed, is a lamp and the teaching a light (Prov 6:23).

Fifth, he mentions the good effect, saying, and I see. It was fitting that he be enlightened after obeying, because as it says: it is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him (Acts 5:32). Notice the perseverance of the blind man. As Augustine says: look at him! He became a preacher of grace. See him! He preaches and testifies to the Jews. This blind man testified, and the hearts of the wicked were vexed, because they did not have the light in their hearts which he had in his face.

1319. Next, we have the inquiry about the person who restored his sight: and they said to him: where is he? He said: I do not know. First, there is the question asked by the Jews, where is he? They asked this maliciously, as they were thinking of killing him; for they had already formed a conspiracy against Christ: but now you seek to kill me (John 8:40).

Second, we have the answer of the blind man, I do not know. As Augustine says, from these words it is clear that what was accomplished in him physically represents what is accomplished spiritually at different stages. For at first, the blind man is anointed, and then sees after his washing. The anointing represents the beginning of his physical health, and the washing leads to complete health. In particular, an anointing produces a catechumen; and the washing, that is, baptism, perfects and enlightens him. Thus we have a representation of the difference in faith found at different stages. For when he says, I do not know, this represents the imperfect faith of catechumens: you adore that which we do know (John 4:22). This can also signify our faith: for our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect (1 Cor 13:9).

1320. Then when he says, they brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees, we see his examination by the Pharisees.

First, they question the man born blind;

second, his parents: the Jews then did not believe.

He does three things with the first.

First, we see the person to be examined;

second, he mentions the intention of the examiners;

and third we have the interrogation itself.

1321. The one to be examined, the blind man, is led to the Pharisees by the people. They, that is, the crowd, brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees. They did this because the crowd was trying to find out from him where Jesus was, so that if they found him they could bring him to the Pharisees and accuse him of breaking the Sabbath. So because they did not have Christ they took the blind man, so that by questioning him more roughly they might force him by fear to make up something false about Christ: I will go to the great, and will speak to them; for they know the way of the Lord, the law of their God. But they all alike had broken the yoke, they had burst the bonds (Jer 5:5).

1322. The Evangelist shows that their intention was perverse, saying, it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. He says this to show their evil intention and the reason why they sought Jesus, that is, to find a charge against him and detract from his miracle by his supposed violation of the law. Nevertheless, it should be said that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8).

1323. His examination is conducted by the Pharisees, since it is said, again therefore the Pharisees asked him how he had received his sight.

First, they question him about what was done;

second, about the person who did it: some of the Pharisees said.

1324. The Evangelist does two things about the first: first, he presents their interrogation; second, the blind man’s answer.

They ask him about the sign he received, again therefore the Pharisees asked him how he had received his sight. Not in order to learn, but to find a reason to accuse him of lying.

The blind man answers them, not contradicting what he said before, nor deviating from the truth. He, that is, the blind man, said to them, he put clay on my eyes. We must, first, admire the perseverance of this blind man, for although it may not seem such a great thing to have spoken the truth when he, without danger, was questioned by the crowd, he showed remarkable perseverance when in greater danger before the Pharisees he neither denied what he had said before nor changed his account: I will also speak of thy testimonies before kings, and will not be put to shame (Ps 119:46). Second, we should admire his skill, for it is good practice to first relate an event in detail and with all its circumstances, and then if it has to be repeated, to speak more concisely. So here, he does not repeat the name of the one who spoke to him, nor that he said to me: go and wash. But without hesitation he relays only the essential, and says, he put clay on my eyes.

1325. Next, an inquiry is made about the one who restored the man’s sight, at some of the Pharisees said: this man is not of God . . . But others said: how is a man who is a sinner able to do such miracles?

First, the different opinions of the Pharisees concerning Christ are given;

second, the opinion of the blind man is sought: therefore they said to the blind man again.

In regard to the first he does three things:

first, he presents the opinion of those who were blaspheming Christ;

then, the opinion of those who were commending him;

third, he concludes with the fact that they were arguing and disagreeing among themselves.

1326. We should note, concerning the first, that those who act maliciously against someone keep silent if they see anything good in his work, and they reveal the evil, if any is seen, even turning what is good into evil, as it is written: beware of a scoundrel, for he devises evil, lest he give you a lasting blemish (Sir 11:33). This is what they are doing here: for they do not mention what seemed good, that is, the restoration of the blind man’s sight, but stress what they can against Christ, that is, his breaking of the Sabbath. Thus some of the Pharisees said, that is, those who were malicious and corrupt, this man is not from God, who does not keep the Sabbath. But Christ did keep the Sabbath, for when the Lord forbade work on the Sabbath he had in mind servile work, which is a sin: whoever commits sin is the slave of sin (John 8:34). Therefore, he who performs works of sin on the Sabbath, breaks the Sabbath. So Christ, who was without sin, rather than they, kept the Sabbath.

1327. The opinion of those commending him is presented when he reports them as saying, how is a man who is a sinner able to do such miracles? These others had some faith due to the signs that Christ worked, but were still weak and imperfect; it was out of fear of the Pharisees and the elders that they asked with hesitation, how is a man who is a sinner able to do such miracles? We read below that many of the chief men also believed in him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him (John 12:42). They should have shown how our Lord had not broken the Sabbath, and have appropriately replied in defense of Jesus.

1328. The difference of opinion among them is mentioned when he says, and there was division among them; and this division was also found in the people. This was a sign of their destruction: their heart is false; now they must bear their guilt (Hos 10:2); every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste (Matt 12:25).

1329. Next, at what do you say about him who opened your eyes? they ask the blind man for his opinion. And first we have the question the Pharisees asked; second, the blind man’s answer.

They question him, saying, what do you say about him? According to Chrysostom, this question was not asked by those who were blaspheming Christ, but by those favorably disposed. This is clear from the way they questioned him; for they call his attention to the gift he received, saying, what do you say about him who opened your eyes? If the others had been doing the questioning, they would not have said this, but would rather recall that Christ broke the Sabbath. But these remind him of the benefit that he received to make him grateful and lead him to testify to Christ. But according to Augustine, this question was asked by Christ’s enemies, who wanted to deprecate this man who constantly professed the truth; or they were trying to get him to change his opinion out of fear; or at least were attempting to exclude him from the synagogue.

1330. Next, at the Jews then did not believe, we see his parents questioned.

First, we have the reason why they were questioned;

second, the question itself: and they asked.

third their answer: his parents answered them.

and fourth, the reason for this answer: these things his parents said.

1331. The reason for this second questioning was the unbelief of the Pharisees. He says, the Jews, that is, the Pharisees, did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who received his sight. They did this in an attempt to nullify the miracle of Christ and to preserve their own glory: how are you able to believe who receive glory from one another? (John 5:44)

1332. The Pharisees now question his parents. Here they ask about three things. First, about their son, saying is this your son? Which is like saying, surely this is not he?

Second, about his blindness; and so they add, who you say was born blind. They did not say, who at one time was blind, but who you say, as if to say, you made this up. Surely it is not true? But what father would lie in such a way about his son? Yet they were trying to make him say he did.

Third, they ask how he had obtained his sight, how does he now see? This was like saying: either it is false that he now sees, or that he was once blind; but obviously the truth is that he sees; therefore it was false to say that he had been blind: the powerful man will test you through much talking, and while he smiles he will be examining you (Sir 13:11).

1333. Then, the answer of his parents is given: his parents answered them and said: we know that this is our son and that he was born blind. The Pharisees had asked about three things; they answer firmly about two and in regard to the third they refer them to their son. First, they admit the first, namely, that he is their son; so they say, we know that this is our son. They also admit the second when they add, and that he was born blind. This shows that the truth always conquers what is false, as we read in the apocryphal Ezra: truth conquers all (Ezra 3:13). Yet as to the third question, how their son sees, they answer, but how he now sees we do not know. They reply, second, about the person who gave him his sight, nor do we know who opened his eyes. They answer this way because the question was directed against the one who gave sight to their son, and so they refer this to their son, saying, ask him, he is of age, he speaks for himself. This was like saying: he was born blind, not mute; thus he can speak for himself in this matter. The testimony about this miracle was from several sources so as to make it more believable: the parents told what they knew, and their blind son confirmed that he had been cured.

1334. The reason for their answer is given when he says, his parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for they were still imperfect and did not dare do what our Lord says: do not fear those who kill the body (Matt 10:28). The reason for their fear was for the Jews had already agreed among themselves that, if any man should confess him to be the Christ, he should be put out of the synagoge. And, these things have I spoken to you, that you may not be scandalized (John 16:1). As Augustine says, it was no longer an evil to be cast out of the synagogue, for the ones they rejected, Christ welcomed.

Persecution of the blind man

9:24 They therefore called the man again who had been blind and said to him: give the glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner. [n. 1336]

9:25 Therefore he said to them: if he is a sinner, I do not know: one thing I know, that before I was blind but now I see. [n. 1337]

9:26 They then said to him: what did he do to you? How did he open your eyes? [n. 1339]

9:27 He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard: why do you want to hear it again? Will you also become his disciples? [n. 1340]

9:28 They reviled him therefore and said: you are his disciple, but we are the disciples of Moses. [n. 1342]

9:29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know from where he comes. [n. 1343]

9:30 The man answered and said to them: why, this is a marvel! You do not know from where he comes, and he has opened my eyes. [n. 1345]

9:31 Now we know that God does not hear sinners, but if a man is a servant of God and does his will, he hears him. [n. 1346]

9:32 From the beginning of the world it has not been heard that any man has opened the eyes of one born blind. [n. 1351]

9:33 Unless this man were of God, he could not do anything. [n. 1352]

9:34 They answered and said to him: you were completely born in sins, and you are teaching us? And they cast him out. [n. 1353]

1335. After the questioning of the blind man and his parents, an attempt is made to make him deny the truth and affirm what is false.

First, they attempt to make him deny the truth;

second, they revile him:

and third, they condemn him:

At they reviled him therefore; third at they answered, and said to him: you were completely born in sins.

The Evangelist does two things about the first.

First, he shows how they tried to get the man born blind to deny the truth;

second, how they continued to question him in order to malign him: they then said to him: what did he do to you?

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he shows their malice; and

second, the steadfastness of the man born blind: therefore he said to them.

The malice of the Pharisees is shown by their attempt to have him deny the truth, while the steadfastness of the blind man appears by his resolute profession of the truth.

1336. In regard to the first he says, they therefore called the man again who had been blind, for his parents had referred them to the blind man, and said to him: give the glory to God. They say one thing but mean another. For they wish to force him to say that his sight was not restored by Christ, or if they are unable to do this, to force him to admit that he was cured by him through sorcery. They do not say this openly, but implicitly, with an appearance of devotion. They attempt this by saying, give the glory to God. As if to say: your sight has been given to you. But only God can do this. Therefore, you should not attribute this to anyone but God, and not to this man, that is, Christ, because if you do this you are indicating that you have not received the gift of your healing from God, for the reason that God does not perform miracles through sinners. Thus they add, we know that this man is a sinner, as if to say: to admit that this man has not done anything, you must deny what you have said. But, as Augustine says, if he had done this, he would not be giving glory to God but rather, being ungrateful, would be blaspheming. But in truth, the Pharisees were lying when they said, we know that this man is a sinner; for they could not convict him of sin, and he said: who among you will convict me of sin? (John 8:46) And no wonder, because he committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips (1 Pet 2:22).

1337. Here we see the steadfastness of the blind man. For amazed at the hardness of the Pharisees, and impatient with what they were saying, he says, in all truth, if he is a sinner, I do not know.

Yet because he had said before that he is a prophet (John 9:17), is he not now saying, if he is a sinner, I do not know, out of fear, as if he were doubtful? Not at all! Rather, he is angry and mocking the Pharisees. He is saying in effect: you assert that he is a sinner; but I do not know that he is a sinner, and I am amazed that you assert this, because he accomplished a work which does not seem to be the work of a sinner: one thing I know, that before I was blind but now I see, by his kindness. According to Augustine, he said this in order not to be maligned nor to conceal the truth. For perhaps if he had said, I know that he is a just man, which was true, they would have maligned him. But according to Chrysostom, he said this to give them a more impressive testimony to the miracle, and to make his answer believable by calling attention to the gift itself he received.

1338. They again question the man born blind in order to malign him.

First, we have the cunning interrogation of the Pharisees; and

second, the contemptuous reply of the blind man: he answered them: I have told you already.

1339. He says, with respect to the first, they said to him: what did he do to you? For, because the blind man confessed that he received his sight from Christ, which they were not asking, but rather they were intending to calumniate Christ in this way of putting the question. So they did not ask how is it that you see? but how did he open your eyes? It was like saying: he did this by some trick or sorcery, didn’t he? As, those who seek my hurt speak of ruin, and meditate treachery all the day long (Ps 38:12).

1340. Now the man’s answer is given. The man born blind, because he really had received his sight, answers them further, not timidly, but with boldness. He first belittles the repeated questioning of the Pharisees, saying, I have told you already and you have heard: why do you want to hear it again? This was like saying: I told you once. Why do you want to hear it again? That is foolish. It looks like you are not paying attention to what I am saying. So, I have nothing further to say to you because your questioning is useless, and you want to cavil rather than learn. As it is written: he who tells a story to a fool tells it to a drowsy man; and at the end he will say: what is it? (Sir 22:8)

Second, he mocks the presumptuous intention of the Pharisees, saying, will you also become his disciples? When someone carefully investigates a matter, he does so either with a good intention, to accept it, or with an evil intention, to condemn it. Now because the Pharisees were carefully investigating this, and because the man born blind did not dare impute an evil intention to them, he takes the alternative, saying, will you also become his disciples? He means by this: if you are not investigating this maliciously, you therefore wish to join him: as it is written, can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil (Jer 13:23). As Augustine says, the one who had received his sight gladly desired to give them light. Thus, he significantly says, will you also, implying that he himself was a disciple. He is saying in effect: will you also become his disciples as I am? I already see, and do not envy your coming to the light. And as Chrysostom says, from the steadfastness of the blind man we can see how strong truth really is, for when it convinces the lowly, it makes them noble and strong. And we can see how weak is a lie, which even if it is maintained by the powerful, shows and makes them weak.

1341. Next, the Pharisees revile the man born blind.

First, we see them revile him;

then, second, the defense of the blind man: the man answered.

He does two things concerning the first:

first, he presents the revilement of the Pharisees;

second, the reason behind it: but we are the disciples of Moses.

1342. With respect to the first he says, and they reviled him therefore and said: you are his disciple. This is, indeed, scornful, if you consider their vicious hearts. But if you consider their words, it is the greatest blessing. May we and our children be treated with such scorn! If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples (John 8:31). Still, the Evangelist stated that they reviled him by saying this because what they said came from their evil hearts: like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are smooth lips with an evil heart (Prov 26:23). We read about this revilement elsewhere: let them curse, but do thou bless (Ps 109:28); and: blessed are you when men revile you (Matt 5:11).

1343. He next adds the reason for their reviling when he says, we are the disciples of Moses. They were thinking of how they were ridiculed by the man born blind when he asked if they wanted to become Christ’s disciples; for they took pride in being disciples of Moses, whom they thought was greater. First, they set forth their own situation, saying, we are the disciples of Moses. Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justices (Sir 24:33). But this pride of theirs is false, because they neither followed Moses nor fulfilled his commands: if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also (John 5:46); this was like saying: you do not follow the servant, and later go against his Lord.

Second, they praise the dignity of Moses when they say, we know that God spoke to Moses. Here they are telling the truth, for as we read: the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Exod 33:11); and, if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth (Num 12:6). Thus God spoke to Moses in a more excellent way than to the other prophets. And it is about this that they are speaking. However, it is clear that since God spoke his Word to Moses, the dignity of Moses came from the Word of God. And so the Word of God is of greater dignity than Moses: yet Jesus has been counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more honor than the house (Heb 3:3).

Third, they hint at the dignity of Christ in a veiled manner when they say, as for this man, Christ, we do not know from where he comes. This is true, but not the way they understood it: for they did not know the Father, and Christ was from the Father: you know neither me nor my Father (John 8:19). But their statement is false as they understood it, for when they said, we do not know where from where he comes, they meant he had no authority and was unverified, so that is was not clear whether or not he came from God. They seem to be applying to him the words: I did not send you prophets, yet they ran (Jer 23:21).

1344. Now, the blind man’s argument against the Pharisees is presented.

First, he is amazed at their hardness of heart;

second, he refutes their false opinion: now we know that God does not hear sinners.

1345. Concerning the first, we must recall that we are not amazed at what happens frequently, and in the usual way; but we are amazed at what is unusual and great, whether this be good or evil. We are struck by unusual and great good: you are wonderful, my Lord, and your countenance is full of grace (Esth 15:17). We are also amazed at great evil: be appalled, O heavens, at this . . . for my people have committed two evils (Jer 2:12).

In line with this, the blind man says in answer, why, this is a marvel! You do not know from where he comes. He is saying in effect: it would not be remarkable if you regarded someone insignificant and like me as having no authority. But it is extremely amazing that you can see an explicit and evident sign of divine power in Christ and say that you do not know where he comes from, especially because he did open my eyes.

1346. The man born blind refutes their false opinion by saying, we know that God does not hear sinners. He is reasoning this way: whomever God hears is from God; but God heard Christ; therefore, Christ is from God.

He first states his main premise;

then the minor premise: from the beginning of the world;

and third, he draws his conclusion: unless this man were of God, he could not do anything.

He does two things abut the first:

first, he mentions those whom God does not hear;

second, those he does hear: but if a man is a servant of God and does his will, he hears him.

1347. God does not hear sinners. In regard to this he says, we know that God does not hear sinners. He is saying: both you and I agree that sinners are not heard by God. Thus it is said, they cried to the Lord and he did not hear them (Ps 17:42); and again, then they will call upon me, but I will not hear (Prov 1:28).

Accordingly, if we wish to save the statement of the blind man we must say that God does not hear those sinners who persist in their sinning; but he does hear those sinners who are sorry for their sins, and who should be regarded more as repentant than as sinners.

1348. Yet there is a difficulty here. It is clear that miracles are not accomplished by us due to our own power, but through prayer. But sinners often perform miracles: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name . . . and do many mighty works in your name? (Matt 7:22) And yet God did not know them. Thus, what the blind man said does not seems to be true, namely, we know that God does not hear sinners.

There are two answers to this. The first is general. Prayer has two characteristics, that is, it can obtain what it asks for and it can merit. Thus, sometimes it obtains what it asks, and does not merit; at other times, it merits and does not obtain. And so nothing prevents the prayer of a sinner from obtaining what it asks although it does not merit. This is the way that God hears sinners; not as a matter of merit, but they obtain what they ask from the divine power, which they acknowledge. The other answer is special and applies to this particular case, when the miracle that was done makes known the person of Christ.

1349. It should be mentioned that every miracle is a sort of testimony. Sometimes, a miracle is accomplished as a testimony to the truth that is being preached; at other times, it is a testimony to the person performing it. We must also realize that no true miracle happens except by the divine power, and that God is never a witness to a lie. I say, therefore, that whenever a miracle is performed in testimony to a doctrine that is being preached, that doctrine must be true, even if the person who is preaching it is not good. And when it is performed in testimony to the person, it is also necessary that the person be good. Now it is evident that the miracles of Christ were performed in testimony to his person: for the works that the Father has given to me that I might perform them . . . give testimony about me (John 5:36). It was with this meaning that the blind man said that God does not hear sinners, that is, so that they could perform miracles as a testimony to their supposed holiness.

1350. Then when he says, but if a man is a servant of God and does his will, he hears him, he shows that God hears the just through merit.

We must realize that the performing of miracles is attributed to faith: if you say to this mountain: be taken up and cast into the sea, it will be done (Matt 21:21). The reason for this is that miracles are accomplished by the omnipotence of God, on which faith relies. Therefore, whoever wishes to obtain something from God has to have faith: let him ask in faith (Jas 1:6). However, if he wishes to obtain it through merit, he must do God’s will. And these two conditions are mentioned here. As to the first, he says, if a man is a servant of God, by sacrifices and offerings: they will worship him with sacrifice and burnt offering (Isa 19:21). These belong to the worship of latria, which attests to one’s faith. As to the second he says, and does his will by obeying his commandments, he hears him.

1351. Here he takes the minor premise of his argument. He is saying: because of what Christ did, which no man has ever done, it is obvious that he did this by the action of God, and that he has been heard by God: if I had not done among them the works that no other man has done, they would not have sin (John 15:24).

1352. Next, he draws his conclusion. He is saying, in effect: from the kind of works that Christ does, it is obvious that he is from God. For unless this man were of God, he could not do anything, that is, freely, often and truly: for without me you can do nothing (John 15:5).

1353. Here the Pharisees condemn the blind man. In this condemnation they fall into three defects or sins, namely, untruth, pride, and injustice.

They fall into untruth in reviling the blind man, saying, you were completely born in sins. Here it should be noted that the Jews were of the opinion that all infirmities and temporal adversities beset us on account of our previous sins. This was the opinion given by Eliphaz: think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same. By the breath of God they perish (Job 4:7). The reason for this opinion is that in the old law temporal goods were promised to the good, and temporal punishment to the evil: if you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good of the land (Isa 1:19). Therefore, seeing that this man had been born blind, they believed that this happened on account of his sins, and so they say, you were completely born in sins. But they were wrong, because the Lord said: neither this man nor his parents has sinned (John 9:3). There is a lying rebuke in the anger of an injurious man (Sir 19:28).

They say completely to show that he is defiled by sins not only in his soul, insofar as all of us are born sinners, but even as regards the traces of sin which appear in his body, as blindness. Or according to Chrysostom, completely means that he was in sin all his life, from his earliest years.

They are guilty of pride by rejecting what the man born blind was teaching, when they say, you are teaching us? This was like saying: you are not worthy. This makes their pride clear: for no person, no matter however wise, ought to reject being taught by any inferior. Thus the Apostle teaches (1 Cor 14:30) that if something is revealed to one who is inferior, those who are greater should keep silent and listen. In Daniel, we read that all the people, and the elders, listened to the judgment of a young boy, Daniel, whose spirit has been raised up by God (Dan 13:60).

They are guilty of injustice by unjustly casting him out. Thus we read, and they cast him out, that is, because he spoke the truth. However, in this man born blind there is already fulfilled what our Lord had said: blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man (Luke 6:22).

The blind man adores Christ

9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and when he had found him, he said to him: do you believe in the Son of God? [n. 1355]

9:36 He answered and said: who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? [n. 1356]

9:37 And Jesus said to him: you have seen him, and it is he who talks with you. [n. 1357]

9:38 And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him. [n. 1358]

9:39 And Jesus said: for judgment I came into this world, that they who do not see, may see, and they who see, may become blind. [n. 1360]

9:40 And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard him, and they said to him: are we also blind? [n. 1362]

9:41 Jesus said to them: if you were blind, you would not have sin, but now you say: we see. Your sin remains. [n. 1363]

1354. After the Evangelist showed how the Jews cast out the man born blind because he persisted in the truth, he here shows how Jesus received him and taught him.

First, we see Christ teaching him;

second, the devotion of the man born blind: and he said: I believe, Lord;

third, the approval of his devotion: and Jesus said: for judgment I came into this world.

He does three things about the first.

First, he shows the eagerness of Christ to teach him;

second, we see the desire of the man born blind to believe: he answered, and said: who is he, Lord?

Third, the teaching of the faith is given to perfect him: and Jesus said to him: you have seen him.

1355. Christ’s eagerness to teach is described in three ways. First, by his attentive consideration to what was done to the man born blind. For just as a prince carefully considers what his athlete undergoes for his sake, so Christ attentively considered what the man born blind underwent for the sake of the truth and because of his assertions. And so he says that Jesus heard, attentively considered, that they, the Pharisees, had cast him out, of the temple: give heed to me, O Lord, and to the voices of my adversaries (Jer 18:19).

Second, we see Christ’s eagerness from his efforts in searching for him, for the Evangelist says, and when he had found him, he said to him: do you believe in the Son of God? for we are said to find what we diligently seek: she seeks diligently, until she finds it (Luke 15:8). It is clear from this that Christ was looking for him alone, because he found more faith in him alone that in all the others. And we can see from this that God loves one just person more than ten thousand sinners: I will make men more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir (Isa 13:12). And in Genesis, we read that God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of ten just men (Gen 17).

Third, our Lord’s eagerness is seen from the seriousness of his question; he said to him: do you believe in the Son of God? The blind man was an image of those to be baptized. Thus the custom arose in the Church of questioning those to be baptized about their faith: baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clean conscience (1 Pet 3:21). When asked about his faith he does not say, do you believe in Christ? but do you believe in the Son of God? He does this, as Hilary says, because it would develop that some would profess Christ, and yet deny that he was the Son of God and God, as Arius erred. These words clearly exclude this error: for if Christ were not God, we would not have to believe in him, since God alone is the object of faith, which rests on the first truth. Thus he significantly says, in the Son; for I am certainly able to believe some creature, such as Peter and Paul, yet I do not believe in Peter, but in God alone as the object of faith. Thus it is clear that the Son of God is not a creature: you believe in God, believe also in me (John 14:1).

1356. Next he mentions the desire of the man born blind to believe. We have to recall that this man had not yet physically seen Christ: for he had not seen him when Christ anointed his eyes and sent him to the pool of Siloam, and when he wanted to go back to him he was detained by the Pharisees and the Jews. However, although he had not physically seen Jesus, he believed that the one who opened his eyes was the Son of God. And so he breaks out in words of desire and intense longing, and says, and who is he, Lord, namely, the Son of God, who opened my eyes, that I may believe in him? It is clear from this that he knew something about Jesus, and did not know other things about him. For if he had not known him, he would not have argued so firmly on his behalf; and if he had not been ignorant of other things, he certainly would not have said, who is he, Lord? My soul yearns for you in the night (Isa 26:9), that is, the night of ignorance.

1357. Because, she, that is, Wisdom, goes about seeking those worthy of her (Wis 6:16), Christ reveals himself to the man born blind, who desired him, when he says, you have seen him, and it is he who talks with you. Here Christ is giving him a teaching of faith. First, he mentions the gift he received, saying you have seen him, that is, you, who did not see before, have now seen him. He is saying in effect: the man born blind received the ability to see from him. As it is written: blessed are the eyes which see what you see (Luke 10:23); Lord, now let your servant depart in peace . . . for my eyes have seen your salvation (Luke 2:29). Second, the teaching itself is given when he says, it is he who talks with you: in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son (Heb 1:2).

These words refute the error of Nestorius, who said that in Christ the suppositum of the Son of God is different from the suppositum of the Son of man. They refute it because the one who spoke these words was born from Mary and was the Son of man, and the very same one is the Son of God, as our Lord says. Therefore, there are not two supposita in Christ, although the natures are not the same.

1358. Then when the Evangelist says, he said, I believe, Lord, we see the devout faith of the man born blind. And first, he professes with his lips the faith in his heart, saying, I believe, Lord: man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved (Rom 10:10). Second, he shows it in his conduct: and falling down, he adored him. This shows that he believes in the divine nature of Christ, because those whose consciences have been cleansed know Christ not only as the son of man, which was externally obvious, but as the Son of God, who had taken flesh: for adoration is due to God alone: you will adore the Lord, your God (Deut 6:13).

1359. Next, at and Jesus said: for judgment I came into this world, the devotion of the man born blind is commended:

first, his devotion is commended;

second, we see the grumbling of the Jews, at and some of the Pharisees;

and then they are answered, at Jesus said to them: if you were blind, you would not have sin.

1360. The man born blind is commended for his faith. We read, for judgment I came into this world.

Against this, we also read: for God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17).

So the meaning is this: I have come to distinguish the humble from the proud, so that the humble, who do not see, that is, who regard themselves as sinners, may see, having been illuminated by faith, and that they who see, that is, the proud, may become blind, that is, may remain in the darkness.

1361. Chrysostom understands this passage in terms of the judgment of condemnation, so that the statement, for judgment I came into this world is not understood in a causal sense, but it indicates the sequence of events. It is like saying: after my coming into the world, there follows for some the judgment of condemnation increases in them. Elsewhere, we find something similar: this child is set for the falling and rising of many in Israel (Luke 2:34), not because Christ is the cause of their fall, but because this follows his coming. He adds, that they who do not see, that is, the Gentiles, who lacked the light of divine knowledge, may see, i.e., be admitted to the knowledge of God: the people who walked in darkness have seen a great light (Isa 9:2); and that they who see, namely, the Jews, who did have a knowledge of God, in Judah God is known (Ps 76:1), may become blind, that is, fall away from the knowledge of God. The Apostle explicitly mentions this: the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it (Rom 9:30).

1362. Now we see the grumbling of the Jews. They had understood our Lord’s words in a bodily sense because they had seen the man born blind physically restored to sight, and had thought that our Lord was concerned only with the light in his eyes rather than in his mind. And so they believed that he was warning and threatening them with physical blindness when he said may become blind. Therefore, the Evangelist says, and some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard him, the above words.

He says who were with him, to show their vacillation: for sometimes they were with him because of some miracles which they saw, and then would leave when the truth was made known to them: they believe for a while, and in time of tribulation fall away (Luke 8:13). And they said to him, are we also blind? i.e., physically? Yet they were spiritually blind: let them alone; they are blind guides (Matt 15:14).

1363. Next, we see the Jews silenced. According to Augustine, this shows the meaning of the previous passage, that is, that our Lord was referring to spiritual blindness. He says, if you were blind, that is, if you thought you were blind, recognizing your sin out of humility, you would not have sin, because you would be running to the remedy. For sin is taken away by grace, which is given only to the humble: God gives grace to the humble (Jas 4:6). But now you say, we see, i.e., proudly thinking that you do see, you do not recognize that you are sinners, your sin remains, i.e., is not taken away: God opposes the proud (Jas 4:6).

Chrysostom understands this passage as referring to physical blindness. The meaning is then: if you were blind, physically, you would not have sin, because since blindness is a physical defect, it does not have the nature of sin. But now you say, we see, your sin is clear, because while seeing the miracles that I do, you do not believe me: blind the heart of this people (Isa 6:10).

Here is another explanation. If you were blind, i.e., ignorant of the judgments of God and of the sacraments of the law; you would not have sin, i.e., so much. As if to say: if you were sinning out of ignorance, your sin would not be so serious. But now you say, we see, i.e., arrogate to yourselves an understanding of the law and a knowledge of God, and still sin, then your sin remains, i.e., becomes greater: that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating (Luke 12:47).

The Good Shepherd

The sheep and the shepherd

10:1 Amen, amen I say to you: he who does not enter by the door into the sheepfold but climbs in another way is a thief and a robber. [n. 1366]

10:2 But he who enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. [n. 1370]

10:3 To him the porter opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. [n. 1371]

10:4 And when he has let out his own sheep, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. [n. 1374]

10:5 But a stranger they do not follow but fly from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers. [n. 1377]

1364. After our Lord showed that his teaching had power to enlighten, he here shows that he has power to give life.

First, he shows this by word;

second, by a miracle, at now there was a certain man sick, named Lazarus (John 11:1).

Concerning the first he does three things.

First, he shows that he has life-giving power;

second, his manner of giving life, at I am the good shepherd (John 10:11);

third, he explains his power to give life, at a dissension arose again among the Jews on account of these words (John 10:19).

The first part is divided into three parts.

First, our Lord relates a parable;

second, the Evangelist mentions the necessity for explaining it, at this proverb Jesus spoke to them (John 10:6);

third, our Lord explains the parable, at Jesus therefore said to them again (John 10:7).

He relates the parable to them, saying, amen, amen, I say to you. It concerns two things, a thief and the shepherd of the sheep. Thus he does three things.

First, he mentions the mark of a thief and robber;

second, a characteristic of the shepherd, at he who enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep;

third, the effect each of these has, at and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice.

1365. To understand this parable we must consider who the sheep are, namely, that they are the faithful of Christ and those in the grace of God: we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand (Ps 95:7); you, the people, are the sheep of my pasture (Ezek 34:31). And so the sheepfold is the multitude of the faithful: I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob, I will gather the remnant of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a fold (Mic 2:12). The door of the sheepfold is explained in different ways by Chrysostom and by Augustine.

1366. According to Chrysostom, Christ calls Sacred Scripture the door, according to pray for us also that God may open to us a door for the word (Col 4:3). Sacred Scripture is called a door, as Chrysostom says, first of all, because through it we have access to the knowledge of God: which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made to him the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:2–3). Second, for just as the door guards the sheep, so Sacred Scripture preserves the life of the faithful: search the Scriptures, for you think them to have eternal life (John 5:39). Third, because the door keeps the wolf from entering; so Sacred Scripture keeps heretics from harming the faithful: every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction in justice (2 Tim 3:16). So, the one who does not enter by the door is the one who does not enter by Sacred Scripture to teach the people. Our Lord says of such: in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men (Matt 15:9); you have made void the word of God (Matt 15:6). This, then, is the mark of the thief: he does not enter by the door, but in some other way.

He adds that the thief climbs, and this is appropriate to this parable because thieves climb the walls, instead of entering by the door, and drop into the sheepfold. It also corresponds to the truth, because the reason why some teach what conflicts with Sacred Scripture is due to pride: if any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing (1 Tim 6:3). Referring to this he says that such a person climbs, that is, through pride. The one who climbs in another way is a thief, because he snatches what is not his, and a robber, because he kills what he snatches: if thieves came to you, if plunderers by night, how would you have been destroyed? (Obad 1:5)

According to this explanation, the relation with what preceded is made in this way: since our Lord had said, if you were blind, you would not have sin (John 9:41), the Jews might have answered: we do not believe you, but this is not due to our blindness. It is because of your own error that we have turned away from you. And so our Lord rejects this, and wishes to show that he is not in error because he enters by the door, by Sacred Scripture, that is, he teaches what is contained in Sacred Scripture.

1367. Against this interpretation is the fact that when our Lord explains this further on, he says, I am the door (John 10:9). So it seems that we should understand the door to be Christ.

In answer to this, Chrysostom says that in this parable our Lord refers to himself both as the door and the shepherd; but this is from different points of view, door is said in different ways, because according as he calls himself a shepherd, it is necessary that another be the door rather than he, because a door and a shepherd are different. Now aside from Christ nothing is more fittingly called a door than Sacred Scripture, for the reasons given above. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is fittingly called a door.

1368. According to Augustine, the door is Christ, because one enters through him: after this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door (Rev 4:1). Therefore, any one who enters the sheepfold should enter by the door, that is, by Christ, and not by another way. Note that both the sheep and their shepherd enter into the sheepfold: the sheep in order to be secure there, and the shepherd in order to guard the sheep. And so, if you wish to enter as a sheep to be kept safe there, or as a shepherd to keep the people safe, you must enter the sheepfold through Christ. You must not enter by any other way, as did the philosophers who treated the principle virtues, and the Pharisees who established the ceremonial traditions. These are neither sheep nor shepherds because, as our Lord says, he who does not enter by the door into the sheepfold, i.e., does not enter by Christ, but climbs in another way is a thief and a robber, because he destroys both himself and others. For Christ and no one else is the door into the sheepfold, that is, the multitude of the faithful: we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have access through faith into this grace wherein we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God (Rom 5:1–2); there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

According to this exposition, the connection with what went before is made in this way: because they said that they could see without Christ, now that you say, we see. Your sin remains (John 9:41), our Lord shows that this is not true, because they do not enter by the door. Thus he says, amen, amen, I say to you.

It should be noted that just as one who does not enter by the door as a sheep cannot be kept safe, so one who enters as a shepherd cannot guard the sheep unless he enters by the door, namely, by Christ. This is the door through which the true shepherds have entered: and one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was (Heb 5:4). Evil shepherds do not enter by the door, but by ambition and secular power and simony; and these are thieves and robbers: they set up princes, but without my knowledge, that is, without my approval (Hos 8:5). Further, he says such a person climbs in another way, because the door, namely, Christ, since it is small through humility, learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart (Matt 11:29), can be entered only by those who imitate the humility of Christ. Therefore, those who do not enter by the door but climb in by another way are the proud. They do not imitate him who, although he was God, became man; and they do not recognize his lowering of himself.

1369. Now he considers the shepherd.

First, he mentions the mark of the shepherd;

second, he shows through signs that he is the shepherd, at to him the porter opens.

1370. The mark of the true shepherd is to enter by the door, that is, by the testimony of Sacred Scripture. Thus Christ said: everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). He is called a shepherd: I am not troubled when I follow you as my shepherd (Jer 17:16); he rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock (Sir 18:13).

But if the door is Christ, as Augustine explains it, then in entering by the door, he enters by himself. And this is special to Christ: for no one can enter the door, i.e., to beatitude, except by the truth, because beatitude is nothing else than joy in the truth. But Christ, as God, is the truth; therefore, as man, he enters by himself, that is, by the truth, which he is as God. We, however, are not the truth, but children of the light, by participating in the true and uncreated light. Consequently, we have to enter by the truth which is Christ: sanctify them in truth (John 17:17); if any man enter by me, he will be saved (John 10:9).

If one wishes to enter even as a shepherd, he must enter by the door, that is, Christ, according to his truth, will and consent. Thus we read: and I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will feed them (Ezek 24:23). This is like saying: they must be given by me, and not by others or themselves.

1371. Now he mentions the signs of a good shepherd; and there are three.

The first relates to the gatekeeper, and is that the good shepherd is let in by him. As to this he says, to him the porter opens. This gatekeeper, according to Chrysostom, is the one who opens the way to a knowledge of Sacred Scripture. The first one to do this was Moses, who first received and established Sacred Scripture. And Moses opened to Christ, because as was said above: if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also, for he wrote of me (John 5:46).

Or, according to Augustine, the gatekeeper is Christ himself, because he brings us himself. He says, he opens himself who reveals himself, and we enter only by his grace. For by grace you have been saved (Eph 2:8).

It does not matter if Christ, who is the door, is also the gatekeeper; for certain things are compatible in spiritual matters that cannot occur in physical reality. Now there seems to be a greater difference between a shepherd and a door than between a door and a gatekeeper. Therefore, since Christ can be called both a shepherd and a door, as was said, much more so can he be called a door and a gatekeeper. But if you seek someone other than Moses or Christ be the gatekeeper, then consider the Holy Spirit the gatekeeper, as Augustine says. For it is the office of a gatekeeper to open the door, and it says of the Holy Spirit that he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And Christ is the door insofar as he is the truth.

1372. The second sign relates to the sheep, and it is that they obey the shepherd. He says, the sheep hear his voice, which is reasonable if the resemblance to a natural shepherd is considered: because as sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd due to familiar experience, so righteous believers hear the voice of Christ: O that today you would harken to his voice (Ps 95:7).

1373. But what of the fact that many who are Christ’s sheep did not hear his voice, as Paul; or that some who were not his sheep did hear it, as Judas?

One might reply that Judas was Christ’s sheep for that time as to his present righteousness. And Paul, when he did not hear the voice of Christ, was not a sheep but a wolf; but when the voice of Christ came it changed the wolf into a sheep.

This reply could be accepted if it were not contrary to a statement: the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back (Ezek 34:4). It seems from this that even when they were crippled and strayed they were sheep. Therefore, one must say that here our Lord is speaking of his sheep not only according to their present righteousness but even according to their eternal predestination. For there is a certain voice of Christ that only the predestined can hear, i.e., he who endures to the end (Matt 10:22). Again, he says, the sheep hear his voice, because they might offer as an excuse for their unbelief the fact that not only they, but none of the leaders believed in him. So he says in answer to this, the sheep hear his voice, as if saying: they do not believe because they are not my sheep.

1374. The third sign is taken from the actions of the shepherd. Here he mentions four actions of a good shepherd: the first being that he knows his sheep. He says, he calls his own sheep by name, which shows his knowledge of and familiarity with his sheep, for we call by name those whom we know familiarly: I know you by name (Exod 33:17). This is part of the office of a shepherd according to: be diligent to know the countenance of your flock (Prov 27:23). This applies to Christ according to his present knowledge, but even more so considering eternal predestination, by which he knew them by name from eternity: he determined the number of the stars, he gives to all of them their names (Ps 147:4); the Lord knows those who are his (2 Tim 2:19).

The second action of a good shepherd is that he leads them out, i.e., he separates them from the society of those who are evil: he brought them out of darkness and gloom (Ps 107:14).

The third is that having separated them from evil and having brought them into the sheepfold, he leads them out, from the sheepfold. He does this, first, for the salvation of others: I will send survivors to the nations (Isa 66:19); behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves (Matt 10:16), so that they can make sheep out of the wolves. Second, they are to show the direction and way to eternal life: to guide our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:79).

Fourth, the good shepherd goes before his sheep by the example of a good life; so he says, he goes before them, although this is not what the literal shepherd does, for he follows, as in I took him from following the ewes (Ps 78:70). But the good shepherd goes before them by example, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock (1 Pet 5:3). And Christ does go before them: for he was the first to die for the teaching of the truth: if any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me (Matt 16:24); and he went before all into everlasting life: he who opens the breach will go up before them (Mic 2:13).

1375. Now he considers the effect that both the thief and the shepherd have upon the sheep.

First, he mentions the effect of the good shepherd;

second, the effect of the wolf and the thief, at but a stranger they do not follow.

1376. He says, first, that the sheep follow him who goes before them. This is easy to see, because subjects follow in the steps of their leaders, as is stated: Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Pet 2:21); my foot has held fast to his steps (Job 23:11). The sheep follow because they know his voice, i.e., they know it and take delight in it: let me hear your voice in my ears, for your voice is sweet (Song 2:14).

1377. The effect that the thief has is that the sheep do not follow him for very long, but only for a time; so he says, but a stranger they do not follow, i.e., they do not follow a false and heretical teacher: the children who are strangers have lied to me (Ps 17:46). Thus Paul did not follow false teachers for long. But fly from him, because bad company ruins good morals (1 Cor 15:33). They flee because they do not know, that is, do not approve of, the voice of strangers, meaning their teaching, which spreads stealthily like a cancer.

Explanation of the parable

10:6 This proverb Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. [n. 1379]

10:7 Jesus therefore said to them again: amen, amen I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. [n. 1382]

10:8 All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers, and the sheep did not hear them. [n. 1383]

10:9 I am the door. If any man enter by me, he will be saved. He will go in and out, and he will find pastures. [n. 1387]

10:10 The thief only comes to steal, to kill and to destroy. I have come that they may have life and have it more abundantly. [n. 1395]

1378. Here the Evangelist tells why it was necessary to explain the above similitude; and this necessity was caused by the failure of his listeners to understand.

First, he mentions the reason why they failed to understand;

second, he explains that they failed to understand.

1379. The cause of their failure to understand was that Christ was speaking in figures. The Evangelist says, this proverb Jesus spoke to them. A ‘figure,’ properly speaking, is the use of one word in place of another, when it is intended that one word be understood from its likeness to the other. This is also called a parable.

Our Lord spoke in figures, first of all, because of the wicked, in order to conceal from them the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: to you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables (Luke 8:10). Second, because of the good, so that his figures might stir them up to make further inquiry. So, after our Lord spoke his figures or parables to the crowds, his disciples questioned him in private, as mentioned elsewhere (Matt 13:10; Mark 4:10). This is the reason why Augustine says: our Lord feeds the believing crowds with clear words, and stirs up his disciples with things that are obscure.

1380. The Evangelist discloses their failure to understand when he says, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. The ignorance which resulted from Christ’s figures was both useful and harmful. For the good and the just it was useful for giving praise to God; for although they did not understand, they believed and praised the Lord and his wisdom which was so far above them: it is the glory of God to conceal the word (Prov 25:2). But for the wicked, it was a source of harm, because, failing to understand, they blasphemed: but these men revile whatever they do not understand (Jude 1:10). As Augustine observes, when both the good and the wicked hear the words of the Gospel, and neither of them understands, the good person says that what was said was true and good, but that he does not understand it. Such a person is knocking and deserves to have the door opened, provided he perseveres. But the wicked person says that what was said had no meaning or was evil.

1381. Now our Lord explains the similitude.

If the above similitude is examined correctly, it contains two principal clauses, followed by others. The first is: he who does not enter by the door into the sheepfold but climbs in another way is a thief and a robber (John 10:1). The second is: he who enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep (John 10:2). Accordingly, this section is divided into two parts.

First, he explains the first clause;

then the second clause, at I am the good shepherd.

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he explains the first clause;

second, he proves it, at I am the door.

The first clause mentions a door, a thief and a robber;

first he explains the door,

then the thief and then the robber, at all others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers.

1382. Concerning the first he says, Jesus therefore said to them again, to gain their attention and have them understand the similitude: the man of understanding may acquire skill to understand a proverb and a figure (Prov 1:6). Jesus said, amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door. Now the purpose of a door is that through itself it conduct one to the rooms of the house; and this is fitting to Christ, for one must enter into the secrets of God through him: this is the gate of the Lord, that is, Christ, the righteous will enter through it (Ps 118:20).

