Commentary on the Gospel of John 20 part 2/6

But observe whether it is not clearly established for us, from the examination of the matters in this passage, that it belongs to some wise person, adorned with every virtue, to become a child of Abraham.

For why must one even say how much wisdom we need in order to understand the works of Abraham? And how much power in order to do them? And of what wisdom or what power do we stand in need, if not of Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God?

What is written is: "If you are children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham"; and, following this, you might correspondingly say: "If you are children of Isaac, do the works of Isaac" — and similarly concerning Jacob, and each one of the holy fathers.

And, conversely, each one who sins is, in a general sense, a child of the devil, since everyone who commits sin has been begotten of the devil; but already, in a more particular sense, he is a child either of Cain, or of Ham, or of Canaan, or of Pharaoh, or of Nebuchadnezzar, or of some one of the impious.

Following on from this, you will say that each person, on departing from this life, will go to his own fathers; for it must be supposed that it is said, not to Abraham alone, but to all people, at the time of their departure: "And you shall go to your fathers"; but it is no longer said to all people, but only to the saints, "in peace"; and to those who have been perfected and have become spiritually "long of days," it is also said, "nourished in a good old age" — since "grey hair is prudence for men," and "a crown of boasting is old age," and glory for the true and divine elders are the intelligible grey hairs that adorn them. "But now you seek to kill a man who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from God."

XI. Those who seek to kill — since God cannot be killed — even if they should kill, they kill a man; and even if they seek to kill, without yet killing, they, not believing him to be God against whom they plot, plot against him as against a man; for no one who is persuaded that the one against whom he plots is God would still plot against him.

It is in some way always possible to observe, concerning those who plot against the word of God, that they seek to kill and to obliterate him, supposing him to be a man, that is, something human and mortal; or else they attack the more human and visible part of him. But even if they should also kill the body of the word, it is clear that after this they can do nothing more.

For this reason we must not fear those who kill the body and afterward have nothing more that they can do, nor need we fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul of the word.

But if there is a word of such a kind that even its own soul, being worthy of destruction, can be destroyed, then one must fear God, who is able to destroy and obliterate word and soul and body, whether in Gehenna or in whatever way he wills; for the Lord Jesus "consumes with the breath of his mouth" and "abolishes by the manifestation of his coming" the opposing word — the one who exalts himself against everyone called god or an object of worship.

And indeed these, to whom the discourse is addressed, seek to kill a man who has spoken the truth, which he heard from God and received.

But if, more simply, we take this passage at face value, the Savior clearly taught that what was sought by the Jews to be destroyed was not God but a man — and this indeed was destroyed; for it is not lawful to say that God dies. For this reason the Word who in the beginning was with God, who was also God the Word, did not die. But you will ask, since it is written that "the Word became flesh," whether the Word, having become flesh, by having become flesh became also a man, or did not become a man.

For if he became a man, it is possible that he himself was sought to be destroyed; but if he did not become a man, then even the Word who became flesh, not having been destroyed, was restored — and each thing is restored to that which it was before it became flesh. "This Abraham did not do."

What could in no way have been done by Abraham — if Abraham has not done it — the saying "This Abraham did not do" will seem to have been said at random. For someone might say concerning this that "This Abraham did not do" is said in vain, if indeed he did not do a thing that had in no way occurred in his own time; for Jesus had not come into being in his time.

But since I take "This Abraham did not do" to have been said as though in praise concerning Abraham, I would say that, according to the teaching contained in the saying "Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad," the meaning is that even in the time of Abraham there had come to be a man speaking the truth which he had heard from God, yet he was not sought to be destroyed by Abraham.

And take note that there is no time when the man understood figuratively in the sense of Jesus was not present in human life, both after the times recorded in the narrative about him and before. In this respect I think that every one who has once been enlightened and has tasted of the heavenly gift and has become a partaker of the Holy Spirit, and has tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and has then fallen away, in effect renews himself unto repentance — either crucifying or crucifying afresh the Son of God and putting him to open shame — whether before the bodily coming of our Savior recorded in history, or afterward.

