For when so great a light entered in, the secret place of death, in which death held dominion, vanished away; nor can death be utterly conquered except by one who is seized either through what is his own or among his own. Rightly, therefore, in such a transaction the night alone holds sovereignty, in such a way that it might lose its power. And in order that the Jews might remain unbelieving in perpetual night, and that the day might not become the author of so great a crime, indeed of such sacrilege, but rather the night, the day is subordinated to the preceding night contrary to the order of things, just as God and Lord of all things subjected the day to the night that was the author of that wicked death, so that He might release all from the snares of death. But if to anyone this still perhaps seems contradictory, let him diligently take heed, lest he begin to judge too harshly the fact that God, clothing Himself in the person of a servant — I will not say of a man — gave Himself over to death.
Why then do you seek order here, where you see that all things are contrary? For what is the light which was in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it, by which it was nonetheless seized? For he who knows that he is being seized in order to be struck down reckons that time as belonging to death. There is also the following day, on which He was heard and crucified; there is also the night that falls upon the Sabbath; there is also the Sabbath itself; there is also the evening after the Sabbath — this is what was commanded to the Jews by Moses as a figure, that in the evening they should enter into the Sabbath — on which the Lord rose again, which embraces the Lord's day, because night is not reckoned without day, nor day without night. By this reasoning, after three days and three nights the Lord rose again. 65.
IF THE EVANGELISTS SPOKE WITH ONE MOUTH AND ONE MEANING, HOW DID IT COME ABOUT THAT, WHILE THREE OF THEM — NAMELY MATTHEW, LUKE, AND JOHN — SAY THAT THE LORD WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, MARK ON THE CONTRARY SAYS THAT THE SAVIOUR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR? It is not good to wrap the truth in obscurities. For the three evangelists had one meaning, but Mark wished to make known a matter which had been passed over by these others, knowing it to be necessary. For he could not be mistaken, who, following the examples of his authorities, learned with great devotion and diligence the things he wrote, and was not without the Holy Spirit. What therefore he wished to show by this must be resolved. It must accordingly be considered that the Saviour was crucified not by Pilate, but by the Jews.
But as far as the Roman laws were concerned, they pronounced the Saviour innocent. For Pilate said to the Jews: I find no cause in Him; and when they said: Crucify Him, he answered: Why, what evil has He done? Finally, persisting and wishing to lead Him out of their hands, he suffered slander when they said: If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; for everyone who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar. So it came about that he handed Him over to their judgment. Therefore Pilate did not give the sentence, but the Jews. Finally, they had been forewarned, it says, by the chief priests, to say: Let Him be crucified.
He wishes this sentence to be understood as given at the third hour, in which, persisting with unceasing shouts — yet with an interval of about three hours, during which there was a going and returning from Herod — they crucified the Saviour. For everyone who is condemned is already reckoned as dead from the moment he receives the sentence. Mark therefore made plain that the Saviour was not crucified by the sentence of a judge. For it is difficult to prove innocent one who is punished by a judge's sentence. He therefore allowed himself to seem to disagree in his wording, in order to teach that what was completed at the sixth hour had been begun at the third hour — not by the laws, but by the persisting malevolence of the Jews. 66.
THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS THAT THE DEMONS RECOGNIZED AND CONFESSED JESUS; BUT ON THE CONTRARY THE APOSTLE DENIES THAT THE PRINCES AND POWERS OF THIS WORLD RECOGNIZED THE DIVINITY OF THE LORD JESUS. FOR MARK SAYS, AMONG OTHER THINGS: 'FOR THEY KNEW WHO HE WAS'; BUT THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'WHOM NONE OF THE PRINCES OF THIS WORLD KNEW; FOR IF THEY HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY.' IF THE DEMONS KNEW, HOW DID THE PRINCES NOT KNOW? It seems to some that 'the princes of this world' signified the leaders of the Jews, as if in accordance with what the apostle Peter said: For you know, brethren, he says, that through ignorance you did this evil, as did also your princes.
