Commentary on the Gospel of John

After the Lord showed that his teaching has an illuminating power, here he consequently shows that it has a life-giving power; and first he shows this by word, second by miracle: chapter 11, there, "Now a certain man was sick," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows that he has the life-giving power; second he shows the manner of giving life, there, "I am the good shepherd," etc.; third he shows the power of giving life, there, "A dissension therefore arose again among the Jews because of these words." The first part is divided into three: for first the Lord proposes a certain parable; second the Evangelist suggests the necessity of its exposition, "This proverb he spoke to them," etc.; third the Lord furnishes the exposition of the parable, there, "Jesus said to them again," etc. Now he proposes the parable to them saying, "Amen, amen I say to you." It indeed consists of two parts, namely concerning the thief and the shepherd of the sheep. Hence concerning it he does three things. First he proposes the condition of the thief and the robber; second, of the shepherd, there, "But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep"; third, the effect of each, there, "And the sheep follow him," etc.

Now for the understanding of this, first it must be considered who the sheep are, who indeed are the faithful of Christ, and those who are in the grace of God; Psalm 94:7: "But we are his people and the sheep of his pasture"; Ezekiel 34:31: "But you, the sheep of my pasture, are men." The sheepfold of the sheep, therefore, is the congregation of the faithful people; Micah 2:12: "I will gather all of you, Jacob; I will bring together the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as a flock in the fold." But the door of the sheepfold is understood one way according to Chrysostom, and another way according to Augustine.

For according to Chrysostom, Christ calls the sacred Scriptures the door, according to that word of Colossians 4:3: "Praying at the same time for us also, that God may open a door for the word." Now sacred Scripture is called a door, as Chrysostom says, first because through it we have access to the knowledge of God; Romans 1:2-3: "Which he had promised by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." Second, because just as a door guards the sheep, so sacred Scripture preserves the life of the faithful; above, John 5:39: "Search the Scriptures, because you think in them to have life." Third, because a door does not permit wolves to come upon the sheep: thus sacred Scripture keeps heretics away from harming the faithful; 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture, divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice." He therefore does not enter by the door who does not enter to teach the people by way of sacred Scripture. Hence the Lord says of such men, Matthew 15:9: "And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men"; ibid. v. 6: "You have made void the commandment of God."

This, then, is the condition of the thief: that he does not enter by the door, but from elsewhere. Now he adds "climbs up," which also fits the parable, since thieves not entering by the door climb over the walls and hurl themselves down into the sheepfold. It also fits the truth: because the reason why some teach otherwise than sacred Scripture holds arises chiefly from pride; 1 Timothy 6:3-4: "If any man teach otherwise, and does not agree with the sacred words, he is proud, knowing nothing." And as to this he says "climbs up," namely through pride. He, I say, who thus climbs up from elsewhere, is a thief, by seizing what is not his own, and a robber, by killing what he seizes; Obadiah 1:5: "If thieves had come in to you, if robbers by night, how would you have held your peace?"

And according to this exposition, it is connected to what precedes in this way. For since the Lord had said, "If you were blind, you would not have sin," the Jews could respond and say: it is not from our blindness that we do not believe you, but from your error, on account of which we turn away from you. And therefore the Lord, excluding this, wishes to show that he is not in error, because he enters by the door, that is, through sacred Scripture; that is, he teaches those things which sacred Scripture contains. But against this is the fact that the Lord, further on in this same chapter, explaining, says, "I am the door," etc., from which it seems that by the door Christ ought to be understood. To which Chrysostom says that in this parable the Lord says that he is both the door and the shepherd; hence, according as he calls himself in different ways, the door is spoken of in different ways, because, insofar as he calls himself the shepherd, it is necessary that the door be something other than himself, since the shepherd and the door are not the same thing. But nothing other than Christ can more fittingly be called the door than sacred Scripture, on account of the reasons stated above. Fittingly, therefore, sacred Scripture is called the door.

According to Augustine, here by the door Christ is understood: and this, because it is through him that one enters; Apocalypse 4:1: "After this I saw a great door," etc. Whoever, therefore, enters into the sheepfold, must enter through the door, namely Christ, and not from elsewhere. But it must be noted that to enter the sheepfold belongs both to the shepherd and to the sheep: to the sheep indeed, that it may be preserved there; but to the shepherd, that he may preserve the sheep. If, therefore, you wish to enter as a sheep, that you may be preserved there, or as a shepherd, that you may preserve the sheep, you must enter the sheepfold through Christ, from no other place than through Christ; unlike the philosophers, who treated of the principal virtues, and the Pharisees, who established ceremonial traditions. But these are neither shepherds nor sheep, because, as the Lord says, "he who does not enter by the door into the sheepfold of the sheep," namely through Christ, but from elsewhere, "is a thief and a robber"; because he kills both himself and others. For Christ is the door of the sheepfold, that is, of the congregation of the faithful, and no other; Romans 5:1-2: "We have peace with God through Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God"; Acts 4:12: "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved."

And according to this exposition it is connected to what precedes in this way. For since they said they saw without Christ, according to what he had said, "Now because you say, We see, your sin remains," the Lord therefore shows this to be false, because they do not enter by the door, saying, "Amen, amen I say to you." Now it must be known that just as he who as a sheep does not enter by the door cannot be preserved; so too neither can he who enters as a shepherd preserve, unless he enters by the door, namely through Christ; and it is through this door that the true shepherds entered, concerning whom Hebrews 5:4: "No man takes the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." But evil shepherds do not enter by the door, but through ambition, and secular power, and simony; and these are thieves and robbers; Hosea 8:4: "They have reigned, and I knew it not"; that is, I did not approve of it. And he says "but climbs up from elsewhere," because this door, namely Christ, since it is small through humility—Matthew 11:29: "Learn of me, because I am meek"—none can enter except those who imitate the humility of Christ. Those, therefore, who do not enter by the door, climb up from elsewhere, that is, they are proud, and do not imitate him who, though he was God, was made man; and they do not acknowledge their own humility.

Here he treats of the shepherd, and first he sets down the condition of the shepherd; second he shows through signs that this one is the shepherd, there, "To him the doorkeeper opens." Now the condition of the true shepherd is to enter by the door, that is, the testimonies of sacred Scripture; hence he was saying, Luke 24:44: "All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me." He is called shepherd, Jeremiah 17:16: "I am not troubled, following you as shepherd"; Ecclesiasticus 18:13: "He that has mercy teaches and instructs, as a shepherd does his flock." But if Christ is understood by the door, as Augustine explains, then he who enters by the door thus enters through himself. And this is proper to Christ: for no one can enter the door, namely to beatitude, except through the truth, because beatitude is nothing other than joy concerning the truth. But Christ, insofar as he is God, is the truth: and therefore, insofar as he is man, he enters through himself, namely through the truth, which is himself insofar as he is God. But we ourselves are not the truth itself, but we are sons of light, through participation in the true and uncreated light; and therefore it is necessary for us to enter through the truth, which is Christ; below, John 17:17: "Sanctify them in the truth"; below: "If anyone enters through me, he shall be saved." But if anyone also wishes to enter as a shepherd, it is necessary that he enter by the door, that is, Christ, namely according to his truth, will, and ordination; hence it is said, Ezekiel 34:23: "I will set up one shepherd over them, who shall feed them, my servant David," as if he were saying: they must be given through me, and not through others, or through themselves.

Here he sets down the signs of the good shepherd, which are three. The first is taken from the side of the doorkeeper, namely that he is let in by him; and as to this he says, "the doorkeeper opens." Now this doorkeeper, according to Chrysostom, is he who opens the way to the knowledge of sacred Scripture, who was first Moses, who first received and instituted the sacred Scriptures. And this one opens to Christ, because, as it is said above, John 5:46: "If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me." Or, according to Augustine, the doorkeeper is Christ himself, because he himself brings men in to himself; he says: he opens himself, who explains himself, and we enter only through his grace; Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you are saved." Nor does it matter if Christ, who is the door, is himself also the doorkeeper; for certain things fit together in spiritual matters which cannot be so in bodily matters. But the shepherd and the door seem to differ more than the door and the doorkeeper. Since, therefore, Christ is called both shepherd and door, as has been said, much more can he be called both door and doorkeeper. But if you seek another person as doorkeeper besides Moses and Christ, see the doorkeeper as the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says. For it belongs to the office of the doorkeeper to open the door, and of the Holy Spirit it is said below, John 16:13: "He will teach you all truth." For Christ is the door, insofar as he is the truth.

The second sign is taken from the side of the sheep, namely that they obey him. And this is what he says, "And the sheep hear his voice": which indeed, if considered from the likeness of the natural shepherd, is reasonably said, because, just as sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd through accustomed familiarity, so also the faithful and just hear the voice of Christ; Psalm 94:8: "Today if you shall hear his voice." But against this. Many are the sheep of Christ, who nevertheless did not hear his voice, as Paul. Likewise some heard, and were not sheep, as Judas. To this it could be said, that Judas for that time was a sheep of Christ, as regards present righteousness. But Paul, when he did not hear the voice of Christ, was not a sheep, but a wolf; but the voice of Christ, coming to him, changed the wolf into a sheep. But this answer could be maintained, if it were not contrary to what Ezekiel 4:4 says: "That which was broken you have not bound up, and that which was in error you have not brought back." From which it appears that even when they were broken and erring, they were still sheep. And therefore it must be said that the Lord here speaks of his sheep, not only according to present righteousness, but also according to eternal predestination. For there is a certain voice of Christ which no one can hear except the predestined, namely, "he who shall persevere to the end": Matthew 10:22. Therefore he also says, "and the sheep hear his voice," because they could excuse themselves of their unbelief, saying that not only they themselves, but also none of the rulers believes in him. Hence, responding to this, he says, "and the sheep hear his voice"; as if he were saying: they therefore do not believe, because they are not of my sheep.

