Thomas Aquinas

Here he hands down the teaching concerning the life-giving power. And first the teaching itself is set forth; second, its confirmation, at the place, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth his teaching about the life-giving power in general; second, in particular, at the place, "and greater works than these will he show him." Concerning the first he does three things. First he intimates the origin of his power; second, the greatness of that same power, at the place, "for whatever things he shall have done, these the Son also does in like manner"; third, he assigns the reason for both, at the place, "for the Father loves the Son."

Now it must be considered, concerning the first point, that the Arians strive to confirm their error from these words which the Lord here speaks, "the Son cannot do anything of himself," etc. — namely, that the Son is less than the Father — because, according to what the Evangelist said, the Jews were persecuting Christ because he was making himself equal to God. The Lord, seeing that the Jews were moved by this, wishing to exclude this (so the Arians say), added such words in order to show that he was not equal to the Father, saying: "Amen, amen I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he shall have seen the Father doing"; as if he were saying: do not understand me, by what I said, "my Father works, and I work," to work in such a way as though I were equal to him, since I can do nothing of myself. Since therefore the Son cannot do anything except what he shall have seen the Father doing, he is indeed less than the Father, as they themselves say.

But this understanding is false and erroneous: because if the Son were not equal to the Father, then the Son would not be the same as the Father, which is against that word below, John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." For equality is considered according to magnitude, which in divine things is the very essence. Hence if he were unequal to the Father, he would differ from him according to essence.

But for the true understanding of this, it must be known that, concerning those things which seem to import a lessening in the Son, it could be said by some that these things are said of Christ according to the assumed nature, just as it is said below, John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." Hence according to this they would want to say that what the Lord says, "the Son cannot do anything of himself," must be understood of the Son according to the assumed nature. This indeed cannot stand, because according to this it would be necessary to say that all the things which the Son of God did in the assumed nature, the Father had done before him — for instance, that he had walked upon the sea with dry feet, just as Christ walked, otherwise it would not be said "except what he shall have seen the Father doing."

But if it be said that whatever things Christ did in the flesh, God the Father also did, insofar as the Father works in him, according to that word below, John 14:10: "but the Father abiding in me, he himself does the works"; so that the sense would be: "the Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he shall have seen the Father doing" — in himself, namely in the Son — but neither can this stand, because according to this the words that follow could not be adapted to it, namely, "whatever things he shall have done, these the Son also does in like manner." For the Son never, according to the assumed nature, created the world, as the Father created it. Therefore what is said is not to be referred to the assumed nature.

According to Augustine, however, there is another way of understanding those things which seem to import a lessening in the Son, although they do not: namely, that they be referred to the origin of the Son from the Father. For although the Son is equal to the Father in all things, nevertheless he has this very thing from the Father through eternal generation; but the Father has it from no one, since he is unbegotten. Hence according to this it continues thus: Why are you scandalized, because I have called my Father God, and because I have made myself equal to God? Amen, amen I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of himself; as if he were saying: I am indeed equal to the Father, in such a way that I am from him, not he from me; and whatever I have, so that I may do it, is mine from the Father.

According to this manner, then, mention is made in these words of the power of the Son, through this word "can," and of his operation through this word "do." And therefore both can be understood here: namely, so that first the derivation of the Son's power from the Father may be shown; and second, so that the conformity of the Son's operation to the operation of the Father may be shown.

As to the first, Hilary explains it in this way. Above, the Lord said that he was equal to the Father. But certain heretics, on account of the authorities of Scripture which speak of the unity and equality of the Son with the Father, attribute to the Son that he is unbegotten — as the Sabellians, saying that the Son is the same as the Father in person. Lest, then, you should understand it thus, he says: "the Son cannot do anything of himself," for the power of the Son is the same as his nature. From him, therefore, the Son has his power from whom he has his being; but he has his being from the Father — below, John 16:28: "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world" — from whom also he has his nature, because he is God from God; therefore from him he has his power. Thus, then, what he says: "the Son cannot do anything, except what he shall have seen the Father doing," amounts to as much as if it were said: the Son, just as he does not have being except from the Father, so too he does not have the power to do anything except from the Father. For in natural things, a thing receives its power to operate from the same source from which it receives its being, just as fire receives its capacity to ascend upward from that from which it receives its form and being. Nor, however, is inequality implied by his saying, "the Son cannot do anything of himself"; for this pertains to relation, whereas the question of equality and inequality pertains to quantity.

