Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?

“After he had set down the condition of the devil, the Lord here consequently shows that the Jews are imitators of the devil's condition. Now the Lord ascribed two conditions of malice to the devil, namely homicide and lying. As to homicide, indeed, in which these men were imitating the devil, he had reproved them above, in the same place: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken to you the truth, which I have heard from God" (John 8:40). And therefore, passing over this, he rebukes them for their aversion from the truth, and first he shows that they are averse from the truth; second, he excludes the cause which they could have alleged, at the place, "Which of you shall convict me of sin?"; third, he concludes to the true cause of their aversion, at the place, "If I say the truth, why do you not believe me?" He says therefore first: it has been said that the devil is a liar, and the father of lying, whom indeed you imitate, because you do not wish to adhere to the truth. Hence he says, "But if I say the truth to you, you do not believe me." Luke 22:67: "But if I shall say to you, you will not believe me." And above, John 3:12: "how, if I shall tell you heavenly things, will you believe?" Whence also Isaiah 53:1 complains, saying: "Lord, who has believed our report?" Now the cause of their unbelief, which the Jews could allege, was sin in Christ; for even in speaking the truth, a sinner is not easily believed. Whence Psalm 49:16: "But to the sinner God has said: Why do you declare my justices?" They could therefore say: we do not believe, because you are a sinner. And so he excludes this cause, saying: "Which of you shall convict me of sin?" As if to say: you have no just cause why you do not believe me when I speak the truth, since no sin can be found in me; 1 Peter 2:22: "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." According to Gregory, the meekness of God is to be weighed, who does not disdain to show by reason that he is not a sinner, he who by the power of his divinity could justify sinners; Job 31:13: "If I have despised to abide judgment with my manservant, or my maidservant, when they had any controversy against me." Also to be admired is the singular excellence of Christ's purity, because, as Chrysostom says, no man could say this with confidence — "Which of you shall convict me of sin?" — except our God alone, who did no sin; Proverbs 20:9: "Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin?" As if to say, no one but God alone. And in Psalm 13:3: "They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together: there is none that does good, no not one," that is, except Christ. Now he concludes to the true cause of their aversion, saying: "If I say the truth, why do you not believe me?" And first he sets this down; second he excludes the Jews' contradiction, at the place, "The Jews therefore answered," and so on. As to the first he does three things. First he sets down the question; second he assumes a reasonable proposition; third he infers the intended conclusion. He says therefore first: since then you cannot say that you do not believe me because I am a sinner, it now remains to ask why, if I say the truth, you do not believe me, since I am not a sinner; as if to say: if you, who hold me in hatred, cannot convict me of sin, it is manifest that you hate me on account of the truth, because I say that I am the Son of God; Proverbs 18:2: "A fool receives not the words of prudence, unless you say those things that are in his heart." Now he assumes a reasonable and true proposition, saying: "He that is of God, hears the words of God." For as it is said in Ecclesiasticus 13:19, "every beast loves its like," so whoever is of God, insofar as he is such, has a likeness to the things that are of God, and adheres to them. Whence he that is of God gladly hears the words of God; below, John 18:37: "Everyone that is of the truth, hears my voice." And the word of God ought especially to be gladly heard by those who are of God, since it is itself the seed by which we are begotten into sons of God; below, John 10:35: "He called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken." And therefore from this he infers the intended conclusion, saying: "Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God"; as if to say: therefore my sin is not the cause of your unbelief, but your malice; Ecclesiasticus 6:21: "How exceedingly bitter is wisdom to unlearned men." And, as Augustine says, they are indeed of God according to nature, but they are not of God by fault and depraved