1‐5. *The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of
the door of the sheepfold.*
6. *The Pharisees understood not the parable.*
7‐10. *Christ, therefore, applies it.*
11‐18. *The parable of the Good Shepherd.*
19‐21. *There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees
regarding Christ.*
22‐30. *On another occasion the Pharisees ask Him to tell them
plainly if He is the Christ; to whom He replies that He is, and
the Son of God, one in nature with His Father.*
31. *Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.*
32‐38. *He defends his language by a quotation from their own
Psaltery.*
39‐42. *When they sought to take Him prisoner, He escaped from
them, and crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, where many
believed in him.*
1. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui 1. Amen, amen, I say to you:
non intrat per ostium in ovile he that entereth not by the
ovium, sed ascendit aliunde, door into the sheepfold, but
ille fur est, et latro. climbeth up another way, the
same is a thief and a robber.
1. This verse and those that follow down to the end of verse 18, are a
continuation of the discourse directed to the Pharisees, and begun in ix.
39, with which verse this tenth chapter might more correctly have been
commenced. The logical connection of the following parable with the close
of the preceding chapter is not clear. Some, as St. Aug., say that Christ
is proving that the Pharisees were _blind_, else they would recognise Him
as the _door_ through which the true fold must be entered, and as the
_true Shepherd_. Others, as St. Chrys., think that He is replying to a
tacit objection of the Pharisees, to the effect that they refused to
recognise Him, not because they were blind, but because He was an
impostor.
The parable, taken strictly, is a narrative of a probable but fictitious
_event_, like that relating to the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11‐32). Where,
as in the present instance, there is continued or prolonged metaphor,
without the description of any event, some would call it an allegory and
not a parable; but we prefer not to interfere with a phrase so familiar as
“the parable of the good Shepherd.” It will be noted that we speak of
parables, and not merely of one parable, for we hold that the parable of
Christ as _door_ of the fold is distinct from that of Christ as Shepherd.
Our reasons for this will appear as we proceed. To understand the
grammatical sense of these two parables, we must bear in mind what were
the relations of the shepherd to his sheep in eastern countries, and
especially in Palestine.
In the Spring of the year the Jewish shepherd conducted his sheep to their
pasture, and there they remained until the end of the following Autumn. At
night they were enclosed in folds, the flocks of several shepherds being
sometimes gathered in the same fold. The fold, open overhead, was
surrounded by a wall, in which there was but one door, at which the
doorkeeper (_ostiarius_) remained through the night, until the shepherd’s
return in the morning. A thief, wishing to steal sheep, would, of course,
not attempt to enter by the door, but would climb the wall. On the
shepherd’s return in the morning the door of the fold was thrown open by
the doorkeeper, and each shepherd entered and called his own sheep, which,
knowing his voice, followed him to their own pasture. Throughout the whole
day the shepherd remained with them, guarding them from wild beasts and
robbers, and attending to the weak and maimed. Thus his relations with his
sheep were very close and constant indeed, and must be carefully borne in
mind, in order that we may rightly appreciate the full significance of
these beautiful parables.
*He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.* If we strip this
language of its metaphorical character, the sense is: that the teacher who
enters not into the Church through Christ as the door, that is to say, by
believing in Christ, is a false teacher, as were therefore, the Scribes
and Pharisees. Christ, then, is the door (see verse 7); the Church is the
sheepfold; and the Scribes and Pharisees, with all such, are the thieves
and robbers who injure their fellow‐men, sometimes secretly like thieves,
sometimes with open violence like robbers. That Christ is signified by
“the door,” is the view of SS. Aug., Cyril, Bede, Greg., and of A Lap.;
and is, indeed, distinctly stated by Himself, in verse 7, after His
hearers had failed to understand His words. Hence we unhesitatingly reject
the view of Mald. and many others, who take “the door” in verse 1 to be
different from that in verse 7; the latter, they say, being the door of
the _sheep_, Christ Himself; the former the door of the shepherds, which
Mald. understands of _legitimate authority_ to teach. We have no doubt
that the door in both verses is the same, because Christ begins to
explain, in verse 7: “Jesus _therefore_ said to them again” what He had
said in verses 1‐5.
