John7.htm

<!DOCTYPE html>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<body style="text-align:justify;font-family:Arial">
  <blockquote>
    <center>
      <span style="font-size: 60pt">7</span>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr style="align:center">
            <td><b>Lectio 1</b>
            <td><b>LECTURE 1</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
              <blockquote>
                1 καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ: οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι. 2 ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡ σκηνοπηγία. 3 εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, μετάβηθι ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν, ἵνα καὶ οἱ μαθηταί σου θεωρήσουσιν σοῦ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖς: 4 οὐδεὶς γάρ τι ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι. εἰ ταῦτα ποιεῖς, φανέρωσον σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ. 5 οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν. 6 λέγει οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
                <dl>
                  <dd>ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πάρεστιν,
                  <dd>ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμέτερος πάντοτέ ἐστιν ἕτοιμος.
                  <dd>7 οὐ δύναται ὁ κόσμος μισεῖν ὑμᾶς,
                  <dd>ἐμὲ δὲ μισεῖ,
                  <dd>ὅτι ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά ἐστιν.
                  <dd>8 ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν:
                  <dd>ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην,
                  <dd>ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται.
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
            <td>
              <blockquote>
                1 After this, Jesus walked about in Galilee, for he did not want to walk in Judea because the Jews sought to kill him. 2 Now it was close to the Jewish feast of Tabernacles. 3 So his brethren said to him: “Leave this place, and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see your works which you perform. 4 Surely, no one works in secret if he wants to be publicly renowned. If you do these things, reveal yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brethren believed in him. 6 Jesus therefore said to them:
                <dl>
                  <dd>“My time has not yet come,
                  <dd>but your time is always here.
                  <dd>7 The world cannot hate you, but me, it hates,
                  <dd>because I bear witness against it, for its works are evil.
                  <dd>8 You yourselves go up for this feast.
                  <dd>I, however, will not go up for this festival,
                  <dd>because my time is not yet completed.”
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Postquam dominus egit de vita spirituali et nutrimento, hic consequenter agit de instructione seu doctrina, quae est necessaria spiritualiter regeneratis, ut dictum est supra, et primo ostendit originem suae doctrinae; secundo manifestat eius utilitatem ab octavo capitulo, et deinceps. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur locus ubi originem suae doctrinae manifestavit; secundo ponuntur occasiones eam manifestandi, ibi <i>Iudaei ergo quaerebant eum</i> etc.; tertio ponitur ipsa manifestatio, ibi <i>respondit eis Iesus, et dixit: mea doctrina non est mea</i> et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur incitatio Christi ad eundum ad locum, ubi publicavit originem suae doctrinae; secundo ponitur recusatio domini, ibi <i>dicit ergo eis Iesus</i> etc.; tertio subditur quomodo Christus ad locum illum pervenit, ibi <i>haec cum dixisset, ipse mansit in Galilaea</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit occasiones quare Christum incitabant ad eundum; secundo subdit ipsam incitationem, ibi <i>dixerunt autem ad eum fratres eius</i>. Ex tribus autem movebantur ut incitarent Christum ad eundum in Iudaeam: primo quidem ex mora eius; secundo ex proposito; tertio ex congruitate temporis.
            <td>1010 After our Lord considered the spiritual life and its food, he now treats of his instruction or teaching, which, as mentioned above, is necessary for those who are spiritually reborn. First, he shows the origin of his teaching; secondly, its usefulness (c 8 and onwards). As to the first, he does three things. First, he mentions the place where he revealed the origin of his teaching; secondly, the occasion for revealing this (v 11); and thirdly, his actual statement is given (v 16). Three things are done about the first. First, we see Christ invited to go to the place where he revealed the origin of his teaching; secondly, we see our Lord refuse (v 6); and thirdly, how Jesus finally did go (v 9). As to the first, he does two things. First, he gives the reasons why they encouraged Christ to go to Judea; secondly, he adds their exhortation (v 3). They were influenced by three things to encourage Christ to go to Judea: first, by his lingering on [in Galilee], secondly, by his intention [not to travel in Judea] and thirdly, by the appropriateness of the time.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ex mora quidem eius in Galilaea, in qua ostendebat Christus se velle morari: et ideo dicit <i>post haec</i>, verba scilicet quae dicta sunt in Capharnaum, <i>ambulabat Iesus in Galilaeam</i>; scilicet, acceperat iter de Capharnaum, quae erat metropolis Galilaeae, ut discurreret per Galilaeam. Ideo autem dominus in Galilaea frequentius moratur, ut ostendat nobis transmigrandum esse de vitiis ad virtutes; Ez. XII, 3: <i>tu ergo, fili hominis, fac tibi vasa transmigrationis, et transmigrabis per diem coram eis</i>.
            <td>1011 They were influenced by Christ’s lingering on in Galilee, which showed that he wanted to stay there. Thus he says, <b>After this,</b> after teaching in Capernaum, <b>Jesus walked about in Galilee,</b> i.e., he set out from Capernaum, a city of Galilee, with the intention to journey throughout this region. Our Lord lingered on so often in Galilee to show us that we should pass from vices to virtues: “So you, son of man, prepare your belongings for exile, and go during the day in their sight” (Ez 12:13).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ex proposito autem Christi, qui forte eis per verba innotuit; et ideo dicit <i>non enim volebat in Iudaeam ambulare</i>. Cuius ratio est <i>quia quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere</i>; supra V, 18: <i>quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere: quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo</i>.
            <td>1012 Then they were influenced by Christ’s intention, which he perhaps told them; hence he says, <b>for he did not want to walk in Judea,</b> the reason being, <b>because the Jews sought to kill him.</b> “The Jews tried all the harder to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his own Father, making himself equal to God” (above 5:18).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed numquid non poterat illuc ire, et ambulare inter Iudaeos, et ab eis non occidi, sicut fecit infra VIII, 59? Respondeo dicendum, quod ad hoc triplex ratio assignatur. Prima ab Augustino: quia futurum erat ut aliquis fidelis Christi absconderet se ne a persecutoribus inveniretur. Ne ergo illi fuga obiiceretur pro crimine, voluit dominus ad consolationem nostram hoc in se praecessisse ostendere: quod etiam et verbo docuit. Matth. X, 23: <i>si vos persecuti fuerint in una civitate, fugite in aliam</i>. Alia quidem ratio est, quia scilicet Christus Deus erat et homo, et ideo virtute divinitatis poterat non laedi a persecutoribus. Sed hoc noluit continue facere, quia sic fuisset declarata eius divinitas, quod tamen humanitas eius venisset in dubium. Et ideo fugiens quandoque persecutores ut homo, asserit suam humanitatem, ut confundat omnes eum non verum hominem fuisse dicentes. Quandoque autem transiens illaesus per eos, ostendit suam divinitatem, confundens omnes eum hominem purum esse dicentes. Et ideo Chrysostomus habet aliam litteram, scilicet non enim habebat potestatem, si vellet, in Iudaeam ambulare: quod dicitur secundum modum humanum; sicut si dicatur: aliquis non potest aliquo ire, si vellet, propter insidias. Tertia ratio est, quia nondum passionis aderat tempus: futurum enim erat ut pateretur in Pascha, quando immolabatur agnus, ut sic victima succederet victimae; infra XIII, v. 1: <i>sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad patrem</i>.
            <td>But could not Christ still have gone among the Jews without being killed by them, as he did after (c 8)? Three answers are given to this question. The first is given by Augustine, who says that Christ did this because the time would come when some Christians would hide from those who were persecuting them. And so they would not be criticized for this, our Lord wanted to console us by setting a precedent himself in this matter. He also taught this in word, saying: “If they persecute you in one town, flee to another” (Mt 10:23). Another answer is that Christ was both God and man. By reason of his divinity, he could prevent his being injured by those persecuting him. Yet, he did not want to do this all the time, for while this would have shown his divinity, it might have cast doubt on his humanity. Therefore, he showed his humanity by sometimes fleeing, as man, those who were persecuting him, to silence all those who would say that he was not a true man. And he showed his divinity by sometimes walking among them unharmed, thus refuting all those who say he was only a man. Thus, Chrysostom has another text, which reads: “He could not, even if he wanted to, walk about Judea.” This is expressed in our human way, and is the same as saying: Due to the danger of treachery, a person cannot go anywhere he might wish. The third answer is that it was not yet the time for Christ’s passion. The time would come when Christ would suffer, at the feast of the Passover, when the lamb was sacrificed, so that victim would succeed victim: “Jesus knew that his time had come to leave this world for the Father” (below 13:1).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ex congruitate vero temporis, quia erat tempus congruum ad eundum in Ierusalem: et hoc est quod dicit <i>erat autem in proximo die festus Iudaeorum Scenopegia</i>. Scenopegia autem Graecum est, compositum ex scenos, quod est umbra, et phagim, quod est comedere; quasi dicat: erat tempus in quo comedebant in tabernaculis. Dominus enim mandavit filiis Israel, Lev. XXIII, 41, quod mense septimo per septem dies habitarent in tabernaculis, in memoriam quod quadraginta annis habitaverunt in tabernaculis in deserto. Et hoc festum tunc celebrabant Iudaei. Commemorat autem hoc Evangelista, ut ostendat quod multum tempus praetermisit ab eo tempore quo praemissa de cibo spirituali dicta fuerunt usque ad istud tempus. Nam quando fecit miraculum de panibus, erat prope dies Paschae; hoc autem festum Scenopegiae est multo post Pascha; et sic nihil eorum quae in quinque mensibus intermediis per dominum facta sunt, recitat hic Evangelista: ut detur intelligi quod licet indeficienter signa faceret, ut patet infra ultimo, illa praecipue studuerunt Evangelistae dicere pro quibus aut querela aut contradictio a Iudaeis subsequebatur.
            <td>1013 They were also influenced by the suitableness of the time, for it was a time for going to Jerusalem. <b>Now it was close to the Jewish feast of Tabernacles</b> (<i>scenopegia</i>). <i>Scenopegia</i> is a Greek word, composed of <i>scenos,</i> which means “shade,” or “tent,” and <i>phagim,</i> which means “to eat.” As if to say: It was the time in which they used to eat in their tents. For our Lord (Lv 23:41) had ordered the children of Israel to stay in their tents for seven days during the seventh month, as a rerninder of the forty years they had lived in tents in the desert. This was the feast the Jews were then celebrating. The Evangelist mentions this in order to show that some time had already passed since the previous teaching about spiritual food. For it was near the Passover when our Lord performed the miracle of the loaves, and this feast of Tabernacles is much later. The Evangelist does not tell us what our Lord did in the intervening five months. We can see from this that although Jesus was always performing miracles, as the last chapter says, the Evangelist was mainly concerned with recording those matters over which the Jews argued and with which they disagreed.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixerunt autem ad eum fratres eius</i>, ponitur incitatio fratrum domini, et primo ponitur eorum admonitio; secundo assignatur admonitionis ratio, ibi <i>ut discipuli tui videant opera tua</i>; tertio ab Evangelista assignatur causa talis rationis, ibi <i>neque enim fratres eius credebant in eum</i>.
            <td>1014 Then (v 3), our Lord is urged on by his brethren. First, we are given their advice; secondly, the reason for it (v 3b); and thirdly, the Evangelist mentions the cause of this reason (v 5).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Circa primum primo ponuntur incitantes; unde dicit <i>dixerunt autem ad eum fratres eius</i>, non carnales et uterini, ut Elvidius blasphemavit, quod abhorret fides Catholica, quod sanctissimus ille virgineus uterus qui Deum protulit et hominem, protulisset postmodum alium hominem mortalem. Fratres ergo eius erant cognatione, quia erant consanguinei beatae Mariae virginis; haec enim est consuetudo Scripturae, consanguineos appellare fratres, secundum illud Gen. c. XIII, 8: <i>non sit, quaeso, iurgium inter me et te (...) fratres enim sumus</i>; cum tamen Lot nepos esset Abrahae. Et, ut Augustinus dicit, sicut in sepulcro ubi positum fuerat corpus domini, nec ante nec postea iacuit corpus, sic uterus Mariae nec ante nec postea quidquam mortale concepit. Sed quia aliqui de consanguineis beatae virginis erant apostoli, sicut filii Zebedaei, et Iacobi Alphaei, et alii, ideo non est intelligendum quod fuerunt de illis qui incitaverunt Christum, sed illi fuerunt alii propinqui eius, qui Christum non diligebant.
            <td>1015 As to the first, the ones who urge Christ are mentioned; hence he says, <b>So his brethren said to him.</b> These were not brothers of the flesh or of the womb, as the blasphemous opinion of Elvidius would have it. It is, indeed, offensive to the Catholic faith that the most holy virginal womb, which bore him who was God and man, should later bear another mortal man. Thus, they were his brothers or brethren in the sense of relatives, because they were related by blood to the Blessed Virgin Mary. For it is the custom in Scripture to call relatives “brothers,” as in Genesis (13:8): “Let us not quarrel, for we are brothers,” although Lot was the nephew of Abraham. And, as Augustine says, just as in the tomb in which our Lord’s body had been placed no other body was placed either before or after, so the womb of Mary conceived no other mortal person either before or after Christ. Although some of the relatives of the Blessed Virgin were apostles, such as the sons of Zebedee, and James of Alpheus, and some others, we should not think that these were among those who were urging Christ; this was done by other relatives who did not love him.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Secundo ponitur monitio eorum, cum dicunt <i>transi hinc</i>, scilicet de Galilaea, <i>et vade in Iudaeam</i>, ubi est Ierusalem locus solemnis, doctoribus conveniens; Amos VII, 12: <i>qui vides, gradere in terram Iuda, et ibi comedes panem tuum, et prophetabis ibi</i>.
            <td>Secondly, we see their advice when they say: <b>Leave this place,</b> that is, Galilee, <b>and go to Judea,</b> where you will find Jerusalem, a sacred place, well-suited to teachers. “Seer, go, flee to the land of Ridah. There eat your bread and there prophesy” (Am 7:12).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Rationem autem subdunt, dicentes <i>ut et discipuli tui videant opera tua</i>, ubi ostendunt se primo inanis gloriae cupidos; secundo suspiciosos, et tertio incredulos.
            <td>1016 They give their reason when they say: <b>so that your disciples also may see your works which you perform.</b> Here they show, first, that they are hungry for an empty glory; secondly, that they are suspicious; and thirdly, do not believe [in our Lord].
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Cupidos quidem inanis gloriae ostendunt se, cum dicunt <i>ut et discipuli tui videant opera tua</i>. Patiebantur enim aliquid humani ad Christum, et volebant captare gloriam de honore humano, qui Christo exhiberetur a turbis; et ideo inducebant eum ut faceret opera sua in publico. Est enim proprium inanis gloriae cupidi ut quidquid gloriosum sui vel suorum fuerit, ostendatur in publico; Matth. VI, 5: <i>amant in synagogis et in angulis platearum stantes orare ut videantur ab hominibus</i>; de quibus dicitur infra XII, 43: <i>dilexerunt magis gloriam hominum quam Dei</i>.
            <td>They show that they are hungry for all empty glory when they say, <b>so that Your disciples also may see your works which you perform.</b> For they allowed something human to Christ and wanted to share the glory of the human honor that the people would show him. And so, they urged him to perform his works in public: for it is a characteristic of one who is seeking human glory to want publicly known whatever of his own or of his associates can bring glory. “They like to pray at street comers, so people can see them” (Mt 6:5). We read of such people: “For they loved the glory of men, more than the glory of God” (below 12:43).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Suspiciosos autem ostendunt se et primo de formidine Christum notant; unde dicunt ei <i>nemo quippe in occulto aliquid facit</i>, quasi dicant: tu dicis te facere miracula, sed facis in occulto et hoc ex timore, alioquin ires in Ierusalem et faceres ea ibi coram multitudine. Sed tamen dominus dicit infra XVIII, v. 20: <i>in occulto locutus sum nihil</i>.
            <td>They reveal that they themselves are suspicious, and first of all remark on Christ’s fear, saying: <b>Surely, no one works in secret.</b> As if to say: You say that you are performing miracles. But you are doing them secretly because of fear; otherwise you would go to Jerusalem and do them before the people. Nevertheless, our Lord says below: “I have said nothing secretly” (below 18:20).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Secundo notant eum de amore gloriae; unde dicunt <i>et quaerit ipse in palam esse</i>, quasi dicant: tu quaeris gloriam de his quae facis, et tamen propter timorem abscondis te. Hoc est proprium malorum, ut credant alios similes eis animi passiones habere. Vide quam irreverenter prudentia carnis verbum carnem factum arguebat: contra quos dicit Iob IV, 3: <i>arguis eum qui non est similis tibi, et loqueris quod tibi non expedit</i>.
            <td>Secondly, they refer to his love of glory, saying: <b>if he wants to be publicly renowned.</b> As if to say: You want glory because of what you are doing, yet you are hiding because you are afraid. Now this attitude is characteristic of those who are evil: to think that other people are experiencing the same emotions as they are. Notice the disrespect with which the prudence of the flesh reproached the Word made flesh. Job says against them: “You reproach him who is not like you, and say what you should not” (Jb 4:3).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Incredulos ostendunt se esse, cum dicunt <i>si haec facis, manifesta teipsum mundo</i>; quasi sub dubio ponunt an ipse miracula faciat; Is. XXI, 2: <i>qui incredulus est, infideliter agit</i>.
            <td>They show they do not believe when they say: <b>If you do these things, reveal yourself to the world,</b> doubting whether he did perform miracles. “He who does not believe is unfaithful” (Is 21:2).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Causam autem quare sic loquebantur, subdit Evangelista cum dicit <i>neque enim fratres eius credebant in eum</i>. Contingit enim quod carnales consanguinei maxime adversantur suis, et invident de bonis spiritualibus, et contemnunt eum. Unde dicit Augustinus: Christum consanguineum habere potuerunt, credere autem in eum in ipsa propinquitate fastidierunt. Mich. VII, 6: <i>inimici hominis domestici eius</i>; Iob XIX, 13: <i>fratres meos longe facit a me, et noti mei quasi alieni recesserunt a me: dereliquerunt me proximi mei, et qui me noverant, obliti sunt mei</i>.
            <td>1017 The Evangelist tells why they said this when he says, <b>For not even his brethren believed in him.</b> For sometimes blood relatives are very hostile to one of their own, and are jealous of his spiritual goods. They may even despise him. Thus Augustine says: “They could have Christ as a relative, but in that very closeness they refused to believe in him.” “A man’s enemies are in his own house” (Mi 7:6); “He has put my brethren far from me, and my acquaintances, like strangers, have gone from me. My relatives have left me, and those who knew me have forgotten me” (Jb 19:13).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixit ergo eis Iesus: tempus meum nondum advenit</i> etc., ponitur Christi responsio, et primo designat temporis ad ascendendum indispositionem; secundo assignat dictorum rationem, ibi <i>non potest mundus odisse vos</i>; tertio ponit ascendendi recusationem, ibi <i>vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc</i> et cetera.
            <td>1018 Then (v 6), Christ’s answer is given. First, he mentions that the time was not appropriate for going to Jerusalem; secondly, the reason for this (v 7); and thirdly, we see Christ deciding not to go (v 8).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sciendum est autem quod tota sequens littera aliter exponitur secundum Augustinum, et aliter secundum Chrysostomum. Nam, secundum Augustinum, fratres domini invitabant eum ad humanam gloriam. Est autem tempus quo sancti perveniunt ad gloriam, scilicet tempus futurum, ad quam perveniunt per passiones et tribulationes. Sap. c. III, 6: <i>tamquam aurum in fornace probavit illos, et quasi holocausti hostiam accepit illos, et in tempore erit respectus illorum</i>. Aliud vero est tempus quo mundani gloriam suam acquirunt, scilicet tempus praesens. Sap. c. II, 7: <i>non praetereat nos flos temporis: coronemus nos rosis antequam marcescant, nullum pratum sit quod non pertranseat luxuria nostra</i> et cetera. Voluit ergo dominus ostendere quod non quaerebat gloriam huius temporis; sed ad celsitudinem gloriae caelestis per passionem et humilitatem suam volebat pervenire. Lc. ult., 26: <i>oportuit Christum pati, et ita intrare in gloriam suam</i>. Et ideo dicit eis, scilicet fratribus, <i>tempus meum, idest tempus gloriae meae, nondum venit</i>: quia oportet quod tristitia convertatur in gaudium. Rom. VIII, 18: <i>non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobis</i>. Sed <i>tempus vestrum</i>, idest mundi gloria, <i>semper est paratum</i>.
            <td>1019 We should note that all of the following text is explained differently by Augustine and by Chrysostom. Augustine says that the brethren of our Lord were urging him to a human glory. Now there is a time, in the future, when the saints do acquire glory, a glory they obtain by their Sufferings and troubles. “He has tested them like gold in a furnace, and he accepted them as the victim of a holocaust. At the time of their visitation they will shine” (Wis 3:6). And there is a time, the present, when the worldly acquire their glory. “Let not the flowers of the time pass us by; let us crown ourselves with roses before they wither” (Wis 2:7). Our Lord, therefore, wanted to show hat he was not looking for the glory of this present time, but that he wanted to attain to the height of heavenly glory through his passion and humiliation. “It was necessary for Christ to suffer, and so enter into his glory” (Lk 24:26). So Jesus says to them, i.e., his brethren: My time, i.e., the time of my glory, <b>has not yet come,</b> because my sorrow must be turned into joy: “The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, which will be revealed in us” (Rom 8:18); <b>but your time,</b> i.e., the time of the glory of this world, <b>is always here.</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Rationem huius diversitatis temporis assignat cum dicit <i>non potest mundus odisse vos; me autem odit</i>. Ideo enim mundani habent tempus gloriae paratum, quia eadem amant quae mundus amat, et mundo consentiunt. Sancti vero qui quaerunt gloriam spiritualem, non habent hoc tempus paratum, quia quaerunt quae mundo displicent, scilicet paupertatem, luctum, esuriem et huiusmodi. Vituperant etiam quae mundus amat: immo ipsum mundum contemnunt; Gal. ult., v. 14: <i>mihi mundus crucifixus est, et ego mundo</i>. Et ideo dicit <i>non potest mundus odisse vos</i>; quasi diceret: ideo paratum est tempus gloriae vestrae, quia mundus non odit vos, qui convenitis cum eo, et omne animal diligit sibi simile. <i>Sed me odit</i>; et ideo tempus meum non semper est paratum. Et ratio odii est, <i>quia ego testimonium perhibeo de illo</i>, scilicet mundo, quia opera <i>eius mala sunt</i>; idest, non praetermitto mundanos homines redarguere, licet sciam ex hoc odium incurrere et mortem intentari. Amos c. V, X: <i>odio habuerunt corripientem in porta</i>, illi scilicet qui amant malitiam. Et Prov. IX, 8: <i>noli arguere derisorem</i>.
            <td>1020 He gives the reason why these times are different when he says, <b>The world cannot hate you, but me, it hates.</b> The reason why the time for the glory of the worldly is here is that they love the same things the world loves, and they agree with the world. But the time for the glory of the saints, who are looking for a spiritual glory, is not here, because they want what is displeasing to the world, that is, poverty, afflictions, doing without food, and things like that. They even disparage what the world loves; in fact, they despise the world: “The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal 6:14). And so he says, <b>The world cannot hate you.</b> As if to say: Thus, the time of your glory is here, because the world does not hate you, who are in agreement with it; and every animal loves its like. <b>But me, it hates,</b> and so my time is not always here. And the reason it hates me is <b>because I bear witness against it,</b> that is, the world, <b>for its works are evil;</b> that is, I do not hesitate to reprimand those who are worldly, even though I know that they will hate me for it and threaten me with death. “They,” that is, those who love evil, “hate the one who rebukes at the city gate” (Am 5:10); “Do lot rebuke one who mocks, lest he hate you” (Prv 9:8).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed numquid non mundani aliqui odio habentur a mundo, idest ab alio mundano? Responsio. Dicendum, quod in particulari mundanus quidem unus habetur odio ab alio, inquantum habet ea quae ipse vellet habere, vel impedit eum in his quae sunt de gloria mundi; sed inquantum mundanus, nullus oditur a mundo. Sancti vero universaliter odiuntur a mundo, quia contrariantur ei: et si aliquis de mundo eos diligat, hoc non est inquantum est de mundo, sed inquantum est in eo aliquid spirituale.