The third sign is taken from the acts of the shepherd himself; and as to this he says, "he calls his own sheep by name." Where he sets down four acts of the good shepherd. First indeed, that he knows the sheep. Hence he says that he calls his own sheep by name: in which he shows his knowledge of, and familiarity with, the sheep. For we call by name those whom we know familiarly; Exodus 33:17: "I know you by name." And indeed this belongs to the office of the good shepherd, according to that word of Proverbs 27:23: "Diligently consider the countenance of your flock." And this indeed fits Christ according to present knowledge, or rather according to eternal predestination, which he has known by name from eternity; Psalm 146:4: "Who counts the multitude of the stars, and calls them all by their names"; 2 Timothy 2:19: "The Lord knows who are his." Second, that he leads them out, that is, separates them from the company of the impious; Psalm 106:14: "He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death." Third, because, having already led them out from the impious, and brought them into the sheepfold, he again leads them out from the sheepfold. First indeed for the salvation of others; Isaiah 66:19: "I will send of them that shall be saved... to Lydia"; Matthew 10:16: "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves"; namely so that you may make sheep out of wolves. Second, for the direction and way of eternal salvation; Luke 1:79: "To direct our feet into the way of peace." Fourth, he goes before them by the example of good conduct; hence he says, "and he goes before them," which indeed is not so with a bodily shepherd, who rather follows, according to that word of Psalm 77:70: "He took him from following the ewes great with young." But the good shepherd goes before them by example; 1 Peter 5:3: "Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart." But Christ goes before them in both sendings: because he first underwent death for the teaching of the truth, Matthew 16:24: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me"; and he went before all into eternal life. Micah 2:13: "He is gone up that shall open the way before them."

Here he treats of the effect of each, namely of the thief, and of the shepherd, upon the sheep, and first he sets down the effect of the good shepherd; second, the effect of the wolf and the thief, there, "But a stranger they do not follow." He says, therefore—since what has been said concerns the conditions of each—that "the sheep follow him," namely him who goes before them. And this indeed is evident, because subjects follow the footsteps of their prelates, as it is said, 1 Peter 2:21: "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps"; Job 23:11: "My foot has followed his steps." And this is so, because "they know his voice," that is, they recognize it and delight in it; Song of Songs 2:14: "Let your voice sound in my ears: for your voice is sweet." But the effect of the thief is that the sheep do not follow him for long, but only for a time; hence he says, "but a stranger they do not follow"; that is, they do not follow a lying and heretical teacher; Psalm 17:46: "Strange children have lied to me." Thus also Paul did not follow lying teachers for long. But "they flee from him"; and this is so, because, as it is said, 1 Corinthians 15:33, "evil communications corrupt good manners." And they flee for this reason, because "they do not know," that is, they do not approve, "the voice of strangers," that is, their teaching, which creeps like a canker.

Here the Evangelist sets forth the necessity of expounding the comparison set down above, a necessity which indeed is caused by the ignorance of the hearers. First, he touches upon the cause of the ignorance; second, he makes manifest the ignorance itself. Now the cause of the ignorance was Christ's proverbial manner of speaking; and this is what he says: "This proverb Jesus spoke to them." Now a proverb is properly so called when one thing is put in place of another; that is, when one saying is given to be understood by the likeness of another thing — which is also called a parable. Now the Lord spoke in proverbs, first indeed on account of the wicked, so as to hide from them the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; Luke 8:10: "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to the rest in parables." Second, on account of the good, that by means of the proverbs they might be exercised in inquiry; hence after the Lord had proposed proverbs or parables to the crowds, the disciples questioned Christ apart, as is found in Matthew 13:10 and Mark 4:10. Hence Augustine also says: the Lord feeds with what is manifest (that is, the faithful crowds), he exercises with what is obscure, namely the disciples.

He makes manifest the ignorance when he says: "But they did not understand what he was saying." Now the ignorance which arose from the proverbs proposed by Christ was both useful and harmful. But useful to the good and the just who sought exercise unto the praise of God: for while they do not understand these things, they believe, and glorify the Lord, and his wisdom existing above themselves; Proverbs 25:2: "It is the glory of God to conceal the word." But harmful to the wicked, because, not understanding, they blaspheme, according to that saying in the Canonical Epistle of Jude, verse 10: "Whatsoever things they know not, they blaspheme." For, as Augustine says, when the pious man and the impious man hear the words of the Gospel, and both do not understand, the pious man says: "It is true and it is good what he says, but we do not understand." And this one indeed already knocks, to whom it is fitting that it be opened, but only if he persists. The impious man says: "He said nothing, it is evil what he speaks."

Here the Lord expounds the comparison. Now if the aforesaid comparison be rightly considered, it contained two principal clauses, to which the others are consequent. Of which the first is: "He who does not enter by the door into the sheepfold of the sheep... he is a thief and a robber." The second, however, is: "He who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep." And therefore this part is divided into two: for first he expounds the first clause; second, the second, at the place "I am the good shepherd." Concerning the first he does two things. First he expounds what the first clause contained; second he proves these things, at the place "I am the door." Now mention is made in the first clause of the door, the thief, and the robber. First he expounds the first; second the second, at the place "All whosoever have come are thieves and robbers."

As to the first he says: "Jesus therefore said to them again" — namely, so as to render them more attentive, and that they might understand the comparison; Proverbs 1:6: "He shall attend to a parable and its interpretation," etc. "Amen, amen I say to you" — that is, truly — "I am the door." For the office of a door is that through it someone may enter into the interior of the house; and this befits Christ: for through him it is necessary for anyone to enter into the secrets of God; Psalm 117:20: "This is the gate of the Lord" — namely Christ — "and the just shall enter into it." Now he says "of the sheep," because not only are shepherds introduced through Christ into the present Church, or enter through Christ into eternal blessedness, but the sheep also; hence below, in this same chapter: "My sheep hear my voice... and follow me, and I give them eternal life."

Consequently, when he says "All whosoever have come are thieves and robbers," he expounds what he said concerning the thief and the robber: and first he shows who is a thief and a robber; second he sets down the sign of this. Concerning the first, however, the error of the Manicheans must be guarded against, who, condemning the Old Testament from the fact that it is said "all whosoever have come are thieves," say that the fathers of the Old Testament, who were before Christ, were wicked and damned. But that this is false appears from three things.

First indeed from what was said in the parable. For what is here said, "all whosoever have come," is set down as expository of what precedes; but there it is said, that they entered, etc. Those therefore, all whosoever come — namely not through me, that is, not entering through the door — are thieves and robbers. Now it is evident that the patriarchs and prophets all entered through the door, that is, through Christ, whom Christ, who was to come, sent as heralds. For although he received flesh in time, and was made man, yet from eternity he was the Word of God; Hebrews 13:8: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also forever." Now the prophets were sent through the Word of God and Wisdom; Wisdom 7:27: "Through the nations she passes into holy souls" (namely, the wisdom of God), "she makes them prophets and friends of God." And therefore we read, significantly, in the prophets, that the word of the Lord came to this or that prophet, who prophesied through participation in the Word of God.

Second, from the fact that the Lord says "have come," as if to say: by their own authority and not sent by God, thrusting themselves in; concerning whom Jeremiah 23:21: "I did not send them, and they ran." These indeed did not come from the Word of God; Ezekiel 13:3: "Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and see nothing." Such were not the fathers of the Old Testament, as has been said.

Third, from the fact itself, which the sequence of the words shows, for here it is said: "the sheep did not hear them." Those, therefore, whom the sheep heard, were not thieves and robbers. Now the people of Israel heard the prophets. Therefore those who did not hear are censured in sacred Scripture; Acts 7:52: "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?" Matthew 23:37: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets, and stone those who are sent to you."

Thus, therefore, with the error excluded, it must be said that "all whosoever have come" — namely apart from me, and apart from divine inspiration and authority, and not with the intention of seeking the divine glory, but of usurping their own — "are thieves," inasmuch as they usurp to themselves what is not their own, namely the authority of teaching; Isaiah 1:23: "Your princes are faithless, companions of thieves"; and "robbers," because through depraved doctrine they kill; Matthew 21:13: "But you have made it a den of robbers"; Hosea 6:9: "an associate of robbers, murdering those who journey along the way." But "them" — namely the thieves and robbers — "the sheep," the predestined, "did not hear," namely perseveringly; otherwise they would not have been of Christ's sheep, because they do not follow a stranger, but flee from him: as is said above in this same chapter. This too is commanded in Deuteronomy 13:3: "You shall not hear the words of that prophet or dreamer."

"I am the door." Here he makes manifest the exposition, and first the exposition of the door; second, of the thief, at the place "the thief does not come." Concerning the first he does two things. First he takes up again what he intends to expound; second he expounds it. Now he takes up again what he said: "I am the door." Song of Songs, last chapter, verse 9: "If it be a door, let us join it together with boards of cedar" — that is, let us attribute to it an incorruptible power.