2. Qui autem intrat per 2. But he that entereth in by
ostium, pastor est ovium. the door, is the shepherd of
the sheep.
2. The sense is that he who entereth by faith in Christ, and by Christ’s
authority, is _a_ true shepherd (ποιμήν, without the article). Such a
pastor is contrasted with the Pharisees who blindly refused to enter by
the only gate.
3. Huic ostiarius aperit, et 3. To him the porter openeth;
oves vocem eius audiunt, et and the sheep hear his voice:
proprias oves vocat nominatim, and he calleth his own sheep
et educit eas. by name, and leadeth them out.
3. *To him the porter openeth.* In the higher sense, the porter is not the
Scriptures, nor Christ Himself, but the Holy Ghost. To the true pastor of
souls the Holy Ghost “openeth,” by giving him grace to teach and govern
rightly, and by moving the hearts of the faithful to listen to and profit
by his teaching.
*And leadeth them out.* It is an obvious and familiar principle that in
explaining metaphorical language, we are not to expect resemblance in all
points between the two things which are implicitly compared. If we say
Patrick is a lion, we mean that he has courage or strength; but we do not
mean that he has four legs. Similarly, though the Church is compared to a
sheepfold, it does not follow that because the sheep had to be led outside
the fold in order to find pasture, that therefore the faithful must be
_led outside the Church_ before they can obtain the spiritual food of
their souls. No, the Church is a fold which has its pastures within
itself; and what Christ here declares is that a good pastor does for the
faithful what the shepherd does for the sheep when he leads them forth;
namely, he provides them with proper nourishment.
4. Et cum proprias oves 4. And when he hath let out
emiserit, ante eas vadit: et his own sheep, he goeth before
oves illum sequuntur, quia them: and the sheep follow
sciunt vocem eius. him, because they know his
voice.
4. A good pastor not only puts before his people the sound doctrine of
faith, and the right line of duty, but he also goes before them, guiding
and directing them by his example, and is rewarded by their obedience, for
“the sheep follow him,” and tread in his footsteps.
5. Alienum autem non 5. But a stranger they follow
sequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo: not, but fly from him, because
quia non noverunt vocem they know not the voice of
alienorum. strangers.
5. The true reading is μη ἀκολουθήσουσιν ἀλλὰ φεύξονται, (_will_ not
follow, but _will_ fly), the sense, however, being the same. As the sheep
followed their own shepherd every morning from the fold to their pasture,
and would follow no stranger, so faithful Christians take their spiritual
nourishment from, and are obedient to, only the true pastor.
6. Hoc proverbium dixit eis 6. This proverb Jesus spoke to
Iesus. Illi autem non them. But they understood not
cognoverunt quid loqueretur what he spoke to them.
eis.
6. *Proverb.* The Greek word (παροιμίαν) suggests the notion of a saying
that is deep and mysterious and not merely metaphorical. See John xvi. 25,
29.
7. Dixit ergo eis iterum 7. Jesus therefore said to
Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, them again: Amen, amen, I say
quia ego sum ostium ovium. to you, I am the door of the
sheep.
7. *Jesus therefore said to them again*; _i.e._, _because_ they did not
understand, He explains. As we have said already, we take the door here to
be the same as in verse 1, and the reference in both cases to be to
Christ. Here, however, Christ is spoken of as the door through which the
sheep, there as the door through which the shepherd, entered. But this
need create no difficulty, for as we explained in our preliminary remarks
on verse 1, there was only one door on the ordinary sheepfold, and through
it both sheep and shepherd entered.
8. Omnes quotquot venerunt, 8. All _others_, as many as
fures sunt et latrones, et non have come, are thieves and
audierunt eos oves. robbers: and the sheep heard
them not.