Therefore they were princes of the Jews, but not nevertheless of this world. For he says 'your princes,' not 'of the world,' since indeed they had said that they had Caesar as king, under whose power they had been reduced. But these princes are those whom the apostle signified in another place, saying: Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the princes and powers, against the rulers of these darknesses of this world. Rightly therefore is the question raised: for if these did not recognize Jesus, how could it be that the demons recognized Him? But it is one thing that he says the demons recognized in Christ, and another that he denies the princes of this world recognized.
For the demons knew indeed that He was the one, but the one who had been promised through the law. For they saw in Him all the signs which the prophets had said would come, and that from the seed of David, of a virgin, the Redeemer of Israel would come; but the mystery of His divinity they did not know, just as neither did their princes. Finally the devil asks — though craftily — of the Saviour, saying: If you are the Son of God, and so forth. For seeing at one time the divine power, at another time the weakness of the man, he was tormented, doubting which was true. The Scriptures therefore agree according to those things which have been revealed. For it is impossible that men of one Spirit should disagree. 67. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE SAVIOUR'S SAYING WHILE PLACED ON THE CROSS: 'FATHER, FORGIVE THEM,'
'FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING'? IF THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS THERE TO BE FORGIVEN, ESPECIALLY SINCE KING ABIMELECH SAYS TO GOD: 'WILL YOU DESTROY A NATION THAT IS IGNORANT?' Not everyone who is ignorant is immune from punishment. For that ignorant man can be excused from punishment who finds no one from whom he might learn; but for these men it is asked that this be forgiven, because, having one from whom they might learn, they gave no effort to it. To be ignorant in this manner is not permissible: they will receive pardon therefore if they are converted. 68. THE LORD CERTAINLY TAUGHT THAT WE MUST PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES: WHAT THEN IS IT THAT THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN ASK TO AVENGE THEMSELVES, DEMANDING VENGEANCE FROM GOD? The souls of the slain cry out, demanding to be avenged, just as the blood of Abel cried out from the earth.
There are therefore causes which are said to cry out, although they cannot speak. For the blood that is shed, what else does it demand than to be avenged, crying out not by voice but by its very case? For even a work is said to praise its maker through this very fact, that it delights the one who sees it. For the saints are not so impatient as to press that what they know is to come at a predetermined time — which can neither be anticipated nor deferred — should come to pass. But by this saying he wished to show that God would avenge the blood of His saints, lest, because He now seems so patient, the impious war which is waged against the saints should be thought to go unpunished, so that He might both strike terror into those who persecute the servants of God and exhort those who endure for His sake. For the soul of one who endures is relieved when it hears that it will be avenged by one who is powerful.
For he openly displays it, if he hears that his death is displeasing to the judge; for then he holds for certain that he is innocent. And God indeed is merciful and patient, but in due measure. For He waits that the impious may believe and that sinners may amend; if not, they shall be struck down, because they have despised God's long patience. He shows an example of this matter even in the time of proclaimed mercy, lest He should seem not patient but insensible, and one whom neither anyone's grief nor piety would seem to move. Hence it is that He says through the prophet: I have held my peace; shall I always hold my peace? And the Lord: Shall not God, He says, execute vengeance for His servants who cry out day and night? They cry out, indeed, just as we said above.