But by his saying, "except what he shall have seen the Father doing," a false understanding might creep in for someone, so that he would believe the Son to act in this way because he saw the Father doing it — namely, that the Father did it first, and having seen this, the Son afterward began to do it, after the manner of two craftsmen, namely a master and a disciple, where the disciple makes a chest according to the manner in which he has seen the master make it. But this indeed is not true of the Word; for above it is said: "all things were made through him." Therefore the Father did not make anything in such a way that the Son would see it being made and learn it thereby. But this is said in order to designate the communication of fatherhood to the Son through generation, which is fittingly designated by this word "shall have seen," because through sight and hearing knowledge is poured into us from another. For indeed through sight we receive knowledge from things, but through hearing from words. But the Son is nothing other than Wisdom, according to that word, Ecclesiasticus 24:5: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before every creature." And thus the derivation of the Son from the Father is nothing other than the derivation of divine wisdom. Since, therefore, vision designates the derivation of knowledge and wisdom from another, the generation of the Son from the Father is rightly designated through vision, so that thus for the Son to see the Father doing is nothing other than to proceed by an intelligible procession from the Father who operates.

But another reason can also be assigned concerning this matter, according to Hilary; namely, that by his saying "shall have seen," every imperfection may be excluded from the generation of the Son or the Word. For in material generation, that which is generated is led little by little, through increments of time, from the imperfect to the perfect; for a thing is not yet perfect when it begins to be generated. But this has no place in the eternal generation, since it is the generation of a perfect one from a perfect one. And therefore he says, "except what the Son shall have seen the Father doing." For since to see is the act of one who is perfect, it is manifest that the Son was begotten perfect at once, as one seeing at once, and is not led to perfection through increments of time.

As to the second point, Chrysostom explains it — namely, in order to show the conformity of the Father to the Son as regards operation — in this way. I say that it is lawful for me to work on the Sabbath, because my Father too works continually, to whom I cannot work contrary; and this because "the Son cannot do anything of himself," etc. For then does someone do a thing of himself, when in doing it he does not conform himself to another. But whoever is from another, if he is at variance with him, sins — below, John 7:18: "he who speaks of himself, seeks his own glory." Whoever, therefore, existing from another, works of himself, sins; but the Son is from the Father; therefore if he works of himself, he sins — which is impossible. By this, then, that the Lord says, "the Son cannot do anything of himself," etc., he intimates nothing other than that the Son cannot sin. As if he were saying: you unjustly persecute me for the breaking of the Sabbath, because I cannot sin, since I do not work contrary things to my Father. Now Augustine gives both explanations, namely that of Hilary and that of Chrysostom, though in different places.

Next, when he says, "for whatever things he shall have done, these the Son also does in like manner," the greatness of Christ's power is set forth, and he excludes in these words three things concerning his power: namely, particularity, diversity, and imperfection.

Particularity: because, since there are diverse agents in the world, and the first universal agent has power over all agents, while the other agents, which are from it, are of a power the more particular, the more they are lower in the order of causality, someone might believe from this that, since the Son is not of himself, he has a particular power with respect to certain existing things, and not a universal power with respect to all things, as the Father has. And therefore, excluding this, he says, "for whatever things he" — that is, the Father — "shall have done" — that is, to all things to which the power of the Father extends, the power of the Son also extends. Above, John 1:3: "all things were made through him."

Diversity, however: because sometimes one thing, existing from another, can indeed do whatever that from which it is does, and yet nonetheless the things which it does are not the same as those which the one from whom it is does. As if one fire, existing from another, can do whatever the other does, for instance to burn — yet this one burns certain things, and that one others, although the burning of each is the same according to species. Lest, therefore, you understand the operation of the Son to be thus diverse from the operation of the Father, he says "these" — that is, not diverse, but the same.

Imperfection, however: because sometimes it happens that one and the same thing comes about from two agents, but from one indeed as from a principal and perfect agent, and from the other as from an instrument and an imperfect agent; but not in like manner, because the principal agent acts in one way, and the instrument in another, since the instrument acts imperfectly, inasmuch as it acts in the power of another. Lest, therefore, you understand in this way that the Son does whatever the Father does, he adds "in like manner" — that is, by the same power by which the Father acts, the Son also acts; because there is the same power and the same perfection in the Father and the Son; Proverbs 8:30: "I was with him forming all things."