He expounds it, however, when he says: "By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved." Where first he shows that there belongs to him the use of the door, which is to save the sheep; second he intimates the manner of salvation, at the place "he shall go in and go out." Now a door saves by keeping back those within so that they do not go forward, and by defending against those outside, so that they are not invaded. And this befits Christ, for through him we are saved and protected. And this is what he says: "By me" — namely the door — "if any man," not feigned, "shall enter in," into the fellowship of the Church and of the faithful, "he shall be saved" — supply: if he perseveres; Acts 4:12: "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved"; Romans 5:10: "much more shall we be saved by his life."

Now the manner of salvation is set down when he says: "and he shall go in and go out, and shall find pastures": which words indeed can be expounded in four ways.

First indeed, according to Chrysostom, nothing else ought to be understood than the security and liberty of those who adhere to Christ. For he who ascends by some other way than through the door does not have free entrance and exit; but he who enters through the door has free exit, because he can go out freely. When therefore he says "he shall go in and go out," the sense, according to this comparison, is that the apostles, adhering to Christ, enter with security, conversing with the faithful who are within the Church, and with the unbelievers who are outside, since they became masters of the whole world, and no one was able to cast them out; Numbers 27:16: "May the Lord the God of the spirits of all flesh provide a man over this people, who may be able to go out and go in, lest the people of the Lord be as sheep without a shepherd." "And he shall find pastures" — that is, delight in their manner of life; and they had joy even amid the persecutions of the unbelievers for the name of Christ; according to that saying, Acts 5:41: "The apostles went rejoicing from the presence of the council, because they were counted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus."

Second, it can be expounded according to Augustine on John. Upon anyone acting well, two things are incumbent, namely that he conduct himself well with regard to the things that are within him, and to the things that are without. Now within man is the spirit; but without is the body; 2 Corinthians 4:16: "Although our outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." He therefore who adheres to Christ will indeed go in through contemplation, to the keeping of conscience; Wisdom 8:16: "Entering into my house" — namely, conscience — "I will rest with her" — namely, wisdom. "And he shall go out," outward, namely through good action, to subdue the body; Psalm 103:23: "Man shall go forth to his work, and to his labor until the evening"; and "he shall find pastures," namely in a clean and devout conscience; Psalm 16:15: "I will appear before your sight, I shall be satisfied when your glory shall appear"; and in action he shall find pastures, namely fruits; Psalm 125:6: "But coming, they shall come with joyfulness, carrying their sheaves."

The third exposition is also of the same Augustine, and of blessed Gregory on Ezekiel, so that the sense is: "he shall go in," into the Church, by believing; Psalm 41:5: "I shall pass into the place of the wonderful tabernacle," which is to enter into the Church militant; and "he shall go out," namely from the militant to the Church triumphant; Song of Songs 3:11: "Go forth, daughters of Sion, and see king Solomon in the diadem with which his mother crowned him on the day of his espousals"; and "he shall find pastures," in the Church militant, namely of doctrine and grace; Psalm 22:2: "He has set me in a place of pasture"; and in the Church triumphant, namely of glory; Ezekiel 34:14: "I will feed them in the most fruitful pastures."

Fourth, it is expounded in the book On the Spirit and the Soul, which is attributed to Augustine, though it is not his: where it is said that the saints will go in, to contemplate the divinity of Christ, and will go out, to consider his humanity; and in both they will find pastures, because in both they will taste the joys of contemplation; Isaiah 33:17: "They shall see the king in his beauty."

Here therefore he speaks of the thief, and first he sets down the property of the thief; second he asserts that the contrary property is present in himself, at the place "I have come that they may have life," etc. He says therefore that those who do not enter through the door, that is, who have come apart from me, are themselves thieves and robbers, whose condition is evil. For first indeed "the thief does not come but to steal," that is, to usurp what is not his own, namely when the seditious and heretics join to themselves those who are Christ's; Psalm 10:9: "He lies in wait that he may catch the poor man." Second, the thief comes "to kill," that is, to slay, by introducing perverse doctrine and depraved morals; Hosea 6:9: "an associate of robbers, murdering those who journey along the way from Shechem." Third, "to destroy," by casting into eternal perdition; Jeremiah 50:6: "My people has become a lost flock." Which conditions indeed are not in me.

"I have come that they may have life"; as if to say: those men did not come through me, for they would do things like what I do; but they do the contrary: for they steal, kill, and destroy. "I have come that they may have life," namely of righteousness, entering the Church militant through faith; Hebrews 10:38 and Romans 1:17: "But the just man lives by faith." Concerning this life it is said, 1 John 3:14: "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren." "And that they may have it more abundantly," namely eternal life, when going out from the body: concerning which eternal life it is said below, John 17:3: "That they may know you, the only true God."

Here he expounds the second clause of the aforementioned parable, namely, he who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep, and first he sets forth the exposition; second he makes it clear, at the place I am the good shepherd, and so on. He expounds that particular point by saying that he himself is the good shepherd: second, he subjoins the office of the good shepherd, at the place the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep; third, he shows the contrary concerning the bad shepherd, at the place but the hireling ... sees the wolf coming, and flees. He says therefore, as to the first point, I am the good shepherd. That Christ is a shepherd manifestly belongs to him: for just as through a shepherd the flock is governed and fed, so the faithful are refreshed by Christ with spiritual food, and also with his own body and blood; 1 Peter 2:25: "You were once like sheep having no shepherd, but you have now been converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls"; Isaiah 40:11: "as a shepherd he will feed his flock." But to distinguish him from the bad shepherd and the thief, he adds good. Good, I say, because he fulfills the office of shepherd, just as a good soldier is called one who fulfills the office of a soldier. But since Christ had said above that the shepherd enters through the door, and again that he himself is the door, and here he says that he is the shepherd, it must be that he himself enters through himself. And indeed he enters through himself, because he manifests himself, and through himself he knows the Father. But we enter through him, because through him we are made blessed. But note that no one else is the door except him, because no one else is the true light, but only by participation; above, John 1:8: "he was not the light," namely John the Baptist, "but that he might bear witness to the light." But of Christ it is said, "he was the true light which enlightens every man." And therefore no one calls himself the door: this Christ himself kept properly for himself; but being a shepherd he communicated to others, and gave to his members: for Peter too was a shepherd, and the rest of the apostles were shepherds, and all good bishops; Jeremiah 3:15: "I will give you shepherds according to my own heart." But although the prelates of the Church, who are sons, are all shepherds, as Augustine says; nevertheless he says in the singular I am the good shepherd, in order to insinuate the power of charity. For no one is a good shepherd unless through charity he is made one with Christ, and becomes a member of the true shepherd.

The office of the good shepherd is charity; hence he says, the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep. For it must be known that there is a difference between the good shepherd and the bad: for the good shepherd intends the advantage of the flock; but the bad one intends his own advantage: and this difference is touched on at Ezekiel 34:2: "Woe to the shepherds who feed themselves. Should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?" He therefore who uses the flock only to feed himself is not a good shepherd. From which it follows that the bad shepherd, even a bodily one, wishes to sustain no loss for the flock, since he does not intend their advantage, but his own. But the good shepherd, even a bodily one, sustains many things for the flock, whose good he intends; hence Jacob said, Genesis 31:40: "by night and day I was burned with frost and heat." But in the case of bodily shepherds, it is not required of the good shepherd that he expose himself to death for the safety of the flock. But because the safety of the spiritual flock outweighs the bodily life of the shepherd, therefore when danger threatens the safety of the flock, every spiritual shepherd ought to sustain the loss of his bodily life for the safety of the flock. And this is what the Lord means when he says the good shepherd his life, that is, his bodily life, lays down for his sheep, that is, by authority and by charity. For both are required: both that they pertain to him, and that he loves them: for the first without the second does not suffice. Of this teaching Christ furnished us an example; 1 John 3:16: "if Christ laid down his life for us, we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

Here he treats of the bad shepherd, showing that conditions contrary to the conditions of the good shepherd are present in him; and first he sets forth the conditions of the bad shepherd; second he shows how these conditions follow one from another, at the place but the hireling ... flees. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the conditions of the bad shepherd; second he insinuates the danger threatening the flock from the bad shepherd, at the place and the wolf snatches, and so on. It should be noted that from what has been said about the good shepherd and what is said about the bad one, a threefold difference of their conditions, namely of the good and the bad shepherd, can be gathered. The first distinction indeed is taken as to intention; the second as to affection; the third as to solicitude.

They differ therefore first in intention, and this from the name of each: for the first is called shepherd, from which it is given to be understood that he intends to feed the flock; Ezekiel 34:2: "should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?" But the other, namely the bad one, is called a hireling, as it were seeking wages. So that they differ in this: that the good shepherd seeks the benefit of the flock; but the hireling more principally his own advantage. This is also the difference between a king and a tyrant, as the Philosopher says, because a king in his rule intends the benefit of his subjects; but a tyrant his own benefit; hence he is like a hireling: Zechariah 11:12: "if it is good in your eyes, bring me my wages." But can even good shepherds seek wages? It seems that they can; Ecclesiasticus 36:18: "give a reward, Lord, to those who wait for you"; Isaiah 40:10: "behold his reward is with him"; and Luke 15:17: "how many hired servants in my father's house have abundance of bread." I respond. It must be said that "wages" can be taken in two ways: namely, commonly and properly. Commonly indeed, everything that is rendered for merits is called wages, and because eternal life, which is God — 1 John, last chapter, 20: "this is the true God, and eternal life" — is rendered for merits, therefore eternal life itself is called wages. And this wage every good shepherd can and ought to seek. But properly, wages is said of something separated from an inheritance; and he who is a true son, to whom the inheritance belongs, ought not to have regard to this; but servants and hirelings have regard to it. Hence, since eternal life is our inheritance, whoever works having regard to it works as a son; but whoever intends something apart from it (for instance, gapes after earthly advantages, rejoices in the honor of prelacy) is a hireling.