            <td>1021 But cannot a person of the world be hated by the world, i.e., by another person of the world? I answer that, in a particular case, one worldly person can hate another insofar as the latter has what the first wants, or prevents him from obtaining what relates to the glory of this world. But precisely insofar as a person is of the world, the world does not hate him. The saints, however, are universally hated by the world because they are opposed to it. And if anyone of the world does love them, it is not because he is of the world, but because of something spiritual in him.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Recusat autem dominus ascendere, cum dicit <i>vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc; ego autem non ascendam</i>. Sicut enim sunt duae gloriae, ita duo diversa festa. Mundani enim habent festa temporalia, scilicet gaudere et epulari, et huiusmodi exteriores delicias. Is. XXII, 12: <i>vocavit dominus ad lamentum et ad planctum, ad calvitium et ad cingulum sacci: et ecce gaudium et laetitia occidere vitulos, et iugulare arietes, comedere carnes, et bibere vinum</i>; ibid. I, 14: <i>solemnitates vestras odivit anima mea</i>. Sancti vero habent festa spiritualia, quae in delectationibus spiritus consistunt. Is. XXXIII, 20: <i>respice Sion civitatem solemnitatis vestrae</i>. Et ideo dicit <i>vos</i>, qui gloriam mundi quaeritis, <i>ascendite ad diem festum hunc</i>, idest ad festa laetitiae temporalis; <i>ego autem non ascendam ad diem festum istum</i>, sed ad diem festum solemnitatis aeternae; et hoc, <i>quia meum tempus</i>, scilicet gloriae verae, quod erit permanens in aeternum gaudium sine fine, aeternitas sine labore, claritas sine nube, <i>nondum impletum est</i>.
            <td>1022 Our Lord refuses to go when he says, <b>You yourselves go up for this feast. I, however, will not go up for this festival.</b> For just as there are two kinds of glory, so there are two different feasts. Worldly people have temporal feasts, that is, their own enjoyments and banquets and such exterior pleasures. “The Lord called for weeping and mourning... and look at the rejoicing and gladness” (Is 22:12); “I hate your feasts” (Is 1:14). But the saints have their own spiritual feasts, which consist in the joys of the spirit: “Look upon Zion, the city of your feasts” (Is 33:20). So he says: You yourselves, who are looking for the glory of this world, <b>go up for this feast,</b> i.e., to the feasts of temporal pleasure; <b>I, however, will not go up for this festival,</b> for I will go to the feast of an eternal celebration. I am not going up now <b>because my time,</b> that is, the time of my true glory, which will be a joy that lasts forever, an eternity without fatigue, and a brightness without shadow, <b>is not yet completed.</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Secundum Chrysostomum, servata eadem divisione, exponitur sic: scilicet quod fratres domini conspiraverant in mortem Christi cum Iudaeis, unde inducebant eum ad eundum, volentes eum prodere et tradere Iudaeis. Et ideo dicit <i>tempus meum</i>, scilicet crucis et mortis, <i>nondum advenit</i>, ut vadam in Iudaeam, et occidar; <i>tempus autem vestrum semper est paratum</i>, quia sine periculo conversari poteritis cum eis. Et huius ratio est, quia non possunt odire vos, zelantes eadem et amantes cum eis: <i>me autem odit: quia ego testimonium perhibeo de illo, quia opera eius mala sunt</i>. Per quod patet quod Iudaei non propter solutionem sabbati, sed propter publicam redargutionem me odiunt. <i>Vos ergo ascendite ad diem festum hunc</i> scilicet ad principium festi (nam septem diebus celebrabatur, ut dictum est), <i>ego autem non ascendam ad diem festum istum</i>, scilicet vobiscum, scilicet ad principium festi, <i>quia nondum tempus meum est impletum</i>, in quo patiar: nam in futuro Pascha crucifigendus erat. Ideo autem non ascendit cum eis, ut posset magis latere et cetera.
            <td>1023 Chrysostom keeps the same division of the text, but explains it this way. He says that these brethren of our Lord joined with the Jews in plotting the death of Christ. And so they urged Christ to go to the feast, intending to betray him and hand him over to the Jews. That is why he says: <b>My time,</b> that is, the time for my cross and death, <b>has not yet come,</b> to go to Judea and be killed. <b>But your time is always here,</b> because you can associate with them without danger. And this is because they cannot hate you: you who love and envy the same things they do. <b>But me, it hates, because I bear witness against it, for its works are evil.</b> This shows that the Jews hate me, not because I broke the sabbath, but because I denounced them in public. <b>You yourselves go up for this feast,</b> that is, for its beginning (for it lasted seven days, as was said), <b>I, however, will not go up for this festival,</b> that is, with you, and when it first begins: <b>because my time is not yet completed,</b> when I am to suffer, for he was to be crucified at a future Passover. Accordingly, he did not go with them then in order to remain out of sight, and so forth.
      </table>
      <hr>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr style="align:center">
            <td><b>Lectio 2</b>
            <td><b>LECTURE 2</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
              <blockquote>
                9 ταῦτα δὲ εἰπὼν αὐτὸς ἔμεινεν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ. 10 ὡς δὲ ἀνέβησαν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη, οὐ φανερῶς ἀλλὰ [ὡς] ἐν κρυπτῷ. 11 οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ καὶ ἔλεγον, ποῦ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος; 12 καὶ γογγυσμὸς περὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις: οἱ μὲν ἔλεγον ὅτι ἀγαθός ἐστιν, ἄλλοι [δὲ] ἔλεγον, οὔ, ἀλλὰ πλανᾷ τὸν ὄχλον. 13 οὐδεὶς μέντοι παρρησίᾳ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 14 ἤδη δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς μεσούσης ἀνέβη Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἐδίδασκεν. 15 ἐθαύμαζον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες, πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ μεμαθηκώς; 16 ἀπεκρίθη οὖν αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν,
                <dl>
                  <dd>ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὴ ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με:
                  <dd>17 ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν,
                  <dd>γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς πότερον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ἢ ἐγὼ ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ λαλῶ.
                  <dd>18 ὁ ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ λαλῶν τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἰδίαν ζητεῖ:
                  <dd>ὁ δὲ ζητῶν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν,
                  <dd>οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστιν καὶ ἀδικία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν.
                  <dd>19 οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν νόμον;
                  <dd>καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν ποιεῖ τὸν νόμον.
                  <dd>τί με ζητεῖτε ἀποκτεῖναι;<br>
                  20 ἀπεκρίθη ὁ ὄχλος, δαιμόνιον ἔχεις:
                  <dd>τίς σε ζητεῖ ἀποκτεῖναι; 21 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,
                  <dd>ἓν ἔργον ἐποίησα καὶ πάντες θαυμάζετε.
                  <dd>22 διὰ τοῦτο Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν περιτομήν
                  <dd>—οὐχ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ἐστὶν ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν πατέρων—
                  <dd>καὶ ἐν σαββάτῳ περιτέμνετε ἄνθρωπον.
                  <dd>23 εἰ περιτομὴν λαμβάνει ἄνθρωπος ἐν σαββάτῳ
                  <dd>ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ ὁ νόμος Μωϋσέως,
                  <dd>ἐμοὶ χολᾶτε
                  <dd>ὅτι ὅλον ἄνθρωπον ὑγιῆ ἐποίησα ἐν σαββάτῳ;
                  <dd>24 μὴ κρίνετε κατ' ὄψιν,
                  <dd>ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε.
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
            <td>
              <blockquote>
                9 When he had said this, he remained in Galilee. 10 However, after his brethren had gone up, he himself went up for the feast, not publicly, but as it were in secret. 11 The Jews looked for him at the feast, and they asked: “Where is he?” 12 There was much whispering among the people concerning him, for some were saying that he was a good man, while others said, “On the contrary, he leads people astray.” 13 Nevertheless, no one spoke openly about him for fear of the Jews. 14 Now when the festival was half over, Jesus went into the temple, and he taught. 15 The Jews were amazed, saying, “How did this man get his learning, since he never studied?” 16 Jesus answered and said:
                <dl>
                  <dd>“My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me.
                  <dd>17 If anyone wants to do his will, he will know
                  <dd>whether this doctrine is from God,
                  <dd>or whether I am speaking on my own.
                  <dd>18 Whoever speaks on his own [authority] seeks his own glory.
                  <dd>But the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him
                  <dd>is truthful, and there is no injustice in him.
                  <dd>19 Did not Moses give you the law?
                  <dd>And yet none of you obey the law.
                  <dd>
                    20 Why do you want to kill me?”
                    <p>The crowd replied and said: “You have a demon within you! Who wants to kill you?” 21 Jesus answered and said to them:
                  <dd>“I performed one work, and you are all amazed.
                  <dd>22 Therefore, Moses gave you circumcision,
                  <dd>(not that it originated with Moses, but with the patriarchs)
                  <dd>and you circumcise on the sabbath day.
                  <dd>23 If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath day,
                  <dd>so that the law of Moses may not be broken,
                  <dd>why are you indignant with me because I healed
                  <dd>a whole man on the sabbath?
                  <dd>24 Judge not by the appearances, but with a just judgment.”
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Postquam egit Evangelista de incitatione qua cognati domini inducebant Christum ut ascenderet in Iudaeam, et posuit Christi responsionem, hic consequenter agit de ascensu eius, et primo ponitur dilatio ascensus Christi; secundo ordo eius; tertio ascensionis modus.
            <td>1024 After the Evangelist mentioned how our Lord’s relatives urged him to go to Judea, and what Christ replied to them, he then tells us of his journey. First, of his delay in going into Judea; secondly, of the order of the events; and thirdly, the way Christ went up.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Dilatio quidem ponitur cum dicit <i>haec cum dixisset</i>, scilicet quae respondit, <i>mansit ipse in Galilaea</i>, non ascendens cum cognatis ad diem festum, ut verificaretur verbum suum, quod dixerat: <i>ego non ascendam ad diem festum istum</i>. Num. c. XXIII, 19: <i>non est Deus ut homo, ut mentiatur, neque ut filius hominis, ut mutetur</i>.
            <td>1025 He mentions our Lord’s delay in going when he says, <b>When he had said this,</b> in answer to his relatives, <b>he remained in Galilee,</b> and did not go to the feast with them. He did this to keep to his word: “I, however, will not go up for this festival.” As we read in Numbers (23:19): “God is not like man, a liar.”
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ordo vero eius ponitur cum dicit <i>ut autem ascenderunt fratres eius</i>, idest cognati, <i>tunc et ipse ascendit</i> et cetera. Sed hoc videtur contra illud quod supra dixit: <i>ego autem non ascendam</i>; cum apostolus dicat II Cor. I, 19: <i>Christus Iesus qui in vobis praedicatus est per nos (...) non fuit in illo est et non, sed est in illo fuit</i>.
            <td>1026 He gives the order of events when he says, <b>However, after his brethren,</b> that is, his relatives, <b>had gone up, he himself went up for the feast.</b> This seems to conflict with what he had said before: “I will not go up”, for the Apostle says, “Jesus Christ, whom we preached among you... was not ‘Yes’ and ‘No,’ but only ‘Yes.’” (2 Cor 1:19).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Respondeo dicendum primo, quod festum Scenopegiae septem diebus agebatur, ut dictum est. Dominus autem dixit supra: <i>ego autem non ascendam ad diem festum hunc</i>, idest ad principium festi. Hoc autem quod hic dicitur <i>ad diem festum</i>, intelligendum est quantum ad intermedios dies, unde et sequitur: <i>iam autem die festo mediante</i>. Et sic patet quod factum Christi non contrariatur eius dicto. Secundo vero, ut Augustinus dicit, isti volebant quod Christus ascenderet in Iudaeam, ut quaesiturus gloriam temporalem, et sic dixit eis: <i>non ascendam ad diem festum hunc</i>, hoc modo sicut vos vultis. Sed ipse ascendit ad diem festum, quasi docturus turbas et instructurus de gloria sempiterna. Tertio, secundum Chrysostomum, quia supra dixit <i>non ascendam ad diem festum hunc</i>, passurus et moriturus, ut ipsi volebant; et tamen ipse ascendit ad diem festum non ut pateretur, sed ut alios erudiret.
            <td>I answer, first, that the festival of Tabernacles lasted for seven days, as was mentioned. Now our Lord first stated, “I, however, will not go up for this festival,” that is, for its beginning. When it says here that <b>he himself went up for the feast</b>, we should understand this to refer to the middle of the feast. This is why we read a little further on: “Now, when the festival was half over” (v 14). So it is clear that Christ was not breaking his word. Secondly, as Augustine says, his relatives wanted him to go to Jerusalem to try for a temporal glory. So he said to them: “I, however, will not go up for this festival,” for the purpose you want me to. But he did go to the festival to teach the people and to tell them about an eternal glory. Thirdly, as Chrysostom says, our: Lord said, “I, however, will not go up for this festival,” to suffer and die, as they wished; but he did go, not in order to suffer, but to teach others.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Modus ascensus ostenditur <i>non in manifesto, sed quasi in occulto</i>. Et huius ratio triplex est. Una, secundum Chrysostomum, ne magis suam divinitatem denudans, incarnatio eius minus certa esset, ut dictum est supra, et ut auferat verecundiam latendi iustis hominibus, quando non possunt persecutores suos publice detinere; et ideo dicit <i>quasi in occulto</i>, ut ostendat hoc esse dispensatione factum. Is. XLV, 15: <i>vere tu es Deus absconditus</i>. Alia, secundum Augustinum, ut scilicet daretur intelligi quod Christus occultus est in figuris veteris testamenti. Is. VIII, 17: <i>expectavi dominum, qui abscondit faciem</i>, idest manifestam notitiam, <i>suam a domo Iacob: unde et usque in hodiernum diem velamen habent positum super cor eorum</i>, ut dicitur II Cor. III, 15. Ideo omnia quae dicta sunt antiquo populo illi, umbrae fuerunt futurorum bonorum, ut dicitur Hebr. X, 1. Ut ergo ostendat quod etiam ipsum festum esset figura, ideo ascendit in occulto. Scenopegia, ut dictum est, erat festum tabernaculorum. Ille ergo hoc festum celebrat qui se in mundo isto intelligit peregrinum. Alia ratio est, ut doceat nos bona quae facimus occultare debere, non quaerentes favorem hominum, nec pompas stipantium turbarum desiderantes, secundum illud Matth. c. VI, 1: <i>attendite ne iustitiam vestram faciatis coram hominibus, ut videamini ab eis</i>.
            <td>1027 The way he went was not <b>publicly, but as it were in secret.</b> There are three reasons for this. The first, given by Chrysostom, is so that he would not call more attention to his divinity, and so perhaps make his incarnation less certain, as was said above; and so that those who are virtuous would not be ashamed to hid from those who are persecuting them when they cannot openly restrain them. Thus he says, <b>in secret,</b> to show that this was done according to plan: “Truly, you are a hidden God” (Is 45:15). Augustine gives us another reason: to teach us that Christ was hidden in the figures of the Old Testament: “I will wait for the Lord, who has hidden his fact (i.e., clear knowledge) from the house of Jacob” (Is 8:17); so, “Even to this day... a veil is over their hearts” (2 Cor 3:15). Thus everything that was said to this ancient people was a shadow of the good things to come, as we see from Hebrews (10:1). So our Lord went up in secret to show that even this feast was a figure. <i>Scenopegia</i>, as we saw, was the feast of Tabernacles; and the one who celebrates this feast is the one who understands that he is a pilgrim in this world. Another reason why our Lord went up in secret was to teach us that we should conceal the good things we do, not looking for human approval or desiring the applause of the crowd: “Take care not to perform your good actions in the sight of men, in order to be seen by them” (Mt 6:1).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>Iudaei ergo quaerebant eum in die festo</i> ponit occasionem manifestandi originem doctrinae spiritualis, et ponit duas occasiones unam causatam ex dissensione turbarum, aliam ex admiratione earum, ibi <i>iam autem die festo mediante, ascendit Iesus in templum</i> et cetera. Dissensio turbarum erat circa opinionem de Christo; unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit id in quo omnes conveniebant; secundo illud in quo differebant, ibi <i>et murmur multus erat in turba de eo</i>; tertio quorum opinio inter eos praevalebat, ibi <i>nemo tamen palam loquebatur de illo propter metum Iudaeorum</i>.
            <td>1028 Then (v 11), he mentions the opportunity Christ had to show the origin of his spiritual teaching. He mentions two such opportunities: one was due to the disagreement among the people; the other to their amazement (v 15). The people disagreed in what they thought of Christ. He does three things concerning this. First, he shows what they had in common; secondly, how they differed (v 12); and thirdly, whose opinion prevailed (v 13).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Conveniebant autem omnes in hoc quod <i>quaerebant eum in die festo, et dicebant: ubi est ille?</i> Patet quod ex multo odio et inimicitia neque eum nominare volebant. Gen. XXXVII, 4: <i>oderant eum, nec poterant ei quidquam pacifice loqui</i>.
            <td>1029 What they had in common was that they <b>looked for him at the feast, and they asked: Where is he?</b> It is obvious that they did not even want to mention his name because of their hatred and hostility: “They hated him and could not speak civilly to him” (Gn 37:4).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Differebant autem, quia quidam quaerebant desiderio addiscendi, secundum illud Ps. LXVIII, 33: <i>quaerite eum, et vivet anima vestra</i>; alii quaerebant eum desiderio malignandi, secundum illud Ps. XXXIX, 14: <i>quaerunt animam meam ut auferant eam</i>. Et ideo <i>murmur erat multus in turba</i>, de contentione quae erat <i>de eo</i> in turba. Et licet murmur sit generis neutri, tamen Hieronymus ponit in masculino, quia hoc habebat antiqua grammatica, vel ut ostendat divinam Scripturam non subiacere regulis Prisciani.
            <td>1030 They differed, however, because some looked for him because they wished to learn: “Seek him, and your soul will live” (Ps 68:33); others were looking for him in order to harm him: as in the Psalm (39:15): “They seek my soul to carry it away.” <b>And so There was much whispering among the people concerning him,</b> because of their disagreements. And although “whispering” (<i>murmur</i>) is neuter in gender, Jerome makes it masculine (<i>murmur multus</i>) because he was following the custom of the older grammarians, or else to show that divine Scripture is not subject to the rules of Priscian.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Et erat dissensio, quia <i>quidam</i>, de turba, illi scilicet qui habebant rectum cor, <i>dicebant</i>, de Christo, <i>quia bonus est</i>. Ps. LXXII, 1: <i>quam bonus Israel Deus his qui recto sunt corde</i>. Thren. c. III, 25: <i>bonus est dominus sperantibus in eum, animae quaerenti illum. Alii</i>, scilicet qui erant male dispositi, <i>dicebant, non</i>, scilicet non est bonus. Datur autem per hoc intelligi, quod multitudo opinabatur eum bonum; sed principes sacerdotum opinabantur eum malum, et ideo dicunt <i>sed seducit turbas</i>. Lc. XXIII, 2: <i>hunc invenimus subvertentem gentem nostram</i>; Matth. XXVII, 63: <i>recordati sumus quod seductor ille dixit</i> et cetera.
            <td>There was disagreement: for some of the people, that is, those who were right in heart, were saying, of Christ, <b>that he was a good man.</b> “How good God is to Israel, to those whose heart is right” (Ps 72:1); “The Lord is good to those who hope in him, to the one who seeks him” (Lam 3:25). <b>While others,</b> that is, those who were badly disposed, said: On the contrary, i.e., he is not a good man. We can see from this that it was the people who thought that he was a good person, while he was considered evil by the chief priests; so they say, he leads people astray: “We found this man leading our people astray” (Lk 23:2); “We have remembered that that seducer said...” (Mt 27:63).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sciendum est autem, quod seducere est seorsum ducere: potest autem homo duci seorsum vel a veritate, vel a falsitate; et utroque modo potest dici aliquis seductor. Vel inquantum seorsum ducit a veritate; et hoc modo non competit Christo, quia ipse est veritas etc., infra XIV, 6. Vel a falsitate; et hoc modo Christus seductor dicitur; Ier. XX, 7: <i>seduxisti me, domine, et seductus sum: fortior me fuisti, et invaluisti</i>. Et utinam sic omnes seductores vocemur et simus, ut dicit Augustinus. Magis autem seductor dicitur qui a veritate seducit et decipit: quia ille dicitur seorsum duci, qui trahitur a via communi. Veritas autem communis via est; haeresis vero et via malorum, diverticula quaedam sunt.
            <td>1031 Here we should note that to seduce is to lead away. Now a person can be led away either from what is true or from what is false. And in either way a person can be called a seducer: either because he leads one away from the truth, and in this sense it does not apply to Christ, because he is the truth (below c 8); or because he leads one away from what is false, and in this sense Christ is called a seducer: “You seduced me, O Lord, and I was seduced. You were stronger than I, and you have won” (Jer 20:7). Would that all of us were called and were seducers in this sense, as Augustine says. But we call a person a seducer primarily because he leads others away from the truth and deceives them: because a person is said to be led away if he is drawn from the common way. But the common way is the way of truth; heresies, on the other hind, and the way of the wicked, are detours.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Praevalet autem opinio malorum, scilicet principum sacerdotum, unde sequitur <i>nemo tamen palam loquebatur</i>. Et hoc, quia turbae comprimebantur propter metum principum sacerdotum; quia, ut dicitur infra IX, v. 22, <i>si quis confiteretur ipsum esse Christum, extra synagogam fiebat</i>. Ex quo patet eorum qui principabantur malitia, qua Christo insidiabantur, et eorum qui subiiciebantur, scilicet plebis, quia non habebant libertatem dicendi quod sentiunt.
            <td>1032 It was the opinion of the evil, that is, of the chief priests, that finally won out. Thus he continues, <b>Nevertheless, no one spoke openly about him.</b> This was because the people were held back by their fear of the chief priests, for as stated below (9:22): “If any one should profess him to be the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.” This reveals the wickedness with which the leaders plotted against Christ; and it shows that those who were subject to them, i.e., the people, were not free to say what they thought.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>iam autem die festo mediante, ascendit Iesus in templum</i>, ponitur secunda occasio manifestandi doctrinam, quae sumitur ex admiratione turbarum: et primo ponitur admirationis materia; secundo ipsa admiratio; et tertio admirationis ratio.
            <td>1033 Next (v 15), we see the second opportunity Christ had to present his teaching, that is, the amazement of the people. First, we see the object of their amazement; secondly, their amazement itself, and thirdly, the reason why they were amazed.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Materia quidem admirationis est doctrina Christi; unde et circa hanc ponitur et tempus et locus. Tempus, cum dicit <i>iam autem die festo mediante</i>; idest cum illius festi tot dies remansissent quot effluxerant, unde cum septem diebus ageretur festum, dicitur hoc fuisse quarto die. Et quidem in hoc quod se occultavit, humanitatis Christi est indicium, et nostrae virtutis documentum, ut dictum est; hoc autem quod se propalavit, nec eum tenere potuerunt, divinitatis est ostensivum. Ideo autem in medio festivitatis tempore ascendit, quia in principio festi omnes magis attenti sunt his quae festi sunt. Boni quidem ad cultum Dei, alii vero ad vanitates et lucra. Sed circa medium temporis, his quae festi sunt expeditis, magis parati sunt ad doctrinam. Ut ergo eos attentiores et paratiores ad doctrinam inveniret, non in primis diebus ascendit. Similiter etiam quia hoc congruit ordini doctrinae Christi: quia non in fine mundi, nec in principio, sed in medio tempore venit instruere homines de regno Dei, secundum illud Habac. III, 2: <i>in medio annorum notum facies</i>.