For it is not only the one who now, after enlightenment and the rest of God's benefits toward him, sins and crucifies afresh the Son of God through his own sins, to which he has reverted, without at all performing the more commonly so-called bodily act of crucifying the Son of God — but this also took place formerly, and the one who sinned, after hearing divine words, crucified beforehand the Son of God.

But if it pleases anyone to accept what is recorded in the Acts of Paul as having been spoken by the Savior — "I am about to be crucified again" — such a person, just as he accepts that "I am about to be crucified again" takes place after the coming, so also, before the coming, whenever the same causes occur, he should accept that it might likewise be said — for why not — that, as it were, "again" he is about to be crucified,

and had already been crucified? But observe whether the saying "I have been crucified with Christ" is the utterance not only of the saints after the coming, but also of those before it, so that we should not say that the saints after the coming differ from Moses and the patriarchs.

And let "I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me" also be said not only by those after the coming, but also by those before it. I also pause over the saying spoken by the Savior, "God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob; and he is not the God of the dead, but of the living" — whether it is not perhaps for this reason that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are living, since they too, having been buried with Christ, rose together with him — not necessarily according to the bodily burial of Jesus or his bodily resurrection. These things are said with reference to "This Abraham did not do."

But what is this, other than seeking to kill a man who has spoken the truth which he heard from God? For we maintain that the spiritual dispensation according to Jesus was never absent from the saints at any time.

But if you take these things up, as we have surmised elsewhere, in a different, more mystical sense regarding Abraham than the more common one, you will likewise attempt to smooth out all the matters in this passage, seeking the logical connection of each of them. "You do the works of your father."

XIII. As far as this saying itself is concerned, it is not clear whom he means by "father" of the Jews who had believed in him and had not yet come to know the truth; for it is to them that he says all these things.

And if it were not that, a little later, the words follow, "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you wish to do," we would certainly not have clearly known the intention of what was said.

It is not surprising, then, if to the Jews who had believed in him, but had not yet abided in his word so as truly to become his disciples and to know the truth so as to be set free by it, he said "You do the works of your father," and, as follows a little later, "You are of your father the devil."

For even if such a statement, said about those who had believed in him and had in some way been made disciples, though not yet truly bearing the name of disciples of Jesus, should seem harsh, nevertheless one must also take into consideration what is said by John in the catholic epistle concerning sons of God and sons of the devil: "For he who commits sin," he says, "is of the devil, because the devil sins from the beginning."

For this the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Everyone who has been begotten of God does not commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God.

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever is not righteous is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

These sayings being thus, consider whether it has not been clearly stated that everyone who commits sin is of the devil.

As long as we commit sins, we have not yet stripped off our origin from the devil, even if we are thought to believe in Jesus; and consistent with this is the fact that it was said by Jesus to the Jews who had believed: "You do the works of your father," with "father" referring to the devil, because of the words "You are of your father the devil."

But if everyone who commits sin is of the devil, then everyone who is not of the devil does not commit sin.

But also, if indeed the Son of God was manifested for this purpose, that he might destroy the works of the devil, then, insofar as he has not yet destroyed the works of the devil within us — because we have not presented ourselves to him who destroys the works of the devil — we have not yet put off being children of the devil, being recognized from our fruits as to whose sons we are.

And from these things, moreover, it is clear that no one is a son of the devil by nature's constitution, nor is anyone among human beings called a son of God because he has been fashioned in such a way by nature; and it is clear that one who was once a son of the devil can become a son of God, which Matthew also makes clear when he records the Savior as having said: "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy; but I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

"That you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven." For observe that it is from loving your enemies and praying for your persecutors that one who was not previously a son of the Father in heaven afterward becomes his son. And further, because of the saying "In this the works of God and the works of the devil are manifest," where it has already been said concerning the children of the devil, "He who commits sin is of the devil," and concerning the children of God, "Everyone who has been begotten of God does not commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God" — it is clear that every human being who has reached the completion of the [gospel] word is either a child of God or a child of the devil; for he either commits sin or does not commit sin, there being nothing between committing sin and not committing sin. And if he commits sin, he is of the devil; but if he does not commit sin, he has been begotten of God.