Second, they are distinguished as to solicitude: because of the good shepherd it is said that the sheep are his own, not only by commission, but also by love and solicitude; Philippians 1:7: "because I have you in my heart," etc.; but of the hireling it is said whose own the sheep are not, that is, he has no solicitude for them; Ezekiel 34:8: "neither have the shepherds sought my flock, but they fed themselves." Third, they differ as to affection: for the good shepherd, who loves the flock, gives his life for it, that is, exposes himself to the danger of bodily life. But the bad one, because he has no affection for the flock, flees when he sees the wolf. Hence he says he sees the wolf coming, and abandons the sheep.

This wolf is understood in three ways. First indeed, the devil tempting; Ecclesiasticus 13:21: "but if ever the wolf had fellowship with the lamb, so the sinner with the just man." Second, the heretic slaughtering; Matthew 7:15: "beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep"; Acts 20:29: "I know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Third, the raging tyrant: Ezekiel 22:27: "her princes in the midst of her are like wolves." The good shepherd, therefore, ought to protect his subject flock against this threefold wolf: namely, when, seeing the wolf — that is, diabolical temptation, heretical deception, and tyrannical savagery — he opposes himself: against which it is said, Ezekiel 13:5: "you have not gone up to face the enemy, nor have you set up a wall for the house of Israel." And therefore it is said of the bad shepherd that he flees and abandons the sheep; Zechariah 11:17: "O shepherd, and idol, forsaking the flock"; as if to say: you are not a shepherd, but you bear the likeness and idol of a shepherd; Jeremiah 46:21: "her hirelings also in the midst of her are like fatted calves, and they too are turned back, and are fled away together, and they stood not."

But against this is what is said at Matthew 5:11: "if they persecute you in one city, flee into another." Therefore it seems that it is lawful for a shepherd to flee. I respond. It must be said that there is a twofold solution to this. One is Augustine's, on John. For there is a twofold flight: namely, of the mind and of the body. But what is said here, he abandons the sheep and flees, is understood of the flight of the mind: for while the bad shepherd fears danger to himself from the wolf, he does not presume to resist its injustice; but he flees not by changing place, but by withdrawing comfort, shrinking, that is, from solicitude for the flock. But this exposition is necessary as regards the first wolf, for against the devil one need not flee bodily. But because it also happens that some shepherd flees bodily on account of certain wolves, namely a heretic having power, and a tyrant, therefore another answer must be applied, which Augustine gives in his letter to Honoratus. For, as he himself says, it seems that it is lawful even to flee the wolves bodily, not only from the authority of the Lord set forth above, but also from the example of certain saints, for instance Athanasius and others who fled their persecutors. For he is blamed not because he flees, but because he abandons the sheep: hence if he could flee without abandoning the sheep, it would not be blameworthy. For it happens sometimes that the person of the prelate is sought; sometimes the whole flock. It is manifest, however, that if only the person of the prelate is sought, others can be deputed in his place to the custody of the flock, who in his stead may console and govern the flock. Hence if he flees in this way, he is not said to abandon the sheep; and in this manner, in such a case, it is lawful to flee. But if the whole flock is sought, either it is necessary that all the shepherds be together with the sheep, or it is necessary that some of them remain, and some withdraw. But if they totally desert the flock, then what is said here applies to them: he sees the wolf coming, and abandons the sheep, and flees.

Here the imminent danger is set forth, which is twofold. One is the plundering of the sheep; hence he says the wolf snatches, that is, he usurps to himself what is another's. For the faithful of Christ are his sheep. Then, therefore, some heresiarch and wolf snatches the sheep, when he draws the faithful of Christ to his own false doctrine; Ezekiel 34:5: "my flock has become a prey to all the beasts of the field." The other danger is the dispersion of the sheep, hence he says and scatters the sheep, inasmuch as some are led astray, and some persist; Ezekiel 34:6: "my flocks have been scattered; and there was none to seek them."

Here he shows how the aforesaid conditions follow one from another: for from the first two the third follows. For from the fact that he seeks his own advantage, and is not affectively disposed toward the flock through love and solicitude, it follows that he does not wish to sustain hardship for it. And therefore he says but the hireling flees, for this reason, namely, because he is a hireling, that is, he seeks his own advantage, as to the first condition; and it does not pertain to him concerning the sheep, that is, he does not love them, nor is he solicitous for them, as to his second condition. Hence at Job 39:16 it is said of the bad shepherd: "he is hardened toward his young as if they were not his own." But conversely it is with the good shepherd: for he seeks the advantage of the flock, not his own; Philippians 4:17: "I seek not the gift, but I seek the fruit," etc. And it pertains to him concerning the sheep; that is, he loves them, and is solicitous for them, Philippians 1:7: "because I have you in my chains," etc.

Here the Lord proves his own exposition, and first he resumes what he intends to prove; second he brings forward the proof, at the place "and I know my sheep"; third he manifests it, at the place "therefore my Father loves me." He says therefore first: "I am the good shepherd." This was expounded above. Ezekiel 34:11: "I will seek my sheep in that day, as the shepherd visits his flock." Consequently, when he says "and I know my sheep," he proves what he has said. Now he says two things about himself: namely, that he is a shepherd, and that he is good. First, therefore, he proves that he is a shepherd; second, that he is a good shepherd. That he is a shepherd he proves by two signs set down above concerning the shepherd, of which the first is that he calls his own sheep by name. And as to this he says "and I know my sheep"; 2 Timothy 2:19: "The Lord knows who are his." "I know," I say, with a knowledge not only simple, but also of approval and of love; Apocalypse 1:5: "he loved us, and washed us from our sins." The second sign is that the sheep hear his voice and know him. And as to this he says "and mine know me" — mine, I say, by predestination, by calling, and by grace; as if he were to say: they themselves, loving me, obey me. Whence this is understood of the knowledge of love, of which it is said in Jeremiah 31:34: "all shall know me, from the least even to the greatest," and so on.

He shows himself to be a good shepherd by showing that he has the office of a good shepherd, which is that he lay down his soul for his sheep; and first he sets down the cause of this; second he introduces it; third he adds the fruit of the sign. Now the cause of this sign — namely, that he lays down his soul for his sheep — is the knowledge which he has of the Father; and as to this he says "as the Father knows me, I also know the Father, and I lay down my soul for my sheep." And this saying can be expounded in two ways. In one way, so that "as" signifies a likeness; and in this way the knowledge of this can be communicated to some creature; 1 Corinthians 13:12: "I shall know even as I am known," that is, as I am known without a veil, so shall I know without a veil. In another way, so that "as" imports equality; and then to know the Father as he is known by him is proper to the Son alone, because the Son alone knows the Father by comprehending, just as the Father by comprehending knows the Son; Matthew 11:27: "no one knows the Son but the Father, neither does anyone know the Father but the Son" — a knowledge, namely, of comprehension. The Lord says this for the reason that in this very fact that he knows the Father, he knows his will, in which it was that the Son should die for the salvation of the human race — in which also he declares himself the mediator of God and man. For just as he stands to the sheep as one known and one knowing, so also does he stand to the Father: because as the Father knows him, so he himself knows the Father. Consequently, when he says "and I lay down my soul for my sheep," he sets down the sign itself; 1 John 3:16: "in this we have known the charity of God, because he laid down his soul for us," and so on.

But since in Christ there are three substances, namely the substance of the Word, of the soul, and of the body, it is asked who speaks when he says "I lay down my soul." If you should say that the Word speaks here, this is not true: for the Word never laid down the soul, since it was never separated from the soul. But if you should say that the soul speaks, this too seems impossible, because nothing is separated from itself. But if you should say that Christ says this as regards the body, neither does this appear to hold, because the body does not have the power of taking up the soul again. It must therefore be said to this, that in the death of Christ, the soul was separated from the flesh; otherwise he would not have truly died; but the divinity was never separated in Christ from the soul itself and the flesh, but was united to the soul descending into hell and to the body existing in the tomb; and therefore the body, by the power of the divinity, laid down the soul, and again took it up.

Consequently, when he says "and other sheep I have," etc., he sets down the fruit of the death of Christ, which is the salvation not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. For because he had said "I lay down my soul for my sheep," the Jews, reckoning themselves the sheep of God, according to that saying of Psalm 78:13: "but we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture," might say that he laid down his soul for them only. But the Lord adds, saying that it was not only for them, but also for others; below, John 11:51: "this he said not of himself; but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Christ should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather together into one the children of God who were dispersed." Now in this fruit the Lord does three things. First he sets down the predestination of the Gentiles; second their calling through grace; third their justification. As to the first he says "other sheep I have" — namely, the Gentiles — "which are not of this fold" — namely, of the race of the flesh of Israel, which was as it were the fold; Micah 2:12: "I will gather Jacob, all of thee." For just as sheep are enclosed in a fold, so these were kept enclosed under the precepts of the Law, as is held in Galatians 3. These sheep, I say, namely the Gentiles, I have from the Father through eternal predestination; Psalm 2:8: "ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance"; Isaiah 49:6: "it is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to convert the dregs of Israel: I have given thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth."

