Pauline Commentaries 1 part 28/28

For John did not doubt, he who had said: behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who takes away the sin of the world; but, that he might satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, that he might confirm by the mouth of the Saviour what he himself taught about Him, so that after his own departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. So also the Saviour reproves Mary in His own person, saying: I have not yet ascended to the Father — that is: 'your heart is still pressed to the ground, you who, if you do not see, do not believe.' For if she had lifted her heart to God, she would have believed with the disciples that the Lord had risen. 71. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOUR SAYS: 'I AM THE DOOR; THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS'? WHICH SAYING SEEMS TO STRIKE AT THE PROPHETS.

Because no one goes to God the Father except through faith in Christ, therefore the Saviour calls Himself the door of the kingdom of the heavens. If, then, He uses the words of a door, what need was there that He should say of those before Him: as many as came before me — when no question was being raised about things past, but rather, as a present door, He was complaining of things present? For the Saviour speaks of the Jews, who thought to enter into the kingdom of God not through faith, but through the righteousness of the law. For coming before the Saviour — that is, standing before Him — they disparaged Him, contradicting Him, so as even to turn others away from faith in Him; whence they were called thieves and robbers.

For these words were spoken at the time when the Pharisees were disputing with that man who had been born blind, to whom the Saviour restored the eyes that nature had denied him; and they wished to turn him away from faith in the Saviour, saying that one cannot enter into the kingdom of God through this faith — since he violates the Sabbath — but through the righteousness of the Law. Then the Saviour said: 'I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he shall be saved and shall find pasture; but if anyone wishes to enter by another way, he is a thief and a robber.' How does this pertain to the person of the prophets? Were the prophets thieves and robbers? Did the doctrine of Christ ever say that the prophets — who knew that Christ would come in the flesh — could earn God by the righteousness of the Law without faith?

He therefore said this concerning those then present, so that whoever came before him, whether standing or sitting, should be understood as thieves and robbers. For those who drew aside the man who had been blind wished to turn him away from faith in the Saviour, saying: 'Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.' But he refuted them, saying: 'Since the world began it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.' Concerning this man, then, because he persevered in faith, and concerning those others who said: 'These are not the words of one that has a demon; can a demon open the eyes of the blind?' — the Saviour said: 'But the sheep did not hear them,' that is, those whom he called thieves and robbers.

For how did the sheep not hear the prophets, when it is established in the Scriptures that all the good obey the prophets, and the evil obey false prophets? LXXII. THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL; FOR THUS HE SAYS: 'THEREFORE ALL ARE DEAD, AND HE DIED FOR ALL'; BUT THE LORD HIMSELF SAYS: 'THE SON OF MAN CAME TO GIVE HIS LIFE A REDEMPTION FOR MANY': IN THIS WAY THERE IS A CONTRADICTION. The words indeed are different, but the sense is one — just as, again, the same words have a different sense, as for example: 'whatever is not of faith is sin,' and yet 'the Law,' he says, 'is not of faith,' and yet it is not sin. Those whom the Saviour called 'many,' these the Apostle signified by 'all.' For they are many.

For the greatest part out of every people and nation will come to believe in the Saviour. These believers the Apostle called 'all'; for thus, among other things, he says: 'and he died for all,' namely for those who have believed and will believe. He died also for those very people who refuse to believe; but while they do not receive the benefit, they are unwilling that Christ should have died for them, and on this account he does not seem to have died for those whom it did not profit but rather harmed. Yet he is rightly said to have died for those for whom victory was won, who, understanding the mystery, give thanks to God through Christ our Lord. LXXIII. WHY DOES DAVID SAY: 'LET THEM BE CONFOUNDED AND ASHAMED WHO SAY TO ME:

'AHA, AHA,' yet the Lord says: 'WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT,' AND SO FORTH? WHAT DAVID TOOK AS A REPROACH AND AN EVIL, THIS THE SAVIOUR SHOWS TO BE WORTHY OF GOOD MERITS? This does not differ greatly from the previous question. For one and the same word has different meanings, as I mentioned above. For David's detractors, since they favoured his calamities, rejoiced over his troubles. For while he was suffering oppression and distress from Saul and from his own son Absalom, they said that it was being done rightly and well. It is just as if someone should say of one who suffers injuries: 'It is well for him, to rejoice in his evils,' that is to say: 'It is rightly done to him; for so he deserves.'

