ACC ~ John 10 v31 - 42

OVERVIEW:

In reply to their charges, Jesus tells them he has done any number of works that clearly demonstrates he does not deserve to be stoned (TERTULLIAN). Despite this fact, however, they have no knowledge of Christ’s divine nature; all they saw was his human nature (THEODORET). The Jews, however, end up being unwitting witnesses to the Son’s equality with the Father in what they say (AUGUSTINE). In effect, the Arians and the Jews agree that Christ claimed to be God (HILARY), and Christ does not deny that they understood him correctly (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA).

Christ speaks of those in the Old Testament who were called “gods,” but they and we become such only through participation with the Word (ATHANASIUS), who is the only true God. He says that they are accusing the one whom the Father sanctified. The fact that he was sanctified, however, should not cause us undue concern as if there were a time when he was not holy (AUGUSTINE). He does not confirm their charge of blasphemy, but he does confirm their assertion that he claims to be God (NOVATIAN). In appealing to the law, which called mere humans “gods,” Christ showed how much more this title was worthy of him (HILARY). Since they could not see his substance (ousia), Christ directs them to his works (CHRYSOSTOM). The Father is in the Son by means of his works (TERTULLIAN), which prove his divinity and his equality with the Father (ATHANASIUS, HILARY). Unlike we who, while dwelling in the Father, are not equal with the Father, the Son is in the Father as an equal is in an equal (AUGUSTINE).

After this discourse, Christ crosses the Jordan. He shows as in a type how he is going over to the church of the Gentiles, which possesses the fountains of baptism (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). Jesus chooses the Jordan as a point of departure also to remind them of John the Baptist’s validation of his ministry (CHRYSOSTOM).

10:31-32 | For Which Good Work Will They Stone Him?

JESUS DID NOT DESERVE TO DIE FOR HIS WORKS

TERTULLIAN: When he says, “I and my Father are one” in essence [unum], he shows that there are two, whom he puts on an equality and unites in one. He therefore adds to this very statement, that he had “shown them many good works from the Father,” for none of which did he deserve to be stoned. AGAINST PRAXEAS 22. [1]

[1] ANF 3:618.

10:33 | For Blasphemy We Stone You

NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE INVISIBLE NATURE

THEODORET OF CYR: But since they did not know the divine nature, they crucified [what they saw as] the human nature. Or didn’t you hear them say, “We are not stoning you because of a good work but because of blasphemy, since you, who are a man, make yourself God.” Through these words they show that they recognized the nature that they saw but had absolutely no knowledge of the invisible nature. If they had known that nature, however, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” [1] DIALOGUE 3. [2]

[1] 1 Cor 2:8.

[2] FC 106:220.

JEWS AS HOSTILE WITNESSES TO SON’S EQUALITY WITH FATHER

AUGUSTINE: This is how the Jews reply to his words, “I and my Father are one.” See how the Jews understood what the Arians do not. The reason they are angry is that they could not conceive of Jesus’ words, “I and my Father are one,” in any other way but that he meant the equality of the Father and the Son. TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 48.8. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 7:268**.

ARIANS AND JEWS AGREE

HILARY OF POITIERS: The Jew says, “You being a man”; you [Arians] say, “You being a creature.” You both join in the cry, “You make yourself God,” with the same insolence of blasphemy. You deny that he is God begotten of God; you deny that he is the Son by a true birth; you deny that his words “I and the Father are one” contain the assertion of one and the same nature in both. You foist upon us instead a modern, strange, alien god. You make him God of another kind from the Father, or else not God at all, as not subsisting by a birth from God…. You say, in effect, “You are not a Son by birth; you are not God in truth; you are a creature excelling all other creatures.” ON THE TRINITY 7.23-24. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:128**.

CHRIST DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE JEWS’ UNDERSTANDING

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: For indeed the Jews understood that in saying this, he said that he himself was God and equal to the Father. And Christ did not deny that he had said this as they understood it. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 7.1. [1]

[1] LF 48:102.

10:35 | Those to Whom the Word of God Came

CHRIST IS GOD BY NATURE

ATHANASIUS: Christ was not man [first], and then became God. Rather, he was [first] God, and then he became man, and that to deify us. [1] When he became man, he was called Son and God, but before he became man, God had called the ancient people sons. In fact, he made Moses a god to Pharaoh, and Scripture says of many, “God stands in the congregation of gods.” [2] Since this is so, it is plain that he is called Son and God later than they are. How then are all things through him, and how is he before everything? Or, how is he “firstborn of the whole creation” [3] if he has others before him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those first partakers [4] do not partake of the Word?

This opinion is not true; it is a device of our present Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God as their Father? For there can be no adoption apart from the real Son, who says, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” [5] And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before him? And yet, he says to their brothers the Jews, “If he called them gods, to whom the Word of God came.” And if all who are called sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son himself is the Word, it is plain that they all exist through him, and he himself is before all. Or rather, he himself is the only true Son, and he alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for his virtue or being another beside them, but being all these by nature and according to essence. For he is offspring of the Father’s essence, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable. DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.11.39. [6]

[1] See On the Incarnation 54.