As to the second he says "and them also I must bring" — that is, it is fitting, according to the order of divine predestination, to call them to grace. But against this: Matthew 15:24, the Lord says: "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel." Response. It must be said that Jesus was sent to the sheep of the house of Israel only, that he might preach to them bodily, according to that saying of Romans 15:8: "now I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers." But the Gentiles he brought through his apostles; Isaiah, last chapter, 19: "I will send of them that shall be saved, to the Gentiles." As to the third he says "and they shall hear my voice." Here three things are set down as necessary for the righteousness of the Christian religion. The first is obedience to the commandments of God. And as to this he says "and they shall hear my voice," that is, they shall keep my commandments; Matthew, last chapter, 20: "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"; Psalm 17:45: "a people which I have not known" — that is, which I have not approved — "hath obeyed me at the hearing of the ear." The second is the unity of charity; and as to this he says "and there shall be one fold" — that is, out of two peoples, the Jewish and the Gentile people, one Church of the faithful; Ephesians 4:5: "one faith"; and Ephesians 2:14: "he is our peace, who hath made both one." The third is the unity of faith; and as to this he says "and one shepherd"; Ezekiel 37:24: "and there shall be one shepherd of them" — namely, of the Jews and the Gentiles.

Here the Lord manifests his proof, and first he manifests the cause of the sign; second the sign, or effect, at the place "no one takes it from me"; third he shows it to be fitting, at the place "this commandment I have received from my Father." Now the cause of his death the Lord says to be the knowledge which he has of the Father, saying: "as the Father knows me, and I know the Father, and I lay down my soul for my sheep." Whence expounding this he says "therefore the Father loves me" — from which it is clear that the Father knows him with a knowledge of approval — "therefore," I say, "because I lay down my soul, that I may take it up again." But is death, then, the cause of the Father's love? It seems that it is not, because the temporal is not the cause of the eternal; but the death of Christ is temporal, whereas the love of God toward Christ is eternal, and so on. I respond. It must be said that Christ here speaks of the love of the Father toward him insofar as he is man; and thus this text can be read in two ways. In one way, so that "because" is taken causally; in another way, so that it designates the term, or sign, of the love.

If indeed it is taken causally, then the sense is: because I lay down my soul, that is, I undergo death, therefore the Father loves me — that is, he gives me the effect of his love, namely the glory and exaltation of my body; Philippians 2:8: "he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; for which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names." But against this it seems to stand, that good works cannot be meritorious of the divine love. For since our works are meritorious only insofar as they are informed by charity, according to what is said in 1 Corinthians 13:3: "if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing," and God anticipates even us in loving: 1 John 4:10: "in this is charity: not as though we had loved God, but because he first loved us" — it is manifest that his love precedes all merit of ours. But to this it must be said that no one can merit the very love of God itself; but we can merit, through our good works, the effect of the divine love, which is the increase of grace and the bestowal of the good of glory, which God confers upon us out of his love. Whence we can say that God therefore loves this or that man — that is, bestows on him the effect of his love — because he keeps his commandments. And thus we can say of Christ the man, that therefore the Father loves him — that is, exalted him, and gave him the brightness of glory — because he laid down his soul unto death.

But if "because" imports the term of the love, then the sense is: "therefore the Father loves me," that is, to this end the Father loved me, that I should lay down my soul. As if he were to say: the Father, by his love which he has toward me, ordained that through my passion I should redeem the human race; Romans 8:32: "he spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." But if "because" designates the sign of the love, then the sense is: "therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my soul" — as if he were to say: this is a sign that the Father loves me, that I lay down my soul, that I may take it up again — that is, doing his commandments and his will, I undergo death. For it is a manifest sign of love that a man, out of charity, do the commandments of God.

Here he expounds the effect of the sign — which sign indeed was that where he said "I lay down my soul for my sheep" — expounding how he lays it down; and first he excludes violence; second he adds thereto his power. He excludes indeed the violence which could be done to someone in taking away his life — which was not done to Christ. And as to this he says "no one takes it" — namely, my soul — by violence, "but I lay it down" by my own power, namely "of myself"; Isaiah 49:24: "shall the prey be taken from the strong?" But did not the Jews inflict violence upon Christ? They did indeed, as far as was in them, but in Christ there was not that violence, because, when he willed, he laid it down of his own accord. Whence above, John 8:30, it is said that the Jews, wishing to seize him, could not, "because his hour was not yet come" — his voluntary hour, namely, not one in which he was compelled to die, but one in which he deigned to be slain: as Augustine says.

His power, moreover, he adds when he says "I have power to lay it down." Concerning which it must be known that, since the union of soul and body is natural, their separation is natural. And although the cause of this separation and death can be voluntary, nevertheless death in men is always natural. For in no mere man is nature subject to the will, since, just as the will, so also nature is from God; and therefore the death of any mere man must needs be natural. But in Christ, his own nature and the whole of the rest of nature is subject to his will, just as things made by art are subject to the will of the artisan. And therefore, according to the good pleasure of his will, he was able to lay down his soul when he willed, and to take it up again — which no mere man can do, although he can voluntarily bring upon himself the cause of death. And hence it is that the centurion, seeing him die not by natural necessity, but by his own will, when "crying out with a loud voice he gave up the ghost" (Matthew 27:50), recognized in him the divine power, saying: "truly this man was the Son of God." Whence also the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 1:18: "the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved" — that is, to us — "it is the power of God." That is, in the very death of Christ, the power of his might was manifested.

Here he shows the aforesaid cause to be fitting: for the fulfillment of a commandment demonstrates love toward the one commanding. And therefore he says "this commandment I have received from my Father" — namely, of laying down his soul, and of taking it up again; below, John 14:23: "if any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him."

After the Lord showed that he has life-giving power, and hinted at the manner of giving life, here he shows in respect of what the life-giving power belongs to him; and first the Evangelist sets forth the dissension that arose over this among the crowds toward one another; second he sets forth the dispute of the leaders of the Jews with Christ, at "the feast of the dedication was made," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth the very dissension of the crowds; second he adds the opinion of one dissenting party; third he brings in the sound assertion of the other party.

Now the dissension arose among the crowds who had heard Christ, from his words: and this is what he says, "a dissension therefore arose among the Jews because of these words." For while some of them understood these words rightly, and some not rightly, they dissented from one another; Matthew 10:34: "I have not come to send peace, but the sword," namely of evangelical teaching, which some believe and others contradict; Psalm 106:40: "contention was poured out upon princes."

But the opinion of the other dissenting party is false: and as to this he says, "but many of them said." He says "many," because, as is said in Ecclesiastes 1:15, "the number of fools is infinite." They said, I say, "he has a demon, and he raves." For it is the custom of fools always to interpret doubtful matters for the worse, though the contrary ought to be done. Hence it happens that whatever they do not understand, they blaspheme, as is said in the canonical letter of Jude. Therefore, because they were not able to understand the words of the Lord — since "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" — they therefore blaspheme, saying, "he has a demon, and he raves." And they strive to turn others away from him, saying, "why do you listen to him?"

But in blaspheming, they impute two things to Christ. First, that he has a demon; as if they were to say: he speaks not from the Holy Spirit, but from an evil spirit. A similar thing is said in Acts 17:18, of Paul: "he is a proclaimer of new demons." Now it happens that someone may have a demon as a private and familiar companion; and such a one, although he always raves spiritually, does not, however, always rave bodily; but another may be seized by a demon, and such a one always raves bodily as well. Hence in Mark 3:21 they said, "because he has gone out of his mind." Second, in order to show that Christ has a demon in this way, they say "and he raves." Acts 26:24: "much learning brings you to madness." Nor is it a wonder if they blaspheme, since they are animal men, and, as is said in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God."

But the judgment and assertion of the other party disproves the aforesaid opinion in two ways. First, from the weight of the words; hence he says, "others" — namely, those who were rightly wise — "said: these are not the words of one who has a demon"; as if they were to say: from these it appears that he does not rave, since they are ordered and weighty; above, John 6:69: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." Hence Paul says in Acts 26:25: "I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of truth and soberness."

Second, from the greatness of the miracle; hence he says, "can a demon open the eyes of the blind?" As if to say: was not this a very great miracle? And therefore they rightly believed that it could not be done except by the power of God; above, John 9:33: "if this man were not from God, he could do nothing."

Now it must be known that there are certain miracles which can be done by the power of demons and angels; but there are others which can in no way be done by their power. For those things which are above the order of nature, no creature whatsoever, by its own power, can do, since it too is subject to the laws of nature. But God alone, who is above nature, can operate above the order of nature. Whatever, then, any creature works, it must remain within the order of nature.

From this it is clear that whatever can be done according to the order of nature, both the good angel and the evil angel can do, when it is permitted to him. Just as, according to the seeds which are present in natural things and ordered to the generation of certain animals, they can bring about the generation of those animals; as the magicians of Pharaoh did, Exodus 7:11. And likewise they can alter the nature of something: hence they could heal the sick, to whom help could come by the benefit of nature.