He says, I am the door of the sheep, because through Christ not only the shepherds are brought into the present Church or enter into everlasting happiness, but the sheep also. Thus he says below: my sheep hear my voice . . . and they follow me; and I give them eternal life (John 10:27–28).

1383. Then when he says, all others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers, he explains what he had said about thieves and robbers. First, he shows who the thieves and robbers are; second, their sign.

1384. In regard to the first, we should avoid the error of the Manicheans, who rejected the Old Testament on the ground that it says here all others, as many as have come, are thieves. They maintained that the fathers of the Old Testament, who came before Christ, were evil and have been damned.

The falsity of this view is clear from three things. First, from what this parable says. For the statement, all others, as many as have come, is intended as a description of the previous statement, which mentioned those who do not enter by the door. Therefore, all others, as many as have come, but not through me, that is, not entering by the door, are thieves and robbers. It is clear that all the patriarchs and prophets, whom the Christ-to-come had sent forerunners, entered by the door, i.e., Christ. For although he took flesh and became man in time, he was the Word of God from all eternity: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever (Heb 13:8). Indeed, the prophets were sent by the Word and wisdom of God: in every generation she, the wisdom of God, passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets (Wis 7:27). Accordingly, we expressly read in the prophets that the word of the Lord came to this or that prophet, who prophesied by participating in the Word of God.

Second, the falsity of the teaching of the Manicheans is seen when our Lord says, have come, implying that they were thrusting themselves forward on their own authority and were not sent by God: I did not send the prophets, yet they ran (Jer 23:21). Indeed, such prophets have not come from the Word of God: woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing (Ezek 13:3). But the fathers of the Old Testament were not of this type, as has been said.

Third, this falsity is seen from the fact that he shows what effect their words had, for we read, but the sheep did not hear them. Therefore, those whom the sheep did heed were not thieves and robbers. Now the people of Israel did listen to the prophets, and those who did not heed them were rebuked in Sacred Scripture: which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? (Acts 7:52) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! (Matt 23:37)

1385. Having excluded this error, it must be said that all others, as many as have come, that is, independently of me, without divine inspiration and authority, and not with the intention of seeking the glory of God but acquiring their own, are thieves, insofar as they take for themselves what is not theirs, that is, the authority to teach: your princes are rebels and companions of thieves (Isa 1:23); and robbers, because they kill with their corrupt doctrine: you make it a den of robbers (Matt 21:13); as robbers lie in wait for a man . . . they murder on the way (Hos 6:9). But the sheep, that is, the predestined, did not hear them, the thieves and robbers, otherwise they would not have been Christ’s sheep, because, as was said before, a stranger they do not follow but fly from him (John 10:5). Furthermore, this is commanded: you will not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams (Deut 13:3).

1386. I am the door. Here he clarifies his explanation:

first, of the door;

second, of the thief, at the thief only comes.

Concerning the first, he does two things:

first, he repeats what he intends to explain;

and second, he gives the explanation.

1387. He repeats what he had already said, namely, I am the door; if she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar (Song 8:9), that is, let us grant her an incorruptible power.

1388. He explains this when he says, if any man enter by me, he will be saved.

First, he shows that the purpose of a door, which is to keep the sheep safe, applies to himself;

second, he mentions the manner in which they are kept safe, at he will go in and out.

1389. The door safeguards the sheep by keeping those within from going out, and by protecting them from strangers lest they come in. And this applies to Christ, for he is our safeguard and protection. And this is what he says: if any man, not with insincerity, enter, into the fellowship of the Church and of the faithful, by me, the door, he will be saved, i.e., if he perseveres: for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12); we will be saved by his life (Rom 5:10).

1390. The way the sheep are safeguarded is set forth when he says that he will go in and out, and he will find pasture. This statement can be explained in four ways. First of all, according to Chrysostom, it simply affirms the security and freedom of those who cling to Christ. For one who enters some other way than by the door does not have free entry and exit; but one who does enter by the door has free exit, because he can leave freely. Therefore, when he says, he will go in and out, the meaning is that the Apostles adhering to Christ enter with security by living with the faithful, who are within the Church, and with unbelievers who are outside, when they became masters of the whole world and no one wished to cast them out: let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh appoint a man over the congregation, who will go out before them and come in before them . . . that the congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep which have no shepherd (Num 27:16). And find pasture, find delight in converting others, and find joy even when persecuted by unbelievers for the name of Christ: then the Apostles left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name of Jesus (Acts 5:41).

1391. Second, this can be explained as Augustine does in his Commentary on John. Two things are incumbent upon anyone who acts well, namely to be well-ordered to the things that are within him, and to those that are without. Within a person is the spirit, and without is the body: though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day (2 Cor 4:16). Therefore, a person who clings to Christ will go in through contemplation, to protect his conscience: when I enter my house, i.e., my conscience, I will find rest with her, i.e., with wisdom (Wis 8:16); and out, namely, by good actions, to tame the body: man goes forth to his work and to his labor until the evening (Ps 104:23); and find pasture, in a clean and sincere conscience: I will appear before your sight: I will be satisfied when your glory appears (Ps 16:15). Again, by his actions he will find pasture, i.e., fruit: he will come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him (Ps 126:6).

1392. The third explanation is also Augustine’s as well as that given by Gregory in his Commentary on Ezekiel. The meaning, then, is this. Such a one will go in, i.e., into the Church, by believing: I will go over into the place of the wonderful tabernacle (Ps 41:5), and this is to enter the Church militant; and out, from the Church militant into the Church triumphant: go forth, O daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon, with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of the wedding (Song 3:11); and find pasture, that is, the pastures of doctrine and grace in the Church militant: he makes me lie down in green pastures (Ps 22:2); and the pastures of glory in the Church triumphant: I will feed them with good pasture (Ezek 34:14).

1393. Fourth, there is an explanation found in the work, On the Spirit and the Soul, which has been incorrectly attributed to Augustine. Here it is said that such a one will go in, that is, the saints will go in to contemplate the divinity of Christ, and out, to consider his humanity; and they will find pasture in both, because in both they will taste the joys of contemplation: your eyes will see the king in his beauty (Isa 33:17).

1394. Now he considers the thief.

First, he mentions the mark of the thief;

second, he says that he himself has the opposite characteristic, I have come that they may have life.

1395. He says that those who do not enter by the door, i.e., those who have come independently of me, are thieves and robbers; and they are evil. For in the first place, the thief comes only to steal, i.e., to usurp what is not his; these are the agitators and heretics, who fasten on to those who belong to Christ: he lies in ambush to catch the ones who are poor (Ps 9:4). Second, the thief comes to kill, and he kills by bringing in perverse teachings and evil practices: as robbers lie in wait for a man . . . they murder on the way (Hos 6:9). Third, the thief comes to destroy, by casting into everlasting destruction: my people have been lost sheep (Jer 50:6). But these traits are not in me.

1396. I have come that they may have life. This is like saying: the above have not come in by me, otherwise they would do as I do. But they do the contrary, because they steal, and kill and destroy. I have come that they may have life, that is, the life of righteousness, by entering into the Church militant through faith: my righteous one will live by faith (Heb 10:38). We read of this life that we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren (1 John 3:14). And have it abundantly, that is, have eternal life, when they leave the body. We read below of this life: this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God (John 17:3).

The good shepherd

10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives his life for his sheep. [n. 1398]

10:12 But the hireling and he who is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming, leaves the sheep and flies: and the wolf catches and scatters the sheep: [n. 1400]

10:13 And the hireling flies because he is a hireling, and he has no care for the sheep. [n. 1408]

1397. Here he explains the second clause of the parable, he who enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep (John 10:1).

First, he gives the explanation;

second, he makes it clear, at I am the good shepherd.

First, he explains that he is the good shepherd;

second, he states the office of a good shepherd, at the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep;

third, he shows that the opposite is found in an evil shepherd, at but the hireling . . . leaves the sheep and flies.

1398. He says, in regard to the first, I am the good shepherd. That Christ is a shepherd is clear enough, for as a flock is led and fed by the shepherd, so the faithful are nourished by Christ with spiritual food, and even with his own body and blood: for you were straying like sheep, but now have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (1 Pet 2:25); he will feed his flock like a shepherd (Isa 40:11).

To distinguish himself from an evil shepherd and thief, he adds, good. ‘Good,’ I say, because he fulfills the office of a shepherd, just as a soldier is called ‘good’ who fulfills the office of a soldier. But since Christ had said above that the shepherd enters by the door, and here he says that he is the shepherd, and before he said he was the door, I am the door (John 10:7), then he must enter through himself. And he does enter through himself, because he manifests himself and through himself knows the Father. We, however, enter through him, because it is by him that we are led to happiness.

Note that only he is the door, because no one else is the true light, but only shares in the light: he, John the Baptist, was not the light, but that he might bear witness to the light (John 1:8). But we read of Christ that he was the true light, which enlightens every man (John 1:9). Therefore, no one else refers to himself as a door; Christ reserved this for himself. But being a shepherd he did share with others, and conferred it on his members: for Peter was a shepherd, and the other apostles were shepherds, as well as all good bishops: I will give you shepherds after my own heart (Jer 3:15). Now, although the Church’s rulers, who are her children, are all shepherds, as Augustine says, yet he expressly says, I am the good shepherd, in order to emphasize the virtue of charity. For no one is a good shepherd unless he has become one with Christ by love, and has become a member of the true shepherd.

1399. The office of a good shepherd is charity; thus he says, the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep. It should be noted that there is a difference between a good shepherd and an evil one: the good shepherd is intent upon the welfare of the flock, but the evil one is intent upon his own. This difference is touched upon: ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? (Ezek 34:2). Therefore, one who uses the flock only to feed himself is not a good shepherd. From this it follows that an evil shepherd, even over animals, is not willing to sustain any loss for the flock, since he does not intend the welfare of the flock, but his own. But a good shepherd, even over animals, endures many things for the flock whose welfare he has at heart. Thus Jacob said: by day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night (Gen 31:40). However, when dealing with mere animals it is not necessary that a good shepherd expose himself to death for the safety of the flock. But because the spiritual safety of the human flock outweighs the bodily life of the shepherd, when danger threatens the safety of the flock the spiritual shepherd ought to suffer the loss of his bodily life for the safety of the flock. This is what our Lord says, the good shepherd gives his life, i.e., his bodily life, for his sheep, the sheep who are his by authority and charity. Both are required, for they must belong to him and he must love them; the first without the second is not enough.

Furthermore, Christ has given us an example of this teaching: he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16).

1400. Now he considers the evil shepherd, showing that he possesses characteristics contrary to those of the good shepherd.

First, he mentions the marks of an evil shepherd;

second, he shows how these marks follow one another, at but the hireling . . . flies.

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he gives the marks of an evil shepherd;

second, he mentions the danger which threatens the flock because of an evil shepherd: the wolf catches and scatters the sheep.

1401. Note that from what has been said about the good and evil shepherd, there are three differences in their traits: first in their intentions; second, in their solicitude; and third in their affections.

1402. First, they differ in their intentions, and this is implied by their very names. For the first is called a good shepherd, and this implies that he intends to feed the flock: should not shepherds feed the sheep? (Ezek 34:2) But the other one, the evil shepherd, is called a hireling, as though he were intent on his wages. Thus they differ in this: the good shepherd looks to the benefit of the flock, while the hireling seeks mainly his own advantage. This is also the difference between a king and a tyrant, as the Philosopher says, because when a king rules he intends to benefit his subjects, while a tyrant seeks his own interest. So a tyrant is like a hireling: if it seems right to you, give me my wages (Zech 11:12).

1403. But may not even good shepherds seek a wage? It seems so, for reward those who wait for thee (Sir 36:16); the Lord God comes . . . his reward is with him (Isa 40:10); how many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare (Luke 15:17).

1404. Second, they differ in their solicitude. We read of the good shepherd that the sheep are his own, not only as a trust, but also by love and solicitude: I hold you in my heart (Phil 1:7). On the other hand, it is said of the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, i.e., the hireling has no care for them: my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves (Ezek 34:8).

1405. Third, they differ in their affections. For the good shepherd, who loves his flock, gives his life for it, i.e., he exposes himself to dangers that affect his bodily life. But the evil shepherd, because he has no love for the flock, flees when he sees the wolf. Thus he says, he . . . sees the wolf coming, leaves the sheep and flies.

Here, the wolf is understood in three ways. First, for the devil as tempting: what fellowship has a wolf with a lamb? No more has a sinner with a godly man (Sir 13:17). Second, it stands for the heretic who destroys: beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt 7:15); I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29). Third, it stands for the raging tyrant: her princes in the midst of her are like wolves (Ezek 22:27). Therefore, the good shepherd must guard the flock against these three wolves, so that when he sees the wolf, i.e., the devil tempting, the deceiving heretic and the raging tyrant, he can oppose him. Against those who do not, we read, you have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel (Ezek 13:5). Accordingly, we read of the evil shepherd that he leaves the sheep and flies: woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock (Zech 11:17). As if to say: you are not a shepherd, but only appear to be one: even her hired soldiers in her midst are like fatted calves; yea, they have turned and fled together, they do not stand (Jer 46:21).

1406. But we find the contrary: when they persecute you in one town, flee to the next (Matt 10:23). Therefore, it seems to be lawful for a shepherd to flee.

This should be the explanation when considering the first kind of wolf, because it is not necessary to physically flee from the devil. But since sometimes a shepherd does flee physically because of certain wolves, such as powerful heretics and tyrants, another answer must be given, as found in Augustine’s Letter to Honoratus. As he says, it seems lawful to flee, even physically, from the wolves, not only because of the authority of our Lord, as cited above, but because of the example of certain saints, as Athanasius and others, who fled from their persecutors. For what is censured is not the flight itself, but the neglect of the flock; so, if the shepherd could flee without abandoning his flock, it would not be blameworthy. Sometimes it is the prelate himself who is the one sought, and at other times, it is the entire flock. It is obvious that if the prelate alone is sought, others can be assigned to guard the flock in his territory, and console and govern the flock in his place. So if he flees under these circumstances, he is not said to leave the sheep. In this way, it is lawful to flee in certain cases. But if the whole flock is sought, then either all the shepherds should be with the people, or some should remain while the others leave. But if all desert the flock, then these words apply, he . . . sees the wolf coming, leaves the sheep and flies.

1407. Here he mentions the twofold danger that threatens. One is the ravaging of the sheep; so he says, and the wolf catches, i.e., takes for himself what belongs to another, for the faithful are Christ’s sheep. Therefore, leaders of sects and wolves snatch the sheep when they entice Christ’s faithful to their own teachings: my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts (Ezek 34:8).

The other danger is that the sheep be scattered; so he says, and scatters the sheep, insofar as some are led astray and others persevere: my sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them (Ezek 34:6).

1408. Now he shows how the above-mentioned marks are related, for the third follows from the first two. Since the evil shepherd seeks his own advantage and has no love or solicitude for the flock, it follows that he is not willing to endure any inconvenience for them. Thus he says of the hireling, he flies, for this reason, because he is a hireling, that is, he seeks his own advantage, which is the first mark; and he has no care for the sheep, i.e., he does not love them, and is not solicitous for them, which is the second mark. So we read about the evil shepherd: she deals cruelly with her young, as if they were not hers (Job 39:16). The opposite is true of the good shepherd, for he seeks the welfare of his flock, and not his own: not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit (Phil 4:17). Furthermore, he is concerned for his sheep, that is, he loves them and is solicitous for them: I hold you in my heart (Phil 1:7).

Christ lays down his life

10:14 I am the good shepherd, and I know mine, and mine know me. [n. 1410]

10:15 As the Father knows me, and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for my sheep. [n. 1414]

10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: those also I must bring, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one fold and one shepherd. [n. 1416]

10:17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. [n. 1421]

10:18 No man takes it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again. This commandment I have received from my Father. [n. 1424]

1409. Here our Lord proves his explanation.

First, he restates what he intends to prove;

second, he gives the proof, at I know mine;

and third, he amplifies on it, at for this reason the Father loves me.

1410. He says, I am the good shepherd, which has been explained above: as a shepherd seeks out his flock . . . so will I seek out my sheep (Ezek 34:11–12).

1411. Then at, I know mine, he proves what he says. Now he says two things about himself, that he is a shepherd, and that he is good.

First, he proves that he is a shepherd;

second, that he is a good shepherd.

1412. He proves he is a shepherd by the two signs of a shepherd already mentioned. The first of these is that he calls his own sheep by name. Concerning this he says, I know mine: the Lord knows those who are his (2 Tim 2:19). I know, I say, not just with mere knowledge only, but with a knowledge joined with approval and love: to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins (Rev 1:5).

The second sign is that the sheep hear his voice and know him. And concerning this he says, and mine know me. Mine, I say, by predestination, by vocation and by grace. This is like saying: they love me and obey me. Thus, we must understand that they have a loving knowledge about which we read: they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest (Jer 31:34).

1413. He shows that he is a good shepherd by mentioning that he has the office of a good shepherd, which is to lay down his life for his sheep.

First, he shows the reason for this;

second, he gives a sign of it;

and third, he shows the fruit of his sign.

1414. The reason for this sign, that is, of his laying down his life for his sheep, is the knowledge he has of the Father. Concerning this he says, as the Father knows me, and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. This statement can be explained in two ways. In one way, so that ‘as’ indicates just a similarity in knowledge; and taken this way, such knowledge can be given to a creature: I will know even as I am known (1 Cor 13:12), i.e., as I am known without obscurity, so I will know without obscurity.

In another way, the ‘as’ implies an equality. And then to know the Father as he is known by him is proper to the Son alone, because only the Son knows the Father comprehensively, just as the Father knows the Son comprehensively: no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt 11:27), that is, with a comprehensive knowledge. Our Lord says this because in knowing the Father, he knows the will of the Father that the Son should die for the salvation of the human race. He is also saying here that he is the mediator between God and man. For as he is related to the sheep as known by them and as knowing them, so also he is related to the Father, because as the Father knows him, so he knows the Father.

1415. Then when he says, and I lay down my life for the sheep, he gives the sign: by this we know love, that he laid down his life for us (1 John 3:16).

But since there are three substances in Christ, namely the substance of the Word, of the soul, and of the body, one might ask who is speaking when he says, I lay down my life. If you say that the Word is speaking here, it is not true, because the Word never laid down his soul, since he was never separated from his soul. If you say that the soul is speaking, this too seems impossible, because nothing is separated from itself. And if you say that Christ says this referring to his body, it does not seem to be so, because his body does not have the power to take up its soul.

Therefore, one must say that when Christ died, his soul was separated from his flesh, otherwise Christ would not have been truly dead. But in Christ, his divinity was never separated from his soul or his flesh; but was united to his soul, as it descended to the lower world, and to his body, as it lay in the tomb. And therefore, his body, by the power of his divinity, laid down his soul by the power of his divinity, and took it up again.

1416. Then when he says, and other sheep I have, he sets down the fruit of Christ’s death, which is the salvation not only of the Jews but of the gentiles as well. For since he had said, I lay down my life my sheep, the Jews, who regarded themselves as God’s sheep, we your people, the flock of your pasture (Ps 79:13), could have said that he laid down his life for them alone. But our Lord adds that it is not only for them, but for others too: and this he did not speak from himself, but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. And not only for the nation, but for the sons of God, who were dispersed, that they be gathered together into one. (John 11:51–52).

1417. In regard to this fruit our Lord does three things. First, he mentions the predestination of the gentiles; second, their vocation through grace; and third their justification.

As to the first he says, and other sheep I have, that is, the gentiles, that are not of this fold, i.e., of the family of the flesh of Israel, which was in a way a flock: I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob (Mic 2:12). For as sheep are enclosed in a fold, so the Jews were kept enclosed within the precepts of the law (Gal 3). These other sheep, I say, that is, the gentiles, I have from my Father through an eternal predestination: ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage (Ps 2:8); it is a small thing that you should be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to convert the dregs of Israel. Behold, I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth (Isa 49:6).

1418. As to the second he says, those also I must bring, i.e., according to the plans of divine predestination it is time to call them to grace.

1419. In regard to the third he says, and they will hear my voice. Here he mentions three things necessary for righteousness in the Christian religion. The first is obedience to the commandments of God. Concerning this he says, and they will hear my voice, i.e., they will observe my commandments: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:20); people whom I had not known, i.e., whom I did not approve, served me. As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me (Ps 18:43).

The second is the unity of charity, and concerning this he says, and there will be one fold, i.e., one Church of the faithful from the two peoples, the Jews and the gentiles: one faith (Eph 4:5); for he is our peace, who has made us both one (Eph 2:14).

The third is the unity of faith, and in regard to this he says, and one shepherd: they will all have one shepherd, that is, the Jews and the gentiles (Ezek 37:24).

1420. Now our Lord explains his proof:

first, he amplifies on the reason for the sign;

second, he explains the sign, or the effect, at no man takes it away from me;

third, he shows that the reason is appropriate, at this commandment I have received from my Father.

1421. Our Lord says that the reason for his death is the knowledge he has of the Father, saying, as the Father knows me, and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for my sheep. In explaining this he says, for this reason the Father loves me. From this it is clear that the Father knows him with a knowledge joined with approval, for this reason, I say, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.

1422. But is it true that his death is the cause of the Father’s love? It seems not, because something temporal is not the cause of something eternal. But Christ’s death is in the temporal order, while the love of God for Christ is eternal.

If it is taken causally, then the meaning is: because I lay down my life, i.e., endure death, for this reason the Father loves me, that is, he grants me the effect of his love, which is the glory and exaltation of my body: he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him a name which is above every name (Phil 2:8).

This can be answered by saying that no one can merit God’s love; nevertheless, we can merit by our good works the effect of God’s love, that is, an increase of grace and the reception of the good of glory, both of which God bestows on us because of his love. Thus we can say that for this reason God loves this or that person, that is, bestows on him the effect of his love, because he obeys his commandments. And so we can say about Christ as man, that for this reason the Father loves him, that is, has exalted him and given him the brightness of glory, because he laid down his life in death.

If because is taken to mean the end of love; this is the sense: for this reason the Father loves me, that is Father loves me because I lay down my life. This is the same as saying: Father, on account of your love which you have for me, ordain that through my passion I may redeem humanity. As it is written: he that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom 8:32).

But if the because indicates a sign of love, then the meaning is this: for this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, as if to say: this is a sign that the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again, that is, I fulfill his commands and will and endure death. For an obvious sign of love is that a person, out of charity, fulfills the commands of God.

1423. Now he explains the effect of the sign. And since the sign was I lay down my life for my sheep, he explains how he lays it down.

First, he excludes violence;

second, he speaks of his power.

1424. The violence he excludes is that which could be employed in taking a life: such violence was not accomplished in Christ. Concerning this he says, no man takes it away from me, that is, my life, by violence, but I lay it down, by my own power, that is, of myself; can the prey be taken from the mighty? (Isa 49:24).

But did not the Jews use violence against Christ? They did insofar as it was in them; but this violence was not in Christ because he laid down his life voluntarily, when he willed. Thus we read that the Jews wanted to arrest him but were unable because his hour had not yet come (John 7:30). It was voluntary not as though he was forced to die, but he condescended to be killed, as Augustine says.

1425. He adds something about his power when he says, I have power to lay it down.

Apropos of this it should be noted that since the union of the soul and body is natural, their separation is natural. And although the cause of this separation and death can be voluntary, yet among human beings death is always natural. Now nature is not subject to the will of any mere human, since nature, as well as the will, are from God. Therefore, the death of any mere human person must be natural. But in Christ, his own nature and every other nature are subject to his will, just like artifacts are subject to the will of the artisan. Thus, according to the pleasure of his will, he could lay down his life when he willed, and he could take it up again; no mere human being can do this, although he could voluntarily use some instrument to kill himself. This explains why the centurion, seeing that Christ did not die by a natural necessity, but by his own will, since Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit (Matt 27:50), recognized a divine power in him, and said: truly, this was the Son of God (Matt 27:54). Again, the Apostle says: for the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Cor 1:18), that is, his great power was revealed in the very death of Christ.

1426. Here he shows that the above-mentioned reason is appropriate, for to fulfill a command shows love for the one commanding. Thus he says, this commandment I have received from my Father, that is, to lay down my life and take it up again: if any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him (John 14:23).

Feast of the dedication

10:19 A dissension rose again among the Jews on account of these words. [n. 1428]

10:20 And many of them said: he has a devil and is mad; why do you hear him? [n. 1429]

10:21 Others said: these are not the words of one who has a devil; is a devil able to open the eyes of the blind? [n. 1430]

10:22 It was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem, and it was winter. [n. 1433]

10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. [n. 1436]

10:24 The Jews therefore gathered around him and said to him: how long will you hold us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. [n. 1438]

10:25 Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you do not believe: the works that I do in the name of my Father give testimony about me. [n. 1440]

10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. [n. 1444]

10:27 My sheep hear my voice; and I know them, and they follow me. [n. 1445]

10:28 And I give them eternal life; they will never perish, and no man will pluck them out of my hand. [n. 1449]

10:29 That which my Father has given to me is greater than all, and no man is able to snatch them out of the hand of my Father. [n. 1450]

10:30 I and the Father are one. [n. 1450]

1427. After showing that he has power to give life and showing his manner of doing so, our Lord here shows how this power to give life belongs to him.

First, the Evangelist mentions the dispute which arose among the crowd on his point;

second, he gives the discussion between the Jewish leaders and Christ, at it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem.

Concerning the first he does three things.

First, he mentions the dispute within the crowd;

second, he gives the opinion of one side;

third, he states the reasonable position of the other side.

1428. The dispute arose within the crowd which was listening to Christ because of what he said. The Evangelist says, a dissension rose again among the Jews on account of these words. Since some of them understood his words correctly, and others did not, they argued among themselves: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt 10:34), that is, the sword of Gospel teaching, which some believed and others deny. He pours contempt upon princes (Ps 107:40).

1429. The opinion of one party to the argument was false. About this he says, many of them said. He says, many, because as we read: the number of fools is infinite (Eccl 1:15). They said: he has a devil and is mad, for it is the habit of the foolish to always give an evil interpretation to matters about which they are in doubt; whereas the opposite should be done. Thus they revile whatever they do not know, as we read in the letter of Jude. And so because they were incapable of understanding our Lord’s words, for the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it (John 1:5), they blasphemed, saying, he has a devil and is mad. And they try to turn others away from him, saying why do you hear him?

These blasphemers accuse Christ of two things. First, that he has a demon. As if to say: he is not speaking due to the Holy Spirit, but from a wicked spirit. Something similar is found about Paul: he seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities (Acts 17:18). Now the fact is that a person who has his own and familiar demon is always spiritually mad, but not always mad in a bodily way. But some can be possessed by a demon, and these are always mad even in a bodily way. Thus it was said of Christ he has become mad (Mark 3:21). Second, to show that Christ has a demon in this way, they say, and is mad. Your great learning is turning you mad (Acts 26:24). Yet their blasphemy is not surprising, because they are sensual and, as we read: the sensual person does not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14).

1430. This opinion is refuted by the statements of the other side, and this is in two ways. First, by the profundity of Christ’s words. Thus he says, others, that is, those who rightly understood, said: these are not the words of one who has a devil. This was like saying: it is clear from what he is saying that he is not mad, because his words are orderly and profound: Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (John 6:69). And Paul says, I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking the sober truth (Acts 26:25).

Second, this opinion is refuted by the greatness of the miracle. Thus they say, is a devil able to open the eyes of the blind? This means: was not this one of the greatest of miracles? They were correct in believing that it could be performed only by the power of God: unless this man were of God, he could not do anything (John 9:33).

1431. It should be noted that there are certain miracles which can be performed by the power of demons and angels, and there are others which in no way can be accomplished by their power. Those things which are above the order of nature no creature whatever can perform by its own power, since the creature itself is subject to the laws of nature. God alone, who is above nature, can act above the order of nature. Whenever, therefore, another creature acts, it is apparent that he remains under the order of nature.

Therefore, whatever things can be performed within the order of nature, an angel, either good or wicked, is able to do, when it is permitted. Thus, by using the seeds which in natural things are ordered to the generation of certain animals, they are able to effect the generation of these animals, as Pharaoh’s magicians did (Exod 7:11). Again, they can produce changes affecting the nature of a thing; thus, they can heal the sick who could be helped by the power of nature.

But things that absolutely transcend the order of nature can be performed by God alone, or by good angels and saintly men through God’s power, which they obtain through prayer. Such would be the conferring of sight on the blind and the raising of the dead; for the power of nature cannot extend to the restoring of sight or to the raising of the dead. Consequently, a demon cannot open the eyes of a blind man or raise the dead, because this is done by God alone, and by the saints through the power of God.

1432. Here we see the dispute which the Jewish leaders initiated with Christ.

First, the Evangelist gives the question asked by the Jews;

second, Christ’s answer, at Jesus answered them: I speak to you;

and third, the effect of this answer, at the Jews then took up stones to stone him (John 10:31).

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he describes the circumstances of the questioning;

second, he gives the question itself, at and said to him: how long will you hold us in suspense?

The circumstances of the questioning are described with respect to three things: the time, the place, and the persons who ask the question.

1433. He mentions the specific time first, saying, it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem, and it was winter.

To understand this we have to know, as Augustine says, that an encaenia was the feast of the dedication of a church. The Greek word, caenos, is the same as the Latin word for new. Thus an encaenia is the same as a renewal; and even in everyday speech, when something is dedicated to some use, it is said to be encaeniated, which is the same thing as being renewed. It was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem, that is the feast and commemoration of the dedication of the temple, for when we newly dedicate some church to the divine worship, we celebrate its being set aside for a sacred purpose; and in memory of this we celebrate it every year on the same day. Thus every year the Jews celebrated the encaenia, the remembrance of the dedication of the temple.

1434. To understand why there is a feast for the consecration of a church, we should note that all the feasts in the Church are celebrated in remembrance of God’s blessings: I will recount the steadfast love of the Lord (Isa 63:7). Again, after David called to mind God’s many blessings, saying, give praise to the Lord, for he is good (Ps 117:1), he adds, solemnize this day, with shady boughs, even to the horn of the altar (Ps 117:26).

We recall God’s benefits to us as being of three kinds. Sometimes, as they are found in our Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus we celebrate the feast of his birth, and of his resurrection, and so on. Sometimes we recall them as found in our fellow members, that is, in the saints, who are members of the Church. This is fitting, for as the Apostle says: if one member is honored, all rejoice together (1 Cor 12:26). Thus we celebrate the feasts of Saints Peter and Paul, and the other saints. But at times we recall God’s benefits as found in the entire Church: for example, the benefits of the sacraments and other things granted to the Church in general. Now a material church building is like a sign of the gathering of the faithful of the Church, and in this building all the sacraments of grace are dispensed. So it is in memory of these benefits that we celebrate the feast of the dedication of a church. Indeed, such a feast is greater than the feast of any saint, just as the benefits conferred upon the whole Church, which benefits we celebrate, exceed the benefits conferred on some saint and recalled during his feast.

1435. Recall that the temple at Jerusalem had been consecrated three times: first by Solomon (1 Kgs 8); second, during the time of Ezra by Zerubbabel and Jesus, the high priest (Ezra 6); third, by the Maccabees, for it says that they went up to Jerusalem to cleanse the holy places (1 Macc 4). Now this feast was not celebrated in memory of the dedication by Solomon, because that took place in the fall, i.e., in the seventh month; nor was it in memory of the dedication made at the time of Ezra, for this took place during the spring, i.e., the ninth day of March. But it was in memory of the dedication made by the Maccabees, which took place during the winter.

And so to show this he mentions the specific time, saying, it was winter. There is also a mystical reason for mentioning the time. As Gregory says in II Morals, the Evangelist took care to mention the season as winter in order to indicate the chill of evil in the hearts of those listening, that is, the Jews: as a well keeps its water cold, so she keeps cold her wickedness (Jer 6:7); and we read of this winter: the winter is past, the rain is over and gone (Song 2:11).

1436. Then he describes the place, and Jesus walked in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. He describes it first in a general way, in the temple: the Lord is in his holy temple (Ps 11:4); second, in more detail, saying, in the portico of Solomon.

We have to know that the temple included not just its main building, but the surrounding porticos as well; it was on these porticos that the people stood and prayed, for only the priests prayed in the temple. It was called the portico of Solomon because it was the place where Solomon stood and prayed when the temple was being dedicated: then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel (1 Kgs 8:22).

1437. One might object that the temple which Solomon built was destroyed, and so was his portico.

1438. The persons who question Christ are described as to their malice; thus he says, the Jews therefore gathered around him, unwarmed by loving charity, but burning with the desire to harm him. They came to attack him, surrounding and pressing him in on all sides: many calves have surrounded me: many bulls encompass me (Ps 22:12); Ephraim has encompassed me (Hos 11:12).

1439. Then when he says, and said to him: how long will you hold us in suspense? we see the Jews questioning him.

First, he mentions the pretended reason for their questions when he says, how long will you hold us in suspense? Their manner is flattering because they want it to appear that they desire to know the truth about him. It is like they were saying: we are hanging in anticipation. How long will you keep us unsatisfied? Hope deferred makes the heart sick (Prov 13:12).

Second, they state their question, if you are the Christ, tell us plainly. Note their perversity; for since they resent Christ’s calling himself the Son of God (John 5:18), they do not ask him if he is the Son of God, but if you are the Christ, tell us plainly. They hoped by this to obtain grounds for accusing him before Pilate for inciting sedition and making himself king, which was in opposition to Caesar and offensive to the Romans. Thus it was that when the Jews accused Christ of making himself the Son of God, Pilate was not very impressed; but when they said: whosoever makes himself a king, speaks against Caesar (John 19:12), he was swayed against Christ. This is why they say, if you are the Christ, or a king, or anointed, tell us plainly. Second, notice their wickedness, because they say, plainly. It was like saying: up to now you have not taught in public, but more or less in secret; but in reality, Christ said everything openly and was present for the festival days, and said nothing in secret: I have spoken openly to the world . . . and in secret I have spoken nothing (John 18:20).

1440. Now we have the answer of Christ, where he shows their unbelief, proving they were deceitful in saying they wished to know the truth when they said, how long will you hold us in suspense? He shows this in two ways. First, because they did not believe his words; and about this he says, I speak to you, and you do not believe. As if to say: you say to me, if you are the Christ, the king, tell us. But I speak to you, that is, I told you the truth, and you do not believe. As it is written: if I tell you, you will not believe (Luke 22:67).

He shows this in a second way because they do not believe his works. And about this he says: the works that I do in the name of my Father give testimony about me.

He first shows their unbelief in his works;

second, the reason for their unbelief, at but you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.

1441. As to the first he says, the works that I do, as if to say: you cannot be persuaded and satisfied by my words, nor even by those great works the works that I do in the name of my Father, i.e., for his glory. Give testimony about me, because they can be performed by God alone. Thus they clearly show that I have come from God: the tree is known by its fruit (Matt 12:33); the works themselves, which I do, give testimony about me, that the Father has sent me. But you do not believe (John 5:36). And whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him (John 12:37). For this reason they are inexcusable: if I had not done among them the works that no other man has done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father (John 15:24).

1442. The reason for their unbelief is that they are separated from Christ’s sheep. So he says, but you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.

He does three things concerning this.

First, he says that they are excluded from membership in the sheep of Christ;

second, he shows the dignity of his sheep, at my sheep hear my voice; and I know them, and they follow me;

third, he proves that no one will snatch his sheep out of his hands, at that which my Father has given to me is greater than all.

1443. He mentions that they are not among his sheep when he says, because you are not of my sheep, i.e., you are not predestined to believe, but foreknown to eternal destruction. For the very fact that we believe is due to God: for it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake (Phil 1:29); for by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God (Eph 2:8). And this is given only to those for whom it was prepared from eternity; thus, only those believe in him who have been ordained to this by God through an eternal predestination: as many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48); we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus (Acts 15:11).

1444. But should anyone be told that he is not predestined? It seems that he should not be told: for since no one can be saved unless he is predestined, if one is told that he is not predestined, he would be driven to despair. And so our Lord was driving the Jews to despair when he said to them, you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.

1445. Now he reveals the dignity of his sheep when he says, my sheep hear my voice. He here mentions four things: two of them are what we do in reference to Christ; the other two, which correspond to the first two are what Christ does in us.

1446. The first thing we do is to obey Christ. Concerning this he says, my sheep, through predestination, hear my voice, by believing and obeying my precepts: O that today you would harken to his voice! Harden not your hearts (Ps 95:7).

1447. The second thing, corresponding to this, is what Christ does, which is to give his love and approval. Concerning this he says, and I know them, that is, I love and approve of them: the Lord knows those who are his (2 Tim 2:19). This is like saying: the very fact that they hear me is due to the fact that I know them by an eternal election.

But if a person cannot believe unless God gives this to him, it seems that unbelief should not be imputed to anyone.

1448. The third thing, which is what we do, concerns our imitation of Christ. So he says, and they follow me: my foot has held fast his steps (Job 23:11); Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Pet 2:21).

1449. The corresponding fourth part, which is what Christ does, is the bestowing of a reward. Concerning this he says, and I give them eternal life. This is like saying: they follow me by walking the path of gentleness and innocence in this life, and I will see that afterwards they will follow me by entering into the joys of eternal life.

Our Lord shows in three ways that this reward will never end. Something can end in three ways. First of all, by its very nature, for example, if it is corruptible. But this reward is incorruptible of its very nature. Thus he says, I give them eternal life, which is incorruptible and ever-living enjoyment of God: now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3). As Augustine says, this is the pasture of which he spoke before. Indeed, eternal life is called a good pasture because it is entirely verdant and nothing withers away.

Second, a thing can end because the one receiving it ends, or does not guard it well. But this will not happen to that reward; so he says, and they will never perish, that is, the sheep will never perish. This conflicts with Origen, for he said that the saints in glory are able to sin. Yet our Lord says, they will never perish, because they will be preserved forever: he who conquers I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never will he go out of it (Rev 3:12).

Third, a thing can end by being snatched by force: for perhaps Adam would not have been cast out if the deceiver had not been there. But this will not happen in eternal life, and so he says, and no man will pluck them, that is, the sheep, out of my hand, that is, from my protection and loyalty: the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God (Wis 3:1). As Augustine says: there the wolf does not snatch, nor the thief steal, nor the robber kill.

1450. He now proves what he had said above about the dignity of his sheep, namely, that no one can snatch them from his hand. His reason is this: no one can snatch what is in the hand of my Father; but the Father’s hand and mine are the same; therefore, no one can snatch what is in my hand.

Concerning this he does three things: first, he gives the minor premise by showing that the Father had communicated divinity to him, saying, that which my Father has given to me, through an eternal generation, is greater than all. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has also given to the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26). It is greater than any power: and he has given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of Man (John 5:27); it is greater than any reverence and honor: God had bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phil 2:9). Therefore, that which my Father has given to me, that is, that I am his Word, his only begotten, and the splendor of his light, is greater than all.

Second, he mentions the greatness of the Father’s power, which concerns the major premise, when he says, and no man is able to snatch them, take by violence or secretly pilfer, out of the hand, from the power, of my Father, or from me, who am the might of the Father, although as Augustine says, it is better to say from the power of the Father than from me. Now no one is able to snatch out of the hand of my Father, because he is the almighty one who is not subject to violence, and he is all-wise from whom nothing is hidden: he is wise in heart, and mighty in strength (Job 9:4).

Third, he affirms his unity with the Father, and from this the conclusion follows. Thus he says, I and the Father are one. As if to say: no man will pluck them out of my hand, because I and the Father are one, by a unity of essence, for the Father and the Son are the same in nature.

1451. This statement rejects two errors: that of Arius, who distinguished the essence, and that of Sabellius, who did not distinguish the persons. We escape both Charybdis and Scylla, for by the fact that Christ says, one, he saves us from Arius, because if one, then they are not different. And by the fact that he says, we are, he saves us from Sabellius, for if we are, then the Father and the Son are distinct.

Yet the Arians, deceived by their wickedness, try to deny this, and say that a creature can in some sense be one with God, and in this sense the Son can be one with the Father.

The falsity of this can be shown in three ways. First, from our very manner of speaking. For it is clear that one is asserted as ‘being’; thus, just as something is not said to be a being absolutely except according to its substance, so it is not said to be one except according to its substance or nature. Now something is asserted absolutely when it is asserted with no added qualification. Therefore, because I and the Father are one, is asserted absolutely, without any qualifications added, it is plain that they are one according to substance and nature. But we never find that God and a creature are one without some added qualification: he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him (1 Cor 6:17). Therefore, it is clear that the Son of God is not one with the Father as a creature can be.

Second, we can see this from his previous statement, that which my Father has given me is greater than all. He draws the conclusion from this: I and the Father are one. This is like saying: we are one to the extent that the Father has given me that which is greater than all.

Third, it is clear from his intention. For our Lord proves that no one will snatch the sheep from his hand precisely because no one can snatch from the hand of his Father. But this would not follow if his power were less than the power of the Father. Therefore, the Father and Son are one in nature, honor and power.

Attempted stoning of Christ

10:31 The Jews then took up stones to stone him. [n. 1453]

10:32 Jesus answered them: many good works I have shown you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me? [n. 1454]

10:33 The Jews answered him: we do not stone you for a good work but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God. [n. 1456]

10:34 Jesus answered them: is it not written in your law, I said you are gods? [n. 1458]

10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture is not able to be broken; [n. 1460]

10:36 Do you say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world: you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? [n. 1461]

10:37 If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me. [n. 1464]

10:38 But if I do them, even though you do not want to believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. [n. 1465]

10:39 They sought therefore to take him, and he escaped out of their hands. [n. 1468]

10:40 And he went again beyond the Jordan, into that place where John was baptizing first, and he remained there. [n. 1469]

10:41 And many came to him, and they said: John indeed did no sign. [n. 1470]

10:42 But all things whatsoever John said of this man were true. And many believed in him. [n. 1470]

1452. We have seen the teaching of Christ; and now we see the effect this teaching has on the Jews.

First, Jesus reproves their fierceness;

second, he defends himself against the charge of blasphemy, at the Jews answered him;

and third, he escapes from their violence, at they sought therefore to take him.

1453. Concerning the first, two things are done. First, we see the violence of the Jews inciting them to stone Christ. The Evangelist says, the Jews then took up stones to stone him. They were hard of heart and unable to understand his profound message; and so, being like stones, they resort to stones: when I spoke to them they fought against me without cause (Ps 119:7).

1454. Second, we see our Lord reprove their violence, saying, many good works I have shown you from my Father. First, he reminds them of the benefits given to them; second, he reproves their violence.

He recalls the benefits he granted in healing the sick, in teaching them and performing his miracles. Jesus answered them: many good works I have shown you, by healing, teaching and working miracles: he has done all things well (Mark 7:37); from my Father, whose glory I have sought in all these things: I do not seek my own glory, but the glory of him who sent me (John 8:50).

And he reproves their violence when he says, for which of these works do you stone me? This was like saying: you should honor one who does good to you, not stone him. Similarly, it is said: is evil a recompense for good? (Jer 18:20).

1455. Now our Lord defends himself from the charge of blasphemy.

First, we see him accused of blasphemy by the Jews;

and second, Christ proves his innocence, at Jesus answered them: is it not written in your law?

1456. With respect to the first, the Evangelist says, the Jews answered him: we do not stone you for a good work but for blasphemy.

There are five things to be considered here. First, what seems to be the motive for their stoning him, namely, his blasphemy. For Leviticus commands that blasphemers be stoned: bring out of the camp him who has blasphemed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let the congregation stone him (Lev 24:14). Mentioning this motive, they say, we do not stone you for a good work but for blasphemy.

Second, they specify his blasphemy. It is blasphemy not only to attribute to God what is not appropriate to him, but also to attribute to another what belongs to God alone. So, it is blasphemy not only to say that God is a body, but also to say that a creature can create: it is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone? (Mark 2:7). Thus the Jews were saying that our Lord was a blasphemer not in the first way, but for usurping for himself what is proper to God: because you, being a man, make yourself God.

The third thing to be considered is that the Jews understood the words of Christ, I and the Father are one (John 10:30), better than the Arians did. Thus they were incensed because they understood that I and the Father are one (John 10:30) could only be said if the Father and Son are equal. This is what they say, you . . . make yourself God, claiming by your words that you are God, which is not true, you, being a man.

The fourth point to consider is that the distance between God and man is so great that it was unbelievable to them that someone with a human nature could be God. So they significantly say, because you, being a man, make yourself God. Yet this unbelief could have been dispelled by what is read in the Psalm: what is man that you are mindful of him? Or the son of man that you visit him? (Ps 8:5); and: for I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told (Hab 1:5), this is, the work of the Incarnation, which surpasses every mind.