In a similar way the Saviour also, rejoicing in good works, pronounces the merit of the man, saying: 'Well done, good and faithful servant.' For he exults, because the servant has made himself more worthy, saying 'well,' that is: 'You have acted rightly, so as to lay up a greater merit.' Therefore one and the same word is fitted to two contrary causes. For we are accustomed to say of someone: 'He has been adjudged'; but in what way it is said, the following or preceding circumstance makes clear; for sometimes it is said for good, sometimes for evil — just as desire (concupiscence) too is sometimes fitted to good, sometimes to evil. LXXIIII. LXXIIII = XCVIIII. LXXV. THE APOSTLE CALLS THE LAW GIVEN BY MOSES HOLY AND JUST AND GOOD AND SPIRITUAL, AND ELSEWHERE HE SAYS: 'FOR THE LAW WORKS WRATH,' AND:

'WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION.' FOR WITHOUT THESE THERE IS SECURITY. By comparing these very sayings you ought to have satisfied yourself sufficiently. For thus the doubtful are accustomed to frame their questions, so that the sayings of one man — and of one whom it is not lawful to reproach — should be sought out as conflicting and hostile to each other. For if the Apostle calls the Law holy and just and good and spiritual — a man preeminent in all praise and fortified on every side by truth — this should suffice for faith; and concerning what seems contradictory, one ought to inquire without obstinacy. For this proposition aims at impunity for sinning.

For the Apostle indeed, when he preferred the law of faith on account of the merit of the time and of grace among the Romans — who under faith in Christ had been led into the Law (I say 'into the Law,' not the natural law; for the Romans were certainly under a law which the ten men sent from Athens, and afterwards two others, had brought, which was written on two tablets that were buried in the Capitol — but that same law which is called 'of works,' namely that they should be circumcised, keep the Sabbath and the new moons, distinguish foods, be careful about the cleansing of vessels, and the rest contained in a law of this kind) — this law, then, he says, works wrath. For these things were added when God was angry, so that they might be a burden upon the faithlessness of the Jews;

for out of so many things, something must necessarily be passed over. Hence the Apostle Peter says: 'Why do you place a yoke upon the neck of the brethren, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?' Finally God says through the prophet Jeremiah: 'I gave them precepts not good.' For after many offences and temptings of God, and insults done to Moses, and detractions made against God, these things were given which they were to observe, so that their stiff neck might be pressed down, and wherever they turned, they should have the Law, so that there might be no respite for them. Therefore, that the Apostle might remove them from this Law:

he says: 'Where there is no law, there is no transgression,' so that, freed from it, they might be able through a shortcut to serve God spiritually. 'For,' he says, 'those who keep the Jewish law must necessarily transgress; for so many are the precepts that it is impossible to fulfil them.' For how could he say this of that law which is natural? — which Moses therefore wrote down in order to confirm its authority, not because it did not exist before (since we read that vengeance was exacted before Moses) — but in order to set forth that the Romans ought not now to live under the Law, when it was expedient for them to act under the law. For otherwise they could not keep righteousness. Finally he says to them: 'Do you wish not to fear the power? Do good,' and: 'Those who despise it acquire damnation for themselves.'

He therefore calls this law spiritual, which he shows to be both holy and just and good. This is the one which we have called natural, which forbids sinning; for it is the guide of a good life. To this is added the law of faith, which makes man perfect. Now since this law, which I have called natural, is named by the common term 'law,' as is also that which is called the law of works, the Apostle seems to speak against the Law; but lest he should seem to nullify this one, without which this life cannot be governed, he says: 'We know that the law is spiritual' — so that it might be known with respect to that other one which he nullifies, namely the law of the Sabbath and of circumcision and of foods and of new moons. For that natural law is called spiritual because it lays aside all sins. LXXVI.