But those things which simply transcend the order of nature cannot be done except by God, or by good angels and holy men through the power of God, which they obtain by praying. Such is the giving of light to the blind and the raising of the dead: for the power of nature cannot extend itself to the restoration of eyes and the raising of the dead. And therefore a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, and raise the dead: because this belongs to God alone, and to the saints through the power of God.

Here is set forth the dissension which was raised by the leaders of the Jews against Christ; and first the Evangelist proposes the question of the Jews; second he adds Christ's response, at "Jesus answered them: I speak to you"; third he brings in the effect of the response, at "the Jews took up stones."

Concerning the first he does two things. First he describes the circumstances of the question; second he sets forth the question itself, at "they said to him: how long do you hold our soul in suspense?" Now he describes the circumstances of the question as to three things: namely as to time, as to place, and as to the persons questioning.

As to time indeed, first in particular, saying, "the feast of the dedication was made at Jerusalem." For the understanding of this it must be known that, as Augustine says, the encaenia was the feast of dedication in the churches. For "kainos" in Greek is the same as "new" in Latin. Hence "encaenia" is the same as "renewal": from which it happens that even in common usage of speech, when something is dedicated to some use, it is said to be "encaeniated," which is the same as "renewed."

"The feast of the dedication was made, therefore, at Jerusalem," that is, the feast and memorial of the dedication of the temple. For when we newly dedicate some church to divine worship, the feast of its consecration is held, and on the same day each year, in memory of it. In this way the Jews held the encaenia each year, that is, the memorial of the dedication of the temple.

Now to know the reason and cause of the feast of consecration, it must be noted that all feasts are celebrated in the Church in commemoration of divine benefits; Isaiah 63:7: "I will remember the mercies of the Lord," etc. And in Psalm 117:1, after David had commemorated the many benefits of God, saying, "give praise to the Lord, for he is good," etc., he adds: "appoint a solemn day, with thick boughs, even to the horn of the altar."

Now we recall the divine benefits shown to us in three ways. Sometimes indeed as shown to us in our Head, the Lord Jesus Christ; and thus we celebrate the feast of the Nativity, and of the Resurrection, and the like. Sometimes as shown to us in our fellow members, namely in the saints, who are members of the Church. And this fittingly: because, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 12:26: "if one member glories, all the members rejoice together." And thus we celebrate the feasts of the saints Peter and Paul and other saints.

And sometimes as they are shown to the whole Church; for instance in the ministry of the sacraments, and in other things commonly conferred on the Church. And because the material house is, as it were, a sign of the gathering of the Church of the faithful, and also in it all the sacraments of grace are dispensed; therefore in memory of these benefits, we celebrate the feast of the dedication of the church. This feast indeed is greater than the feast of any saint; just as the benefits conferred on the whole Church, whose memory we keep, exceed the benefit conferred on any one saint, which is recalled in his feast.

It must be known, however, that the temple at Jerusalem was consecrated three times. First indeed by Solomon, as is found in 3 Kings 8; second, in the time of Ezra, by Zerubbabel and Jesus the high priest, as is found in 1 Esdras 6:13-22; third by the Maccabees, as is found in 1 Maccabees 4:42-58, that they went up to Jerusalem to renew the holy things.

Now this encaenia was not made in memory of the dedication which was made by Solomon, because that was in autumn, namely in the seventh month; nor in memory of the dedication which was made in the time of Ezra, because that was in spring, namely on the ninth day of March; but in memory of the dedication which was made by the Maccabees in wintertime.

And therefore, to signify this, he describes the time in particular, saying "and it was winter": which also has a mystical cause. As Gregory says, in Moralia II, the Evangelist took care to express the time of winter for this reason, that he might indicate the cold present in the hearts of the hearers, namely the malice of the Jews; Jeremiah 6:7: "as a cistern makes its water cold, so has she made her malice cold." Of this winter it is said, Song of Songs 2:11: "for now the winter is past, the rain is over and gone."

Now he describes the place when he says "and Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch." And first indeed in general, when he says "in the temple": Psalm 10:5: "the Lord is in his holy temple," etc.; second in particular, saying "in Solomon's porch."

For it must be known that "temple" is said not only of its body, but also of the surrounding porticoes, in which the people stood to pray: for in the temple only the priests prayed. Now "Solomon's porch" is the name given to that place in which Solomon stood when, the dedication of the temple having been completed, he prayed: 3 Kings 8:22: "Solomon therefore stood in the sight of the assembly of Israel."

But against this: the temple which Solomon had built was destroyed, and likewise Solomon's porch. Response: it must be said that the temple was rebuilt in the likeness of the former one; and therefore, just as before that porch was called Solomon's, so also afterward, out of reverence for him.

Now he describes the persons questioning as to their malice. Hence he says, "the Jews therefore surrounded him" — cold in the charity of loving, but burning with the eagerness of harming — so that they approached with a mind to circumvent, and surrounded him pressing in, with a mind to persecute; Psalm 21:13: "many calves have surrounded me, fat bulls have besieged me"; Hosea 11:12: "Ephraim has surrounded me."

Consequently, when he says "and they said to him," etc., the question of the Jews is set forth. And first he sets forth the feigned cause of the question, when he says, "how long do you hold our soul in suspense?" They speak flatteringly, wishing thereby to show that they desire to know the truth about him. As if to say: our soul is in the suspense of desire — how long do you leave us sorrowful? Proverbs 13:12: "hope that is deferred afflicts the soul."

And therefore, second, they add the question, saying, "if you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Here first note their perversity. For because they are indignant against Christ, that he called himself the Son of God, above, John 5:18, they do not ask him whether he is the Son of God, but say, "if you are the Christ, tell us plainly": so that through this they might have material for accusing him before Pilate, as one seditious and seeking a kingdom, which was against Caesar, and hateful to the Romans.

Hence also Pilate, when the Jews accused Christ of making himself the Son of God, cared little. But when they said, "everyone who makes himself a king contradicts Caesar," he began to be more troubled against him. And therefore they say, "if you are the Christ" — that is, either king, or anointed one — "tell us plainly."

Second, consider their wickedness, in that they say "plainly"; as if to say: up till now he has not taught publicly, but as it were in secret — although in fact he said everything plainly, always being present at the festivals, and spoke nothing in secret; below, John 18:20: "I have spoken openly to the world; I have said nothing in secret."

Here is set forth Christ's response: in which he shows their unfaithfulness, showing that what they had said was false, namely that they desired to know the truth, saying, "how long do you hold our soul in suspense?" etc. And this as to two things. First, because they did not believe his words; and as to this he says, "I speak to you, and you do not believe." As if to say: you say to me, "if you are the king, the Christ, tell us"; but I do speak — that is, I tell you the truth — and you do not believe; Luke 22:67: "if I tell you, you will not believe," etc.

Second, that they do not believe his works; and as to this he says, "the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me." Here first he shows their unbelief with respect to the works themselves; second, the reason for their unbelief, at "because you are not of my sheep."

As to the first he says "the works that I do"; as if to say: you cannot be persuaded even by the word alone to be silent; but neither even by so many works that I do in my Father's name — that is, to his glory — "these bear witness of me," because, namely, they cannot be done except by God: hence from them it plainly appears that I have come from God. Matthew 18:33: "each tree is known by its fruit"; above, John 5:36: "the works that I do bear witness of me. But you do not believe"; below, John 12:37: "although he had done so many signs, they did not believe in him."

And therefore they are inexcusable; below, John 15: "if I had not done among them the works that no other has done, they would not have sin. But now they have both seen, and have hated both me and my Father."

Now the reason for their unbelief is their separation from the sheep of Christ; hence he says, "therefore you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep." Concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth their exclusion from the fellowship of the sheep of Christ; second he shows the dignity of the sheep, at "my sheep hear my voice," etc.; third he proves something he had said, namely that no one will snatch his sheep out of his hand, at "my Father, what he has given me, is greater than all."

He sets forth their separation from his sheep, saying, "you are not of my sheep" — that is, predestined to believe, but foreknown for eternal ruin. For this very thing, that we believe, is from God to us; Philippians 1:29: "to you it has been given, not only that you should believe in him, but also that you should suffer for him"; Ephesians 2:8: "by grace you are saved, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."

This indeed is given to no one, except to him for whom it has been prepared from eternity; and therefore only those will believe in him who have been ordained to this by God through eternal predestination; Acts 13:48: "as many as were preordained to eternal life believed." And the same book, 15:11: "we believe to be saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."

But ought it to be said to anyone that he is not predestined? It seems not; for since no one can be saved unless predestined, if it is said to someone that he is not predestined, he seems to be forced into despair. Therefore the Lord, saying to the Jews, "you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep," was forcing them to despair.

Response: it must be said that in that crowd there was something common to all, namely that they were not preordained by God to believe at that time; and something particular, namely that some of them were preordained to believe afterward — hence they also believed afterward, as is found in Acts 2:41, that three thousand of them believed in one day; but there were others who were not preordained to this.

It was not, therefore, contrary to hope, to say, to a crowd in which some were preordained to believe afterward, that they were not of the sheep: because no one could definitely suspect this of himself. But it would have been contrary to hope, if he had said this definitely to some particular person.

Now he sets forth the dignity of his sheep, saying "my sheep hear my voice," etc., where he sets forth four things. Two on our part, which we do with respect to Christ; and two on Christ's part, which he himself does in us, corresponding to one another in turn.