The fifth thing to consider is that they do not agree with themselves: for on the one hand, they say that Christ does good works, saying, we stone you for no good work; and on the other hand, they accuse him of blasphemy, usurping for himself the honor of God. Now these conflict with each other, for he could not accomplish miracles from God if he blasphemed God, because a sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit (Matt 7:18). And this applied especially to Christ.

1457. Here our Lord defends himself against the charge of blasphemy.

First, he gives his defense;

second, he shows them the truth, at if I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me.

He defends himself by divine authority, and so

first, he mentions the authority of Scripture;

second, he explains its meaning;

and third, he draws his conclusion.

1458. The Evangelist says, Jesus answered them: is it not written in your laws, as we read in the Psalms, I said you are gods? (81:6)

Here we should note that ‘law’ is understood in three ways in Scripture. Sometimes it is taken in a general sense for the entire Old Testament, containing the five books of Moses, the prophets and the hagiographies. This is the way in your law is understood here, meaning in the Old Testament. For this quotation is from the Psalms which are referred to as the law because the entire Old Testament is considered to have the authority of law. Sometimes ‘law’ is understood as distinct from the prophets, Psalms, and the hagiographies; this is the way Luke uses it in everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). Again, at other times it is distinguished from the prophets. In this sense the Psalms and the other books of the Old Testament, other than the Pentateuch, are included within the prophets, on the ground that the Old Testament was produced by a prophetic spirit. This is the way it is understood in Matthew: on these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets (Matt 23:40). Therefore it is written: I said you are gods.

1459. The word ‘god’ is also used in three senses. Sometimes it signifies the divine nature itself, and then it is used only in the singular: hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord (Deut 6:4). At other times it is taken in a denominative sense; in this way idols are called gods: all the gods of the peoples are idols (Ps 96:5). And sometimes someone is called a god because of a certain participation in divinity, or in some sublime power divinely infused. In this way, even judges are called gods in Scripture: if the thief is not known, the owner of the house will be brought to the gods, that is, to the judges (Exod 22:8); you shall not speak ill of the gods, that is, of the rulers (Exod 22:28). This is the way the word ‘god’ is taken here, when he says, I said you are gods, i.e., you share in some divine power superior to the human.

1460. Then when he says, if he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, he shows the meaning of the authority he cited. This was like saying: he called them gods because they participated in something divine insofar as they participated in God’s word, which was spoken to them. For due to God’s word a person obtains some participation in the divine power and purity: now you are clean by reason of the word, which I have spoken to you (John 15:3); and we read that the face of Moses shone when he heard the words of the Lord (Exod 34).

From what has been said above, one might argue in this way: it is clear that a person by participating in the word of God becomes god by participation. But a thing does not become this or that by participation unless it participates in what is this or that by its essence: for example, a thing does not become fire by participation unless it participates in what is fire by its essence. Therefore, one does not become god by participation unless he participates in what is God by essence. Therefore, the Word of God, that is the Son, by participation in whom we become gods, is God by essence. But our Lord, rather than argue so profoundly against the Jews, preferred to argue in a more human way. He says, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, in order to show the irrefutable truth of Scripture: O Lord, your word endures forever (Ps 118:89).

1461. Then, when he says, do you say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, he draws his conclusion. If, with Hilary, we refer this to Christ insofar as he has a human nature, the meaning is this: some people are called gods only because they participate in God’s word. How then can you say, you are blaspheming, that is, how can you consider it blasphemy, if that man who is united in person to the Word of God is called God? This is why he says, whom the Father has sanctified.

For although God sanctifies all who are sanctified, sanctify them in truth (John 17:17), he sanctified Christ in a special way. He sanctifies others to be adopted children, you have received the spirit of adoption (Rom 8:15), but he sanctified Christ to be the Son of God by nature, united in person to the Word of God. These words, whom the Father has sanctified, show this in two ways. For if God sanctifies as Father, it is clear that he sanctifies Christ as his Son: he was predestined to be the Son of God by the Spirit of Sanctification (Rom 1:4). We can also see this by his saying, and sent into the world. For it is not fitting for a thing to be sent some place unless it existed before it was sent there. Therefore, he whom the Father sent into the world in a visible way, is the Son of God, who existed before he was visible: for as we saw above, he was in the world, and through him the world was made (John 1:10); and God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world (John 3:17).

Do you say of him whom the Father . . . sent into the world, you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? This was like saying: I, who am united in person to the Word, have much more reason to say this than those to whom the word of God was spoken.

1462. But how did the Jews realize that he was claiming to be the Son of God? Our Lord did not say this expressly.

1463. But if, with Augustine, we refer whom the Father sanctified to Christ as God, then the meaning is this: whom the Father has sanctified is he whom he has begotten holy, or sanctified, from eternity. The other things which follow should be explained in the same way as Hilary does. Yet the better explanation is to refer everything to Christ as man.

1464. Then when he says, if I do not do the works of my father, do not believe me, he proves the truth of the foregoing. This is like saying: although in your opinion I am only human, yet I am not blaspheming when I say that I am truly God, because I truly am.

He does two things concerning this:

first, he presents the argument of his works;

second, he draws his conclusion, at that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.

1465. He does two things concerning the first. In the first place he says that in the absence of his works they would have an excuse. He says, if I do not do the works of my Father, i.e., the same ones that he does, and with the same might and power, do not believe me. Whatever he, the Father, does, these the Son also does in like manner (John 5:19).

Second, he says that they are convicted by his very works: but if I do them, the same works the Father does, then even though you do not want to believe me, who appears as a son of man, believe the works, i.e., these works show that I am the Son of God: if I had not done among them the works that no other man has done, they would not have sin (John 15:24).

1466. Now he draws his conclusion, saying, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. For the clearest indication of the nature of a thing is taken from its works. Therefore, from the fact that he does the works of God it can be clearly known and believed that Christ is God. Accordingly he says: I will argue from my works themselves, that you may know and believe what you cannot see with your own eyes, that is, that the Father is in me, and I in the Father: I am in the Father and the Father in me (John 14:10), by a unity of essence. The Father is in me, and I in the Father and I and the Father are one (John 10:30), have the same meaning.

Hilary explains this well by saying that there is this difference between God and man: man being a composite, is not his own nature; but God, being entirely simple, is his own existence and his own nature. Therefore, in whomever the nature of God is, there is God. And so, since the Father is God and the Son is God, where the nature of the Father is, there is the Father, and where the nature of the Son is, there is the Son. Therefore, since the nature of the Father is in the Son, and conversely, the Father is in the Son, and conversely. But as Augustine remarks, although God is in man and man is in God, he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him (1 John 4:16), this does not mean that they are one in essence. Rather, man is in God, that is, under the divine care and protection, and God is in man, by the likeness of his grace. However, the only Son is in the Father and the Father is in him as equals.

1467. Now our Lord turns away from the obstinacy of the Jews.

First, the Evangelist shows they were obstinate;

second, we see that Christ turns away from this;

third, we see what effect this had.

1468. The Evangelist shows their inflexibility by the fact that after so many confirmations of the truth, after the evidence of so many miracles and wonders, they still persist in their evil. So they sought therefore to take him, to apprehend him, not in order to believe and understand, but in their rage to do him harm; they were even the more enraged because he had more clearly expressed his equality with the Father: they hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return (Jer 8:5).

1469. But our Lord turns away from their rage, and so the Evangelist says, and he escaped out of their hands.

Here we see, first, that he left them by escaping from their hands. He did this for two reasons. To show that he could not be restrained unless he willed: passing through the midst of them he went away (Luke 4:30); no man takes it away from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18). Second, to give us the example of turning away from persecution when this can be done without endangering the faith: do not make your stand against one who can injure you (Sir 8:14).

We see, second, where he went when the Evangelist says, he went again beyond the Jordan, into that place where John was baptizing first. The mystical reason for this is that at some time, through the apostles, Jesus would go to convert the gentiles.

The literal reason is twofold. First, this place was near Jerusalem, and since his passion was near, he did not wish to be too far away. Second, he wanted to recall the witness which John had given there, when he said, behold, the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), as well as the Father’s testimony to his Son, Christ, at the time of his baptism.

1470. The effect of this turning away was that many were converted to the faith. Three points are made about this conversion. First, many imitated his works; so he says, and many came to him, namely, by imitating his works: come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matt 11:28).

Second, many professed him in word, and they said: John indeed did no sign. By this they profess Christ’s superiority to John. The reason for this was that John was sent as a witness to Christ; thus he should show that he was worthy to be believed and his testimony would be shown to be true. Now this is fittingly done by holiness of life. On the other hand, Christ came as God; consequently, it was fitting that he show the signs of divine power. And so John stood out by the sanctity of his life; Christ, however, in addition to this, performed works which manifested his divine power. This was in accord with the practice of the rulers of antiquity that when in the presence of a higher power a lesser power did not display the insignia of its power. Thus, in the presence of the dictator, the consuls took down their insignia. So it was not fitting that John, who possessed less power, because he was a precursor and witness, should employ the insignia of divine power; only Christ should have done this. They profess the truth of John’s witness to Christ, saying, but all things whatsoever John said about this man, Christ, were true. They were saying: although John did no sign, he nevertheless said all things truthfully about Christ.

Third, he reveals the faith in their hearts, saying, and many believed in him. As Augustine remarks, they grasped Christ remaining, whom the Jews wanted to seize waning, because through the lamp they had come to the day. For John was that lamp and gave testimony to the day.

Lazarus

Sickness of Lazarus

11:1 Now there was a certain sick man named Lazarus, of Bethany, of the town of Mary and her sister Martha. [n. 1472]

11:2 (And Mary was she who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) [n. 1474]

11:3 Therefore, his sisters sent to him, saying: Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick. [n. 1475]

11:4 And Jesus, hearing it, said to them: this sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it. [n. 1477]

11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus. [n. 1479]

1471. Above, our Lord shows his life-giving power by word; here he confirms it with a miracle, by raising Lazarus from the dead.

First, we see the illness of Lazarus;

second, his being raised from the dead: when he had heard therefore (John 11:6);

and third, the effect this produced: many of the Jews, who had come to Mary and Martha . . . believed in him (John 11:45).

The Evangelist does three things concerning the first:

first, the illness of Lazarus is mentioned;

second, his illness is made known: therefore, his sisters sent to him;

third, we see the reason for his illness: and Jesus, hearing it, said to them.

Concerning the first he does three things:

first, he describes the person who was ill;

second, where he was living;

and third, he mentions one of his relatives.

1472. The one who was ill was Lazarus; now there was a certain sick man named Lazarus. This presents to us a believer who hopes in God, but still suffers the weakness introduced by sin, of whom we read: be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am languishing (Ps 6:2). For Lazarus means one who is helped by the Lord; and so this name signifies one who has confidence in divine help: my help comes from the Lord (Ps 121:2).

1473. Lazarus was at Bethany, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. The village of Bethany was near Jerusalem, and our Lord was often a guest there, as has been said above many times. It means a ‘house of obedience’, and leads us to understand that if one who is ill obeys God, he can easily be cured by him, just as one who is sick and obeys his doctor gains his health. The servants of Naaman said to him: my father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? (2 Kgs 5:13).

Bethany was the home of Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus. Martha and Mary represent two ways of life, the active and the contemplative. And we can understand from the above that it is by obedience that one becomes perfect, both in the active and in the contemplative life.

1474. His relative was Mary: Mary was she who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. The Evangelist describes this Mary by her most famous action so we can distinguish her from the many other women with the same name: Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair.

Still, there is some disagreement among the saints about this Mary. Some, like Jerome and Origen, say that this Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is not the same as the sinner mentioned: a woman of the city, who was a sinner . . . brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head (Luke 7:37). So, as Chrysostom says, she was not the prostitute mentioned in Luke. The Mary mentioned by John was an honorable woman, eager to receive Christ, while the name of the woman who was the sinner was kept secret. Furthermore, the Mary mentioned here by John could have done for Christ at the time of his Passion, because of her special devotion and love, something similar to what was done for him by the sinner out of remorse and love. John, in order to praise her, is mentioning here, in anticipation, the action she would perform later (John 12:1–8).

Others, such as Augustine and Gregory, say that this Mary, mentioned by John, is the same as the sinner mentioned by Luke. Augustine bases his reason on this text. For the Evangelist is speaking here of the time before Mary anointed our Lord at the time of the Passion; as John says further on: Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus (John 12:3). So he says that what the Evangelist has mentioned here is the same event mentioned elsewhere (Luke 7:37). Ambrose maintains both sides. So, according to the opinion of Augustine, it is clear that the sinner mentioned by Luke is this Mary whose brother Lazarus was sick, that is, a consuming fever was wasting his wretched body with its furnace-like flames.

1475. The sisters of Lazarus, who were taking care of him, inform Jesus of his illness. Grief-stricken at the misfortune of the ailing youth, therefore, his sisters sent to him, Jesus, saying: Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick. This message brings to mind three things for consideration. First, we see that the friends of God are sometimes afflicted with bodily illness; thus, if someone has a bodily illness, this is not a sign that the person is not a friend of God. Eliphaz mistakenly argued against Job that it was: think now, who that was innocent every perished? Or where were the upright cut off? (Job 4:7). Accordingly, they say, Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick: for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights (Prov 3:12).

The second thing to note is that his sisters do not say, Lord, come and heal him, but simply to mention his sickness, he is ill. This indicates that it is enough merely to state one’s need to a friend, without adding a request. For a friend, since he wills the good of his friend as his own good, is just as interested in warding off harm from his friends as he is in warding it off from himself. And this is especially true of the one who most truly loves: the Lord preserves all who love him (Ps 145:20).

The third thing to consider is that these two sisters, who wanted the cure of their sick brother, did not come in person to Christ, as did the paralytic (Luke 5:18), and the centurion (Matt 8:5). This was because of the confidence they had in Christ due to the special love and friendship which he had shown for them; or, perhaps it was their grief that kept them away: a friend, if he is steadfast, will be to you as yourself (Sir 6:11).

1476. Now we have the reasons for the foregoing:

first, the illness of Lazarus;

second, the reason why, according to Augustine, his sisters did not come in person to Christ: now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus.

1477. The reason for the illness of Lazarus is the glorification of the Son of God; thus the Evangelist says, and Jesus, hearing it, said to them: this sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God.

Here we should note that some physical illness is unto death and some is not. Those are unto death which are not ordained to something else. Further, every evil of punishment is inflicted by divine providence: does evil befall a city, unless the Lord has done it? (Amos 3:6). But as for the evil of fault, God is not the author, but the punisher. Now all things that are from God are ordered. Consequently, every evil of punishment is ordered to something: some to death, and some to something else. This illness was not ordered to death, but to the glory of God.

1478. But did not Lazarus die from this illness? It seems so, otherwise he would not have had the odor of one four days in the tomb, nor would his raising have been a miracle.

This is true in one way, but not in another. It is possible to consider two reasons for Lazarus’ illness. One is the natural cause, and from this point of view the statement of Chrysostom is true, because Lazarus’ illness, considering its natural causes, was not ordained to his rising from the dead. But we can consider another reason, and this is divine providence; and then Chrysostom’s statement is not true. For under divine providence an illness of this kind was ordained to the glory of God. And so according to this, the for and the that do indicate the reason. It is the same as saying: for the glory of God, because although it was not ordained to this from the intent of its natural cause, yet from the intent of divine providence it was ordained to the glory of God, insofar as, once the miracle had been performed, people would believe in Christ and escape real death. So he says, that the Son of God may be glorified by it.

Here our Lord clearly calls himself the Son of God: for he was to be glorified in the resurrection of Lazarus because he is true God: that we may be in his true Son (1 John 5:20); neither this man nor his parents has sinned, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him (John 9:3).

1479. Here, according to Augustine, the Evangelist gives the reason why Lazarus’ two sisters did not come to Christ, and it was due to their confidence in him because of the special love he had for them; so the Evangelist remarks, now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus. Indeed, he who is the consoler of the sorrowful loved the sorrowing sisters, and he who was the savior of the weary loved the weary and dead Lazarus: yea, he loved his people; all those consecrated to him were in his hand (Deut 33:3).

Christ remains in the same place

11:6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he remained in the same place for two days. [n. 1481]

11:7 Then after that, he said to his disciples: let us go into Judea again. [n. 1482]

11:8 The disciples said to him: Rabbi, the Jews but now sought to stone you, and you would go there again? [n. 1484]

11:9 Jesus answered: are there not twelve hours of the day? If a man walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world: [n. 1485]

11:10 But if he walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him. [n. 1489]

1480. Here the Evangelist presents the raising of the dead Lazarus.

First, we see that Christ desired to do this;

and second, the sequence of events surrounding the raising are given, at Jesus therefore came (John 11:17).

We see three things related to the first.

First, our Lord allows death;

second, he states his intention to go to the place where Lazarus died, at then after that, he said;

and third, he reveals his intention to raise him, at these things he said, and after that he said to them (John 11:11).

1481. Christ allowed this death by prolonging his stay beyond the Jordan: when he had heard therefore that he was sick, he remained in the same place for two days. One may infer from this that Lazarus died on the very day that Jesus received the message from his sisters: for when Christ went to the place where he died, it was already the fourth day. After receiving the message, Christ then remained two days in the same place, and on the day after these two days, he went to Judea.

He delayed these few days for two reasons. First, so that the death of Lazarus would not be prevented by his presence; for where life is present, death has no entry. In the second place, in order to make the miracle more credible, and so that people would not say that Christ revived Lazarus, not from death, but only from a coma.

1482. Here our Lord declares his intention to go to the place where Lazarus died, at then after that, he said to his disciples: let us go into Judea again.

First, we see our Lord’s plan;

second, we see the fear in the disciples, at the disciples said to him.

and third, we have our Lord dispelling their fear, at Jesus answered: are there not twelve hours of the day?

1483. With respect to the first the Evangelist says, then after that, the prolonged delay, he said, Jesus did, to his disciples, let us go into Judea again.

One might ask here why Christ made a point of mentioning to the apostles that he was about to go into Judea again, since he had not done this on other occasions.

The reason for this was that the Jews had just recently persecuted Christ in Judea and had almost stoned him; indeed, that is why he had left. So it was to be expected that when Christ wanted to go there again, the disciples would become fearful. And because darts that are foreseen do not strike and foreseen evils are more easily borne, as Gregory says, our Lord mentioned his planned journey to them to calm their fears.

As to the mystical sense, we can understand by the fact that Christ is returning once again to Judea, that he will return again at the end of the world to the Jews, who will be converted to Christ: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the gentiles come in (Rom 11:25).

1484. The fear of the disciples is mentioned when the Evangelist says, the disciples said to him: Rabbi, the Jews but now sought to stone you, and you would go there again? This was like saying: it seems that you are deliberately going to your death. Yet their fear was unreasonable, because the disciples had God with them as their protector, and one who is with God should not fear: let us stand up together. Who is my adversary? (Isa 50:8) The Lord is my light and my salvation: whom shall I fear? (Ps 26:2).

1485. Our Lord dispels this fear by strengthening them. The Evangelist says, Jesus answered his disciples, are there not twelve hours of the day?

First, we see something about the time;

second, what time is suited for walking;

third, what time is not.

The second, he explains at if a man walk in the day, he does not stumble; the third at but if he walks in the night, he stumbles.

1486. To understand this passage we should note that it has been explained in three ways. The first way is that of Chrysostom, and is this. Are there not twelve hours of the day? is like saying: you hesitate to go up to Judea because the Jews recently wanted to stone me; but the day has twelve hours, and what happens at one hour does not happen in another. So, although they would have stoned me before, they would not want to do this at another hour: for everything there is a season (Eccl 3:1); every matter has its time and way (Eccl 8:6).

1487. A literal question arises because he is speaking here either of the natural or of the artificial day. If he is speaking of the natural day, then what he says is false: because the natural day does not have twelve but twenty-four hours. Again, if he is speaking of the artificial day, his statement is false: because it is true only at the equinox, for not all artificial days have twelve hours.

1488. If a man walks in the day, that is, honorably, and without consciousness of any evil, let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in that day (Rom 13:13), he does not stumble, that is, he does not come upon anything that might harm him. And this is because he sees the light of this world, i.e., the light of righteousness is in him: light dawns for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart (Ps 97:11). It is like our Lord were saying: we can go securely because we are walking during the day.

1489. But if he walks in the night, that is, in the night of iniquities, he will easily find dangers. Concerning this night we read: those who sleep at night (1 Thess 5:7). But such a one, stumbles, that is, strikes against something, because the light, of righteousness, is not in him.

1490. A certain Greek, Theophylactus, explains this another way. Beginning at if a man walk in the day, he says that the day is the presence of Christ in the world, and the night is the time after Christ’s Passion. So the meaning is this: the Jews are not to be feared because as long as I am in the world it is not you, but I, who am in danger. Thus, when the Jews wanted to arrest Christ, he said to the crowd: if therefore you seek me, let these go their way. That the word might be fulfilled which he said: of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one. (John 18:8–9). But if he walk in the night, that is, in the time after the passion, you should be afraid to go into Judea, because you will suffer persecution from the Jews: strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered (Zech 7:7).

1491. Augustine explains it another way, so that the day indicates Christ, at I must do the works of him who sent me while it is day (John 9:4), and as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world (John 9:5). The twelve hours of this day are the twelve apostles: have I not chosen you twelve? (John 6:71).

But what should we say of what follows: and one of you is a devil? (John 6:71). Judas, therefore, was not an hour of this day because he gave no light. We should say that our Lord spoke these words not in reference to Judas, but to his successor, who was Matthias.

Thus, the sense of are there not twelve hours of the day? is as though he were saying: you are the hours, I am the day. Just as the hours follow the day, so you must follow me. So, if I wish to go to Judea you ought not to precede me or change my will, but you should follow me. He said something similar to Peter: get behind me, Satan! (Matt 16:23), i.e., do not go ahead of me, but follow me by imitating my will. If a man walk in the day is the same as saying: you should not fear any danger, because you are going with me who am the day. So just as one who walks in the day does not run into anything, that is, he does not stumble, so also you who walk with me: if God is for us, who is against us? (Rom 8:31). And this is because he sees the light of this world in me. But if he walks in the night, in the darkness of ignorance and sin, then he stumbles; and this is because the, spiritual, light is not in him, not because of a defect in the light, but because of his own rebellion: there are those who rebel against the light (Job 24:13).

The death of Lazarus

11:11 These things he said, and after that he said to them: Lazarus our friend sleeps, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. [n. 1493]

11:12 His disciples therefore said: Lord, if he sleeps, he will be well. [n. 1497]

11:13 But Jesus spoke of his death, and they thought that he spoke of the repose of sleep. [n. 1499]

11:14 Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is dead. [n. 1501]

11:15 And I am glad, for your sakes, that I was not there, that you may believe, but let us go to him. [n. 1502]

11:16 Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples: let us also go, that we may die with him. [n. 1503]

1492. Above, our Lord mentioned his intention of going to the place where Lazarus had died; now he reveals his intention to raise him.

The Evangelist first mentions this intention;

second, the attitude of the disciples, at Thomas therefore.

First, we see our Lord stating his intention

implicitly and rather obscurely;

second, the Evangelist mentions how slow the disciples were to understand this: his disciples therefore said;

and third, we see our Lord stating his intention plainly: then therefore Jesus said.

1493. The Evangelist says, these things he said, and after that he said to them, that is, having said those things already mentioned, Jesus now says to his disciples, Lazarus our friend sleeps. According to Chrysostom, this seems to be a second reason for the disciples not to fear: the first was based on their innocence, because if a man walk in the day, he does not stumble (John 11:9); but this reason is based on current necessity, it being necessary to go there.

1494. We see three things about this.

First, he recalls his previous friendship with the dead man, saying, our friend Lazarus. This was to say: he was a friend because of the many things and favors he did for us; so we should not neglect him in his needs: he who overlooks his own advantage for the sake of a friend is just (Prov 12:26).

1495. Second, he mentions that help is needed now, saying, sleeps, and so should be helped: a brother is born for adversity (Prov 17:17). Lazarus our friend sleeps, with respect to the Lord, as Augustine says; but with respect to men he was dead, as they were unable to revive him.

We should note that the word ‘sleep’ can be understood in several ways. Sometimes it refers to a natural sleep: so Samuel went and slept until morning (1 Sam 3:9); and you will sleep securely (Job 11:18). Sometimes it indicates the sleep of death: we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope (1 Thess 4:13). Sometimes it is understood as some kind of negligence: behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep (Ps 121:4). And sometimes it means the sleep of sin: awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead (Eph 5:14). Again, it can mean the repose of contemplation: I slept, but my heart was awake (Song 5:2). It can also signify the rest of future glory: in peace I will both lie down and sleep (Ps 4:8).

Death is called a sleep because of the hope we have of a resurrection; so death has come to be called a sleep from the time that Christ died and arose: I lie down and sleep (Ps 3:6).

1496. Third, he shows his power to raise one from death when he says, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. By this he tells us that he woke him from the grave with as little effort as you wake a person who is sleeping in bed. This is not surprising because he is the one who raises the dead and gives life; so it was said above: for the hour is coming, wherein all who are in the graves will hear the voice of the Son of God (John 5:28).

1497. The Evangelist now mentions that the disciples were slow to understand this: his disciples therefore said: Lord, if he sleeps, he will be well.

First, he gives a sign of their slowness, and this is that they did not answer our Lord in accord with his meaning.

Second, their slowness is clearly shown: but Jesus spoke of his death.

1498. Concerning the first, note that although our Lord was speaking of the sleep of death, they understood him to mean a natural sleep. And because it is a sign of health when the sick sleep, the disciples said, if he sleeps, he will be well. They were saying: this is clearly a sign of health; Lord, since he is sleeping, it does not seem to be helpful to go and awake him.

1499. The Evangelist mentions their slowness to understand, saying, but Jesus spoke of his death, since they did not realize this. Our Lord said to them, are you also still without understanding? (Matt 15:16). And we read of the wise: the wise man may also hear . . . and understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles (Prov 1:5–6).

1500. Then our Lord explicitly states his intention to raise him: Lazarus is dead; and I am glad, for your sakes.

First, he tells them that Lazarus has died, which shows his knowledge;

second, he mentions his attitude towards his death, which shows his providence;

and third, he makes known his intention to go to the place where he died, which shows his compassion or mercy.

1501. He states that Lazarus has died when he says plainly, Lazarus is dead, i.e., he has submitted to the common law of death which no one can escape: what man can live and never see death? (Ps 89:48).

1502. He shows his own attitude towards this death, saying, and I am glad, for your sakes, that I was not there, that you may believe. This can be explained in two ways. The first way is this. We have heard that Lazarus was sick. Although I was not there I have told you that he has died and I am glad, for your sakes, i.e., because it is for your benefit, so that you may experience my divinity, because though I was not there I saw this: all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have do to (Heb 4:13). This is not surprising, because the divinity is present to all things: do I not fill heaven and earth? (Jer 23:24). So that you may believe not as though they were to believe for the first time, but in order that they might believe more firmly and more strongly, in the sense of I believe; Lord, help my unbelief (Mark 9:23).

The other explanation is this: I am glad that he is dead and this is for your sakes, for your benefit, that you may believe. Accordingly, and I am glad, for your sakes, that I was not there, for if I had been there, he would not have died. But because he is now dead, it will be a greater miracle when I raise one already decomposing. As a result, your faith will get stronger, for it is greater to raise one who is dead than to keep him from dying. We can learn from this that evils are sometimes a reason for joy, insofar as they are directed to some good: we know that everything works for good with those who love him (Rom 8:28).

1503. He mentions his plan to go when he says, but let us go to him. Here we see God’s mercy, for in his mercy he takes the initiative and draws to himself those living in sin, who are dead and unable of themselves to come to him: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore have I drawn you, taking pity on you (Jer 31:3).

1504. Now the attitude of the disciples is given, and this can be interpreted in two ways; in one way as indicating a lack of confidence; and in the other as indicating love.

Chrysostom interprets it in the first way. As was mentioned above, all the disciples feared the Jews, but especially Thomas. Indeed, before the passion he was weaker than the others and had less faith, but after he became stronger and was beyond reproach, traveling the whole world alone. So, because of this lack of confidence he says to his fellow disciples, let us also go, that we may die with him. This was like saying: he does not fear death; he fully wants to go, willing to deliver both himself and us over to death.

Augustine interprets it in the second way. For Thomas and the other disciples loved Christ so much that they wanted either to live with him while he was here, or die with him, so that they would not find themselves again without consolation if he left them alone by dying. It was with this feeling that Thomas said to his fellow disciples, let us also go, that we may die with him. He was saying: he wants to go, and is in danger of death. Shall we stay here to live? No. Let us also go, that we may die with him: if we suffer with him, we will reign with him (Rom 8:17); one has died for all; therefore all have died (2 Cor 5:14).

The promise of the resurrection

11:17 Jesus therefore came and found that he had already been in the tomb four days. [n. 1506]

11:18 (Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia off). [n. 1508]

11:19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. [n. 1508]

11:20 Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus had come, went to meet him, but Mary remained at home. [n. 1510]

11:21 Martha therefore said to Jesus: Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead. [n. 1511]

11:22 But I also know that whatever you will ask of God, God will give it to you. [n. 1511]

11:23 Jesus said to her: your brother will rise again. [n. 1513]

11:24 Martha said to him: I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day. [n. 1514]

11:25 Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, although he be dead, will live: [n. 1516]

11:26 And all who live and believe in me will never die. Do you believe this? [n. 1517]

11:27 She said to him: yes, Lord, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God, who has come into this world. [n. 1519]

1505. The Evangelist, after telling us that Lazarus was to be raised, now describes the events surrounding it.

First, he mentions some others;

second, he reveals Christ’s feelings, at Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping (John 11:33);

third, he describes the actual raising of Lazarus, at Jesus again groaning in himself (John 11:38).

As for the others, he

first mentions the condition of Lazarus;

second, the consolation the Jews were giving to his sisters, at now Bethany was near Jerusalem;

and third, the devotion of these sisters, at Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus had come.

1506. The condition of Lazarus is described as to the time of his death and to his location: Jesus therefore came and found that he had already been in the tomb four days. This makes it clear, as we said above, that Lazarus had died the very day Christ was told about his illness.

1507. According to Augustine, these four days signify four deaths. The first day indicates the death of original sin, which we humans contract as offspring: sin came in to the world through one man and death through sin (Rom 5:12). The other three days refer to death by actual sin: for every mortal sin is called a death: evil will slay the wicked (Ps 34:21). These days are differentiated according to which law is transgressed.

Thus the second day indicates the transgression of the law of nature: they have transgressed the laws . . . broken the everlasting covenant, that is, the law of nature (Isa 24:5). The third day signifies the transgression of the written law: did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keep the law? (John 7:19). The fourth day represents the transgression of the law of the Gospel and of grace; and this is more serious than the others: a man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:28–29).

Another interpretation would be this: the first day is the sin of the heart: remove the evil of your thoughts from before my eyes (Isa 1:16). The second day is the sin of speech: let no evil talk come out of your mouths (Eph 4:29). The third day is the sin of deed: cease to do evil (Isa 1:16). The fourth day is customary sin arising from evil habit: you can do good who are accustomed to do evil (Jer 13:23). However it is explained, the Lord cleanses those having been dead four days, i.e., those transgressing of the law of the Evangelist, and those held prisoner by the habit of sin.

1508. Next the condition of the visitors is described. We are told what favored the presence of the visitors and how many there were.

Their presence was facilitated due to the fact that the deceased was near Jerusalem; the Evangelist says, now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia off. This was almost two miles, because a mile contains eight stadia. Thus it was easy for many of the Jews to go there from Jerusalem.

The mystical interpretation is this: Bethany means the ‘house of obedience’, and Jerusalem means the ‘vision of peace’. Thus we may understand that those who are in the state of obedience are near the peace of eternal life: my sheep hear my voice; and I give them eternal life (John 10:28). He says fifteen stadia, because anyone who wishes to go from Bethany, i.e., the state of obedience, to the heavenly Jerusalem, must pass through fifteen stadia. The first seven belong to the observance of the old law, for the number seven pertains to the old law, which keeps the seventh day holy. The other eight belong to the fulfilling of the New Testament, for the number eight refers to the New Testament because of the octave of the resurrection.

Their number is mentioned as being many; and many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them. This was an act of piety: rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep (Rom 12:15); do not fail those who weep, but mourn with those who mourn (Sir 7:34).

1509. Now the Evangelist describes the sisters:

first, Martha;

then Mary, at and when she had said these things, she went, and called her sister Mary (John 11:28).

He describes Martha in three ways:

first, as going to meet Christ;

second, the devotion she showed to Christ;

and third, the degree of enlightenment to which Christ raised her.

1510. We are told that Martha immediately went to meet Jesus, Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus had come, went to meet him without delay. The Evangelist says, had come, perhaps because when Christ was drawing near someone went ahead and told Martha that Jesus was on his way; and when she heard this, she at once ran to meet him. The reason why Martha was the first to hear about this and hurry out alone was due to her anxiety; thus our Lord says, Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things (Luke 10:41). And so, since she was occupied with every detail, she was constantly coming and going and was more likely to meet the messengers. But Mary sat with those who had come from Jerusalem, and the news would not have reached her as soon. Chrysostom thinks that Martha did not tell Mary about this at once because Mary was with the Jews, and Martha knew that they were persecuting Christ and had already planned his death. So, she was afraid that if she told her, and Mary also came to meet Christ, they too would have come with her. For this reason she preferred not to tell her.

But if the Jews were conspiring against Christ, why were they there with Lazarus and his sisters, who were intimate friends of Christ, and like his disciples? Chrysostom answers that they were there in spite of the orders of their leaders, to comfort them, because they were good women and in great need. Or again, they were there because they were not evil men, but were well-disposed toward Christ; for a great number of the people were believers.

Mystically, these events signify the active life, which is signified by Martha, who went to meet Christ in order to serve his members; and the contemplative life, which is signified by Mary, who sat at home dedicating herself to the repose of contemplation and to purity of conscience: when I enter my house, I will find rest with her (Wis 8:16).

1511. Martha is shown to have an extraordinary devotion, at Martha therefore said to Jesus: Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead. Here she reverently mentions two things to Christ: one of these look to the past, and the other to the future.

She looks to the past when she says, Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead: for she believed that there would be no place for death when the Lord was present, since she had seen the woman healed by merely touching the fringe of Jesus’ garment (Matt 9:20). This was reasonable, for life is contrary to death; but Christ is life and the tree of life: she is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her (Prov 3:18). So if the tree of life could preserve one from death, much more could Christ. However, her faith was as yet imperfect, for she thought that Christ had less power when he was absent than when he was present. Thus she said, Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead. Of course, this can be said of a limited and created power, but it should not be said of the infinite and uncreated power which is God, because God is equally related to things both present and absent; indeed, all things are present to him: am I a God at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off? (Jer 23:23).

She looks to the future when she adds, but I also know that whatever you will ask of God, God will give it to you. In saying this she spoke the partial truth, for it belonged to Christ as having a human nature to petition God; thus we read that he often prayed, and above it is said, if a man is a servant of God and does his will, he hears him (John 9:31). Yet it was less than the whole truth; for by saying this she seemed to be thinking of Christ as a saintly man who could by his prayer revive one already dead, just as Elisha by his prayer raised one who was dead.

1512. We see how she advanced when the Evangelist adds, Jesus said to her: your brother will rise again. Because she was still imperfect in her understanding, our Lord raised her to higher things by his teaching.

First, he foretells the resurrection of her brother;

second, he shows that he has the power to resurrect, at I am the resurrection and the life.

Concerning the first, he does two things.

First, he foretells the coming miracle;

second, we see Martha’s understanding of the resurrection, at Martha said to him.

1513. The miracle our Lord foretold is the raising of Lazarus; thus he says, your brother will rise again: your dead will live, their bodies will rise (Isa 26:19).

We should note here that Christ raised three persons from death: the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (Matt 9:25); the widow’s son, who was being carried outside the gate of the city (Luke 7:12); and Lazarus, who had been four days in the tomb. The girl was still in her home, the youth was outside the gate, and Lazarus was in the tomb. He raised the girl in the presence of only a few witnesses: the girl’s father and mother, and the three disciples, Peter, James, and John. He raised the young man in the presence of a large group. And Lazarus was raised with a number of people standing by, and when Christ was deeply affected.

These three persons represent three kinds or genera of sins. Some sin by consenting in their hearts to mortal sin; and these are signified by the girl who was dead in her own home. Others sin by outside signs and acts, and these are signified by the dead youth who was being carried outside the city gate. Finally, those who are firmly habituated to sin are buried in the tomb. Yet, our Lord raises all of them. But those who sin only by consent, and die by sinning mortally, are more easily raised. And because their sin is private, it is healed with a private corrective. When sin advances without, it needs public remedy.

1514. Martha’s understanding of the promised resurrection is given when the Evangelist says, Martha said to him: I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day. It had never been heard that anyone had raised a person who had been four days in the tomb, so it would not have entered Martha’s heart that Jesus would raise Lazarus from the dead then and there. But she did believe that this would happen at the general resurrection. Therefore, she says, I know, that is, I hold it with the greatest certainty, that he will rise again . . . at the last day; as above, I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:40).

1515. When the Evangelist says, Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life, our Lord raises Martha to higher things.

First, Jesus shows his own might and power;

second, he mentions the effect of his power, he who believes in me, although he be dead, will life;

and third, he demands faith, do you believe this?

1516. His power is life-giving; thus he says, I am the resurrection and the life. It is as though he were saying to Martha: do you believe that your brother will rise on the last day? But this general event, that all will rise, will be caused by my power. Consequently, I, by whose power all will rise at that time, am also able to raise your brother now.

He is saying two things, namely, that he is the resurrection and the life. We should note that some have need to share in the effect of life: some, indeed, because they have lost life; and others, not because they have lost it, but in order that the life they have may be preserved. In regard to the first he says, I am the resurrection, because those who have lost their life by death are restored. In regard to the second he says, and the life, by which the living are preserved.

We should note further that the statement, I am the resurrection, is a causal one. It is the same as saying: I am the cause of the resurrection, for this manner of speaking is usually applied only to those who are the cause of something. Now Christ is the total cause of our resurrection, both of bodies and souls; and so the statement, I am the resurrection, indicates the cause. He is saying: the entire fact that everyone will rise in their souls and in their bodies will be due to me: for as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:21).

Furthermore, the fact that I am the resurrection is due to the fact that I am the life: for it is because of life that they are restored to life, just as it is because of fire that something aflame which has been extinguished is rekindled: in him was life, and the life was the light of men (John 1:4).

1517. However, the effect corresponds to the power; thus he says, he who believes in me, although he be dead, will live. First, he treats of the effect which corresponds to the first power; second, the effect which corresponds to the second power.

The first thing he said about his power is that he is the resurrection. The effect which corresponds to this is that the dead are brought to life by him. Referring to this he says, he who believes in me, although he be dead, will live. The reason for this is that I am the cause of the resurrection, and the effect of this cause is obtained by believing in me. He says, he who believes in me, although he be dead, will live, because by believing he has me within himself: that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Eph 3:17). And one who has me, has the cause of the resurrection. He who believes in me . . . will live. We saw before that some will rise through faith: the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear will live (John 5:25), with a spiritual life, by rising from the death of sin, and they will also live with a natural life by rising from the penalty of death.

The second thing he says of his power is that he is life. The effect which corresponds to this is the preservation of life. Thus he says, and all who live and believe in me, whoever lives a life of righteousness, the righteous will live by his faith (Hab 2:4), will never die, that is, with an eternal death. But they will have eternal life: and this is the will of my Father who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life (John 6:40). This should not be understood to mean that one will not physically die; he will die, but he will be raised up in a soul to a never-ending life, and his flesh will rise and he will never die again. Thus John continued, and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:44).

1518. Jesus requires faith so he can bring her to perfection: thus he says, do you believe this? First, our Lord’s question is given. Our Lord does not ask this out of ignorance, because he knew her faith. Indeed, it was he who had infused the faith into her: for the act of faith is from God. But he asks this question in order that she might profess outwardly the faith she had in her heart: as we read, for man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved (Rom 10:10).

1519. Second, we are given the woman’s answer, yes, Lord, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Yet this answer seems to be unrelated to what our Lord had said. For he had said, I am the resurrection and the life, and then he asked her whether she believed this. She did not answer: I believe that you are the resurrection and the life, but I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

There are two explanations for this. Chrysostom thinks that Martha did not understand the profound words of Christ and answered as one bewildered: Lord, I do not understand what you are saying, namely, that you are the resurrection and the life; but I do believe this, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Augustine, on the other hand, says that Martha answers this way because it gives the reason for all that our Lord had said. It is as though she were saying: whatever you say about your power and the effect of salvation, I believe it all; because I believe something more, which is the root of all these things, that is, that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

1520. Martha’s profession is complete, for she professes Christ’s dignity, his nature and his mission, that is, to be made flesh.

She professes his dignity, both royal and priestly, when she says, you are the Christ. Now ‘Christ’ means ‘anointed’. And kings and priests are anointed. Consequently, ‘Christ’ is king and priest. So the angel said: to you is born this day in the city of David a savior, who is Christ the Lord (Luke 2:11). Furthermore, he is Christ in a unique way, for others are anointed with a visible oil, but he is anointed with an invisible oil, that is, with the Holy Spirit, and more abundantly than others: God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows (Ps 45:7). Indeed, he was anointed above his fellows for God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34).

Then she professes that Christ’s nature is divine and equal to the Father; she says, the Son of the living God. In calling him uniquely the Son of the living God, she affirms the truth of his sonship: for he is not the true Son of God unless he is of the same nature as his Father. Thus it is said of Christ: that we may be in his true Son, the Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20).

She professes the mystery of his mission when she says, who has come into this world, by assuming flesh. Peter professed the same: you are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt 16:16); and Christ says, I came forth from the Father and have come into the world (John 16:28).

Christ weeps over Lazarus

11:28 And when she had said these things, she went, and called her sister Mary quietly, saying: the Master has come and calls for you. [n. 1522]

11:29 As soon as she heard this, she rose quickly and came to him. [n. 1525]

11:30 For Jesus had not yet come into the town, but he was still in the place where Martha had met him. [n. 1526]

11:31 The Jews therefore, who were with her in the house and comforted her, when they saw that Mary rose quickly and went out, followed her, saying: she goes to the tomb to weep there. [n. 1527]

11:32 When Mary therefore came to where Jesus was, seeing him, she fell down at his feet, and said to him: Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead. [n. 1528]

11:33 Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, groaned in the spirit and troubled himself, [n. 1531]

11:34 And he said: where have you laid him? They said to him: Lord, come and see. [n. 1536]

11:35 And Jesus wept. [n. 1537]

11:36 The Jews therefore said: behold how he loved him. [n. 1538]

11:37 But some of them said: could not he who opened the eyes of the man born blind, have kept this man from dying? [n. 1539]

1521. The Evangelist, after describing Martha, now describes Mary.

First, he mentions how she was called;

second, her meeting with Christ, at as soon as she heard this;

and third, the devotion she showed him, at when Mary therefore came to where Jesus was . . . she fell down at his feet.

1522. Mary was called by Martha, who had been consoled and instructed by Christ, as she did not want her sister to miss such consolation. When she had said these things, the previous words, to the Lord, she went, and called her sister Mary quietly, saying: the Master has come and calls for you.

Whence two problems arise: first concerning what is meant by quietly: for quiet is nothing other than the privation of speech and sound. Nor would it be possible to call quietly.

As for the mystical sense, we may understand that one more efficaciously calls upon Christ in quiet or in private: in quietness and in trust will be your strength (Isa 30:15).

1523. There is a problem about her saying, the Master has come and calls for you. This seems to be false, because our Lord did not tell Martha to call Mary.

1524. Next, at as soon as she heard this, she rose quickly and came to him, the Evangelist describes Mary going to meet Christ.

He does three things about this:

first, he mentions her promptness;

second, the place where she meets Christ, at for Jesus had not yet come into the town;

and third those who came with her, at the Jews therefore, who were with her in the house . . . followed her.

1525. Mary went to Christ promptly, not delaying on account of her sorrow, or hesitating because of those who were with her. But as soon as she heard this, she rose quickly from the house where she was and came to him, Jesus. It is clear from this that Martha would not have arrived before Mary if Mary had been immediately told of Jesus’ coming.

Further, this furnishes us with the example that we are not to delay when called to Christ: do not delay to turn to the Lord, nor postpone it from day to day (Sir 5:7); I will hear him as a teacher (Isa 50:4).

