講道與短論 第 5 章 第 2/4 段

For he supposed that, as it were, he had elicited from the Savior, according to the guile of his own will, an answer, so that he might hold his whole kingdom secure, since, the doctrine of the Savior being subjected to his leadership, no one would escape his death. VIII. — Why does the Savior resist the devil tempting Him only with examples from the Law (Matt. 4:4-10)? The Savior answered not only the devil tempting Him, but also the Jews through whom he wrought the impiety of his cruelty against the Savior. For, foreknowing that the Jews would call Him an enemy of the Law, He restrained by the testimonies of the Law the impudence of the devil their father, so that He might condemn the father in the sons, and the sons in the father. IX. — Why, after His baptism, did the Savior fast forty days, and afterward hunger (Matt. 4:2)?

For He who fasted forty days could indeed have not hungered. It is written, 'Son, when you come to the service of God, stand in justice and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation' (Sir. 2:1). And therefore the Savior fasted, that He might give us a form; so that in like manner we too, persevering in fasts, might by the help of God overcome every motion of the devil set against us, knowing by the example of the Savior that the snares of the adversary are then the more to be guarded against, when we draw near to the fear of God. For he grieves that we have withdrawn from him: therefore he rages the more against us. This the Savior did for us, not for Himself. Likewise also that He hungered was not for His own cause, but for ours.

For when the temptations of the devil had been overcome by fasts—which for this reason are not written down, because they do not pertain to the advancement of doctrine—afterward, that is, after forty days, He permitted (what belonged to man) that He should suffer hunger: so that the devil, who had already been overcome, seeing weakness in Him again, might be incited once more to tempt, seeing that He was a man by whom he was being conquered. For this was the mystery of the Savior: that, because he had insulted and lorded it over conquered man, he might be conquered by a man, so that the power of God might acquire victory for man: and thus Satan was rendered the more contemptible, when he both perceives a man, and does not understand the power that is not man's. For he marveled, dulled with stupor, that there was a mystery which lay hidden from him:

so that there might be power to approach, but not power to circumvent. For he was tormented by two causes. For seeing weakness, he approached, and found power; so that, perceiving a man, he was made suspicious concerning the power of God. For this end therefore He hungered, that He might mock the cunning of Satan. But for this reason He did not fast longer, that He might agree with Moses and Elijah. X. — What is the meaning that, when John the Baptist had first borne witness to the Savior, he afterward doubted, saying through his disciples: 'Are you He who is to come, or do we await another?' (Matt. 11:3-10)? Those who think that John doubted detract from the Savior. For either they rightly assert that he doubted, or else they charge the Savior with ignorance; because, as they suppose, He praised one who thought ill of himself.

But because it is impossible for the Savior to be deceived, John was rightly praised by Him. If he was rightly praised, he did not doubt. For at the very time when John sent his disciples from prison to Jesus, saying, 'Are you He who is to come, or do we await another?' then Jesus answered his disciples, saying: 'Go, tell John the things you see and hear. The blind see, the deaf hear, the lepers are cleansed, the lame walk, the dead rise, and blessed is he who shall not be scandalized in me.' And as the messengers of John were departing, Jesus began to say to the crowds concerning John the Baptist: 'What did you go out into the desert to see? a reed shaken by the wind, or a man clothed in soft garments?'

Behold, those who are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings. But what did you go out to see? a prophet? I say to you, more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way.' Then the publicans praised God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But how great is the praise given to John, that he should be said to be more than a prophet, and that the Savior calls him blessed who is not scandalized in Him? how then is John held back, who by doubting was scandalized? But surely he did not doubt. For the praise proves him blessed, because he was not scandalized.

For the Savior also, for this reason, at that very time burst forth into the praise of John, that He might show that the mind of John was free from the doubt of his disciples. For John, wishing to strengthen his wondering disciples in faith in the Savior, knowing that his own departure was imminent, willed that the things he had said concerning Him should be confirmed by His own mouth: therefore, that he might be a true witness, he implores the testimony of the greater one, so that by their agreement all ambiguity might be taken away. This was John's device, that he might send his doubting disciples, as it were, by his own words, so that, hearing the same things from the Savior which they had heard from John, they might be confirmed, knowing that the testimony of a worthy steward and of the heavenly Lord cannot be called into doubt.

