They sought therefore to take him; and he escaped out of their hands.

“(Tract. xlviii. 11) To lay hold of Him, not by faith and the understanding, but with bloodthirsty violence. Do thou so lay hold of Him, that thou mayest have sure hold; they would fain have laid hold on Him, but they could not: for it follows, But He escaped out of their hand. They did lay hold of Him with the hand of faith. It was no great matter for the Word to rescue His flesh from the hands of flesh.”

“We may observe that our Lord often brings out the people into solitary places, thus ridding them of the society of the unbelieving, for their furtherance in the faith: just as He led the people into the wilderness, when He gave them the old Law. Mystically, Christ departs from Jerusalem, i. e. from the Jewish people; and goes to a place where are springs of water, i. e. to the Gentile Church, that hath the waters of baptism. And many resort unto Him, passing over the Jordan, i. e. through baptism.”

“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.”

“The Jews therefore sought again to take Him, but He escaped out of their hands. “That their anger might be appeased by His withdrawal,” says S. Chrysostom. S. Augustine, acutely but symbolically, “They took Him not, because they had not the hand of faith.” He escaped by His Divine Power, making Himself invisible. As He did, viii. 59. Ver. 4a — And went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where fohn at first baptized . In Bethabara, or Bethania, where Christ was baptized by him. He afterwards baptized in iEnon (see chap, iii 23), frequently shifting His abode. He went through other districts of Jordan, He withdrew to Bethabara, that the people who followed Him thither might call to mind the testimony which John had borne to Him on the very spot, and also the testimony of God the Father at His baptism, and might on this account believe in Him. So S. Chrysostom. And there abode: till the Passover and his own Passion drew nigh, when He returned to Jerusalem, and raised up Lazarus, which provoked the scribes and rulers against Him”