If therefore any Christian for a time avenges himself, not harshly nor with bloodshed, he does not sin; yet he will do better if he leaves it to God the judge. 69. IF, WHEN JOHN OR THE SAVIOUR WAS ALREADY PREACHING, THE LAW CEASED, HOW DOES THE SAVIOUR SAY: 'I HAVE NOT COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL THEM'? FOR IF IT WAS PROHIBITED, HOW WAS IT NOT ABOLISHED, SINCE IT LOST THE AUTHORITY OF ACTING? All things which were said concerning Christ have been fulfilled. And the Lord Himself thus fulfilled the law and the prophets, when He did all things whatsoever were written of Him, and dissolved nothing, but confirmed it. For the law and the prophets were until Him. For the prophets spoke of Him;
therefore beyond Him the things which were said by these prophets concerning this matter cannot be extended, nor after Him could any prophets of this kind be found, because they have nothing of which to speak, and the one of whom they spoke has already come. For they embraced all things in their volumes, and revealed both His incarnation and His manner of life and His passion and His resurrection and the manifestation of His divinity and His future judgment, and through this the prophets ceased once the work of the dispensation was fulfilled. But the law ceased in a twofold manner, and indeed not wholly; for even that which ceased could remain, if the condition is kept. For one thing ceased in its sentence, another in the law itself.
When John was preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, the sentence of the law ceased — that sentence which held sinners as guilty. There ceased also the burdens of the law, which had been given on account of the hardness of the Jewish heart concerning foods, new moons, and weasels. For with the coming of mercy, vengeance ceased. But the burdens of the law ceased forever, whereas the sentence ceases and is abolished for those who remain in the benefit they have obtained. But for those who return to the old man, the authority of the law is rubbed afresh, because, being unmindful of the benefits, they return under the sentence of the law. But circumcision and the Sabbath were in force up to that time when the commandment of the new law was proclaimed. For they were given in such a way that, with the coming of the law of faith, they should cease.
Whence the apostle says: Christ is the end of the law. For Daniel also signifies this, when he prophesies concerning the coming of the Lord and the times of the weeks, that both the anointing and the judgment and the sacrifice and the city itself would cease. For with the coming of the spiritual law, it was necessary that carnal things should cease. For then God was served with a part of the body, now with a part of the soul; formerly visibly, now invisibly; then in the flesh, now in the mind, because God, who is assuredly Spirit, must be served in spirit. The law therefore was not dissolved because it ceased, but succession was given to it when the time was fulfilled.
For its administration or judgment is not accused, if indulgence is granted to sinners, since rather it is hence proved to be rightly and justly given, because it is not denied that those over whom it held dominion were sinners; for, he says, the law is not laid down for the just. Therefore, because mercy is to be preferred, justice should not be thought worthy of condemnation, for if reverence for justice did not exist, mercy itself would bear no fruit. For unless they have kept this justice after receiving mercy, indulgence will profit them nothing. For the law said: You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor shall you worship the things which are above in heaven and which are below on earth; and: You shall not swear falsely; and: Honor your father and mother; and:
You shall not kill, nor commit fornication, nor steal, you shall not bear false witness, nor covet anything of your neighbor. Are these to be said to have ceased? Far from it. For without these, who could be judged fit even in this life? And through this the other things which we mentioned above have ceased — new moons, Sabbaths, the law of foods, sacrifices, circumcision, and the rest. Hence it is that the apostle says, among other things: Princes are not a terror to good work, but to evil. Do you wish, however, not to fear the power? Do good, and you shall have praise from it. These things, when kept, make men good, yet not perfect. Whence the Saviour: Unless, He says, your righteousness abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
For by adding to these things better ones, the Saviour did not by any means abolish the law, but fulfilled it. For the meaning of the law pertains to the salvation of man, as for instance: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth — that one, fearing lest he should suffer what another was forbidden to do, should restrain himself from wickedness. But the Saviour, adding a higher righteousness to this meaning, says: But I say to you, do not resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, offer him the left also, so that, while he does not return like for like to evil, he may be perfect. For to return like for like is just, but not full; but if one overlooks the injury, that is full and abounding justice. For to repay is a joy for a time, but to remit grants gladness for the future.
