João 10
Hilary of Poitiers · Comentário Patrístico (catena)
João 10:22
Now seeing that heretics cannot deny these things because they are so clearly stated and understood, they nevertheless pervert them by the most foolish and wicked lies so as afterwards to deny them. For the words of Christ, "I and the Father are one," they endeavour to refer to a mere concord of unanimity, so that there may be in them a unity of will not of nature, that is, that they may be one not by essence of being, but by identity of will... The Lord prayed on our behalf for our union with God, but God keeps His own unity and abides in it. It is not through any mysterious appointment of God that they are one, but through a birth of nature, for God loses nothing in begetting Him from Himself. They are one, for the things which are not plucked out of His hand are not plucked out of the hand of the Father, for, when He is known, the Father is known, for, when He is seen, the Father is seen, for what He speaks the Father speaks as abiding in Him, for in His works the Father works, for He is in the Father and the Father in Him. This proceeds from no creation but from birth; it is not brought about by will but by power; it is no agreement of mind that speaks, it is nature; because to be created and to be born are not one and the same, any more than to will and to be able; neither is it the same thing to agree and to abide. Thus we do not deny a unanimity between the Father and the Son,-for heretics are accustomed to utter this falsehood, that since we do not accept concord by itself as the bond of unity we declare Them to be at variance. But let them listen how it is that we do not deny such a unanimity. The Father and the Son are one in nature, honour, power, and the same nature cannot will things that are contrary. — On the Trinity, Book 8, Sections 5, 18-19
João 10:29
This is the speech of conscious power—this confession of free and irresistible energy that will allow no one to pluck his sheep from his hand. But more than this, not only does he have the nature of God but he would have us know that that nature is his by birth from God, and so he adds, "That which the Father has given me is greater than all." He does not conceal that his birth is from the Father, for what he received from the Father he says is greater than all. He received it in that he was born from him. He received it in the birth itself, not after it, and yet it came to him from Another, for he received it. — ON THE TRINITY 7.22
João 10:29
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (de Trin. vii. c. 22) This is the speech of conscious power. Yet to show, that though of the Divine nature He hath His nativity from God, He adds, My Father which gave Me them is greater than all. He does not conceal His birth from the Father, but proclaims it. For that which He received from the Father, He received in that He was born from Him. He received it in the birth itself, not after it; though He was born when He received it. (vii. de Trin. c. 22) The hand of the Son is spoken of as the hand of the Father, to let thee see, by a bodily representation, that both have the same nature, that the nature and virtue of the Father is in the Son also. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
João 10:30
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (viii. de Trin. c. 5) The heretics, since they cannot gainsay these words, endeavour by an impious lie to explain them away. They maintain that this unity is unanimity only; a unity of will, not of nature; i. e. that the two are one, not in that they are the same, but in that they will the same. But they are one, not by any economy merely, but by the nativity of the Son's nature, since there is no falling off of the Father's divinity in begetting Him. They are one whilst the sheep that are not plucked out of the Son's hand, are not plucked out of the Father's hand: whilst in Him working, the Father worketh; whilst He is in the Father, and the Father in Him. This unity, not creation but nativity, not will but power, not unanimity but nature accomplisheth. But we deny not therefore the unanimity of the Father and Son; for the heretics, because we refuse to admit concord in the place of unity, accuse us of making a disagreement between the Father and Son. We deny not unanimity, but we place it on the ground of unity. The Father and Son are one in respect of nature, honour, and virtue: and the same nature cannot will different things. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
João 10:30
Now seeing that the heretics cannot get around these words because they are so clearly stated and understood, they nevertheless try to explain them away. They maintain that the words "I and the Father are one" refer to a mere union of unanimity only; a unity of will, not of nature, that is, that the two are one not by essence of being but by identity of will. … They make use of the example of our own union with God, as though we were united to the Son and through the Son to the Father by mere obedience and a devout will and not through the true communion of our nature [with his] that is promised to us through the sacrament of the body and blood.…But it is not through any mysterious appointment of God that they are one, but through the birth of the nature, for God loses nothing in begetting the Son from himself. They are one, for the sheep not plucked out of the Son's hand are not plucked out of the hand of the Father.… The Father works in the Son's works, for the Son himself is in the Father and the Father is in him. This proceeds from no creation but from birth. It is not brought about by will but by power. It is not an agreement of mind that speaks but nature that does so. For to be created and to be born are not one and the same any more than to will and to be able are the same; neither is it the same thing to agree and to abide. Thus we do not deny the unanimity between the Father and the Son—for heretics falsely say that since we do not accept the concord by itself as the bond of unity we declare the Father and the Son to be in disagreement. We do not deny such a unanimity, [but the unanimity results from the unity]. The Father and the Son are one in nature, honor, power, and the same nature cannot will contrary things. — ON THE TRINITY 8.5, 17-19
João 10:31
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (vii. de Trin. c. 23) The heretics now, as unbelieving and rebellious against our Lord in heaven, show their impious hatred by the stones, i. e. the words they cast at Him; as if they would drag Him down again from His throne to the cross. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
João 10:33
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
João 10:33
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (vii. de Trin. c. 23) The Jew saith, Thou being a man, the Arian, Thou being a creature: but both say, Thou makest Thyself God. The Arian supposes a God of a new and different substance, a God of another kind, or not a God at all. He saith, Thou art not Son by birth, Thou art not God of truth; Thou art a superior creature. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
João 10:36
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (vii. de Trin. c. 24) Before proving that He and His Father are one, He answers the absurd and foolish charge brought against Him, that He being man made Himself God. When the Law applied this title to holy men, and the indelible word of God sanctioned this use of the incommunicable name, it could not be a crime in Him, even though He were man, to make Himself God. The Law called those who were mere men, gods; and if any man could bear the name religiously, and without arrogance, surely that man could, who was sanctified by the Father, in a sense in which none else is sanctified to the Sonship; as the blessed Paul saith, Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness. (Rom. 1:4) For all this reply refers to Himself as man; the Son of God being also the Son of man. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
João 10:36
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. … 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
João 10:38
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (vii. de Trin. 26) What place hath adoption, or the mere conception of a name then, that we should not believe Him to be the Son of God by nature, when He tells us to believe Him to be the Son of God, because the Father's nature showed itself in Him by His works? A creature is not equal and like to God: no other nature has power comparable to the divine. He declares that He is carrying on not His own work, but the Father's, lest in the greatness of the works, the nativity of His nature be forgotten. And as under the sacrament of the assumption of a human body in the womb of Mary, the Son of God was not discerned, this must be gathered from His work; But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works. Why doth the sacrament of a human birth hinder the understanding of the divine, when the divine birth accomplishes all its work by aid of the human? Then He tells them what they should gather from His works; That ye may know and believe, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him. The same declaration again, I am the Son of God: I and the Father are one. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
João 10:38
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