1Cor 2:8

“These men are not the planting of the Father, but are an accursed brood. And says the Lord, "Let every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted be rooted up." For if they had been branches of the Father, they would not have been "enemies of the cross of Christ," but rather of those who "killed the Lord of glory." But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of the passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters against God, those murderers of the Lord; for it were too little to style them merely murderers of the prophets. But Christ invites you to [share in] His immortality, by His passion and resurrection, inasmuch as ye are His members.”

“Seeing these things, thou wast in utter perplexity. And thou wast ignorant that it was a virgin that should bring forth; but the angels' song of praise struck thee with astonishment, as well as the adoration of the Magi, and the appearance of the star. Thou didst revert to thy state of [wilful] ignorance, because all the circumstances seemed to thee trifling; for thou didst deem the swaddling-bands, the circumcision, and the nourishment by means of milk contemptible: these things appeared to thee unworthy of God. Again, thou didst behold a man who remained forty days and nights without tasting human food, along with ministering angels at whose presence thou didst shudder, when first of all thou hadst seen Him baptized as a common man, and knewest not the reason thereof. But after His [lengthened] fast thou didst again assume thy wonted audacity, and didst tempt Him when hungry, as if He had been an ordinary man, not knowing who He was. For thou saidst, "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." Now, this expression, "If thou be the Son," is an indication of ignorance. For if thou hadst possessed real knowledge, thou wouldst have understood that the Creator can with equal ease both create what does not exist, and change that which already has a being. And thou temptedst by means of hunger Him who nourisheth all that require food. And thou temptedst the very "Lord of glory," forgetting in thy malevolence that "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." For if thou hadst known that He was the Son of God, thou wouldst also have understood that He who had kept his body from feeling any want for forty days and as many nights, could have also done the same for ever. Why, then, does He suffer hunger? In order to prove that He had assumed a body subject to the same feelings as those of ordinary men. By the first fact He showed that He was God, and by the second that He was also man.”

“For if the Lord were a mere man, possessed of a soul and body only, why dost thou mutilate and explain away His being born with the common nature of humanity? Why dost thou call the passion a mere appearance, as if it were any strange thing happening to a [mere] man? And why dost thou reckon the death of a mortal to be simply an imaginary death? But if, [on the other hand, ] He is both God and man, then why dost thou call it unlawful to style Him "the Lord of glory," who is by nature unchangeable? Why dost thou say that it is unlawful to declare of the Lawgiver who possesses a human soul, "The Word was made flesh," and was a perfect man, and not merely one dwelling in a man? But how came this magician into existence, who of old formed all nature that can be apprehended either by the senses or intellect, according to the will of the Father; and, when He became incarnate, healed every kind of disease and infirmity?”

“But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that "none of the princes of this world knew it for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory," the heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator Himself.”

“For if it is a Christian who, after wandering far from his Father, squanders, by living heathenishly, the "substance" received from God his Father,-(the substance), of course, of baptism-(the substance), of course, of the Holy Spirit, and (in consequence) of eternal hope; if, stripped of his mental "goods," he has even handed his service over to the prince of the world -who else but the devil?-and by him being appointed over the business of "feeding swine"-of tending unclean spirits, to wit-has recovered his senses so as to return to his Father,-the result will be, that, not adulterers and fornicators, but idolaters, and blasphemers, and renegades, and every class of apostates, will by this parable make satisfaction to the Father; and in this way (it may) rather (be said that) the whole "substance" of the sacrament is most truly wasted away.”

“As John says these things to the multitude, and as the people watch in eager expectation of seeing some strange spectacle with their bodily eyes, and the devil is struck with amazement at such a testimony from John, lo, the Lord appears, plain, solitary, uncovered, without escort, having on Him the body of man like a garment, and hiding the dignity of the Divinity, that He may elude the snares of the dragon.”