Thus therefore the Saviour fulfilled the law, in that those whom it had taught righteousness, He made more righteous — which it could not do; on which account it is the joy of the law that its disciples have been made more skilled. He would plainly have destroyed the law, if He had taught that one might sin with impunity. But further, He suspended the sentence, so that he who does evil might have space for repentance; if not, the sentence returns upon him heaped up, because he did not recognize that he had been forgiven to this end, that he should amend himself. 70. THE LORD CERTAINLY COMMANDED US TO BECOME ENEMIES TO THE DEVIL; WHAT THEN IS IT THAT IN THE GOSPEL HE SAYS: 'BE QUICKLY AGREEING WITH YOUR ADVERSARY'? WHO IS THE ADVERSARY OF MAN EXCEPT THE DEVIL? It is doubtful to none that the devil is man's enemy, especially the believer's;
for he sharpens his more violent weapons against the servants of God. As therefore this one is the enemy of the good, so also the law is opposed to the wicked. For who would not be opposed to one who despises him? The Lord therefore addresses the sinner, that he may agree with the commandments which condemn him as disobedient, that he may subject himself to their will and become from an enemy a friend, because even the despiser of the law is its enemy; for he resists its will. And therefore the Lord exhorts the sinner that, by acting well, he may reconcile the law to himself, lest on the day of judgment it accuse him before the judge, and, being condemned, he pay the penalties for the law he has despised.
For to everyone who wishes to act wickedly the Lord's discipline seems hostile; and unless he agrees with it, he shall be cast into the gehenna prepared for the devil, who is truly the enemy of the human race. 71. JACOB WAS CALLED A MAN SEEING GOD, AND MOSES SAW GOD FACE TO FACE, AND ISAIAH ALSO: 'I SAW,' HE SAYS, 'THE GOD OF SABAOTH WITH MY EYES'; BUT ON THE CONTRARY JOHN THE EVANGELIST: 'NO ONE,' HE SAYS, 'HAS EVER SEEN GOD.' THIS, AS FAR AS IT SEEMS, IS CONTRADICTORY. As far as the truth of fact is concerned, no one has ever at all seen God, neither the Father nor the Son. For what is said to be seen is referred to the understanding; for it was seen as if in an image.
Just as we, when we do not know emperors, see them in a figure, not in truth, so also God was seen, in such a way that He who appeared was understood to be God — through reason, not through substance, because in His own nature God cannot be seen. And that we may more truly disclose the secrets of the proposed question, let us strive to explain the meaning of the evangelist. For John wished to bring forth something hidden, which he knew pertained to saving doctrine. Therefore: No one, he says, has ever seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. He has made Him known. Let us attend to the evangelist's meaning. For in order to show that it is true that no one has ever seen God, he teaches that the Son has made this known — the Son whom it is utterly impossible to deceive, because He is in the bosom of the Father.
But what is the bosom of the Father, except the affection in the love of the true Father toward the Son through the unity of nature? On which account no one has seen God, except the only Son. This the apostle John heard the Son of God saying, among other things: Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God; He has seen the Father. So that it might serve toward the condemnation of the Jews, who were unwilling to hear or believe that Christ was the Son of God, the evangelist showed that this Christ is the one who had appeared to the fathers as God; but that He who is the Father is never seen except by the Son. For when he denies that God the Father was seen, and professes that God appeared to the fathers, the Son of God wishes to make Himself manifest, because He Himself was always seen by the fathers as God.
Hence it is that, among other things, He says to the Jews concerning the Father: You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. Behold, it is not contradictory that God is both seen and unseen. 72. (76). IN THE GOSPEL JOHN SAYS: 'THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS CHRIST': THEREFORE BEFORE THERE WAS NONE. HOW THEN SHALL THE LAW BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, IN WHICH THERE WAS NO TRUTH? It is not thus to be passed over offhand, but one must consider what 'the law was given through Moses' means. For through Moses the given law has manifest precepts, but he also wrote history, which itself too is called law. And let us see what in his precepts will not be true. Perhaps what he says:
You shall not kill, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal; such are these and the rest. But that his history was not truth before the coming of Christ, this is manifest. For those things which were under a veil — what they signified — were uncertain. But when through Christ it is made manifest whose person it is that says in Genesis: Let us make, and who it is that makes, and who he was that was seen in the bush or among the patriarchs, and who it was that worked in the rock, which gave waters in the desert — for the rock, he says, was Christ — thus truth comes about through Christ, when it was shown by Christ what those things signified which were hidden or came into doubt. For among other things the Lord says: Moses wrote of me. This was hidden before; for there was error.