Next, when he says, "for the Father loves the Son," he assigns the reason for both — namely, of the origin and of the greatness of the power of the Son; and this reason indeed is assigned from the love of the Father, who loves the Son; hence he says: "for the Father loves the Son." But in order to know how the love of the Father for the Son is the reason for the origin, or for the communication of the power of the Son, it must be attended to that a thing is loved in two ways. For since only the good is lovable, some good can be related to love in two ways: namely, either as the cause of love, or as caused by love. In us, however, the good causes love; for the cause of our love toward someone is his goodness. For he is not good because we love him; rather we love him because he is good; hence in us love is caused by the good. But in God it is otherwise, because the very love of God is the cause of goodness in the things loved; for because God loves us, therefore we are good, for to love is nothing other than to will good to someone. Since, therefore, the will of God is the cause of things — because "whatever the Lord willed, he has done," as Psalm 113:3 says — it is manifest that the love of God is the cause of goodness in things. Hence Dionysius says, chapter 6 of On the Divine Names, that the divine love did not permit him to be without offspring. Therefore, if we consider the origin of the Son, let us see whether the love with which the Father loves the Son is the principle of that origin, or proceeds from it.

Now love in divine things is taken in two ways: namely, essentially, according as the Father loves, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and notionally, or personally, according as the Holy Spirit proceeds as love. But in neither of these two ways can love, so called, be the principle of the origin of the Son. For insofar as it is taken essentially, it imports thus an act of the will. If, then, it were the principle of the origin of the Son, it would follow that the Father had begotten the Son by will, not by nature — which is erroneous. Likewise also not love taken notionally, insofar as it pertains to the Holy Spirit, because then it would follow that the Holy Spirit was the principle of the Son — which is erroneous; indeed no heretic has ever said this. For although love taken notionally is the principle of all the gifts which are given to us by God, nevertheless it is not the principle of the Son; rather it itself proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Thus, then, it must be said that this reason is not taken from love as from a principle, but as from a sign. For since likeness is the cause of love (for every animal loves its like), where the perfect likeness of God is found, there also the perfect love of God is found. Now the perfect likeness of the Father is in the Son, according to that word, Colossians 1:15: "who is the image of the invisible God"; Hebrews 1:3: "who, since he is the brightness, glory, and figure of his substance." Perfectly, therefore, is the Son loved by the Father; and therefore, because he loves him perfectly, it is a sign that the Father has shown him all things and has communicated to him his power and nature. And of this love it is said above, John 2:35: "the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand." And Matthew 3:17: "this is my beloved son."

Concerning, however, what follows, "and he shows him all things which he himself does," it must be known that someone can show his works to another in two ways. Either as to sight, as a craftsman shows to his disciple the things which he makes; or as to hearing, as when he instructs him by word. In whichever of these two ways, then, "shows" is taken, a twofold unfitting consequence can follow — which, however, is not present in that showing by which the Father shows the Son.

For if the Father is said to show the Son as to sight, first indeed it follows, in these lower things, that he first works something which he shows to another; and second, that he works it apart from the one to whom he shows it. But the Father does not show the Son things which he made beforehand, because the Son himself says, Proverbs 8:22: "the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything." Nor, likewise, things which he makes apart from the Son; because the Father works all things through the Son — above, John 1:3: "all things were made through him."

But if the showing be taken as to hearing, two things seem to follow: for he who teaches by word first shows to one who is ignorant; and second, the word stands between the one showing and the one to whom the showing is made. But the Father shows the Son in neither of these ways: not indeed as to one ignorant, since the Son is the wisdom of the Father — 1 Corinthians 1:24: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God"; nor by some other word as intermediary, because the Son himself is the Word of the Father — above, John 1: "the Word was with God."

The Father, therefore, is said to show the Son all things that he does, insofar as he communicates to him the knowledge of all his works; for thus a master is said to show his disciple, insofar as he gives him knowledge of the things which he does. Hence, according to Augustine, for the Father to show the Son is nothing other than for the Father to beget the Son. And for the Son to see what the Father does is nothing other than for the Son to be and to receive his nature from the Father.

That showing, however, can be said to be similar to the visual kind, inasmuch as the Son himself is the brightness of the Father's vision, as it is said, Hebrews 1:3: for the Father, seeing and understanding himself, conceives the Son, who is the concept of this vision. It can also be similar to that which comes about through hearing, inasmuch as the Son proceeds from the Father as the Word. So that it might be said that the Father shows the Son all things, insofar as he produces him as the brightness, and the concept of his wisdom, and the Word.

This, then, that he says "shows," is referred to what he said above: "the Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he shall have seen the Father doing." But this, that he says "all things," is referred to what he said: "for whatever things he shall have done, these the Son also does in like manner."