            <td>1034 The object of their amazement is the doctrine or teaching of Christ. Both the time and the place of this teaching are given. The time is mentioned when he says, <b>Now when the festival was half over,</b> that is, when as many days were left of the feast as had passed. Thus, since the feast lasted some seven days, this took place on the fourth day. As we said, when Christ hid himself, it was a sign of his humanity, and an example of virtue for us. But when he did come before them, and they could not suppress him, this showed his divinity. Further, our Lord went when the feast was half over, because at the beginning everyone would be occupied with matters relating to the feast: the good, with the worship of God, and others with trivialities and financial profit; but when it was half over, and such matters had been settled, the people would be better prepared to receive his teaching. Thus our Lord did not go to the first several days of the feast so that he would find them more attentive and better prepared for his teaching. Similarly, Christ’s going to the feast at this time paralleled the arrangement of his teaching: for Christ came to teach us about the kingdom of God, not at the beginning of the world, nor at its ending, but during the intervening time. “You will make it known in the intervening years” (Hb 3:2).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Locus autem doctrinae ostenditur cum dicit <i>in templum</i>, ubi docebat propter duo; scilicet ut ostenderet se docere veritatem quam calumniari non poterant, et quae erat omnibus necessaria: infra XVIII, 20: <i>ego in occulto locutus sum nihil</i>; secundo vero quia templum, cum sit locus sacer, conveniens est doctrinae Christi sanctissimae. Is. II, 3: <i>venite, ascendamus ad montem domini, et ad domum Dei Iacob; et docebit nos vias suas, et ambulabimus in semitis eius</i>.
            <td>The place where our Lord taught is mentioned when he says, <b>into the temple.</b> He taught there for two reasons. First, to show that he was teaching the truth, which they could not deprecate, and which was necessary for all: “I have said nothing secretly” (below 18:20). Secondly, because the temple, since it was a sacred place, was appropriate for the very holy teaching of Christ: “Come! Let us go up the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob. And he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his steps,” as we read in Isaiah (2:3).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Quid autem doceret Christus, praetermittit Evangelista; quia, ut dictum est, non omnia facta et verba domini exprimunt Evangelistae, sed ea quae commotionem et contradictionem in populo faciebant. Et ideo hic mentionem facit de commotione populi ex ipsa doctrina: quia scilicet qui ante dixerant <i>seducit turbas</i>, postea ex ipsa doctrina admiratione moventur.
            <td>The Evangelist does not mention what Christ taught, for, as was said, the Evangelists do not report everything our Lord did and said, but those which excited the people or produced some controversy. And so here he mentions the excitement his teaching produced in the people: that is, that those who had said before, “He leads people astray,” were now amazed at his teaching.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Et ideo consequenter cum dicit <i>et mirabantur Iudaei</i>, ponitur ipsorum admiratio. Nec mirum, quia hoc dicitur in Ps. CXVIII, 129: <i>mirabilia testimonia tua</i>. Verba enim Christi verba sunt sapientiae divinae.
            <td>1035 He mentions this amazement when he says, <b>The Jews were amazed.</b> And this is not surprising, for “Your testimony is wonderful” (Ps 118:129). For the words of Christ are the words of divine wisdom.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ratio autem admirationis subditur cum dicit <i>quomodo hic litteras scit cum non didicerit?</i> Sciebant enim Iesum filium esse pauperis mulieris; et putabatur filius fabri, qui de labore suo vivens, non insisteret studio litterarum, sed potius operi manuali; secundum illud Ps. LXXXVII, 16: <i>pauper sum ego, et in laboribus a iuventute mea</i>. Et ideo cum audiunt eum docere et disputare, mirantur dicentes <i>quomodo hic litteras scit, cum non didicerit?</i> Simile habetur Matth. XIII, 54: <i>unde huic sapientia et virtutes? Nonne hic est filius fabri?</i>
            <td>He adds the reason why they were amazed when he says, <b>How did this man get his learning, since he never studied?</b> For they knew that Jesus was the son of a poor woman and he was considered the son of a carpenter; as such, he would be working for a living and devoting his time, not to study, but to physical work, according to “I am poor, and have labored since my youth” (Ps 87:16). And so when they hear him teach and debate, they are amazed, and say, <b>How did this man get his learning, since he never studied?</b> Much the same is said in Matthew (13:54): “Where did he acquire this wisdom, and these great works? Isn’t he the son of the carpenter?”
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Posito loco et occasionibus manifestandi doctrinae spiritualis originem, hic consequenter ipsius doctrinae originem manifestat, et primo ostendit originem spiritualis doctrinae esse a Deo; secundo invitat ad susceptionem eius, ibi <i>in novissimo magnae festivitatis die stabat Iesus et clamabat</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit originem doctrinae; secundo originem docentis, ibi <i>dicebant ergo quidam ex Ierosolymis</i> et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit originem doctrinae; secundo excludit obiectionem, ibi <i>nonne Moyses dedit vobis legem?</i> Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit originem doctrinae; secundo probat, ibi <i>si quis voluerit voluntatem eius facere, cognoscet de doctrina</i>.
            <td>1036 Having been told of the place and opportunity which Christ had to reveal the origin of his spiritual teaching, we now see the origin of this teaching. First, he shows them that God is the source of this spiritual teaching; secondly, he invites them to accept it (v 37). As to the first, he does two things. First, he shows the origin of this teaching; secondly, the origin of the one teaching it (v 25). He does two things about the first. First, he shows the origin of this teaching; secondly, he answers an objection (v 19). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows the origin of this teaching; secondly, he proves th t it comes from God (v 17).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Dicit ergo <i>respondit eis Iesus et dixit</i>, quasi dicat: vos admiramini unde habeam scientiam; sed ego dico, quod <i>mea doctrina non est mea</i>. Si dixisset doctrina quam ego dico, non est mea nulla esset quaestio; sed quod dicit <i>mea non est mea</i>, videtur contradictionem implicare. Sed hoc solvitur, quia hoc dici potest multipliciter. Unde sua doctrina aliquo modo potest dici sua, et aliquo modo non sua. Si enim intelligatur de Christo filio Dei, sic cum doctrina uniuscuiusque nihil aliud sit quam verbum eius, filius autem Dei sit verbum eius: sequitur ergo quod doctrina patris sit ipse filius. Idem autem verbum est sui ipsius per identitatem substantiae. Quid enim tuum est nisi tu ipse? Est autem non suum per originem. Quid enim non tuum quam tu, si alicuius es, quod es? Ut Augustinus dicit. Hoc ergo breviter videtur dixisse <i>mea doctrina non est mea</i>; ac si diceret: ego non sum a meipso. In quo haeresis Sabelliana confunditur, qui dicere ausi sunt ipsum esse filium qui est pater.
            <td>1037 He says, <b>Jesus answered and said.</b> As if to say: You are wondering where I gained my knowledge; but <b>I say, My doctrine is not mine.</b> If he had said: “The doctrine that I am presenting to you is not mine,” there would be no problem. But he says: <b>My doctrine is not mine;</b> and this seems to be a contradiction. However, this can he explained, for this statement can be understood is several ways. Our Lord’s doctrine can in some sense be called his own, and in some sense not his own. First, we can understand Christ as the Son of God. Then, since the doctrine of anyone is nothing else than his word, and the Son of God is the Word of God, it follows that the doctrine of the Father is the Son himself. But this same Word belongs to himself through an identity of substance. “What does belong to you, if not you yourself?” However, he does not belong to himself through his origin. As Augustine says: “If you do not belong to yourself (because you are from another), what does?” This seems to be the meaning, expressed in summary fashion, of: <b>My doctrine is not mine.</b> As if to say: I am not of myself’. This refutes the Sabellian heresy, which dared to say that the Son is the Father.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Vel <i>mea doctrina</i>, quam ego pronuntio verbo creato, <i>non est mea, sed eius qui misit me</i>, patris; idest, non est mihi a me ipso, sed a patre, quia etiam cognitionem filius per aeternam generationem habet a patre; Matth. II, 27: <i>omnia tradita sunt mihi a patre meo</i>.
            <td>Or, we could understand it as meaning that <b>My doctrine,</b> which I proclaim with created words, <b>is not mine, but his who sent me,</b> i.e., it is the Father’s; that is, my doctrine is not mine as from myself, but it is from the Father: because the Son has even his knowledge from the Father through an eternal generation. “All things have been given to me by my Father” (Mt 11:27).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Si vero intelligatur de Christo filio hominis, tunc dicit <i>mea doctrina</i>, quam ego habeo secundum animam creatam, et profero corporis ore, <i>non est mea</i>, idest, non est mihi a meipso, sed a Deo: quia omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, a spiritu sancto est.
            <td>Secondly, we can understand Christ as the Son of Man. Then he is saying: <b>My doctrine,</b> which I have in my created soul, and which my lips proclaim, <b>is not mine,</b> i.e., it is not mine as from myself, but from God: because every truth, by whomever spoken, is from the Holy Spirit.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sic ergo, secundum Augustinum I de Trin., secundum aliquid suam dixit doctrinam, et secundum aliquid non suam: secundum formam Dei suam, secundum formam servi non suam. Ex quo habemus exemplum, quod omnem cognitionem nostram cum gratiarum actione recognoscamus a Deo; I Cor. IV, 7: <i>quid habes quod non accepisti? Si autem accepisti, quid gloriaris, quasi non acceperis?</i>
            <td>Thus, as Augustine says in <i>The Trinity</i> (Bk 1), our Lord called this doctrine his own from one point of view, and not his own from another point of view. According to his form of God, it was his own; but according to his form of a servant, it was not his own. This is an example for us, that we should realize that all our knowledge is from God, and thank him for it: “What do you have which you have not been given? And if you have been given it, why do you glory as if you have not been given it?” (1 Cor 4:7).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>si quis voluerit voluntatem eius facere, cognoscet de doctrina</i> etc., probat suam doctrinam esse a Deo: et hoc dupliciter. Primo ex iudicio recte sentientium; secundo ex sua intentione, ibi <i>qui a semetipso loquitur, gloriam propriam quaerit</i>.
            <td>1038 Then (v 17), he proves that his doctrine is from God. And he does this in two ways: first, from the judgment of those who correctly understand such matters; and secondly, from his own intention (v 18).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Circa primum sciendum est, quod iudicio illius standum est, utrum aliquis bene operetur in aliqua arte, qui est expertus in arte illa: sicut an aliquis bene loquitur Gallice, standum est iudicio eius qui est peritus in lingua Gallica. Secundum hoc ergo dicit dominus: illius iudicio standum est, an doctrina mea sit a Deo, qui est expertus in rebus divinis, talis enim recte potest de his iudicare; I Cor. II, 14: <i>animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei, spiritualis autem iudicat omnia</i>. Et ideo dicit: quia vos alienati estis a Deo, ideo non cognoscitis de doctrina utrum ex Deo sit. Sed <i>si quis voluerit voluntatem eius</i>, idest Dei, <i>facere</i>, iste potest cognoscere utrum doctrina haec sit a Deo, <i>an ego a meipso loquar</i>. Ille quidem a seipso loquitur qui falsum dicit; quia, sicut dicitur infra VIII, 44, <i>cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur</i>.
            <td>1039 With respect to the first, we should note that when there is a question whether someone is performing well in some art, this is decided by one who has experience in that art; just as the question whether someone is speaking French well should be decided by one who is well versed in the French language. With this in mind, our Lord is saying: The question whether my doctrine is from God must be decided by one who has experience in divine matters, for such a person can judge correctly about these things. “The sensual man does not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God. The spiritual man judges all things” (1 Cor 2:14). Accordingly, he is saying: Because you are alienated from God, you do not know whether a doctrine is from God. If anyone wants to do his. will, that is, the will of God, he can know whether this doctrine is from God, <b>or whether I am speaking on my own</b> (a <i>meipso).</i> Indeed, one who is speaking what is false is speaking on his own, because “When he lies, he speaks on his own,” as we read below (8:44).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Vel aliter, secundum Chrysostomum. Voluntas enim Dei est pax, caritas et humilitas nostra; unde Matth. V, 9, dicitur: <i>beati pacifici, quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur</i>. Studium autem contentionis frequenter pervertit mentem hominis, intantum ut verum aestimet falsum. Unde deposito contentionis spiritu, rectius habetur certitudo veritatis; Iob. VI, 29: <i>respondete, obsecro, absque contentione, et loquentes id quod iustum est, iudicate</i>. Et ideo dicit dominus: si quis vult recte de doctrina mea iudicare, faciat voluntatem eius; idest, deponat iram, invidiam et odium quod sine causa in me habet. Et nihil est quod prohibeat eum cognoscere, <i>utrum ex Deo sit an ego a meipso loquar</i>, idest quod Dei verba sunt quae loquor.
            <td>Chrysostom explains this text in another way. The will of God is our peace, our love, and our humility; thus Matthew (5:9) says: “Happy are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God. But the love of controversy often distorts a person’s mind to such an extent that he thinks that what is really true is false. Thus, when we abandon the spirit of controversy, we possess more surely the certitude of truth. “Answer, I entreat you, without contention, and judge, speaking what is just” (Jb 6:29). So our Lord is saying: If anyone wishes to judge my doctrine correctly, let him do the will of God, i.e., abandon the anger, the envy and the hatred which he has for me without reason. Then, nothing will prevent him from knowing <b>whether this doctrine is from God, or whether I am speaking on my own,</b> i.e., whether I am speaking the words of God.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Vel aliter, secundum Augustinum. Voluntas Dei est ut faciamus opera eius, sicut voluntas patrisfamilias est ut operarii faciant opus eius. Opus autem Dei est ut credamus in eum quem ipse misit; supra VI, 29: <i>hoc est opus Dei ut credatis in eum quem ille misit</i>. Ideo dicit <i>si quis voluerit facere voluntatem eius</i>, scilicet Dei, idest credere in me, iste <i>cognoscet an doctrina mea sit ex Deo</i>. Is. c. VII, 9, secundum aliam litteram: <i>nisi credideritis, non intelligetis</i>.
            <td>Augustine explains it this way. It is the will of God that we know his works, just as it is the will of a head of a household that his servants do his works. The work of God is that we believe in him whom he has sent: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he sent” (above 6:29). Thus he says: <b>If anyone wants to do his will,</b> that is, God’s will, which is to believe in me, <b>he will know whether this doctrine is from God:</b> “If you do not believe, you will not understand,” as that other version of Isaiah (7:9) says.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>qui a semetipso loquitur, gloriam propriam quaerit</i>, probat idem ex sua intentione. Et ponit duplicem intentionem per quam intelligitur duplex origo doctrinae. Dictum est autem aliquos loqui a se, aliquos vero loqui non a se. Loquitur autem non a se quicumque studet loqui veritatem. Omnis veritatis cognitio ab alio est: vel per modum quidem disciplinae, ut a magistro; vel per modum revelationis, ut a Deo; vel per inventionem, ut ab ipsis rebus, quia, ut dicitur Rom. I, 20: <i>invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur</i>. Sic ergo quocumque istorum modorum cognitio aliqua habeatur, non est homini a se. A se autem loquitur qui ea quae dicit nec a rebus nec ex doctrina humana accepit, sed de corde suo; Ier. XXIII, 16: <i>visionem cordis sui loquuntur</i>; Ez. XIII, 3: <i>vae prophetis insipientibus qui vaticinantur de corde suo</i>. Sic ergo confingere aliquid a se ipso, est propter humanam gloriam: quia, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, qui aliquam propriam vult instruere doctrinam, propter nihil aliud hoc vult quam ut gloriam acquirat. Et hoc est quod dominus dicit, probans doctrinam suam a Deo esse. <i>Qui a semetipso loquitur</i>, de certa cognitione veritatis quae est ab alio, iste <i>quaerit gloriam propriam</i> propter quam et propter superbiam, haereses et falsae opiniones introducuntur. Et hoc competit Antichristo; II Thess. II, 4: <i>qui adversatur, et extollitur supra omne quod dicitur Deus aut quod colitur</i>.
            <td>1040 Then when he says, <b>Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory,</b> he proves the same thing from his intention. And he presents two intentions through which we can recognize the two sources of a doctrine. Some are said to speak on their own [ <i>a se</i> ], and others not on their own. Now whoever strives to speak the truth does not speak on his own. All our knowledge of the truth is from another: either from instruction, as from a teacher; or from revelation, as from God; or by a process of discovery, as from things themselves, for “the invisible things of God are clearly known by the things that have been made” (Rom 1:20). Consequently, in whatever way a person acquires his knowledge, he does not acquire it on his own. That person speaks on his own who takes what he says neither from things themselves, nor from any human teaching, but from his own heart: “They proclaim a vision taken out of their own hearts” (Jer 23:16); “Woe to those foolish prophets who prophesy out of their own hearts” (Ez 13:3). Accordingly, when a person devises a doctrine on his own he does it for the sake of human glory: for, as we see from Chrysostom, a person who wishes to present his own private doctrine does so for no other purpose than to acquire glory. And this is what our Lord says, proving that his doctrine is from God: <b>Whoever speaks on his own,</b> about a certain knowledge of the truth, which is really from another, <b>seeks his own glory.</b> It is for this reason, and because of pride, that various heresies and false opinions have arisen. And this is a characteristic of the antichrist “who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or is worshipped” (2 Thes 2:4).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed <i>qui quaerit gloriam eius qui misit illum</i>, sicut ego quaero, (infra VIII, v. 50: <i>ego gloriam meam non quaero) hic verax est, et iniustitia in illo non est</i>. Verax sum, quia doctrina mea continet veritatem; iniustitia in me non est, quia alterius gloriam non usurpo. Et, ut dicit Augustinus, magnum nobis praebuit humilitatis exemplum, dum habitu inventus ut homo, quaerit gloriam patris, non suam: quod tu homo facere debes. Quando aliquid boni facis, gloriam tuam quaeris; quando aliquid mali facis, Deo calumniam meditaris. Patet autem quod gloriam suam non quaerebat; quia si non fuisset adversarius principibus sacerdotum, non fuissent eum persecuti. Sic ergo Christus, et quicumque gloriam Dei quaerit, habet quidem in intellectu cognitionem, Matth. XX, 16: <i>magister, scimus quia verax es</i>, et ideo dicit <i>hic verax est</i>: in effectu autem rectam intentionem, unde dicit <i>et iniustitia in illo non est</i>. Iniustitia enim est quod homo usurpet sibi alienum; gloria autem est propria solius Dei: qui ergo sibi quaerit gloriam, iniustus est. Consequenter cum dicit <i>nonne Moyses dedit vobis legem?</i>
            <td><b>But the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him,</b> as I do—“I do not seek my own glory” (below 8:50)— <b>is truthful, and there is no injustice in him.</b> I am truthful because my doctrine contains the truth; there is no injustice in me because I do not appropriate the glory of another. As Augustine says: “He gave us a magnificent example of humility when, in the form of a man, he sought the glory of the Father, and not his own. O man, you should do the same! When you do something good, you seek your glory; when you do something evil, you insult God.” It is obvious that he was not looking for his own glory, because if he had not been an enemy of the chief priests, he would not have been persecuted by them. So Christ, and everyone who is looking for the glory of God, has knowledge in his intellect, “Master, we know that you are truthful” (Mt 22:16): thus he says, he <b>is truthful.</b> And he has the correct intention in his will: thus he says, <b>and there is no injustice in him.</b> For a person is unjust when he takes for himself what belongs to another; but glory is proper to God alone; therefore, he who seeks glory for himself is unjust.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Excludit obiectionem. Posset enim aliquis dicere Christo, quod ideo doctrina sua non esset a Deo, quia sabbatum solvit, secundum illud infra IX, 16: <i>non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit</i>. Et hoc intendit excludere; unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo excusat se, arguendo ex parte accusantium; secundo ostenditur eorum iniqua responsio, ibi <i>respondit turba</i> etc.; tertio excusat se per rationem, ibi <i>respondit Iesus, et dixit eis: unum opus feci, et omnes miramini</i>.
            <td>1041 Then (v 19), he answers an objection. For someone could tell Christ that his doctrine was not from God because he broke the sabbath, according to, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath” (below 9:16). This is what he intends to answer; and he does three things. First, he clears himself, by arguing from the actions of those who are accusing him; secondly, we see their vicious reply (v 20); and thirdly, he vindicates himself with a reasonable explanation (v 21).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Dicit ergo: dato, ut vos dicitis, quod doctrina mea non sit a Deo, quia legem non servo, sabbatum solvens; tamen vos non habetis causam accusandi, cum sitis in simili delicto. Unde dicit <i>nonne Moyses dedit vobis</i>, idest populo vestro, <i>legem?</i> Et tamen <i>nemo ex vobis facit</i>, idest servat, legem; Act. VII, 53: <i>accepistis legem in dispositione Angelorum, et non custoditis</i>. Unde et Petrus, Act. XV, 10: <i>hoc est onus quod neque nos, neque patres nostri portare potuerunt</i>. Si ergo non servatis legem, quare propter transgressionem eius vultis me interficere? Non enim propter hoc facitis, sed propter odium: alioquin si propter zelum legis faceretis, ipsi vos servaretis eam; Sap. II, 12: <i>circumveniamus iustum, quoniam inutilis est nobis, et contrarius est operibus nostris, et improperat nobis peccata legis</i>; et sequitur: <i>morte turpissima condemnemus eum</i>.
            <td>1042 He says: Even granting, as you say, that my doctrine is not from God because I do not keep the law, breaking the sabbath, nevertheless, you do not have any reason to accuse me since you do the same thing. Thus he says: <b>Did not Moses give you the law?</b> i.e., did he not give it to your people? <b>And yet none of you obey the law.</b> “You received the law through the angels, and have not kept it” (Acts 7:53). This is why Peter says: “A yoke, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10). Therefore, if you do not keep the law, why do you want to kill me for not keeping it? You are not doing this because of the law, but out of hatred. If you were acting out of devotion for the law, you would keep it yourselves. “Let us lie in wait for the just man, because he is unfavorable to us, and against our works, and he reproaches us for breaking the law” (Wis 2:12); and a little further on we read: “ Let us condemn him to a most shameful death” (Wis 2:20).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Vel dicendum, quod non servatis legem quam Moyses dedit vobis: et hoc patet in eo quod me vultis interficere, quod est contra legem; Ex. XX, 13: <i>non occides</i>. Vel aliter, secundum Augustinum: non facitis legem, quia in lege ipse contineor; supra V, 46: <i>si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit</i>. Sed vos vultis me interficere. Consequenter ponitur iniqua responsio turbae, cum dicit <i>respondit turba, et dixit: Daemonium habes</i>.
            <td>Or, it could be explained this way: You do not keep the law that Moses gave you; and this is obvious from the fact that you want to kill me, which is against the law: “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). Another explanation, following Augustine, is: You do not keep the law because I myself am included in the law: “If you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me as well, for it was about me that he wrote” (above 5:46). But you want to kill me.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Vero autem turba respondet non pertinentia ad ordinem, sed ad perturbationem, ut dicit Augustinus: eum enim dicunt Daemonium habere qui Daemones expellit, Matth. XII, 24.
            <td>1043 Then we see the vicious reply of the crowd, when he says, <b>The crowd replied and said: You have a demon within you!</b> As Augustine says, their reply indicates disorder and confusion, rather than any order: for they are saying that the one who casts out devils has one himself (Mt c 12).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Et ideo consequenter cum dicit <i>unum opus feci, et omnes miramini</i>, dominus in sua veritate tranquillus, confutat eos, excusans se per rationem, et primo commemorat eis factum propter quod turbantur; secundo ostendit eos non debere turbari, ibi <i>propterea Moyses dedit vobis circumcisionem</i>; tertio inducit eos ad iustum iudicium, ibi <i>nolite iudicare secundum faciem</i> et cetera.
            <td>1044 Then when he says, <b>I performed one work, and you are all amazed,</b> our Lord, at peace in his own truth, answers them, and justifies himself with a reasonable explanation. First, he recalls the incident that is troubling them; secondly, he shows that this should not bother them (v 22); and thirdly, he shows the way to a judgment that is just (v 24).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td><i>Respondit ergo Iesus, et dixit eis: unum opus feci, et omnes miramini</i>. Non reddit convicio convicium, nec repulit, quia <i>cum malediceretur, non maledicebat</i>: sed eis opus commemorat de curatione paralytici, de quo omnes admirabantur, non admiratione devotionis, secundum illud Is. LX, 5: <i>videbis, et afflues, et mirabitur, et dilatabitur cor tuum</i>, sed admiratione turbationis, secundum illud Sap. V, v. 2: <i>videntes turbabuntur timore horribili, et mirabuntur in subitatione insperatae salutis</i>. Si ergo propter unum opus miramini, idest cum turbatione turbamini, quid faceretis si omnia opera mea videretis? Nam, ut dicit Augustinus, ipsius opera erant quae in mundo videbant: omnes etiam infirmi per eum sanantur; Ps. CVI, 20: <i>misit verbum suum, et sanavit eos</i>; Sap. XVI, 12: <i>nec herba nec malagma sanavit eos; sed tuus, domine, sermo, qui sanat omnia</i>. Ideo ergo turbamini, quia unum tantum opus videtis, et non omnia.