For He who was the Son was thought to be God the Father, and He who was reckoned an angel was recognized to be the Son of God. And a promise had been made to Abraham, which, as long as it was not fulfilled, was in ambiguity. But when, with the coming of Christ, it was rendered, it became truth, when both that which was promised was rendered and it began to be known what had been promised. For the faith of the one promising is then proved true when he discharges the promise. 73. (77). WHAT IS IT THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS CONCERNING CHRIST: 'ENTERING,' HE SAYS, 'INTO A HOUSE, HE WISHED NO ONE TO KNOW, AND HE COULD NOT BE HIDDEN'? IF THEN HE WISHED IT AND COULD NOT, HIS WILL SEEMS WEAKENED.
It is utterly impossible that the will of the Saviour should not be fulfilled, nor can He will what He knows ought not to come to pass; therefore what was done, this He must be said to have willed. For His will is never outside His nature. As therefore His nature does not fall under reproach, neither does His will. For what was proposed is read to have been done in the regions of Tyre. Then He entered into a house and wished no one to know. Now it is asked how or why He wished no one to know. For it must be observed that this was done in the regions of the Gentiles, for whom the time of preaching was not yet. Finally, sending His disciples, He commanded, saying:
Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into a city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the sheep that have perished of the house of Israel. Therefore He did not wish to be betrayed as being in the house; but He did not refuse to be sought after, but willingly received it. For although it was not the time for preaching to the Gentiles, yet not to receive those coming of their own accord to the faith would have been a matter of ill-will. So it came about that the Saviour, while not betrayed by His disciples, was nonetheless betrayed by others who had seen Him entering the house, and it began to be known that He was in the house, so that those who wished to obtain benefits might enter in to Him. By His own, therefore, He did not wish to be proclaimed as being in the house. For He wished to be sought after, and so it came about.
For He was not hidden, having been pointed out by others as being in the house. Finally a Canaanite woman, hearing of Him, entered in to Him, beseeching that He cast out the demon from her daughter — she who, had she not first subjected herself to the God of the Jews, would not have obtained the benefit. The will of the Saviour was therefore fulfilled according to what we have explained: for those things which the evangelist embraced studying brevity for the sake of conciseness, we, examining closely, find what lay hidden. 74. (78). IT IS READ IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT, WHEN THE SAVIOUR HAD DENIED THAT HE WOULD GO UP TO THE FEAST DAY, HE WENT UP. THIS SEEMS TO BELONG TO AN INCONSTANT PERSON. You always hide the meaning by an abridged proposition.
For this which you call into question came about then, when, being situated in Galilee on account of the tumult of the Jews, He was being urged by His brothers, who as yet did not believe in Him, to go up into Judea, because the feast day of the Jews was about to be, so that He might suffer sedition. But He Himself answered them, saying: You go up to the feast day, because the world does not hate you; but it hates Me, since I reprove its works. I do not go up to this feast day, because My time is not yet fulfilled. Then His brothers went up to the feast day, but He Himself remained in Galilee. But afterward He too went up to the feast day.