For this reason the Savior also, as it were, answered John, so that between John questioning and the Savior answering they might learn the truth. XI. — What is the meaning that above we read that Herod was dead (Matt. 2:19), but below, and after many years, that Herod killed John (ibid. 14:1-11), since above, Herod being dead, John survived? Herod was king of Judea: he had four sons, Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias: but when Herod their father was dead, Archelaus succeeded, and when he died, the kingdom of the aforesaid Herod was divided into four parts, so that Pilate was admitted into the fourth part of the kingdom, as a governor, not as a king (Matt. 2:22, and Luke 3:1): but the sons of Herod were called kings.

Then, after Philip had died, Herod his brother took Philip's wife, and on this account he was rebuked by John the Baptist; for which cause Herod, the son of the aforementioned Herod, put John to death. For what does the text say? 'Herod,' it says, 'the tetrarch'; that is, one set over the fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod. Why then is there any doubt, when the meaning of the added surname shows that this is a different Herod? For it is that same one who also slew with the sword James, the brother of John, who afterward, being smitten by an angel of God and swarming with worms, breathed his last. XII. — The Lord taught that we must indeed pray for our enemies: how then is it that they cry out to avenge the souls of the slain, demanding vengeance from the Lord? For the Apocalypse, concerning things to come...

...and that the tribulations of unbelief and of an evil life bear witness to God as the avenger of their causes, and so forth. XIII. — If the Law ceased already when the Saviour or John was preaching, how does the Saviour say: 'I came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfil them'? For if it ceased, how is it not either dissolved or destroyed, since it lost its authority to command? The sayings of the Prophets concerning the Saviour's coming were fulfilled when he came, and so forth. XIV. — John sends to the Lord: 'Art thou he that is to come, or do we look for another' (Matthew 11)? Under his own person he pleads the cause of his disciples. For John did not doubt, he who had said: 'Behold the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sins of the world' (John 1:29):

but in order to satisfy his disciples, he sent them with his own words, so that by the Saviour's own mouth he might confirm what he himself had been teaching about him; that after his own departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. XV. — Why is it said that the Law and the Prophets were rightly in force until John, and ceased afterward (Matthew 11:13)? Because he of whom they prophesied had already come. Why 'until John,' when the Apostle says that we ought to be subject to the Law: 'The powers that be,' he says, 'are ordained of God' (Romans 13:1)? The Law indeed has but one name, yet it has a threefold understanding. For the first part of the Law is about God. For 'Law' is so called from 'reading' (lectio), that out of many things you may know what to choose.

Being placed therefore amid errors, they received the command to choose the truth; that is, having reprobated the devil, they should choose God. Now the second part of the Law is this, namely that which is contained in the precepts, which thus begins: 'Honour thy father and thy mother.' But the third is in the new moons and in the sabbath, and in the distinguishing and choosing of foods, and in circumcision, and in the offering of victims of cattle. This Law, therefore, he says was to be kept only until John. For it was given in such a way that, when the appointed time was completed, it should cease; for it was not from the beginning, but was given for a time on account of a cause, so that when the Saviour came the Law should cease. Therefore of God there abides both the Law of the precepts and his nature, which, being without doubt, cannot be abolished by him.

For through it one advances toward the promised reward. For fear begets solicitude. XVI. — Since the Saviour says that John's baptism is from heaven, why, when he speaks to Nicodemus about baptism and Nicodemus doubts, does he say: 'If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not' (etc.)? What he said, 'If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not,' does not pertain to baptism, and so forth. XVII. — What is the reason that the Saviour at first denied mercy to the foreign woman, that is, the Canaanite (Matthew 15:22-28), whereas to the foreign centurion, and to the leper whom Jesus himself called a foreigner, he did not deny the benefit of bestowing salvation (Luke 7:2-10 and 17:12-19)? The very cause marks out the fitting deed of the Saviour.

For it would have been absurd, and would have worked to the injury of the promise made to the Fathers, if a woman who had not confessed the God of the Jews were to receive the benefit promised to him who confesses God. Therefore at first it was denied to her. But when, with bowed neck, she did not deny faith to the Saviour's words, but confessed that the believing Jews were sons, while the Gentiles were dogs or servants—by which she joined herself to the Lord's faith, since servants point to a master, and a master is not without servants—there came about a unity of the subject and the one subjecting. Hence it is that she deserved to obtain what she had prayed for. But the centurion, who received the benefit from the Saviour without hesitation, had long since given himself over to the things of God. Finally the elders of the Jews say to the Lord:

'He is worthy that thou shouldest grant this to him; for he loveth our nation, and himself hath built us a synagogue.' Now the Lord called the leper a foreigner, not by faith, but by nation. For he was a Samaritan, and it is established that the Samaritans are by origin from the Babylonians. And yet even he obtained the benefit not without confession; for it had been said to the disciples by the Lord: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go rather to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel' (Matthew 10:5-6); that is, that it should not be preached to the Samaritans and Gentiles before the Jews, whose this promise had been. But when the Jews began to reject the faith of Christ, then also the Samaritan woman:

the Saviour offered himself, and after the cross to the centurion Cornelius; but the Canaanite woman, when she besought him, he received; because it was not yet the time for salvation to be offered to them. XVIII. — How is it proved that the Saviour said he would rise from the dead after three days and after three nights, when he suffered on the Preparation of the Passover and rose again at the dawning of the Lord's Day, while it was yet dark? Whence the number of days and nights does not seem to agree. The Saviour, foreknowing all things that were to be in himself, testified these things beforehand, and so forth. XIX. — Why does the Saviour say, 'Pray that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the sabbath' (Matthew 24:20):

since the time of this persecution cannot be deferred, as the Apostle says, 'Who shall be revealed in his own time' (2 Thessalonians 2:6, 8); and in the Acts the Apostle says, 'Determining the appointed times and the bounds of their habitation' (Acts 17:26)? And why does he signify that flight is not expedient in the winter or on the sabbath? In winter flight is not safe: for there is cold, continual rains, snow, frost; rivers overflow; and therefore it is very grievous for those who flee. For they cannot hide in the woods, nor in the mountains, nor in caves. And on the sabbath, according to the Jews, it is not permitted to go far from the city, nor to ascend a height, and on this account flight cannot take place on the sabbath. Even as these seasons do not make flight safe because of the hindrances mentioned above;

so too our flight will not be safe, if the foretold persecution finds us bound by fleshly hindrances. For worldly desires—that is, worldly resources—detain men like fetters, so that they cannot escape the decrees of the devil. Therefore we must pray that, at the time when we must flee, there be not found in us the manner of winter and of the sabbath, but that God's help may make us free from these hindrances, so that there be nothing to hand us over, captive to its desire, to the world. Since therefore the Saviour was speaking of the last persecution, which is to come from Antichrist, he set down winter, because it is the harshest season:

and likewise the sabbath, because it is the last day; so that, just as in these seasons flight is harsh and difficult, so he might signify that at that time the persecutions and pressures would be so grave that scarcely anyone could escape them. XX. — When the Saviour said that he would suffer, and rise again after the third day, he added, 'And after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee; there ye shall see me'; and the angel likewise to the women (Matthew 26:32 and 28:7): yet he is found by the women and by his disciples in Jerusalem. To cavil at 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 meaning: why, when he was seen in Jerusalem after his passion, he said he would be seen by them in Galilee. In Jerusalem he was seen, but piecemeal, to restore the spirits of the disciples; but in Galilee by all together. Therefore, to those who were to see him in Jerusalem in parts, he appointed Galilee, that he might appear to all at once, and might give precepts for the ordering of discipline. XXI. — Three evangelists say that the Saviour was crucified at the sixth hour, but the evangelist Mark says he was crucified at the third hour. But certain diligent men (by their own industry) say that the sentence was given at the third hour, and on this account he was crucified 'at the third hour.'

For once sentence has been given, a man is already reckoned as dead. But it is established that after the fifth hour, in the sixth, Pilate sat upon the judgment seat and thus gave sentence, as John shows. To wrap the truth in obscurities is not good. For the very concord bears witness that the three evangelists spoke the truth, and so forth. XXII. — If the Saviour was baptized in order to be an example, why, being circumcised, did he forbid the rest to be circumcised? Circumcision was granted until Christ. But Abraham received circumcision in Christ who was promised, and so forth. XXIII. — When the Jews accused the disciples of acting against the law of the sabbath by plucking ears of grain, the Saviour brought forward the example of David, saying:

'Have ye not known what David did when he was hungry, how he took the loaves of the shewbread and ate, and gave to those who were with him, which was not lawful except for the priests alone?' Now this example does not seem to excuse the disciples, but both they and David can be seen as transgressors. The Saviour was unwilling to prejudge the Jews concerning the time when the sabbath was fulfilled, and so forth. XXIV. — Why did the Saviour call his disciples 'sons of thunder' (Mark 3:17), who would rather seem to be called 'sons of God'? For thunders are said to be produced by the collision of clouds. Because thunders strike terror, for this cause he called the disciples 'sons of thunder,' as though sons of him who is to be feared.