affection; for this word was said to those who were not only vitiated by sin — for this was common to all — but also foreknown as those who would not believe with that faith by which they might be freed from the bond of sins. Now it must be noted that there is a threefold degree of those badly disposed, as Gregory says. For there are some who do not deign to hear the precepts of God even with the bodily ear, that is, with exterior hearing; of whom it is said in Psalm 57:5: "like the deaf asp that stops her ears." There are others who indeed perceive these things with the bodily ear, but embrace them with no desire of the mind, having no will to fulfill them; Ezekiel 33:31: "they hear your words, and do them not." There are others who gladly receive the words of God, so that they are even pierced with compunction unto tears; but after the time of weeping, either oppressed by tribulations or allured by delights, they return to iniquity; an example of which is had in Matthew 13:18ff. and Luke 8:11ff., concerning the word choked by cares. Ezekiel 3:7: "the house of Israel will not hear you, because they will not hear me." It is therefore a sign that a man is of God if he gladly hears the words of God; but those who refuse to hear, whether in affection or in effect, are not of God. Here he excludes the Jews' contradiction, and first the Evangelist sets down the Jews' contradiction; second, the Lord's exclusion of it, at the place, "Jesus answered: I have not a devil." Now the Jews impute two things to Christ in their contradiction. First, that he is a Samaritan, when they say, "Do we not say well, that you are a Samaritan?" Second, that he has a devil; whence they add, "and have a devil." Now in their saying, "Do we not say well?" it is given to understand that they frequently reproached the Lord with this word. And indeed as to the second, that he is possessed by a demon, we read in Matthew 9:34 and 12:24, where they said: "By Beelzebub the prince of devils he casts out devils." But that they called him a Samaritan is found nowhere except here in the Gospel, although perhaps they said this many times; for many things were said and done concerning Jesus and by Jesus which are not written in the Gospels, as it is said below, John 20:25. Now a twofold cause can be assigned why the Jews said this to Christ. One indeed, because the Samaritans were a nation hateful to the people of Israel, in that, when the ten tribes had been led into captivity, they possessed their land; above, John 4:9: "for the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans." Since therefore Christ, in rebuking the Jews, was believed by the Jews to do this out of hatred, therefore they reputed him a Samaritan and, as it were, an adversary, and so on. The other reason is, because the Samaritans partly kept the Jewish rites, and partly did not. Seeing therefore that Christ in some things kept the law, and in some things dissolved it, as for instance the sabbath, the Jews called him a Samaritan. Likewise, for a twofold cause they said that he had a devil. One indeed, because the miracles which he performed, and the thoughts which he revealed, they did not attribute to divine power in Christ, but suspected that he did these things by the art of devils. Whence they said: "By Beelzebub the prince of devils he casts out devils." The other reason is on account of his discourses, which transcended human capacity, saying that God was his Father, and that he had descended from heaven, and so on. Now it is the custom of the unlearned, when they hear such things, to account them diabolical; and so these men believed that Christ spoke as it were filled with a devil; below, John 10:20: "others said: He has a devil, and is mad; why hear you him?" And they say these words in order to accuse him of sin, against what he had said: "Which of you shall convict me of sin?" Consequently, when he says, "Jesus answered: I have not a devil," the Lord repels the contradiction of the Jews. Now they had imputed two things to Christ: namely, that he was a Samaritan, and that he had a devil. As to the first, the Lord does not excuse himself; and this for a twofold reason. One indeed, according to Origen, because the Jews always wished to separate themselves from the Gentiles. But now the time had come when the distinction between Gentiles and Jews was to be removed, and all were to be called back to the way of salvation; and therefore the Lord, to show that he had come for the salvation of all, so that — more than Paul — having been made all things to all, he might gain all (1 Corinthians 9), did not deny that he was a Samaritan. The