The first, then, which we do, is obedience to Christ; and as to this he says, "my sheep" — namely through predestination — "hear my voice," believing, and obeying my precepts; Psalm 94:8: "today if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts."

The second, corresponding first, which Christ does, is his love and approval; and as to this he says, "and I know them," that is, I love and approve; 2 Timothy 2:19: "the Lord knows who are his." As if to say: this very fact that they hear me, is this — that I know them, choosing them from eternity.

But if no one can believe otherwise unless it is given to him by God, it seems that unbelief ought not be imputed to anyone. To this it must be said that it is imputed to them for this reason: that in them is the cause why it is not given to them — just as I cannot see light unless I am illumined by the sun; but if I were to close my eyes I would not see the light, and this would not be on the part of the sun but on my part, who, by closing my eyes, furnish the cause that I am not illumined.

Now sin is the cause why we are not illumined by God through faith — for instance original sin, or, in some, actual sin. And this cause indeed is present in all. Hence all those who are abandoned, are abandoned by the just judgment of God, and those who are chosen, are taken up by the mercy of God.

The third, which is on our part, is imitation of Christ; and as to this he says, "and they follow me"; Job 23:11: "my foot has followed his steps"; 1 Peter 2:21: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps."

The fourth, corresponding on Christ's part, is the repayment of a reward; and as to this he says, "and I give them eternal life," as if to say: they follow me, walking here the way of gentleness and innocence; and I will bring it about that afterward they will follow me, entering into the joys of eternal life.

Now the Lord shows this reward to be unfailing, in three ways. For a thing can fail in three ways. First indeed from its own nature, for instance if it is corruptible; but this reward, as to its own nature, is incorruptible; hence he says, "I give them eternal life," which is the enjoyment of the incorruptible and immortal God; below, John 17:3: "this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

And, as Augustine says, these are the pastures of which he had spoken above. And eternal life is called good pasture because there no grass withers, all is green.

Second, it can fail from a defect of the recipient, when the recipient fails and when he guards badly; but this will not happen in that reward, hence he says, "and they shall not perish forever," namely the sheep. This is against Origen, who said that at some time the saints who are in glory will be able to sin. But the Lord said "they shall not perish," because they will be preserved forever; Revelation 3:12: "he who shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more."

Third, it can fail from the violence of one who snatches away: for perhaps not even Adam would have been shut out, had not the seducer been present. But in eternal life this will not be, hence he says, "and no one shall snatch them" — namely the sheep — "out of my hand," that is, out of my protection and loving care; Wisdom 3:1: "the souls of the just are in the hand of God." For, as Augustine says, there neither does the wolf snatch, nor the thief carry off, nor the robber kill.

Here he proves what he had said above about the dignity of the sheep, namely that no one will snatch them out of his hand, by the following reasoning: that which is in my Father's hand, no one can snatch; but the hand of the Father and mine is the same; therefore that which is in my hand, likewise no one can snatch.

Concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth the minor premise, manifesting the communication of the divinity handed down to him from the Father, when he says, "my Father, what he has given me" — namely through eternal generation — "is greater than all." For above, John 5:26: "as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to the Son also to have life in himself."

Likewise it is greater in power; above, John 5:27: "he has given him power to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man." Likewise it is greater in reverence and honor; Philippians 2:9: "he has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow." It is greater, then, than all, what the Father has given me — namely, that I should be his Word, that I should be his only-begotten, that I should be the splendor of his light.

Second, he sets forth the excellence of the paternal power, which pertains to the major premise, when he says, "and no one can snatch" — that is, take away by violence, or steal away by stealth — "out of the hand" — that is, out of the power — "of my Father," or from me, who am the power of the Father; although it is better said of the power of the Father than "from me," as Augustine says.

Now no one can snatch out of the Father's hand for this reason: that he is most strong, to whom violence cannot be done, and most wise, into whom ignorance cannot fall; Job 9:4: "he is wise in heart, and mighty in strength," etc.

Third, he sets forth his unity with the Father, from which the conclusion follows. Hence he says, "I and the Father are one"; as if to say: therefore no one will snatch them out of my hand, because I and the Father are one, namely in unity of essence. For the nature of the Father and of the Son is the same.

By this, moreover, a twofold error is excluded: namely that of Arius, who divided the essence, and that of Sabellius, who confounded the persons — so that we might thus be freed both from Charybdis and from Scylla. For by his saying "one," he frees you from Arius; for if one, then not diverse. But by his saying "we are," he frees you from Sabellius; for if "we are," then the Father and the Son are one and another.

But the Arians, by the lie of their impiety, strive to deny this, saying that a creature is in some way one with God: hence in this way too the Son can be one with the Father. But this is clearly false, on three counts.

First, from the very manner of speaking. For it is clear that "one" is said in the way that "being" is said; hence just as something is not called "being" simply except according to substance, so too it is not called "one" except according to substance or nature. Now a thing is said "simply" when it is said with nothing added. Because, then, it is said simply, "I and the Father are one," with nothing else added, it is clear that they are one according to substance and nature. But it is never found that God and a creature are one without something added, as in that text, 1 Corinthians 6:17: "he who cleaves to God is one spirit." Therefore it is clear that the Son of God is not one with the Father as a creature is.

Second, from what he had said above, namely, "what the Father has given me is greater than all," and afterward he concludes, "I and the Father are one," as if to say: we are one to this extent, inasmuch as he has given me that which is greater than all.

Third, it is clear from his intention: for the Lord proves that no one will snatch them out of his hand, by this — that no one can snatch out of the hand of his Father. This would not follow, if his power were less than the power of the Father. The Father and the Son, therefore, are one in nature, in honor, and in power.

Having set forth the teaching of Christ, here is consequently set forth the effect of his teaching among the Jews; and first he rebukes their savagery; second, he excludes from himself the blasphemy imputed to him, at the place, "The Jews answered him"; third, he avoids their obstinacy, at the place, "They sought therefore to seize him." Concerning the first he does two things. First, the savagery of the Jews is set forth, by which they were inflamed to stone Christ; hence he says, "The Jews took up stones to cast at him." For because they were hard, and could not understand the profound words of the Lord, being like stones themselves they run to stones; Psalm 119:6: "While I spoke to them, they fought against me without cause."

Second, when he adds, "Many good works I have shown you," the Lord reproves their savagery: and first he recalls to them the benefits bestowed; second he reproves their savagery. Now he recalls the benefits which he showed them in the healings of the sick, in the display of teaching and of miracles; hence he answered them, saying: "Many good works I have shown you," namely by healing, by preaching, by working miracles: Mark 7:37: "He has done all things well," from my Father, whose glory I sought in all things; above, John 8:50: "I do not seek my own glory, but the glory of him who sent me." He reproves their savagery, saying, "For which of these works do you stone me?" As if to say: a benefactor ought to be honored, not stoned. A similar thing is said in Jeremiah 18:20: "Shall evil be rendered for good?"

Here the Lord excuses himself from the charge of blasphemy, and first is set forth the imputation of blasphemy by the Jews; second, his excusing of it by Christ, at the place, "Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law?" and so on. He says, then, as to the first: "For a good work we do not stone you," and so on. Here five things occur to be considered.

The first indeed seems to pertain to the motive of the stoning, which is blasphemy. For it is commanded in Leviticus 24:14 that blasphemers be stoned. "Bring forth," he says, "the blasphemer outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the people stone him." And as to this they say: "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy."

The second is that they specify the blasphemy itself. For blasphemy consists not only in attributing to God what does not belong to him, but also in attributing to another what belongs to God alone: just as it is blasphemy not only to say that God is a body, but also to say that some creature can create. Mark 2:7, they said: "This man blasphemes. Who can forgive sins but God alone?" The Jews therefore said that the Lord was a blasphemer, not in the first way, but by usurping to himself what was proper to divinity; hence they said: "Because you, being a man, make yourself God."

The third is that the Jews understood the word of Christ better than the Arians did, the word he had spoken: "I and the Father are one." Therefore they were angered, since they understood that it could not be said, "I and the Father are one," except where there is equality of Father and Son: and this is what they say: "You make yourself God," showing by your words that you are God, which is not true, since you are a man.

The fourth is that so great is the distance between God and man, that it was incredible to them that the same one who is man should be God: hence they say pointedly, "Because you, being a man, make yourself God." Although they could have been freed from this unbelief by what is said in Psalm 8:5: "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you visit him?" Habakkuk 1:5: "I work a work in your days which no one will believe, when it is told," that is, the work of the incarnation, which surpasses every mind.

The fifth is that in their words they contradict themselves: for on the one hand they confess that Christ does good works, saying, "We do not stone you for a good work," and on the other they impute to him blasphemy, namely that he falsely usurps to himself the honor of God: and these things are indeed contrary. For he could not work miracles from God if he blasphemed God, because, as is said in Matthew 7:18, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit"; which holds most especially in the case of Christ.

Here he excludes from himself the blasphemy imputed to him, and first he sets forth his excuse; second he shows the truth of it, at the place, "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me." Now he excuses himself by an authority; hence first he sets forth the authority of Scripture; second he opens to them its meaning; third from this he concludes his proposition.

He says, then: "Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law," namely in Psalm 81:6, "I have said, you are gods"? Here it must be known that the term "law" is taken in three ways in Scripture.