1526. Mary meets Christ at the same place where Martha had spoken to him, at for Jesus had not yet come into the town, but he was still in the place where Martha had met him. The Evangelist mentions this so that we do not think that Mary’s trip was unnecessary, for Christ could have reached her village just as quickly as Martha did. But Christ remained where he was so as not to appear to be thrusting himself into a miracle. Yet once he is asked and prompted, he does perform a miracle, once they realize that Lazarus is dead, and so the miracle cannot be denied.

We can also understand from this that when we wish to have the advantage of Christ we should go to meet him, and not wait until he accommodates himself to us; rather, we should accommodate ourselves to him: they will turn to you, but you will not turn to them (Jer 15:19).

1527. Those who followed Mary are described when the Evangelist says, the Jews therefore, who were with her in the house . . . followed her. The reason they followed her is given when he says, she goes to the tomb to weep there. They thought that her action was inspired by her grief, since they had not heard what Martha had said to her. This was a commendable thing for the Jews to do: do not cease consoling those who weep (Sir 7:34). Still, that they did follow Mary was an effect of divine providence, and it was, as Augustine says, so that with all these present when Lazarus was raised, this great miracle of raising one who had been dead for four days would have many witnesses.

1528. Then when he says, when Mary therefore came to where Jesus was, seeing him, she fell down at his feet, we see Mary’s devotion to Jesus.

First, we see the devotion she showed by her actions and

second, the devotion she showed by her words, at Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead.

1529. In regard to the first, notice her security and humility.

She is secure because, contrary to the orders of the leaders that no one profess Christ, she is neither shamed by the crowd nor does she show any regard for the Jews’ mistrust of Christ. Even though some of Christ’s enemies are present, she runs to him: the just man is bold as a lion, he will be without fear (Prov 28:1).

She shows her humility because she fell down at his feet, which was not said about Martha: humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you (1 Pet 5:6); let us worship at his foot stool (Ps 132:7).

1530. She shows her devotion in words when she says to him, Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead. For she believed that he was the life, and where he was there would be no place for death: what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14). It is like saying, says Augustine: as long as you were present with us, no sickness or infirmity dared to appear among those with whom life was a guest. O faithless fellowship! While you were still living in the world, your friend died. If a friend dies, what will an enemy suffer?

1531. Next, at Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping . . . groaned in the spirit and troubled himself, Christ’s feelings are presented. Christ did not answer Mary in the same way that he answered Martha; because of the crowd which was present he did not say anything, but showed his power by his actions.

First, we see Christ’s affection for Mary;

second, the remarks of the Jews about Christ’s affection, at the Jews therefore said: behold how he loved him.

Concerning the first, the Evangelist does three things.

First, he mentions the affection present in the heart of Christ;

second, how he expressed it in words, at and he said: where have you laid him?

and third, how he revealed it by his tears, at and Jesus wept.

1532. With regard to the first, he says, Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping.

We should note here that Christ is truly God and truly man. And so in his actions we find almost everywhere that the divine is mingled with the human, and the human with the divine. And if at times something human is mentioned about Christ, something divine is immediately added. Indeed, we read of no weakness of Christ greater than his Passion; yet as he hangs on the cross divine events are manifested: the sun is obscured, rocks are rent, the bodies of the saints that had been asleep arise. Even at his birth, as he lay in the manger, a star shines in the heavens, the angels sing his praises, and the magi and kings offer gifts. We have a similar situation here: for Christ experiences a certain weakness in his human affections, becoming disturbed over the death of Lazarus. We read, he groaned in the spirit and troubled himself.

1533. In regard to this disturbance, we should note his compassion; second, his discernment; and third, his power.

There is compassion for a right reason, for one is rightly troubled by the sadness and the evils which afflict others. About this the Evangelist says, when he saw her weeping. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep (Rom 12:15).

1534. There is discernment, because Jesus is troubled in harmony with the judgment of reason. Thus the Evangelist says that he groaned in the spirit, that is, observing the judgment of reason. In the Scriptures the spirit is also called the mind or reason: be renewed in the spirit of your minds (Eph 4:23). Sometimes these emotions of the sensitive part are neither evoked by the spirit, nor preserve the moderation of reason; rather, they go against it. But this did not happen in Christ because he groaned in the spirit.

But what does it indicate to say that he groaned in spirit? It seems that it indicates anger: a king’s wrath is like the growling of a lion (Prov 19:12). It also seems to indicate indignation or resentment: he gnashes his teeth and melts away (Ps 112:10).

1535. There was power here because Christ troubled himself by his own command. Sometimes such emotions arise for an inappropriate reason, as when a person rejoices over something evil, or is saddened over what is good: like they who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil (Prov 2:14). But this was not the case with Christ; thus he says, when he saw her weeping . . . he troubled himself. And sometimes such emotions arise for a good reason, but are not moderated by reason. So he says, he groaned in the spirit. Further, although these emotions are moderated, they sometimes spring up before the judgment of reason, as when they are sudden. This was not the case with Christ either, because every movement of his sensitive appetite was according to the control and command of reason. Thus he says, troubled himself. This was like saying: he took on this sadness by a judgment of reason.

1536. Then our Lord shows the emotion in his own heart by words; he says, where have you laid him?

There are also two mystical reasons for this. One is that a person who asks a question does not seem to know the things he asks about. Now, Lazarus in his tomb signifies those who are dead in their sins. And so our Lord presents himself as ignorant of where Lazarus is to have us understand that he does not, in a way, know sinners, according to: I never knew you (Matt 7:23); and God said to Adam, where are you? (Gen 3:9). The other reason is that if anyone rises from sin to the state of divine righteousness, it is due to the depths of divine predestination, the depths of which we are ignorant: for who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? (Rom 11:34); for who among them has stood in the council of the Lord to perceive and hear his word (Jer 23:18). And so our Lord, implying this, acts as one who does not know, since we also do not know this.

Thus our Lord’s question is given, and the answer of the people, when the Evangelist says, they said to him: Lord, come and see. Come, by showing mercy; and see, by giving your attention: consider my affliction and my trouble, and forgive all my sins (Ps 25:18).

1537. Next, our Lord reveals his emotion with tears; the Evangelist says, and Jesus wept. Now his tears did not flow from necessity, but out of compassion and for a purpose. Christ was a well-spring of compassion, and he wept in order to show us that it is not blameworthy to weep out of compassion: my son, let your tears fall for the dead (Sir 38:16). He wept with a purpose, which was to teach us that we should weep because of sin: I am weary with my moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears (Ps 6:6).

1538. The Evangelist mentions the remarks that were made about Christ’s affection when he says, the Jews therefore said: behold how he loved him! First, he mentions those who sympathize with Christ’s affection; second, those who doubted his previous miracle, at: but some of them said.

The Evangelist infers that some sympathize with Christ’s affection when he says, the Jews therefore said, after Christ showed his affections by his words and tears, behold how he loved him: for love is especially manifested when people are afflicted: a brother is born for adversity (Prov 17:17). As for the mystical sense, we understand by this that God loves us even when we are sinners, for if he did not love us he would not have said: for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (Matt 9:13). So we read: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you (Jer 3:13).

1539. Those who doubted his previous miracle were from the group which envied Christ. The Evangelist says, but some of them, the Jews, said: could not he who opened the eyes of the man born blind, have kept this man from dying? It was the same as saying: if he loved him so much that he now weeps over his death, it seems that he did not want him to die, for sadness concerns things that we do not want. So, if he died against Christ’s wishes, it seems that Christ was not able to prevent his death; and all the more it seems that he could not open the eyes of the man born blind. Or, one could say that the Jews were speaking out of wonder or astonishment, as Elisha spoke when he said, where is the Lord, the God of Elijah? (2 Kgs 2:14); and David in Lord, where is thy steadfast love of old? (Ps 89:49).

The resurrection of Lazarus

11:38 Jesus, again groaning in himself, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was laid over it. [n. 1541]

11:39 Jesus said: take away the stone. Martha, the sister of he who was dead, said to him: Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days. [n. 1544]

11:40 Jesus said to her: did I not say to you that, if you believe, you will see the glory of God? [n. 1547]

11:41 They therefore took the stone away. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said: Father, I give you thanks that you have heard me. [n. 1549]

11:42 And I knew that you hear me always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that you have sent me. [n. 1554]

11:43 When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth. [n. 1557]

11:44 And immediately he who had been dead came forth, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them: unbind him and let him go. [n. 1558]

1540. The Evangelist, after having given certain preambles to the raising of Lazarus, now presents the raising itself. He considers four things:

first, Christ’s arrival at the tomb;

second, the removal of the stone, at it was a cave, and a stone was laid over it;

third, Christ’s prayer, at and Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said;

and fourth, the actual raising of the dead Lazarus, at when he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth.

1541. In regard to the first he says, Jesus, again groaning in himself, came to the tomb.

The Evangelist is careful to frequently mention that Christ wept and was deeply moved because, as Chrysostom says, he will later show the power of his divinity. And so he affirms that Christ experienced the weaker and humbler marks of our nature so that we do not doubt the reality of his human nature. And just as John shows his divine nature and power more explicitly than the other Evangelists, so he also mentions his weaker aspects, and other such things which especially reveal the affections of Christ’s human nature.

As for the mystical sense, he was deeply moved in order that we might understand that those who rise from sin should continue to weep without interruption, according to: all the day I go about mourning (Ps 38:6). Or, one could say that while Christ was deeply moved before due to the death of Lazarus, he is deeply moved now because of the unbelief of the Jews. Thus the Evangelist mentioned their doubt about his previous miracle, when they said, could not he who opened the eyes of the man born blind, have kept this man from dying? (John 11:37). Indeed, he was deeply moved with compassion and pity for these Jews: he saw a great throng; and he had compassion on them (Matt 14:14).

1542. The Evangelist next mentions the removal of the stone; and he does four things about this.

First, he describes the stone;

second, he mentions the order of Christ to remove it;

third, he adds the objection to taking away the stone;

fourth, he states that the order was carried out.

1543. The stone is described as being over the tomb; he says, it was a cave, and a stone was laid over it.

Note that in those regions they had certain cavities in the form of caves that were used as human burial places, and in them they could bury many bodies over the course of time. So they have an entrance which they could close and open with a stone when necessary. Thus we read, a stone was laid over it, i.e., over the entrance to the cave. We read the same when Abraham purchased a field and a cave for the burial of his wife Sarah (Gen 23:1–20).

In the mystical sense, the cave signifies the depths of sin, of which it is said: I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me (Ps 69:2). The stone laid upon the cave signifies the law, which was written on stone, and which did not take away sin, but held them in sin, because they sinned more gravely in acting against the law. Thus we read: the Scripture consigned all things to sin (Gal 3:22).

1544. Then when he says, Jesus said: take away the stone, he gives Christ’s order to remove the stone.

One might ask: since it is a greater thing to raise the dead than to remove a stone, why did not Christ also use his power to remove the stone?

Chrysostom says that this was done in order to secure greater certitude about this miracle, that is, to make them such witnesses to the miracle that they could not, like they did in the case of the blind man, and say that this was not the same person.

For the mystical sense, according to Augustine, the removing of the stone signifies the removal of the weight of the legal observances from Christ’s faithful who came into the Church from the gentiles, for some wanted to impose these observances on them. Thus St. James says: for it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things (Acts 15:28); and Peter says in the same work: why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear (Acts 15:10). Concerning this our Lord says, take away the stone, i.e., the burden of the law, and preach grace. Or, the stone signifies those in the Church who live wickedly, and are a scandal to those who would believe, because they hinder their conversion. We read about this stone: lest you dash your foot against a stone (Ps 91:12). This stone our Lord orders removed: remove every obstruction from my people’s way (Isa 57:14).

1545. Next, we see Martha’s objection.

First, we see what she said;

second, the words of Christ’s answer.

1546. The Evangelist mentions Martha’s words when he says, Martha, the sister of he who was dead, said to him: Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days. As for the literal sense, this happened in order to show the truth of the miracle, as his members were already beginning to corrupt and dissolve.

As for the mystical sense, one who habitually sins is said to smell, that is, the foul odor of his reputation is spread abroad by his sins. For just as good works spread a good odor, as the Apostle says, we are the aroma of Christ to God (2 Cor 2:15), so from evil works there arises an evil odor and a stench. Such a person is aptly described in terms of four days, for he is pressed by the weight of earthly sins and sensual desires, and earth is the last of the four elements: the stench and foul smell of him will rise, because he has acted proudly (Joel 2:20).

1547. Christ answers her, saying, did I not say to you that, if you believe, you will see the glory of God? Here our Lord seems to reprove Martha for not remembering what Christ had said to her: he who believes in me, though he die, yet will he live (John 11:25). For Martha was not certain that Christ could raise a person who had been dead four days. Although Christ had recently raised certain dead persons, this seemed impossible to believe of her brother because of the long time he had been dead. And so our Lord said, did I not say to you that, if you believe, you will see the glory of God? That is, the raising of your brother, by which God will be glorified.

Although our Lord had said to his apostles before that this miracle would be for his glory, saying, that the Son of God may be glorified by it (John 11:4), that is, by means of this death, he now says to Martha that this miracle will be for the glory of God. The reason for this is that the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the same. However, he did not mention the glory of the Son here so as not to excite the Jews who were present and ready to dispute him.

1548. These words of our Lord suggest two fruits of our faith. The first is the performing of miracles, which is due to faith: if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain: move hence to yonder place, and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you (Matt 17:19). The Apostle also says: if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains (1 Cor 13:2); they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it (Mark 16:20). Now this working of miracles is for the glory of God; thus he says, if you believe, you will see the glory of God.

The second fruit is the vision of eternal glory, which is due as a reward to faith; thus he says, you will see the glory of God: if you do not believe, you will not understand (Isa 7:9); for now we see in a mirror dimly, by faith, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12).

1549. Next, the Evangelist mentions that the command was carried out, they therefore took the stone away. We may consider here, according to Origen, that the delay in removing the stone was caused by the sister of the deceased. Consequently, the raising of her brother was delayed as long as she detained Christ with her talk; but as soon as the command of Christ was obediently carried out, her brother was raised. And we can learn from this not to interpose anything between the commands of Christ and their execution if we desire the effect of salvation to follow at once: as soon as they heard of me they obeyed me (Ps 18:44).

1550. Then he considers the prayer of Christ, in which he gives thanks. The Evangelist mentions four things in this regard.

First, he mentions his way of praying;

second, the efficacy of his prayer;

third, he excludes Christ’s need to pray;

and fourth he mentions the usefulness of his prayer.

1551. Christ’s way of praying is appropriate, because Jesus lifted up his eyes, that is, he lifted up his understanding, directing it in prayer to the Father above. As for us, if we wish to pray according to the example of Christ’s prayer, we have to raise the eyes of our mind to him by turning them from the memories, thoughts and desires of present things. We also lift our eyes to God when we do not rely on our own merits, but hope in his mercy alone: to you I lift up my eyes, O you who are enthroned in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, till he have mercy upon us (Ps 123:1); and let us lift up our hearts and hands to God in heaven (Lam 3:41).

1552. He mentions the efficacy of this prayer when he says, Father, I give you thanks that you have heard me. Here we have a sign that God is quick to give, as we read: Lord, you will hear the desire of the meek (Ps 10:17), so that he hears our desires even before they are put into words: he will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry; when he hears it, he will answer you (Isa 30:19); and again: while they are yet speaking I will hear (Isa 65:24). Therefore, with much more reason we can think that God the Father, anticipating the prayer of our Lord, the Savior, would have heard him: for the tears which Christ shed at the death of Lazarus acted as a prayer.

By giving thanks at the beginning of his prayer, Christ gives us the example that when we pray, we should thank God for the benefits we have already received before asking for new ones: give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thess 5:18).

1553. If the phrase, that you have heard me, is interpreted as applying to Christ insofar as he is human, there is no difficulty: for as having a human nature Christ is less than the Father and, accordingly, it is appropriate for him to pray to the Father and be heard by him. But if, as Chrysostom wants, it is applied to Christ as God, then there is a problem: for as God, it is not fitting that he pray or be heard, but rather that he hear the prayers of others.

Consequently, it should be said that one is heard when his will is fulfilled. Now the will of the Father is always fulfilled, because he does whatever he pleases (Ps 115:3). Therefore, since the will of the Father is the same as the will of the Son, whenever the Father fulfills his own will, he fulfills the will of the Son. Thus, the Son says, as Word, that you have heard me, i.e., that you have done those things which were in your Word to be done. For he spoke and they were done.

1554. Christ’s need to pray is excluded when he says, and I knew that you hear me always, but because of the people who stand about I have said it, that they may believe that you have sent me. Here our Lord vaguely shows his own divinity. As if to say: in order that my will be done I do not need prayer, because from eternity my will has been fulfilled: in all things he was heard for his reverence (Heb 5:7). I knew with certitude that you hear me, the Word, always: because whatever you do, these things are in me to be done.

1555. Again, you hear me in my human nature always, because my will is always conformed to your will: but because of the people who stand about I have said it, that they may believe that you have sent me. We understand from this that our Lord did and said many things for the benefit of others: for I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you (John 13:15). For every action of Christ is a lesson for us.

In particular, Christ wanted to show by his prayer that he was not separated from the Father, but recognized him as his principle. And so he added, that they may believe that you have sent me; as below: now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3); God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4). And this is the benefit coming from his prayer.

1556. Now the Evangelist considers the raising of Lazarus; and he does three things.

First, he mentions the voice of the one awakening him;

second, the effect of his voice, at and immediately he who had been dead came forth;

and third, the command to unbind the one awakened, at Jesus said to them: unbind him and let him go.

1557. The voice of the one awakening Lazarus is described as loud: when he had said these things, that is, Jesus, he cried with a loud voice. As for the literal sense, this was done to refute the error of certain Jews and of the gentiles that the souls of the dead lingered in the tombs with their bodies. So, he cried with a loud voice, as though summoning from afar the soul which was not present in the tomb.

Or, and this is a better explanation, it might be said that Christ’s voice is described as loud because of its great power: for its power was so great that it raised Lazarus who had been dead four days, just as one asleep is roused from sleep: he gave power to his voice (Ps 67:34). Further, this loud voice represents that loud voice which will sound at the general resurrection and by which all will be roused from their graves: at midnight there was a cry (Matt 25:6).

He cried out, I say, saying, Lazarus, come forth. He called him by his own name because such was the power of his voice that all the dead without distinction would have been awakened if he had not limited it to one by mentioning his name, as Augustine says when speaking of the word of the Lord. Again, we understand from this that Christ calls sinners to come out from living in sin: come out of her, my people (Rev 18:4). We are also called to let our sins come out of concealment by revealing them in confession: if I have concealed my transgressions from men (Job 31:33).

1558. Then the effect of this voice is given, at and immediately he who had been dead came forth; first, the resurrection of the dead man; second, his condition.

The resurrection of the dead man was immediately after our Lord’s command, at immediately he who had been dead. For such was the power of Christ’s voice that it gave life without any delay, as will happen at the general resurrection when the dead will rise in the twinkling of an eye when they hear the sound of the trumpet: and the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess 4:16). For Christ’s mission was already being anticipated, as it was stated above: the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear will live (John 5:25). In this way what our Lord said was fulfilled: I go to awake him.

As to the condition of the one rising, he is described as having his hands and feet bound with bandages, with which the people of ages past wrapped their dead, and his face was wrapped with a cloth, in order to hide his gruesome appearance. He was commanded to rise bound and wrapped to provide a greater proof of the miracle.

1559. When Jesus says, unbind him and let him go, he orders that he be unbound so that those who do this may be more reliable witnesses to the miracle and have it more forcefully impressed on their memory. Furthermore, when they approach and touch him, they can see that is really he. He adds, and let him go, to show that this miracle is not an illusion: for at times certain magicians have seemed to raise the dead, but those who were raised could not live as they formerly had because their raising was not real but illusory.

1560. Augustine gives a mystical explanation to this entire verse beginning at and immediately he who had been dead came forth. He does this in two ways, depending on two ways of coming out.

The sinner comes out when by repenting he passes from the practice of sin to the state of righteousness: come out from them, and be separate from them (2 Cor 6:17). However, his hands are bound with bandages, i.e., with carnal desires, because, although he is rising from his sins, he cannot escape such annoyances as long as he lives in the body. Thus the Apostle says: I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin (Rom 7:25). His face being wrapped with a cloth signifies that in this life we cannot have full knowledge of God: for now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12). Christ commands them to unbind him and let him go because after this life all the veils are lifted from those who rise from sin, so that they may contemplate God face to face (1 Cor 13:12). Then we will be unbound from the corruptibility of the flesh which is like a chain binding and weighing down the soul and keeping it from full and clear contemplation: loose the bonds from your neck, O captive daughter of Zion (Isa 52:2). This is one way to come out in a spiritual manner, and is given by Augustine in his work, The Book of Eighty-Three Questions.

Another way to come out is by confession, about which it is said: he who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy (Prov 28:13). One comes out in this way by leaving his secret sins by disclosing them in confession. Now that one confesses is due to God calling him with a loud voice, that is, by grace. And the one who confesses, as still guilty, is the dead person still wrapped in bandages. In order for his sins to be loosed, the ministers are commanded to loose him and let him go. For the disciples loose those whom Christ by himself vivifies inwardly, because they are absolved, being vivified by the ministry of the priests: whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19).

1561. Some who consider this mystery say that just as Christ by himself vivified Lazarus, and once he was vivified he was ordered to be loosed by the disciples, so God vivifies a soul from within by grace by remitting its guilt and absolving it from the debt of eternal punishment; but priests, by the power of the keys, absolve in regard to the temporal punishment.

But this position attributes too little to the keys of the Church. For it is proper to the sacraments of the new law that in them grace is conferred. But the sacraments exist in the administration of the ministers. Thus, in the sacrament of penance, contrition and confession behave materially on the part of the one receiving the sacrament; but the causative power of the sacrament lies in the absolution of the priest, by the power of the keys, through which he somehow applies the effect of our Lord’s passion to the one he absolves so that he obtains remission. Therefore, if the priest only absolved the punishment, the sacrament of penance would not confer a grace by which guilt is remitted; and consequently it would not be a sacrament of the new law.

Therefore, one must say that just as in the sacrament of baptism, the priest, by pronouncing the words and washing outwardly, exercises the ministry of baptism, while Christ baptizes inwardly, so the priest, by the power of the keys, outwardly administers the ministry of absolution, while Christ remits the guilt by grace.

1562. Yet a difficulty arises from the fact that those who usually come for baptism are children who have not been justified before baptism, but obtain the grace of remission in baptism, whereas those who come for absolution are adults, who usually have obtained the remission of their sins beforehand by contrition; consequently, the absolution that follows seem to contribute nothing to the remission of sins.

If this matter is carefully considered as affecting adults, in both cases it will be seen that there is a perfect parallel. For it happens that certain adults having a desire to be baptized obtain the remission of their sins by the baptism of desire before they actually receive the sacrament of baptism; and yet the baptism which follows, so far as what it is of itself is concerned, effects the remission of sins, although it does not so function in a person whose sins are already remitted, but he obtains only an increase of grace. However, if an adult was not perfectly disposed before baptism to obtain the remission of his sins, still in the very act of being baptized he obtains their remission by the power of baptism, unless he places some obstacle to the Holy Spirit by his insincerity.

The same must be said of penance. For if a person was fully contrite before the absolution of the priest, he obtains the remission of his sins by having the desire to subject himself to the keys of the Church, without which there would not be true contrition. But if there was not beforehand a full contrition sufficient for remission, he obtains the remission of his guilt in the absolution, unless he puts an obstacle to the Holy Spirit. And the same is true in the Eucharist and in the anointing of the sick, and in the other sacraments.

Caiaphas’ prophecy

11:45 Many of the Jews, who had come to Mary and Martha, and had seen the things that Jesus did, believed in him. [n. 1564]

11:46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things that Jesus had done. [n. 1565]

11:47 The chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said: what do we do, for this man does many miracles? [n. 1567]

11:48 If we let him alone so, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our place and nation. [n. 1570]

11:49 But one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: you do not know anything. [n. 1574]

11:50 Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish. [n. 1575]

11:51 And this he did not speak from himself, but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. [n. 1577]

11:52 And not only for the nation, but for the sons of God, who were dispersed, that they be gathered together into one. [n. 1580]

11:53 From that day forward they devised to put him to death. [n. 1581]

1563. After describing the death and resurrection of Lazarus, the Evangelist now sets forth the effect of his resurrection.

First, its effect on the people;

second, its effect on their leaders, at the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council.

1564. He does two things concerning the first. First, he says that certain ones among them believed, at many of the Jews, who had come to Mary and Martha to console them, and had seen the things that Jesus did, believed in him. And no wonder, because of such a miracle nothing had not been heard from the beginning of time, that is, that one dead four days in the tomb should be raised to life. Also, our Lord had said that he would perform this miracle for those standing by, so that they might believe in him. And so his words were not empty, but many believed because of the miracle they saw: Jews demand signs (1 Cor 1:22).

1565. Second, he mentions that some were spreading news of the miracle, saying, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things that Jesus had done. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, they told the chief priests what Jesus had done in order to soften them towards Christ and to reproach them for conspiring against Jesus, who had worked such marvels.

In another way, and this is better, they told them these things in order to incite them against Christ: for they were unbelievers and were scandalized at the miracle. This is clear from the way the Evangelist describes it, for after saying that many of the Jews . . . believed in him, he adds in contrast, but some of them went to the Pharisees. These are the ones of whom we read: whereas he done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him . . . for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God (John 12:37, 43).

1566. Next, at the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council, the Evangelist mentions the effect of the miracle on the leaders.

First, we have their evil conspiracy against Christ;

second, we see how Christ escaped it, at after this Jesus did not walk openly among the Jews (John 11:54).

He does three things concerning the first.

First, he mentions the gathering of the council;

second, the problem that confronted them, at and said: what do we do, for this man does many miracles?

third, their solution of this problem, at but one of them.

1567. In regard to the first, three things are mentioned about the wickedness of the chief priests. First of all, their status: for they were not the common people, but the chief priests and the Pharisees. Chief priests, because they were in charge of sacred matters; and they were Pharisees because they had the appearance of religion. Thus was fulfilled what was stated in Genesis: Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords (Gen 49:5): for the founders of the sect of the Pharisees were descended from Simeon, and the chief priests were clearly from the tribe of Levi. And the hand of the princes and magistrates has been first in this transgression (Ezra 9:2).

Second, we see that their wickedness was deliberate; thus he says, gathered council: O my soul, come not into their council (Gen 49:6); blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked (Ps 1:1). But we also read: no counsel can avail against the Lord (Prov 21:30).

Third, we see their evil intention, because it was against Jesus, i.e., the savior: all who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me (Ps 41:7); come, let us make plots against Jeremiah (Jer 18:18).

1568. Now, at what do we do, for this man does many miracles? he mentions their problem:

first, he gives the reason for this problem;

second, the core of the problem: if we let him alone so, all will believe in him.

1569. It was the miracles of Christ that raised their problem; so they said, what do we do, for this man does many miracles? They were blind, for they still called him a man after such a great demonstration of his divinity. As he himself said: for the works that the Father has given to me that I might perform them; the works themselves, which I do, give testimony about me, that the Father has sent me (John 5:36). In truth, they were no less foolish than the blind because they wondered what they should do, whereas there was nothing for them to do but believe: what sign do you show, that we may see and believe you? (John 6:30). See how many signs he did work! Even they said, this man does many miracles: their wickedness blinded them (Wis 2:21).

1570. The root of their problem was that they feared the losses that would follow. The Evangelist mentions two things about this.

First, their loss of spiritual leadership. He says about this, if we let him alone so, all will believe in him. This, of course, would be the best for all concerned, because it is faith in Christ that saves and leads to eternal life: but these are written that you may believe . . . and that believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31). But in relation to their wicked intention this was terrifying to them, for they believed that no one who believed in Christ would obey them. And so, because of their ambition, they backed away from salvation and took others with themselves: but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority (3 John 1:9).

1571. Second, he mentions their ambition for temporal possessions when he says, and the Romans will come and take away our place and our nation. This seems to follow from the other, as Augustine says, for if all believed in Christ, there would be no one left to defend the temple of God against the Romans, because they would have abandoned the holy temple and the laws of their fathers, as they thought the teaching of Christ was directed against these.

But this does not really seem to have much bearing on the issue, since they would still be subject to the Romans and would not be planning to war against them.

Thus, it seems better to say, with Chrysostom, that they said this because they observed that Christ was being honored by the people as a king. And because the Romans had ordered that no one could be king unless they had appointed him, they were afraid that if the Romans heard that they were regarding Christ as a king, they would look upon the Jews as rebels. Then they would move against them and destroy their city and nation: for whosoever makes himself a king, speaks against Caesar (John 19:12).

1572. Notice their pitiable state, for they fear nothing but the loss of temporal things, and do not think of eternal life: the fountain of Jacob alone, in a land of grain and wine (Deut 33:28). But we read: what the wicked dreads will come upon him (Prov 10:24); and so after our Lord’s passion and glorification, the Romans overcame and displaced them, taking their land and nation.

1573. The Evangelist sets down the resolution of the problem when he says, but one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that year, said to them.

First, we have the decision;

second, the explanation of the decision; and this he did not speak from himself;

and third, its acceptance by the assembly: from that day forward they devised to put him to death.

Concerning the first he does two things.

First, he describes the one making the decision;

second, he gives the words of the decision, you do not know anything.

1574. The one making the decision is described by his name and office.

By his name, that is, Caiaphas. This name was appropriate to his wickedness for it means, first of all, ‘investigator’, and it attests to his presumption: he who is a searcher of majesty will be overwhelmed by glory (Prov 25:27). For he was presumptuous when he said, I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God (Matt 26:63). Second, it means ‘sagacious’, which testifies to his cunning, because he strove to procure the death of Christ. Third, it means ‘vomiting’, which attests to his foolishness: like a dog that returns to his vomit (Prov 26:11).

He is described by his office, namely, as high priest that year.

Here we should note, as stated in Leviticus 8, that the Lord appointed one high priest, at whose death another was to succeed and was to exercise the office of high priest throughout his life. But later, as ambition and quarrels grew among the Jews, it was agreed that there should be a number of high priests, and that all who had attained to this office would exercise it in turn, year by year. And sometimes they obtained this office by money, as Josephus says. And to indicate this situation he says of the time, that year.

1575. Next at you do not know anything, the Evangelist gives the words of the one making the decision, who first reproaches them for their sluggishness, saying, you do not know anything; you do not understand. This was like saying: you are sluggish and you understand this affair even more sluggishly. And so, second, he reveals his wickedness, saying, it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people. These words have one meaning according to the intention of Caiaphas, and another according to the explanation of the Evangelist.

In order to explain them according to the evil intention of Caiaphas, we should note that, as mentioned in Deuteronomy, the Lord had commanded: if a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams . . . and if he says, ‘let us go after other gods,’ . . . that prophet or that dreamer of dreams will be put to death (Deut 13:1). And so, according to this law, Caiaphas believed that Christ would turn the people from the worship of God: we found this man perverting our nation (Luke 23:2). Thus he says, you do not know anything, that is, the law. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man, this man, should die, so that the whole nation is not deceived. This is like saying: the welfare of one man must be ignored for the public good. Thus: so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you (Deut 13:5). Drive out the wicked person from among you (1 Cor 5:13).

1576. But the Evangelist explains this another way, saying, he did not speak from himself. He mentions three things:

first, the author of these words;

second, their correct meaning: he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation;

and third, the Evangelist adds to the words of Caiaphas: and not only for the nation, but for the sons of God, who were dispersed, that they be gathered together into one.

1577. In regard to the first we should note that because one might suppose that Caiaphas spoke these words by his own impulse, the Evangelist rejects this, saying, he did not say this from himself. By this he lets us understand that at times a person does speak of his own accord. For a human being is what is the chief thing in him; but this is the intellect and reason. Thus a human being is what he is because of reason. Therefore, when a human being speaks from his own reason, he speaks of his own accord. But when he speaks under a higher and external impulse he does not speak of his own accord. Now this happens in two ways. Sometimes one is moved by the divine Spirit: it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you (Matt 10:20). But sometimes one is moved by a wicked spirit, as those who rave. And both of these are sometimes said to prophesy. That those who are moved by the Holy Spirit prophesy is asserted: no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet 1:21). Again, that those moved by a wicked spirit prophesy is found in Jeremiah: the Lord has made you a priest instead of Jehoiada the priest, to have charge in the house of the Lord over every madman who prophesies (Jer 29:26).

Note also that at times some may speak by an impulse of the Holy Spirit or of an evil spirit in such a way that they lose the use of reason and are somehow seized. At other times, the use of reason can remain and they are not seized. When the sense powers are overflowing due to a higher impression, the reason is hindered, and disturbed and seized. An evil spirit has the power of affecting the imagination, since it is a power united to a physical organ. And such an evil spirit can so affect the imagination by a strong impression that as a result the reason is hindered; yet it is not forced to consent. This is the condition of those seized by an evil spirit.

1578. We have to decide, therefore, whether Caiaphas spoke these words by the impulse of the Holy Spirit or of an evil spirit. It seems that he did not speak by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (cf. Jer 15), and the wicked spirit is the spirit of lying: I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets (1 Kgs 22:22). But it is obvious that Caiaphas spoke a lie, saying, it is expedient for you that one man should die. Therefore, he did not speak by an impulse of the Holy Spirit, as it seems, but he prophesied by the impulse of a raving wicked spirit.

However, this does not seem to agree with the words of the Evangelist, for if it were such John would not have added, being high priest that year. He mentions the dignity of Caiaphas in order to suggest that he spoke by an impulse of the Holy Spirit. From this it can be understood that the Holy Spirit moves even evil men, placed in positions of dignity, to speak truths about the future for the precise benefit of their subjects.

Apropos of what is said in opposition to this, namely, that the statement, it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, is false, this can be answered this way. The death of Christ considered in itself was expedient for all, even for those who killed him: who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe (1 Tim 4:10); so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one (Heb 2:9). In another way, one can take it is expedient for you as meaning for the people. Hence the Evangelist, where Caiaphas says that one man should die for the people, uses below the words for the nation.

1579. The words of the Evangelist seem to indicate that he was a prophet, since he says, he prophesied; for if a person prophesies, it follows that he is a prophet. According to Origen, however, it does not follow that every one who prophesies is a prophet; but if one is a prophet, he does prophesy. For sometimes an act is granted to a person, but not the state to which it is appropriate: for example, not every one who does something just is just, but one who is just does just things.

Furthermore, it should be noted that two acts concur in order that someone prophesy: namely, seeing: he who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer (1 Sam 9:9); and announcing: he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement (1 Cor 14:3). Now it sometimes happens that a person has both, and yet is not properly speaking a prophet: for sometimes a person has a prophetic vision, as Nebuchadnezaar and Pharaoh, and similarly announces the vision to others; yet they cannot be called prophets because they lack something, namely, an understanding of the vision, which is necessary in a vision, as described in Daniel (Dan 10:1). Caiaphas, however, although he did not have a prophetic vision, did announce a prophetic matter insofar as he announced the benefit of Christ’s death. For sometimes the Holy Spirit moves one to all that pertains to prophecy, and sometimes to something only. In the case of Caiaphas, he enlightened neither his mind nor his imagination. Consequently, his mind and imagination remained intent on evil; yet he moved his tongue to tell the manner in which the salvation of the people would be accomplished. Thus, he is not called a prophet except insofar as he performed a prophetic act in announcing, his imagination and reason remaining fixed in the contrary. It is clear from this that he was no more a prophet than was Balaam’s donkey.

1580. When the Evangelist says, and not only for the nation, but for the sons of God, who were dispersed, that they may be gathered together into one, the Evangelist adds to the words of the high priest, and says that Jesus was to die not only for the nation of the Jewish people, as Caiaphas said, so Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood (Heb 13:12), but he adds, even for the whole world. Thus he added, but for the sons of God, who were dispersed, that they may be gathered together into one.

Here one must guard against the error of the Manichees, who said that certain souls are the divine substance and are called the children of God, and that God came to gather together these children into one. This is erroneous because it is stated: all souls are mine (Ezek 18:4), that is, by creation. Consequently, the statement, but for the sons of God, who were dispersed, that they may be gathered together into one, does not mean that they have already received the spirit of adoption, because, as Gregory says, they were as yet neither his sheep nor children of God by adoption. Rather it should be taken according to predestination. It is as though he were saying: but for the sons of God, namely to eternal predestination: for whom he forknew, he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son: that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29), through diverse rites and tribes, that they be gathered together into one, namely, into the unity of the faith, and other sheep I have that are not of this fold: those also I must bring, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one fold and one shepherd (John 10:16); the Lord builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcasts of Israel (Ps 147:2).

1581. Then when he says, from that day forward they devised to put him to death, the Evangelist sets down the agreement among the Jews on the death of Christ.

But did they not previously think of putting him to death? It seems so, because before in many places it is stated that the Jews sought to kill him.

Plotting of the chief priests

11:54 After this, Jesus did not walk openly among the Jews, but he went into a country near the wilderness to a town called Ephraim, and he abode there with his disciples. [n. 1583]

11:55 And the Pasch of the Jews was at hand, and many from the country went up to Jerusalem, in order to purify themselves. [n. 1586]

11:56 They were looking for Jesus, and they talked with one another standing in the temple: what do you think that he has not come to the festival day? [n. 1587]

And the chief priests and Pharisees had given orders, that if any man knew where he was, he should tell, that they might apprehend him. [n. 1588]

1582. Here the Evangelist sets down how Christ escaped from their malice:

first, the way he escaped;

second, the effect this had on the people of making them question: and the Pasch of the Jews was at hand.

1583. The way he escaped was to hide himself and leave the presence of the Jews: for after their plan, he moved more cautiously and after this, Jesus did not walk openly among the Jews. He did not withdraw to a populated city, but into a remote region, a country near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and he abode there with his disciples.

1584. But did he lack the power by which, if he had wished, he could have lived publicly among the Jews and they would not do anything to him? Of course not. He did not do this because he did not have the power, but as an example for the disciples. This shows that it is not a sin if his faithful withdraw from the sight of their persecutors, choosing rather to evade the fury of the wicked by hiding, than kindle it more by showing themselves: when they persecute you in one town, flee to the next (Matt 10:23).

Moreover, Origen says that no one should place himself in danger; but when dangers are immediately threatening, it is very praiseworthy not to run from professing Christ or not to refuse to suffer death for the sake of the truth. No one should place himself in danger for two reason. First, because it is very presumptuous to place oneself in danger, both on account of a lack of experience of one’s own virtue, which is sometimes found to be fragile, and on account of the uncertainty about the outcome; let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12). Second, lest by presenting ourselves to our persecutors, we give them the occasion to be more wicked and culpable: give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God (1 Cor 10:32).

1585. Now the effect of his leaving, that the people questioned, is set down:

first, the occasion for their questioning;

second, their questioning;

and third, the reason for their questioning.

1586. Two occasions for their questioning and wondering are mentioned.

The first was the nature of the time, because the Pasch of the Jews was at hand, when the flight of the Hebrews out of Egypt was recalled: it is the Lord’s Passover (Exod 12:11). He adds, of the Jews, because they celebrated their Passover in an unholy and unbecoming way: for when one celebrates the Passover in a devout way it is called the Passover of God: your assemblies I will not abide (Isa 1:13).

The second occasion was gathering of the people, and many from the country went up to Jerusalem. For as we see from Exodus, the children of Israel were to present themselves to the Lord three times a year on the three festivals, and the foremost of these was the Passover (Exod 23). And so a great number traveled to Jerusalem, where the temple was located.

But because it was not yet actually the Paschal time, when they were obliged to go, the Evangelist tells why they went then, adding, in order to purify themselves. For no one dared to eat the lamb if he was unclean, and so they went before the Passover so that, by purifying themselves in the meantime, they could fittingly eat the lamb on the Passover. This gives us an example that we should purify ourselves during Lent by fasts and good works, so that on the Passover we might receive the body of our Lord in a fitting manner.

1587. The reason for their questioning is mentioned as due to Christ’s absence: they were looking for Jesus, not to honor him, but to kill him, and they talked with one another standing in the temple: what do you think that he has not come to the festival day?

But note that when a festival day is celebrated in a holy manner, Christ is always present: for where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Matt 18:20). And so let us, when we gather together in the house of God, seek Jesus by consoling each other and by praying that he come to our festival day. But Jesus does not come when a feast is not celebrated in a holy manner: your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates (Isa 1:4).

1588. He adds the reason for their questioning and for the absence of Jesus, saying, the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders, that if any man knew where he was, that is, Jesus, he should tell, that they might apprehend him, to kill him. You will seek me, and you will die in your sin (John 8:21).

As Augustine says, we who know where Christ is, that is, at the right hand of the Father, should tell them so that they may truly apprehend him by faith.

Christ’s Hour Comes

Mary anoints Christ’s feet

12:1 Jesus therefore, six days before the Pasch, came to Bethany, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised to life. [n. 1590]

12:2 And they made him a supper there, and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who was at table with him. [n. 1594]

12:3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. [n. 1596]

12:4 Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was about to betray him, said: [n. 1600]

12:5 why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor? [n. 1602]

12:6 Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and having the money-box, took what was put into it. [n. 1603]

1589. So far the Evangelist has been showing the power of Christ’s divinity by what he did and taught during his public life. Now he begins to show the power of his divinity as manifested in his passion and death.

First, he treats of Christ’s passion and death;

second, of his resurrection: and on the first day of the week (John 20:1).

The first is divided into three parts:

in the first he states what caused or occasioned Christ’s passion and death;

in the second, how Christ prepared his disciples, since his death involved his physical separation from them, before the festival day of the Pasch (John 13:1).

in the third, he describes his passion and death, when Jesus had said these things, he went forth (John 18:1).

Now there were two things which caused or occasioned the passion of Christ: the glory of Christ, which aroused the envy of the Jews, and their disbelief, which blinded them.

So first, he treats of the glory Christ received;

second, of the unbelief of the Jews; and whereas he done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him (John 12:37).

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he shows how Christ received glory from other people;

second, how he received glory from God: now is my soul troubled (John 12:27).

Concerning the first he does three things:

first, he shows how Christ received glory from his intimate friends;

second, from the crowd of the Jewish people; a great multitude (John 12:9);

third, from the gentiles; now there were certain gentiles among them (John 12:20).

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he shows the glory Christ received by being ministered to by his friends;

second, how this kindled the indignation of the one who was to betray him; then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot.

In regard to the first he does three things:

first, he describes the time;

second, the place; Jesus therefore.

and third, the kindness shown to Christ: and they made him a supper there.

1590. He says first, what we have already stated: that before the Passover Christ went into a region near the wilderness, and since the feast was drawing near, the Jews began to look for him. Thus, when the Paschal season was at hand, during which the symbolic lamb was immolated, he, as the True Lamb, came to the place where he would suffer and of his own free will be immolated for the salvation of the world: he was offered because it was his own will (Isa 53:7).

The Evangelist says Christ came there six days before the Pasch, to inform us that by the day of the Passover he did not mean the fourteenth day of the first month, when the Passover lamb was slain in the evening (Exod 12), but the fifteenth day. This entire day was festive, and that year it fell on the Friday our Lord suffered. Thus the sixth day before the Passover was the first day of the week, i.e., the Palm Sunday on which our Lord entered Jerusalem. Consequently, Christ came to Bethany on the previous day, that is, on the Sabbath. This is what he means by the phrase, six days before the Pasch.

1591. This number is very appropriate to the mystery to be enacted. First of all, because of the number itself, for six is a perfect number. For God completed the works of creation in six days. For this reason it was appropriate that it should take six days to accomplish the work of the passion, which would restore all things: to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross (Col 1:20); God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19).

Second, it is appropriate to the mystery, considering its foreshadowing. For Exodus commanded that on the tenth day of the first month every man was to take a lamb for his household and keep it for the sacrifice (Exod 12:3). Thus it was also on the tenth day of the first month, i.e., on the sixth day before the fifteenth day, that our Lord decided to enter Jerusalem, drawing near to the place where he would be sacrificed. This is clear from what follows: and on the next day, a great multitutde came to the festival day, when they had heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him (John 12:12–13).

1592. Then when he says, Jesus, therefore, six days before the Pasch, came to Bethany, the place is mentioned. Bethany was a village near Jerusalem, and it means the ‘house of obedience’. This also is appropriate to the mystery.

First, as regards a reason for the passion: he became obedient unto death (Phil 2:8). Second, with respect to the fruit of the passion, which is obtained only by those who obey Christ: he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Heb 5:9).

It is significant that he added, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus had raised from the dead, because in the house of obedience those who are spiritually dead are raised to life by being restored to the way of righteousness: by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous (Rom 5:19). According to the literal sense, however, this was written to show that Christ came to Bethany in order to revive the memory of the resurrection of Lazarus: he has caused his wonderful works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful (Ps 11:4).