What seems contradictory, since He did not go up when He denied, but went up afterward, and went up not as if to a feast day, but as if to a contest? For all those went up joyfully, as if to enjoy the delights of the feast day. It is certain, therefore, that He did not go up to the feast day. But the Saviour's feast day was that on which by His passion He redeemed the world. Finally He says: Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. This is His feast day, on which He conquered death. 75. (79). IF WE LIVE BY OUR OWN FREE CHOICE, WHY DID THE SAVIOUR SAY: 'NO ONE COMES,' HE SAYS, 'TO ME, UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS HIM,' AND THE APOSTLE AGREEING WITH THESE:
'IT IS NOT,' HE SAYS, 'OF HIM WHO WILLS, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS, BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY,' AND: 'ON WHOM HE WILLS HE HAS MERCY, AND WHOM HE WILLS HE HARDENS'? HOW IS THE CHOICE OF THE WILL FREE, WHEN BY ANOTHER'S NOD IT IS LED EITHER TO GOOD OR TO EVIL? The case stands otherwise than as it is proposed; for the meaning of this question is not that which you put forward. For in no way can the cause of free choice be disturbed by these texts, because, if you attend thoroughly to the meaning of the sayings, you will know that hence rather the verdict of free choice is confirmed. For these things were brought forth against the malevolent Jews. For when, with the deceit of pretense arising from envy, they were asserting Joseph to be the Saviour's own father and his sons to be His brothers, lest He be believed to be the Son of God, then the Saviour said:
No one comes to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him. But how did the Father draw to the Son, except through the works which He did through Him? For thus He said: The Father, abiding in Me, He Himself works. So that these works might draw to the faith of Christ. For the powers which the Saviour did, these persuaded that God was the Father of Christ, so that he who said that He had another father would not be drawn by God to Christ. Therefore God worked through Christ, so that credence might be lent to His words, by which He said that He was the Son of God. This is the drawing — not violence, but the testimony of God in Christ; and he who has believed it is said to be drawn by Him to Christ. For no one believes the Saviour except him who calls His Father God as His own.
For the apostle, not in order to strike at free choice, spoke these things which you have brought into question, but in order to forbid the questioning of God's judgment, he said these things, proclaiming God to be just; for He knows whom He ought to pity. And the inspector of the heart sees through the mind of the one asking, whether he deserves to receive. Finally He says through the prophet: This people honors Me with its lips, but their heart is far from Me. For it is just that the mind of a dissembler be hardened. For he who calls the true false not through error, but through malevolence — so that, understanding the good, he pretends not to know that it is good, in order to turn it into evil — to such a one this surely ought to be granted, that he truly not understand the good, lest he be saved, which he does not will.
For it is not just that one be saved against his will, who spurns salvation not through ignorance, but through malice or envy. By these things, therefore, free choice is rather confirmed than destroyed, so that to each one it may be answered according to his own wish. 76. (72). IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: 'GO,' HE SAYS, '(AND TAKE THE BOOK FROM THE HAND OF THE ANGEL AND DEVOUR IT, AND IT SHALL MAKE YOUR BELLY BITTER, BUT IN YOUR MOUTH IT SHALL BE SWEET AS HONEY).' WHAT IS THIS BOOK, WHICH MAKES THE BELLY BITTER, ALTHOUGH IT IS SWEET? All the divine volumes are bitter, but to the faithless and carnal. For to idolaters it is unpleasant, when they hear one God proclaimed in Christ.
And Photinus likewise is terrified, seized with horror; Sabellius too blushes, hearing that the Father is the Father, who cannot be called the Son, because from Him are all things; but the Son is called Son for this reason, that He Himself is assuredly not the Father, but is of the Father — not the one from whom, but the one through whom are all things. Arius too is confuted, when he reads that Christ is the true Son of God; for without doubt He could not be called true, unless He were properly of God. Marcion also is convicted, learning that the Word was made flesh, who thinks that flesh is to be denied to Christ.
The wicked Manichaeus too is refuted, seeing it written by the evangelist that the Saviour not only adorned the vows of marriage by His presence, but even honored them with cups — he who shuts off the approach to marriage and exhorts to come together promiscuously. These things are contained in the book which the apostle received to devour. This book is the Gospel which is entitled ACCORDING TO JOHN, which is bitter not only to those who think evil, but also to the undisciplined, who refuse to be corrected, so that they go on to worse. This revelation was made at the time when the apostle John was on the island of Patmos, banished by the emperor Domitian for the sake of the faith.