Sometimes indeed universally for the whole Old Testament, insofar as it contains the five books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. And in this way it is taken here in "your law," that is, in the Old Testament: since it is written in the Psalms — for this reason it is called "law," because the whole Old Testament is held with the authority of law.

Sometimes "law" is taken as it is divided against the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Hagiographa: and thus it is taken in Luke, last chapter, 44: "It is necessary that all things be fulfilled which are written in the law, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me."

But at other times it is taken as "law" is divided against "prophets." And thus the Psalms, and the other books of the Old Testament, besides the Pentateuch, are included under "the prophets," because the Scripture of the Old Testament was put forth by a prophetic spirit. And in this way it is taken in Matthew 22:40: "On these two commandments the whole law depends, and the prophets." Thus, then, it is written: "I have said, you are gods." Hence it must be known that this name "God" is taken in three ways.

For sometimes it signifies the divine nature itself, and thus it is said only in the singular; Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one." Sometimes, however, "God" is said nominally; and in this way idols are called gods; Psalm 95:5: "All the gods of the nations are demons." And sometimes someone is called "God" by some participation of divinity, or of a more excellent power divinely infused: and in this way even judges are called gods in Scripture; Exodus 22:8: "You shall bring them to the gods," that is, to the judges; and Exodus 22:28: "You shall not speak ill of the gods," that is, of the rulers. And it is in this way that the name "God" is taken here, when he says, "I have said, you are gods," that is, sharing in some divine power above the human.

Consequently, when he says, "If he called those gods to whom the word of God was made," etc., he opens the sense of the aforesaid authority, as if to say: he therefore called them gods insofar as they participate in something of divinity according to the participation of the word of God made to them. For from the word of God a man attains some participation of divine power and purity; below, John 15:3: "Now you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you"; and in Exodus 34 it is said that the face of Moses was made resplendent from his converse with the word of the Lord.

Now from what has been said, one could argue thus: it is manifest that someone, from participation in the Word of God, becomes God by participation; but nothing becomes such a thing by participation except from participation in that which is such by its own essence: for instance, something does not become fire by participation except by participation in fire which is fire by essence; therefore nothing becomes God by participation except from participation in him who is God by essence; therefore the Word of God, namely the Son himself, by participation in whom someone is made God, is God by essence. But the Lord chose to argue against the Jews in a more human manner rather than so profoundly. He says, moreover, "and the Scripture cannot be broken," in order to show the irrefragable truth of Scripture; Psalm 118:89: "Forever, O Lord, your word endures."

Consequently, when he says, "him whom the Father sanctified," etc., he concludes his proposition. If indeed we refer this, according to Hilary, to Christ according as he is man, then the sense is: some men are called gods by the mere participation of the word of God, how then do you say, "You blaspheme," that is, you consider it blasphemy, that that man should be called God who is united to the Word of God in person? And therefore he says, "whom the Father sanctified." For although God sanctifies all who are sanctified — below, John 17:17: "Sanctify them in the truth" — yet he sanctified Christ in a special way. For he sanctifies others so that they may be adopted sons; Romans 8:15: "You have received the spirit of the adoption of sons"; but he sanctified Christ so that he might be the Son of God by nature, united in person to the Word of God: and these words show this in two ways.

First, by what he says, "whom the Father sanctified." For if he sanctifies as a father, it is manifest that he sanctifies as a son; Romans 1:4: "Who was predestined the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification." Second, by what he said, "and sent into the world." For to be sent into some place does not befit any thing unless it existed before it was there; therefore that one whom the Father sent into the world, namely visibly, is the Son of God, who pre-exists his visible appearing: because, as is said above, John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made through him." Above, John 3:17: "For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world."

This one, then, whom God sent into the world, do you say, "You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God"? As if he were to say: much more can I say this — I who am united to the Word in person — than those to whom the word of God was made.

But whence did the Jews get the idea that Christ was the Son of God? For the Lord did not say this expressly. To this it must be said that although the Lord did not say this expressly, nevertheless from the words which he did say — namely, "I and the Father are one," and "what my Father has given me is greater than all" — they understood that he had received his nature from the Father, and was one in nature with him. Now this, namely to receive the same nature from someone and to exist thereby, has the character of sonship.

But if we refer what he says, "the Father sanctified," according to Augustine, to Christ insofar as he is God, then the sense is: "whom the Father sanctified," that is, begot as holy from eternity. But the other things which follow are to be expounded in the same manner as Hilary expounds them. Nevertheless it is better expounded if the whole is referred to Christ insofar as he is man.

Consequently, when he says, "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me," he proves the truth of what he has said; as if he were to say: although I be only a man, according to your reckoning, nevertheless I do not blaspheme in saying that I am truly God, because I most truly am. Hence concerning this he does two things. First he proposes the argument from the works; second he infers the conclusion he intends, at the place, "that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Concerning the first he does two things. First he says that without the works they would be excusable. And he says, "If I do not do the works of my Father" — namely the same works which he himself does, and by the same power and might — "do not believe me"; above, John 5:19: "Whatever the Father does, these things the Son likewise does." Second, that they are convicted by the works themselves, saying, "But if I do" — namely the same works which the Father does — "and if you do not wish to believe me, who appear as the son of man, believe the works"; that is, the works themselves demonstrate that I am the Son of God; below, John 15:24: "If I had not done the works which no one else has done, they would not have sin."

Consequently he infers the conclusion he intends, saying, "that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." For there can be no indication of the nature of any thing so evident as that which is taken from its works. Evidently, then, it can be known of Christ, and believed, that he is God, through the fact that he does the works of God. And therefore he says: from the works themselves I will convince you, that you may know and believe what you cannot see with your eyes, namely that the Father is in me, and I in the Father; below, John 14:10: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Which is to be understood by unity of essence. And it is as if the same thing is meant by "the Father is in me, and I in the Father" and "I and the Father are one."

Hilary, however, expounds this well, saying that there is a difference between God and man: for man, since he is composite, is not his own nature; but God, since he is most simple, is his own being and his own nature. In whatever, therefore, the nature of God is, there is God. Since, then, the Father is God and the Son is God, wherever the nature of the Father is, there is the Father, and wherever the nature of the Son is, there is the Son. Since, then, the nature of the Father is in the Son, and conversely: therefore the Father is in the Son, and conversely. But, as Augustine says, although God is in man, and man in God, as is said in 1 John 4:16, "He who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him," this is not to be understood by unity of essence; rather man is in God, that is, under the divine care and protection, and God is in man through the likeness of his grace. But the only-begotten Son is in the Father, and the Father in him, as an equal.

Here the Lord avoids the obstinacy of the Jews, and first he shows their obstinacy; second he avoids it; third he shows the effect of his avoidance. Now he shows their obstinacy by the fact that after so many proofs of truth, after so many arguments of miracles and marvelous works, they still persevere in malice. Hence "they sought to seize him": not in order to believe and understand, but to rage and to do harm. For because he had expressed his equality with the Father more evidently, they were the more incited; Jeremiah 8:5: "They have seized upon falsehood, and have refused to return."

Now the Lord avoids their savagery by going out from them; hence it says, "He went out of their hands." Here, first, it is shown how he left them, namely by going out of their hands: and this for two reasons. First, that he might show that he could not be seized except when he willed it; Luke 4:30: "Jesus, passing through the midst of them, went his way." Above, in the same Gospel: "No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself." Second, that he might give us an example of avoiding the savagery of the wicked, when it can be done without danger to the faith; Ecclesiasticus 8:14: "Do not stand against the face of an insolent man."

Second, it is shown where he went upon leaving; hence it says, "and he went away again across the Jordan, to the place where John was first baptizing." Its mystical reason indeed is that he would one day go, through his apostles, to convert the Gentiles. But the literal reason is twofold. One, that the place was near Jerusalem, and the time of the Passion was already imminent, so he did not wish to go far away. The second, that he might recall to memory the testimony which John bore there, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world," and the testimony of the Father and the Son borne to Christ in Baptism.

Now the effect of his withdrawal was the conversion of the crowds to the faith: and this conversion is described in three respects. First, as to the imitation of his activity; hence it says, "and many came to him," namely by imitation of his works; Matthew 11:28: "Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you."

Second, as to the confession of the mouth; hence they also said, "John indeed did no sign." Here, first, they confess the eminence of Christ over John; hence they said, "John did no sign." The reason for this indeed was that John was sent as a witness of Christ, and hence it was fitting that he become worthy of belief, and that his testimony be shown to be true: which indeed is fittingly brought about through holiness of life; but Christ came as God: and therefore it was fitting that he should show in himself the signs of divine power. And so John excelled in holiness of life; Christ, however, in addition to this, also performed works manifesting divine power. This custom also was observed among the ancient authorities, that in the presence of a greater power a lesser power did not use the insignia of its power; hence in the presence of a dictator the consuls laid aside their insignia. It was not fitting, therefore, that John, who was of a lesser power, being a forerunner and a witness, should in the presence of Christ make use of the insignia of divine power; but Christ alone.

Second, they confess the truth of John's testimony concerning Christ; hence they said, "For all things which John said of this one" — namely of Christ — "were true"; as if they were to say: even if John worked no sign, nevertheless concerning Christ he said all things truthfully.

Third, he manifests the faith of the heart; hence it says, "and many believed in him." As Augustine says, they laid hold of Christ abiding, whom the Jews wished to seize as he was descending, because through the lamp they had come to the day: for John was the lamp, and bore witness to the day.