1593. Then when he says, and they made him a supper there, he mentions the kindness shown to Christ by his friends:

first, by his friends in general;

second, in particular, at Martha served.

1594. It was also appropriate to this mystery that they served him a supper there, at Bethany, because the Lord is spiritually refreshed in the house of obedience since our obedience pleases him, according to: behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me (Rev 3:20).

1595. Next he mentions the three people who attended or sat with Jesus: Martha, Lazarus and Mary.

Martha signifies the prelates who are appointed to serve in the churches: this is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewardess of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1). Thus we read that Martha served: Martha was busy with much serving (Luke 10:40).

Lazarus, who had been raised to life, signifies those who have been brought from sin to the state of righteousness by the ministry or service of the prelates; and they, alone with the other righteous, feast spiritually with the Lord. Thus he says, but Lazarus was one of those who was at table with him: let the just feast and rejoice before God and be delighted with gladness (Ps 67:4).

Mary signifies the contemplatives: Mary sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching (Luke 10:39).

1596. Three things are mentioned about Mary’s ministry: first, the ointment she used; second, the kindness she offered: and anointed the feet of Jesus; third, its effect: and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.

With regard to the ointment, three things are noted. First, the amount, and it was a large amount, a pound of ointment: if you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion (Tob 4:8). Second, its matter, for it was made of pure nard: while the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance (Song 1:11). Recall that nard is a short black aromatic herb; and the ointment which is made from it has a fragrance which has the power to give strength and comfort. Third, its composition is noted, for the nard is described as genuine. According to Augustine, the word genuine is taken from the place where nard originates. However, it is better to interpret this word as meaning true or pure, that is, as not adulterated: for pistis in Greek is the same as our faithful. He adds that it was costly, because it was made from nard, which is used in costly ointments, and perhaps other expensive ingredients were added to it. This teaches us that we should offer to God those things we regard as most precious: I will offer to you burnt offerings of fatlings, with the smoke of the sacrifice of rams (Ps 66:15); cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished (Mal 1:14).

See Mary’s humility, for she fell down at the feet of Jesus and anointed the feet of Jesus, according to, let us worship at his footstool (Ps 132:7). Second, see her devotion, for she wiped his feet with her hair, in this way making an offering of herself: yield your members to God as instruments of righteousness (Rom 6:13).

He mentions the effect of her ministering when he says, and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. This tells us of the goodness of this ointment, which filled the entire house: we will run after you to the odor of your ointments (Song 1:3).

1597. The question is raised as to whether this woman is the same woman who anointed our Lord as mentioned in Luke (Luke 7:37), Matthew (Matt 26:7) and Mark (Mark 14:3).

We learn from Jerome and Chrysostom that many think that the sinful woman mentioned by Luke is not the sister of Lazarus, Mary, who is said to have anointed the Lord.

Origen adds that she is also not the woman of whom Matthew and Mark speak, but they were speaking of some other woman. He gives three reasons for this opinion. The first is based on the time: for the woman in John anointed the Lord six days before the Passover, while the woman mentioned by Matthew and Mark did so some time during the two days preceding the Passover. Matthew prefaces his account by stating that the Lord said: you know that after two days the Passover is coming (Matt 26:2); and in Mark: it was now two days before the Passover and the feast of the Unleavened Bread (Mark 14:1).

The second reason is based on the place: for in Matthew and Mark the woman is said to have anointed the Lord in the house of Simon the leper, but in John she seems to be in the house of Martha, for we read that Martha was serving the guests. And Augustine agrees with this.

The third reason is from the action itself: for the woman in Matthew and Mark anointed the head of our Lord, while the one in John anointed his feet.

On the other hand, Augustine and Gregory claim that the four Evangelists are speaking of one and the same woman, but that she anointed our Lord twice. The first time, mentioned by Luke, was at the beginning of her conversion, some time during the middle of Christ’s public life. The second time, mentioned by the other three Evangelists, was a few days before Christ’s passion. Thus the same act is mentioned here in John and in Matthew (Matt 26) and Mark (Mark 14).

1598. If the objection is raised that according to Mark she broke the alabaster jar and poured ointment on the head of Jesus, one might answer this in two ways. First, that it was broken in such a way that some remained for anointing his feet; second, she could have anointed his feet first, and then, breaking the jar, poured the rest on his head.

1599. Mystically, the pound Mary used denotes the work of justice, for it belongs to justice to weigh things and give pound for pound: their weight will be equal (Ezek 45:11). Now four other virtues must be added if the work of justice is to be perfect. First, compassion: and so he says, ointment, which, because it is soothing, represents mercy: for judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy (Jas 2:12). Second, humility is needed: so he says, nard, which, since it is a small herb, signifies humility: the greater you are, the more you must humble yourself (Sir 3:18). Third, faith is needed: thus he says, pure, that is believing: the righteous will live by his faith (Hab 2:4). Fourth, charity must be present: so he says, costly, for charity alone pays the price for eternal life: if I give away all I have to the poor . . . but have not love, I gain nothing (1 Cor 13:3).

The works of justice anoint both the feet and head of Jesus. By his feet we understand the mystery of his humanity; and by his head, his divinity, according to: the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3). Thus one who venerates the divinity and humanity of Christ is said to anoint his head and feet. Or, we can take the head as indicating the very person of Christ, according to: he has made him the head over all things for the Church (Eph 1:22). Then the feet are Christ’s faithful, of whom we read: as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me (Matt 25:40); how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace (Isa 52:7). Thus, one who honors Christ himself, anoints the head of Christ; and one who serves his faithful anoints our Lord’s feet. Again, because the hair is produced from what is superfluous in the body, one dries the Lord’s feet with his hair when he takes what he has in surplus and relieves the needs of his neighbor: give that which remains as alms (Luke 11:41). Thus Augustine says: if you have a surplus of anything, give it to the poor and you have dried the feet of the Lord. The fact that the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment signifies that because of the works of justice, the Church enjoys and is filled with a good name: and manifests the odor of his knowledge by us in every place. We are the aroma of Christ (2 Cor 2:14–15).

1600. Next, the Evangelist describes the traitor’s indignation at this: then one of his disciples.

He does two things concerning it:

first, he shows his indignation;

second, how it was curbed: Jesus therefore said (John 12:7).

Concerning the first he does three things:

first, he describes the traitor;

second, he mentions what he said; why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence?

and third, he states that his intention was evil: now he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief.

1601. The traitor is portrayed in three ways. First, his dignity is given when he says, one of his disciples. This teaches us that no one should presume on himself no matter to what dignity he has been raised: his angels he charges with wickedness (Job 4:18).

Second, his name, Judas Iscariot. The name ‘Judas’ means ‘professing’ to indicate to us that in addition to a way of professing that is virtuous, man professes with his lips and so is saved (Rom 10:10), there is a way of professing that is blameworthy and mercenary: he will profess you, when you have done good to him (Ps 49:18).

Third, his crime is mentioned, who was about to betray him: even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me (Ps 41:10).

1602. Then he gives the traitor’s words, from which we see that he had died spiritually from the aroma of the ointment, according to: for we are the aroma of Christ . . . to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life (2 Cor 2:15). Judas was displeased because the ointment was not sold but poured out as an act of homage to Christ. Thus Judas says, why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii? But as we read in Corinthians, the ministers of Satan disguise themselves as angels of righteousness (2 Cor 11:14). Thus Judas hid his evil under the cloak of piety, saying, and given to the poor: his heart will work iniquity to practice hypocrisy and speak to the Lord deceitfully (Isa 32:6).

1603. The Evangelist unmasks the deceit when he adds, now he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief. For he was not interested in helping the poor, since the hearts of the wicked are cruel (Prov 12:10), but because he was a thief, and accustomed to stealing, he was pained that the use of the ointment had deprived him of an opportunity to steal, and it was this avarice that led to the betrayal, for we read: nothing is more wicked than the covetous man (Sir 10:9); and the thief comes only to steal, to kill, and to destroy (John 10:10).

He had the opportunity to steal for having the money box, that is, he was in charge of our Lord’s money bag, and took what was put into it, i.e., whatever was donated by the faithful for Christ’s use and for the poor he carried as a duty, but carried off as a thief.

1604. Two things can be noted here. First, that Christ lived on alms as a poor person: as for me, I am poor and needy (Ps 40:17). Second, it is not opposed to perfection to keep alms in a money box. Thus what we read in Matthew: do not be anxious about tomorrow (Matt 6:34), does not forbid one from saving for tomorrow, since our Lord did this very thing, and he is the supreme model of perfection.

1605. One might ask why our Lord, since he knew that Judas was a thief, entrusted him with the money box?

This can be answered in three ways. First, according to Augustine, Christ did this so that his Church would be patient when it was robbed; for one is not good if he cannot endure those who are evil. Thus we read: as a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens (Song 2:2). Second, our Lord entrusted him with the money box to lessen his danger of final damnation, because he could then satisfy his greed from the money box. But as it is said: he who loves money will not be satisfied with money (Eccl 5:10). Third, according to others, he did this in order to teach us that spiritual things should be entrusted to those who are more worthy, and temporal things should be entrusted to the less worthy. Thus the Apostles said: it is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables (Acts 6:2), and they entrusted this work to one of the deacons.

1606. But why does it say here that only Judas said this when the ointment was poured out, while Matthew says that the disciples said this?

One reply is that Matthew uses the plural for the singular, as he also did in those who sought the child’s life are dead (Matt 2:20). Or, one might answer that Judas was the first to grumble and that this incited the others to say the same, although not from the same motive.

Christ speaks against Judas

12:7 Jesus therefore said: let her alone, that she may keep it for the day of my burial. [n. 1608]

12:8 For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me with you. [n. 1610]

12:9 A great multitude of the Jews 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. [n. 1613]

12:10 But the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus also: [n. 1614]

12:11 because many of the Jews, on account of him, went away, and believed in Jesus. [n. 1614]

1607. Having narrated the traitor’s indignation at the kindness shown by the woman, the Evangelist now shows how our Lord put a stop to it.

First, our Lord answers the unjust criticism Judas spoke against the woman;

second, he rejects the spiritual reason Judas pretended to have: for the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me with you.

1608. He says, let her alone, i.e., do not stop her.

For it is known that many good works are done which if our advice had been sought before they were done, we would not have advised that they be done, because something better could have been done. Yet after they are begun, so long as they are good, they should not be stopped. Thus, as Chrysostom says, before the woman had poured out the ointment, Jesus would perhaps have preferred that it be given to the poor, but now that it was done, he held back those who were trying to stop her, saying, let her alone: do not prevent one who is able from doing good. If you are able, you also do good (Prov 3:27).

He adds, that she may keep it for the day of my burial, foretelling both his approaching death and the kindness this woman was ready to do for him in his tomb if he had not precluded it by rising so soon, for as we read in Mark’s Gospel: Mary Magdalene, along with other women, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him (Mark 16:1). This is why he said, that she may keep it for the day of my burial, not the identical ointment she used, but ointment of the same kind, in general or particular, or even a similar service. It is as if he were saying: do not stop her from doing for me while I am alive what she will be unable to do for me when I am dead. For, as was said, she was prevented by the resurrection of Christ occurring so quickly. This is expressed in a clearer way in Mark: she has anointed my body beforehand for burying (Mark 14:8).

1609. But did she have foreknowledge of Christ’s death?

Not at all: for she did not understand what she was doing. Rather, she was moved to do it by a certain inner urge. It often happens that people are moved to do things that they do not understand, as in the case of Caiaphas, the high priest, who said, you do not know anything (John 11:49). Things of this sort are called presages, because they take place before the event.

1610. Then when he says, the poor you always have with you, he rejects the pious reason which Judas feigned when he said: why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor? Our Lord answered, the poor you always have with you.

Here it might be remarked that sometimes one should do what is less needful if the opportunity remains for doing what is more needful. Thus, although it was more needful that this ointment be given to the poor rather than having it used to anoint the Lord’s feet, nevertheless, because there was still opportunity to do the former, since we always have the poor with us, our Lord allowed what was less needful.

In the statement that the poor you always have with you, we are led to understand the fellowship the rich should have toward the poor: make yourself companionable to the poor (Sir 4:7).

1611. But you do not always have me with you.

Another explanation would be this. When our Lord said this he was thinking of the presence of his divinity. Now some seem to possess Christ spiritually, either in the sacrament or in professing the faith; yet they will not always possess him because they belong to the Church only nominally, and not by merit. These are the servants. But the children will always possess him because the Son abides forever (John 8:35). Thus he said to Judas, but you do not always have me with you, because you have made yourself unworthy of this.

As Chrysostom says, our Lord was rebuking Judas when he said this: for by being annoyed that this respect was shown to Christ, he seemed to consider Christ’s presence as a burden. So Christ said, you do not always have me with you. This was like saying: I am a burden to you; but wait awhile, and I will leave.

1612. Next the Evangelist shows how Jesus was honored by many of the Jews: a great multitude of the Jews knew that he was there, and they came, not for Jesus’s sake only;

first, by the crowd that went to see him there;

second, by the crowd which meet him on his way to Jerusalem: and on the next day, a great multitude came to the festival day (John 12:12).

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he shows the eagerness of those who came to see him;

second, he shows the vehemence of the Pharisees aroused by their envy: but the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus also.

1613. The first part is divided into two parts: first, the Evangelist writes of the visit of the crowds, second, he adds the occasion of the visit.

As to the first, he says, a great multitude of the Jews knew that he was there, at Bethany, and they came. This was in keeping with our Lord’s invitation: come to me, all who labor and are heaven laden, and I will give you rest (Matt 11:28). And so, when we know where Jesus is, we should go to him quickly.

Now there were two reasons why they came. The first was to enjoy the sight and teaching of Christ. Second, they came to see Lazarus. And they came to see Lazarus for two reasons. First, because of the extraordinary miracle accomplished on Lazarus, that is, his being raised back to the living after four days in the tomb; and the people desired to see this: your works are wonderful, and my soul knows them well (Ps 138:14), that is, it attempts to understand them. Second, they came because they hoped they would learn something about the other life from Lazarus, for man has an inborn desire for knowledge of this kind, in spite of what the foolish say: short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been known to return from Hades (Wis 2:1). But here he is! Lazarus, whom he raised from the dead, has resumed from the lower world.

1614. Then the Evangelist describes the vehemence of the Pharisees in their envy, when he says, but the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus also. In this they were opposing God: for God had raised him to life, and they wanted to kill him: running with his neck raised against him, and armed with a fat neck (Job 15:26). Then the reason for their vehemence is stated, because many of the Jews, on account of him, went away, and believed in Jesus.

1615. But since Christ had cured many people, such as the paralytic and the man born blind, why did they want to kill only Lazarus?

Chrysostom gives four reasons. First, because this miracle was more evident, it was performed before many people, and it was absolutely astounding to see a man dead for four days walking and speaking. The second reason was that Lazarus was a well-known person, while the blind man was unimportant, so much so that they even expelled him from the temple. The third reason was because this miracle was accomplished near the time of a great feast, and all the Jewish people who had come for the feast disregarded the solemnities and went to Bethany. The fourth reason was that in the other miracles they could accuse Christ of breaking the Sabbath, and in this way alienate the people from him; but this time that way was closed. And so because they could find no reason to attack Jesus, they attacked Lazarus as the best way to conceal the miracle: their feet run to evil and they make haste to shed blood (Prov 1:16).

Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem

12:12 And on the next day, a great multitude came to the festival day, when they had heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, [n. 1617]

12:13 took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried: hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel. [n. 1620]

12:14 And Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it, as it is written: [n. 1626]

12:15 fear not, daughter Zion: behold, your king comes, sitting on an ass’s colt. [n. 1627]

12:16 These things his disciples did not understand at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things to him. [n. 1628]

12:17 The multitude, who was with him when he called Lazarus out of the grave and raised him from the dead, gave testimony of him. [n. 1629]

12:18 For that reason also the people came to meet him, because they heard that he had done this miracle. [n. 1629]

12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves: do you see that we accomplish nothing? Behold, the whole world is gone after him. [n. 1630]

1616. Here we see the fervor of the crowd which went to meet Christ.

First, they go to meet Christ;

second, we have the reaction of the Pharisees: the Pharisees therefore said.

Concerning the first the Evangelist does three things:

first, he mentions their going out;

second, he tells of our Lord’s entrance: and Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it;

and third, he states why the crowd went out to him: the multitude.

1617. He mentions four things concerning the crowd which went out to the Lord. First, the time they went out, the next day, that is, the day following the one he meant when he said, six days before the Pasch (John 12:1); in other words, the tenth day of the month. This is in keeping with the figure in Exodus, where we read that the Paschal lamb which was to be immolated on the fourteenth day in the evening should be procured on the tenth day of the month (Exod 12:3).

1618. Second, the ones who went out are described, and on the next day, a great multitude came to the festival day. They signify the multitudes of the people who would be converted to Christ: let the assembly of the people be gathered about you (Ps 7:7). He says to the festival day, because believers are converted to Christ so that they may come to the feast day of the heavenly Jerusalem: many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 8:11).

1619. Third, the Evangelist mentions their motive for going out, which was that they heard that Jesus was coming: he says that they when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. For all the faithful are converted to Christ through what they hear about the faith: faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ (Rom 10:17); and the children of Israel heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel; and the peoples believed (Exod 4:31).

1620. Fourth, he mentions how they conducted themselves. And first of all, what they did: took branches of palm trees. Now the palm, since it retains its freshness, signifies victory. Thus in antiquity it was conferred upon conquerors as a symbol of their victory. Again, we read of the conquering martyrs that they held palm branches in their hands (Rev 7:9). And so the branches of palm trees were given as praise, signifying victory, because our Lord was to conquer death by dying and to triumph over the devil, the prince of death, by the victory of the cross. And went forth to meet him: prepare to meet your God, O Israel! (Amos 4:12).

1621. Second, the Evangelist mentions what they said: and cried: hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel! Here they combine both petition and praise. There is petition when they say, hosanna, that is save us, I implore you. It is like saying: ‘hosy’, which means ‘save’, and ‘anna’, which means ‘implore’. According to Augustine, this is not a word, but an exclamation of one praying. And it is proper that they should ask the Lord Jesus for salvation, because we read in Isaiah (35:4): behold your God . . . he will come and save you; stir up thy might, and come to save us! (Ps 80:2).

1622. They praise him for two things: for his coming and for the power of his reign or kingdom.

They praise his coming when they say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Note that to bless is to speak good things. Now God blesses us in one way, and we bless God in another way. For when God blesses us he makes us good, since for God to speak is to do: for he spoke and they were created (Ps 148:5). But when we bless God, we profess his goodness: we bless you from the house of the Lord (Ps 118:26); blessed be every one who blesses you! (Gen 27:29). Therefore, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, for Christ worked in the name of God, because everything he did he directed to the glory of God.

Now because both the Father and the Son are the Lord, the phrase, in the name of the Lord, can be understood in two ways. In one way, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, means blessed is he who comes in his own name, as Lord: the Lord is our ruler (Isa 33:22). Moses did not come in the name of the Lord in this way, because he came as a servant: now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later (Heb 3:5). According to Augustine, the better interpretation would be to say that in the name of the Lord means in the name of the Father. For Christ’s words direct our minds to this: I have come in the name of my Father (John 5:43). Further, there are two ways in which Christ is said to have come in the name of the Father. First, he came as the Son, which implies the Father; second, he came to manifest the Father: I have manifested your name to the men (John 17:6).

1623. The people praise the power of his reign when they say, the King of Israel. Literally, the Jews believed that he had come to reign over them temporally, and ransom them from subjection to the Romans. That is why they hailed him as a king: he will reign as king and deal wisely (Jer 23:5); behold, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in justice (Isa 32:1).

1624. Note that the above words can be gathered from the Psalms. For when the Psalm says, the stone which the builders rejected (Ps 118:22), it then continues on, save us, we beseech thee, O Lord! . . . blessed is he who enters in the name of the Lord! (Ps 118:25–26). And there Jerome, according to the meaning of the Hebrew, translated hosanna as blessed. But what the people added, the King of Israel, is not in the Psalms. Instead: the Lord is God, and he has given us light (Ps 118:27). In saying this, the people, due to their blindness, have lessened his praise: for the Psalm praises our Lord as God, but they praised him as a temporal king.

1625. When the Evangelist says, and Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it, he describes our Lord’s coming:

first, he tells how he came;

second, he mentions a prophecy;

and third, he describes the state of mind of the disciples in regard to this event.

1626. It should be noted in regard to the first point, that John the Evangelist wrote his Gospel after all the others. And so, after carefully noting what these had written, he merely summarized what they had already mentioned, but filled in what they had omitted. Therefore, since the other Evangelists had already told how the Lord sent two of his disciples to bring the ass, John contents himself with mentioning briefly that Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it.

However, note that Christ’s actions are midway between the events of the Old Testament and of the New Testament. Thus the crowds praised him, both the one which went before him, and the one which followed him, because Christ’s actions are the rule and exemplar of the things that are done in the New Testament, and they were prefigured by the fathers of the Old Testament.

The young ass is an awkward animal, and signifies the gentiles. Christ sat upon it to signify that he would redeem the gentiles: I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth (Isa 49:6); happy are you who sow beside all waters, who let the feet of the ox and the ass range free (Isa 49:20), that is, thus uniting the Jews and the gentiles in one faith.

Now Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and so he made mention of a she-ass. This she-ass signifies the synagogue of the Jews, which was like a mother to the gentiles in spiritual matters, because out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isa 2:3). The other Evangelists, however, wrote their Gospels for the gentiles, and so they mention the young colt of the she-ass.

1627. When the Evangelist says, as it is written: fear not, daughter Zion, he cites the prophesy which was written in Zechariah (Zech 9:9). First, he reassures them; second, he promises a kingly majesty; and third, he adds the benefit which the king will bring.

He reassures them when he says, fear not, daughter Zion. Zion was the fortress in Jerusalem where the king lived. The daughter of Zion, therefore, would be the people of Jerusalem and of Judea who were subject to the king of Jerusalem. Thus the Jews are being told, fear not, because the Lord is your defender: who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass? (Isa 51:12); the Lord is the defender of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? (Ps 27:1). Here the Evangelist is driving out their worldly and servile fear.

He promises them a kingly majesty, saying, behold, your king comes: for to us a son is given (Isa 9:6); he will sit upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom (Isa 9:7).

He says, your king, that means, taking flesh from you, for it is not with angels that he is concerned, but with the descendants of Abraham (Heb 2:16). Again, your king, that is, for your benefit. Thus he adds, comes, to you: would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes (Luke 19:42). But when they resisted, they hindered their own good. The king comes to you, I say, not to harm you, but to set you free; thus he adds, sitting on an ass’s colt. This signifies the mercy of the king, which is most welcome to his subjects: his throne is upheld by mercy (Prov 20:28). This is just the opposite to a king’s wrath is like the growling of a lion (Prov 19:12). He is saying in effect: he is not coming as a haughty king, which would make him hateful, but with gentleness: if they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself (Sir 32:1). Therefore, have no fear that the king will oppress you. Now the old law was given in fear, because the law produced slaves. This phrase also signifies the power of the king, because by coming with humility and in weakness he attracted the entire world: the weakness of God is stronger than men (1 Cor 1:25).

1628. Then when he says, these things his disciples did not understand at first, he describes the state of mind of the disciples regarding this prophecy. And he admits his own ignorance and that of the disciples, for as we read: the just person is the first to accuse himself (Prov 18:17).

So he says, these things, what was predicted, his disciples did not understand at first, that is, before the passion. But when Jesus was glorified, i.e., when he showed the power of his resurrection, then they remembered that these things had been written of him and they had done these things to him. The reason they knew only after he had been glorified was because it was then that they received the power of the Holy Spirit, which made them wiser than all the wise: the breath of the almighty makes a man understand (Job 32:8). This however, the Evangelist brings in, to show that it was not which was made, was certainly procured by the disciples.

1629. Then he mentions why the crowd went to meet Jesus, which was to bear witness. This was done by the multitude, who was with him, at the resurrection of Lazarus, when he called Lazarus out of the grave and raised him from the dead, gave testimony of him: for that reason also the people came to meet him. For Jews demand signs (1 Cor 1:22). Now this was a clearer and more marvelous sign than the others; thus Christ made it the last in order to impress it more forcefully on their memory.

1630. Then when the Evangelist says, the Pharisees then said among themselves: do you see that we accomplish nothing? Behold, the whole world is gone after him, he describes the reaction of the Pharisees, who were enraged because their plans had been frustrated. Thus they say, do you see that we accomplish nothing? The Pharisees said this out of envy, as if to say: we are not having any effect, that is, in our evil intentions; we have failed to check him: but evil men and seducers will grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error (2 Tim 3:13).

But why were they maddened at the blind crowd? Because the whole world is gone after him through whom the world was made. This was a sign that the whole world would follow him: we will live in his sight. We will know and we will follow the Lord (Hos 6:3). Chrysostom, however, thinks that these words were said by the Pharisees who believed, but they were spoken privately for fear of the Jews. And they said this to stop the persecution of Christ. It is as though they were saying: no matter what snares you lay, he will grow in stature and his glory will increase. Why then not stop your plotting? This is practically the same as the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34).

The hour of glory

12:20 Now there were certain gentiles among them, who came up to adore on the festival day. [n. 1632]

12:21 These therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying: sir, we would see Jesus. [n. 1633]

12:22 Philip came and told Andrew. Again Andrew and Philip told Jesus. [n. 1634]

12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying: the hour has come, that the Son of man should be glorified. [n. 1636]

12:24 Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remains alone. But if it die, it bears much fruit. [n. 1639]

12:25 He who loves his life will lose it; and he who hates his life in this world, keeps it unto life eternal. [n. 1643]

12:26 If any man minister to me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also will my minister be. If any man minister to me, him will my Father honor. [n. 1646]

1631. Having described the glory Christ received from the helpfulness of his friends and from the devotion of the crowd, the Evangelist now describes the glory Christ received from the devotion of the gentiles.

First, the devotion of the gentiles is mentioned;

second, this devotion is reported: Philip came and told Andrew.

and third, we see the prediction of Christ’s passion: but Jesus answered them saying: the hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

Concerning the devotion of the gentiles, two things are set forth:

first, their devotion to the sacraments of the Old Testament;

second, their devotion to Christ: these therefore came to Philip.

1632. The devotion of the gentiles to the sacraments of the Old Testament is shown by the fact that they visited the temple. Thus he says, now there were certain gentiles among them, to Jerusalem, who came up to adore on the festival day. He is saying in effect: not just the Jews, but the gentiles, also, honored Christ.

According to a Gloss, the reason why they went up to Jerusalem was because they were proselytes, who had been converted to the Jewish rite by the preaching of those Jews who were scattered throughout the world, and who strove to convert whomever they could: you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte (Matt 23:15). And so, in keeping with the Jewish rite, they went up with the others.

But a better reason is given by Chrysostom, namely, that as we read, the temple of God in Jerusalem was held in such esteem by all the people and rulers throughout the world that they considered it an honor to glorify the temple with the finest gifts (2 Macc 3:2). And so it happened that on the feast days even many gentiles would go up to Jerusalem. An example of this is mentioned in the Acts, where it tells of a eunuch, a minister to Queen Candace of Ethiopia, who had come to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27). Thus: my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples, says the Lord (Isa 56:7). The fact that these gentiles came to the temple out of devotion prefigured the conversion of the gentiles to the faith.

1633. The devotion of the gentiles to Christ is shown by their desire to see him; for the Evangelist says, these therefore, that is, the gentiles, came to Phillip. Here we should note that Christ personally preached only to the Jews: for I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs (Rom 15:8); but he preached to the gentiles through the apostles. And I will send of them that will be saved to the gentiles . . . and they will declare my glory to the gentiles (Isa 66:19); go therefore and teach all nations (Matt 28:19).

This was now being indicated beforehand inasmuch as the gentiles who wanted to see Christ did not come to him first, but to one of his disciples, to Philip. And this was fitting, because Philip was the first to preach to those who were not of the Jewish rite, namely, to the Samaritans: Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed to them the Christ (Acts 8:5).

This was also fitting because of his name: for ‘Philip’ means the ‘mouth of the lantern’. Now preachers are the mouth of Christ: if you utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you will be as your mouth (Jer 15:19); and Christ too is the lantern: I have given you as a light to the nations (Isa 42:6). It was also appropriate to him because of his home: for Philip was of Bethsaida, which means ‘hunting’, and preachers hunt for those whom they convert to Christ: I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them (Jer 16:16). Again, it was appropriate because Bethsaida was in Galilee, which means ‘transmigration’, and the gentiles, by the preaching of the apostles, were transmigrated from the gods of paganism to the state of believers: therefore, son of man, prepare for yourself an exile’s baggage, and go into exile by day in their sight (Ezek 12:3).

These gentiles approached Philip and expressed their desires, saying, we would see Jesus. This signifies that those gentiles who had not seen Christ in the flesh but who had been converted to the faith by the ministry of the apostles, desired to see him glorified in heaven: all the earth desired to see the face of Solomon (1 Kgs 10:24).

1634. Then the news of the gentiles’ devotion is carried to Christ. In this action a definite order is being followed, because the things that are from God are set in order (Rom 13:1). Now it belongs to the divine order that lower things be led back to God through those that are higher, and since Andrew outranked Philip among the apostles, because he was converted before him, Philip did not wish to bring these gentiles to Christ by himself, but through Andrew, perhaps remembering that the Lord had said: go nowhere among the gentiles (Matt 10:5). And this is what he says, Philip came and told Andrew; Again Andrew and Philip told Jesus. This teaches us that all things should be done with the advice of those in authority. Thus, even Paul went up to Jerusalem and conferred with the apostles about the Gospel which he was preaching among the gentiles (Gal 2:2).

Furthermore, from their names we can gather two things which are necessary for preachers if they are to lead others to Christ. The first is clear, orderly speech; and this is indicated by Philip’s name, which means the ‘mouth of the lantern’. The second is virtue, manifested in good actions; and this is indicated by Andrew’s name, which means ‘strength’. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their strength by the breath of his mouth (Ps 33:6).

1635. Then, the passion of Christ is foretold:

first, Christ foretells that the time of his passion is near;

second, he intimates that his passion is necessary: amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die;

and third, he mentions the necessity for others to suffer: he that loves his life will lose it.

1636. He says, the hour has come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Here it should be noted that our Lord, seeing these gentiles hastening to see him, and understanding that in them the conversion of the gentiles was somehow beginning, foretold the imminence of his passion, somewhat like a person who sees a wheat field growing white says that the hour has come to use the sickle for the harvest: and see the fields, which are already white for harvest (John 4:35). This is the way the Lord speaks here. Since the gentiles want to see me, he says, the hour has come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

1637. Now there were three events where he was glorified. First, in his passion: Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, on the altar of the cross, but was appointed by him who said to him: you are my Son, today I have begotten you (Heb 5:5). In reference to this he says, the hour has come, that the Son of man should be glorified, that is, to suffer, because the gentiles will not be converted to him before his passion. Indeed, in his passion he was glorified both with visible signs, such as the sun becoming dark, the rendering of the temple curtain and so forth, and with invisible signs, such as the victory by which in himself he overcame the powers of darkness (Col 2:15). Earlier he had said, my hour has not yet come (John 2:4), because the devotion of the gentiles had not been as keen as it was now.

Second, he was glorified in his resurrection and ascension. For it was necessary for Christ to first rise and ascend into heaven, and thus glorified, to send the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, through whom the gentiles were to be converted: for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39); Christ ascended to the heights: he captured his spoil (Ps 69:19).

Third, he was glorified by the conversion of the gentiles: every tongue will confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11).

1638. Then when he says, amen, amen I say to you, he intimates the necessity of his passion:

first, he suggests its necessity;

second the benefit it brings: but if it die, it bears much fruit.

1639. The necessity for Christ’s passion is caused by the conversion of the gentiles, which cannot take place unless the Son of man is glorified through his passion and resurrection. And this is what he asserts, amen, amen, I say to you, that is, in truth, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remains alone.

In regard to the literal sense of this text, it should be noted that we use a grain of wheat either for bread or as a seed. In this text, we should understand that the wheat is taken as a seed, and not as the wheat used for bread, for in the latter case it would never grow and bear fruit. He says, die, not because it loses its strength, but because it is then changed into something else: what you sow does not come to life unless it dies (1 Cor 15:36). Now just as the word of God, so far as it is clothed in a sound that can be heard, is a seed planted in a person’s soul to produce the fruit of good works, the seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11), so the Word of God, clothed in flesh, is a seed sent into the world to bring forth a great harvest; thus it is also compared to a grain of mustard seed (Matt 13:31).

So Christ is saying: I have come as a seed, to bear fruit; and so I truly say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it remains alone, that is, unless I die, the fruit of the conversion of the gentiles will not follow. He compares himself to a grain of wheat because the reason he came was to refresh and nourish our spirits, which is principally done by bread made from wheat: bread to strengthen man’s heart (Ps 104:15); the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world (John 6:52).

1640. But were the gentiles to be converted only through the death of Christ? Considering God’s power, they could have been converted without it; but according to God’s decree they were to be converted through the death of Christ as the more fitting way: without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22); if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you (John 16:7).

1641. The benefit produced by Christ’s passion is given when he says, but if it die, it bears much fruit. He is saying in effect: unless this seed falls into the earth by the humiliation of the passion; he humbled himself and became obedient unto death (Phil 2:8); there is no benefit, because it remains alone. But if it die, that is, is put to death and slain by the Jews, it bears much fruit. The first of these fruits is the remission of sin: this is all the fruit, that sin is taken away (Isa 27:9). Truly, this fruit was brought forth by the passion of Christ: for Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God (1 Pet 3:18). The second of these fruits is the conversion of the gentiles to God: I . . . appointed you, that you should go, and bear fruit; and that your fruit should remain (John 15:16). This fruit, too, was brought forth by the passion of Christ: and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself (John 12:32). A third fruit is the fruit of glory: the fruit of good labors is renowned (Wis 3:15); he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit unto eternal life (John 4:36). And again, the passion of Christ produced this fruit: we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh (Heb 10:19–20).

1642. Then he mentions the necessity for others to die, those who expose themselves to suffering for the love of Christ.

First, he states the necessity for their death;

second, he encourages us to do this: if any man minister to me, let him follow me.

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he states the necessity of dying for the sake of Christ;

second, he mentions the benefit this death brings: he who hates his life in this world, keeps it unto eternal life.

1643. Concerning what the Evangelist says about the first, he who loves his life will lose it, every one, as a matter of fact, loves his own life, but some love it absolutely, without qualification, and others love it partially, in a qualified way. To love someone is to will good to that person; so, to love one’s own life is to will good to it. Therefore, one who wills what is good without qualification to his own life, loves it unqualifiedly; while one who wills his life some partial good loves it in a qualified way. Now the unqualified goods of life are those which make a life good, namely, the highest good, which is God. Thus, one who wills the divine and spiritual good to his life, loves it unqualifiedly; while one who wills it earthly goods, such as riches, honors and pleasures, and things of that sort, loves it in a qualified way. He who loves sin hates his own life (Ps 10:5); if you allow your soul to take pleasure in base desire, it will make you the laughing stock of your enemies (Sir 18:31).

1644. This passage, therefore, can be understood in two ways. In one way, as saying, he who loves his life, unqualifiedly, that is, in regard to eternal goods, will lose it, that is, exposes it to death for Christ. But this is not the true sense. Accordingly it means, he who loves his life, in a qualified way, that is, in regard to temporal goods, will lose it, unqualifiedly: for what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? (Matt 16:26). That this is the true meaning is shown from the statement which follows: he who hates his life in this world, keeps it unto life eternal. Therefore, he who loves his life, in this world, that is, as to worldly goods, will lose it as to eternal goods: woe to you that laugh now, for you will mourn and weep (Luke 6:25); son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish (Luke 16:25).

1645. The benefit produced by this death is asserted when he says, and he who hates his life in this world, that is, he who denies his own life’s present goods, and endures, for God, things that seem evil in this world, will keep it for eternal life: blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:10); if any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother . . . yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26).

Note that what was said above about the grain of wheat is in keeping with this teaching. For just as Christ was sent into the world as a seed that was to bear fruit, so whatever temporal goods are given to us in this life by God are not given to us as fruit, but rather that by their means we may obtain the fruit of an eternal reward. Indeed, our very life is a temporal gift from God to us. Therefore, anyone who exposes it for Christ bears much fruit. Such a one, therefore, hates his own life, that is, he exposes his own life, and sows, for the sake of Christ, to gain life everlasting: he that goes forth weeping, bearing seed for sowing, will come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him (Ps 126:6). And the same is true of those who risk their wealth and other goods for the sake of Christ, and share them with others, to obtain life everlasting: he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully (2 Cor 9:6).

1646. Now because it seems difficult for one to hate his own life, our Lord encourages us to do this, saying, if any one minister to me, let him follow me.

First, his encouragement is given;

second, the reason for this encouragement: if any man minister to me, him will my father honor (John 12:26).

1647. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he describes his faithful; second, he urges them to imitate him; third, he indicates the reward of those who imitate him.

Observe, in regard to the first, the dignity of Christ’s faithful, for they are the ministers or servants of Christ: are they ministers of Christ? So am I (2 Cor 11:23). Thus, those serve Christ who seek the things of Christ; but those who seek their own advantage are not servants of Christ, but servants of themselves: they all seek after their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ (Phil 2:21). Priests are servants inasmuch as they administer the sacraments to the faithful: this is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1). Again, every one of the faithful who keeps the commandments of Christ is his servant: let us act in all circumstances as God’s ministers (2 Cor 6:4).

In regard to the second, observe the glory and grandeur of the faithful of Christ, for he says, let him follow me. This is like saying: we follow our masters, whom we serve. Therefore, if anyone minister to me, let him follow me, so that just as I undergo death so that I might bear much fruit, so also my servant. Now to follow Christ is a great glory: it is a great glory to follow the Lord (Sir 23:38); my sheep hear my voice; and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27).

In regard to the third, note the beatitude of the faithful, for where I am, not only in the place, but also as regards the sharing of glory, there also will my minister be: wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together (Matt 24:28); he who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne (Rev 3:21).

1648. The reason for this encouragement is given when he says, if any one minister to me, him will my Father honor, for the Father honors anyone who serves Christ. Now above we have read: that all men may honor the Son, as they honor the Father (John 5:23). Thus, it is the same to honor the Son and to honor the Father. But the Father says, those who honor me, I will honor (1 Sam 2:31). Thus, the Father of Jesus will honor one who ministers to Jesus, not seeking his own, but the things of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not say, I will honor him, but him will my Father honor, because these people did not think at this time that he was equal to the Father.

Or, it might be said that Jesus said this to show how intimately his servants are related to him, inasmuch as they will be honored by the same one who honors the Son. For the honor the Son has by his nature, they will have by grace. So Augustine says: an adopted son can receive no greater honor than to be where the only Son is. As it is written, for those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren (Rom 8:29).

Christ came for this hour

12:27 Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came unto this hour. [n. 1650]

12:28 Father, glorify your name. A voice therefore came from heaven: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. [n. 1660]

12:29 The multitude therefore that stood and heard, said that it thundered. Others said: an angel spoke to him. [n. 1663]

12:30 Jesus answered, and said: this voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. [n. 1664]

12:31 Now is the judgment of the world: now will the prince of this world be cast out. [n. 1666]

12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. [n. 1672]

12:33 (Now this he said, signifying what death he should die.) [n. 1672]

1649. Above, we saw the glory shown to Christ by various types of people; here the Evangelist considers the glory shown to Christ by God.

First, he mentions that Christ asked for glory;

second, the promise of glory is made: a voice therefore came from heaven; I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Concerning the first he does two things.

First, the interior state of Christ is given;

second, he mentions the request made by Christ, and what shall I say?

1650. Note, in regard to the first, that it seems incongruous for Christ to be saying, now is my soul troubled, for he had urged his faithful to hate their own lives in this world; but with his own death near at hand, we hear the Lord himself saying, now is my soul troubled. This leads Augustine to say: O Lord, you command my soul to follow. But I see your own soul troubled. What support shall I seek, if the rock crumbles?

Thus we must first examine this troubled state of Christ, and second, why he willed to undergo it.

1651. As to the first, we should note that, properly speaking, a thing is said to be troubled when it is greatly agitated. Hence when the sea is very agitated it is said to be troubled. And so whenever a thing oversteps the bounds of its repose and tranquility, it is said to be troubled. Now in the human soul there is a sentient area and a rational area. The sensitive area of the soul is troubled when it becomes strongly affected by certain movements. For example, when it is contracted by fear, raised up by hope, dilated by joy, or otherwise affected by one or other of the emotions. Sometimes this perturbation remains within the bounds of reason, and sometimes it exceeds the bounds or reason, namely, when the reason itself is troubled. And although this latter condition quite often occurs in us, it is not found in Christ, since he is the wisdom of the Father. Indeed, it is not found in any wise person; thus the Stoic tenet that one who is wise is not troubled, that is, in his reason.

Accordingly, the meaning of now is my soul troubled, is this: my soul is affected by the emotions of fear and sadness in its sentient part; but these emotions do not trouble my reason, and it does not abandon its own order. He began to be greatly distressed and troubled (Mark 14:33).

Such emotions, however, exist in us otherwise than in Christ. In us, they arise from necessity, insofar as we are moved and affected from without, as it were. But in Christ, they are not from necessity, but from the command of reason, since there was never any emotion in him except that which he himself aroused. For in Christ the lower powers were subject to his reason so perfectly that they could not act or undergo anything except what reason appointed for them. Thus: he . . . groaned in spirit and troubled himself (John 11:33); you have moved the earth, that is, human nature, and troubled it (Ps 59:4).

And so the soul of Christ was troubled in such a way that its perturbation was not opposed to reason, but according to the order of reason.

1652. In regard to the second point, note that Christ willed to be troubled for two reasons. First, to show us a doctrine of the faith, that is, the truth of his human nature. Accordingly, as his passion was drawing near, he did everything in a human way.

Second, he wanted to be an example for us. For if he had remained unmoved and had felt no emotions in his soul, he would not have been a satisfactory example of how we should face death. And so he willed to be troubled in order that when we are troubled at the prospect of death, we will not refuse to endure it, we will not run away: for we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning (Heb 4:15).

1653. The relationship of this with what came before is clear. He encouraged his disciples to suffer when he said: he who hates his life in this world, keeps it unto life eternal (John 12:25). But some might say to him: Lord, you can calmly discuss and philosophize about death because you are above human sorrows, and death does not trouble you. It was to counter this that he willed to be troubled.

This disturbance in Christ was natural: for just as the soul naturally loves union with its body, so it naturally flees separation from it, especially since the reason of Christ allowed his soul and its inferior powers to act in their own proper way.

1654. Again, when he said, now is my soul troubled, he refuted the error of Arius and Apollinaris. For they said that Christ did not have a soul, and in place of his soul they substituted the Word.

1655. Then our Lord makes his petition for glory, saying, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. Here our Lord takes upon himself the emotions of one who is troubled. And acting as one troubled, he does four things in his petition.

First, he poses a question, as one does when deliberating about what is to be done;

second, he makes a request which arises from a certain inclination;

third, he rejects this inclination for a particular reason;

and fourth, he makes another request that arises from a different inclination.

1656. He poses this question as one does when in doubt, because it is natural to deliberate about what to do when one is perplexed. So the Philosopher says in his Rhetoric that fear makes a person take counsel. Thus, after mentioning that he is troubled, Christ at once adds, and what shall I say? It is the same as saying: what shall I do in my trouble. Something like this is met in the Psalm: fear and trembling came upon me, and then follows, O that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be at rest (Ps 55:5). For both the perplexed and the emotionally disturbed are weighed down and look for help to relieve themselves.

1657. He makes his petition, arising from a certain inclination, because when one is hesitant about what he should do, he ought to turn to God: we do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you (2 Chr 20:12); I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains from whence help will come to me (Ps 120:1). And so, turning to the Father, he says, Father, save me, that is, from the sufferings which await me at the hour of my passion: save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck (Ps 69:1).

According to Augustine, what our Lord says here, now is my soul troubled and Father, save me, is the same as when he says, my soul is very sorrowful, even to death (Matt 26:38).

1658. Note that this petition is not made as though it arose from the inclination of reason; rather, reason is speaking as an advocate of the natural inclination not to die. And so in this petition reason is pointing out the impulse of a natural inclination.

This explanation solves a question which is frequently raised. For we read: in all things he was heard for his reverence (Heb 5:7); and yet in this case, Christ was not heard.