Connected with this declaration concerning children of God and children of the devil are the words in the same epistle spoken concerning those who are in the Son of God and those who have not seen him: "For everyone," he says, "who abides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen him."

Therefore, if everyone who abides in him does not sin, then he who sins does not abide in the Son; and if everyone who sins has not seen him, then he who has seen him does not sin.

At the same time, also note with what understanding John said "Everyone who sins has not seen him," showing by the phrase "has seen him" that the one referred to belongs among those who see the Son of God, and who, from having seen him, partake of a power enabling them in no way to sin.

You will further say that "You do the works of your father" could be said at one time to the sons of the devil, and at another time to the sons of God. For those who sin do the works of their father the devil, while those who do right do the works of their father God.

It is likely that someone will be moved by these considerations to ask whether the same person, by doing good and evil works alternately, might not be, on account of the good deeds, a child of God, and, on account of the opposite deeds, a child of the devil. But this, besides being most unreasonable, is not indicated by these sayings.

For John declares that "Everyone who has been begotten of God does not commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God."

Every one, then, who has been begotten of God does not commit sin; yet it is not written that everyone who has been begotten of the devil does not do righteousness, but rather that he who commits sin is of the devil.

Again, it is not written the way it was said: 'The one who does sin is of the devil,' so also it is recorded: 'the one who does righteousness is of God.' And attend to the differences between these propositions, [noting] in what way they have been stated by John with complete precision — so that, however skillfully and unassailably (dialectically, as some would say) one might handle them, [John] did not present parallel statements concerning those who are of the devil and those who are of God; for he would have presented them in parallel, had he done so. Just as [he wrote] 'The one who does sin is of the devil,' so [he would have written] 'the one who does righteousness is of God'; or just as he wrote that 'Everyone who has been begotten of God does not do sin,' he would have made [likewise] 'everyone who has been begotten of the devil does not do righteousness.'

Or perhaps, by not using the word 'is,' spoken of the one from the devil, in the case of those from God, and by not employing 'begotten,' which is written of those from God, in the case of the one from the devil, he published this with the greatest wisdom.

For he elevated the one who is of God, by applying 'begotten' to him; which, if it had also been said of the one who is of the devil, would have signified something worse than 'is of the devil.'

But also, if, just as he applied 'is' to the one from the devil, he had done likewise for the one from God, he would have presented something lesser concerning the one from God, since to have been begotten of God is far better than to be of God. But someone will say that some created things are indeed of God, yet have not been begotten of God, and that these altogether hold a lesser rank in the universe than those said to have been begotten of God.

And having arrived at the difference between 'is of the devil' and 'is of God,' you will inquire whether there is someone who is also begotten of the devil, and who is thus in every case also of the devil — though not everyone who is of the devil has been begotten [of him]; and again, whether there is someone who is of God, yet not in every case also begotten of God — since it is not the case that everyone who is of God has been begotten of God.

The one who has been begotten of God is, however, characterized by not doing sin, because the seed of God remains in him, and because, from that seed's power being present within him, there arises [in him] the inability to sin any longer.

And also in the final part of the letter it is said: 'For everyone who has been begotten of God does not sin, but the one who has been begotten of God keeps himself, and the evil one does not...'

...touch him. But if the one who has been begotten of God keeps himself, and the evil one does not touch him, then the one who does not keep himself, so that the evil one may not touch him, has not been begotten of God; and everyone whom the evil one touches has not been begotten of God; and the evil one touches those who do not keep themselves.

Since, then, to the statements concerning Abraham — with no interval intervening — there is added, 'You do the works of your father,' we inquire whether this has been written on account of the first commandment given to Abraham.

Now the first divine communication to him runs thus: 'Go forth from your land and from your kindred and from your father's house, and go to the land which I will show you.'

Abraham, then, went forth from his father's house — which those being refuted for not having spoken soundly have not done.