            <td>1045 Jesus answered them: <b>I performed one work, and you are all amazed.</b> He does not trade one insult for another, nor rebuff it, because “When he was derided, he did not deride in return” (1 Pt 2:23). He rather recalls for them his cure of the paralytic, which was the cause of their amazement. But their amazement was not one of devotion, as in “Your heart will be amazed and expanded” (Is 60:5), but a kind of agitation and disturbance, as in “Those who see it will be afflicted with terrible fear, and will be amazed” (Wis 5:2). So, if you are amazed over one of my works, i.e., if you are disturbed and troubled, what would you do if you saw all of my works? For, as Augustine says, his works were those which they saw in the world: even all the sick are healed by him. “He sent his word, and healed them” (Ps 106:20); “It was neither a herb nor a poultice that healed them, but your word, O Lord, which heals all” (Wis 16:12). Thus, the reason why you are disturbed is that you have seen only one of my works, and not all of them.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>propterea Moyses dedit vobis circumcisionem</i>, convincit eos de iniusta turbatione, et primo ponit mandatum eis datum a Moyse; secundo opus eorum; et tertio arguit ex utroque.
            <td>1046 Then (v 22), he shows that there is no reason why they should be disturbed. First, he recalls the command given to them by Moses; secondly, he states their customary behavior; and thirdly, he presents an argument based on the first two.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Mandatum autem Moysi est de circumcisione; et ideo dicit <i>propterea</i>, idest ad significandum mea opera, <i>Moyses dedit vobis circumcisionem</i>. Nam circumcisio in signum data est, ut habetur Gen. XVII, 2: <i>erit vobis in signum foederis inter me et vos</i>: significabat enim Christum; et ideo semper data est in membro generationis, quia ex Abraham secundum carnem descensurus erat Christus, qui spiritualem circumcisionem, idest mentis et corporis, facit. Vel ideo in ipso membro fiebat, quia data est contra peccatum originale.
            <td>1047 The command of Moses was about circumcision; so he says: <b>Therefore,</b> i.e., to signify my works, <b>Moses gave you circumcision.</b> For circumcision was given as a sign, as we read, “it will be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gn 17:11). For it signified Christ. This is the reason why it was always done on the genital organ, because Christ was to descend, in his human nature, from Abraham; and Christ is the one who spiritually circumcises us, i.e., both in mind and body. Or, it was done to the genital organ because it was given in opposition to original sin.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Quod autem Moyses dederit circumcisionem, expresse non habetur, nisi Ex. XVII, 44: <i>omnis servus emptitius circumcidetur</i>. Et licet Moyses dederit circumcisionem, non tamen quasi eam instituens: quia non ipse primus accepit circumcisionis mandatum, sed Abraham, ut habetur Gen. XVII, 10.
            <td>We do not find it explicitly stated that Moses gave circumcision, unless in Exodus (12:44): “Every slave who is bought shall be circumcised.” And although Moses did tell them to circumcise, he was not the one who established this practice, because he was not the first one to receive the command to circumcise; this was Abraham, as we see from Genesis (17:10).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Factum autem Iudaeorum est quia in sabbato circumcidebant; et hoc est quod dicit <i>et sabbato circumciditis</i> et cetera. Et hoc ideo, quia Abrahae mandatum est, ut octavo die circumcideretur puer; Gen. XXI, 4: <i>circumcidit eum die octavo, sicut praeceperat ei Deus</i>. A Moyse autem praeceptum erat eis quod nihil operis facerent in die sabbati. Contingebat autem aliquando quod octavus dies necessitatis veniret in die sabbati; et sic circumcidentes puerum ipso die, mandatum Moysi solvebant, propter mandatum patrum.
            <td>1048 Now it was the custom among the Jews to circumcise on the sabbath. And this is what he says: <b>you circumcise on the sabbath day.</b> They did this because Abraham was told that a boy should be circumcised on the eighth day: “He circumcised him on the eighth day, as God had commanded him” (Gn 2 1:4). On the other hand, they were told by Moses not to do any work on the sabbath. But it sometimes happened that the eighth day was a sabbath. And so, in circumcising a boy on that day, they were breaking a command of Moses for a command of the patriarchs.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Et ideo ex his arguit dominus cum dicit <i>si circumcisionem accipit homo in sabbato, ut non solvatur lex Moysi; mihi indignamini, quia totum hominem sanum feci in sabbato?</i>
            <td>1049 Our Lord is arguing from those facts when he says: <b>If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath day, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you indignant with me because I healed a whole man on the sabbath?</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ubi notandum est, quod hoc argumentum efficaciam habet ex his tribus considerationibus, quarum duae sunt expressae, sed tertia subintelligitur. Videmus enim primo, quod quamvis mandatum Abrahae prius fuerit, tamen mandatum Moysi de observatione sabbati non praeiudicabat priori, scilicet mandato de circumcisione; Gal. III, 17: <i>dico autem, testamentum confirmatum a Deo, quae post quadringentos et triginta annos facta est lex, non irritum facit</i>. Et ideo ex hoc arguit: quia licet in humanis legibus posteriora praeiudicent prioribus, tamen in divinis priora sunt maioris auctoritatis. Et ideo praecepto facto Abrahae de circumcisione non praeiudicat praeceptum Moysi de observatione sabbati. Multo ergo minus praeiudicat mihi, qui facio quod dispositum est a Deo ante mundi constitutionem de salute hominum in sabbato figurata.
            <td>We should note here that three things make this argument effective: two of these are explicit, and the other implied. First, although the command given to Abraham [about circumcision] was the first to be given, it was not canceled by the command given to Moses concerning observing the sabbath. “I say that the covenant, confirmed by God, is not canceled by the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later” (Gal 3:17). And so Christ is arguing from this: Although when dealing with human laws, the later ones cancel the earlier laws, in the case of divine laws, the earlier ones have greater authority. And so the command given to Moses about observing the sabbath does not cancel the command which was given to Abraham concerning circumcision. Therefore, much less does it interfere with me, who am only doing what was decided by God before the creation of the world, for the salvation of mankind; and this salvation was symbolized by the sabbath.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Alia consideratio est, quia Iudaei mandatum habebant ut non operarentur in sabbato; et tamen Iudaei operabantur quae ad salutem particularem erant. Dicit ergo: si vos, quibus mandatum est ut nihil operemini in sabbato, circumcisionem accipitis ipso die, quae est quaedam particularis salus (unde et in membro particulari fiebat), et hoc facitis, <i>ut non solvatur lex Moysi</i> (ex quo patet, ea quae ad salutem pertinent in sabbato praetermittenda non esse): ergo multo magis debet homo facere ipso die ea quae sunt ad universalem salutem. Non ergo debetis mihi indignari, <i>quia totum hominem sanum feci in sabbato</i>.
            <td>Another point is that the Jews were commanded not to work on the sabbath; yet they did do things that were related to the salvation of the individual. So Christ is saying: If you people, who were commanded not to work on the sabbath, circumcise on that day (and this concerns the salvation of the individual, and thus it was done to an individual organ) and you do this <b>so that the law of Moses may not be broken</b> (from which it is clear that those things that pertain to salvation should not be omitted on the sabbath), it follows with greater reason that a man should do on that day those things that pertain to the salvation of everyone. Therefore, you should not be indignant with me <b>because I healed a whole man on the sabbath.</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Tertia consideratio est, quia utrumque mandatum fuit figura: nam <i>omnia in figura contingebant illis</i>, I Cor. X, 11. Si ergo figura, scilicet mandatum de observatione sabbati, non praeiudicat figurae, scilicet mandato circumcisionis, multo minus praeiudicat veritati. Nam circumcisio ipsum dominum figurabat, ut dicit Augustinus.
            <td>The third point is that each command was a symbol: for “all these things happened to them in symbol” (1 Cor 10:11). Thus, if one symbol, i.e., the command to observe the sabbath, does not cancel the other symbol, i.e., the command to circumcise, much less does it cancel the truth. For circumcision symbolized our Lord, as Augustine says.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ideo autem dicit <i>totum hominem</i>, quia, cum Dei perfecta sint opera, curatus est ut sanus esset in corpore, et credidit ut sanus esset in anima.
            <td>Finally, he says, <b>a whole man,</b> because, since God’s works are perfect, the man was cured so as to be healthy in body, and he believed so as to be healthy in soul.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>nolite iudicare secundum faciem</i> etc., reducit eos ad iustum examen sui: ut scilicet non secundum faciem iudicent, sed iustum iudicium. Dicitur autem quis iudicare secundum faciem dupliciter. Nam iudex iudicat secundum allegata; I Reg. XV, 7: <i>homines vident ea quae apparent</i>. Sed in hoc potest esse deceptio; et ideo dicit <i>nolite iudicare secundum faciem</i>, idest secundum illud quod statim apparet, sed diligenter inquirite; Iob XXIX, 16: <i>causam quam nesciebam diligenter investigabam</i>; Is. XI, 3: <i>non secundum visionem oculorum iudicabit</i>. Vel aliter <i>nolite iudicare secundum faciem</i>, idest nolite accipere personam in iudicio: hoc enim est prohibitum omnibus iudicantibus; Ex. XXIII, 6: <i>non accipiens personam pauperis in iudicio</i>; Mal. II, 9: <i>faciem accipitis in iudicio</i>. Accipere autem personam in iudicio est praetermittere iustum iudicium propter amorem, seu reverentiam, seu timorem, seu conditionem personae, quae non faciunt ad causam. Dicit ergo <i>nolite iudicare</i>, quasi dicat: non quia Moyses apud vos habet maiorem gloriam quam ego, ex personarum dignitate feratis sententiam, sed a rerum natura: quia ea quae ego facio, maiora sunt quam ea quae fecit Moyses.
            <td>1050 Then when he says, <b>Judge not by the appearances, but with a just judgment,</b> he guides them to a fair consideration of himself’, so that they do not judge him according to appearances, but give a judgment which is just. There are two ways in which one is said to judge according to appearances. First, a judge may reach his decision relying on the allegations: “Men see the things that are evident” (1 Kgs 15:7). But this way can lead to error; thus he says, <b>Judge not by the appearances,</b> i.e., by what is immediately evident, but examine the matter diligently: “I diligently investigated the stranger’s cause” (Jb 29:16); “He will not judge by appearances” (Is 1 1:3). In the second way, <b>Judge not by the appearances,</b> i.e., do not show partiality or favoritism in your judgment: for all judges are forbidden to do this. “You will not show favoritism when judging a person who is poor” (Ex 23:6); “You have shown partiality in your judgment” (Mal 2:9). To show partiality in a judgment is not to give a judgment that is just because of love, or deference, or fear, or the status of a person, which things have nothing to do with the case. So he says: <b>Judge not by the appearances, but with a just judgment,</b> as if to say: Just because Moses is more honored among you than I am, you should not base your decision on our reputations, but on the nature of the facts: because the things I am doing are greater than what Moses did.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed notandum, secundum Augustinum, quod ille non iudicat partialiter, qui aequaliter diligit. Non enim cum homines diverso modo pro suis gradibus honoramus, timendum est ne personam accipiamus.
            <td>But it should be noted, according to Augustine, that one who loves all equally does not judge with partiality. For when we honor men differently according to their rank, we must beware of showing partiality.
      </table>
      <hr>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr style="align:center">
            <td><b>Lectio 3</b>
            <td><b>LECTURE 3</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
              <blockquote>
                25 ἔλεγον οὖν τινες ἐκ τῶν Ἰεροσολυμιτῶν, οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὃν ζητοῦσιν ἀποκτεῖναι; 26 καὶ ἴδε παρρησίᾳ λαλεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτῷ λέγουσιν. μήποτε ἀληθῶς ἔγνωσαν οἱ ἄρχοντες ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός; 27 ἀλλὰ τοῦτον οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν: ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ὅταν ἔρχηται οὐδεὶς γινώσκει πόθεν ἐστίν. 28 ἔκραξεν οὖν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ λέγων,
                <dl>
                  <dd>κἀμὲ οἴδατε καὶ οἴδατε πόθεν εἰμί:
                  <dd>καὶ ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλήλυθα,
                  <dd>ἀλλ' ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς ὁ πέμψας με,
                  <dd>ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε:
                  <dd>29 ἐγὼ οἶδα αὐτόν,
                  <dd>ὅτι παρ' αὐτοῦ εἰμι
                  <dd>κἀκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν.<br>
                  30 ἐζήτουν οὖν αὐτὸν πιάσαι, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπέβαλεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν τὴν χεῖρα, ὅτι οὔπω ἐληλύθει ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ. 31 ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου δὲ πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ ἔλεγον, ὁ Χριστὸς ὅταν ἔλθῃ μὴ πλείονα σημεῖα ποιήσει ὧν οὗτος ἐποίησεν; 32 ἤκουσαν οἱ φαρισαῖοι τοῦ ὄχλου γογγύζοντος περὶ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα, καὶ ἀπέστειλαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι ὑπηρέτας ἵνα πιάσωσιν αὐτόν.
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
            <td>
              <blockquote>
                25 Some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem then said: “Is he not the man they want to kill? 26 Look, he is speaking publicly, and they say nothing to him! Could it be that the rulers really know that he is the Christ? 27 We know where this man comes from; but when the Christ comes, no one will know where he comes from.” 28 So as Jesus was teaching in the temple, he cried out and said:
                <dl>
                  <dd>“You do indeed know me,
                  <dd>and you know where I come from.
                  <dd>And I have not come of my own accord.
                  <dd>But the one who sent me is truthful,
                  <dd>whom you do not know.
                  <dd>29 I know him.
                  <dd>And if I were to say that I do not know him,
                  <dd>I would be like you, a liar.
                  <dd>But I do know him, because I am from him,
                  <dd>
                    and he sent me.”
                    <p>30 They therefore wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. 31 Many of the people, however, believed in him, and they said: “When the Christ comes, will he work more wonders than this man has done?” 32 The Pharisees heard the people saying these things about him, so the rulers and Pharisees sent officers to apprehend Jesus.
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Postquam egit de origine doctrinae, consequenter agit de origine docentis, et primo Christus ostendit suum principium a quo procedit; secundo suum finem ad quem vadit, ibi <i>adhuc modicum tempus vobiscum sum</i>. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponitur dubitatio turbarum de origine; secundo ponitur doctrina ipsius originis, ibi <i>clamabat ergo Iesus in templo</i>; tertio ponitur effectus doctrinae, ibi <i>quaerebant ergo eum apprehendere</i>. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur admiratio turbae; secundum eorum suspicio, ibi <i>numquid vere cognoverunt principes quia hic est Christus?</i> Tertio inducitur eorum obiectio contra ea quae suspicabantur, ibi <i>sed scimus</i>, et cetera. Admiratio autem turbarum consurgit ex duobus. Primo ex iniquo proposito principum: secundo ex publica doctrina Christi, ibi <i>ecce palam loquitur</i>.
            <td>1051 Having considered the origin of his doctrine, he now tells us about the origin of its teacher. First, Christ shows his source, from which he comes secondly, he shows his end, to which he goes (v 33). He does three things concerning the first. First, we see the doubt of the people about his origin; secondly, we have Christ’s teaching concerning his origin (v 28); and thirdly, we see the effect this teaching had (v 30). He does two things about the first. First, we see the amazement of the people; secondly, their conjecture (v 26). The people were amazed over two things: at the unjust statements of their leaders, and at the public teaching of Christ (v 25).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Dictum est autem supra, quod Christus ut ostenderet infirmitatem humanae naturae, latenter ascendit ad diem festum; sed ut ostenderet suae divinitatis personam, publice docet in templo, et a persequentibus teneri non potest. Et sic, ut ait Augustinus, apparet potestas quae putabatur timiditas. Et ideo <i>dicebant quidam ex Ierosolymis</i>, quasi admirantes, nam ipsi sciebant qua saevitia quaerebatur a principibus, utpote eius familiares, et Ierosolymis existentes. Unde Chrysostomus dicit: omnibus miserabiliores erant, qui divinitatis signum videntes maximum, omnia iudicio corruptorum principum permittentes, Christum minus reverebantur, secundum illud Eccli. X, 2: <i>qualis rector civitatis, tales et inhabitantes in ea</i>. Sed tamen mirabantur qua potentia non tenebatur; unde et dicebant <i>nonne hic est quem Iudaei quaerunt</i>, idest principes, secundum illud supra V, 16, <i>propterea persequebantur eum Iudaei</i>, idest principes, <i>quia haec faciebat in sabbato</i>; Dan. c. XIII, 5: <i>egressa est iniquitas a senioribus populi, qui videbantur regere populum</i>. Apparet autem per hoc veritas sermonum Christi, et falsitas principum. Supra enim cum dominus diceret eis <i>quid me quaeritis interficere?</i> Negaverunt, dicentes: <i>Daemonium habes: quis te quaerit interficere?</i> Sed ecce quod principes negabant, isti confitentur cum dicunt <i>quem Iudaei quaerunt interficere</i>. Sic ergo admirantur ex iniquo proposito principum.
            <td>1052 As we said before, Christ went up to this feast in secret to show the weakness of his human nature; but he publicly taught in the temple, with his enemies being unable to restrain him, to show his divinity. And so, as Augustine remarks, what was thought to be a lack of courage turned out to be strength. Accordingly, <b>Some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem then said,</b> in amazement, for they knew how fiercely their leaders were looking for him, as they lived with them in Jerusalem. Thus Chrysostom says: “The most pitiable of all were they who saw a very clear sign of his divinity and, leaving everything to the judgment of their corrupt leaders, failed to show Christ reverence.” “As the ruler of a city is, so are its inhabitants” (Sir 10:2). Yet they were amazed at the power he had which kept him from being apprehended. So they said: <b>Is he not the man they,</b> i.e., their leaders, want. This agrees with what was said before: “For reasons like this the Jews began to persecute Jesus, because he performed such works on the sabbath” (above 5:16); “Evil has come out of the elders of the people, who ruled them” (Dn 13:5). This also shows that Christ spoke the truth, while what their leaders said was false. For above, when our Lord asked them: “Why do you want to kill me?” they denied it and said: “You have a demon within you! Who wants to kill you?” But here, what their leaders had denied, these others admit when they say, <b>Is he not the man they want to kill?</b> Accordingly, they are amazed, considering the evil intentions of their leaders.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Similiter etiam ex publica doctrina Christi: unde dicunt <i>ecce palam loquitur</i>, docens, scilicet Christus, quod est indicium securae veritatis; infra XVIII, 20: <i>ego palam locutus sum; et</i> tamen <i>nihil ei dicunt</i>, quasi repressi virtute divina. Haec est enim propria Dei virtus quod malorum corda ab impetu suae malitiae reprimit; Prov. XVI, 7: <i>cum placuerint domino viae hominis, inimicos eius quoque convertet ad pacem</i>. Et alibi; <i>cor regum in manu Dei: quocumque voluerit inclinabit illud</i>.
            <td>1053 Again, they were amazed that Christ was openly teaching; so they said: <b>Look, he is speaking publicly,</b> i.e., Christ was teaching, an indication of the secure possession of the truth, “I have spoken publicly” (below 18:20), <b>and they say nothing to him,</b> held back by divine power. For it is a characteristic of God’s power that he prevents the hearts of evil men from carrying out their evil plans. “When the Lord is pleased with the way a man is living he will make his enemies be at peace with him” (Ps 16:7); and again, “The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wills” (Prv 21:1).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Suspicio eorum ponitur cum dicit <i>numquid vere cognoverunt principes quia hic est Christus?</i> Quasi dicant: ante quaerebant eum interficere, modo invenerunt, et tamen nihil ei dicunt; non tamen mutati a propria sententia, quia, ut dicitur I Cor. II, 8: <i>si enim cognovissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent</i>: sed repressi a virtute divina.
            <td>1054 We see their conjecture when he says, <b>Could it be that the rulers really know that he is the Christ?</b> As if to say: Before, they sought to kill him; but now that they have found him, they do not say anything to him. Still, the leaders had not changed their opinion about Christ: “If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8), but were restrained by divine power.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Obiectio autem eorum contra suspicionem subditur <i>sed hunc scimus unde sit</i>, quasi hoc modo arguentes: Christus debet habere occultam originem; sed iste habet originem manifestam: ergo non est Christus. In quo apparet eorum amentia, quia supposito quod quidam etiam principes crederent Christo, non tamen eorum sententiam sequuntur, sed aliam corruptam proferunt; Ez. V, 5: <i>ista est Ierusalem, in medio gentium posui eam</i>. Sciebant enim Christum esse ex Maria secundum originem, sed tamen eius modum ignorabant; Mt. XIII, 55: <i>nonne pater eius est Ioseph, et mater eius dicitur Maria?</i> Sed cum dicatur Mich. V, 2: <i>ex te exiet dux, qui regat populum meum Israel</i>:
            <td>1055 Their objection to this conjecture is then added: We <b>know where this man comes from.</b> As if to argue: The Christ should have a hidden origin; but the origin of this man is known; therefore, he is not the Christ. This shows their folly, for granted that some of their leaders believed Christ, they did not follow their opinion, but offered another, which was false. “This is Jerusalem; I have set her in the midst of the nations” (Ez 5:5). For they knew that Christ took his origin from Mary, but they did not know the way this came about: “Isn’t Joseph his father, and Mary his mother’?” as we read in Matthew (13:55).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>quare dicunt <i>Christus cum venerit, nemo scit unde sit?</i> Respondeo. Dicendum quod hoc habent ex verbo Is. LIII, 8: <i>generationem eius quis enarrabit?</i> Sic ergo et ex prophetis habent ut sciant unde sit, secundum humanam originem; et ex eis habent quod nesciant, secundum divinam generationem.
            <td>1056 Why did they say, when the Christ comes, <b>no one will know where he comes from,</b> since it says in Micah (5:2): “Out of you [Bethlehem-Ephrathah] will come a leader, who will rule my people Israel.”? I answer that they took this opinion from Isaiah, who said: “Who will make known his origin?” (53:8). Thus, they knew from the prophets where he was from, according to his human origin; and they also knew from them that they did not know it, according to his divine origin.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>clamabat ergo Iesus in templo</i>, manifestat suam originem, et primo ostendit secundum quid sua origo sit nota, et secundum quid sit ignota; secundo docet quomodo ad eius notitiam possumus pervenire, ibi <i>ego scio eum</i> et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quid de origine eius sciebant; secundo quid circa ipsum ignorabant, ibi <i>et a meipso non veni</i>.
            <td>1057 Then (v 28), he shows his origin. First, he shows in what sense his origin is known, and in what sense it is not know; in the second place, he shows how we can acquire a knowledge of his origin (v 29). He does two things about the first. First, he shows what they knew about his origin; secondly, what they did not know about it (v 28b).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Noverant autem de Iesu originem suam: et ideo dicit <i>clamabat Iesus</i>. Clamor autem ex magnitudine affectus procedit. Et ideo quandoque importat turbulentiam animi interius concitati: et hoc modo non competit Christo, de quo scriptum est Is. XLII, 2: <i>non clamabit, nec accipiet personam, nec audietur vox eius foris</i>; Eccle. IX, 17: <i>verba sapientium audiuntur in silentio</i>. Quandoque importat magnitudinem devotionis, secundum illud Ps. CXIX, 1: <i>ad dominum, cum tribularer, clamavi</i>. Quandoque vero cum hoc magnitudinem dicendorum, secundum illud Is. VI, v. 3: <i>Seraphim clamabant alter ad alterum, et dicebant: sanctus, sanctus, sanctus dominus Deus exercituum</i>; Prov. VIII, 1: <i>numquid non sapientia foris clamitat, et prudentia dat vocem suam?</i> Et sic praedicatores clamare monentur Is. LVIII, 1: <i>clama, ne cesses, quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam</i>.