“We have here the issue of the conference with the Jews. One would have thought it would have convinced and melted them, but their hearts were hardened. Here we are told, I. How they attacked him by force. Therefore they sought again to take him, Joh 10:39. Therefore, 1. Because he had fully answered their charge of blasphemy, and wiped off that imputation, so that they could not for shame go on with their attempts to stone him, therefore they contrived to seize him, and prosecute him as an offender against the state. When they were constrained to drop their attempt by a popular tumult, they would try what they could do under colour of a legal process. See Rev 12:13. Or, 2. Because he persevered in the same testimony concerning himself, they persisted in their malice against him. What he had said before he did in effect say again, for the faithful witness never departs from what he has once said; and therefore, having the same provocation, they express the same resentment, and justify their attempt to stone him by another attempt to take him. Such is the temper of a persecuting spirit, and such its policy, mal facta mal factis tegere ne perpluant - to cover one set of bad deeds with another, lest the former should fall through. II. How he avoided them by flight; not an inglorious retreat, in which there was any thing of human infirmity, but a glorious retirement, in which there was much of a divine power. He escaped out of their hands, not by the interposal of any friend that helped him, but by his own wisdom he got clear of them; he drew a veil over himself, or cast a mist before their eyes, or tied the hands of those whose hearts he did not turn. Note, No weapon formed against our Lord Jesus shall prosper, Psa 2:4. He escaped, not because he was afraid to suffer, but because his hour was not come. And he who knew how to deliver himself no doubt knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to make a way for them to escape. III. How he disposed of himself in his retirement: He went away again beyond Jordan, Joh 10:40. The bishop of our souls came not to be fixed in one see, but to go about from place to place, doing good. This great benefactor was never out of his way, for wherever he came there was work to be done. Though Jerusalem was the royal city, yet he made many a kind visit to the country, not only to his own country Galilee, but to other parts, even those that lay most remote beyond Jordan. Now observe, 1. What shelter he found there. He went into a private part of the country, and there he abode; there he found some rest and quietness, when in Jerusalem he could find none. Note, Though persecutors may drive Christ and his gospel out of their own city or country, they cannot drive him or it out of the world. Though Jerusalem was not gathered, nor would be, yet Christ was glorious, and would be. Christ's going now beyond Jordan was a figure of the taking of the kingdom of God from the Jews, and bringing it to the Gentiles. Christ and his gospel have often found better entertainment among the plain country-people than among the wise, the mighty, the noble, Co1 1:26, Co1 1:27. 2. What success he found there. He did not go thither merely for his own security, but to do good there; and he chose to go thither, where John at first baptized (Joh 1:28), because there could not but remain some impressions of John's ministry and baptism thereabouts, which would dispose them to receive Christ and his doctrine; for it was not three years since John was baptizing, and Christ was himself baptized here at Bethabara. Christ came hither now to see what fruit there was of all the pains John Baptist had taken among them, and what they retained of the things they then heard and received. The event in some measure answered expectation; for we are told, (1.) That they flocked after him (Joh 10:41): Many resorted to him. The return of the means of grace to a place, after they have been for some time intermitted, commonly occasions a great stirring of affections. Some think Christ chose to abide at Bethabara, the house of passage, where the ferry-boats lay by which they crossed the river Jordan, that the confluence of people thither might give an opportunity of teaching many who would come to hear him when it lay in their way, but who would scarcely go a step out of the road for an opportunity of attending on his word. (2.) That they reasoned in his favour, and sought arguments to induce them to close with him as much as those at Jerusalem sought objections against him. They said very judiciously, John did no miracle, but all things that John spoke of this man were true. Two things they considered, upon recollecting what they had seen and heard from John, and comparing it with Christ's ministry. [1.] That Christ far exceeded John Baptist's power, for John did no miracle, but Jesus does many; whence it is easy to infer that Jesus is greater than John. And, if John was so great a prophet, how great then is this Jesus! Christ is best known and acknowledged by such a comparison with others as sets him superlatively above others. Though John came in the spirit and power of Elias, yet he did not work miracles, as Elias did, lest the minds of people should be made to hesitate between him and Jesus; therefore the honour of working miracles was reserved for Jesus as a flower of his crown, that there might be a sensible demonstration, and undeniable one, that though he came after John, yet he was preferred far before him. [2.] That Christ exactly answered John Baptist's testimony. John not only did no miracle to divert people from Christ, but he said a great deal to direct them to Christ, and to turn them over as apprentices to him, and this came to their minds now: all things that John said of this man were true, that he should be the Lamb of God, should baptize with Holy Ghost and with fire. Great things John had said of him, which raised their expectations; so that though they had not zeal enough to carry them into his country to enquire after him, yet, when he came into theirs, and brought his gospel to their doors, they acknowledged him as great as John had said he would be. When we get acquainted with Christ, and come to know him experimentally, we find all things that the scripture saith of him to be true; nay, and that the reality exceeds the report, Kg1 10:6, Kg1 10:7. John Baptist was now dead and gone, and yet his hearers profited by what they had heard formerly, and, by comparing what they heard then with what they saw now, they gained a double advantage; for, First, They were confirmed in their belief that John was a prophet, who foretold such things, and spoke of the eminency to which this Jesus would arrive, though his beginning was so small. Secondly, They were prepared to believe that Jesus was the Christ, in whom they saw those things accomplished which John foretold. By this we see that the success and efficacy of the word preached are not confined to the life of the preacher, nor do they expire with his breath, but that which seemed as water spilt upon the ground may afterwards be gathered up again. See Zac 1:5, Zac 1:6. (3.) That many believed on him there. Believing that he who wrought such miracles, and in whom John's predictions were fulfilled, was what he declared himself to be, the Son of God, they gave up themselves to him as his disciples, Joh 10:42. An emphasis is here to be laid, [1.] Upon the persons that believed on him; they were many. While those that received and embraced his doctrine at Jerusalem were but as the grape-gleanings of the vintage, those that believed on him in the country, beyond the Jordan, were a full harvest gathered in to him. [2.] Upon the place where this was; it was where John had been preaching and baptizing and had had great success; there many believed on the Lord Jesus. Where the preaching of the doctrine of repentance has had success, as desired, there the preaching of the doctrine of reconciliation and gospel grace is most likely to be prosperous. Where John has been acceptable, Jesus will not be unacceptable. The jubilee-trumpet sounds sweetest in the ears of those who in the day of atonement have afflicted their souls for sin.”

“And went away again beyond Jordan,.... Where he had been before; and whither he went; not merely for the security of his person, much less to indulge himself in ease, but to preach the Gospel, work miracles, and bring many souls to believe on him, as did: and he went into the place where John at first baptized; that is, Bethabara, where he baptized before he was at Aenon, near Salim, Joh 1:28, and was the place where Christ himself was baptized, and where John bore such a testimony of him: and there he abode; how long is not certain, perhaps till he went to Bethany, on account of raising Lazarus from the dead.”

“They sought again to take him - They could not reply to his arguments but by stones. The evidence of the truth could not be resisted; and they endeavored to destroy the person who spoke it. Truth may confound the obstinately wicked, but it does not convert them; and it is a just judgment of God, to leave those to perish in their gainsayings who obstinately continue to gainsay and disbelieve. But he escaped - In such a way as we know not, for the evangelist has not specified the manner of it.”