'Abraham is our father.' For if the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham, and the first of these works is to go forth from one's own land and one's own kindred and one's own father's house, and to go to the land which God shows him, and if for this reason these men, to whom the discourse is addressed, are convicted of not being children of Abraham, then it is clear that, not having gone forth from their own father's house, they are reproached as still belonging to the evil father and as still doing the works of that father.

With these things having been said by us concerning the literal wording, I think it is clearly shown, refuting those who suppose it is established from this that there are some who are sons of the devil by [natural] constitution. 'They said to him: We were not begotten of fornication; we have one Father, God.'

I inquire whether, having been refuted as not being children of Abraham, the Jews who are said to have believed him answer more bitterly, covertly hinting that the Savior was begotten of fornication — as is likely, given that they suspected this because they did not accept the celebrated and much-talked-of account of his birth from the virgin.

For indeed it seems to me altogether unreasonable that they should have flung out these words at random; for it cannot be said to accord either with what preceded or with what follows, if what was said by them — 'We were not begotten of fornication' — is understood in a more simplistic sense.

But also, since the Savior called God his own father, confessing that no man was his father, it is likely that they, after their words 'We were not begotten of fornication,' add — again giving offense — 'We have one Father, God,' as though they were saying: we have one Father, God, more truly than you do — you who claim to have been begotten of a virgin but were [in fact] begotten of fornication, and who, because you boast of having been begotten of a virgin, say you have only that one father — whereas those who confess God as father do not deny [also having] a human father.

But someone will say that these words, so understood, cannot be the words of the Jews who had believed in him. To this it must be said that, since it was said at the beginning of the discourse to them, 'If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you shall know the truth' — implying that they were able both to abide in Jesus' word and not to abide — it was not impossible that some of those who were refuted had not abided in his word, and that, not having abided, they spoke more bitterly and offensively: 'We were not begotten of fornication; we have one Father, God.'

It seems to me also that they answered rather contentiously; for having first said, 'We are the seed of Abraham,' and having confessed this, so to speak, more plainly by 'Abraham is our father,' upon hearing in response 'If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham,' they confess a father greater than Abraham to be their own, saying: 'We have one Father, God.'

But perhaps, because some men are of the devil while others have been begotten of God, we might soundly say of all those who have not been begotten of God that they have been begotten of fornication.

For it is not from a bride, but from a harlot — matter — that the devil begets, or makes, those from himself, who, having been affected by and fastened to bodily things, cling to the harlot matter, becoming one body with her; whereas those begotten of God stand apart from the harlot matter, and cling to the Lord and are united to the Word who [was] in the beginning with God, and to his Wisdom, which he created as the beginning of his ways for his works, so that they become one spirit with her. 'For the one who clings to the harlot is one body [with her]; but the one who clings to the Lord is one spirit [with him].' 'Jesus said to them: If God were your Father, you would love me; for I came forth from God and have come.'

Since those who introduce [the doctrine of fixed] natures make use of this saying, expounding it to mean that: 'you would have recognized me as one of your own kin and brother, and indeed you would have loved me as your own, if God were your Father,' one must raise this difficulty against them:

There was a time when Paul hated Jesus, and he hated him when he was ravaging and persecuting the church of God; and indeed the first divine utterance to him, speaking truly, said:

'Saul, why do you persecute me?' If then the statement 'If God were your Father, you would love me' is true, it is clear that its converse is also sound: 'If you did not love me, God was not your Father.' Therefore, God is not the father of those who do not love Jesus. But there was a time when Paul did not love Jesus; there was an hour, a season, when God was not Paul's Father.

Paul, then, was not by nature a son of God, but later became a son of God — at which point we might soundly adopt the consequent belonging to the antecedent of the conditional, which states: 'But indeed, O Paul, God is your father; therefore you love the...'

But before the time of Paul's faith, since 'If God were your Father, you would love me' was true, it was sound to add, as it were with Jesus speaking: 'But indeed you do not love me; therefore he is not yours, O...'

But when does God become someone's Father, except when one keeps the commandments through which one who was not previously a son of the Father in heaven becomes his son — at which time the Father, bringing this one to regeneration, this one who becomes his son, is [then] designated the father of such a one.