            <td>1058 They did know the origin of Jesus; and so he says of Jesus that <b>he cried out</b>. Now a cry comes from some great emotion. Sometimes it indicates the upheaval of a soul in interior distress; and in this sense it does not apply to Christ: “He will not cry out” (Is 42:2); “The words of the wise are heard in silence” (Ecc 9:17). Sometimes it implies great devotion, as in, “In my trouble I cried to the Lord” (Ps 119:1). And sometimes, along with this, it signifies that what is to be said is important, as in, “The Seraphim cried to each other and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts’ “ (Is 6:3); and in, “Does not wisdom cry out?” (Prv 8:1). This is the way preachers are encouraged to cry out: “Cry out, do not stop!. Raise you voice like a trumpet” (Is 58:1). This is the way Christ cried out here, teaching in the temple.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Et sic clamabat hic dominus, <i>docens in templo, et dicens</i>, hoc scilicet <i>me scitis</i>, secundum faciem noscitis, et <i>unde sim scitis</i>, scilicet corporaliter; Bar. III, v. 38: <i>post haec in terris visus est</i>. Sciebant enim, quod ex Maria natus erat in Bethlehem, et nutritus in Nazareth; sed nesciebant virginis partum, et quod per spiritum sanctum conceptus esset, ut dicit Augustinus. Excepto virginis partu, totum noverant in Iesu, quod ad hominem pertinet.
            <td>And he said: <b>You do indeed know me,</b> according to appearances, <b>and you know where I come from,</b> that is, as to my bodily existence: “After this he was seen on earth” (Bar 3:38). For they knew that he was born from Mary in Bethlehem, and brought up in Nazareth; but they did not know about the virgin birth, and that he had been conceived through the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says. With the exception of the virgin birth, they knew everything about Jesus that pertained to his humanity.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Nesciebant autem de ipso originem occultam: unde dicit <i>et a me ipso non veni</i>, et primo insinuat suam originem; secundo ostendit eam eis esse occultam.
            <td>1059 They did not know his hidden origin; and so he says: And I have not come of my own accord. First, he gives his origin; and secondly, he shows that it is hidden from them.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Origo autem sua est a patre ab aeterno: unde dicit <i>a me ipso non veni</i>, quasi dicat: ante fui secundum divinitatem, quam in mundo venirem per humanitatem; infra VIII, 58: <i>antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum</i>. Alias non conveniret ei venire, nisi ante fuisset; et tamen hoc ipsum quod veni, <i>non veni a me ipso</i>: quia filius non est a se, sed a patre; infra XVI, 28: <i>exivi a patre, et veni in mundum</i>. Praenuntiata autem fuit eius origo a patre, qui eum promisit mittere; Ex. IV, 13: <i>obsecro, domine, mitte quem missurus es</i>; Is. c. XIX, 20: <i>mittam eis salvatorem et propugnatorem qui liberet eos</i>. Et ideo dicit <i>sed est verus qui misit me</i>, quasi dicat: non aliunde veni, sed ab eo qui promisit, et promissum adimplevit, quia verus est; Rom. III, v. 4: <i>est autem Deus verax</i>, et ideo docet me veritatem loqui, quia a vero missus sum. Est autem eis occulta, quia nesciunt eum qui misit me; unde dicit <i>quem vos nescitis</i>.
            <td>His origin is from the Father, from eternity. And so he says: <b>I have not come of my own accord,</b> as if to say: Before I came into the world through my humanity, I existed according to my divinity: “Before Abraham came to be, I am” (below 8:58). For he could not have come unless he already was. And although I have come, <b>I have not come of my own accord</b> [ <i>a me ipso</i> ], because the Son is not of himself [ <i>a se</i> ], but from the Father. “I came from the Father and have come into the world” (below 16:28). Indeed, his origin was foretold by the Father, who promised to send him: “I beg you, O Lord, send him whom you are going to send” (Ex 4:13); “I will send them a Savior and a defender, to free them” (Is 19:20). And so he says: <b>the one who sent me is truthful,</b> as if to say: I have not come from another but from him who promised and kept his promise, as he is truthful: “God is truthful” (Rom 3:4). Consequently, he teaches me to speak the truth, because I have been sent by one who is truthful. But they do not know this, because they do not know him who sent me; and so he says: whom you do not know.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed cum omnis homo, licet in carne natus, sit a Deo, videtur quod possit dicere: ego sum a Deo, et per consequens: me scitis unde sim. Responsio. Dicendum, secundum Hilarium, quod filius aliter est a Deo quam alii homines, quia sic est a Deo quod etiam est Deus: unde Deus est principium eius consubstantiale. Alii vero sic sunt a Deo quod tamen non sunt ex illo. Sic ergo filius unde sit ignoratur, quia natura ex qua est, nescitur; sed homines unde sint non ignoratur, quia unde sit ignorari non potest quidquid subsistit ex aliquo.
            <td>1060 But since every man, although born in a bodily condition, is from God, it seems that Christ could say that he is from God; and consequently, that they do know where he comes from. I answer, according to Hilary, that the Son is a (from) God in a different way than others: for he is from God in such a way that he is also God; and so God is his consubstantial principle. But others are <i>a</i> (from) God, but in such a way that they are not <i>ex</i> (from) him. Thus, it is not known where the Son is from because the nature <i>ex</i> (from) which he is, is not known. But where men are from is not unknown: for if something exists <i>ex</i> (from) nothing, where it is from cannot be unknown.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>ego scio eum</i>, docet quomodo perveniri possit ad notitiam eius a quo est. Ab illo enim oportet nos addiscere aliquid qui scit illud; solus autem filius novit patrem, et ideo dicit: si vultis notitiam eius qui misit me habere, oportet quod habeatis a me, quia <i>ego</i> solus <i>scio eum</i>. Et ideo primo ostendit suam scientiam; secundo scientiae suae perfectionem; tertio scientiae suae rationem.
            <td>1061 Then when he says, <b>I know him</b>, he teaches us how to know him from whom he is. For if a thing is to be learned, it must be learned from one who knows it. But only the Son knows the Father. And so he says: If you wish to know him who sent me, you must acquire this knowledge from me, because <b>I</b> alone <b>know him.</b> First, he shows that he knows him; secondly, he shows the perfection of his knowledge; and thirdly, the nature of his knowledge.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Suam scientiam ostendit cum dicit <i>ego scio eum</i> et cetera. Verum est autem, quod <i>omnes homines vident eum</i>, ut dicitur Iob c. XXXVI, 25, sed tamen diversimode, quia homines in vita ista vident eum per creaturas; Rom. I, 20: <i>invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur</i>. Ideo dicitur I Cor. XIII, 12: <i>videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate</i>. Angeli vero et beati in patria, vident eum immediate per essentiam; Matth. XVIII, 10: <i>Angeli eorum in caelis semper vident faciem patris mei qui in caelis est</i>; I Io. III, 2: <i>videbimus eum sicuti est</i>. Sed filius Dei videt eum excellentius omnibus, scilicet visione comprehensionis; supra I, 18: <i>Deum nemo vidit unquam</i>, scilicet comprehendendo; <i>unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit</i>; Matth. XI, 27: <i>neque patrem quis novit nisi filius</i>.
            <td>1062 He shows that he knows him when he says, I know him. Now it is true that “All men see him” Qb 36:25), but they do not we him in the same way, for in this life we see him through the intermediary of creatures: “The invisible things of God are clearly known through the things that have been made” (Rom 1:20). Thus we read: “Now we see in a mirror, in an obscure manner” (1 Cor 13:12). But the angels and the blessed in heaven see him through his essence:—“Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 18:10): “We shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2). The Son of God, on the other hand, sees him in a more excellent way than all, that is, with a comprehensive or all-inclusive vision: “No one has ever seen God,” i.e., in a comprehensive way; “it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him known” (above 1:18); “No one knows the Father but the Son” (Mt 11:27). It is of this vision that he is speaking of here, when he says: I know him, with a comprehensive knowledge.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Et de hac visione loquitur hic, dicens <i>ego scio eum</i>, scilicet notitia comprehensionis. Perfectionem vero scientiae suae ostendit dicens <i>si dixero quia nescio eum, ero similis vobis, mendax</i>. Quod quidem introducit propter duo: nam creaturae intellectuales sciunt eum, sed longe, et imperfecte, quia <i>unusquisque intuetur eum procul</i>, ut dicitur Iob XXXVI, 25. Veritas enim divina excedit omnem cognitionem; I Io. III, 20: <i>Deus maior est corde nostro</i>. Quicumque ergo Deum cognoscit, potest absque mendacio dicere <i>nescio eum</i>: quia non cognoscit eum quantum cognoscibilis est. Filius autem Deum patrem perfectissime cognoscit, sicut perfectissime ipse se novit: unde non potest dicere <i>nescio eum</i>.
            <td>1063 He shows the perfection of his knowledge when he says: And if I were to say that I do not know <b>him, I would be like you, a liar.</b> This is mentioned for two reasons. Intellectual creatures do know God, though from a distance and imperfectly, for “All men see him, from a distance” (Jb 36:25). For divine truth transcends all our knowledge: “God is greater than our hearts” (1 Jn 3:20). Therefore, whoever knows God can say without lying: “I do not know him,” because he does not know him to the full extent that he is knowable. But the Son knows God the Father most perfectly, just as he knows himself most perfectly. Thus he cannot say: I do not know him.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Item quia cognitio Dei, et maxime quae est per gratiam, potest perdi; secundum illud Ps. CV, 21: <i>obliti sunt Deum qui redemit eos</i>, unde possunt dicere <i>nescio eum</i>, quamdiu sunt in vita ista: quia nemo scit utrum odio vel amore dignus sit. Filius autem inamissibilem notitiam habet de patre, unde non potest dicere <i>nescio eum</i>.
            <td>Again, because our knowledge of God, especially that which comes through grace, can be lost—“They forgot God, who saved them” (Ps 105:21)—men can say, I do not know him, as long as they are in this present life: because no one knows whether he deserves love or hatred. The Son, on the other hand, has a knowledge of the Father that cannot be lost; so he cannot say: I do not know him.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>In hoc autem quod dicit <i>ero similis vobis, mendax</i>, debet accipi similitudo per contrarium. Non enim essent mendaces, si dicerent se nescire Deum; sed potius si dicerent se Deum cognoscere, cum eum ignorent. Si autem Christus diceret se eum non nosse, cum noscat, esset mendax. Est ergo sensus verbi <i>si dixero quia nescio eum</i>, cum sciam eum, <i>ero similis vobis, mendax</i>, qui dicitis vos cognoscere eum, cum tamen ipsum ignoretis.
            <td>We should understand, I would be like you, as a reverse likeness. For they would not be lying if they said they did not know God; but they would be if they said that they did know him, since they did not know him. But if Christ said that he did not know him, he would be lying, since he did know him. So the meaning of this statement is this: If I were to say that I do not know him, then since I really do know him, I would be like you, a liar, who say that you know him, although you do not.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed numquid non poterat Christus dicere <i>nescio eum?</i> Videtur quod sic, quia poterat movere labia, et proferre verba huiusmodi: ergo potest esse mendax. Sed dicendum, quod Christus huiusmodi verba protulit, et tamen non fuit mendax: quod intelligendum est sic: <i>si dixero: nescio eum</i>, cum assertione, ita scilicet quod corde credam quod profero ore. Asserere autem falsum pro vero, ex duplici defectu contingit. Scilicet ex defectu cognitionis in intellectu; et hic defectus non poterat esse in Christo, cum sit Dei sapientia, ut dicitur I Cor. I, 30. Item ex defectu rectae voluntatis in affectu; qui similiter in Christo esse non poterat, cum sit Dei virtus, ut ibidem dicitur. Unde non poterat dicere asserendo <i>nescio eum</i>. Nec tamen conditionalis est falsa, quamvis antecedens sit impossibile, et consequens.
            <td>1064 Could not Christ have said: I do not know him? It seems he could, since he could have moved his lips and said the words. And so he could have lied. I reply that Christ did say this and still was not lying. We should explain it this way: If he were to say, <b>I do not know him,</b> declaratively, meaning, “I believe in my heart what I profess by my lips,” [then he would have been a liar]. Now to say as the truth what is false comes from two defects: from a defect of knowledge in the intellect; and Christ could not have this since he is the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:30); or it could come from a defect of right will in the affections; and this could not be in Christ either since he is the power of God, according to the same text. Thus he could not say the words <b>I do not know him</b>, declaratively. Yet this entire conditional statement is not false, although both its parts are impossible.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ratio autem singularis et perfectae scientiae Christi ponitur, cum dicit <i>sed ego scio eum, quia ab ipso sum, et ipse me misit</i>. Omnis enim cognitio est per aliquam similitudinem, cum nihil cognoscatur nisi prout similitudo cogniti est in cognoscente; omne autem quod procedit ab aliquo, habet eius similitudinem a quo procedit, unde omnes vere cognoscentes, secundum diversum gradum processionis eorum a Deo, habent diversimode eius cognitionem. Anima autem rationalis, Dei cognitionem habet, secundum quod similitudinem eius participat imperfectiori quodam modo ab aliis creaturis intellectualibus. Angelus, quia expressiorem Dei similitudinem habet, cum sit signaculum similitudinis, manifestius Deum cognoscit. Filius autem perfectissimam patris similitudinem habet, cum sit eiusdem essentiae et virtutis cum ipso; et ideo perfectissime cognoscit, ut dictum est. Et ideo dicit <i>sed ego scio eum</i>, scilicet quantum cognoscibilis est. Et huius ratio est <i>quia ab ipso sum</i>, quasi habens eamdem naturae essentiam cum ipso per consubstantialitatem. Unde, sicut ipse perfecte se novit per essentiam suam, ita et per eamdem essentiam <i>ego scio eum</i>, perfecte. Sed ne hoc referatur ad missionem qua venit in mundum, continuo subiecit <i>et ipse me misit</i>: ut sic quod dicit <i>ab ipso sum</i>, referatur ad aeternam generationem, per quam consubstantialis est patris. Ex quo habetur proprietas cognitionis de proprietate generationis. Per hoc vero quod dicit <i>ipse me misit</i>, insinuat patrem auctorem incarnationis; Gal. IV, v. 4: <i>misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege</i>. Sicut autem per hoc quod filius est a patre, perfectam patris cognitionem habet; ita etiam per hoc quod anima Christi singulariter est unita verbo, habet singularem et excellentiorem prae aliis creaturis cognitionem Dei, licet eum non comprehendat. Et ideo potest Christus secundum humanam naturam dicere: scio eum excellentius prae omnibus creaturis, non tamen comprehendendo.
            <td>1065 The reason for this singular and perfect knowledge of Christ is given when he says: <b>I do know him, because I am from him, and he sent</b> me. Now all knowledge comes about through some likeness, since nothing is known except insofar as there is a likeness of the known in the knower. But whatever proceeds from something has a likeness to that from which it proceeds; and so, all who truly know have a varied knowledge of God according to the different degrees of their procession from him. The rational soul has a knowledge of God insofar as it participates in a likeness to him in a more imperfect way than other intellectual creatures. An angel, because it has a more explicit likeness to God, being a stamp of resemblance, knows God more clearly. But the Son has the most perfect likeness to the Father, since he has the same essence and power as he does; and so he knows him most perfectly, as was said. And so he says: <b>But I do know him,</b> that is, to the extent that he is knowable. And the reason for this is because I am from him, having the same essence with him through consubstantiality. Thus, just as he knows himself perfectly through his essence, so I do know him perfectly through the same essence. And so that we do not understand these words as referring to his being sent into this world, he at once adds, and he sent me. Consequently, the statement, <b>I am from him,</b> refers to his eternal generation, through which he is consubstantial with the Father. But then when he says, and he sent me, he is saying that the Father is the author of the incarnation: “God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law” (Gal 4:4). Now just as the Son has a perfect knowledge of the Father because he is from the Father, so because the soul of Christ is united to the Word in a unique way, it has a unique and more excellent knowledge of God than other creatures, although it does not comprehend him. And so Christ can say, according to his human nature: I know him in a more excellent way than other creatures do, but without comprehending him.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>quaerebant ergo eum apprehendere</i>, agitur de effectu doctrinae, et primo quantum ad turbas; secundo quantum ad Pharisaeos, ibi <i>audierunt Pharisaei turbam murmurantem</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit effectum doctrinae in turbis malevolis; secundo in turbis devotis, ibi <i>de turba autem multi crediderunt in eum</i>. Circa primum tria facit. Primo innuit turbarum iniquum propositum; secundo propositi implendi impedimentum; et tertio impedimenti rationem.
            <td>1066 Then (v 30), he considers the effect of his teaching. First (in the people; then on the Pharisees (v 32). He does two things with the first. First, he shows the effect of this teaching on those of the people who were ill-willed; secondly, on those who were favorable (v 31). He does three things concerning the first. First, he mentions the evil intention of the people; secondly, that they were hindered in carrying out their plan; and thirdly, he mentions the reason why they were hindered.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Iniquitas autem propositi manifestatur cum dicit <i>quaerebant ergo eum apprehendere</i>. Quia enim dixerat dominus <i>quem vos nescitis</i>, irati sunt Iudaei quasi simularent eum scire, et ideo iniqua proponebant, scilicet eum apprehendere, ad crucifigendum et occidendum, secundum illud Ps. LXX, 11: <i>persequimini, et comprehendite eum</i>. Sunt autem aliqui qui Christum in se habentes, quaerunt tamen pie apprehendere; Cant. VII, 8: <i>ascendam in palmam, et apprehendam fructus eius</i>. Unde et apostolus dicebat, Phil. III, 12: <i>sequor, si quo modo apprehendam, in quo et comprehensus sum a Christo Iesu</i>.
            <td>1007 he presents their evil intention when he says, <b>They therefore wanted to seize him.</b> Because our Lord said to them, “whom you do not know,” they became angry, feigning that they did know him. And so they formed the evil plan of seizing him, so that they could crucify and kill him: “Go after him, and seize him” (Ps 70:11). Yet there are some who have Christ within themselves, and still seek to seize him in a reverent manner: “I will go up into the palm tree and seize its fruit” (Sg 7:8). And so the Apostle says: “I will go after it to seize it” (Phil 3:12).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Impedimentum propositi ponit cum dicit <i>nemo misit in illum manus</i>. Invisibiliter enim eorum furor refrenatus est et repressus. Per quod patet quod voluntas nocendi est unicuique a se, sed nocendi potestas a Deo, quod patet Iob I et II, ubi Satan non potuit Iob affligere nisi quantum permissum est sibi a Deo.
            <td>1068 He mentions that they were hindered in their plans when he says, <b>but no one laid a hand on him:</b> for their rage was invisibly checked and restrained. This shows that a person has the will to inflict injury from himself, while the power to inflict injury is from God. This is clear from the first chapters of Job, where Satan was unable to torment Job except to the extent that he was permitted to do so by God.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Ratio impedimenti assignatur <i>quia nondum venerat hora eius</i>. Unde sciendum est, quod, secundum illud Eccle. VIII, 6: <i>omni negotio tempus est et opportunitas</i>. Tempus autem unicuique rei ex sua causa determinatur. Quia ergo corporalium effectuum causa sunt corpora caelestia, ideo in his quae corporaliter aguntur, hora determinatur ex corporibus caelestibus; anima vero, cum secundum intellectum et rationem nullis corporibus caelestibus subiaceat, cum quantum ad hoc temporales causas transcendat, non habet horas determinatas ex corporibus caelestibus; sed ex causa eius, scilicet Deo, qui dispensat quid quo tempore sit faciendum; Eccli. XXXIII, 7: <i>quare dies diem superat; et iterum lux lucem, et annus annum a sole? A domini scientia separati sunt, facto sole, et praeceptum custodiente</i>. Multo ergo minus in Christo determinatur hora ab ipsis corporibus. Sic ergo intelligenda est hora eius, non ex necessitate fatali, sed a tota Trinitate praefinita: nam, ut dicit Augustinus, hoc nec de te credendum est; quanto magis de illo per quem factus es? Si tua hora voluntas illius est, scilicet Dei; hora illius, quae est nisi voluntas sua? Non ergo horam dixit qua cogeretur mori, sed qua dignaretur occidi. Supra II, 4: <i>nondum venit hora mea</i>; infra XIII, v. 1: <i>sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad patrem</i> et cetera.
            <td>1069 The reason they were hindered was <b>because his hour had not yet come.</b> Here we should note that “There is a time and fitness for everything” (Ecc 8:6). However, the time for anything is determined by its cause. Therefore, because the heavenly bodies are the cause of physical effects, the time for those things that act in a physical way is determined by the heavenly bodies. The soul, on the other hand, since it is not subject to any heavenly body in its intellect and reason (for in this respect it transcends temporal causes) does not have times determined by the heavenly bodies; rather, its times are determined by its cause, that is, God, who decrees what is to be done and at what time: “Why is one day better than another?... They are differentiated by the knowledge of the Lord” (Si,33:7). Much less, therefore, is Christ’s time determined by these bodies. Accordingly, his hour must be regarded as fixed not by fatal necessity, but by the entire Trinity. For as Augustine says: “You should not believe this about yourself; and how much less should you believe it about he who made you? If your hour is his will, that is, God’s, what is his hour but his own will? Therefore, he was not speaking here of the hour in which he would be forced to die, but rather of the hour in which he thought it fitting to be killed.” “My time has not yet come,” as he said before (above 2:4); “Jesus knew that his time had come to leave this world for the Father” (below 13:1).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>de turba autem multi crediderunt in eum</i>, ponit effectum doctrinae in turbis devotis. Et primo ponitur eorum fides, <i>quia multi de turba crediderunt in eum</i>. Non dicit de principibus: quia quanto maiores erant, tanto magis erant elongati, et ideo in eis sapientia locum non habebat, quia, ut dicitur Prov. XI, v. 2: <i>ubi humilitas, ibi sapientia</i>. Turba autem, quia suam aegritudinem cito vidit, domini medicinam sine dilatione cognovit; Mt. c. XI, 25: <i>abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis</i>. Et propter hoc in principio humiles et pauperes conversi sunt ad Christum; I Cor. I, 28: <i>ignobilia et contemptibilia mundi elegit Deus, et ea quae non sunt, ut ea quae sunt destrueret</i>.
            <td>1070 Then he mentions the effect his teaching had on those who were favorable. First, he shows their faith: <b>Many of the people, however, believed in him.</b> He does not say, “of the leaders,” because the higher their rank, the further away they were from him. So there was no room in them for wisdom: “Where there is humility, there is wisdom” (Prv 11:2).But the people, because they were quick to see their own sickness, immediately recognized our Lord’s medicine: “You have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to little ones” (Mt 11:2 5). This is why in the beginning, it was the poor and the humble who were converted to Christ: “God chose what is lowly and despised in the world, and things that are not, to destroy those things that are” (1 Cor 1:28).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Secundo ponit motivum ad fidem cum dicit <i>Christus cum venerit, numquid plura signa faciet quam quae hic facit?</i> Prophetatum enim erat quod Christus in adventu suo miracula multa esset facturus; Is. XXXV, 4: <i>Deus ipse veniet, et salvabit nos: tunc aperientur oculi caecorum, et aures surdorum patebunt</i> et cetera. Et ideo videntes miracula quae Christus faciebat, inducebantur ad fidem eius. Sed tamen fides eorum infirma erat, quia non a doctrina, sed a signis moventur ad credendum ei; cum tamen ipsi, qui fideles iam erant, et per legem instructi, magis a doctrina moveri debuissent, nam ut dicitur I Cor. XIV, 22: <i>signa data sunt infidelibus, prophetiae autem non infidelibus, sed fidelibus</i>.