[2] Ps 82:1 (81:1 LXX); RSV:“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”

[3] Col 1:15, see also Oration 2.62.

[4] In this passage Athanasius considers that the participation of the Word is deification, as communion with the Son is adoption. He also implies that the people of the Old Testament, inasmuch as they are called“gods” and“sons,” did partake of the divine Word and Son, or in other words were gifted with the Spirit. He asserts the same doctrine very strongly in Oration 4.22. But in Oration 4:47 he says expressly that Christ received the Spirit in baptism “that he might give it to man.” There is no real contradiction in such statements; what was given in one way under the Law was given in another and fuller way under the gospel.

[5] Mt 11:27.

[6] NPNF 2 4:329**.

MADE “GODS” BY PARTICIPATION IN THE TRUE GOD

AUGUSTINE: If the word of God came to people, that they might be called gods, how can the very Word of God, who is with God, be other than God? If by the word of God people become gods, if by participation they become gods, can he in whom they participate not be God? If lights that are lit are gods, is the light that enlightens not God? If through being warmed in a way by saving fire they are constituted gods, is he who gives them the warmth other than God? You approach the light and are enlightened and numbered among the children of God. If you withdraw from the light, you fall into obscurity and are counted as being in darkness; but that light does not approach because it never recedes from itself. If, then, the word of God makes you gods, how can the Word of God be other than God? TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 48.9. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 7:269*.

10:36 | The One Whom the Father Sanctified

THE FATHER SANCTIFIED THE SON IN THE SAME WAY AS HE BEGAT HIM

AUGUSTINE: Perhaps someone may be saying, If the Father sanctified him, was there then a time when he was not sanctified? He sanctified in the same way as he begat him. For in the act of begetting he gave him the power to be holy, because he begat him in holiness. For if that which is sanctified was unholy before, how can we say to God the Father, “Hallowed be thy name”? [1] TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 48.9. [2]

[1] Mt 6:9.

[2] NPNF 1 7:269**.

JESUS USES ACCUSATION TO AFFIRM HIS DIVINITY

NOVATIAN: The Jews thought that what he had said was… hateful and blasphemous, for he had shown himself in these discourses to be God. Therefore they rushed at once to stoning and set to work passionately to hurl stones. He, however, strongly refuted his adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said he, “he called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scripture cannot be broken, you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am the Son of God.” With these words, he did not deny that he was God, but rather he confirmed the assertion that he was God. For because undoubtedly they are said to be gods to whom the words of God were given, much more is he God who is found to be superior to all these. And nevertheless he refuted the calumny of blasphemy in a fitting manner with lawful tact. For his desire is to be understood to be God as the Son of God, not wanting to be understood as the Father. Thus he said that he was sent and showed them that he had manifested many good works from the Father that further demonstrates that he wanted to be understood as the Son and not the Father. And in the latter portion of his defense he made mention of the Son, not the Father when he said, “You say, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Thus, as far as pertains to the guilt of blasphemy, he calls himself the Son, not the Father; but as pertaining to his divinity, by saying, “I and the Father are one,” he proved that he was the Son of God. He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father. ON THE TRINITY 15. [1]

[1] ANF 5:625.

THE LAW CALLED MERE HUMANS “GODS”

HILARY OF POITIERS: He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the insolence, of such a charge as that of making himself God, though he was only a man. The law had conferred the title on holy people. The word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its sanction to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world?… The law gives the name of gods to those who are confessedly mortals. And so, if other people may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the man whom the Father has sanctified. Also, note here that throughout this argument he calls himself man, for the Son of God is also Son of man. He excels above the rest who, nonetheless, are guilty of no irreverence in styling themselves gods. He excels above them in that he has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification. [1] … And so, the accusation of blasphemy against him in making himself God falls to the ground. For the Word of God has conferred this name on many people; and he who was sanctified and sent by the Father did no more than proclaim himself the Son of God. ON THE TRINITY 7.24. [2]

[1] See Rom 1:2-4.

[2] NPNF 2 9:128-29*.

10:37 | Doing the Works of His Father

HIS WORKS PROVE HIS EQUALITY

CHRYSOSTOM: We should consider this as a speech of humility made to conciliate people. But afterwards he leads them to higher things: “If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me.”… See how he proves that he is not inferior to the Father. Since they could not see his substance, he directs them to his works, as being similar and equal to the Father’s. The equality of their works proved the equality of their power. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 61.2. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 14:224**.

10:38 | Believe the Works

THE FATHER IS IN AND WITH THE SON BY HIS WORKS

TERTULLIAN: It must therefore be by the works that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and so it is by the works that we understand that the Father is one with the Son. All along he therefore strenuously aimed at this conclusion, that while they were of one power and essence, they should still be believed to be two. For otherwise, unless they were believed to be two, the Son could not possibly be believed to have any existence at all. AGAINST PRAXEAS 22. [1]

[1] ANF 3:618.