The answer to this is that Christ was heard in those matters in which his petition came from reason itself and which he intended to be granted. But the petition he made here did not come from reason, nor was it intended to be granted; rather, it expressed a natural inclination. Thus Chrysostom reads it as a question, that is, as: and what shall I say? Shall I say, Father, save me from this hour? It is the same as saying: no! I will not say this.

1659. Yet Christ rejects this petition, which arose from an inclination of the natural appetite, when he says, but for this cause I came unto this hour. It is the same as saying: it is not right that I be freed from this time of suffering, because I came to suffer; and not as compelled by the necessity of fate or forced by the violence of men, but by willingly offering myself: he was offered because it was his own will (Isa 53:7); no one takes it, that is my life, away from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18).

1660. Now his reason proposes its own petition when he says, Father, glorify your name. Your name can be understood in two ways. First, it can mean the Son himself. For a name, which comes from the word for knowledge or being known, is like a sign. Thus a name is what manifests a thing. Now the Son manifests the Father: Father . . . I have manifested thy name (John 17:6). We read of this name: behold, the name of the Lord comes from far (Isa 30:27). So the meaning is this: Father, glorify your name, that is, your Son: and now glorify me, O Father, with yourself, with the glory which I had, before the world was with you (John 17:5).

Or, the name of the Lord indicates the knowledge which men have of the Father, and then the meaning is, Father, glorify your name, that is, do what is for the glory of your name. Yet it comes to the same thing, because when the Son is glorified the name of the Father is glorified. He says this because the Son was going to be glorified by his passion: he became obedient, to the Father, unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him (Phil 2:8). He is saying here in effect: by the desire of nature I ask to be saved, but my reason asks that your name be glorified, that is, that the Son suffer, because it was by the passion of Christ that men were to receive their knowledge of God and glorify him. For before the passion God was known only in Judea, and his name was great in Israel; but after the passion, God’s name was glorified even among the gentiles.

1661. Then when the Evangelist says, then a voice came from heaven, the promise of glory is given.

First, the voice promising glory is heard;

second, the crowd expresses its opinion: the multitude therefore that stood and heard, said that it thundered;

lastly, the meaning of the voice is explained: Jesus answered and said: this voice came not because of me.

1662. With regard to the first, he says, a voice therefore came from heaven. This is the voice of God the Father. It was the same voice that was heard when Christ was baptized, this is my beloved Son (Matt 3:17), and at his transfiguration (Matt 17:5). Although every voice of this kind was formed by the power of the entire Trinity, this was specifically formed to represent the person of the Father; thus it is referred to as the voice of the Father. In a similar manner the dove was formed by the entire Trinity to signify the person of the Holy Spirit. And again, the body of Christ was formed by the entire Trinity, but specifically assumed by the person of the Word because it had been formed to be united to him.

This voice, then, does two things. First, it reveals the past, when saying, I have . . . glorified it, that is, I have begotten you as glorious from all eternity, because the Son is a certain glory and splendor of the Father: for she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God (Wis 7:26); he reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature (Heb 1:3). Or, I have . . . glorified it at your birth, when the angels sang: glory to God in the highest (Luke 2:14) and in the miracles the Father performed through him.

Second, the voice foretells what is to come: and will glorify it again, in the passion, in which Christ triumphed over the devil, and in the resurrection and the ascension, and in the conversion of all the world: the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his Son Jesus (Acts 3:13).

1663. Next we see the opinion of the crowd, which was wondering about the voice, the multitude therefore that stood and heard, said, that it thundered. In this crowd, as in every other, some were dull and slow to understand, and others were more perceptive; yet all of them failed to identify the voice. Those who were slow and carnal only heard it as a sound; so they said that it thundered. Still, they were not entirely mistaken, for the Lord’s voice was thunder, both because it had an extraordinary meaning, and because it contained very great things: how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand? (Job 26:14). The voice of your thunder in a wheel (Ps 76:19). Those who were keener discerned that the sound was a voice, pronouncing words and having a meaning; so they said someone was speaking. But because they thought that Christ was merely human they erred, attributing these words to an angel. So they said that, an angel spoke to him. They were under the same error as the devil, who thought that Christ needed the help of the angels: thus he said: he will give his angels charge of you, in their hands they will bear you (Matt 4:6). But he did not need to be guarded and helped by angels; rather, he is the one who glorifies and guards the angels.

1664. The voice is explained when he says, Jesus answered, and said.

First, he explains the voice;

second, he mentions the answer given by the people: the multitude answered him (John 12:34);

and third, our Lord’s answer: Jesus therefore said to them: yet a little while (John 12:35).

He does two things about the first:

first he mentions the reason for the voice;

and second, he adds its meaning: now is the judgment of the world.

1665. It should be noted in regard to the first that they had said, an angel spoke to him. Now an angel speaks by revealing something that will profit the one to whom he speaks, as is clear in Revelation (Rev 1) and in Ezekiel (Ezek 1). And so to show that he did not need this voice or any revelation from an angel, our Lord says, this voice came not because of me, but for your sakes, that is, it has not come to instruct me. For this voice mentioned nothing he did not know before, because in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge (Col 2:2), so that he knew all that the Father knew. But for your sakes, that is, for your instruction. From this we can understand that many things relating to Christ were, in God’s plan, allowed to take place not because Christ needed them, but for our sakes: for whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction (Rom 15:4).

1666. When he says, now is the judgment of this world, he states the meaning of this voice.

First, he mentions the judgment by which he would be glorified;

second, the effect of this judgment: now will the prince of this world be cast out;

and third, the way he will be glorified; and I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

1667. He says, now is the judgment of this world.

But if this is true, why do we expect that our Lord will come again to judge? The answer is that now he comes to judge with a judgment of distinction or discernment, by which he discerns his own from those who are not his: for judgment I came into this world (John 9:39). This is what he is speaking of when he says, now is the judgment of this world. But he will come again to judge with the judgment of condemnation, for which he did not come the first time: for God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17).

Or, we might say that there are two kinds of judgment. One is that which condemns the world; and this is not referred to here. The other is the judgment which will be in favor of the world, insofar as the world is set free from servitude to the devil. This is the way the Psalm is understood: O Lord! Judge those who wrong me; overthrow those who fight against me (Ps 34:1). But this judgment and the judgment of distinction are the same, because by the fact that the judgment is in favor of the world by casting out the devil, the good are distinguished from the wicked.

1668. The effect of this judgment is the casting out of the devil. So he says, now will the prince of this world be cast out, by the power of the passion of Christ. Thus the passion of Christ is his glorification; and this explains what he had said, will glorify it again; insofar as, now will the prince of this world be cast out, since Christ has the victory over the devil by his passion. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).

1669. A difficulty arises here on three points.

First, because he says that the devil is the ruler or prince of this world. It was this that led the Manicheans to call him the creator and lord of everything that was visible.

The answer is that the devil is called the ruler of this world not by a natural right, but by usurpation, insofar as worldly people, rejecting the true Lord, subject themselves to him: the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4). Thus, he is the ruler of this world insofar as he rules those who are worldly, as St. Augustine says, and these are spread throughout the entire world. For the word ‘world’ is sometimes taken in a pejorative sense to mean those who love the world: the world knew him not (John 1:10). Yet sometimes it is taken in a good sense to indicate those who are good and live in the world in such a way that they are citizens of heaven: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19).

1670. The second difficulty concerns the fact that the ruler of this world is said to be cast out. For if he had truly been cast out, he would not longer tempt us now as he did before; yet he continues to tempt us. Therefore, he was not cast out.

Augustine answers this by saying that although the devil may tempt those who have ceased to be of the world, he does not tempt them in the same way as he did before. For before he tempted and ruled them from within, but now he does so only from without. For as long as men are in sin, he rules and tempts them from within: let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions (Rom 6:12). And so he was cast out because the effect of sin in man is not from within but from without.

1671. Third, there is a difficulty from the fact that he says, now will the ruler of this world be cast out. For it seems to follow from this that he had not been cast out before the passion of Christ, and consequently, if he is cast out only when men are set free from sin, it seems that Abraham, Isaac and the other men of the Old Testament were not set free from sin.

The answer, according to Augustine, is that before the passion of Christ he had been cast out of individual persons, but not from the world, as he was to be later. For what formerly took place in only a few men, but now happens in many Jews and gentiles who have converted to Christ, is recognized to have been accomplished by the passion of Christ.

Or, it might be said that the devil is cast out by the fact that men are set free from sin; but before the passion of Christ all the just had been set free from sin, although not entirely, because they were still kept from entering the kingdom. In this respect, therefore, the devil had some right over them which was entirely taken away by the passion of Christ, when the fiery sword was removed, when Christ said to the man: today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43).

1672. The form or manner of this passion would be by being lifted up; thus he says, and I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

In regard to this, Chrysostom has the following example: if a tyrant, accustomed to oppress and rage against his subjects and cast them into chains, were in his madness to treat in the same way some one who was not subject to him and cast him into the same prison, then he would deserve that even his dominion over the others be taken from him. This is what Christ did against the devil. For the devil had some right over men because of the sin of the first parent; and so in some sense he could justly rage against them. But since he dared to try the same things with Christ, over whom he had no right, assailing him in whom he had no part, as the tempter, as it is said below (John 13), it was fitting that he be deprived of his dominion by the death of Christ.

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. First, he describes the manner of his death; second, the Evangelist explains it, saying, he this said signifying what death he was to die, for he would die by being lifted up on the wood of the cross. However, the explanation is signified in what death he should die.

1673. Here we should note that there are two reasons why the Lord willed to die the death of the cross. First, because it is a shameful death: let us condemn him to a shameful death (Wis 2:20). So Augustine says: the Lord willed to die in this way so that not even a shameful death would keep a person from the perfection of righteousness.

Second, because such a death involves a lifting up; so our Lord says, if I am lifted up. Such a manner of death was in harmony with the fruit, the reason and the symbol of the passion.

It was in harmony with its fruit, because it was by the passion that Christ was to be lifted up, exalted: he became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him (Phil 2:8). Thus the Psalmist said: be exalted, O Lord, in thy strength! (Ps 20:14).

It harmonized with the reason for the passion, and in two ways: both with respect to men and with respect to the devil. With respect to men, because he died for their salvation. For they had perished, because they were cast down and sunk in earthly things: they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth (Ps 16:11). Thus he willed to die raised up in order to lift our hearts up to heavenly things. For in this way he is our way into heaven. With respect to the devils, it was fitting in the sense that those who exercised their principality and power in the air were trod under foot by him while he was raised in the air.

Finally, it harmonized with the symbol, because the Lord commanded that a bronze serpent be fashioned in the desert (Num 21:9), and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up (John 3:14). And so thus lifted up I will draw all things to myself, through love; I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore have I drawn you, taking pity on you (Jer 31:3). Furthermore, the love of God for men appears most clearly in the fact that he condescended to die for them: God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). By doing this he fulfilled the request of the bride: draw me after you, and we will run to the aroma of your perfume (Song 1:3).

1674. Here we may note that the Father draws and the Son also draws: no man can come to me, unless the Father, who has sent me, draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44). He says here, I . . . will draw all things, in order to show that the same action belongs to both of them.

And he says, all things, and not all men, because not all men are drawn to the Son. I will draw all things, that is, the body and the soul; or all types of men, such as gentiles and Jews, servants and freemen, male and female; or, all who are predestined to salvation.

Finally, we should note that to draw all things to himself is for Christ to cast out the prince of this world, for Christ has no fellowship with Belial, nor light with darkness (2 Cor 6:15).

Christ hides from the crowd

12:34 The multitude answered him: we have heard out of the law, that Christ abides for ever; and how can you say: the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man? [n. 1676]

12:35 Jesus therefore said to them: yet a little while, the light is among you. Walk while you have the light, that the darkness overtake you not. And he who walks in darkness, knows not where he goes. [n. 1681]

12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light. These things Jesus said; and he went away, and hid himself from them. [n. 1686]

1675. Having mentioned the promised glorification of the Lord and explaining the voice, the Evangelist now describes the doubt which prevailed among the crowd.

First, they introduce the authority of the law;

and second, they raise a problem based on it: and how can you say: the Son of man must be lifted up?

1676. In regard to the first the Evangelist says, the multitude answered him, that is, the Lord, who was speaking of his death, we have heard from the law, and law is taken here for the entire Old Testament that Christ abides for ever. This can be gathered from many passages of the Old Testament: of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end (Isa 9:7); his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be destroyed (Dan 7:14).

1677. Basing themselves on this authority, they formulate two doubts: one concerns a fact, and the other the person.

But since Christ did not say that the Son of man must be lifted up, but and I, if I am lifted up (John 12:32), why do the Jews say that the Son of man must be lifted up?

The answer to this is that the Jews were now accustomed to our Lord’s words; thus they remembered that he called himself the Son of man. And so when he said, and I, when I am lifted up (John 12:32), they took it to mean, if the Son of man is lifted up, as Augustine says. Or, one might answer that although Christ did not here mention the Son of man, yet earlier he had said: so must the Son of man be lifted up (John 3:14).

1678. Yet it seems that their statement, the Son of man must be lifted up, is in no way opposed to the statement that Christ abides for ever.

The answer is that since our Lord was accustomed to speak to them in figurative language, they understood much of what was said in that way. And so they also suspected that when our Lord spoke of being lifted up, he was referring to death on the cross: when you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he (John 8:28). Or, it could be said that they understood it in this sense because they had already thought of doing that very thing. Thus it was not the sharpness of their understanding that gave them this interpretation of these words, but an awareness of their own wickedness.

1679. Note their wickedness, for they do not say: we have heard from the law that the Christ does not suffer, because in many places of the law reference is made to his passion and resurrection, as: like a lamb that is led to the slaughter (Isa 53:7); I have slept and taken my rest: and I have risen up (Ps 3:7). Rather, they say, Christ abides for ever. The reason for this is that the former would not have involved any opposition, since no obstacle to Christ’s immortality arises from the mere fact of his suffering. In other words, as Chrysostom says, they wished to show that he was not the Christ for the reason that Christ abides for ever.

1680. They raise a question concerning his person when they say, who is this Son of man? They ask this because it says in Daniel: and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the ancient of days (Dan 7:13); and by that Son of man they understood the Christ. It is as though they were saying: you say the Son of man must be lifted up; yet the Son of man, whom we take to be the Christ, remains forever. So who is this Son of man? If he does not remain for ever, neither is he the Christ. In this they deserve to be reprimanded for their dullness, because even though they had seen and heard so many great things, they still had doubts about his being the Christ: he who tells a story to a fool tells it to a drowsy man (Sir 22:9).

1681. Then when he says, Jesus therefore said to them, our Lord somewhat settles their doubt.

First, he commends the good they had;

and second, he encourages them to make progress: walk while you have the light;

third, he explains his admonition: while you have the light, believe in the light.

1682. Jesus said to them, yet a little while, the light is among you. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, according to Augustine, so that little modifies light. As if to say: the light is among you, insofar as it sees that the Christ remains for ever. For this is a truth, and every manifestation of the truth is a light infused by God. Yet this light which is in you is little, because even though you recognize the eternity of the Christ, you do not believe in his death and resurrection. This shows that you do not have perfect faith. Thus, what was said to Peter applies also to them: O man of little faith, why did you doubt? (Matt 14:31).

It is understood in another way by Chrysostom, as meaning that yet a little while, the light is among you, that is, I, who am the light. It is the same as saying: I, the light, am among you for a brief time: a little while, and you will not see me (John 16:16).

1683. And so he exhorts them to make progress in good.

First, he gives his exhortation;

second, he shows the danger threatening them unless they do make progress: he who walks in the darkness, knows not where he goes.

1684. He says: I say that you have a little light, but while you have it, walk, that is, move forward and make progress, so that you may understand that the Christ, in addition to his eternity, will also die and rise again. This is in keeping with the first explanation given above.

Or, walk while you have the light, that is, while I am among you, make progress and be concerned with possessing me in such a way as never to lose me: blessed are the people . . . O Lord, who walk in the light of thy countenance (Ps 89:15). And do this that the darkness of unbelief, ignorance and eternal damnation overtake you not and prevent you from going any further. For a person is overtaken by darkness when he is totally sunk in unbelief; and they would be this way if they believed in the eternity of the Christ in such a way as to deny the humiliation of his death: a man whose way is hid (Job 3:23); we are wrapped up in darkness (Job 37:19).

1685. The danger threatening them unless they do progress is mentioned when he says, he who walks in the darkness, knows not where he goes. For light, whether exterior or interior, directs man. Exterior light directs him as to external bodily acts, while the interior light directs his will. One, therefore, who does not walk in the light, not perfectly believing in Christ, but walks in the darkness, knows not where he goes, that is, to what goal he is being led. As we read: they have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness (Ps 82:5). This is what happened to the Jews because they did not know what they were doing, but as people who were walking in the darkness they thought they were on the right road. And so they displeased God in the very things in which they believed they were pleasing him. Similarly, in the very things in which erring heretics believe they merit the light of truth and grace is the source of their being deprived of it: there is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death (Prov 14:12).

1686. Then when he says, while you have the light, believe in the light, he explains what he said, namely, what it means to walk. This is explained in two ways, according to the two explanations given above.

According to the first explanation: while you have the light, that is, while you have some knowledge and light of the truth, believe in the light, that is, in the complete truth, that you may be the children of light, that is, that you may be reborn in the truth: we are not of the night or of darkness. So then let us not sleep (1 Thess 5:6).

Or, according to the other explanation: while you have the light, that is, while you have me, who am the light: he was the true light which enlightens every man coming into the world (John 1:9); believe in the light, that is, in me. In other words, make progress in the knowledge of me, that you may be children of light, because from the fact that you believe in me you will be the children of God: but as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to those who believe in his name (John 1:12).

1687. These things Jesus said; he went away, and hid himself from them. Here the Evangelist tells what Jesus did, that he hid himself.

When we read above that Christ did this very thing, the reason was obvious, for they were taking stones to cast at him (John 8:59). But here there is no reason for his hiding given, such as that they took up stones or that they blasphemed him. Why then did he hide?

The answer is that our Lord, seeing into their hearts, knew their rage and the evil they had planned, i.e., to kill him. And so in his desire to stop them he did not wait for them to act, but hid himself so their anger and envy would abate. In doing this he is an example to us that when the evil purposes of others are clear to us, we should flee before they can accomplish them. In addition, our Lord was showing by his actions what he had said by his words. For he just said, walk while you have the light, that the darkness overtake you not. And by hiding himself he indicated what sort of darkness he means: I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob (Isa 8:17).

Fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy

12:37 And whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him: [n. 1689]

12:38 that the saying of Isaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he said: Lord, who has believed our hearing? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? [n. 1690]

12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again: [n. 1697]

12:40 he has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. [n. 1700]

12:41 These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him. [n. 1703]

1688. Above, the Evangelist gave many examples of Christ’s glory, because of which the Jews sought to kill him out of envy. Now he deals with another of the occasions surrounding his passion, that is, the unbelief of the Jews.

First, their unbelief is discussed;

in the second place, it is reproved by our Lord: but Jesus cried (John 12:44).

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he reproves the unbelief of those who in no way believed,

second, the unbelief of those who believed, but in secret: however, many of the chief men also believed in him (John 12:42).

As to the first, two things are done:

first, he mentions the strange hardness of their unbelief;

second, to show that it came about not without reason or by chance, he mentions a prophecy: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled.

1689. The Evangelist, as though at a loss to explain it, says that our Lord had done many miracles: such as changing water into wine (John 2), curing a paralytic (John 5), giving sight to a blind man (John 9), and raising a dead man to life (John 11): nevertheless, and whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him. They usually said: what sign do you show, that we may see and believe you? (John 6:30). But now the Evangelist says: and whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him. Below, if I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin (John 15:24). And so they could not say: we do not see our signs (Ps 74:9).

1690. Then the testimony of the prophet on this point is cited: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled.

First, the prophecies are mentioned;

second, it is shown that they refer to Christ: these things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory.

He does two things about the first:

he cites the prophecy foretelling their unbelief;

second, he adds the prophecy foretelling the reason for their unbelief: therefore they could not believe.

1691. He says: I say that they did not believe in him, that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled.

Here we should note that in Sacred Scripture the word ‘that’ sometimes indicates a cause, as in I have come that they may have life (John 10:10). But at other times it just indicates a sequence of events, and signifies a future event; and that is how it is used here. These people did not believe, but it was not because Isaiah predicted this. Rather, Isaiah predicted this because they were not going to believe. And so this saying of Isaiah is fulfilled from the fact that they did not believe. Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44); not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished (Matt 5:18).

1692. But if it was necessary that the saying of Isaiah be fulfilled, it seems that the Jews should be excused for not believing, for they could not act contrary to the prophecy.

1693. Now the Evangelist states what the prophet said, Lord, who has believed our hearing, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Here we should note that belief comes in two ways. Sometimes by instruction from another; and this is the usual way: so faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ (Rom 10:17). Sometimes it comes by a divine revelation; and this is the special way, spoken of by the Apostle: for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12).

1694. Isaiah foretold that there would be few believers, saying, who has believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? (Isa 53:1) First, as to those who would believe in the usual way, by instruction, he says, Lord, who has believed our report? This can be understood in two ways.

In one way, the meaning is: who has believed our report? That is, what you reported to us, what we have heard from you. We have heard tidings from the Lord (Obad 1:1); let us hear what the Lord will speak (Ps 85:8). It is like they were saying: Lord, we have heard these things from you. But who will believe us when we tell what we have heard from you about your birth and passion? This entire chapter of Isaiah (Isa 53) is speaking of these things.

Prophets are said to hear in order to suggest the way in which the prophets are instructed. By sight, a person receives an immediate knowledge of the thing seen, but by hearing he does not have an immediate knowledge of what he sees, but he gains his knowledge from certain signs of the thing. And so because the prophets did not immediately see the divine essence, but only certain signs of divine realties, they are said to hear. If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream, by certain signs (Num 12:6). The Son, however, eternally sees the divine essence itself: no man has seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known (John 1:18), as was said above. Who has believed our report? That is, who has believed in the things we have heard and preached? What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you (Isa 21:10).

The second way of understanding who has believed our report? is to take it as meaning the things we report to them, what they have heard from us. They hear what you say but they will not do it, for they turn them into a song of their mouth (Ezek 33:31).

1695. As to the special way belief comes, by revelation, he says, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? The arm refers to the Son, through whom the Father does all things, just as we accomplish things through our arm. And if we accomplished things only through an interior word, then this word would be called our arm. And so the Son is called the arm of God not because God the Father has a human shape and a physical arm, but because all things were made through him, the Son (John 1:3). Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? (Job 40:9); he has shown strength with his arm (Luke 1:51).

1696. Note that Sabellius misunderstood this passage and said that the Father and the Son are the same person; and Arius also did when he said that the Son is inferior to the Father. The reasons for this were that a person and his arm do not form two persons, but only one, and an arm is not equal to the person.

The answer to this is that in expressions of this kind the similarities are not really adequate, for what we find in creatures does not perfectly represent what is in God. Thus Dionysius says that symbolic theology is not argumentative. Thus the Son is not called an arm as though he is the same person as the Father or inferior to the Father, but because the Father does all things through him. When he says, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? it is like saying, only to a few, that is, to the apostles: God has revealed to us through the Spirit (1 Cor 2:10).

1697. When the Evangelist says, therefore they could not believe, he states the prophecy which foretold the reason for their unbelief. If we examine these words of the Evangelist they seem, if taken at their surface value, difficult to understand.

First, because if it is said that therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said this, the Jews seem to be excusable. For is it a sin for a person not to do what he cannot do? And what is more serious, the fault will be cast back on God, since he blinded their eyes. This could be accepted if it were said of the devil: the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4). But here it is said of our Lord: I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne (Isa 6:1); and later: blind the heart of this people and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted and I heal them (Isa 6:10).

1698. To clarify this let us first explain the statement, therefore they could not believe. Here we should note that something is said to be impossible or said to be necessary in two ways: absolutely, and granted a certain presupposition. For example, it is absolutely impossible for a human being to be an ass; but granting a certain presupposition, it is impossible for me to be outside my house, presupposing, that is, that I remain within it sitting down. With this in mind, we may say that a person is excused if he does not do things that are absolutely impossible for him. But he is not excused if he does not do things that are impossible for him granting some presupposition. So, if someone has the evil intention of always stealing, and says that it is impossible for him not to sin as long as he continues with that intention, he is not excused: for this impossibility is not absolute, but based on a certain presupposition, for he can abandon his evil intention. So he says, therefore they could not believe, that is, because they had a will clouded over by their wickedness: can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil (Jer 13:23); how can you do good things when you are evil? (Matt 12:34). It is like one saying: I can in nowise love him, because I hate him.

As to the second point, when we read that God blinds and hardens, we should not think that God puts malice into us or forces us to sin; but we should understand it as meaning that God does not infuse grace. Now he infuses grace because of his mercy, while the cause of his not infusing grace is due to us, insofar as there is something in us which opposes divine grace. As far as he is concerned: he enlightens every man coming into this world (John 1:9); he desires all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). But because we leave God, he takes his grace from us: because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you (Hos 4:6); your destruction, O Israel, is from yourself; your help is only in me (Hos 13:9). It is like a person who closes the shutters of his house, and someone says to him: you cannot see because you lack the light of the sun. This would not be due to a failure of the sun, but because he shut out the light of the sun. In the same way we read here that they could not believe, because God blinded them, that is, they were the cause why they were deprived of sight: their wickedness blinded them (Wis 2:21).

1699. With these distinctions in mind, let us consider the words of this prophecy. It is found in Isaiah, not in these exact words, but with the same meaning (Isa 6:10). Three things are mentioned here:

first, the hardening and blinding of the Jews;

second, the effect of each of these: that they should not see;

third, their end: and be converted, and I should heal them.

1700. In regard to the first, note that our Lord brought people to the faith in two ways, by his miracles and his teaching. And so he rebukes them on both points: if I had not done among them the works that no other man has done, they would not have sin (John 15:24); and again: if I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin (John 15:22). For they had derided both.

Insofar as they did not give due consideration to Christ’s miracles, he says, he has blinded their eyes, that is, the eyes of their hearts, about which we read: having the eyes of your hearts enlightened (Eph 1:18). For they should have understood that such miracles could only be done by divine power: you see many things, but do not observe them (Isa 42:20); and again, who is blind but my servant? Or deaf, except he to whom I have sent my messengers? (Isa 42:19).

Because they were not moved by the teaching of Christ, he adds, and hardened their heart. That is very hard which is not melted by intense heat nor broken by divine blows. Now the words of Christ are like fire . . . and like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces (Jer 23:29). Fire, indeed, because they inflame through love; and like a hammer because they terrify when they threaten, and break one by the revelation of the truth. And still the hearts of the Jews paid no attention to the words of Christ. Thus it is obvious that they were hardened: his heart is hard as a stone (Job 41:24); he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills (Rom 9:18).

1701. The effect of their becoming blind is mentioned when he says, that they should not see with their eyes, that is, their spiritual eyes, and perceive the divinity of Christ: they have eyes, but do not see (Ps 115:5). In contrast, Luke says: blessed are the eyes which see what you see! (Luke 10:23). The effect of their becoming hard of heart is mentioned when he says, nor understand with their heart: because no one understands, they will perish forever (Job 4:20); he would not understand so that he might act well (Ps 35:4).

Here it should be noted that the that does not indicate a cause, but merely the sequence of events.

1702. The end of their becoming blind and hard in heart is given when he says, and be converted, and I should heal them. This can be understood in two ways, as Augustine says in his work, On Gospel Questions. In one way, so that both parts are negative, and then the meaning would be: and they do not turn to me and I do not heal them. For the way of salvation from sin is to turn to God: restore us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be restored! Renew our days of old! (Lam 5:21) But to those who prove themselves unworthy to have their sins forgiven, God does not offer the gifts by which they might turn to him and be healed, as is obvious in the case of the non-chosen.

The other interpretation is to regard only the first part as negative and then the meaning would be: they were blinded and hardened so they should not see or understand for a time, and so not seeing or understanding, that is, not believing in Christ, they would put him to death, but afterwards they would repent and turn to God and be healed. For now and then God permits us to fall into sin so that being humbled we may arise firmer in holiness.

Each of these interpretations is verified in the case of some of the Jews: the first one in those who persisted to the end in their unbelief, and the second one in those who turned to Christ after his passion, namely, those with remorse in their hearts at the words of Peter, and who said to the apostles: brethren, what will we do? (Acts 2:37).

1703. Then these things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him, the Evangelist shows that these words of Isaiah apply here. He says, these things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, the glory of God. For when he saw the glory of God he saw at the same time that the Jews would be blinded, as is clear from, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne (Isa 6:1), followed by, blind the heart of his people and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them (Isa 6:10). And because it is fitting that one should testify about what he has seen, as we read in 1 John (1:1), he adds, and spoke of him, that is, of Christ, whose glory he saw: to him all the prophet bear witness (Acts 10:43); which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, the Gospel concerning his Son (Rom 1:2).

1704. We read that Isaiah saw and said these things. As to the first, we should avoid the error of the Arians, who say that the Father alone is invisible to every creature, but that the Son was seen in the visions of the Old Testament. But since it is stated that he who sees me sees the Father also (John 14:9), it is obvious that the Father and the Son are visible in one and the same way. And so Isaiah, seeing the glory of the Son, also saw the glory of the Father, and indeed of the entire Trinity, which is one God, seated upon a high throne before whom the seraphim cry out: holy, holy, holy! This does not mean that Isaiah saw the essence of the Trinity; rather in an imaginary vision, with understanding, he expressed certain signs of this majesty: if there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream (Num 12:6).

1705. As to the second thing, that Isaiah spoke of him: this excludes the error of the Manicheans, who said that there were no prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament, as Augustine reports to us in his book Against Faustus; and it excludes the error of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that all the prophecies of the Old Testament bore on some current event, but the apostles and evangelists appropriated them to the life of Christ, like things said about one event can be appropriated to another event.

But all this is excluded by the statement, and spoke of him, just as Christ said of Moses that he wrote of me (John 5:46).

Christ came to save the world

12:42 However, many of the chief men also believed in him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue. [n. 1707]

12:43 For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. [n. 1709]

12:44 But Jesus cried, and said: he who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in him who sent me. [n. 1711]

12:45 And he who sees me, sees him who sent me. [n. 1712]

12:46 I have come a light into the world; that whosoever believes in me, may not remain in darkness. [n. 1713]

12:47 And if any man hear my words, and does not keep them, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [n. 1716]

12:48 He who despises me, and receive not my words, has one who judges him; the word which I have spoken, the same will judge him in the last day. [n. 1718]

12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [n. 1721]

12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak. [n. 1725]

1706. Above, the Evangelist described the failing of those who did not believe at all; here he explains the failing of those who believed in secret, because they were timid, faint-hearted.

First, he mentions their dignity;

second, their failing: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him;

and third, he suggests the root of this failing: for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.

1707. The dignity of those who believed in secret was great, for they were the authorities, and on this point he says, many of the chief men also believed in him. He is saying in effect: I said that although Jesus had done so many signs, still they did not believe in him; and although this was true for the majority, yet there were some who did believe in him, because many of the chief men also, of the people, believed in him. One of these was Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, as was said (John 3:1). Thus the words of the Psalm were fulfilled: the princes of the peoples gather as their people of the God of Abraham (Ps 47:9); and the statement of the Pharisees is proved false: has any one of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in him (John 7:48).

1708. The failing of these authorities is timidity, faint-heartedness; thus he says, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him. For as stated above, the Pharisees agreed . . . that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue (John 9:22). So, although they believed with their hearts, they did not profess him with their lips. Their faith, therefore, was insufficient: for a man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved (Rom 10:10). Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed (Luke 9:26).

1709. The root of their failing is vanity, vainglory; so he says, for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. By confessing Christ publicly they would have lost the glory of men, but won the glory of God. But they chose rather to be deprived of the glory of God than the glory of men: how are you able to believe who receive glory from one another; and the glory which is from God alone you do not seek? (John 5:44). If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ (Gal 1:10).

1710. Now he shows how Christ rebuked the Jews for their unbelief:

first, he shows their duty to believe;

second, he mentions the fruit of faith: I have come a light into the world;

third, he warns the unbelievers about punishment: and if any man hear my words, and does not keep them, I do not judge him (John 11:47).

But because vision comes after faith,

with regard to the first, he treats of faith;

and second, of vision: and he who sees me, sees him who sent me.

1711. As to the first he says, but Jesus cried out, both because of the importance of what he intended to say and because of their free will, to charge them with their sins: cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression (Isa 58:1).

And said, he who believes in me, does not believe in me but in him who sent me. This seems to contain a contradiction, for he says, he who believes in me, does not believe in me. To understand this we should note first, according to Augustine, that our Lord said this to distinguish his divine and human nature. For since the proper object of faith is God, we can indeed believe that a creature exists, but we should not believe in a creature but in God alone. Now in Christ there is a created nature and the uncreated nature. Therefore, the truth of faith requires that our faith be in Christ as having an uncreated nature. And so he says, he who believes in me, that is, in my person, does not believe in me, as a human being, but in him who sent me, that is, he believes in me as sent from the Father: my doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me (John 7:16).

According to Chrysostom, however, our Lord says this to suggest his origin. It is a way of speaking similar to a person drawing water from a stream and saying that this water is not from the stream but from the spring: for it does not originate from the stream. So our Lord says, he who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in him who sent me, as though to say: I am not the source of myself, but my divinity is from another, that is, from my Father. So, he who believes in me, does not believe in me, except insofar as I am from the Father.

1712. Then when he says, and he who sees me, sees him who sent me, he treats of vision.

In regard to this we should note that just as the Father sent the Son to convert the Jews, so Christ also sent his disciples: as the Father has sent me, I also send you (John 20:21). But no one of the disciples dared to say, nor should he, that one should believe in him, although he could say that one should believe him. For this could not take place without detracting from the One who sent him, because if someone believed in the disciple, they would cease to believe in the master. So the Jews could say on the same basis that since you have been sent from the Father, anyone who believes in you ceases to believe in the Father. Therefore, our Lord shows against this that one who does not believe in him, does not believe in the Father. This is his meaning when he says, he who sees me, sees him who sent me.

The seeing which is referred to here is not a physical vision, but a consideration of the truth by the mind. And the reason why one who sees the Son also sees the Father is that the Father is in the Son by a unity of essence. For one thing is said to be seen in another either because they are the same, or they are entirely conformed. But the Father and the Son are the same in nature and entirely conformed: because the Son is the image of the Father and unlike in nothing, for he is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15); he reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature (Heb 1:3). And so, just as one believes in the Father, so also he believes in me: Philip, he who sees me sees the Father . . . do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? (John 14:9–10). Which was like saying: the reason wherby he who sees me see also the Father, is bceause the Father is in me, and I am in him.

Thus it is clear what faith should be: faith should be in Christ, as God, just as it is in the Father.

1713. Next he shows the fruit of faith. First, he shows his own worth and power when he says, I have come a light into the world. It has already been explained how Christ is a light: he was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world (John 1:9), and I am the light of the world (John 8:12).

He also shows by this that he has the divine nature. For to be light is proper to God; others may give off light, that is participate in light, but God is light by essence: God is light and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). But because he dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen (1 Tim 6:16), we were unable to approach him. And so it was necessary that he come to us. This is what he says, I have come a light into the world, that is, I am the unapproachable light which rescues from error and disperses intellectual darkness: I came forth from the Father and have come into the world (John 16:28); he came unto his own (John 1:11). And although the apostles are called light, you are the light of the world (Matt 5:14), they are not light in the same way as Christ. For they are a light whose light has been given to them, even though in some way they also give light, that is, in their ministry. Furthermore, none of the apostles could truly say, I have come a light into the world, because when they came into the world they were still darkness and not light: we are wrapped in darkness (Job 37:19).

1714. Second, he continues, that whoever believes in me, may not remain in darkness. To become enlightened, therefore, is an effect of faith: he who follows me does not walk in darkness (John 8:12). May not remain in darkness: that is, the darkness of ignorance, of unbelief and eternal damnation. This shows that all are born in the darkness of sin: for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord (Eph 5:8). And in the darkness of ignorance: a man whose way is hidden and God has surrounded him with darkness (Job 3:23). And in the end, unless they turn to Christ, they will be brought to the darkness of eternal damnation. And so, he who does not believe in me remains in darkness: but he who does not believe in the Son will not see life; but the wrath of God rests on him (John 3:36).

1715. Then he discloses the punishment of unbelievers, and if any man hear my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him, which they will incur through their condemnation at the judgment.

First, he states that the judgment will be delayed;

second, that there will be a judgment in the future: he who despises me, and does not receive my words, has one that judges him;

and third, he shows the cause of the judgment; the word that I have spoken, the same will judge him in the last day.

About the first he does two things.

First, he expounds the love of judgment;

Second, he assigns the reason of judgment.

1716. As to the first he says, and if any man hear my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him.

Note that the ones to be beatified are those who hear the word of God and keep it, believing it within in their hearts, and doing it without in their actions. But they who hear it but take no care to keep it, become more guilty: for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified (Rom 2:13); but be doers of the word, and not hearers only (Jas 1:22). And so, and if any man hear my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him.

But this seems to conflict with what was said: the Father, has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22). Therefore, we should understand it as, I do not judge him at this time. It could be considered a weakness in him if he overlooked those who despised him. And so he says that such persons will be judged, although not now; for we read that God will bring every deed into judgment (Eccl 12:14), and flee from the face of iniquity, for the sword is the avenger of iniquity: and know that there is a judgment (Job 19:29).

1717. He continues with the reason for the delay, saying, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. Now the Son of God comes two times: one time he comes as Savior, and the next as Judge. But since all were in sin, if he had come the first time as Judge, he would have saved no one, because all were the children of wrath. And so it was fitting that he come first to save believers, and later to judge both believers and sinners. This is what he is saying: I do not judge now, for I came not, at this first time, to judge the world, but to save the world. As is said above, for God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17).

1718. Then when he says, he who despises me and does not receive my words, has one who judges him, he foretells the judgment to come. It is like saying: although those who do not keep my word are not judged now, they will not go unpunished, whoever they are, because, he who despises me and does not receive my words, by believing them and acting according to them, has one who judges him. The reason for this is that if one does not receive the word of Christ, he scorns the word of God, whose Word is Christ, just like the one who does not obey the command of his master. Flee from the face of iniquity; and know that there is a judgment (Job 19:29); for God will bring every deed into judgment (Eccl 12:14); woe to you who scorn. Will not you yourselves also be scorned? (Isa 33:1); they who despise me will be despised (1 Sam 2:30).

1719. Then when he says, the word that I have spoken, the same will judge him in the last day, he assigns the cause of the judgment. And

first, he mentions the cause of the judgment;

second, the adequacy of this cause: for I have not spoken of myself.

1720. He says: I say that such a person has one that judges him. But who will that judge be? He says, the word that I have spoken, the same will judge him in the last day. According to Augustine, this is the same as saying: I will judge him on the last day. For Christ revealed himself in his sayings, he announced himself. He, therefore, is the word that he spoke, for he spoke about himself: although I give testimony about myself, my testimony is true: for I know from where I came and to where I go (John 8:14). It is like saying: what I have said to them and what they have despised will judge them: he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:42).

1721. Then he shows the sufficiency of this cause, saying, for I have not spoken of myself.

So first he shows this from the origin of his sayings;

second, from their dignity or value: and I know that his commandment is life everlasting.

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he excludes a false notion:

second, he states the truth.

1722. The false notion, of course, is that the Son works, or says, or is, merely of himself, and not from another: for this would be to say that the Son is not from the Father. This is what he does say: I say that the word which I have spoken will judge them, for I have not spoken of myself. As is said above, the Son cannot do anything of himself (John 5:19); I speak not of myself (John 14:10). For I have not spoken of myself, is the same as I was not born of myself but from the Father. He is saying in effect, I will judge him on the last day, appearing in the form of a servant: he has given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of Man (John 5:27). Yet I will not judge from human authority, that is, because I am the Son of man, but from divine authority, because I am the Son of God. Therefore, I will not judge of myself, but from the Father from whom I have the authority to judge.

1723. He establishes the truth when he says, but the Father who sent, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. Unless this is appropriately understood, it can be the source of two errors.

The first is that since the one commanding is greater than the one commanded, the Father is greater than the Son. Second, since what is given to someone was not possessed by him before it was given, and so was not known by him, it seems that if the Father gave a commandment to the Son it follows that the Son at some time did not have it, and so did not know it. As a result, something has been added to the Son, and so the Son is not truly God.

In answer to this we should note that all the divine commands are in the mind of the Father, since these commands are nothing other than the plans or patterns of things to be done. And so just as the patterns of all creatures produced by God are in the mind of the Father, and are called ideas, so the patterns of all things to be done by us are in his mind. And just as the patterns of all things pass from the Father to the Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father, so also the patterns of all things to be done. Therefore, the Son says, the Father who sent me, he gave me, as God, commandment, that is, by an eternal generation he has communicated to me what I should say within and what I should speak without, just as what we say (if we speak the truth) makes known what is in our minds.

1724. Chrysostom explains all this differently, and more clearly. First of all: if any man hear my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him. Otherwise it can be explained plainly, if any man hear my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him. Now one is said to be condemned in two ways: either by a judge or by the reason for the condemnation. For a murderer is condemned to be hanged both by the judge who passes sentence and by the murder he committed, which is the reason for his condemnation. He says, I do not judge him, that is, I am not the reason for his condemnation, but he himself is: your destruction, O Israel is from yourself; your help is only in me (Hos 13:9). And the reason is: for I did not come to judge the world, that is, I was not sent to condemn but to save.

But will not such a person be judged? He certainly will, because he who despises me and does not receive my words, has one who judges him. He shows what that judge is when he says, the word that I have spoken, and you have heard, will be his accuser and the same will judge him in the last day. As said below, if I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin (John 15:22). He shows that the word that he spoke will judge them by saying, for I have not spoken of myself. This is not said causally, but in a material sense, so that the meaning is: you say that your word will judge. But what is that word? It is the word that I have spoken, for I have not spoken of myself; that is, it is the word from the Father that I have spoken, and what he gave me to say and speak. Otherwise, if I had spoken something in opposition to the Father, or something I had not received from the Father, and they had believed me, they would have an excuse. But because I have spoken as I have, it is certain that they have rejected not only me, but also my Father.

1725. According to this explanation, the statement, the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say and what I should speak, shows the sufficiency of the basis of the judgment because of the dignity or value of the word. First, its dignity is given; second, the fact that the word was spoken.

Its dignity is stated when he says, I know that his commandment is life everlasting. This is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20). For the Son himself is the commandment of the Father, that is, he is eternal life. If you would enter life, keep the commandments (Matt 19:17).

Therefore, because the Father has given me commandment, and this commandment is eternal life, and since I have come to lead men to eternal life, I accomplish the commandment of the Father in all that I do. This is what he is saying, the things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me. According to Chrysostom, whose explanation is clear, the meaning is: the things therefore that I speak, when preaching in public, even as the Father said unto me, that is, insofar as I have received knowledge from him, understanding this was received by Christ as man.

1726. But if, with Augustine, we understand this to apply to Christ as God, how can the Father say something to him, since Christ is his Word?

The answer is that the Father did not say anything to him as though he spoke by words to his only Word. Rather, the Father spoke to the Son by generating him, and giving him life in himself: he said to me: you are my Son (Ps 2:7).

The Last Supper Discourse

Beginning of the Last Supper

13:1 Before the festival day of the Pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end. [n. 1728]

13:2 And when supper was done, (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him,) [n. 1740]

13:3 knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and was going to God; [n. 1743]

1727. Above, the Evangelist set forth some of the events leading to Christ’s passion and death; in this part he shows how Christ prepared his disciples before his passion.

First, we see how he formed them by his example;

second, how he comforted them with his words, let not your hearts be troubled (John 14:1);

third, how he strengthened them by the help of his prayers, these things Jesus spoke, and lifting his eyes to heaven, he said (John 17:1).

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he presents the example Christ gave for his disciples to imitate;

and second we see the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet ready to follow him, when Jesus had said these things, he was troubled (John 13:21).

Concerning the first he does three things:

first, he sets forth the example;

second, he shows that the example was useful, he came therefore to Simon Peter (John 13:6);

third, we see Jesus asking them to imitate it, then after he had washed their feet . . . he said to them (John 13:12).

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he describes the love of Christ, who is giving the example;

second, the action in which he gave the example, and when supper was done.

Concerning the first he mentions three things:

first, the feast about to be celebrated;

second, the approaching death of Christ;

third, Christ’s burning love.