            <td>Secondly, he gives the motive for their faith when he says, <b>When the Christ comes, will he work more wonders than this man has done?</b> For it had been prophesied that when the Christ came, he would work many miracles: “God himself will come, and save us. Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will hear” (Is 35:4). And so when they saw the miracles Christ was accomplishing, they were led to believe. Yet their faith was weak, because they were led to believe him not by his teaching, but by his miracles; whereas, since they were already believers, and instructed by the law, they should have been influenced more by his teaching: “Signs were given to unbelievers; while prophecies were given to believers, not to unbelievers” (1 Cor 14:22).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Secundo quia adhuc videntur alium Christum expectare; unde dicunt <i>Christus cum venerit, numquid plura signa faciet quam quae hic facit?</i> Unde patet quod non credebant in Christum, sicut in Deum, sed sicut in aliquem iustum virum, seu prophetam. Vel, secundum Augustinum, syllogizant: <i>Christus cum venerit, numquid plura signa faciet?</i> Quasi dicant: Christus promittitur venturus, sed ipse non plura signa faciet quam hic facit: ergo vel ipse est Christus, vel erunt plures Christi.
            <td>Secondly, their faith was weak because they seemed to be expecting another Christ; thus they say: <b>When the Christ comes, will he work more wonders than this man has done?</b> From this it is obvious that they did not believe in Christ as in God, but as in some just man or prophet. Or, according to Augustine, they were reasoning this way: <b>When the Christ comes, will he work more wonders than this man has done?</b> As if to say: We were promised that the Christ would come. But he will not work more signs than this man is doing. Therefore, either he is the Christ, or there will be several Christs.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>audierunt Pharisaei turbam murmurantem de illo haec</i>, ponitur effectus in Pharisaeis. Et, ut Chrysostomus dicit, Christus multa dixit, et tamen non sunt moti contra eum. Quando autem vident turbam ei acquiescere, statim concitantur contra eum, et insanientes, eum occidere cupiebant. Ex quo patet quod sabbati solutio non erat vera causa odii eorum sed hoc eos maxime mordebat quod turbae Christum glorificabant. Et hoc patet infra c. XII, 19: <i>videtis quia nihil proficimus? Ecce totus mundus post eum vadit</i>. Quia vero ipsi Christum capere non audebant, timentes periculum, ministros mittunt, tamquam periculis expositos.
            <td>1071 Then when he says, <b>The Pharisees heard the people saying these things about him,</b> we see the effect this had on the Pharisees. And as Chrysostom says, Christ said many things, and yet the Pharisees were not aroused against him. But when they saw that the people were accepting him, they were immediately fired up against him; and in their madness they wanted to kill him. This shows that the real reason why they hated him was not that he broke the sabbath; what provoked them the most was the fact that the people were honoring Christ. And this is clear below: “Do you not see that we can do nothing? Look, the entire world has gone after him!” (12:19). Because they were afraid of the danger they did not dare to seize Christ themselves, but they sent their officers, who were used to such things.
      </table>
      <hr>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr style="align:center">
            <td><b>Lectio 4</b>
            <td><b>LECTURE 4</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
              <blockquote>
                33 εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
                <dl>
                  <dd>ἔτι χρόνον μικρὸν μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πέμψαντά με.
                  <dd>34 ζητήσετέ με καὶ οὐχ εὑρήσετέ [με],
                  <dd>καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν.<br>
                  35 εἶπον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πρὸς ἑαυτούς, ποῦ οὗτος μέλλει πορεύεσθαι ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρήσομεν αὐτόν; μὴ εἰς τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν ἑλλήνων μέλλει πορεύεσθαι καὶ διδάσκειν τοὺς ἕλληνας; 36 τίς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὃν εἶπεν, ζητήσετέ με καὶ οὐχ εὑρήσετέ [με], καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν;
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
            <td>
              <blockquote>
                33 Jesus then said to them:
                <dl>
                  <dd>“For still a short time I am with you;
                  <dd>then I am going to him who sent me.
                  <dd>34 You will look for me,
                  <dd>and you will not find me;
                  <dd>
                    and where I am, you will not be able to come.”
                    <p>35 The Jews therefore said to one another: “Where is he going that we cannot find him? Is he going to those dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? 36 What does he mean by saying, ‘You will look for me, and you will not find me’; and ‘where I am, you will not be able to come’?”
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Postquam posuit dominus originis suae principium, hic consequenter insinuat suum terminum, quo scilicet iturus est per mortem, et primo insinuatur terminus viae Christi; secundo ponitur admiratio turbarum de sermonibus eius, ibi <i>dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad semetipsos</i> et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo insinuat suae vitae terminum; secundo praenuntiat futurum turbarum desiderium, ibi <i>quaeretis me, et non invenietis</i>; tertio subdit eorum defectum, ibi <i>et ubi sum ego, vos non potestis venire</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praenuntiat mortis suae dilationem; secundo innuit quo iturus est per mortem, ibi <i>et vado ad patrem</i> etc.: et sic in primo ostendit suam potestatem; in secundo patiendi voluntatem.
            <td>1072 After our Lord told the principle of his origin, he then mentions his end, i.e., where he would go by dying. First, the end of Christ’s life is given; secondly, we see that the people are puzzled by what he says (v 35). As to the first he does three things. First, the end of his life is mentioned; secondly, he predicts what they will desire in the future (v 34); and thirdly, he mentions one of their deficiencies (v 34b). He does two things about the first. First, he predicts the delay of his death until later; and secondly, he states where he will go by dying (v 33b). And so, in the first, he shows his power; and in the second, his will to suffer.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Potestatem quidem suam ostendit in dilatione mortis, quia, licet Iudaei quaererent eum apprehendere, non tamen hoc possunt, nisi Christus velit; infra X, 18: <i>nemo tollit animam meam; sed ego pono eam</i>. Et ideo <i>dixit eis Iesus: adhuc modicum tempus vobiscum sum</i>; quasi dicat: vultis me interficere, sed hoc non est positum in voluntate vestra, sed in voluntate mea: et ego determino quod <i>adhuc modicum tempus vobiscum sum</i>; et ideo parum expectate tempus. Hoc quod vultis modo facere, facturi estis: <i>adhuc</i> enim <i>modicum tempus vobiscum sum</i>. In quo quidem dominus satisfacit primo quidem turbae quae eum reverebatur, faciens eam magis avidam ad audiendum, quasi parvo tempore derelicta, in quo possent hac doctrina potiri, ut Chrysostomus dicit. Infra XII, v. 36: <i>dum lucem habetis, credite in lucem</i>. Secundo vero turbae quae eum persequebatur, quasi dicat: non diu differtur desiderium vestrum de morte mea, unde patienter sustinete: quia <i>adhuc modicum</i>. Implere enim debeo dispensationem meam; praedicando scilicet, et miracula faciendo, et sic pervenire ad passionem; Lc. XIII, 32: <i>ite, et dicite vulpi illi, quia hodie et cras operor, et tertia die consummor</i>.
            <td>1073 Our Lord shows his power by the delaying of his death until later; because, although the Jews wanted to seize him, they could not do this until Christ willed. “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself” (below 10:18). And so Jesus said: <b>For still a short time I am with you.</b> As if to say: You want to kill me; but this does not depend on your will, but on my will. And I have decided that <b>For still a short time I am with you;</b> so wait a while. You will do what you want to do. These words of our Lord first of all satisfied those people who honored him, and made them more eager to listen to him because there was only a short time left to receive his teaching, as Chrysostom says. “While you have the light, believe in the light” (below 12:36). Secondly, he satisfied those who were persecuting him. As if to say: Your desire for my death will not be delayed long; so be patient, because it is <b>a short time.</b> For I must accomplish my mission: to preach, to perform miracles, and then to come to my passion. “Go and tell that fox that I will work today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will finish my course” (Lk 13:32).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Est autem triplex causa, quare Christus modico tempore voluit praedicare. Prima ad demonstrandum suam virtutem, quod in tam modico tempore totum mundum immutaret; Ps. LXXXIII, 11: <i>melior est dies una in atriis tuis super millia</i>. Secunda est ad excitandum desiderium discipulorum, ut scilicet magis eum desiderarent quem modico tempore corporali praesentia habituri erant; Lc. XVII, 22: <i>venient dies in quibus desiderabitis unam diem filii hominis</i>. Tertia est ad augmentandum discipulorum spiritualem profectum. Cum enim Christi humanitas sit nobis via tendendi in Deum, ut dicitur infra XIV, 6: <i>ego sum via, veritas et vita</i>, non debemus in ea quiescere ut in termino, sed per eam debemus in Deum tendere. Ne ergo corda discipulorum ad Christum carnaliter affecta, in eo ut in homine quiescerent ideo Christus corporalem sui praesentiam ab eis cito subtraxit: unde dicebat, infra XVI, 7: <i>expedit vobis ut ego vadam</i>; II Cor. V, 16: <i>et si Christum secundum carnem novimus</i>, tunc scilicet quando corporaliter nobiscum erat, <i>sed nunc iam non novimus</i>.
            <td>1074 There are three reasons why Christ wished to preach for only a short time. First, to show his power, by transforming the entire world in such a brief time: “One day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere” (Ps 83:11). Secondly, to arouse the desire of his disciples, i.e., to desire him more (him whose physical presence they would have for only a short time): “The days will come when you will desire to see one day of the Son of Man” (Lk 17:22). Thirdly, to accelerate the spiritual progress of his disciples. For since the humanity of Christ is our way to God, as it says below, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (14:6), we should not rest in it as a goal, but through it tend to God. And so that the hearts of his disciples, which were moved by the physical presence of Christ, would not rest in him as man, he quickly took his physical presence from them; thus he said: “It is advantageous for you that I go” (below 16:7); “If we knew Christ according to the flesh (i.e., when he was physically present to us) now we no longer know him in this way” (2 Cor 5:16).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Voluntatem suae passionis ostendit cum dicit <i>et vado ad eum qui me misit</i>, quasi spontaneus, scilicet per passionem; Is. c. LIII, 7: <i>oblatus est, quia ipse voluit</i>; Eph. c. V, 2: <i>obtulit semetipsum hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. Vado</i>, inquam, <i>ad patrem qui misit me</i>. Et hoc convenienter: nam quaelibet res naturaliter redit ad suum principium; Eccle. I, 7: <i>ad locum unde exeunt flumina, revertuntur</i>. Infra XIII, 3: <i>sciens quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit</i>. Et iterum c. XVI, 5: <i>vado ad eum qui misit me</i>.
            <td>1075 He shows his desire for his passion when he says, <b>I am going to him who sent me,</b> that is, willingly, by my passion: “He was offered because it was his own will” (Is 53:7); “He gave himself for us, an offering to God” (Eph 5:2). 1 am going, I say, to the Father, to him who sent me. And this is appropriate, for everything naturally returns to its principle: “Rivers return to the place from which they come” (Ecc 1:7); “Jesus... knowing that he came from God, and was going to God” (below 13:3). And again: “I am going to him who sent me” (below 16:5).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>quaeretis me, et non invenietis</i>, praenuntiat Iudaeorum desiderium, quasi dicat: modicum est quod potestis mea doctrina frui; sed hoc modicum, quod modo respuitis, quandoque quaeretis, et non invenietis; Is. LV, 6: <i>quaerite dominum dum inveniri potest</i>; et in Ps. LXVIII, 33: <i>quaerite dominum</i>, scilicet in praesenti, <i>et vivet anima vestra</i>.
            <td>1076 When he says, <b>You will look for me, and you will not find me,</b> he is predicting what the Jews will desire in the times to Come. As if to say: You can enjoy my teaching for a short time; but this brief time, which you are now rejecting, you will look for later, and you will not find it: “Search for the Lord while he can be found” (Is 55:6); and “Seek the Lord (at the present time), and your soul will live” (Ps 68:33).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Hoc autem quod dicit <i>quaeretis me, et non invenietis</i>, potest intelligi vel de inquisitione corporali Christi, vel de spirituali. Si vero intelligatur de corporali, sic, secundum Chrysostomum, quaesierunt eum quando filiae Ierusalem, scilicet mulieres, plangebant super eum, ut dicitur Lc. XXIII, 27, et credibile est hoc tunc multos alios passos esse. Nec est etiam a veritate remotum, quia imminente tribulatione Iudaeis, et praecipue cum civitas caperetur, memores Christi et miraculorum eius, desiderarent eius praesentiam, qua liberarentur; et secundum hoc dicendum est <i>quaeretis me</i>, idest meam praesentiam corporalem, <i>et non invenietis</i>.
            <td>1077 This statement, <b>You will look for me, and you will not find me,</b> can be understood either as a physical search for Christ or as a spiritual search. If we understand it as a physical search, then, according to Chrysostom, this is the way he was sought by the daughters of Jerusalem, i.e., the women who cried for him, as Luke (23:27) mentions; and no doubt many others were affected at the same time. It is not unreasonable to think that when trouble was near, especially when their city was being captured, the Jews remembered Christ and his miracles and wished that he were there to free them. And in this way, <b>You will look for me,</b> i.e., for me to be physically present, <b>and you will not find me.</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Si vero intelligatur de spirituali, dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod eum quem noluerunt cognoscere praesentem, tunc postea quaesierunt cum videntes multitudinem credentem, compuncti de scelere mortis Christi, dixerunt Petro, Act. II, 37: <i>quid faciemus, viri fratres?</i> Sic ergo quaesierunt Christum quando crediderunt in eum suis sceleribus ignoscentem, quem viderunt ipsorum scelere morientem.
            <td>If we understand this as a spiritual search for Christ, then we should say, as Augustine does, that although they refused to recognize Christ while he was among them, they later looked for him, after they had seen the people believe and had themselves been stung by the crime of his death; and they said to Peter: “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). In this way, they were looking for Christ (whom they saw die as a result of their crime) when they believed in him who forgave them.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>et ubi ego sum, vos non potestis venire</i>, ostendit eorum defectum. Nec dicit quo vado, quod esset magis consequens ad praemissa, scilicet <i>vado ad patrem qui me misit</i>; sed dicit <i>ubi ego sum</i>, ut ostendat se Deum et hominem. Hominem quidem, inquantum vadit, infra XVI, 5: <i>vado ad eum qui me misit</i>, sed inquantum semper ibi erat Christus quo fuerat rediturus, ostendit se Deum; supra III, 13: <i>nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui descendit de caelo</i>. Sic ergo, secundum Augustinum, sicut Christus rediit ut nos non relinqueret, sic ad nos per assumptionem visibilis carnis descendit ut secundum invisibilem maiestatem etiam esset in caelo.
            <td>1078 Then when he says, <b>and where I am, you will not be able to come,</b> he points out one of their deficiencies. He does not say, “and where I am going,” which would be more in keeping with the earlier thought, “I am going,” to the Father, “to him who sent me.” He says rather, where I am, to show that he is both God and man. He is man insofar as he is going: “I am going to him who sent me” (below 16:5). But insofar as Christ had always been where he was about to return, he shows that he is God: “No one has gone up to heaven except the One who came down from heaven” (above 3:13). And so, as Augustine says, just as Christ returned in such a way as not to leave us, so he came down to us, when he assumed visible flesh, but in such a way as still to be in heaven according to his invisible greatness.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Non autem dicit non invenietis, quia aliqui ituri erant; sed dicit <i>non potestis venire</i>, quamdiu scilicet sic dispositi estis. Nullus enim ad hereditatem caelestem pervenire potest, nisi sit heres Dei. Heres autem Dei aliquis efficitur per fidem Christi; supra I, 12: <i>dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius</i>. Iudaei autem nondum in eum credebant; et ideo dicit <i>non potestis venire</i>. In Ps. XXIII, 3, requirit: <i>quis ascendet in montem domini?</i> Et respondetur: <i>innocens manibus, et mundo corde</i>. Iudaei autem non erant mundo corde, nec innocentes manibus, quia volebant Christum interficere, ideo dicit: non potestis ascendere in montem domini.
            <td>He does not say, “You will not find,” because some were about to go; but he does say, you will not be able to come, i.e., as long as you keep your present attitude; for no one can obtain the eternal inheritance. unless he is God’s heir. And one becomes an heir of God by faith in Christ: “he gave them power to become the sons of God, to all who believe in his name” (above 1:12). But the Jews did not yet believe in him; and so he says, <b>you will not be able to come.</b> In the Psalm it is asked: “Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord?” And the answer given is: “Those whose hands are innocent and whose hearts are clean” (Ps 23:3). But the hearts of the Jews were not clean, nor were their hands innocent, because they wanted to kill Christ. And so he says: you are not able to ascend the mountain of the Lord.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad semetipsos</i>, ponitur Iudaeorum admiratio, qui licet carnaliter de Christo saperent, tamen ex parte credebant. Et tria faciunt. Primo admirantur; secundo suspicantur; et tertio contra suspicionem argumentantur.
            <td>1079 Then (v 35), we see that this was bewildering to the Jews, who, although they thought of Christ in a worldly way, still did believe to a certain extent. And three things happen here. First, they are bewildered; secondly, they form an opinion, and thirdly, they argue against their own opinion.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Admirantur quidem cum dicunt ad semetipsos <i>quo iturus est hic, quia non invenerimus eum?</i> Ut enim dictum est, hoc carnaliter intelligebant; I Cor. II, 14: <i>animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei</i>.
            <td>1080 They are perplexed when they say to each other: <b>Where is he going that we cannot find him?</b> For, as was said, they understood this in a physical way: “The sensual man does not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:14).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Et ideo quod esset iturus, non quidem per mortem, sed corporaliter, ad aliquem locum quo eis non liceret ascendere, suspicantur super hoc, dicentes <i>numquid in dispersionem gentium iturus est, et docturus gentes?</i> Nam gentes alienatae erant a conversatione Iudaeorum; Eph. II, 12: <i>hospites testamentorum eratis alienati a conversatione Israel, promissionis spem non habentes, et sine Deo in hoc mundo</i>. Et ideo quasi eis exprobrantes, dicunt <i>in dispersionem gentium</i>, quae scilicet ubique disseminatae erant, et imperfecte ad invicem permixtae; Gen. X, 32: <i>hae sunt familiae Noe iuxta populos et nationes suas, et ab his divisae sunt gentes in terra post diluvium</i>. Sed populus Iudaeorum collectus erat loco, et cultu unius Dei, et observatione legis; Ps. CXLVI, 2: <i>aedificans Ierusalem dominus, dispersiones Israelis congregabit</i>.
            <td>1081 And so they came to the opinion that Christ was going to go in a physical way, not by dying, to some place where they would not be permitted to go. Thus they say: <b>Is he going to those dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?</b> For the Gentiles were separated from the way of life of the Jews: “separated from Israel’s way of life, strangers to the covenants, without hope in the promise, and without God in this world” (Eph 2:12). And so they said, in a way reproaching him, to those dispersed among the Gentiles, who had settled in many different places: “These are the families of Noe... and they settled among the nations on the earth after the flood” (Gn 10:32). But the Jewish people were united by place, by their worship of the one God, and by the observance of the law: “The Lord builds up Jerusalem, and he will gather the dispersed of Israel” (Ps 146:2).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Nec dicunt quod iturus sit ad gentes quasi gentilis futurus, sed tamquam eas reducturus: unde subdunt <i>et docturus gentes</i>. Quod forte sumpserunt ex Is. XLIX, 6: <i>parum est mihi ut sis mihi servus ad suscitandas tribus Iacob, et faeces Israel convertendas: dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis salus mea usque ad extremum terrae</i>. Quamvis autem isti non intelligerent ea quae dicunt, sicut nec Caiphas intellexit cum dixit: <i>expedit vobis ut unus homo moriatur, et non tota gens pereat</i>, tamen verum dicunt, et salutem gentium praedixerunt, ut Augustinus dicit, quod iturus esset ad gentes, non praesentia corporis, sed pedibus suis, scilicet apostolis. Misit enim ad nos membra sua, et fecit nos sua membra; infra X, 16: <i>alias oves habeo quae non sunt ex hoc ovili, et illas oportet me adducere (...) et fiet unum ovile, et unus pastor</i>. Et ideo Is. II, 3, dicitur in persona gentium: <i>docebit nos vias suas</i>.
            <td>They did not say that he would go to the Gentiles to become a Gentile himself, but to bring them back; and so they said, and teach the Gentiles. They probably took this from Isaiah (49:6): “I have given you to be a light to the Gentiles, to be my salvation to the ends of the earth.” However, even though they did not understand what they were saying (just as Caiphas did not understand his own words: “It is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the entire nation does not perish”), what they said was true, and they were predicting the salvation of the Gentiles, as Augustine says, for Christ would go to the Gentiles, not in his own body, but by his feet, i.e., his apostles. For he sent his own members to us to niake us his members. “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and I must bring them also... and there will be one fold and one Shepherd” (below 10:16). And so Isaiah says, speaking for the Gentiles: “He will teach us his ways” (Is 2:3).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Obiiciunt autem contra ea quae suspicantur, dicentes <i>quis est hic sermo quem dixit: quaeretis me?</i> Quasi dicant: si dixisset <i>quaeretis me, et non invenietis, et ubi sum ego, vos non potestis venire</i>, poterat quidem intelligi quod iturus esset ad gentes; sed per hoc quod addidit <i>ubi ego sum non potestis venire</i>, videtur excludere hunc intellectum. Non enim impossibile est nobis ad gentes ire et cetera.
            <td>1082 Finally, they saw an objection to their own opinion when they said: <b>What does he mean by saying</b>... ? As if to say: If he had said only, <b>You will look for me, and you will not find me</b>, we could think that he was going to the Gentiles. But he seems to exclude this when he adds, <b>where I am, you will not be able to come</b>, for we can go to the Gentiles.
      </table>
      <hr>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr style="align:center">
            <td><b>Lectio 5</b>
            <td><b>LECTURE 5</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
              <blockquote>
                37 ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ μεγάλῃ τῆς ἑορτῆς εἱστήκει ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔκραξεν λέγων,
                <dl>
                  <dd>ἐάν τις διψᾷ ἐρχέσθω πρός με καὶ πινέτω.
                  <dd>38 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ,
                  <dd>καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή,
                  <dd>ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος.<br>
                  39 τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ὃ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν: οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη. 40 ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου οὖν ἀκούσαντες τῶν λόγων τούτων ἔλεγον, οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης: 41 ἄλλοι ἔλεγον, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός: οἱ δὲ ἔλεγον, μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ Χριστὸς ἔρχεται; 42 οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος δαυίδ, καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ τῆς κώμης ὅπου ἦν δαυίδ, ἔρχεται ὁ Χριστὸς; 43 σχίσμα οὖν ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ δι' αὐτόν. 44 τινὲς δὲ ἤθελον ἐξ αὐτῶν πιάσαι αὐτόν, ἀλλ' οὐδεὶς ἐπέβαλεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας. 45 ἦλθον οὖν οἱ ὑπηρέται πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ φαρισαίους, καὶ εἶπον αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖνοι, διὰ τί οὐκ ἠγάγετε αὐτόν; 46 ἀπεκρίθησαν οἱ ὑπηρέται, οὐδέποτε ἐλάλησεν οὕτως ἄνθρωπος. 47 ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν αὐτοῖς οἱ φαρισαῖοι, μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς πεπλάνησθε; 48 μή τις ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπίστευσεν εἰς αὐτὸν ἢ ἐκ τῶν φαρισαίων; 49 ἀλλὰ ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν. 50 λέγει Νικόδημος πρὸς αὐτούς, ὁ ἐλθὼν πρὸς αὐτὸν [τὸ] πρότερον, εἷς ὢν ἐξ αὐτῶν, 51 μὴ ὁ νόμος ἡμῶν κρίνει τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ πρῶτον παρ' αὐτοῦ καὶ γνῷ τί ποιεῖ; 52 ἀπεκρίθησαν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, μὴ καὶ σὺ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶ; ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας προφήτης οὐκ ἐγείρεται. 53 καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ.
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
            <td>
              <blockquote>
                37 On the last and greatest day of the festival Jesus stood up and cried out, saying:
                <dl>
                  <dd>“If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.
                  <dd>38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures say,
                  <dd>
                    out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.”