“"Which none of the rulers of this world knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." Now if they knew not, how said He unto them, "Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am?" Indeed, concerning Pilate the Scripture saith, he knew not. It is likely also that neither did Herod know. These, one might say, are called rulers of this world: but if a man were to say that this is spoken concerning the Jews also and the Priests, he would not err. For to these also He saith, "Ye know neither Me nor My Father." How then saith He a little before, "Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am?" However, the manner of this way of knowledge and of that hath already been declared in the Gospel; and, not to be continually handling the same topic, thither do we refer our readers. What then? Was their sin in the matter of the Cross forgiven them? For He surely did say, "Forgive them." If they repented, it was forgiven. For even he who set countless assailants on Stephen and persecuted the Church, even Paul, became the champion of the Church. Just so then, those others also who chose to repent, had forgiveness: and this indeed Paul himself meant, when he exclaims, "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid." "I say then, hath God cast away His people whom He foreknew? God forbid." Then, to shew that their repentance was not precluded, he brought forward as a decisive proof his own conversion, saying, "For I also am an Israelite." As to the words, "They knew not;" they seem to me to be said here not concerning Christ's Person, but only concerning the dispensation hidden in that event: as if he had said, what meant "the death," and the "Cross," they knew not. For in that passage also He said not, "They know not Me," but, "They know not what they do;" that is, the dispensation which is being accomplished, and the mystery, they are ignorant of. For they knew not that the Cross is to shine forth so brightly; that it is made the salvation of the world, and the reconciliation of God unto men; that their city should be taken; and that they should suffer the extreme of wretchedness. By the name of "wisdom," he calls both Christ, and the Cross and the Gospel. Opportunely also he called Him, "The Lord of glory." For seeing that the Cross is counted a matter of ignominy, he signifies that the Cross was great glory: but that there was need of great wisdom in order not only to know God but also to learn this dispensation of God: and the wisdom which was without turned out an obstacle, not to the former only, but to the latter also.”

“Pilate, Caiaphas and the rest were condemned by their ignorance, because they should have known the truth. There are two kinds of heretics who misinterpret this passage. The first are the Apollinarians, and the second are the Arians. The Apollinarians are wrong because they do not accept that Christ's human nature was perfect. The Arians err because they claim that the Word of God can suffer. Arius did not believe that it was the Lord of glory who took on a human nature, and therefore he thought that the Word, being only human, could suffer.”

“Princes here refers to Herod and Pilate. It would not be wrong, however, to also understand this as meaning the chief priests and scribes. The words "of this age" express, as was shown above, their temporal power. If they had known the hidden wisdom, as was said above, and the mysteries of the divine economy, namely the mystery of God's incarnation, the mystery of the cross, the mystery of the calling and adoption of the Gentiles, the mystery of rebirth, sonship, and the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven — in a word, all the mysteries revealed to the apostles by the Holy Spirit — and likewise if the chief priests had known that their city would be conquered and they themselves would be led into captivity, then they would not have crucified Christ. He called Christ here "the Lord of glory." That is, since they regarded the cross as something dishonorable, he shows that Christ in no way lost His glory through the cross; on the contrary, He was glorified even more, because through the cross He more clearly revealed His love for mankind. So then, if they did not know, ought this sin to have been forgiven them? Yes; if after this they had repented and turned back, the sin would have been forgiven them, just as it was forgiven Paul and others among the Jews.”