IF THE JEWS RECEIVED HARSH COMMANDMENTS BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF AND DETRACTIONS, WHAT HAD THEIR CHILDREN SINNED, THAT THEY TOO SHOULD BE BOUND BY THESE COMMANDMENTS? The Law was given to the fathers, which should be a burden to the children who were like them. For afterwards they sinned against God no less, but perhaps even more, than their fathers. For God, being foreknowing, gave this Law rather to the children, because all those fathers perished in the wilderness. LXXVII. WHEN THE SAVIOUR SAYS: 'I PRAY FOR THEM WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN ME, I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD,' THE APOSTLE JOHN ON THE CONTRARY SAYS: 'WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, AN INTERCESSOR FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS, BUT FOR THE WHOLE WORLD': THIS SEEMS CONTRADICTORY.

Although the sense does not differ greatly, yet one thing is what the Saviour says, and another what the Apostle John affirms. For the Saviour prays for the disciples, that they may be kept safe from the assault of the evil one. Finally he says thus: 'I do not pray that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from evil.' But the Apostle John introduces another kind of prayer; for he says: 'We have an advocate, who pleads for our sins and for those of the whole world.' For Christians, then, he pleads in a twofold manner, since he both prays for their sins and that they may be kept safe from the assault of the devil.

But for those who do not believe, this alone is the prayer: that, while they deserve to be punished for their sins and faithlessness, the goodness and patience of God may await them, in case they might be willing to be corrected. For he does not ask that the sins of the unbelieving be forgiven them, but that they may receive a long delay, so that, if they amend themselves, their offences may be remitted to them. This, then, is what the Saviour asks for them, as we have said. LXXVIII. IN THE GOSPEL WE READ THAT THE ANGEL SAID TO MARY THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, THAT 'OF HIS KINGDOM,' THAT IS, OF CHRIST'S, 'THERE SHALL BE NO END,' AND DANIEL IN THE SAME SENSE SAYS OF THIS; FOR HE SAYS: 'THEN SHALL ARISE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, WHICH SHALL NEVER BE DESTROYED'; ON THE CONTRARY THE APOSTLE SAYS OF THE LORD: 'WHEN HE HAS DELIVERED UP THE KINGDOM TO GOD AND THE FATHER.'

HOW SHALL HE HAVE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, WHICH IS SAID TO BE ABOUT TO BE DELIVERED UP TO GOD AND THE FATHER? In the matter of Father and Son, that is, of God and Christ, it is a handing over, not an abolition, that is to be understood. For consider in what way the Father handed over the kingdom to the Son, the Lord himself attesting this: 'For all things,' he says, 'have been delivered to me by my Father.' If, then, the Father ceased to have it when he handed it over, it can also be said of the Saviour that, when he handed it over, he lost it. For the Son, after he had said that the kingdom was delivered to him by the Father, still preferring the Father, says: 'And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.'

According to this sense, then, the Son does not lose the kingdom when he hands it over, so that these things are true, and the angel and Daniel are not said to disagree with this sense. For whoever thinks that the testimony of these is to be disparaged is full of faithlessness. But now let us, remaining in this faith, see what it is for the Son to hand over the kingdom to the Father; for this is what, among other things, the Apostle says in another place: 'Then shall the Son himself also be subject to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.' This subjection, then, is itself the handing over of the kingdom.

And so in this place an interpretation seems necessary, so that the Son may neither be denied to be subject to the Father, nor any the less be said to have an eternal kingdom — that is, the kingdom of the Son — since in his name every knee bows, of things heavenly, earthly, and infernal. This the Apostle Peter also affirms, saying: 'There is no other name given under heaven, by which we must be saved.' And the Lord himself says to the disciples: 'Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name: ask, and I will do it.' Thus the Son reigns, when all things are saved in his name and the things asked for are given, even unto the end of the world.