                    <p>39 (He said this concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in him would receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.) 40 From that moment some of the people, hearing these words of his, said: “Truly, this is the Prophet.” 41 Others said: “This is the Christ.” But others said: “Would the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Christ will come from the seed of David, and from David’s town of Bethlehem?” 43 And so there was dissension among the people because of him. 44 Although some of them wanted to apprehend him, no one laid a hand on him. 45 So the officers returned to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them: “Why have you not brought him?” 46 The officers replied: “Never has any man spoken like this man.” 47 The Pharisees then retorted: “Have you too been seduced? him, or any of the Pharisees? 48 Has any one of the rulers believed in 49 But these people, who do not know the law, they are accursed.” 50 Nicodemus (the same one who came to him at night, and was one of them) said: 51 “Does our law judge a man without first hearing from him and knowing what he has done?” 52 They answered and said to him: “Are you too a Galilean? Look at the Scriptures and see that the Prophet will not come from Galilee.” 53 Then every man returned to his own house.
                </dl>
              </blockquote>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Postquam dominus egit de origine suae doctrinae et docentis nec non de termino eius, hic consequenter invitat ad ipsam doctrinam, et primo ponitur Christi invitatio; secundo turbarum dissensio, ibi <i>ex illa autem hora</i> et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur invitandi modus; secundo ipsa invitatio, ibi <i>si quis sitit, veniat ad me</i>; tertio subditur expositio, ibi <i>hoc autem dixit de spiritu</i>. Modus autem invitandi attenditur quantum ad tria; scilicet quantum ad tempus invitationis; quantum ad situm invitantis; quantum ad conatum vocantis.
            <td>1083 After our Lord told them about the origin of his doctrine and of the teacher, as well as his end, he now invites them to accept his teaching itself. First, we see Christ’s invitation; secondly, the dissension among the people (v 40). He does three things about the first. First, he tells us the manner of this invitation; secondly, we see the invitation itself (v 37); and thirdly, he explains what it means (v 39). The manner of the invitation is described in three ways: by its time; by the posture of the one inviting; and by his efforts.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Quantum ad tempus, quia <i>in novissimo die magno festivitatis</i>: nam, ut dictum est, festum illud celebrabatur septem diebus, et primus et ultimus dies solemniores erant, sicut et apud nos primus dies festi et octavus solemnis est magis. Hoc ergo quod hic dominus fecit, non fecit primo die, quia nondum ascenderat Ierusalem, nec intermediis diebus, sed in novissimo; et hoc ideo, quia pauci sunt qui festa spiritualiter celebrant: et ideo non eos a principio ad doctrinam invitat, ne per vanitates sequentium dierum festorum aboleretur de cordibus eorum, quia, ut dicitur Lc. VIII, 7 verbum domini suffocatur a spinis, sed in ultimo die eos invitat, ut tenacius eorum cordibus imprimatur.
            <td>1084 As to the time, we see that it was <b>the last and greatest day of the festival.</b> For as we saw before, this feast was celebrated for seven days, and the first and the last day were the more solemn; just as with us, the first day of a feast and its octave are the more solemn. Therefore, what our Lord did here he did not do on the first day, as he had not yet gone to Jerusalem, nor in the intervening days, but on the last day. And he acted then because there are few who celebrate feasts in a spiritual way. Consequently, he did not invite them to his teaching at the beginning of the festival so that the trifles of the following days would not drive it from their hearts; for we read that the word of the Lord is choked by thorns (Lk 8:7). But he did invite them on the last day so that his teaching would be more deeply impressed on their hearts.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Quantum ad situm autem quia <i>stabat Iesus</i>. Ubi sciendum est, quod Christus docuit sedens, et stans. Sedens, quidem docuit discipulos, Matth. V, 1; stans autem turbas, sicut hic. Et ideo ex hoc inolevit consuetudo in Ecclesia, ut turbis praedicetur stando, religiosis vero et clericis sedendo. Cuius ratio est, quia cum praedicatio ad turbas sit quasi ad eas convertendas, fit per modum exhortationis; sed cum praedicatio ad clerum fit, quasi iam ad existentes in domo Dei, est ut quaedam commemoratio.
            <td>1085 As to his posture, <b>Jesus stood up.</b> Here we should note that Christ taught both while sitting and standing. He taught his disciples while sitting (Mt 5:1); while he stood when he taught the people, as he is doing here. It is from this that we get the custom in the Church of standing when preaching to the people, but sitting while preaching to religious and clerics. The reason for this is that since the aim in preaching to the people is to convert them, it takes the form of an exhortation; but when preaching is directed to clergy, already living in the house of God, it takes the form of a reminder.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Quantum ad conatum vero vocantis quia <i>clamabat</i>, ut scilicet ostenderet suam securitatem; Is. XL, 9: <i>exalta in fortitudine vocem tuam (...) exalta, noli timere</i>. Et ut ab omnibus audiretur; Is. LVIII, 1: <i>clama, ne cesses, quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam</i>. Et ut ostendat magnitudinem dicendorum; Prov. VIII, v. 6: <i>audite me, quia de rebus magnis locutura sum</i>.
            <td>1086 As to his effort we read that he <b>cried out,</b> in order to show his own assurance: “Raise up your voice with strength... raise it up, and do not be afraid” (Is 40:9); and so that all would be able to hear him: “Cry out, and do not stop; raise your voice like a trumpet” (Is 58:1); and to stress the importance of what he was about to say: “Listen to me, for I will tell you about great things” (Prv 8:6).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>si quis sitit, veniat ad me</i>, ponitur invitatio, et primo ostendit qui invitentur; secundum quis sit fructus invitationis.
            <td>1087 Next (v 37b), we see Christ’s invitation: first, those who are invited; secondly, the fruit of this invitation.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Invitantur quidem sitientes; unde dicit <i>si quis sitit, veniat ad me, et bibat</i>. Is. LV, 1: <i>omnes sitientes, venite ad aquas</i>. Ideo enim sitientes vocat, quia tales sunt qui desiderant Deo servire. Deus autem coacta servitia non acceptat; II Cor. IX, 7: <i>hilarem datorem diligit Deus</i>. Et propter hoc dicebat Ps. LIII, 8: <i>voluntarie sacrificabo</i>. De istis dicitur Matth. V, 6: <i>beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam</i>. Quos quidem dominus non partialiter vocat, sed omnes; unde dicit <i>si quis sitit</i>, quasi dicat, quicumque est ille; Eccli. XXIV, 26: <i>transite ad me, omnes qui concupiscitis me, et a generationibus meis implemini</i>; I Tim. II, 4: <i>vult omnes homines salvos fieri</i>.
            <td>1088 It is the thirsty who are invited. Thus he says: <b>If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink;</b> “Come to the waters, all you who thirst” (Is 55:1). He calls the thirsty because such people want to serve God. For God does not accept a forced service: “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7). So we read: “I will sacrifice freely” (Is 53:8). And such people are described in Matthew this way: “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for what is right” (Mt 5:6). Now our Lord calls all of these people, not just some; and so he says: <b>It anyone thirsts,</b> as if to say: whoever it is. “Come to me, all you who desire me, and be filled with my fruits” (Sir 24:26); “He desires the salvation of all” (1 Tim 2:4).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Invitat autem ad potandum; unde dicit <i>et bibat</i>. Potus enim iste est spiritualis refectio in cognitione divinae sapientiae et veritatis; etiam in impletione desideriorum. Is. LXV, 13: <i>servi mei bibent, et vos sitietis</i>; Prov. IX, 5: <i>venite, et comedite panem meum, et bibite vinum quod miscui vobis</i>; Eccli. XV, 3: <i>aqua sapientiae salutaris potabit illum</i>.
            <td>Jesus invites them to drink; and so he says, <b>and drink.</b> For this drink is spiritual refreshment in the knowledge of divine wisdom and truth, and in the realization of their desires: “My servants will drink, and you will be thirsty” (Is 65:13), “Come and eat my bread, and drink the wine I have mixed for you” (Prv 9:5), “She [wisdom] will give him the water of saving wisdom to drink” (Sir 15:3).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Fructus autem huius invitationis est redundantia bonorum in alios; unde dicit <i>qui credit in me, sicut dicit Scriptura, flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae</i>. Quod quidem, secundum Chrysostomum, legendum est sic: <i>qui credit in me, sicut dicit Scriptura</i>, hic subdistingue punctando; et postea subsequitur <i>flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae</i>. Nam si dicis qui credit in me, et postea subsequatur sicut dicit Scriptura, flumina, etc., non videtur conveniens, quia hoc quod dicitur <i>flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae</i>, non invenitur in aliquo libro veteris testamenti. Hoc ergo modo dicatur <i>qui credit in me, sicut dicit Scriptura</i>; idest, secundum Scripturae documenta; supra v. 39. <i>Scrutamini Scripturas (...) ipsae sunt quae testimonium perhibent de me</i>. Et tunc <i>flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae</i>. Et dicit <i>qui credit in me</i>, cum supra dixerit <i>qui venit ad me</i>; quia idem est credere et venire; Ps. XXXIII, 6: <i>accedite ad eum, et illuminamini</i>.
            <td>1089 The fruit of this invitation is that good things overflow upon others; thus he says: <b>Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures say, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.</b> According to Chrysostom, we should read this as follows: <b>Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures say.</b> And then a new sentence begins: <b>Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.</b> For if we say: <b>Whoever believes in me,</b> and follow this with, <b>as the Scriptures say, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water,</b> it does not seem to be correct, for the statement, <b>out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water,</b> is not found in any book of the Old Testament. So we should say: <b>Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures say;</b> that is, according to the teaching of the Scriptures. “Search the Scriptures... they too bear witness to me” (above 5:39). And then there follows: <b>Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.</b> He says here, <b>Whoever believes in me,</b> while before he said, “He who comes to me,” because to believe and to come are the same thing: “Come to him and be enlightened,” as we read in the Psalm (33:6).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Secundum Hieronymum vero, aliter punctatur sic: <i>qui credit in me</i>, et postea subditur <i>sicut dicit Scriptura, flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae</i>. Quod, ut ipse dicit, de proverbiis sumptum est; Prov. V, 15: <i>bibe aquam de cisterna tua, et fluenta putei tui: deriventur fontes tui foras</i>.
            <td>But Jerome punctuates this in a different way. He says that after <b>Whoever believes in me,</b> there follows, <b>as the Scriptures say, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.</b> And he says that this phrase was taken from Proverbs (5:15): “Drink the water from your own cistern, and from the streams of you own well. Let your fountains flow far and wide.”
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sciendum est autem, secundum Augustinum, quod flumina procedunt de fontibus sicut a principio. Qui autem bibit potum corporalem, non habet in se nec fontem, nec flumen, quia particulam aquae gustat: sed qui bibit credendo in Christum, haurit fontem aquae, quo hausto, vivescit conscientia, quae est venter interioris hominis, et etiam ipsa fons erit. Unde dicitur supra IV, v. 13: <i>qui biberit ex hac aqua, fiet in eo fons aquae salientis</i>. Hic autem fons qui hauritur, est spiritus sanctus, de quo dicitur in Ps. XXXV, 10: <i>apud te est fons vitae</i>. Qui ergo bibit ita quod soli sibi proficit, dona gratiarum, quae per flumina signantur, non fluent aquae vivae de ventre eius; sed qui proximo festinat consulere, et diversa dona gratiarum recepta a Deo aliis communicare, de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae. Propter quod dicit Petrus: <i>unusquisque sicut accepit gratiam, in alterutrum illam administrantes</i>.
            <td>1090 We should note, with Augustine, that rivers come from fountains as their source. Now one who drinks natural water does not have either a fountain or a river within himself, because he takes only a small portion of water. But one who drinks by believing in Christ draws in a fountain of water; and when he draws it in, his conscience, which is the heart of the inner man, begins to live and it itself becomes a fountain. So we read above: “The water that I give will become a fountain within him” (4:14). This fountain which is taken in is the Holy Spirit, of whom we read: “With you is the fountain of life” (Ps 35:10). Therefore, whoever drinks the the gifts of the graces, which are signified by the rivers, in such a way that he alone benefits, will not have living water flowing from his heart. But whoever acts quickly to help others, and to share with them the various gifts of grace he has received from God, will have living water flowing from his heart. This is why Peter says: “According to the grace each has received, let them use it to benefit one another” (1 Pet 4:10).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Dicit autem <i>flumina</i>, ad significandum spiritualium donorum abundantiam fidelibus repromissam; Ps. LXIV, 10: <i>flumen Dei repletum est aquis</i>. Item eorum impetum; Is. c. XXVII, 6: <i>qui ingredientur impetu a Iacob, florebit et germinabit Israel, et implebunt faciem orbis semine</i>; et in Ps. XLV, 5: <i>fluminis impetus laetificat civitatem Dei</i>. Unde, quia ex instinctu et fervore spiritus sancti movebatur apostolus, dicebat: <i>caritas Christi urget nos</i>; et Rom. VIII, 14: <i>qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi filii Dei sunt</i>. Item donorum spiritus sancti divisionem: quia, ut dicitur I ad Cor. XII, 10: <i>alii genera linguarum, alii genera sanitatum</i> et cetera. Huiusmodi autem flumina sunt aquae vivae, quia sunt continuatae suo principio, scilicet spiritui sancto inhabitanti.
            <td>He says, <b>rivers,</b> to indicate the abundance of the spiritual gifts which were promised to those who believe: “The river of God is full of water” (Ps 64:10); and also their force or onrush: “When they rush to Jacob, Israel will blossom and bud, and they will fill the surface of the earth with fruit” (Is 27:6); and again, “The rush of the rivers gives joy to the city of God” (Ps 45:5). Thus, because the Apostle was governed by the impulsive force and fervor of the Holy Spirit, he said: “The love of Christ spurs us on” (2 Cor 5:14); and “Those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God” (Rom 8:14). The separate distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is also indicated, for we read, “to one the gift of healing... to another the gift of tongues” (1 Cor 12:10). These gifts are “rivers of living water” because they flow directly from their source, which is the indwelling Holy Spirit.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>hoc autem dixit de spiritu</i>, exponit quae dixit, et primo ponitur expositio; secundo assignatur ratio expositionis, ibi <i>nondum enim erat spiritus datus</i>.
            <td>1091 Then (v 39), he explains what he said. First we see the explanation; secondly, the reason behind this explanation (v 39b).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Dicit ergo <i>dixit</i>, quod <i>flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae</i>. Sed hoc intelligendum esse Evangelista dicit <i>de spiritu quem accepturi erant credentes in eum</i>, quia ipse est fons vitae et fluvius. Fons, de quo dicitur in Ps. XXXV, 10: <i>apud te est fons vitae, et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen</i>. Fluvius vero, quia a patre et filio procedit. Apoc. ult., 1: <i>ostendit mihi Angelus fluvium aquae vivae splendidum tamquam crystallum, procedentem de sede Dei et agni</i>; Is. XLII, v. 1: <i>dedit spiritum</i>, scilicet obedientibus sibi.
            <td>1092 Christ had said: “out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.” The Evangelist tells us that we should understand this <b>concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in him would receive,</b> because the Spirit is the fountain and river of life. He is the fountain of which we read: “With you is the fountain of life; and in your light we will see light” (Ps 35:10). And the Spirit is a river because he proceeds from the Father and the Son: “The angel then showed me the river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rv 22:1). “He gave the Spirit,” that is, to those who obey him (Is 42:1).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Huius expositionis rationem assignat, dicens <i>nondum enim erat spiritus datus</i>; et dicit duo: scilicet quod <i>nondum erat spiritus datus</i>, et quod <i>Christus nondum erat glorificatus</i>.
            <td>1093 He gives the reason behind this explanation, saying, <b>for as yet the Spirit had not been given.</b> And he says two things. <b>as yet the Spirit had not been given,</b> and that <b>Jesus had not yet been glorified.</b>
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Circa primum est duplex opinio. Chrysostomus enim dicit, quod spiritus sanctus non fuit datus apostolis, quantum ad dona prophetica et miraculorum, ante resurrectionem Christi. Unde gratia huius, quae dabatur prophetis a terra defecerat usque ad adventum Christi, nec postmodum alicui data est usque ad praedictum tempus. Et si dicitur quod apostoli eiiciebant Daemonia ante resurrectionem, intelligendum est quod haec non spiritu eiiciebantur, sed ea quae a Christo erat potestate. Quando enim mittebat eos, non dicitur dedit eis spiritum sanctum sed <i>dedit eis potestatem</i>: Matth. X, 1.
            <td>There are two opinions about the first of these. For Chrysostom says that before the resurrection of Christ the Holy Spirit was not given to the apostles with respect to the gifts of prophecy and miracles. And so this grace, which was given to the prophets, was not to he found on earth until Christ came, and after that it was not given to anyone until the above mentioned time. And if anyone objects that the apostles cast out devils before the resurrection, it should be understood that they were cast out by that power which was from Christ, not by the Spirit; for when he sent them out, we do not read that he gave them the Holy Spirit, but rather that “he gave them power over unclean spirits” (Mt 10:1).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed hoc videtur contra illud quod dominus dicit Lucae XI, 19: <i>si ego in Beelzebub eiicio Daemonia, filii vestri in quo eiiciunt?</i> Sed constat quod ipse in spiritu sancto eiiciebat Daemonia, et filii, idest apostoli: unde manifestum est eos accepisse spiritum sanctum. Et ideo dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod ante resurrectionem apostoli habuerunt spiritum sanctum etiam quantum ad dona prophetica et miraculorum. Et hic quod dicitur <i>nondum erat spiritus datus</i>, intelligendum de abundanti datione, et visibilibus signis; sicut datus fuit eis post resurrectionem et ascensionem in linguis igneis.
            <td>However, this seems to conflict with what our Lord says in the Gospel of’ Luke: “If I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your children cast them out’?” (Lk 11:19). But it is certain that our Lord cast out devils by the Holy Spirit, as the children did also, that is, the apostles, Therefore, it is clear that they had received the Holy Spirit. And so we must say, with Augustine, that the apostles had the Holy Spirit before the resurrection, even with respect to the gifts of prophecy and miracles. And when we read here that <b>as yet the Spirit had not been given,</b> we should understand this to refer to a more abundant giving, and one with visible signs, as the Spirit was given to them in tongues of fire after the resurrection and ascension.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed cum spiritus sanctus sanctificet Ecclesiam, et etiam modo accipiatur a fidelibus, quare nemo loquitur linguis omnium gentium sicut tunc? Dicendum ad hoc, quod non est necessarium, ut Augustinus dicit. Quia iam universalis Ecclesia linguis gentium loquitur, quia per spiritum sanctum datur caritas; Rom. V, v. 5: <i>caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris</i>, et haec, faciens omnia communia, facit quemlibet cuilibet loqui. Unde dicit: si amas unitatem, etiam tibi habet quisquis in illa (idest Ecclesia) aliquid habet. Tolle invidiam, et tuum est quod habeo: livor separat, caritas iungit: ipsam habeto, et cuncta habebis. In principio autem antequam Ecclesia per mundum dilataretur, quia pauci erant, oportebat quod linguis omnium loquerentur, ut sic Ecclesiam in omnibus fundarent.
            <td>1094 But since the Holy Spirit sanctifies the Church and is even now received by those who believe, why does no one speak in the languages of all nations as then? My answer is that it is not necessary, as Augustine says. For now the universal Church speaks the languages of all the nations, because the love of charity is given by the Holy Spirit: “The love of God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5); and this love, making all things common, makes everyone speak to everyone else. As Augustine says: “If you love unity, then you have everything that anyone else has in it (i.e., in the Church). Give up your envy, and what I have is also yours; ill-will divides, the love of charity unites. If you have this love, you will have everything.” But at the beginning, before the Church was spread throughout the world, because it had few members, they had to speak the languages of all so that they could establish the Church among all.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Circa secundum, sciendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod hoc quod dicit <i>Iesus nondum fuerat glorificatus</i>, intelligendum est de gloria resurrectionis; quasi dicat: nondum a mortuis resurrexerat, nondum ad caelos ascenderat. De qua dicitur Io. XVII, 5: <i>clarifica me, pater</i>. Et causa quare sic voluit prius glorificari quam daret spiritum sanctum, assignatur, quia spiritus sanctus ad hoc datur nobis, ut erigat corda nostra ab amore saeculi in resurrectionem spiritualem et totaliter currant in Deum. Quia ergo vitam aeternam promisit spiritus sancti caritate ferventibus, ubi non moriemur, ubi nihil timebimus. Ideo ipsum spiritum sanctum noluit dare nisi dum esset glorificatus, ut in corpore ostenderet vitam quam in resurrectione speramus.
            <td>1095 With regard to the second point, we should note that Augustine thinks the statement, <b>Jesus had not yet been glorified,</b> should be understood as the glory of the resurrection. As if to say: Jesus had not yet risen from the dead or ascended into heaven. We read about this below: “Father, glorify me” (17:5). And the reason why Christ willed to be glorified before he gave the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit is given to us so that we might raise our hearts from the love of this world in a spiritual resurrection, and turn completely to God. To those who are afire with the love of the Holy Spirit, Christ promised eternal life, where we will not die, and where we will have no fear. And for this reason he did not wish to give the Holy Spirit until he was glorified, so that he might show in his body the life for which we hope in the resurrection.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Secundum Chrysostomum vero, hoc non intelligitur de gloria resurrectionis, sed de glorificatione passionis: de qua, imminente passionis hora, dominus dicit infra c. XIII, 31: <i>nunc glorificatus est filius hominis</i>. Et secundum hoc spiritus sanctus tunc primum datus est quando post passionem dixit apostolis: <i>accipite spiritum sanctum</i> et cetera. Ideo autem non ante passionem datus est spiritus sanctus, quia, cum sit donum, non debuit dari inimicis, sed amicis. Nos autem inimici eramus. Oportebat ergo prius offerri hostiam in ara crucis et inimicitiam in carne solvi, ut sic per mortem filii eius reconciliaremur Deo, et tunc facti amici, donum spiritus sancti reciperemus et cetera.
            <td>1096 For Chrysostom, however, this statement does not refer to the glory of the resurrection, but to the glorification of the passion. When his passion was near, our Lord said: “Now the Son of Man is glorified” (below 13:3 1). So, according to this view, the Holy Spirit was first given after the passion, when our Lord said to his apostles: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (below 20:22). The Holy Spirit was not given before the passion because, since it is a gift, it should not be given to enemies, but to friends. But We were enemies. Thus it was necessary that first the victim be offered on the altar of the cross, and enmity be destroyed in his flesh, so that by this we might be reconciled to God by the death of his Son; and then, having been made friends, we could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Posita ergo Christi ad spiritualem potum invitatione, hic consequenter agit Evangelista de turbarum dissensione, et primo ponitur dissensio turbarum ad invicem; secundo dissensio in principibus, ibi <i>venerunt ergo ministri</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponuntur diversa dissidentium verba; secundo ponitur ipsa dissensio, ibi <i>dissensio itaque facta est in turba</i>.
            <td>1097 The Evangelist, having shown us Christ’s invitation to a spiritual drink, now presents the disagreement of the people. First, the disagreement among the people themselves; secondly, that of their leaders (v 45). He does two things about the first. First, he states what those who disagreed said; secondly, he states the fact that there was a disagreement (v 43).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Diversitas autem verborum turbarum ex diversitate opinionum turbarum de Christo proveniebat, et ideo ponit tres opiniones turbarum: duas quidem iam accedentium ad spiritualem potum, tertiam vero resilientium.
            <td>What the people said varied according to their different opinions about Christ. And he gives three of their opinions: two of these were the opinions of those who were coming for spiritual drink; and the third was held by those who shrank from it.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Prima autem opinio erat quod dicebant Christum prophetam esse; et ideo dicit <i>ex illa ergo hora</i>, quando scilicet in magno festivitatis die talia dixerat, <i>turba cum audissent hos sermones eius, dicebant</i>, illi scilicet qui iam illam aquam spiritualiter haurire coeperant, <i>hic est vere propheta</i>. Non solum prophetam eum dicunt, sed etiam verum, idest quasi antonomastice, intelligentes hunc esse de quo Moyses praedixit, Deut. c. XVIII, 15: <i>prophetam suscitabit vobis Deus de fratribus vestris: ipsum tamquam me audietis</i>.