1728. The feast at hand was the Passover; so he says, now before the festival day of the Pasch.

Here we should note that some say the word ‘pascha’ comes from the Greek word for passion, and that this feast is called the Pascha because it is then that we celebrate the passion of our Lord. As a matter of fact, the word ‘pascha’ in Greek means to ‘suffer’. Yet the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word, ‘pesah’, which means a ‘passage’: it is the pesah, passage, or a passing over, of the Lord (Exod 12:11). This is the meaning the Evangelist gives it here because of two passings. The first was the passing of the angel striking down the first-born of the Egyptians and sparing the first-born of the Hebrews (Ex 12:12); and the other was the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea. So it was reasonable to call this feast the ‘pascha’. We can say that our Passover takes its meaning from both languages, Greek and Hebrew. For the passage of Christ from this world to the Father took place through his passion. He passed about doing good and healing all (Acts 10:38). Again, all of us who follow Christ have our own passage: either by reform and martyrdom, according to the saying, we have passed through fire and water and you have brought us to a place of refreshment (Ps 66:12); or by the desire of our mind aspiring to heavenly things: pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my fruits (Sir 24:19).

1729. This however is called festival day antonomastically. The Jews had three great feasts, when they gathered together in a place chosen by the Lord: the Pesah, when the lamb was sacrificed, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is, the Skenopegia (Exod 23:14). But the greatest feast was that of the Passover.

A problem arises as to why he says here, before the festival day of the Pasch, for the feast of the Passover is when the lamb was sacrificed, that is, on the 14th day of the month. So since he says, before the festival day of the Pasch, it seems that this was taking place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. And indeed, the Greeks accept this, and say that our Lord suffered on the 14th, when the Jews were supposed to celebrate the Passover, and that our Lord, knowing that his passion was near, anticipated the celebration of the Passover and celebrated his own Passover on the day before the Passover feast of the Jews. And because it is commanded in Exodus (12:18) that from the evening of the 14th day to the 21st day the Hebrews should not have any leavened bread, they further say that the Lord celebrated not with unleavened bread, but with leavened bread, for before the festival day of the Pasch, because Hebrews did have leavened bread on the 13th day, that is, before the Passover.

But the other three Evangelists do not agree with this, for they say the time was the first day of unleavened bread, when the lamb was to be sacrificed (Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7). It follows from this that our Lord’s supper took place on the very day that the Jews sacrificed the lamb.

1730. The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists did not report this truly; and so John, who wrote the last of the Gospels, corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is anything false not only in the Gospels but anywhere in the canonical Scriptures. Consequently, we have to say that all the Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree.

To elucidate this it should be noted that, the feasts of the Jews began on the evening of the preceding day (Lev 23:5). The reason for this was that they reckoned their days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening; so, they counted their days from one sunset to the next. Thus for them, the Passover began on the evening of the preceding day and ended on the evening of the day of the Passover. We celebrate feasts in the same way; so something that takes place with us on the vigil of Christmas is said to have happened on Christmas. And so the other Evangelists, using this way of speaking, said that the supper took place on the first day of unleavened bread, meaning it took place on the evening before the first full day of the feast of unleavened bread. But here, John the Evangelist regards the Passover as that entire daytime which was celebrated, but not as the evening before, which was also celebrated. Thus he says, before the festival day of the Pasch.

Consequently, it is clear that our Lord’s supper took place on the 14th day in the evening.

1731. The death of Christ, which was approaching, was his passage from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, Jesus knowing that his hour had come: for this feast was a symbol of the passion of Christ: all these things happened to them as symbols (1 Cor 10:11). So he at once mentions the reality, that is, the passion of Christ. And as a way of showing that the word ‘pascha’ came from ‘pesah’, meaning a passage, he mentions his passage, that he should pass out of this world to the Father.

1732. Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the passion of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; second, that it was fitting; third, it was a source of benefits and exaltation.

It was foreseen and not fortuitous; so he says, Jesus knowing. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly and willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him (John 18:4). The opposite is said of us: there is great affliction for man because he is ignorant of things past, and things to come he cannot know in any way (Eccl 8:7).

1733. The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its time; and as to this he says, that his hour had come, which was the time of the Passover, when his passage would be by the cross: there is a time and opportunity for every business (Eccl 8:6). This is the hour of which he said, my hour has not yet come (John 2:4). Yet this hour was not a matter of fate, as though governed by the course and arrangement of the stars; it was determined by the disposition and providence of God. I say, therefore, it was determined for the Jewish Passover because it was fitting to this Jewish feast that the reality follow the symbol, that is, that when the lamb, which was a symbol of Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who was truly the Lamb of God, should be immolated. You know that you were ransomed . . . not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot (1 Pet 1:18–19).

It was also fitting to the situation, for Christ was now glorified: now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him (John 13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the world: I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world (John 17:6). What remained, therefore, was to accomplish his passion and the work of human redemption, about which we read: it is consummated, followed by, and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit (John 19:30).

1734. The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and glory, not of defeat, because it was in order that he could that he should pass out of this world to the Father, by making his human nature a partaker in the glory of the Father: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God (John 20:17). This does not mean that he would pass from one place to another, since God the Father is not contained by any place: do I not fill heaven and earth? (Jer 23:24). Rather, just as Christ is said to have come from the Father, not by leaving him, but by assuming an inferior nature like our own, so he is said to have returned to the Father insofar as, even in his human nature, he became a sharer in the Father’s glory. The life he lives he lives to God (Rom 6:10); every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11).

1735. Then when he says, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end, he commends the intense love of Christ; and this on four points.

First, because his love was first, according to not that we have loved God, but that he has first loved us (1 John 4:10). And as to this he says, having loved his own, suggesting that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he created us: for you love all things that exist, and have loathing for none of the things which you have made (Wis 11:24). He loved us before he called us: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you (Jer 31:3). And he loved us before he redeemed us: greater love than this no man has, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).

1736. Second, his love is commended as fitting, because he loved them.

Here we should note that God loves persons in various ways, depending on the various ways they are Christ’s. Now, one can be his in three ways. First, by creation; and God loves these by conserving their goods of nature: he came unto his own, and his own, by creation, received him not (John 1:11). Others are his by dedication, that is, those given to him by God the Father through faith: yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word (John 17:6); and he loves these by preserving their goods of grace. Finally, some are his by a special devotion: behold, we are your bone and flesh (1 Chr 11:1); he loves these by consoling them in a special way.

1737. Third, Christ’s love is commended because it was needed, since having loved his own who were in the world. Those who were already in the glory of the Father are his, because even our fathers of long time past were his insofar as they hoped to be set free by him: all his holy ones are in his hand (Deut 33:3). But these do not need such love as this as much as those who were in the world; so he says, who were in the world, that is, in body, but not in mind.

1738. Fourth, his love is commended because it was perfect, so he says, he loved them to the end. Now there are two kind of ends: the end in the intention, and the end in execution. The end in intention is that to which our intention is directed; and this end ought to be eternal life, according to, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life (Rom 6:22). Again this end should be Christ: for Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified (Rom 10:4). But these two are really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying Christ in his divinity: now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3). From this point of view he says, he loved them unto the end, in order to lead them to himself, the end; or, to lead them to eternal life, which is the same thing. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you (Jer 31:3).

The end in execution is the terminus or outcome of a thing; so in this sense, death can be called an end. Thus he could say, he loved them unto the end, that is, up to death. Used in this way, it can have three meanings. The first, mentioned by Augustine, is a very human way, and means that Christ loved his own until he died, but then no longer. This meaning is false: for Christ, who was not ended by death, by no means ends his love at death. Another meaning would take the word unto as indicating a cause; and then it would mean, he loved them unto the end, that is, his love for them led him to death: he loved me and gave himself for me (Gal 2:20). A third meaning would be this: although Christ had already shown them many signs of his love, yet to the end, that is, at the time of his death, he showed them signs of a greater love: but I told you not these things from the beginning, because I was with you (John 16:4). He would be saying in effect: it was not necessary then to show you how much I loved you, but now that I am leaving it is, so that my love and the memory of me might be impressed more deeply into your hearts.

1739. Then when he says, when supper was done, he describes the act by which Christ gave his example.

First, he mentions the time of the action;

second, the dignity of the one acting: knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands (John 13:3);

third, his humility: he rose from supper (John 13:4).

He describes the time in two ways:

in one way, as the time of Christ’s love;

in another way, by emphasizing the sin of Judas: the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him.

1740. In regard to the first, he says, literally, when supper was done. Note that both things that are permanent and things that are successive are said to be done or made. A permanent thing is said to be done or made when it has come to the perfection of its proper species and form; thus a house is said to be done or made when it has proper form. But in something which is successive, it is said to be made or done when it is over or is finished; thus the world is said to have been made when it was completed. But even things like this can be said to be made or done when they receive their appropriate species.

So when he says here, literally, when supper was done, he does not mean it was finished and over with: for after Christ washed the feet of the disciples, he returned to his place and gave the morsel to Judas. When supper was done rather means that it was prepared and now brought to his own species: for the group had already begun to eat, and then Christ got up. Thus Christ washed the feet of the disciples during supper.

We read about such a supper in Luke, a man once gave a great supper (14:16). A breakfast and supper are different. What is given at the beginning of the day is called a breakfast, while what is given at its end is called supper. Likewise, that spiritual nourishment suitable for those beginning is called breakfast, while that nourishment appropriate for the advanced is more like a supper.

1741. Then when the Evangelist says, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him, he depicts the time by emphasizing the sin of the traitor. He mentions his sin for two reasons. First, the better to bring out the evil of Judas, who in spite of so many tokens of love and humble service, considered committing such a great sin: the Psalm says: even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me (Ps 41:9).

And second, the better to show the wonderful love of Christ who, although knowing this, treated him with love and humility by washing his feet: with those who hated peace I was peaceable (Ps 120:7).

1742. But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It seems he can, for a Psalm speaks of things sent by evil angels (Ps 77:49).

To explain this, we should note that what is in a person’s thought and will is said to be in his heart. So the statement, when the devil having now put into the heart of Judas, should be understood to refer to his will.

Understanding it the above way, there are two ways something can be put into our heart. First, directly; and in this way only one who has the power to move our will from within can put something into our heart. Only God can do this; consequently, he alone can directly move our will: the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand, in the power, of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will (Prov 21:10). But because the will is also moved by an external object, something apprehended as a good, it follows that anyone who brings to mind, or suggests that something is good is said to put something into our heart indirectly, by making us apprehend something as good, which in turn moves our will. This happens in two ways. By an external suggestion, and then one person can put something into another’s heart; or by an interior suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something into our heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical reality, is subject to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether we be awake or asleep, he forms in it certain images which, when apprehended, move our will to desire something. And so the devil puts something into our heart, not directly by moving our heart, but indirectly, by suggestion.

1743. Then, knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands (John 13:3), he considers the dignity of the one acting, for the greater you are, the more you must humble yourself (Sir 3:18). So the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ’s humility, treats first of his very great dignity because of his knowledge, and this is to the fourth.

First saying, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. For spiritual gifts are such that they are not unrecognized when given: now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God (1 Cor 2:12). Thus, Christ knew what had been given to him by God; and the Evangelist mentions this so Christ’s humility would be more admirable. For sometimes it happens that a person is of great dignity, yet because of his simplicity he does not realize it. If such a person were to do something humble, it would not be regarded as worthy of great praise: if you do not know yourself, O fairest among women (Song 1:8). But if someone does know his own dignity, and still his affections are inclined to what is humble, his humility should be praised. And this is why the Evangelist says, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands; and he still did not neglect to do what was humble.

Second, we see his dignity as to his power, because the Father had given all things into his hands, that is, into his power. God gave, in time, to Christ as man, what was in the power of the Son from eternity: all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me (Matt 28:18). He says, the Father had given all things into his hands, for two reasons. First, to show that Christ did not suffer against his will. For if all things were in his hands, that is, in his power, it is clear that his enemies could do nothing to him against his will. Second, because when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes proud; nor does he do anything humble, lest it seem to lessen his dignity. But when one of great dignity is honored, he does not neglect the humble things. And so Christ’s dignity is mentioned here.

Third, we see his dignity because of his nobility, when he says, that he had come from God and was going to God: living with God (Wis 8:3).

Fourth, his dignity because of his holiness, because he was going to God, for our holiness lies in our going to God. He mentions this because since Christ is going to God, it is special to him to lead others to God. This is done especially by humility and love; and so he offers them an example of humility and love.

The washing of the feet

13:4 He rose from supper, and laid aside his garments, and having taken a towel, girded himself. [n. 1745]

13:5 After that, he put water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. [n. 1747]

13:6 He came therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter said to him: Lord, do you wash my feet? [n. 1751]

13:7 Jesus answered, and said to him: what I do you know not now; but you will know hereafter. [n. 1756]

13:8 Peter said to him: you will never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: if I do not wash you, you will have no part with me. [n. 1757]

13:9 Simon Peter said to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. [n. 1761]

13:10 Jesus said to him: he who has washed, needs not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all. [n. 1763]

13:11 For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: you are not all clean. [n. 1767]

1744. After showing the dignity of Christ, the Evangelist now commends his humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of the disciples.

First, the Evangelist mentions Christ’s preparation for this humble task;

second, the service itself: after that, he put water into a basin.

1745. In regard to the first, we should note that in performing this humble task, Christ shows himself a servant: the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28).

Now three things are necessary for a good servant. First, he should be careful to notice anything that might be lacking in his service; and this would be hampered if he were sitting or lying down. Thus servants stand. So he says, Christ rose from supper: for which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves (Luke 22:27). Second, a servant should not be encumbered, so he can do everything necessary to his service. And since too much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord laid aside his garments. This is signified in Genesis when Abraham chooses unencumbered men of his house (Gen 17:23). Third, a good servant is prepared, having at hand everything which he needs. We read that Martha was distracted with much serving (Luke 10:40). So our Lord, having taken a towel, girded himself, so he would be ready not just to wash their feet, but to dry them as well. And since he who had come from God and was going to God is now washing the feet of others, he is treading under foot the universal tendency to pride.

1746. As to its mystical meaning, this action can be referred to two things: the incarnation of Christ and his passion.

If it is referred to his incarnation, it tells us three things about Christ. First, he was willing to help the human race, indicated by the fact that he rose from supper. For God seems to be sitting down as long as he allows us to be troubled; but when he rescues us from it, he seems to rise: rise up, come to our help (Ps 43:26). Second, it indicates that he emptied himself: not that he abandoned his great dignity, but he hid it by taking on our smallness: truly, you are a God who hides yourself (Isa 45:15). This is shown by the fact that he laid aside his garments: he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:7). Third, the fact that he girded himself with a towel indicates that he took on our mortality: taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil 2:7).

If this event is referred to the passion of Christ, then he literally set aside his garments when the soldiers stripped him: for my vesture they cast lots (John 19:24). And he was girded with a towel in the tomb. And also in his passion he laid aside the garments of our mortality and put on a towel, that is, the splendor of immortality: Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him (Rom 6:9).

1747. Then when the Evangelist says, then he put water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, he describes Christ’s service, and shows his admirable humility in three ways. First, as to what kind of service it was, for it was very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped down to wash the feet of his servants. Second, as to the number of things he did, for he put water into the basin, washed their feet, and then dried them. Third, as to the way it was done: for Christ did not do it through others or with their help, but by himself. The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself (Sir 3:18).

1748. As for the mystical meaning, three things can be gathered from these events. First, the pouring out of Christ’s blood on the earth is indicated by his pouring water into the basin. For the blood of Jesus can be called water because it has the power to cleanse: he washed us from our sins in his own blood (Rev 1:4). And so blood and water came out of his side at the same time to show us that his blood washes away sins. Or, water can indicate the passion of Christ, for in Scripture water signifies tribulations: save me O God! For the waters, that is, tribulations, have come up to my soul (Ps 69:1). Therefore, he put water into a basin, that is, he impressed the memory of his passion on the minds of the faithful by their faith and devotion: remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall! (Lam 3:19).

1749. Second, when he says, and began to wash, it indicates our human imperfection. For after Christ, the apostles were more perfect than others, and yet even they needed to be washed, since they were unclean to some degree. We can understand by this that no matter how perfect a person may be, he acquires some uncleanness, and still needs to become more perfect: who can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin? (Prov 20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. But others are not only unclean in their feet, they are stained all over. For those who lie down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all over; thus, those who cling entirely to the love of earthly things, both in their affections and their senses, are entirely unclean. But those who stand, that is, tend to heavenly things in mind and desire, become unclean only on their feet. For just as a person who is standing must at least touch the earth with his feet, so we, as long as we live this mortal life which needs earthly things to sustain the body, acquire some uncleanness, at least because of our sensuality. Thus our Lord told the disciples to shake the dust from their feet (Luke 9:5). The Evangelist says that Christ began to wash, because the cleansing of our earthly affections begins here and is completed in the future. Then the words of Isaiah will be fulfilled: it will be called the Holy Way (Isa 35:8).

Note that, according to Origen, our Lord began to wash the feet of his disciples right before his passion, for if he had washed them a long time before, they would have become dirty again. So he began to wash them a short time before he would wash the apostles with the water of the Holy Spirit, after his passion: before many days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Act 1:5).

In short, when our Lord put water into the basin, this indicated the pouring out of his blood; and when he began to wash the feet of his apostles, this indicated the cleansing of our sins.

1750. Third, we have indicated the fact that Christ took upon himself our punishments; for he not only cleansed us from our stains, but took upon himself the punishments they deserved. For our own punishments and penance would not be enough unless they were founded on the merits and power of Christ’s passion. This is shown by the fact that he wiped the feet of his disciples with his towel, that is, his body (1 Pet 2:21).

1751. Then when the Evangelist says, he came therefore to Simon Peter, he shows the example was beneficial by means of an encounter between the Teacher and the disciple. In this encounter our Lord shows that this example

first, is both a mystery and necessary: Peter said to him: you will never wash my feet;

and second, that it is appropriate: Simon Peter said to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.

As to the first, the Evangelist does two things.

First, he mentions the circumstances for Christ’s speaking;

second, what Christ said: Jesus answered, and said to him.

1752. The occasion for Christ’s words was the refusal of Peter to allow this example of humility; he says, he came therefore to Simon Peter.

There are three explanations for this. According to Origen, our Lord began to wash their feet by beginning with the last. The reason for this was that just as a doctor who must care for a number of sick begins with those who need it more, so too Christ, when he washed the grimy feet of his disciples, began with the dirtiest, and then came to Peter, who needed it less than the others: beginning with the last, up to the first (Matt 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this: for Christ began to wash the feet of the disciples, and then he follows this with, he came therefore to Simon Peter. It seems from this that Jesus washed the feet of the others first.

1753. If you ask why Peter was the first to object, Origen replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for Christ. The other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, and so complied without question to everything he did. But Peter, more aflame with love, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? . . . Yes Lord, you know that I love you (John 21:15), and taking confidence from this love, refuses to comply and asks to know why: a true friend will act as your equal and assume authority in your household (Sir 6:11). This is why in Scripture Peter often asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what he thinks is best.

1754. The second explanation is by Chrysostom. He says that Christ was ready to start with the first of the apostles, but Judas, the betrayer, in his foolishness and pride, pushed ahead of Peter. None of the others would have dared to go ahead of Peter. Thus the Evangelist is speaking of Judas when he says, he began to wash the feet of the disciples, that is, the feet of Judas, who, as proud and foolish, would make no objection or refuse to allow what our Lord did. But when he came to Peter, who revered and loved his Teacher, Peter refused with awe and asked for an explanation. And any of the others would have done the same.

1755. The third explanation is by Augustine. He says the words of the Evangelist do not show that our Lord first washed the feet of the other disciples and then came to Peter. Rather, according to his custom, the Evangelist first mentions the incident and after that gives the order of events within in, just as he did in Chapter 6. So he first mentions the entire incident, that is, Christ washed the feet of his disciples; and then, if we should ask how this was done, he says that he came first to Simon Peter. And so he was the first to refuse, saying, Lord, do you wash my feet?

These words have great depth. He says, Lord, do you, who are the Son of the living God, wash my feet, who am Simon, the son of Jonah? Lord, do you, the Lamb without spot, the mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, wash my feet, who am a sinner? Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord (Luke 5:8). Lord, do you, who are the Creator, wash my feet, I who am a creature and of little faith? Peter said these things struck by awe at the realization of the dignity of Christ, as in I have considered your works, and have feared (Hab 1:3).

1756. Then: Jesus answered, and said to him; we see the words of Christ, which show that this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: what I do you know not now; but you will know hereafter. This action is both an example and a mystery. It is an example of humility to be practiced: for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also (John 13:15) And it is a mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: he who has washed, need not but to wash his feet, but is wholly clean.

So what Christ said can be understood in two ways. In one way, what I do you know not now, that is, you do not now understand that what I am doing is an example; but you will know hereafter, when he explained it to them saying: do you know what I have done to you? In another way, what I do you know not now; that is to say, this is a mystery and something hidden, and it signifies an interior cleansing which only I can accomplish, and which you do not understand now, but you will know hereafter, when you receive the Holy Spirit: I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all the truth (John 16:12–13).

1757. Next, Peter said to him, he shows that this action is necessary.

First, the Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ’s answer;

second, we see what Christ said.

1758. Peter says, you will never wash my feet. He is saying in effect: by no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord and my God. And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and disordered zeal: they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened (Rom 10:2).

His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was beneficial and necessary; for as we read: we do not know how to pray as we ought (Rom 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what God gives us, even if it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to be freed from his thorn (2 Cor 12:8), yet it was for his benefit. Again, it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, you will never wash my feet.

1759. Our Lord reproved him, saying, if I do not wash you, you will have no part with me. This statement can refer to two things: to the action that Christ was performing, or to what the action signified.

If we refer it to what the action signified, the meaning is clear. For no one can share in the eternal inheritance and be a joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for we read: but nothing unclean will enter it (Rev 21:27); O Lord, who will sojourn in thy tent? (Ps 15:1). And the answer is given: he who walks blamelessly. Therefore, it is like he was saying: if I do not wash you, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, you will have no part with me.

But if we refer this statement to the action itself, then it can be asked if this washing was necessary for salvation. We can say to this that just as some things are forbidden because they are evil, and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some things are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are necessary because they are commanded. And so this washing, about which our Lord said, if I do not wash you, you will have no part with me, if considered in itself, was not necessary for salvation. But on the supposition that it was commanded by Christ, then it was necessary: to obey is better than sacrifice, and so stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (1 Sam 15:22–23).

1760. Then the Evangelist shows the action was appropriate.

First, the words of Peter are given;

and then Christ’s answer.

1761. Peter’s words indicate his intense love for Christ. Before, when our Lord said to him, what I do you know not now, he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid no attention to this, and could not be persuaded to have his feet washed. But when our Lord warned him it would mean they would no longer be together, saying, you have no part in me, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head! For Peter was frightened by this answer, and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself for washing. Clement tells us in his Itinerary that Peter was so touched by the physical presence of Christ, whom he had loved so intensely, that after the ascension, when he recalled the sweetness of Christ’s presence, and his holy manner, he wept so much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed.

1762. Note that there are three things in a person: the head at the top, the feet at the bottom, and the hands in the middle. The same is true for the inner person, that is, for the soul. There is the head, which is the higher reason, by which the soul adheres to God. The head of a woman is her husband (1 Cor 4:4), that is, the higher reason. The hands are the lower reason, which is concerned with the works of the active life. Finally, the feet are the sensuality. Now our Lord knew that his disciples were clean as to their head, because they had been united to God by faith and charity; and their hands were clean because their works were holy. But as to their feet, they still retained some affection for earthly things in their sensuality. And so Peter, anxious because of our Lord’s warning, agrees not only to have his feet washed, but also his hands and head, saying, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. It was like saying: I do not know if my hands and feet need washing, I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted (1 Cor 4:4). So I am ready to wash not only my feet, that is, my lower affections, I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them? (Song 5:3), but also my hands, that is, my works, I will wash my hands among the innocent (Ps 25: 6), and my head, that is, my higher reason, wash your face (Matt 6:17).

1763. Then, the Evangelist gives our Lord’s answer: Jesus said to him.

First, our Lord states a general principle;

second, he applies it to this situation, and you are clean, but not all;

and third, the Evangelist explains these words of Christ, for he knew who he was who would betray him.

1764. He says at first, he who has washed, needs not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly, except for his feet, which touch the earth. We understand from this that the apostles had already been baptized. For he says, he who has bathed, and then adds, and you are clean, that is, because they had been baptized.

1765. Some say they had been baptized only with the baptism of John. But this does not seem to be true, because then they would not have bathed, because the baptism of John did not cleanse within from guilt. And so it should be said, according to Augustine, that they had been baptized with the baptism of Christ.

If you object that Christ did not baptize but only his disciples, as was stated above, I say that he did not baptize the crowds, but only his disciples and those he knew well (John 4:2).

But since baptism cleanses even the stains from the feet, it seems that one who has bathed, that is, is baptized, does not need to wash his feet.

1766. Then when he says, you are clean, but not all of you, our Lord applies this general principle to the situation.

But if they were clean, why did our Lord wash them again? Augustine says their hands and heads were clean, but that their feet needed washing. Chrysostom says that they were not absolutely clean, because they had not yet been cleansed from original sin: for since Christ had not yet suffered, the price of our redemption had not yet been paid, but they were clean in a limited sense, that is, from the errors of the Jews. Origen says that they were clean, but that a further cleansing was needed, for reason should always aspire to better gifts, always strive for the heights of virtue, and glow with the brightness of righteousness: he who is holy, let him be sanctified further (Rev 22:11). But not all of you, because one of them was dirty both in hands and head.

1767. This is why the Evangelist says, for he knew who was to betray him. He is saying that Christ said, but not all of you, because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. In general, there are two things which cleans a person: alms and compassion for the poor, give alms and then all things are clean for you (Luke 11:41), and love for God, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much (Luke 7:47); love covers all offenses (Prov 10:12). But Judas lacks these two things. He lacked compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money, he stole the alms of the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the devil had already put it into this heart to betray Christ to the chief priests to be crucified.

Christ the example

13:12 Then after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, being set down again, he said to them: do you know what I have done to you? [n. 1769]

13:13 You call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am. [n. 1774]

13:14 If then I being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another’s feet. [n. 1778]

13:15 For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also. [n. 1780]

13:16 Amen, amen I say to you: the servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he who sent him. [n. 1782]

13:17 If you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. [n. 1784]

13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen. But that the scripture may be fulfilled: he who ate bread with me, will lift up his heel against me. [n. 1786]

13:19 At present I tell you, before it comes to pass: that when it comes to pass, you may believe that I am he. [n. 1792]

13:20 Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me. [n. 1793]

1768. After our Lord showed that his humble service was necessary, he then urges that it be imitated.

First, the Evangelist describes the circumstances of this exhortation;

second, he mentions the exhortation itself: do you know what I have done to you?

Concerning the first he does two things:

first, he mentions the sequence in this exhortation;

second, he describes the one giving the exhortation: then after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments.

1769. The sequence found in this exhortation is that Christ later taught in words what he had first done by his actions. In regard to this he says, then after he had washed their feet and taken his garments, being set down again: Jesus began to do and teach (Acts 1:1): he who does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:19).

1770. He describes the one giving the exhortation by his clothing and posture. As to his clothing, different clothing is suitable to different people depending on the different activities appropriate to each: a man’s attire . . . shows what he is (Sir 19:30). One sort of attire is suitable for a servant, and another for a teacher. Now because a servant must be ready to serve, he does not have any superfluous clothing; and so Christ, when he wished to serve, rose from supper, laid aside his garments (John 13:4). And a teacher, who should be serious and of great authority, ought also to be suitably dressed. Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had taken his garments. As to his posture: when Christ began to serve he rose; he says that Christ rose from supper. But now, about to teach, he reclines; he says, being set down again, he said to them. The reason for this is that teaching should be done in an atmosphere of serenity, and it is by sitting and being quiet that the soul becomes wise and discerning.

1771. Three events here are able to indicate mysteries. When Christ sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples he will be giving them complete teaching: but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:26).

But three things are to take place before the Spirit is sent. First, their sins are to be washed away by his passion: he washed us from our sins in his own blood (Rev 1:5). In reference to this he says, when he had washed their feet, that is, completely cleansed them by his blood. Second, there is the resurrection of Christ. Christ had a mortal body before his passion, but he was not mortal because he was, as a person, the Son of God; his mortality was due to the human nature he assumed. But after he rose from the dead by the power of his divinity, he took on bodily immortality. And in reference to this he says, he had taken his garments, that is, he arose immortal. He says his garments because he did this by his own power: the life he lives he lives to God, that is, by the power of God (Rom 6:10). We read of these garments: he who conquers will be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life (Rev 3:5). Also, before the Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated after his ascension: if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you (John 16:7). And referring to this he says, and being set down again, that is, remaining and sitting at the right hand of the Father: the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into the heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19). He says, again, not because as the Son of God he had ever ceased to sit with the Father, for he is in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, but because as man he was raised to the greater goods of the Father: therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name (Phil 2:9).

And so, before sending into them the Holy Spirit, who would perfectly teach them, Christ would wash them with the blood he shed; take up his garments by rising; and resume his place by ascending in glory.

1772. Next, he gives his exhortation: know you what I have done to you?

First, he asks a question;

second, he accepts their acknowledgement;

third, he draws a conclusion from this;

fourth, he confirms this conclusion.

1773. Christ questions them when he says, do you know what I have done to you? This means: you have seen what I have done, but you do not know why I did it. And he asks them in this way in order to show the greatness of his action and to prompt them to reflect on it. For we should meditate on the works of God because they are profound: how great are thy works, O Lord! Thy thoughts are very deep (Ps 92:5). We can barely know the works of God: then I saw all the works of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun (Eccl 8:17). Yet it is still a delight to think about them: for you O Lord, have made me glad by your work; at the work of your hands I sing for joy (Ps 92:4). Further, these works are helpful, because they lead us to a knowledge of their author: for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator (Wis 13:5); the works themselves which I do, give testimony about me, that the Father has sent me (John 5:36).

According to Origen, this statement can be rendered as, know what I have done to you. In this way, it has an imperative sense, as if Christ were saying: you ought to understand what I have done to you. In this interpretation our Lord said this to rouse their understanding.

1774. Our Lord accepts their acknowledgment, you call me Master and Lord.

He mentions what they acknowledge;

and then he approves of it, and you say well.

1775. As to the first, we should note that in Corinthians, the Apostle says two things about Christ: he is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24). As the power of God, he rules all things, for as Ambrose says, the word ‘Lord’ is a name of power. As the wisdom of God he teaches everyone. Thus the disciples called him, as above, Lord, to whom shall we go? (John 6:69); Rabbi, eat (John 4:31). And with good reason. For he is the Lord, who alone creates and restores: know that the Lord is God! (Ps 100:3). And he is the only Teacher who teaches from within: you have one master, the Christ (Matt 23:10).

1776. When he says, and you say well, he approves their acknowledgement.

Here we should note that something which is spoken can be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is in harmony with the thing about which it is said; and this happens if what is said is true, for if it is false, it does not harmonize with the thing. So it is well said: therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth (Eph 4:25). For lies must be avoided to such an extent that even if it seems that they lead to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to this point he says, and you say well; because what you say is true, for it applies to me, for so I am, Teacher and Lord. I am the Teacher because of the wisdom I teach by my words; I am the Lord because of the power I show in my miracles.

Second, what is spoken can be commendable because it is in harmony with the person speaking. There are some who call Christ Teacher and Lord, but it is not in harmony with themselves, for they do not defer to the teaching and commands of God; and such people do not speak rightly. So to those who say, Lord, Lord, open to us, the answer is given, truly, I say to you, I do not know you (Matt 25:11), because they are not speaking from their hearts, but only with their lips. But the apostles spoke rightly, because it was in agreement with themselves. And so Christ replied, and you say well, that is, you are speaking the truth, for so I am, that is, for you I am the Teacher and the Lord, for you listen to me as Teacher: to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (John 6:69), and you follow me as Lord: lo, we have left everything and followed you (Matt 19:27).

1777. This seems to conflict with the statement in Proverbs: let another praise you, and not your own mouth (Prov 27:2). It seems, therefore, that it was not right for our Lord to praise himself.

Augustine answers this in two ways. First, it is wrong for a person to commend himself because of the danger of becoming proud: because if one is inclined to pride, it is dangerous for him to be pleased with himself. When there is no danger of pride, self-praise is not wrong. This danger was not to be feared in Christ, for if one is above everything, then no matter how much he praises himself, he does not commend himself too much. And in another way it is praiseworthy for a man to commend himself when it is useful for the faithful, as when the Apostle commends himself (2 Cor 11).

Now for us to know God is very beneficial and necessary in every way, for our entire perfection lies in this. Thus it was a benefit for us that he reveal his greatness to us, for how could we know it if it were not shown to us by the one who knows. Thus it was necessary that Christ commend himself to us, for as Augustine says, if he did not praise himself in order to avoid seeming arrogant, he would be depriving us of wisdom: wisdom will praise herself (Sir 24:1).

1778. He draws the conclusion when he says, if I then being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another’s feet. He is arguing here from what is less to what is more. For it seems less that one who is greater humble himself than one who is not as great. And with this in mind he concludes, if I then, who am greater, because I am your Teacher and Lord, have washed your feet, then you who are not as great, because you are disciples and servants, ought, far more than I, to wash one another’s feet: whoever would be great among you must be your servant . . . even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve (Matt 20:26).

1779. It seems that the statement, you ought to wash one another’s feet, is a precept. And one who neglects a precept sins in a serious way.

When feet are washed, their stains are washed away. So we wash the feet of our neighbors in a spiritual way when, as far as we can, we wash away their moral stains. This is done in three ways. The first way is by forgiving their offenses, as in and if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive (Col 3:13). Another way is by praying because of their sins, according to pray for one another, that you may be healed (Jas 5:16). These two kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful. The third way belongs to prelates, who ought to wash by forgiving sins by the power of the keys: receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you will forgive, they are forgiven them (John 20:22).

We can also say that by this action our Lord pointed out all the works of mercy. For one who gives bread to the hungry washes his feet, as does one who practices hospitality, and one who clothes the naked; and so on for the other works. Contribute to the needs of the saints (Rom 12:13).

1780. He supports his conclusion in four ways, for I have given you an example:

first, by his intention;

second, by his authority: amen, amen I say to you;

third, by the reward due this action: if you know these things, you willl be blessed if you do them;

and fourth, by the dignity of those whose feet he washed: amen, amen I say to you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me.

1781. He said the reason I did this was to give you an example; so you also ought to wash one another’s feet, because that was what I intended by this action. For when we are dealing with the conduct of people, example has more influence than words. A person chooses and does what seems good to him, and so what one chooses is a better indication of what is good than what one teaches should be chosen. This is why when someone says one thing and does another, what he does has more influence on others than what he has taught. Thus it is especially necessary to give example by one’s actions.

Now the example of a mere human being would not be adequate for the entire human race to imitate, both because human reason cannot take everything into account, and it does err in what it does take into account. And so there was given to us the example of the Son of God, which cannot be in error and is adequate for all situations. Thus Augustine says: pride is not healed if it is not healed by the divine humility; and the same is true of avarice and the other vices.

Note that the Son of God is a fitting and sufficient example for us. For he is the art of the Father, and just as he was the model or pattern for every thing created, so he was the model for our justification: Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps (1 Pet 2:21); my foot has held fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned aside (Job 23:11).

1782. Then when he says, amen, amen, I say to you, the servant is not greater than his lord, he strengthens his conclusion by his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples; second, the work they do.

Then the status of the disciples is that they are servants: so you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say: we are unworthy servants (Luke 17:10).

The work they have to do is to be apostles; an apostle is one who is sent: he . . . chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles (Luke 6:13). So he says: I say that you also ought to wash one another’s feet as I have washed yours, because a servant is not greater than his lord, and this refers to their status, neither is the apostle greater than he who sent him. Although the Son of God was sent to us (Heb 3:1), and he is equal to the one who sent him, that is, the Father, yet it is true of all others that he who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him, neither is the apostle greater than he who sent him

1783. This seems to contradict what our Lord said to his disciples: I will not now call you servants, for the servant does not know what his lord does (John 15:15).

1784. When he says, if you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward.

First, he mentions the reward;

second, he excludes someone from it: I speak not of you all.

1785. He says if you know these things, which is like saying, you say to us what we do not know. Why do you speak to us? Therefore, I say, that, if you know these things, which many do know, you will be blessed if you do them, which is true of few.

He says, know and do because we read: blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Luke 11:28); and a good understanding have all those who practice it (Ps 111:10). On the other hand, whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin (Jas 4:17).

1786. He excludes someone when he says, I speak not of you all.

First, he says there is an exception;

second, he gives the reason for the exception: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled;

Third, he tells why he said there was an exception: at present I tell you, before it comes to pass.

He does two things about the first:

he mentions there is an exception;

he answers an unspoken question.

1787. He says there is an exception when he says, I speak not of you all. He is saying in effect: you will be blessed, but not all of you, because I speak not of you all when I say you will be blessed: all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize (1 Cor 9:24). For there is one of you, that is, Judas, who will not be blessed, and he will not do these things. According to Origen, our Lord did not say you will be blessed, without qualification; but he added a condition, if you do them. And this is true for all of them, even Judas; for if Judas had done these things, he would have been blessed. So for Origen, Jesus is excluding Judas from his servants, a servant is not greater than his master. It was like saying: I say you are servants and apostles, but I speak not of you all: for Judas, since he was a servant of sin, was not a servant of the divine Word, nor was he an apostle once the devil had entered into his heart.

1788. Someone could say: since Christ does not say that all are blessed or his apostles, then some member of his group might perish unexpectedly. Our Lord answers this saying, I know whom I have chosen. This was like saying: those who have been chosen will not perish; but not all have been chosen. So, the one who will perish will be the one who has not been chosen, that is, Judas: you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (John 15:16).

1789. This seems to conflict with his earlier statement: have I not chosen you twelve? (John 6:71). Therefore, since Judas was one of the twelve, it seems that he was chosen.

1790. The reason for this exception was so that the Scripture may be fulfilled, not that Scripture forced the event, but it did mention an event that would happen: everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44); not an iota, nor a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished (Matt 5:18). This Scripture says: he who ate bread with me, will lift up his heel against me. This is another translation of what we have read as: the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has greatly deceived me (Ps 41:9).

The intimacy Judas had with Christ is shown when we read, he who ate bread with me: for Judas, along with the other disciples, ate bread with Christ, even consecrated bread. Further, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when it says, will lift up his heel against me; that is, he will try to crush me. And we do crush our enemies under our heel: she will crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel (Gen 3:15). And so one is said to raise his heel against another when he tries to crush him. But Judas will not be able to do this, because I will be exalted by the very thing with which he wants to crush me: and I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself (John 12:32).

1791. We have an example in this for ourselves: let us not be set back if we happen to suffer evil from those close to us or from the malicious, since we can remember the conduct of Judas who, in spite of having received unlimited goods, returned the contrary to his benefactor. Our Lord chose Judas, whom he knew would become an evil person, so that we could realize that there would be no human society which does not have some evil members: as a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens (Song 2:2). And in one of his letters Augustine says: I do not care to assume that my household is better than the group of the apostles. We can also understand from this that if a prelate receives someone into the Church, and this person becomes bad, the prelate should not be blamed. Look at Judas! Even though he was chosen by Christ he turned out to be a traitor. The same thing happened to Philip when he received Simon the magician (Acts 8:13): will they repay good with evil, by making a snare to take my life? (Jer 18:20); a man’s foes will be those of his own household (Matt 10:36).

1792. Then when he says, at present I tell you, he gives the reason why he mentioned there was an exception. As if to say: I have been silent about his malice for a long time, but because the time is near when it will appear publicly, therefore, at present I tell you, before it comes to pass, that when comes to pass, you may believe that I am he who predicts the future and reveals the secrets of the heart: things which are characteristic of God. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? ‘I the Lord search the mind and try the heart’ (Jer 17:9); tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods (Isa 41:23). Or, I am who am (Exod 3:14).

1793. Next, when he says: amen, amen I say to you, he who receives whomsever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me, he confirms his conclusion from the dignity of those whose feet he washed. For their dignity was so great that services performed for them seemed in a way to rebound to God, although according to a certain progression: because things done for the faithful through Christ rebound to God the Father.

First, he shows how those things done for the disciples of Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this he says, amen, amen, I say to you. He is saying in effect: truly, you ought to wash their feet, because he who receives whomever I send receives me, that is, I regard as done to me the service given to those whom I send: he who receives you receives me (Matt 10:41).

Second, he shows how a service given to Christ rebounds to the Father, saying, he who . . . receives me receives him who sent me: that all men may honor the Son, as they honor the Father (John 5:23).

However, according to Origen, this verse can be understood in two ways. In one way by compressing the two parts into one, and then the sense is: he who receives those sent by me also receives the Father. The second way keeps the parts distinct, and then the meaning is: he who receives, that is, in a physical way, those sent by me, receives me; and those who receive me, that is, coming into their souls in a spiritual way, as in that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Eph 3:17), receives him who sent me, the Father. Not only will I dwell in him, but the Father will also: we will come to him, and make our abode with him (John 14:23).

1794. Arius used this text in the following way to help support his own error: the Lord says that he who receives him receives the Father; and so the relationship between the Father who sends and the Son is the same as that of the Son who sends and the disciples. But Christ who sends is greater than the disciples who are sent; thus, the Father is greater than the Son.

We should answer this, according to Augustine, by saying that there were two natures in Christ, a human and a divine nature. In the first part he is speaking with reference to his human nature, saying, he who receives whomever I send receives me, as human, for I share with them in one nature. In the second part he speaks in reference to his divinity: he who receives me, who am God, receives him who sent me, for I have the same nature as him. Or: he who receives, we could understand it to mean, whomever, whom I send, receives me, for my authority is in him; and he who receives me receives the Father, whose authority is in me. In this way, these words show that Christ is the bridge between God and humankind, as in there is one mediator between God and the men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5).

Prophecy of Judas’s betrayal

13:21 When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: amen, amen I say to you, one of you will betray me. [n. 1796]

13:22 The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. [n. 1800]

13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. [n. 1802]

13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: who is it of whom he speaks? [n. 1805]

13:25 He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, said to him: Lord, who is it? [n. 1807]

13:26 Jesus answered: it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. [n. 1808]

13:27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: that which you do, do quickly. [n. 1810]

1795. Above, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave to his disciples to imitate. Here he shows the failure of the disciples who were not yet ready to follow him; a failure which Christ predicted.

First, we see the failure of the disciple who betrayed him;

second, of the disciple who denied him: Simon Peter said to him: Lord, where do you go? (John 13:36).

Two things are done with the first:

one of the disciples is said to be a betrayer;

second, we see him leave the supper, when he was therefore gone out, Jesus said (John 13:31).

Two things are done concerning the first:

the betrayal is predicted;

then we see it beginning to be executed: that which you do, do quickly.

Two things are done about the first:

the crime of the traitor is foretold;

second, the traitor is identified: the disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.

1796. Two things are done about the first: the emotions of the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; second, the event predicted is mentioned.

The one foretelling the betrayal is Christ, and he is troubled. As to this the Evangelist says, when Jesus had said these things, inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the disciple who was to betray him and he was troubled in spirit.

Here we should note that to be troubled is to be disturbed. This is shown by an event mentioned before: and an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond (John 5:4); the infirm man answered him: sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond (John 5:6). Here it is the same thing for water to be disturbed or troubled. We also say the sea is troubled when it is disturbed. And so to say that a soul is troubled is to say that it is disturbed.Now there are some acts of the soul which do not involve a disturbance in the body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of the sensory appetite do involve some bodily disturbance; and so the affections of the sensory appetite are called passions. Now among all the affections or passions of the sensory appetite, sadness involves the most disturbance. While pleasure, since it implies a rest in a good which is possessed, has more the character of rest than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with an evil to come in the future, has less disturbance than sadness, which involves an evil which is present. This is why one who is afflicted with sadness is especially said to be troubled. So Christ was troubled, that is, he was sad.

1797. We can recall here that there have been philosophers, the Stoics, who said that those who are wise are not troubled this way or by such passions. For although they admit that one who is wise may have fear, or joy or desire, such a one is never sad. It is clear that this is false because Jesus, who is the highest Wisdom, was troubled.

Note that one can be troubled in two ways. Sometimes it comes from the flesh, which means that one is troubled because of some apprehension by the senses, but independently of the judgment of reason. Yet sometimes this can remain within the limits of reason and not cloud one’s reason; in this case, Jerome would call it a ‘propassion’. This can happen in one who is wise. At other times, this can go beyond the limits of reason and trouble reason. This is not found in the wise. Another disturbance is that which proceeds from reason, insofar as from the judgment and deliberation of reason the sensitive appetite is disturbed. And this disturbance was in Christ, whence significantly the Evangelist says, troubled in spirit, that is, there was a disturbance in the sensitive appetite in Christ from the judgment of reason. Whence, above he says troubled himself (John 11:33). For in Christ, all deliberation of reason comes forth also in the inferior sensitive appetite: whence neither are the sudden motion of the sensuality in Christ.