But after all things have confessed Christ, whether by force or by will, and have been subjected to his power, against which they had resisted, the mystery of the one God will be made manifest to all, and all thanksgiving will be referred to the Father, from whom are all things, so that, when preaching ceases, the one God may be known in the mystery of the Trinity. For when all powers and principalities and dominions have bowed the knee to Christ, then the Son will reveal that he himself is not the one from whom are all things, but His Son, and that He is seen in him. This is the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom. For by showing that it is the Father from whom are all things, he subjects himself to Him, when he says that he is of Him.

For so great a brightness and majesty will be seen at the coming of the Son, that all the powers and choirs of angels will suppose him to be the one and only God. But the Saviour, since he will have said that he is not the one who is called the Father, but His Son, while reigning hands over the kingdom to the Father. In this matter both the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom are made manifest, because, when he professes himself to be from the Father, he confesses that whatever he has belongs to the Father, referring the whole sum to Him. LXXVIIII. LXXVIIII = LXXXIII. LXXX. WHAT NEED WAS THERE THAT THE APOSTLE, IN REBUKING THE GALATIANS, SHOULD INTERPOSE THIS — FOR TO THE GALATIANS, WHO AFTER THE GOSPEL WERE FLEEING BACK TO THE LAW, HE SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS:

'FOR A MEDIATOR IS NOT OF ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE' — AS THOUGH THE GALATIANS DENIED THE ONE GOD, SEEING THAT THEY HAD BEEN LED INTO THE LAW ON THIS VERY GROUND, THAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE IN ONE AND SOLE GOD, BUT THAT CHRIST HAD COME ONLY AS A MINISTER FROM PREDESTINATION TO DISPENSE THE GIFT OF GOD'S GRACE? It is manifest that the Galatians had been so led into the Law that they also professed Christ, but not as is fitting, but after the manner of Photinus: that, since the Law preaches one God, it would be contrary to the Law if Christ were called God. This is the device of the Jews, who, overcome by the great deeds of his mighty works, believed in Christ after the cross, yet in such a way that, while professing Christ, they nevertheless kept the Law, as though not all hope were to be placed in Christ.

These are those whom the Apostle calls false brethren. These, then, after the tradition of the apostles, had corrupted the understanding of the Galatians, so as to make them Jews under the name of the Saviour. Hence the Apostle says that Christ came as the arbiter of circumcision and uncircumcision, just as he says to the Ephesians: 'making peace in one new man.' If, then, Christ came as arbiter — and an arbiter makes peace between two parties in such a way that he lays down a new rule, taking away from both their professions — he reconciles them, so that, following his judgment, they may lay aside their former discord. For when the Jew claims circumcision and the Gentile uncircumcision, discord arises; but when this is taken away, peace is made.

'If, then, these things are so, how is it,' he says, 'that you Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the arbitration of Christ?' Therefore he said to them: 'You are made void of Christ.' For spurning the right of reconciliation which he had established between them, they turned back to the former mind of the Jews, accusing both themselves and the reconciler; for everything that displeases is accused. And since this matter had compelled the Galatians to turn to the Law, so that they confessed one God without the mystery, as though it were hostile to the Law if Christ were called God, he says: 'An arbiter,' that is, a mediator, 'is not of one' — but of two, certainly;

'but you, having turned to the Law, have refused the arbiter' — 'yet God is one.' By this saying he testifies that he does not so preach Christ as God as to make another God or to profess two, but that there is one God, just as it was also said in the Law; because, when Christ is preached as God of God, this does not amount to another God, since that which is of God does not allow itself to be called another God. For whether God, or that which is of God, there is one God. For there is no difference at all between God and that which is of God; for he is another. For he is another with respect to the person by which he is called the Son, but the same with respect to the unity of substance. Lest it seem reprehensible that I said 'person' — for some are accustomed to refuse this — let us follow the Apostle, who says:

'For what I have given, if I have given anything, was for your sakes in the person of Christ.' LXXXI. THE SAVIOUR, WHEN HE SAID THAT HE WOULD SUFFER AND RISE AGAIN AFTER THE THIRD DAY, ADDED: 'AND AFTER I HAVE RISEN, I WILL GO BEFORE YOU INTO GALILEE; THERE YOU SHALL SEE ME.' AND THE ANGEL LIKEWISE SAID TO THE WOMEN. YET HE IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN SEEN BY THE WOMEN AND BY HIS DISCIPLES IN JERUSALEM. To retract the words of the Saviour is the mark of an unbeliever; but I see that you do not doubt the Saviour's words, but seek their sense — why, when he was seen in Jerusalem after his passion, he said that he would be seen by them in Galilee.

He was seen in Jerusalem, but in a particular way, to revive the spirits of the disciples; but in Galilee he was seen by all together. Therefore those who were to see him in Jerusalem in parts, he appointed to meet them in Galilee, so that he might appear to all at once and give precepts for ordering their discipline. LXXXII. THE APOSTLE PAUL INDICATES THAT WE SHOULD NOT GRIEVE OVER THE DEAD; FOR IT BELONGS TO THOSE WITHOUT HOPE TO GRIEVE; YET HE HIMSELF SAYS OF EPAPHRODITUS: 'HE WAS SICK, NIGH UNTO DEATH; BUT GOD HAD MERCY ON HIM, AND NOT ON HIM ONLY, BUT ON ME ALSO, LEST I SHOULD HAVE SORROW UPON SORROW.' HOW DOES HE FORBID GRIEVING, WHEN HE HIMSELF DECLARES THAT HE WOULD HAVE GRIEVED IF EPAPHRODITUS HAD DIED?

The Apostle indicated that he would have grieved over the death of Epaphroditus, had it come to pass, in one sense, and he forbids grieving in another sense. For here he said that he would have grieved on account of the solace of his help, which he was using in the gospel, had he died; but he forbids us to grieve in such a way that we should mourn the departed as though extinguished and lost, despairing of the resurrection. It is one thing, therefore, to seek the solace of one as if absent, and another to lament the destruction of one no longer to be. Here consolation ceases; there despair is shut out. LXXXIII. WHY IS IT THAT, WHEN THE APOSTLES HAD HEALED ALL THE SICK BROUGHT TO THEM, THEY NEVERTHELESS GAVE NO REMEDY TO THEIR OWN SICK?

FOR CERTAINLY EPAPHRODITUS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SICK UNTO DEATH, IF THE APOSTLE'S INTERCESSION HAD BEEN HEARD. FOR WHO WOULD DOUBT THAT THE APOSTLE OFTEN PRAYED FOR THIS AND DID NOT OBTAIN IT? FOR IF HE HAD BEEN HEARD, THE INFIRMITY WOULD AT ONCE HAVE BEEN REMOVED. Signs and mighty works were performed by the apostles for this reason: that unbelief might be compelled to faith, so that, seeing deeds which are impossible to men, they might recognize from this that the preaching was of God, and might prove by the power that there is reason in the faith; so that — since words are always contradicted — the witness of power was set forth, to which, when words yield, it signifies that there is reason in the faith which cannot be expressed by words. Among the faithful, therefore, signs and prodigies are no longer necessary, but a firm hope.

For after it is learned that the things promised are true, the soul arms itself for this: that, despising present things, it may show itself worthy of the things to come, laying up merit for itself through toil — as Solomon testifies, who says: 'Son, when you come to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation.' Because a man profits by temptations, these admonitions were given. Hence the Apostle says: 'Through tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.' These temptations of tribulations befall in various ways, so that a soul persevering in the faith it has received may be crowned.