For although thunders are produced by the collision of clouds, yet they are produced by the will of God, and they are terrible. XXV. — What is the reason that, according to the account of the evangelist Mark, Christ's will is not fulfilled? For it says: 'Entering into a house, he would have no man know it, and he could not be hid.' If then he willed to be hidden and could not, his will was weakened. This is what has been set forth in a summary way, that... he might conceal the meaning, and so forth. XXVI. — In the Gospel we read that the angel says to Mary the mother of the Lord, that of his kingdom—that is, of Christ's—there shall be no end (Luke 1:33). And Daniel says the same: for he says, 'Then shall a kingdom arise for ever, which shall never be corrupted' (Daniel 7:14). Against this the Apostle, concerning the Lord:

'When he shall have delivered up,' he says, 'the kingdom to God and the Father' (1 Corinthians 15:24). How shall he have an eternal kingdom, which he is said to be about to deliver up to God and the Father? In the matter of the Father and the Son—that is, of God and of Christ—a 'delivering up' is to be understood, not an abolition. Consider indeed how the Father delivered the kingdom to the Son, the Lord himself testifying this: 'All things,' he says, 'are delivered unto me by my Father' (Matthew 11:27). If, then, the Father ceased to have it when he delivered it, it can be said also of the Saviour that when he delivered it, he lost it. For the Son, after he said the kingdom was delivered to him by the Father, still preferring the Father, says: 'And this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only and true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent' (John 17:3).

According to this understanding, therefore, both the Son does not lose the kingdom when he delivers it up, so that these things may be true; and the angel and Daniel are not said to be at variance with this understanding. For whoever thinks that the testimony of these is to be cavilled at, is full of treachery. But now let us, remaining in this faith, see what it is for the Son to deliver up the kingdom to the Father: for this is what, among other things, the Apostle says in another place: 'Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all' (1 Corinthians 15:28). This subjection, therefore, is itself the delivering up of the kingdom. And so in this passage an interpretation seems necessary, so that both the Son may not be denied to be subject to the Father, and nonetheless may be said to have an eternal kingdom. This is the kingdom of the Son, because in the name...

...the name of Jesus every knee bows, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Philippians 2:10). This the apostle Peter also confirms, saying: 'There is none other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved' (Acts 4:12). And the Lord himself says to his disciples: 'Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask, and I will do it' (John 16:24). Thus the Son reigns, when all things are saved in his name, and the things that are asked are granted, even to the end of the world. But after all things have confessed Christ, whether by force or by will, and have been subjected to the power of him whom they had resisted, the mystery of the one God shall be manifested to all, and all thanksgiving shall be referred to the Father, from whom are all things;

so that, when the preaching has ceased, the one God may be known in the mystery of the Trinity. For when all powers, all principalities and dominions have bowed the knee to Christ, then the Son will manifest that he is not the one from whom all things are, but the Son of him, and that that One is seen in him. This is the subjection and the delivering up of the kingdom. For, showing that the Father is the one from whom all things are, he subjected himself to him when he says that he is from him. For so great a majesty and brightness is seen at the coming of the Son, that all the powers and choirs of the Angels think this One to be the singular God. But the Saviour, when he has said that he is not that One who is called the Father, but his Son, reigning, delivers up the kingdom to the Father. In this matter both the subjection and the delivering up of the kingdom are made manifest;

because, when he professes himself to be from the Father, whatever he has, he confesses to be the Father's, referring the whole sum to him. XXVII. — The Saviour says, 'If any man forsake not all that he has—that is, house and field and the rest—he cannot be my disciple'; but on the other hand the evangelist says, 'There came Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, who himself also was a disciple of Jesus, waiting for the kingdom of God' (Luke 14:33 and 23:50-51). How is it that the evangelist professes him to be a disciple whom the Saviour denied to be one? For Zacchaeus too was rich, and Cornelius the centurion was rich, and the women who ministered to them out of their substance. This meaning the Apostle resolves in a few words, saying: 'Let those who have be as though they had not;

and those who use this world, as though they used it not; and those who buy, as though they possessed not' (1 Corinthians 7:30-31). Whoever, then, so holds these things as though he had them not, is seen to have forsaken them. For when a man does not presume upon these things, nor boasts himself, but walks humbly—not only in his outward habit but also in mind—understanding himself to be their steward and minister, he is seen to have forsaken all his goods. For that is said to be forsaken which one withdraws from in desire, and holds not as an object of favour. XXVIII. — If the Law and the Prophets were until John, how does the Saviour send to the priests to have gifts offered for cleansing? The apostle Paul had regard to this. For when he was preaching that no one ought any longer to be circumcised, and so forth.