other reason is, because "Samaritan" is interpreted "keeper"; and because he himself is especially our keeper, according to Psalm 121:4: "Behold he shall neither slumber nor sleep, that keeps Israel," therefore he did not deny that he was a Samaritan. But he denies that he has a devil, saying, "I have not a devil," and first indeed he repels the injury inflicted; second he charges the pertinacity of those who inflict the injury, at the place, "and you have dishonored me." As to the first he does two things. First he repels the injury inflicted; second he manifests this by its opposite, at the place, "but I honor my Father." Now it must be noted, as to the first, that the Lord, in correcting the Jews, frequently spoke harshly to them: "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," and many things which are read in the Gospels. But it is not found that the Lord, when the Jews inflicted harsh words or deeds upon him personally, spoke to them injuriously or harshly; but, as Gregory says, God, receiving injury, does not answer with contumelious words, but simply says, "I have not a devil." From which fact what is suggested to us, except that at the time when we receive contumelies from our neighbors out of falsehood, we too should keep silent about their evil words, lest the ministry of just correction be turned into the arms of fury? And that we ought to vindicate the things that pertain to God, but despise the things that pertain to ourselves. Now this word, namely "I have not a devil," Christ alone can say, as Origen says; for he has nothing of what belongs to the devil, whether light or grave, in himself; whence below, John 14:30: "the prince of this world comes, and in me he has not anything"; 2 Corinthians 6:15: "what agreement has Christ with Belial?" Now he manifests what he had said by its opposite, saying, "but I honor my Father." For the devil resists the honor of God; whoever therefore seeks the honor of God is a stranger to the devil. Christ therefore, who honors his Father, namely God, does not have a devil. Now it is proper and singular to Christ that he honors his Father, as it is said in Malachi 1:6: "the son honors the father." But Christ is singularly the Son of God. Consequently, when he says, "and you have dishonored me," he charges the pertinacity of those who do him injury, and first he accuses those doing the injury; second he excludes an unexpected cause of accusation; third he foretells to them their due condemnation. He says therefore first: I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me; as if to say: I do what I ought; you do what you ought not; nay rather, in that you have dishonored me, you dishonor my Father; above, John 5:23: "he who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him." But because they might say: you are too harsh, you care too much for your own glory, thus accusing us; therefore, excluding this, he adds, speaking insofar as he is man, "but I seek not my own glory." For God alone is he who can seek his own glory without fault; others, however, only in God; 2 Corinthians 10:17: "he that glories, let him glory in the Lord"; below, in this same chapter: "if I glorify myself, my glory is nothing." But does not Christ, insofar as he is man, have glory? Nay rather, great glory in every way; for although he himself does not seek it, yet "there is one who seeks it," namely the Father. For it is said in Psalm 8:7: "you have crowned him with glory and honor," namely Christ as man. And elsewhere, Psalm 20:6: "you have laid upon him glory and great beauty." And he will not only seek my glory in those who work the living causes of truth, but he will also punish and condemn those who contradict my glory; whence he adds, "and judges." But against this, above, John 5:22, it is said: "the Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son." I answer: the Father judges no man apart from the Son, because even this judgment which he will make concerning what you do me injury in, he will make through the Son. Or it must be said that judgment is sometimes taken for condemnation; and this judgment the Father has given to the Son, because he alone will appear in visible form in judgment, as was said above. Sometimes it is taken for discernment, and of this he speaks here. Whence he says in Psalm 42:1: "Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause"; as if to say: it is the Father who will distinguish my glory from yours. For you, he discerns as glorying for the sake of the world, and the glory of his Son, whom he has anointed above his fellows, and who is without sin, from you; but you are men with sin.”