For man is tempted not only in faith, but also in sickness and in loss and in persecution and in the death of those dear to him, so that, if in these sufferings he is not led astray to the aid of demons, he may earn martyrdom without the price of blood. Therefore it was not to the detriment of Epaphroditus that the Apostle did not obtain what he asked, but to his advancement; for in his own case too, when he had prayed, he heard: 'My grace is sufficient for you; for power is made perfect in weakness.' LXXXIIII. LXXXIIII = XCV. LXXXV. LXXXV = LXXI. LXXXVI. LXXXVI = LXXXIIII. LXXXVII. LXXXVII = LXXXVIIII. LXXXVIII. LXXXVIII = XC. LXXXVIIII. LXXXVIIII = XCII. XC. XC = XCIII. XCI. XCI = XCVI. XCII. ON THE ETERNITY OF THE SON.

Since there are certain people who, the fog of error not yet dispelled, nor the rust of a torpid life cleansed or wiped away, judging with an earthly mind, doubt either concerning the Son of God or that two are one — for the faithless and stubborn nation of the Jews, to whom the fountain of the Law and the treasures of the sacraments lay open, does not waver, but denies it utterly with wicked voices — I will set forth briefly, as far as a rather concise treatment allows. For hope is left intact to the ignorant, if they are willing to learn; but perpetual punishment is appointed for those who dissemble. God almighty, since he is more excellent in greatness and goodness, ought to have produced and displayed from himself something great and supremely good; but if he had produced anything that should be contrary to the measure of his excellence,

he would seem either to have been unable to do more — which does not befit the omnipotent — or unwilling — which does not befit the most benign. Certainly it would have been no great thing for the supreme God to have made something which, being placed within himself, would not possess the force of full supremacy. Above himself, then, there was nothing — for there is nothing that surpasses God; below himself was too little, since what is less than the greatest did not befit him. And so, creating his Son most like himself, he produced from himself as it were another self; and thus that supreme and greatest good, which comes to us from God, overflowed to us through his offspring sent forth to us.

Moreover this reasoning too is to be understood at the same time: that God, who founded this world, who among the other wonders of beauty and ordering granted also to created nature the power of producing the offspring of each its own kind, certainly first possessed himself what he gave. For no one gives what he himself does not have. He, then, who had a Son agreeing with himself in all the parts of likeness — that is, one having an only one, an upright one an upright, a good one a kind, a blessed one a blessed, a greatest one a greatest, an eternal one an eternal — certainly had, before the world, the primacy of created offspring, from which a pattern was imparted to things coming into being, so that the germs of those that beget might be compelled to correspond to their own seeds.

Nor indeed did the lawful order allow otherwise than that he who was to be the Father of things must first be the Father proper, that is, of his own proper offspring. But when we said that the Son was produced, it is not to be understood as though he has a birth like ours and was thus born as we see mortals born, when, with the offspring bursting forth, things come into being that did not exist before. For those things, conceived from seeds implanted from elsewhere, coalesce by the diversity of elements into the form of an assembly of their own kind; but here, divinely, with no help of external admixture, he brought forth and produced from himself that which he always had in himself and with himself.

For just as, if we say that light is born from the sun, because it proceeds and flows forth from it, we certainly do not say this as though the sun could at any time be or have been without light, as though it generated it at some time prior to itself, but rather that it always possessed with itself that which is generated from it — generated, that is, without any distinction of a beginning that began — because it always shines, it always illuminates as by a renewing gift from itself: so too the Son of God, clinging to the Father from eternity, held also this likeness of Him, that he has neither rising nor setting. And as God is eternal without origin, so also the Son is eternal;

and as God is one, simple and the same, so, intermingled with the Father, that, though distinct in names and in relations, they are yet the same — in both one, and each in one, continuous in inseparable majesty. God therefore so contains and embraces the Son — not drawn from discordant materials, but produced from the simple and singular stock and seed-bed of his own nature, always held within himself and never dismissed from himself by any separation — that nothing is changed in either as regards that unity. XCIII. XCIII = XCI. XCIIII. XCIIII = XCVII. XCV. XCV does not exist.