“Having explained the wisdom he speaks among the perfect, the Apostle now gives the reason behind the explanation: first, insofar as he described it in relation to unbelievers; secondly, in relation to believers (v.10). As to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it (v.8). He says, therefore: I have said that the wisdom we speak is not the wisdom of the rulers of this world; for this is the wisdom which none of the rulers of this world understood. This is true regardless of which class of rulers be considered; for worldly rulers did not know this wisdom, because it surpasses the rules of human government: "He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless waste" (Jb 12:24). Philosophers, too, have not known it, because it transcends human reason; hence Bar (3:23) says: "The searchers for understanding on the earth have not learned the way to wisdom." Finally, the devils have not known it, because it surpasses all created wisdom; hence Jb (28:21) says: "It is hid from the eyes of all living, and concealed from the birds of the air. Abaddon and Death say, 'We have heard a rumor of it with our ears'." Then when he says, for if they had, he proves what he had said: first, he proves it by a sign which indicates that the rulers did not know God's wisdom, insofar as it is hidden in Him; secondly, he proves on scriptural authority that they did not know it as prepared for our glory (v.9). He says, therefore: I am correct in saying that the rulers of this world did not understand God's wisdom; for if they had known it, they would certainly have known that Christ is God, Who is contained in this wisdom, and knowing it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, i.e., Christ the Lord, Who gives glory to His own: "The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory" (Ps 24:10) and "he brought many sons into glory" (Heb 2:10). For since the rational creature by nature desires glory, it cannot occur to the human will to destroy the author of glory. That the rulers crucified Jesus Christ is certain, if by rulers is meant those in power among men, for it says in Ps 2 (v.2): "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed." In Ac (4:27) this is referred to Herod and Pilate and the Jewish leaders, who consented to Christ's death. But the devils also had a part in Christ's death by persuading, for Jn (13:2) says: "The devil, having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him." Furthermore, the Pharisees and scribes versed in the law and students of wisdom, procured Christ's death by instigating and approving. Two difficulties arise here: the first concerns the statement that the God of glory was crucified. For Christ's godhead, according to which Christ is called the Lord of glory, cannot suffer anything. The answer is that Christ is one person subsisting in two natures, the human and the divine. Hence He can be described by names drawn from either nature; furthermore, no matter what the name by which He is designated, it can be predicated of Him, because there is but one person underlying both natures. Consequently, we can say that the man created the stars and that the Lord of glory was crucified; however, it was not as man that He created the stars, but as God; nor was it as God that He was crucified, but as man. Hence this phrase refutes Nestorius' error asserting that there is one nature, composed of God and man, in Christ; because of Nestorius were correct, it would not be true to say that Lord of glory was crucified. The second difficulty is that he seems to suppose that the Jewish rulers or the devils did not know that Christ was God. Indeed, as far as the Jewish rulers were concerned, this seems to be supported by Peter's statement in Ac (3:17): "I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers." This in turn seems to be contrary to what it says in Matt (21:38): "But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance." Furthermore, in explaining this Chrysostom says: "By these words the Lord proves clearly that the Jewish rulers killed the Son of God not through ignorance by through envy." This difficulty is answered in a Gloss (attributed to Chrysostom in Homily 40 On Matthew), which states that the Jewish rulers knew that He was the one promised in the Law, although they did not know His mystery, that He was the Son of God or the sacrament of the incarnation and redemption. But this seems to be contradicted by Chrysostom's own statement that they knew He was the Son of God. Therefore, the answer is that the Jewish rulers knew for certain that He was the Christ promised in the Law, although the people did not know; yet they did not know for certain but somehow conjectured that He was the true Son of God. However, this conjectural knowledge was obscured in them by envy and from a desire for their own glory, which they saw was being diminished by Christ's excellence. There seems to be difficulty also about the devil, for it says in Mk (1:23) and Lk (4:34) that the devil cried out: "I know you are the holy one of God." But lest this be ascribed to the devils' boasting to know what they did not know, the knowledge they had of Christ is asserted by the evangelists. For Mk (1:34) says: "And he did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him," and Lk (4:41) says: "But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ." This is answered in the book of Questions of the New and Old Testament: that the devils knew He was the one promised by the Law, because they saw in Him all the signs foretold by the prophets; nevertheless, they did not know the mystery of His divinity. But opposed to this is Athanasius' statement that devils called Christ the holy one of God, as being uniquely holy, for He is naturally holy, by participation in Whom, all others are called holy. Consequently, it must be said with Chrysostom that they did not have firm and sure knowledge of God's coming, but on conjectures; hence Augustine says in The City of God that He was recognized by the devils not by that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal things effected by His power.”

“The rulers of this age are not only those who were great among the Jews and the Romans but also every spiritual power which sets itself up against God. The Jewish rulers cannot be called rulers of this age, because they were subject to the Romans. Nor did the Romans crucify Jesus, because Pilate himself said that he found no fault in him. The rulers who crucified him were the demons. They knew that Jesus was the Messiah but not that he was the Son of God, and so it can be said that they crucified him in ignorance.”