WORKS PROVE JESUS’ DIVINITY

ATHANASIUS: By the works he did in the body [he] showed himself to be not man but God the Word. But these things are said about him because the actual body that ate, was born and suffered belonged to none other but the Lord. And he had become a man; it was proper for these things to be predicated of him as a man in order to show that he really had a body, and not just one in appearance. But just as from these things he was known to be bodily present, so from the works he did in the body he made himself known to be the Son of God…. For just as, though invisible, he is known through the works of creation; so, having become man and being in the body unseen, it may be known from his works that he who can do these is not man but the power and Word of God. ON THE INCARNATION 18.1-3. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 4:46.

THE WORKS ARE NOT HIS OWN BUT THE FATHER’S

HILARY OF POITIERS: What room is there here for adoption, or for permission to use the name or for denial that he was born from the nature of God when the proof that he is God’s Son is that he does the works that belong to the Father’s nature? No creature is equal or similar to God, no nature external to his is comparable in might to him. It is only the Son, born from himself, whom we can without blasphemy liken and make equal to him…. The Son performs the Father’s works and on that ground demands that we should believe that he is God’s Son. This is no claim of mere arrogance; for he bases it on his works and asks us to examine them. And he bears witness that these works are not his own but his Father’s. He would not have our thoughts distracted by the splendor of the deeds from the evidence for his birth. And because the Jews could not penetrate the mystery of the body that he had taken, the humanity born of Mary, and recognize the Son of God, he appeals to his deeds for confirmation of his right to the name…. First, he would not have them believe that he is the Son of God, except on the evidence of God’s works, which he does. Next, if he does the works yet seems unworthy in his bodily humility to bear the divine name, he demands that they believe the works. Why should the mystery of his human birth hinder our recognition of his birth as God when he that is divinely born fulfills every divine task by the agency of that manhood that he has assumed? If we do not believe the man for the works’ sake when he tells us that he is the Son of God, let us believe the works when they—which are beyond a doubt the works of God—are clearly done by the Son of God. For the Son of God possesses by virtue of his birth everything that is God’s. Therefore the Son’s work is the Father’s work because his birth has not excluded him from that nature that is his source and in which he abides, and because he has in himself that nature to which he owes his eternal existence. ON THE TRINITY 7.26. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:129-30*.

AN EQUAL IN AN EQUAL

AUGUSTINE: The Son does not say, “The Father is in me, and I in him,” in the sense in which we say it. For if our thinking is in line with him, then we are in God. And if we live the way he wants us to, then God is in us. Believers, by participating in his grace and being illuminated by him, are said to be in him and he in us. But this is not how it is with the only begotten Son. He is in the Father, and the Father is in him as one who is equal is in him whose equal he is. In short, we can sometimes say, “We are in God, and God is in us,” but can we say I and God are one? You are in God because God contains you. God is in you because you have become the temple of God…. Recognize the prerogative of the Lord and the privilege of the servant. The prerogative of the Lord is equality with the Father; the privilege of the servant is fellowship with the Savior. TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 48.10. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 7:269*.

10:40 | Jesus Goes Where John First Baptized

BAPTISMAL WATERS OF THE JORDAN

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: Leaving Jerusalem, the Savior seeks a refuge in a place with springs of water so that he might signify obscurely, as in a type, how he would leave Judea and go over to the church of the Gentiles, which possesses the fountains of baptism and where many approach him crossing through the Jordan. This is signified by Christ taking up his abode “beyond” the Jordan. Having crossed the Jordan by holy baptism, they are brought to God, for truly Christ went across from the synagogue of the Jews to the Gentiles and then “many came to him and believed” the words that the saints spoke concerning Christ. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 7.1. [1]

[1] LF 48:109**.

10:41-42 | Many Believe Because of the Signs

THE WISDOM OF DIVINE TEACHING

CHRYSOSTOM: When he has spoken anything great and sublime, he quickly retires, giving way to their anger so that the passion may abate and cease through his absence. And thus he acted at that time. But why does the Evangelist mention the place? That you may learn that he went there to remind them of the things that had been done there and said by John, and of his testimony. At least when they came there, they immediately remembered John. Therefore also they said, “John indeed did no miracle,” since how did it follow that they should add this unless the place had brought the Baptist to their memory, and they had come to remember his testimony? And observe how they form incontrovertible syllogisms: “John indeed did no miracle,” “but this man does,” someone says and “so his superiority is shown. If therefore people believed in the one who did no miracles, how much more must they believe this man?” Then, since it was John who bore the witness—in case his having done no miracle might seem to prove him unworthy of being a witness—they added, “Yet if he did no miracle, still everything he said about this man was true.” And so, Christ is no longer proven to be trustworthy by means of John. Instead, John is shown to be trustworthy by what Christ had done. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 61.3. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 14:224-25**.