1798. Jesus willed to be troubled at this time for two reasons. First, in order to instruct us in the faith. For suffering and death, which human nature naturally shuns, were drawing near to him; and when he realized this, he became sad because they were harmful and evil for him. And so he willed, by a judgment of reason, to be troubled even in his soul, to show us that he had a real human nature. This excludes the error of Apollinaris who said that Christ did not have a soul, but the Word took its place.

Second, he did this to aid our own progress. According to Augustine, he saw that the traitor was about to leave and return with the Jews who wanted to capture him. By this action, Judas was severed from the society of the saints and drew down a sentence of death upon himself. And because Jesus loved him, this made him sad. This gives an example to superiors that if now and then they have to pass a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with a sad heart, according to let a good man strike or rebuke me in kindness (Ps 141:5). For when Jesus decided to reveal the treachery of Judas to the others, he was troubled in spirit and testified, to show he was not ignorant of his betrayal, and said, amen, amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.

1799. He is careful to say, one of you, i.e., one of those chosen for this holy society, so that we might understand that there would never be a society so holy that it would be without sinners and those who are evil: now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

He said one of them, not two or several, so it would not seem that he was reproving the whole group rather than the traitor in the group. For we should not think a group bad because one member is bad; although if several are bad, the group could be considered bad. He said, one of you, that is, one of your number, not one of you in merit or one in spirit: they went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us (1 John 2:19). One of you will betray me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.

1800. Next, the traitor is privately identified: the disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.

First, the occasions for this are mentioned;

second, the traitor is identified: Jesus answered: it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it;

third, we see the effect of his identification: and after the morsel, satan entered into him.

There were two occasions for his identification: one was the uncertainty of the disciples, and the other was a question asked by one of the disciples.

First, John mentions their uncertainty;

and then the disciple’s question, at now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom.

1801. With regard to the first, note that the good disciples had very great love for Christ and their faith was very strong. Because of their love each one assumed that he would not be the one to deny Christ; yet because their faith was so strong they were most certain that what Christ said could not be false. And so, although none of them was conscious of any evil, they nevertheless thought the prediction of Christ was truer and more believable than their own opinion. Accordingly, considering that they were human and that their affections could change so much that they could will the opposite of what they willed before, they were more uncertain of themselves than of the truth spoken by Christ. So, the disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke: therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12); if I wash myself with snow, and cleanse my hands with lye, yet you will plunge me into a pit (Job 9:30).

1802. Next, the disciple’s question is stated: now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

First we see the intimacy he had with Christ;

second, what led him to ask: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him;

third, his question: he therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, said to him: Lord, who is it?

1803. The disciple’s intimacy with Christ is shown by the fact that he was lying close to him, now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples.

This was John the Evangelist who wrote his Gospel. He wrote of himself in the third person to avoid boasting. In this he followed the custom of others who wrote Sacred Scripture. Moses wrote of himself this way, as though he were someone else: and the Lord said to Moses (Lev 11:1). And so did Matthew: he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office (Matt 9:9). And further on Paul did the same: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2).

1804. John here mentions three things about himself. First, the love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he was lying, that is resting: then you will delight yourself in the Almighty, and lift up your face to God (Job 22:26); he leads me beside the waters of rest (Ps 23:2). Second, he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says he was lying leaning on Jesus’ bosom, for the bosom signifies things that are hidden: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, hath made him known (John 1:18). Third, he mentions the special love Christ had for him, saying, whom Jesus loved, not exclusively, but in a way above others.

Exactly how Christ loved him more than others will be stated more clearly at the end of this book. For the present, it is enough to say that John was more loved by Christ for three reasons. First, because of the cleanliness of his purity: for he was a virgin when chosen by the Lord, and always remained so: he who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend (Prov 22:11). Second, because of the depth of his wisdom, for he saw further into the secrets of God than others; and so he is compared to an eagle, a wise servant has the king’s favor (Prov 14:35). Third, because of the great intensity of his love for Christ: I love those who love me (Prov 8:17).

1805. Then when he says, Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, John mentions what led him to question Christ.

But since to beckon is to suggest something without speaking any words, why does he say that Peter both beckoned . . . and said?

Or, one could say that he first gave some gesture, and then said in words: who is it of whom he speaks? that is, who will betray him.

1806. Since everywhere in the Gospels Peter is always presented as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love, why is he now keeping silent? Why does he have another ask the question?

Chrysostom gives three reasons for this. One is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not allowing him to wash his feet, and had heard, if I do not wash you, you will have no part with me (John 13:8). As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now. Another reason is that Peter did not want our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could hear it. And so because Peter was a few feet away from Christ and would not be the only one to hear his answer, he urged John, who was next to Jesus, to ask him.

The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Now Peter is instructed by Christ by means of John because the active life learns about divine things by means of the contemplative life: Mary sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving (Luke 10:39).

1807. Then when he says, he therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, said to him, he mentions the question.

Note that when Peter was beckoning to John to get him to question our Lord, John was leaning near the lap of Jesus. But now when John asks he is near the breast of Jesus, for the breast is closer to the mouth than the lap is. And so John moved from the lap of Christ to his breast so he could hear his answer more quietly and privately.

As for the mystical interpretation, we can see from this that the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of divine wisdom, the more he should try to get closer to Christ, according to: come to him and be enlightened (Ps 34:5). For the secrets of divine wisdom are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: he shows his friend that it is his possession (Job 36:33); his friend comes and searches into him (Prov 18:17).

1808. Then when he says, Jesus answered, he identifies the betrayer: first by words, then by an action.

He identifies by words when he says, it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it. This can signify two things, depending on how bread is understood. If it is understood to indicate something evil, it signifies the hypocrisy of Judas. For just as dipped bread is stained and has changed in appearance so also a pretender, for he thinks one thing in his heart while he simulates something else with his words. And Judas was like this, for on the outside he pretended to love the Teacher, but in his heart he planned to betray him: the wicked speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts (Ps 28:3).

If bread is taken to signify something good, then this action stresses the malice of Judas. When bread is dipped it tastes better. So Christ gave Judas dipped bread to show that although Judas had received many good things from Christ, in spite of these he betrayed him: but it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We used to hold sweet converse together (Ps 55:13).

1809. He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says, and when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to Augustine, this is not so. For it is clear from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas received the body of Christ at the same time as the other disciples, that is, during the supper. During the course of this meal Jesus rose and washed the feet of the disciples and returned to his place. And it was only after this that he gave the bread to Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.

1810. He continues with the effect of this identification, saying, and after the morsel, satan entered into him.

Here we might ask how satan enters into a person.

Yet the devil can enter into the human mind in the sense that a person who has been seduced by him follows him in doing evil; this is an effect of the devil’s malice, which someone has loved.

1811. It was said above: the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him (John 13:2). But now he says, satan entered into him.

So there seems to be a difference between ‘put into’ and ‘enter into’. I say that this was not said to indicate a difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to put something evil into a person’s heart when the person yields to him and assents to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought to do this or not. But he enters into a person’s heart when one totally gives himself to following his suggestions and offers no resistance at all. Thus satan first put the plan to deceive Christ into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more completely and to lead him to accomplish the evil.

1812. One might ask why Luke says that satan entered into Judas even before he received the morsel (Luke 22:3). This seems to conflict with what John says here, that after the morsel, satan entered into him.

1813. Was it wrong to give Judas this morsel, for after that satan would enter into him?

Judas leaves

13:27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: that which you do, do quickly. [n. 1815]

13:28 Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this to him. [n. 1816]

13:29 For some thought, because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus had said to him: buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor. [n. 1819]

13:30 He therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night. [n. 1822]

1814. We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted.

First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted;

and second, how it was done: he therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately.

John does three things with the first:

first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act;

second, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not clear;

and third, he states how the apostles understood them.

1815. Our Lord’s words were: that which you do, do quickly. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot be commanded or counseled, because the command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes (Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements with the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ himself gave permission, because no man takes it away from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18); he was offered because it was his own will (Isa 53:7).

These words also reprimand the evil act of betrayal, and imply that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, Judas was planning his death: but now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you (Ps 50:21).

As Augustine says, they are also the words of one who eagerly desires to carry out the work of our redemption. Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, but predicting it. He was not so much seeking the ruin of the one who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become the salvation of believers: I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! (Luke 12:50).

1816. What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John says, now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this to him. We can understand from this that the words of Christ are so profound and so above human understanding that we can understand no more of them than what he reveals: it is the glory of God to conceal the word (Prov 25:2).

1817. A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it (John 13:26), and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said.

1818. Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say, no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this to him?

1819. Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the disciples thought, because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus had said to him.

Here we should note that the Lord God of heaven, who feeds all living things, had a money bag, not to own the things of earth, but to save the offerings of believers and so provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. This money bag was in the care of Judas.

As Augustine says, this teaches us that the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs.

It also teaches us that the Church’s money should be used for only two things. First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, buy those things which we have need of for the feast, that is, what we can use to worship God on the festival day: bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house (Mal 3:10). Second, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that he should give something to the poor.

1820. One might argue against this that Matthew says, do not be anxious about tomorrow (Matt 6:34). Augustine answered this and said that our Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or other goods of one day for the next. Rather, he said, do not be anxious about tomorrow. This means that we should not be preaching or doing other religious services in order to provide a future for ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of fear of the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said do not be anxious about tomorrow, he was forbidding two things. First, we are not to do good to secure our future; second, we are not to omit doing good because we fear a future poverty.

Chrysostom explains this clearly when he says: do not be anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate today the cares of the next day; the troubles of today are enough.

1821. Some might also wonder why our Lord had a money bag, since he told his disciples, carry no money bag, no bag, no sandals (Luke 10:4). In what way, therefore, could he himself have a money bag?

According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a money bag to provide for those in need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified to the world we may be, we should be concerned for the poor, according to he has distributed freely, he has given to the poor (Ps 112:9). Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on the way, he was referring to individual preachers and apostles, who should carry nothing when they went to preach. But it did not refer to the entire group which would need something for themselves and for the poor.

1822. Next, John shows that what was predicted came about: he therefore having received the morself, went out immediately.

First, he mentions the action which was done;

second, the time when it was done.

1823. What was done was done quickly, because having received the morsel, he immediately went out.

Note that, as Origen says, the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it. This can be understood in two ways. First, it could be that Judas was so troubled about obeying the Teacher that when he received the morsel, he did not eat it, but perhaps left it on the table and without delay went out to complete his betrayal. The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the heart of Judas, feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would have to leave, since he could not be in the same place as Jesus: what accord has Christ with Belial? (2 Cor 6:15); you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons (1 Cor 10:21).

Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, having received the morsel, not only in his hand, but even eating it, he immediately went out. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is exactly what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks from his chalice: he eats and drinks to his own damage and adds to his sin. So the bread Jesus gave to Judas became a source of harm: for after the bread entered into him so did satan.

1824. The time is described as one of darkness: and it was night. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize the malice of Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree that even the inconvenience of the hour did not cause him to wait till the morning: the murderer rises in the dark . . . and in the night he is as a thief (Job 24:14).

In the second place, he wants to show his state of mind. It was night, because the mind of Judas the traitor was dark, without divine light. If a man walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if he walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him (John 11:9–10).

Glorification of the Son of Man

13:31 When he therefore had gone out, Jesus said: now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. [n. 1826]

13:32 If God is glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself; and immediately he will glorify him. [n. 1827]

1825. After Judas left to bring about our Lord’s death, Jesus mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory.

First, to console them, he mentions the glory to which he is going;

second, he foretells his leaving: little children, yet a little while I am with you (John 13:33).

1826. The glory to which he is going is the glorification and exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. When he, that is Judas, therefore had gone out Jesus said, to his disciples, now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

The word used was actually ‘clarified’ and not ‘glorified’. But both words mean the same thing. To be clarified is the same as to be glorified, for glory is a kind of splendor. According to Ambrose, someone has glory when he is known with clarity and praised.¹ Whence the commentators use ‘clarified’ in Greek, translating ‘glorified’, and the converse. The same is said here, now is the Son of man clarified, that is glorified.

We can understand this statement in four ways, by referring it to the four kinds of glory which Christ had: the glory of the cross; the glory of his judicial power; the glory of his resurrection; and the glory of being known by the faith of the people.

Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.

1827. First, then, Christ was glorified by being lifted up on the cross. Even Paul said that his own glory was in the cross: but far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 6:14). This is the glory Chrysostom has in mind in his explanation of the text.¹ In this explanation our Lord mentions four things about the glory of the cross: the glory itself; the fruit of this glory; the author of the glory; and the time of the glory.

As to the first he says, now is the Son of man glorified. Note that when something is beginning, it seems in a way to already exist. Now when Judas went out to bring back the soldiers, this seems to be the beginning of Christ’s passion, the passion by which he was to be glorified. This is why he says, now is the Son of man glorified, that is, the passion by which he will be glorified is now beginning. Indeed, Christ was glorified by the passion of the cross because by it he conquered the enemies of death and the devil: that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death (Heb 2:14). Again, he acquired glory because by his cross he joined heaven and earth: to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross (Col 1:20). Further, he was glorified by his cross because by it he acquired all kingship; say to the nations that the Lord has reigned from his cross (Ps 95:10). Again, Christ was glorified by the cross because he accomplished many miracles on it: the curtain of the temple was split, an earthquake occurred, rocks were split and the sun was darkened, and many saints arose, (Matt 27:51). So with his passion drawing near, these are the reasons why our Lord said, now is the Son of man glorified. It is like saying: now my passion is beginning, the passion which is my glory.

The fruit of this glory is that God is glorified by it. So he says, and in him God is glorified, that is, in the glorified Son of man. For the glory of the passion leads to the glory of God. If God was glorified by the death of Peter: this he said to show by what death he was to glorify God (John 21:19), he was much more glorified by the death of Christ.

The author of this glory is not an angel or a human being, but God himself. He says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not need to be glorified by another. But God will also glorify him in himself, that is, through himself: and now glorify me, O Father, with yourself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with you (John 17:5).

The time for this glory is fast approaching, because God immediately he will glorify him, that is, he will give him the glory of the cross. For the cross, although it is foolish to the gentiles and to those who are lost, yet to us who believe, it is the very great wisdom of God and the power of God (1 Cor 1:18).

1828. The second glory of Christ is the glory of his judicial power: and then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory (Mark 13:26). This is the glory about which Augustine speaks, as the Gloss says.¹ In reference to this, he does four things here: first, he mentions the glory of the judicial power of Christ; second, he shows the merit from which he acquired it; third, he expounds on this; fourth, he shows the source of Christ’s glory.

As to the first, he says, now is the Son of man glorified. We should note that in Sacred Scripture, one thing is not explicitly said to signify another, and the word for the signifying thing is also used for the thing signified. For example, we do not read that the rock signified Christ; rather, it says, and the Rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). In the departure of Judas away from the apostles we have a kind of image of the future judgment, when the wicked will be separated from the good, and Christ will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left (Matt 25:33). Since this departure of Judas signified the future judgment, right after this our Lord began to speak of the glory of his judicial power, saying, now is the Son of man glorified; that is, this departure or separation represents the glory which the Son of man will have in the judgment, where none of the good will perish and none of the evil will be with them. He does not say: now is the glorification of the Son of man signified, but rather, now is the Son of man glorified, in keeping with the above-mentioned custom of Scripture.

Now the merit of this glorification is that God would be glorified in him. For God is glorified by those who seek to do his will, and not their own. Christ was like this: because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (John 6:38). And this is why in him God is glorified.

He amplifies this when he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if, by doing the will of God, he glorifies God, then rightly God will also glorify him in himself, so that the human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal glory. Thus, in himself, that is, in his own glory: therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name (Phil 2:9). Therefore the glorification by which God is glorified in Christ is the merit in virtue of which Christ as man is glorified in himself, that is, in the glory of God. This will occur when his human nature, its weakness having been laid down by the death of the cross, receives the glory of immortality at the resurrection. So the resurrection itself was the source from which this glory began. Accordingly he says, immediately he will glorify him, at the resurrection, which will quickly come: I will arise in the morning early (Ps 108:2): and also, you will not let your Holy One see corruption (Ps 16:10).

1829. The third glory of Christ is the glory of his resurrection, about which we read, we were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). It is in terms of this glory that Hilary explains this passage, and Augustine also in part.¹

From this aspect, Christ first foretells this glory of his, saying, now is the Son of man glorified. Here he is speaking of the future as if it has already happened, because what we think will quickly happen we regard as good as done. Now the glory of the resurrection was very near, and so he says, now is the Son of man glorified, as if his body, by its union with the divine nature, had in a way acquired the glory of the divinity.

Second, he mentions the cause of this glory quite subtly. As he said, in the resurrection the humanity of Christ was glorified because of its union with the divine nature; and there was one person, that of the Word. For we read: you will not leave my soul in Sheol; you will not let your Holy One, who is the holiest of all, see corruption (Ps 16:10). Such glory is also due to this human being, Christ, in so far as he is God. We too will have the glory of the resurrection to the extent that we share in the divinity: he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you (Rom 8:11). So he says that the Son of man, that is, Christ considered in his human nature, is glorified, by his resurrection. And who will glorify him? He says, God will also glorify him in himself, so that this human being, Christ, who reigns in the glory which is from the glory of God, may himself pass into the glory of God, that is, might entirely abide in God, as though deified by the way his human nature is possessed. It is like saying: a lamp is bright because a fire is burning brightly within it. That which sends the rays of brightness into the human nature of Christ is God; and thus the human nature of Christ is glorified by the glory of his divinity, and the human nature of Christ is brought into the glory of his divinity, not by having its nature changed, but by a sharing of glory in so far as this human being, Christ, is adored as God: therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phil 2:9). So he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if it is true that the glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity, subsequently God will also glorify him in himself, give him a share of his own glory by assuming him into that glory: every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the Father (Phil 2:11).

Thus, Christ has a twofold glory. One is in his human nature, but is derived from his divinity. The other is the glory of his divinity, into which his human nature is in a way taken up. But each glory is different. The first-mentioned glory had a beginning in time. For this reason he speaks of it as past, saying, and God is, or has been, glorified in him, on the day of the resurrection. The other glory is eternal, because from eternity the Word of God is God. And the human nature of Christ, assumed into this glory, will be glorified forever. And so he speaks of this as in the future: and will glorify him at once, that is, he will always establish him in that glory forever.

1830. The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of being known by the faith of the people. Origen has this kind of glory in mind in his exposition.¹ According to him, glory means one thing in ordinary speech, and another thing in Scripture. In ordinary speech, glory is the praise given by a number of people, or the clear knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, as Ambrose says.² While in Scripture, glory indicates that a divine sign or mark is upon one; the glory of the Lord appeared over the tabernacle (Exod 40:34), that is, a divine sign rested over it. The same happened to the face of Moses, when it was glorified. Just as glory, in the physical sense, indicates that a divine sign rests upon one, so, in the spiritual sense, that intellect is said to be glorified when it is so deified and so transcends all material things that it is raised to a knowledge of God. It is by this that we are made sharers of glory: and we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor 3:18). Therefore, if anyone who knows God is glorified and made a sharer of glory, it is clear that Christ, who knows God most perfectly, since he is the brightness of the entire divine glory (Heb 1:30), and able to receive the splendor of the entire divine glory, if, I say, this is so, then Christ is most perfectly glorified. And all who know God owe this to Christ.

But men did not yet realize that Christ was so glorified by this most perfect knowledge and participation in the divinity. And so, although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified in the knowledge of men. He began to have his glory at his passion and resurrection, when men began to recognize his power and divinity. Our Lord, speaking here of this glory, says, now is the Son of man glorified, that is, now, in his human nature, he is receiving glory in the knowledge of men because of his approaching passion. And God, the Father, is glorified in him. For the Son not only reveals himself, but the Father as well: I have manifested your name (John 17:6). Consequently, not only is the Son glorified, but the Father also: no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Matt 11:27). He says, in him, because one who sees the Son also sees the Father (John 14:9). It is characteristic of one who is greater to return what is greater. And thus he adds, if God is glorified in him, that is, if the glory of God the Father somehow increases because of the glory of the Son of man, because the Father becomes better known, God will also glorify him in himself, that is, make it known that Christ Jesus is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he will glorify him at once.

The new commandment

13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me; and as I said to the Jews: where I go you cannot come; so I say to you now. [n. 1832]

13:34 A new commandment I give unto you: that you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. [n. 1835]

13:35 By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another. [n. 1839]

1831. Above, our Lord spoke of the glory he would acquire by his leaving. Here, he is telling them that he will leave them.

First, he foretells his leaving;

second, he shows that his disciples were not yet fit to follow him: you will seek me;

third, he shows how they can become fit, a new commandment I give unto you.

1832. He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying, little children, yet a little while I am with you. He uses the words of a parent to his children the more to inflame their love; for it is when friends are about to leave each other that they especially glow with love: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end (John 13:1). He says, little children, to show their imperfection, for they were not yet perfectly children, because they did not yet perfectly love. They were not yet perfect in charity: my little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be informed in you (Gal 4:19). Still, they had grown somewhat in perfection, because from slaves they became little children, as he calls them here, and brethren, go to my brethren and say to them (John 20:17).

1833. We should note that the expression, yet a little while, can be explained in three ways, according to the three ways Christ is present to his disciples.

Christ was present to his disciples in body. But his body can be considered in two ways. First, we can view it as having the characteristics that belong to human nature, for Christ had a mortal body, just as others. So, a little while, is understood as the time between these words and his death. So the sense is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, a little time remains until I am taken and die, and then I will rise and be immortal, even in body: Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him (Rom 6:9); these are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you (Luke 24:44).

Second, he was with them in body, but a body that was already glorified. Then, a little while, indicates the time that intervened until his ascension: a little while, and you will see not me; again a little while, and you will see me: because I go to the Father (John 16:16); once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land (Hag 2:6).

Third, it can be explained as applying to the spiritual presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and in the sacraments. Then, a little while, is taken to mean the time which would intervene until the end of the world. This is a little while in comparison with eternity: children it is the last hour (1 John 2:18). Then the meaning is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, although I will leave you in body, I am still spiritually with you for a little while which remains before the end of the world: I am with you always, to the close of the age (Matt 28:20).

Yet this explanation is not appropriate to the presence of Christ in his divinity, for he will be with them not only to the end of the world, but for all eternity. For this reason Origen explains it another way. He says that Christ is always with the perfect, who do not sin in a serious way. But he is not always present to the imperfect, because when they sin he withdraws from them. Now in a little while the disciples would leave Christ, fall away and abandon him: you will all fall away because of me this night (Matt 26:31). And so Christ spiritually withdrew from them. In reference to this he says, yet a little while I am with you, that is, in a little while you will leave and abandon me, and then I will not be with you.

1834. Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First, he notes their effort, you will seek me, whom you have spiritually abandoned by your flight and denials. You will seek me, I say, by your repentance, as Peter did, who wept bitterly: seek the Lord while he may be found (Isa 55:6); in their distress they seek me (Hos 5:15). Or, you will seek me, that is, you will want me to be present in body: the days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will not see it (Luke 17:22).

Second, he shows their weakness, saying, as I said to the Jews: where I am going you cannot come; I say to you now. Yet this was said differently to the two. Some of the Jews would never be converted. It was to these that it was said absolutely that they could not go where Christ was going. But now that Judas has gone, none of the remaining disciples would be separated from Christ. And to them he did not say absolutely, you cannot come, but added, I say to you now. It is like saying: I said to the Jews, that is, to the obstinate among them, that they could never come. But I say to you, that for now, you cannot follow me, because you are not perfect enough in charity to want to die for me. For I will leave you by dying. Likewise, I will go to the glory of the father, to which no one can go unless they are perfect in charity. Also, I am glorified now because, as was said, now is the son of man glorified (John 13:31), but now is not the time for your bodies to be glorified: and therefore, where I go you cannot come.

1835. Then, he teaches them how they can become fit to follow him: a new commandment I give unto you.

First, he mentions the special character of this commandment;

second, he shows why they should live up to it: by this will all men know that you are my disciples.

As to the first he does three things:

first, he mentions a feature of this commandment,

second, its meaning;

and third, its standard.

1836. The feature of this commandment he emphasizes is its newness. Thus he says, a new commandment.

But did not the Old Testament or law have a commandment about the love of one’s neighbor? It did, because when Christ was asked by a lawyer which was the greatest commandment, he replied: you shall love the Lord your God, and continued, you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:37). This is found in Leviticus: you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).

Nevertheless, there are three special reasons why this commandment is said to be new. First, because of the newness, the renewal, it produces: you have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its Creator (Col 3:9). This newness is from charity, the charity to which Christ urges us. Second, this commandment is said to be new because of the cause which produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit. There are two spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of slavery; the new is the Spirit of love. The first produces slaves; the second, children by adoption: for you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of sonship (Rom 8:15); a new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you (Ezek 36:26). The Spirit sets us on fire with love because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). Third, it is a new commandment because of the effect it established, that is, a New Covenant. The difference between the New and the Old Covenant is that between love and fear: I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel (Jer 31:31). Under the Old Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the New Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in the old law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for the new law.

1837. The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he says: that you love one another. It is of the very nature of friendship that it is not imperceptible; otherwise, it would not be friendship, but merely good-will. For a true and firm friendship the friends need a mutual love for each other; for this duplication makes it true and firm. Our Lord, wanting there to be perfect friendship among his faithful and disciples, gave them this command of mutual love: whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship aright (Sir 6:17).

1838. The standard for this mutual love is given when he says, as I have loved you.

Now Christ loved us three ways: gratuitously, effectively and rightly.

He loved us gratuitously because he began to love us and did not wait for us to begin to love him: not that we loved God, but because he first loved us (1 John 4:10). In the same way we should first love our neighbors and not wait to be loved by them or for them to do us a favor.

Christ loved us effectively, which is obvious from what he did; for love is proven to exist from what one does. The greatest thing a person can do for a friend is to give himself for that friend. This is what Christ did: Christ loved us and gave himself up for us (Eph 5:2). So we read: greater love than this no man has, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). We also should be led by this example and love one another effectively and fruitfully: let us not love in word or in speech but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18).

Christ also loved us rightly. Since all friendship is based on some kind of sharing (for similarity is a cause of love), that friendship is right which is based on a similarity or a sharing in some good. Now Christ loved us as similar to himself by the grace of adoption, loving us according to this similarity in order to draw us to God. I have loved you with an everlasting love; and so taking pity on you, I have drawn you (Jer 31:3). We also, in the one we love, should love what pertains to God and not so much the pleasure or benefits the loved one gives to us. In this kind of love for our neighbor, even the love of God is included.

1839. Then when he says, by this will all men know that you are my disciples, he gives the reason for following this command.

Here we should note that one who is in the army of a king should wear this emblem. The emblem of Christ is the emblem of charity. So anyone who wants to be in the army of Christ should be stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what he is saying here: by this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. I mean a holy love: I am the mother of beautiful love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope (Sir 24:24).

Although the apostles received many gifts from Christ, such as life, intelligence and good health, as well as spiritual goods, such as the ability to perform miracles, I will give you a mouth and wisdom (Luke 21:15), none of these are the emblem of a disciple of Christ, since they can be possessed both by the good and the bad. Rather, the special sign of a disciple of Christ is charity and mutual love; he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit (2 Cor 1:22).

Prophecy of Peter’s denial

13:36 Simon Peter said to him: Lord, where do you go? Jesus answered: where I go, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow hereafter. [n. 1841]

13:37 Peter said to him: why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you. [n. 1843]

13:38 Jesus answered him: will you lay down your life for me? Amen, amen I say to you, the cock will not crow, until you deny me thrice. [n. 1844]

1840. Above, John mentioned the defection of one of the disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of another, Peter, who denied Christ.

First we see the occasion of Christ’s prediction:

second, the prediction of Peter’s denial, Jesus answered him: will you lay down your life for me?

He does two things about the first:

he mentions Peter’s desire;

second, his confidence, Peter said to him: why cannot I follow you now?

He does two things about the first:

he shows Peter expressing his desire;

second, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, Jesus answered: where I go, you cannot follow me now.

1841. Peter’s desire is shown by the quick way he questioned Christ: Simon Peter said to him: Lord, where do you go? Peter had heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a little while, and he became anxious about Christ’s leaving them. So he asks, where do you go? Chrysostom says about this: Peter’s love was indeed great, and more furious than a fire that nothing could stop. This is why even after Christ had said, where I am go, you cannot follow, Peter still wanted to follow him. So he asked where he was going, just like we read: whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among women? Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you? (Song 6:1).

1842. Yet he cannot now have what he desires, since for the present he is prevented from following Christ. Where I am go, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow hereafter. This is like saying: you are still imperfect, and thus not able to follow me now; but later, when you are perfect, you will follow me. This is similar to what we will read further on: amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, that is, imperfect, you girded yourself . . . but when you are old, and have climbed the mountain of perfection, you will stretch forth your hands, and another will gird you (John 21:18).

1843. When John says, Peter said to him, he indicates Peter’s confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just said as expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter’s love. Love is perfect when one exposes oneself to death for a friend: greater love than this no man has, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). And so because Peter was ready to die for Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he said, I will lay down my life for you, that is, I am ready to die for you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not know the strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to be overcome: I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted (1 Cor 4:4).

1844. Next, John shows Jesus predicting the denial of Peter: Jesus answered him: will you lay down your life for me?

First, Jesus checks Peter’s presumption;

second, he predicts his denial: amen, amen I say to you, the cock will not crow, until you deny me thrice.

1845. As to the first we should note that after Christ said you cannot follow me now, Peter was confident of his own strength and said that he could follow Christ and die for him. Our Lord checked him by saying, will you lay down your life for me? It is like saying: think what you are saying. I know you better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong your own love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. As it is written: so do not become proud, but stand in awe (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is found in Matthew: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matt 26:41).

Our Lord allowed Peter to be tempted and to fall so that when he became head of the Church he would have an unpretentious opinion of himself and have compassion for his subjects when they sinned: for we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew into sins. But Christ was tempted as we are, not because he committed sin, but because the temptations were penal in character.

1846. Christ predicts Peter’s denial when he says, amen, amen, I say to you, the cock will not crow, until you deny me thrice.

This, the cock will not crow, until you deny me thrice, causes a problem as it seems to be false: for in Mark we read that the cock crowed immediately after his first denial (Mark 14:68).

Augustine answers this in two ways. In the first way he says that our Lord was expressing Peter’s state of mind rather than his actions: for such fear had overcome Peter’s soul that he was ready, by the time the cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three times. So the meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction refers to the very beginning of Peter’s denial. Something is said to happen before something else even if it only begins to happen. Now our Lord predicted three denials; they began before the first cock-crow, although the entire series was not completed before it: amen, amen, I say to you, the cock will not crow, until you deny me thrice. Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before the cock crows.

1847. There is also a question about where these words were spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after they had left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in the upper room. It is after the farewell discourses that John has Jesus saying, arise, let us go hence (John 14:31).

In answer to this we should say that it is true that our Lord said this in the upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of history, but of memory.

One could also say, with Augustine, that our Lord said this three times. A close inspection of our Lord’s words which led to his predicting the denial of Peter shows that three different things were said. In Matthew we read that our Lord said: you will all fall away because of me this night (Matt 26:31); and Mark says the same (Mark 14:27). Peter answered: though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away (Matt 26:33). Then Jesus said: this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times (Matt 26:34). In Luke, however, we read that Jesus said: satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail (Luke 22:31). Peter then said, Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death (Luke 22:33). Our Lord answered this: I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me (Luke 22:34). But here, in John, when Peter asked our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied: the cock will not crow, until you deny me thrice. We can conclude from this that our Lord predicted Peter’s denial several times.

The Last Supper Discourse Continued

The Father’s mansions

14:1 Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me. [n. 1849]

14:2 In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. [n. 1852]

14:3 And if I will go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be. [n. 1858]

1848. Above, our Lord taught his disciples by example, here he consoles them by his words.

First, they are encouraged in many ways by what he says;

second, what he has said is explained, these things have I spoken to you, that you may not be scandalized (John 16:1).

Concerning the first, we should note that there were two things which could trouble the disciples. One was near, that Christ would soon be leaving them; the second was in the future, and was the hardships they would undergo.

First, Christ consoles them over his leaving;

second, over their future hardships, I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman (John 15:1).

He does two things concerning the first:

first, he consoles them from their own point of view, as those who will be left: I am the true vine, you the branches (John 15:5);

second, from his own point of view, as the one leaving: let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid (John 14:27).

He does three things about the first:

first, he says that he is going to the Father;

second, he promises them the gift of the Holy Spirit: if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15);

third, he promises that he will also be with them: I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you (John 14:18).

He does two things about the first:

first, he mentions that he is going to the Father;

second, he brings in the way he would go: and where I go you know, and the way you know (John 14:4).

He does three things about the first:

first, he expels their anxieties;

second, he refers to his power: you believe in God, believe also in me;

third, he adds a promise: in my Father’s house there are many mansions.

1849. In regard to the first, note that the disciples could have been disturbed by what our Lord said about the betrayal of Judas, Peter’s denial, and his own going away. Indeed, each of these did trouble them and make them sad: you have made the land to quake, that is, the hearts of the disciples, you have rent it open (Ps 60:2). Therefore our Lord, wishing to soothe their sorrow, said: let not your heart be troubled.

1850. In Acts we read: Jesus began to do and teach (Acts 1:1). Yet above it says that Jesus was troubled in spirit (John 13:21). How can he tell his disciples not to be troubled when he himself was troubled?

1851. Accordingly, our Lord refers to the power of his divinity, saying, you believe in God, believe also in me. Here he presupposes one thing and commands another.

He presupposes their faith in God, saying, you believe in God: he had already taught them about this: for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists (Heb 11:6).

What he commands is that they believe in him, saying, believe also in me. For if you believe in God, and since I am God, then you should believe in me. And this follows whether the word ‘God’ stands for the divine essence, since the Son is God, or whether it stands for the person of the Father. For no one can believe in the Father unless he believes in the Son: he who does not honor the Son, honors not the Father, who has sent him (John 5:23).

The fact that he says, believe also in me, indicates that he is truly God; for although we are allowed to believe a human being or a creature, we ought to believe in God alone. Therefore, we must believe in Christ as we believe in God. We are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20); this is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent (John 6:29).

1852. Then when he says, in my Father’s house are many mansions, he adds the promise that it is through Christ that they will approach and be brought to the Father. Now a promise to others that they will gain entrance to some place involves two things: first, the place must be prepared; next, they have to be brought there. Our Lord makes these two promises here: one concerns the preparation of the place, and the other is about their being brought there. Yet the first is not necessary, for the place has already been prepared; but the second is necessary. Thus he does two things:

he says the first promise is not necessary;

and then he makes his second promise: and if I will go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself (John 13:3).

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he indicates that it is not necessary to prepare the place;

second he shows that he could prepare it if it were necessary: if not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.

1853. He says, in my Father’s house are many mansions.

The house of any one is where he dwells, and so the house of God is where God dwells. Now God dwells in his saints: yet you, O Lord, are in the midst of us (Jer 14:9). In some of them he dwells by faith: I will live in them and move among them (2 Cor 6:16); while in others he dwells by perfect happiness: that God may be everything to every one (1 Cor 15:28). Accordingly, God has two houses. One is the Church militant, that is, the society of those who believe: that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God. God dwells in this house by faith (1 Tim 3:15). The dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them (Rev 21:3). The other is the Church triumphant, that is, the society of the saints in the glory of the Father: we will be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, thy holy temple (Ps 65:4).

Yet the house of the Father is not only where he dwells, but he himself is the house, for he exists in himself. It is into this house that he gathers us. We see from 2 Corinthians that God himself is the house: we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens (2 Cor 5:1). This house is the house of glory, which is God himself: a glorious throne set on high from the beginning is the place of our sanctification (Jer 17:12). We remain in this place, in God, with our will and affections by the joys of love: he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him (1 John 4:16). And we remain here with our minds by our knowledge of the truth: sanctify them in truth (John 17:17).

In this house, then, that is, in glory, which is God, are many mansions, that is, various participations in happiness. This is because one who knows more will have a greater place. Therefore, the different rooms are the various participations in the knowledge and enjoyment of God.

1854. The question arises here whether one person can be happier than another. It seems not. For happiness is the end; and what is perfect, complete, does not have degrees; therefore, there cannot be different degrees of happiness.

1855. Another question arises from what Matthew says, that every laborer received one denarius (Matt 20:10). This denarius is nothing but a room in the house of the Father. Therefore, there are not many rooms.

1856. The Pelagians erred by misunderstanding this passage. They said that children who die without baptism will be saved in the house of God, but not in the kingdom of God, for we read unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).

1857. Then when he says, if not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you, he shows he has the ability to prepare a place for them if necessary.

For one could say: it is true that in his Father’s house many rooms have been prepared, but if not, he could not prepare them. Our Lord excludes this by saying, if not, that is, if the rooms were not prepared, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.

Here we should consider what is meant by the phrase, to prepare a place for you. A place is prepared in two ways. In one way, when something is done to the place itself, as when it is cleaned or enlarged: enlarge the place of your tent (Isa 54:2). In another way, when someone is given the means to enter it; and so the Psalmist prays: be to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me (Ps 71:3), which is like saying: may I always have the means to enter here. With this in mind, the text can be understood in two ways. If this place had some defect or was something created, it would be subject to my power to perfect it, for every creature is subject to the power of the Word: all things were made by him (John 1:3). So, if it had some defect, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. But this place, in itself, is prepared; for this place is God himself, as was said, in whom is the abundance of all perfections. But perhaps you do not have the means to enter it; and so, if not, that is, if it were not so that you had the means to enter here and were not predestined to this place, I would have told you: I go to prepare a place for you, for it is in my power to predestine you to this place. For he, with the Father and the Holy Spirit has predestined them to eternal life: he chose us in him (Eph 1:4).

1858. Our Lord said above: where I go, you cannot follow me now (John 13:36). And then here, to keep them from believing that they would be absolutely separated from him he adds, and if I will go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself. This is the second promise, that they will be brought into the kingdom.

This seems to conflict with his earlier statement, for he had said: if not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. This implies that he is not going to prepare a place for them. Yet here we read: if I will go, and prepare a place for you, which suggests that he is going to prepare a place for them.

One reply would be that these two sentences can be understood as connected together. Then the meaning would be this: if not, that is, if places were not prepared and I had to go to prepare them, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. And then again, if I will go, and prepare a place for you.

According to Augustine, however, these are distinct sentences and are not read together. Our Lord prepared places both by eternal predestination, and by carrying out this predestination. He also prepared these places by his departure. Thus, what our Lord said first, that rooms were prepared, is understood as referring to the first preparation from all eternity. Then when he says, if I will go, and prepare a place for you, this is understood as referring to the carrying out of the eternal predestination.

1859. Our Lord prepared a place for us by his departure in five ways.

First he made room for faith: for since faith concerns things not seen, when the disciples saw Christ in person, they did not need faith for this. Thus he left them, so that the one they had possessed by his bodily presence and saw with their bodily eyes, they could still possess in his spiritual presence and see with the eyes of their mind. This is to possess him by faith. Second, his leaving prepared a place by showing them the way to go to that place: he who opens the breach will go before them (Mic 2:13). Third, by his prayers for them: he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him (Heb 7:25); he rides through the heavens to your help (Deut 33:26). Fourth, by attracting them to what is above: draw me after you (Song 1:4); if then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above (Col 3:1). Fifth, by sending them the Holy Spirit: for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39).

1860. The glorification of Christ was completed by his ascension. And so as soon as he ascended, he sent the Holy Spirit to his disciples. He told them ahead of time that he would physically leave them, saying, if I will go, and prepare a place for you. And then he promised them a spiritual return, saying, I will come again. I will come at the end of the world: then Jesus . . . will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven (Acts 1:2). And will take you, glorified in soul and body, to myself: we will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:17).

1861. Will Christ wait until the end of the world before he takes the spirits of the apostles?

It is the opinion of the Greeks that the saints will not go to paradise until the day of judgment.

But if this were true, the desire of the Apostle (Phil 1:23) to be with Christ would be futile. Therefore, one should say that immediately after the house where we dwell here is overthrown, our souls are with Christ. And so the statement, I will come again, and will take you to myself, can be understood as that spiritual coming with which Christ always visits the Church of the faithful and vivifies each of the faithful at death. Then the meaning is: I will come again, to the Church, spiritually and continuously, and will take you to myself, that is, I will strengthen you in faith and love for me: my beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, that is, to the community of the saints, to feed in the garden, that is, to delight in their virtues, and to gather lilies, to draw pure souls to himself when he gives life to the saints at death (Song 6:1).

1862. Then he mentions the fruit of this, saying, that where I am, you may be also, that is, so that the members may be with their head; so the disciples may be with their Teacher: wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together (Matt 24:28); where I am, there will my minister be also (John 12:26).

The way, the truth, and the life

14:4 And where I go you know, and the way you know. [n. 1863]

14:5 Thomas said to him: Lord, we do not know where you go; and how can we know the way? [n. 1865]

14:6 Jesus said to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by me. [n. 1867]

14:7 If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you will know him, and you have seen him. [n. 1876]

1863. Above our Lord consoled his disciples because he was leaving, promising them that they could come to the Father. Now he mentions the way by which they are to approach the Father. But one does not know a way unless he also knows his destination; and so he also considers the destination.

First, he mentions the way and its destination as known to them;

second, he explains this: Thomas said to him: Lord, we do not know where you go; and how can we know the way?

1864. In regard to the first, note that our Lord had said: if I will go and prepare a place for you, I will come again (John 14:3). The disciples could have asked him where he was going, just like Peter did before: Lord, where do you go? (John 13:36). Our Lord knew this and so said to them, where I go you know, and the way you know. For I am going to the Father, whom you know, since I have manifested him to you: I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me (John 17:6). And I myself am the way through which I go, and you know me: we saw his glory (John 1:14). He spoke truly, therefore, when he said, where I go you know, and the way you know: because they knew the Father through Christ, and they knew Christ by living with him.

1865. Next, when he says: Thomas said to him: Lord, we know not where you go;

first, we see the occasion for this explanation:

second, the explanation itself: Jesus said to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life.

1866. The occasion for this explanation was the hesitation expressed in the question of Thomas. Lord, we do not know where you go; how can we know the way? Here Thomas denies the two things that our Lord affirmed. For our Lord said that they knew both the way and its destination; but Thomas denied that he knew the way and its destination. Yet both statements are true: for it is true that they knew, yet they did not know that they knew. For they knew many things about the Father and the Son which they had learned from Christ; yet they did not know that it was the Father to whom Christ was going, and that the Son was the way by which he was going. For it is difficult to go to the Father. It is not surprising that they did not know this because although they clearly knew that Christ was a human being, they only imperfectly recognized his divinity: that path no bird of prey knows (Job 28:7).

Thomas says, how can we know the way? Knowledge of the way depends on knowledge of the destination. And so because we do not know the destination, he dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see (1 Tim 6:16), we can not discover the way: how inscrutable his ways! (Rom 11:33).

1867. Then when he says, Jesus said to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life, the question is answered. Our Lord was to answer about two things: first, about the way and its destination; second, about their knowledge of both:

First, therefore, he manifests the first;

second, at, if you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also.

He does two things about the first:

first, he states what the way is;

second, what should be the end, no man comes to the Father, but by me.

1868. The way, as has been said, is Christ himself; so he says, I am the way. This is indeed true, for, as stated in Romans (Rom 5:2), it is through him that we have access to the Father. This answer could also settle the uncertainty of the faltering disciple.

Because this way is not separated from its destination but united to it, he adds, and the truth, and the life. So Christ is at once both the way and the destination. He is the way by reason of his human nature, and the destination because of his divinity. Therefore, as human, he says, I am the way; as God, he adds, and the truth, and the life. These last two appropriately indicate the destination of the way.

For the destination of this way is the end of human desire. Now human beings especially desire two things: first, a knowledge of the truth, and this is characteristic of them; second, that they continue to exist, and this is common to all things. In fact, Christ is the way to arrive at the knowledge of the truth, while still being the truth itself: teach me your way O Lord, that I may walk in your truth (Ps 85:11). Christ is also the way to arrive at life, while still being life itself: you could show me the path of life (Ps 16:11). And so he indicated the destination or end of this way as truth and life. These two were already applied to Christ: first, he is life: in him was life (John 1:4); then, he is truth, because the life was the light of men (John 1:4), and light is truth.