“Which of you, &c. This is to anticipate an objection of the Jews. For they might say, “We do not believe thee, because thou art a violater of our law, in healing the sick on the Sabbath-day.” Digitized by V^rOOQie SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 325 Produce any other charge against Me, and I will submit to your disbelieving Me. My healing on the Sabbath was not a violation, but a sanctification of the Sabbath. I leave any further charge to be decided by you who are my sworn enemies. So confident was Christ in His innocence that no one could lay anything to His charge which bore the slightest resemblance to sin. For He was Himself sinless, both on account of the Beatific Vision which He enjoyed, as the Blessed in heaven are incapable of sin for the same reason (for seeing God to be the Supreme Good, they necessarily love Him with all their strength, and hate whatever displeases Him) and likewise from the hypostatical union with the Word. For because His humanity existed in the Person of the Word, the Word kept His humanity free from all sin, and in perfect holiness. For if the humanity of Christ had sinned, the Person of the Word would have sinned ; which is impossible. For virtuous or vicious actions relate to persons, and are attributed to them. Hence S. Ambrose (on Ps. xl. 13) brings in God the Father thus addressing Christ, " Thou wert conversant with sinners, Thou didst take on Thee the sins of all, Thou wast made sin for all, but yet no practice of sin* could reach Thee. Thou didst dwell among men, as if among angels, Thou madest earth to be like heaven, that even there also Thou mightest take away sin.” Jf I say the truth, &c. He here shuts out another objection of the Jews. For they could have said, We believe Thee not, not for any sin which Thou hast committed, but because the things Thou sayest and teachest are not true.” Christ meets the objection by saying, “ I have proved to you My doctrine by so many arguments and miracles, that no prudent person who is not blinded by hatred could question its perfect truth. If then My life is most innocent, and My doctrine most true, why do ye not believe Me ? ” Receive then the truth not as a bare assertion, but as demonstrated by reason”

“Jesus answered, I have not a devil,.... He takes no notice of the first charge and scandalous character, that he was a Samaritan; it being so notorious to all the Jews, that he was not; but was, as they supposed, a Galilean, and of Nazareth; and besides, this was a term of reproach, which they gave to any man, that they had no good opinion of; just as we call a man a Turk, or a Jew; not meaning that he is in fact such an one, but behaves like one: to the other Christ replies, that he had not a devil, had no conversation with one, nor was he possessed or assisted by him, or was mad, and acted the part of a madman: in proof of which he observes, but I honour my Father; by ascribing his doctrine and miracles to him, by doing his will, seeking his glory, and speaking well of him; all which he would not, had he been in confederacy with the devil; for no man can be familiar with him, or be assisted by him, and honour God; nor could a man out of his senses do all this: and ye do dishonour me: by such wicked charges, and scandalous imputations: and Jews, who deny Jesus to be the Messiah, and treat him in this opprobrious manner, are not the only persons that dishonour Christ; there are many that are called by his name, who greatly dishonour him; some by their bad principles, and others by their evil practices: such highly reflect upon him, who deny his proper deity, and eternal sonship; who assert, that he is only God by office, and did not exist before his incarnation; who despise and reject his righteousness, submit not to it, but establish their own; who account his blood as common and useless, and speak disrespectfully of his sacrifice and satisfaction; and who consider his sufferings and death only as an example to men, and for the confirmation of his doctrine, but not as in the room and stead of his people, to answer and satisfy divine justice for them: and others they dishonour him, though they talk much of him, and pretend to faith in him, and love to him, and hope of eternal life by him, through their scandalous lives and conversations; dishonour his name and Gospel; give the enemy an occasion to reproach and blaspheme, and by reason of them, the ways and truths of Christ are evil spoken of.”

“Which of you convinceth me of sin? - Do you pretend to reject the truths which I announce, because my life does not correspond to the doctrines I have taught? But can any of you prove me guilty of any fault? You have maliciously watched all my steps; have you seen the smallest matter to reprove, in any part of my conduct? But it is probable that ἁμαρτια, sin, is put here in opposition to αληθεια, truth, in the same verse, and then it should be rendered falsehood. The very best Greek writers use the word in the same sense: this, Kypke proves by quotations from Polybius, Lucian, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Plutarch, Thucydides, and Hippocrates. Raphelius adds a pertinent quotation from Herodotus, and shows that the purest Latin writers have used the word peccatum, sin, in the sense of error or falsehood. See the note on Gen 13:13.”

“Which of you convinceth me of sin--"Convicteth," bringeth home a charge of sin. Glorious dilemma! "Convict Me of sin, and reject Me: If not, why stand ye out against My claims?" Of course, they could only be supposed to impeach His life; but in One who had already passed through unparalleled complications, and had continually to deal with friends and foes of every sort and degree, such a challenge thrown wide among His bitterest enemies, can amount to nothing short of a claim to absolute sinlessness.”