It is possible to be led to these conclusions from what is thus written in the Gospel according to Matthew: 'You have heard that it was said: You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

'But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven.'

For observe that 'so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven' indicates that one who was not previously a son of the Father in heaven becomes his son.

But observing carefully also the word added to 'of the Father,' namely 'your' — for it is written: 'so that you may become sons of your Father' — you will inquire whether this was simply so said, or whether 'your' has been added because the copies are in error (for we would have had nothing to inquire about, if it had been written: 'so that [you may become] sons of the Father who is in heaven'), and especially since it seems to involve a contradiction for someone to become a son, not simply of the Father who is in heaven, but of his own father.

For if he is already someone's father, that one does not later become his son; but if that one becomes his son, he was not [previously] his father.

At the same time you will consider that, because some of those thought to have believed are called servants of God, while others are designated his sons, it may be that it is not just any commandment, but certain commandments accomplished in an exceptional way, that cause the one who has accomplished them to become a son of God.

Observe, then, that of the many things said in the Gospel according to Matthew, 'so that [you may become] sons of your Father who is in heaven' is added to 'But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.'

For indeed the likeness to God and the imitation of him — who loves all existing things and abhors none of the things he has made, and spares all (since all things belong to him as Master) — is displayed in the one who loves his own enemies and prays for those who persecute him.

But how would it have been fitting for 'so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven' to be added to 'It was said: You shall not commit adultery; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman so as to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart,' and to the statements about the loss of one of one's members for the sake of the whole body not going into Gehenna?

But also, if …… were added to 'It was said to the ancients: You shall not swear falsely, but you shall render to the Lord your oaths; but I say to you, do not swear at all,' the phrase 'so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven' would immediately have created much difficulty.

But now, just as the Father in heaven makes his sun rise upon the evil and the good, so each of the sons of God, having, as it were, a sun of love within himself, makes it rise also upon the evil, whenever he loves his own enemies; and again, just as he sends rain upon the just and the unjust, so the holy one sends down prayer, like a kind of rain, upon those who happen to be somewhere below on account of persecuting him, and prays concerning such persons. These things, then, have been said for the clarification, so far as it has fallen to us, of 'If God were your Father, you would love me.'

Let us also consider 'I came forth from God and have come,' for which it seems useful to me to cite what is written in Micah, as follows: 'Hear, O peoples, words, and let the earth pay attention, and all who are in it; and the Lord will be among you as a witness, the Lord from his holy house. For behold, the Lord goes forth from his own place, and will come down and will tread upon the heights of the earth, and the mountains will be shaken beneath him, and the valleys will melt like wax before the face of fire, and like water pouring down a slope.'

And see whether 'I came forth from God' is equivalent in force to 'The Lord goes forth from his own place,' since, when the Son is in the Father, existing in the form of God before he emptied himself, God is, as it were, his 'place.'

And if anyone should comprehend the one who, before emptying himself, existed in the preceding form of God, he will see the Son not yet having come forth from God, and the Lord not yet going forth from his own place.

But when one compares that condition of the Son with the condition arising from having taken on the form of a servant, having emptied himself, one will understand how the Son of God came forth and came to us, and became, as it were, outside the one who sent him — even though, in another sense, the Father has not left him alone, but is with him, and is in the Son just as he himself is also in the Father. And unless you understand, in yet another sense, the Son to be in the Father...

...just as he was before he went forth from God, it will seem to involve a contradiction, both that he has gone forth from God and that the one who has gone forth from God is still in God.

But others have interpreted 'I came forth from God' as equivalent to 'I have been begotten from God' — for whom it follows to say that the Son has been begotten from the substance of the Father, as though God were diminished and falling short of the substance he previously had, when he begets — just as one might understand this to happen also in the case of pregnant women.

And it follows for them also to say that the Father and the Son are body, and that the Father has been divided — which are the doctrines of men who have not even in a dream imagined an invisible and incorporeal nature, which is properly [called] substance.

These men, it is clear, will place the Father in a bodily place, and will say that the Son, having changed place for place, has come to sojourn bodily in this life, and not — as we have understood it — that he has passed from one condition to another. 'For neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.'