XXIX. — If the Law and the Prophets were until John, from whom the kingdom of heaven was preached (Luke 16:16)—for he is the beginner of the new preaching—why did his baptism cease? The baptism of John, once begun, did not cease, but there was added to it what was lacking. For John only baptized, but did not give the Holy Spirit to believers: as he himself says of the Saviour, 'I baptize you with water unto repentance, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit' (Matthew 3:11). This is what he says: 'Through me is the remission of sins, but the Holy Spirit is not yet given, that we may be called purified sons; for this was reserved to the Saviour, as to the Lord, that they should not become sons of God except by receiving the Holy Spirit from the Son of God.'

The effect, therefore, of John's baptism—which he wrought silently, without interrogation, yet not without mention of the Saviour, that what he did might be firm—is the gift of the Trinity: which the Saviour's condescension showed, giving the form of the three names, which from the beginning wrought one and undivided work under the name or person of the one God. An interpretation, then, was added to John's baptism, with a signification of the mystery long hidden; and a further gift was added, that those baptized, having received the Holy Spirit, might be sons of God. It was therefore amplified, not emptied. XXX. — In the Gospel of John it says, 'The Law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.'

If, then, truth came by Christ, it was not before. If it was not before, how is the Law said to have been given by God, in which there was no truth? We must see what it means, 'The Law was given by Moses.' Now the Law given by Moses has manifest precepts, and so forth. XXXI. — The sabbath surely is the Law, or a part of the Law; how then is the Law not made void, when the evangelist says, 'He not only broke the sabbath, but also said that God was his Father' (John 5:18)? The Saviour indeed broke the sabbath, but without prejudice to the appointed sabbath. For while the time of the sabbath was already ceasing, but the Jews still asserted that the sabbath abode, the Saviour, working on the sabbaths and commanding the sick man to carry his bed on the sabbaths, broke the sabbath according to the understanding of the Jews.

For according to the faith of truth it is as if it were said of what had already ceased, just as it is if it be said of someone who is to be called a 'former prefect,' and had suffered an injury, that 'the prefecture' suffered the injury. The sabbath, therefore, was not dissolved, but the men who impudently claimed the authority of the sabbath were mocked, since a new Law had already succeeded the sabbath. XXXII. — If we live by our own choice, why does the Saviour say, 'No man comes to me, except the Father who sent me draw him'; and, not disagreeing with these, the Apostle says, 'It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy'? By these the freedom of the will's choice seems to be disturbed.

For if no one goes unless he is drawn, there will be no fault of him who does not go because he is not drawn. And if it is not he who asks and runs that receives, but God gives to whom he wills, then he who wills and does not obtain will be without fault and without blame; and the blame redounds upon him who spurns the one who asks. In no way, from these, can the cause of free will be disturbed. For if you refer the sayings to the cause for which they were said, and so forth. XXXIII. — Why is it that, when the Saviour had cured nearly all by a word, he yet restored the eyes of the blind man by clay made from spittle (John 9:6-7)? This the Saviour did for the confusion of those who accuse the Creator. For when he mended the defect that had befallen the body no otherwise than as the Maker had made it, he commended the author of this work.

For he mended it by that whereby it had been made. For everything that is made, if, when it has fallen, it is restored by that whereby it had been made, will be proved to be made aright. For if the Saviour testifies himself to be God by this, that he mended the damages and defects of the body, how much more is he God who is the inventor of the body itself? XXXIV. — What is it that the Saviour says, 'I am the door; all who came before me are thieves and robbers' (John 10:7-8)? This 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 heaven. If, then, he uses the words of a door, what need was there for him to say of those before him, 'As many as came before me,' when no question was being raised about things past;

but surely, as a present door, the question was about those present? For the Saviour speaks of the Jews, who thought to enter into the kingdom of God, not by faith, but by the righteousness of the Law. For coming before the Saviour—that is, standing before him—they disparaged him, contradicting him, so that they might turn others also away from faith in him. Whence they were called thieves and robbers. For at that time these things were said, when the Pharisees were disputing with him who had been enlightened from being blind, to whom the Saviour restored the eyes that nature had denied; and they wished to turn him away from faith in the Saviour, saying that one could not enter into the kingdom of God through this man, because he violates the sabbath, but through the righteousness of the Law. Then the Saviour: 'I am,' he says, 'the door;