            <td>1098 The first opinion was that Christ was the Prophet. So he says, <b>From that moment,</b> i.e., from the time Christ had spoken on the great day of the feast, <b>hearing these words of his, some of the people said,</b> i.e., those who had now begun to drink that water spiritually, <b>Truly, this is the Prophet.</b> They did not just call him a prophet, but <b>the Prophet,</b> thinking that he was the one about whom Moses foretold: “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you from your brothers... you will listen to him” (Dt 18:15).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Alia opinio erat quia quidam dicebant <i>hic est Christus</i>: isti enim magis ad potum accedebant, et sitim infidelitatis magis deposuerant. Et hoc etiam Petrus confessus est, Matth. XVI, 16: <i>tu es Christus filius Dei vivi</i>.
            <td>1099 Another opinion was of those who said, <b>This is the Christ.</b> These people had drawn closer to that [spiritual] drink, and had slaked the thirst of unbelief to a greater extent. This is what Peter himself professed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Tertia opinio est referentium contraria praedictis. Et primo obiiciunt contra opinionem dicentium eum esse Christum; secundo obiectionem auctoritate confirmant. Dicit ergo <i>quidam autem</i>, in suae infidelitatis ariditate permanentes, <i>dicebant: numquid a Galilaea venit Christus?</i> Noverant enim, prophetas, Christum a Galilaea venturum, non praedixisse: et ideo credentes in Nazareth eum natum fuisse (ignorabant enim suae nativitatis locum esse Bethlehem), hoc dicunt. Manifestum enim erat eum in Nazareth nutritum, sed paucis notus erat nativitatis locus. Quamvis tamen Scriptura non dicat Christum in Galilaea nasciturum, praedixit tamen illuc eum primo declinaturum. Is. c. IX, 1: <i>primo tempore alleviata est terra Zabulon et terra Nephthali, et novissimo aggravata est via maris trans Iordanem Galilaeae gentium. Populus gentium qui ambulabat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam, et habitantibus in regione umbrae mortis lux orta est eis</i>. Praedixit etiam quod de Nazareth processurus esset. Is. XI, 1: <i>flos de radice eius ascendet</i>: ubi in Hebraeo habetur: <i>Nazarenus de radice est</i> et cetera.
            <td>1100 The third opinion conflicts with the other two. First, those who hold this disagree with those who say that Jesus is the Christ; secondly, they support their opinion with an authority. So he says: <b>But others said,</b> those remaining in the dryness of unbelief, <b>Would the Christ come from Galilee?</b> For they knew that it was not predicted by the prophets that the Christ would come from Galilee. And they said what they did because they thought that Jesus had been born in Nazareth, not knowing that it was really in Bethlehem: for it was well known that he had been brought up in Nazareth, but only a few knew where he was born. Nevertheless, although the Scripture does not say that the Christ would be born in Galilee, it did foretell that he would first start out from there: “The people who walked in darkness saw a great light, and on those who lived in the region of the shadow of death, a light has risen” (Is 9:1). It even foretold that the Christ would come from Nazareth: “A flower will rise up from his roots” (Is 11:1), where the Hebrew version reads: “A Nazarene will rise up from his roots.”
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Confirmant obiectionem auctoritate Scripturae, cum dicunt <i>nonne Scriptura dicit, quia ex semine David et de Bethlehem castello, ubi erat David, venit Christus?</i> Quod autem de semine David venturus esset Iesus, dicitur Ierem. XXIII, 5: <i>suscitabo David germen iustum</i>. Et II Reg. XXIII, 1, dicitur de David: <i>dixit vir cui constitutum est de Christo Dei</i>. Quod vero de Bethlehem, dicitur Mich. V, 1: <i>et tu, Bethlehem, terra Iuda: ex te mihi egredietur qui sit dominator in Israel</i>.
            <td>1101 They support their objection by the authority of Scripture when they say, <b>Does not Scripture say that the Christ will come from the seed of David, and from David’s town of Bethlehem?</b> We read in Jeremiah (23:5) that Jesus would come from the seed of David: “I will raise up a just branch for David.” And we see that David was “the anointed of God” (2 Sm 23:1). In Micah (5:2) we read that Jesus would come from Bethlehem: “And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah: from you there will come forth, for me, a ruler of Israel.”
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dissensio itaque facta est in turba propter eum</i>, primo ponitur ipsa dissensio; secundo conatus quorumdam ex eis contra Christum; tertio conatus repressio.
            <td>1102 Then (v 43), the disagreement among the people is mentioned; secondly, the attempt of some of them to seize Christ; and thirdly, the failure of their attempt.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td><i>Dissensio autem facta est propter eum</i>, scilicet Christum, <i>in turba</i>. Frequenter enim contingit quod in cordibus malorum ex manifestatione veritatis causatur dissensio et turbatio. Unde et hoc in persona Christi dicitur Ier. XV, 10: <i>vae mihi, mater mea, ut quid me genuisti virum rixae, virum discordiae in universa terra?</i> Propter hoc dicebat dominus, Mt. X, 34: <i>non enim veni mittere pacem, sed gladium</i>.
            <td>1103 <b>And so there was dissension among the people because of him,</b> that is, Christ. For it often happens that when the truth is made known, it causes dissensions and uneasiness in the hearts of the wicked. So Jeremiah says, representing Christ: “Woe is me, my mother! Why did you give birth to me as a man of strife and dissension for all the earth” (Jer 15:10). And our Lord said: “I have not come to send peace, but the sword” (Mt 10:34).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Conatus autem, scilicet aliquorum, erat ad eum apprehendendum; unde dicit <i>quidam autem ex eis</i>, scilicet qui dixerant: <i>numquid a Galilaea venit Christus?</i> etc., <i>voluerunt apprehendere eum</i>, scilicet ex inimicitia ad occidendum; Ps. LXX, 2: <i>persequimini et comprehendite</i>; Ex. XV, 9: <i>dixit inimicus: persequar et comprehendam</i>. Sed tamen boni et fideles volunt Christum apprehendere, ut eo fruantur; Cant. VII, 8: <i>ascendam in palmam, et apprehendam fructus eius</i>.
            <td>1104 Some of them attempted to seize Christ; so he says, some of them, that is, those who had said, “Would the Christ come from Galilee?” <b>wanted to apprehend him,</b> to kill him out of hatred: “Pursue and seize him” (Ps 70:11); “The enemy said: ‘I will pursue and seize’ “ (Ex 15:9). On the other hand, those who are good and those who believe want to seize Christ to enjoy him: “I will go up into the palm tree and seize its fruit” (Sg 7:8).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Repressio autem conatus est ex potestate Christi: et ideo dicit <i>sed nemo misit super illum manus</i>, quia scilicet Christus nolebat. In potestate sua erat hoc; infra X, v. 18: <i>nemo tollit a me animam meam; sed ego pono eam a me ipso</i>. Unde et quando voluit pati, non eos expectavit, sed ipse se eis obtulit; infra XVIII, 4: <i>processit, et dixit ad eos, quem quaeritis?</i>
            <td>1105 But they were frustrated by the power of Christ. So he says: <b>no one laid a hand on him,</b> that is, because Jesus was not willing that they do so, for this depended on his power: “No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself” (below 10. 18). Accordingly, when Christ did will to suffer, he did not wait for them, but he offered himself to them: “Jesus stepped forward and said to them: ‘Whom are you looking for?” (below 18:4).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>venerunt ergo ministri ad pontifices et Pharisaeos</i>, ponitur dissensio principum, et primo ponitur dissensio eorum ad ministros; secundo dissensio eorum ad invicem, ibi <i>dixit Nicodemus</i>.
            <td>1106 Then (v 45), we see the dissension of the leaders of the people: first, their disagreement with their officers; and secondly, the disagreement among themselves (v 50). He does three things about the first: first, he shows the leaders rebuking their officers; secondly, the testimony the officers gave about Christ; and thirdly, we see the leaders reprimanding their own officers.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur redargutio principum ad ministros; secundo testimonium latum de Christo a ministris; tertio reprehensionis conatus principum ad ministros. In primo attende principum iniquitatem, cum dicunt, scilicet pontifices et Pharisaei, ministris <i>quare non adduxistis eum?</i> Adeo enim mali erant, quod eis non poterant satisfacere ministri, nisi Christo nocumentum inferrent; Pro. IV, 16: <i>rapitur somnus ab oculis eorum, nisi supplantaverint</i>.
            <td>1107 As to the first, let us note the evil of the leaders, that is, the chief priests and Pharisees, when they say to their officers. <b>Why have you not brought him?</b> For their evil was so great that their own officers could not please them unless they injured Christ: “They cannot sleep unless they have done something evil” (Prv 4:16).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed hic incipit quaestio litteralis: quia cum supra dictum est, quod ministri missi fuerunt ad capiendum Iesum die festo mediante, idest quarto die; et hic ponatur reditus eorum post septimum diem, quando dixit: <i>in novissimo autem die</i> etc., videtur quod intermediis diebus vacaverunt. Ad quod est duplex responsio. Una quod Evangelista anticipavit murmur turbarum. Vel dicendum, quod forte tunc redierunt; sed hoc nunc commemorat, ut manifestet causam dissensionis inter principes.
            <td>There is a problem here about the literal meaning of the text. For since it was said before that the officers were sent to apprehend Jesus when the festival was half over (v 32), that is, on the fourth day, and here we read that they returned on the seventh day, “On the last and greatest day of the festival” (v 37), it seems that the Evangelist overlooked the days inbetween. There are two answers to this: either the Evangelist anticipated the disagreement among the people, or the officers had returned before, but it is just mentioned now to show the reason why there was dissension among the leaders.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>In secundo attende ministrorum bonitatem in commendabili testimonio quod perhibuerunt de Christo, dicentes <i>numquam sic locutus est homo, sicut hic loquitur</i>. Ubi redduntur commendabiles ex tribus. Primo ex admirationis causa: quia non propter miracula, sed propter doctrinam Christum mirabantur, ex quo propinquiores efficiuntur veritati, et recedunt a consuetudine Iudaeorum, qui signa quaerunt, ut dicitur I Cor. I, 22. Secundo ex conversionis facilitate: quia ad pauca verba Christi, capti sunt, et allecti ad eius amorem. Tertio ex animi securitate: quia ipsis Pharisaeis, qui Christo adversabantur, talia dicunt de Christo <i>numquam sic locutus est homo</i>. Et hoc rationabiliter: quia non solum homo erat, sed etiam Dei verbum; et ideo verba sua erant virtuosa ad commovendum; Ier. c. XXIII, 29: <i>numquid non verba mea quasi ignis sunt, dicit dominus, et quasi malleus conterens petram?</i> Et ideo dicitur Mt. VII, 29, quod <i>erat docens sicut potestatem habens</i>. Erant etiam sapida ad dulcorandum; Cant. II, v. 14: <i>sonet vox tua in auribus meis, vox enim tua dulcis</i>; Ps. CXVIII, 103: <i>quam dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua</i>. Erant utilia ad retinendum, quia promittebant bona aeterna; supra VI, 69: <i>domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes</i>; Is. XLVIII, 17: <i>ego dominus docens te utilia</i>.
            <td>1108 As to the second point, let us realize how good these officers were in giving this praiseworthy testimony about Christ, saying: <b>Never has any man spoken like this man.</b> They deserve our praise for three reasons. First, because of their admiration: for they admired Christ because of his teachings, not his miracles. And this brought them nearer to the truth, and further from the custom of the Jews, who looked for signs, as is said in 1 Corinthians (1:22). Secondly, we should praise them because of the ease with which they were won over: because with just a few words, Christ had captivated them and had drawn their love. Thirdly, because of their confidence: because it was to the Pharisees, who were the enemies of Christ, that they said: <b>Never has any man spoken like this man.</b> And these things are to be expected, for Jesus was not just a man, but the Word of God; and so his words had power to affect people. “Are not my words like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer breaking a rock?” (Jer 23:29). And so Matthew says: “He was teaching them as one who had authority” (Mt 7:29). And his words were sweet to contemplate: “Let your voice sound in my ears, for your voice is sweet” (Sg 2:14); “How sweet are your words to my tongue! “ (Ps 118:103). And his words were useful to keep in mind, because they promised eternal life: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (above 6:69); “I am the Lord, who teaches you things that are useful” (Is 48:17).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>In tertio attende detestari Iudaeorum perfidiam, qua conantur ministros a Christo retrahere, unde <i>responderunt eis</i>, scilicet ministris, <i>numquid et vos seducti estis?</i> Ubi tria faciunt. Primo arguunt aestimatum ministrorum errorem; secundo proponunt exemplum principium; tertio excludunt exemplum turbarum.
            <td>1109 As to the third point, see the treachery of the Jews in living to alienate the officers from Christ; <b>The Pharisees then retorted, to the</b> officers, <b>Have you too been seduced?</b> Here they do three things. First, they attack what they consider a mistake of their officers; secondly, they hold up their leaders as an example; and in from him and the third place, they reject the example of the people.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Arguunt autem eos, cum dicunt <i>numquid et vos seducti estis?</i> Quasi dicant: videmus vos delectatos esse in sermone illius. Et revera laudabiliter seducti erant, quia dimisso malo infidelitatis, ad veritatem fidei sunt adducti: de qua dicitur Ier. XX, 7: <i>seduxisti me, domine, et seductus sum</i>.
            <td>1110 They attack the officers when they say, <b>Have you too been seduced?</b> As if to say: We see that what he said was pleasing to you. As a matter of fact, they had been seduced, but in an admirable way, because the left the evil of unbelief and were brought to the truth of the faith. We read about this: “You seduced me, O Lord, and I was seduced” (Jer 20:7).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Exemplum autem principum proponunt, ut magis eos avertant: unde dicit <i>numquid ex principibus aliquis credidit in eum?</i> Ex duobus enim aliqui fide digni redduntur: scilicet ex auctoritate et ex religione. Unde haec duo contra Christum adducunt, quasi dicant: si Christus esset acceptandus, utique acceptassent eum principes, in quibus est auctoritas, et Pharisaei, in quibus apparebat religio; sed nullus istorum credidit in eum: ergo nec vos debetis in eum credere. In his ergo impletur quod dicitur in Ps. CXVII, v. 22: <i>lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes</i>, scilicet principes et Pharisaei, <i>hic factus est in caput anguli</i>, idest in cordibus populorum. <i>Sed a domino factum est istud</i>: quia bonitas eius praeponderat malitiae hominum.
            <td>1111 Then they appeal to their rulers as an example, to turn the officers further from Christ, saying: <b>Has any one of the rulers believed in him, or any of the Pharisees?</b> There are two reasons why a person should be believed: either because of some authority or because of a religious disposition. And they say that none of these are found with Christ. As if to say: If Christ were worthy to be received, then our rulers, who have authority, would have accepted him; and so would the Pharisees, who have a religious disposition. But none of these believe in him; and so neither should you believe in him. This fulfills the saying: “The stone that the builders (that is, the rulers and the Pharisees) rejected has become the cornerstone (that is, in the hearts of the people). The Lord has done this,” because his goodness is greater than man’s evil (Ps 117:22).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Testimonium autem turbae excludunt, quia eorum malitiam confutant; et ideo dicunt <i>sed turba haec quae non novit legem, maledicti sunt</i>; et ideo non est standum cum eis. Hoc autem scriptum est, Deut. c. XXVII, 27: <i>maledictus qui non permanserit in lege, nec eam opere perfecerit</i>. Sed hoc male intelligebant, quia etiam illi qui non habent scientiam legis, et opera legis faciunt, magis permanent in lege quam habentes legis scientiam, et non servantes eam: de quibus dicitur Mt. XV, 8: <i>populus hic labiis me honorat, cor autem eorum longe est a me</i>; Iacob V: <i>estote factores verbi, et non auditores tantum</i>.
            <td>1112 They reject the statements of the people because they are a rebuke to their own evil. So they say: <b>But these people, who do not know the law, they are accursed;</b> therefore, you should not agree with them. This thought was found in Deuteronomy: “Accursed are they who do not live within the law and do not act according to it” (Dt 27:26). But they did not understand this correctly, because even those who do not have a knowledge of the law but act in harmony with it, live more within the law than those who do have a knowledge of the law yot do not keep it. It is said about such people: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mt 15:8); and in James (1:22): “Be a doer of the word, and not just a hearer.”
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixit Nicodemus ad eos</i>, ponitur dissensio principum ad invicem, et primo ponitur Nicodemi exhortatio; secundo principum contradictio, ibi <i>responderunt et dixerunt</i>; tertio dissensionis terminatio. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praemittit quaedam de Nicodemo; secundo ponit eius exhortationem.
            <td>1113 Next, we see the dissension among the rulers. First, the advice of Nicodemus is given; secondly, the opposition of the rulers; and thirdly, the outcome of the whole affair. The Evangelist does two things about the first: first, he tells us something about Nicodemus; secondly, he gives his advice.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Praemittit autem tria de eo: quorum duo ostendunt intentionem dicendi, et tertium nequitiam principum. Primum ergo pertinet ad fidem Nicodemi; unde dicit <i>dixit ille qui venerat ad eum</i>, idest crediderat: idem enim est venire ad Christum, et credere in eum. Secundum pertinet ad fidei suae imperfectionem, quia <i>nocte venit</i>. Si enim perfecte credidisset, non pertimuisset. Infra XII, 42: <i>multi ex principibus crediderunt in eum; sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur, ut e synagoga non eiicerentur</i>; de quibus unus erat Nicodemus.
            <td>1114 He tells us three things about Nicodemus: the first two show us the attitude of Nicodemus himself; and the second reveals the malice of the rulers. The first concerns the faith of Nicodemus, and he says: <b>Nicodemus, who came to him,</b> i.e., who believed, for to come to Christ is the same as to believe in him. The second shows the imperfection of his faith, because he came <b>at night.</b> For if he had believed perfectly, he would not have been fearful, for as we read below (12:42): “Many of the rulers believed in him, but they did not admit it because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue.” And one of these was Nicodemus.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Tertium pertinet ad principum falsitatem. Dixerunt enim, quod nullus ex principibus et Pharisaeis in Christum credidit, et ideo dicit <i>qui erat unus ex ipsis</i>; quasi dicat: si Nicodemus, qui est unus ex principibus, credidit in eum, manifestum est falsum esse quod principes et Pharisaei dicunt, scilicet quod nullus ex principibus credidit in eum. Ier. c. XVI, 19: <i>vere mendacium locutus est</i>.
            <td>The third thing the Evangelist tells us shows us that the rulers did not speak the truth: for they said that none of the rulers, or of the Pharisees, believed in Christ. And so the Evangelist says about Nicodemus that he was one of them: as if to say: If Nicodemus, who was one of the rulers, believed in Christ, then the rulers and Pharisees are speaking falsely when they say that none of the rulers believed in him. “Truly, a lie was spoken” (Jer 16:19).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Exhortatio autem Nicodemi ponitur cum dicit <i>numquid lex nostra iudicat hominem, nisi prius audierit ab ipso et cognoverit quid faciat?</i> Nam secundum leges civiles debet praecedere diligens inquisitio sententiam. Unde dicitur Act. XV, 16: <i>non est Romanis consuetudo damnare aliquem hominem, priusquam is qui accusatur, praesentes habeat accusatores, locumque defendendi accipiat ad abluenda crimina</i>. Unde Iob XXIX, 16: <i>causam quam ignorabam, diligenter investigabam</i>. Propter hoc in lege Moysi, Ex. XXIII, 7, dicitur: <i>innocentem et iustum non condemnabis, quia aversor impium</i>.
            <td>1115 The advice of Nicodemus is given when he says: <b>Does our law judge a man without first hearing from him and knowing what he has done?</b> For according to the civil laws, a judgment was only to be given after a complete investigation. This is why we read: “It is not the custom of the Romans to condemn any man before he has his accusers face him, and can defend himself from the charges” (Acts 25:16). “I diligently investigated the stranger’s cause” (Jb 29:16). And so the law of Moses says: “Do not condemn one who is innocent and just, because I hate the wicked” (Ex 23:7).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Haec autem verba ideo dicit, quia cum fidelis esset, volebat eos ad Christum convertere. Quia tamen timidus erat, occulte hoc faciebat. Credebat enim, quia si tantummodo Christum vellent audire, quod verbum Christi esset tantae efficaciae quod forte similes fierent illis qui missi fuerant ad Iesum, et ad verba eius conversi sunt in facto eo ad quod missi fuerant.
            <td>Nicodemus said what he did because he believed in Christ and wanted to convert them to Christ; yet because he was afraid, he did not act very candidly. He thought that if they would only listen to Christ, the words of Christ would be so effective that perhaps they would be changed like those whom they sent to Jesus, and who, when they heard Christ, were turned aside from the very act for which they had been sent.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Contradictio principum ponitur cum dicit <i>responderunt et dixerunt ei</i> et cetera. Ubi primo comprehendunt eum quasi seductum; secundo quasi legis ignarum.
            <td>1116 We see the opposition of the rulers to Nicodemus when he says, <b>They answered and said to him.</b> First, they think that he has been seduced; and secondly, that he does not know the law.
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Quantum ad primum dicunt <i>numquid et tu Galilaeus es</i>, idest, a Galilaeo seductus. Arbitrantur enim Christum Galilaeum ex conversatione in Galilaea: et ideo omnes qui Christum confitebantur, quasi in opprobrium Galilaeos vocant; Mt. XXVI, 69: <i>respondit ancilla Petro: et tu Galilaeus es?</i> Infra IX, v. 27: <i>numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri?</i>
            <td>As to the first, they say: <b>Are you too a Galilean?</b> that is, one who has been seduced by this Galilean. For they considered Christ a Galilean because he lived in Galilee. And so anyone who followed Christ they derisively called a Galilean. “The girl servant said to Peter: ‘You are a Galilean, are you not” (Mt 26:69), “Do you also want to become his disciples?” (below 9:27).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Quantum ad secundum dicunt <i>scrutare Scripturas, et vide, quia a Galilaea propheta non surgit</i>; cum tamen esset legis doctor, nec de novo scrutari indigebat. Quasi dicant: licet tu sis doctor, tamen hoc ignoras: sicut supra dictum est III, 10, <i>tu es magister in Israel, et haec ignoras?</i> Licet autem non habeatur expresse in Scriptura veteris testamenti quod de Galilaea propheta surgeret, hoc tamen habetur quod inde exire debeat dominus prophetarum, secundum illud Is. II, 1: <i>flos</i>, idest Nazarenus, <i>de radice eius ascendet, et requiescet super eum spiritus domini</i>.
            <td>About his ignorance of the law, they say: <b>Look at the Scriptures and see that the Prophet will not come from Galilee.</b> But since Nicodemus was a teacher of the law, he did not have to look again. It is as if they were saying: Although you are a teacher, you do not know this. Something like this was said before: “You are a teacher in Israel and you do not know these things?” (above 3:10). Now even though the Old Testament does not explicitly say that a prophet will come from Galilee, it does say that the Lord of the prophets would come from there, according to: “A flower (i.e., a Nazarene) will arise from his root... and the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him,” as we read in Isaiah (11:1).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Sed terminatio dissensionis ostenditur infructuosa; unde dicit <i>et reversi sunt unusquisque</i>, quasi infecto negotio, <i>in domum suam</i>, idest in propria, vacui fide, et fraudati a malo desiderio suo. Iob V, 13: <i>consilium pravorum dissipat</i>; Ps. XXXII, 10: <i>dominus reprobat consilia principum, et cogitationes populorum dissipat</i>.
            <td>1117 The outcome of this dissension is seen to be useless. So he says: <b>Then every man returned,</b> leaving the matter unfinished, to his own house, i.e., to what belonged to him, empty of faith and frustrated in his evil desires. “He frustrates the plans of the wicked” (Jb 5:13); “God destroys the plans of rulers, and frustrates the schemes of the people” (Ps 3 2:10).
          <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
            <td>Vel, <i>in domum suam</i>, idest in malitiam infidelitatis et impietatis suae; Apoc. II, 13: <i>scio ubi habitas, ubi sedes est Satanae: et tenes nomen meum, et non negasti fidem meam</i>.
            <td>Or, each returned <b>to his own house,</b> i.e., to the evil of his unbelief and irreverence. “I know where you live: where the throne of Satan is. You hold to my name, and you have not denied my faith” (Rv 2:13).
      </table>
      <hr>
      <hr>
    </center>
  </blockquote>
  <script type="text/javascript" src="/navbar.js"></script>