8. *All others, as many as ** have come* (many ancient authorities add
“before Me”). The sense is: all others who have come forward before now,
pretending to be the door, the Messias, _are_ thieves and robbers. The
present “_are_” is used to denote the essential character of their nature.
*But* (ἀλλ᾽, _at_ not _et_) *the sheep heard them not*; _i.e._, did not
listen to them so as to remain their disciples. Many such impostors
pretending to be the Messias had arisen before this time; such were
Theodas and Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36, 37); and, after the time of
Christ, Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and others appeared in the same
character.
9. Ego sum ostium. Per me si 9. I am the door. By me, if
quis introierit, salvabitur: any man enter in, he shall be
et ingredietur, et egredietur, saved: and he shall go in, and
et pascua inveniet. go out, and shall find
pastures.
9. Christ here declares Himself the door absolutely; and therefore, as we
have held, the door of both sheep and shepherds. He then proceeds to
explain in this verse what this means in reference to the sheep, and in
next verse what it means in reference to the shepherds. *Shall go in and
go out* is a Hebraism (1 Kings xxix. 6; 2 Paral. i. 10; Psalm. cxx. 8),
meaning he shall deal securely, confidently, and freely.(72)
10. Fur non venit nisi ut 10. The thief cometh not, but
furetur, et mactet, et perdat. for to steal and to kill and
Ego veni ut vitam habeant, et to destroy. I am come that
abundantius habeant. they may have life, and may
have it more abundantly.
10. In reference to the pastor, he who enters not through Christ (and who
is therefore a thief, verse 1), cometh not but to steal, &c. This verse
effects the transition from Christ as door to Christ as shepherd. He here
sets Himself in opposition to the thief, and so passes on naturally to
another parable in which He speaks of Himself as shepherd.
11. Ego sum pastor bonus. 11. I am the good shepherd.
Bonus pastor animam suam dat The good shepherd giveth his
pro ovibus suis. life for his sheep.
11. *I am the good shepherd* (ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); that particular shepherd
foretold by the prophets (Ezech. xxxiv. 11, 15, 16, 22, 23; Zach. xi. 17;
Isai. xl. 11). There is no difficulty in the fact that Christ now calls
Himself the shepherd, whereas in the preceding verses He has spoken of
Himself as the door of the sheepfold. For we hold that a new parable
begins in verse 11, and it is obviously open to Christ to use a new
metaphor, in which to express under a new aspect His relations to the
faithful. See xv. 1, where, in the metaphor of the true vine, His
relations with the faithful are set forth under yet another aspect. *The
good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.* This is to be understood, of
Christ, and is the first note of this great Shepherd.
12. Mercenarius autem et qui 12. But the hireling, and he
non est pastor, cuius non sunt that is not the shepherd,
oves propriae, videt lupum whose own the sheep are not,
venientem, et dimittit oves, seeth the wolf coming, and
et fugit: et lupus rapit, et leaveth the sheep, and flieth:
dispergit oves: and the wolf catcheth, and
scattereth the sheep.
12. *The hireling* is most probably a pastor who has a divine mission like
the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 2) which, however, he abuses for base motives
of self‐interest. Such an one, and also he who has no true mission, flieth
at the approach of _any danger_, the particular danger from the wolf being
put to represent danger in general.
13. Mercenarius autem fugit, 13. And the hireling flieth,
quia mercenarius est, et non because he is a hireling; and
pertinet ad eum de ovibus. he hath no care for the sheep.
13. The last word of verse 12 and the first three words of verse 13 in the
Vulgate: “Oves: Mercenarius autem fugit,” are regarded by many as not
genuine; the remaining portion of verse 13 is to be connected with
“flieth” of verse 12, in case they are omitted.
14. Ego sum pastor bonus: et 14. I am the good shepherd;
cognosco meas, et cognoscunt and I know mine, and mine know
me meae. me.
14. Here we have another note of our great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. He
knows _every member_ of His flock; not merely the _just_, or the _elect_
(as Aug., Bede, Ypr., Tol.), and watches over each with special
solicitude. And they, in turn, know Him with the knowledge of faith
accompanied by charity. That there is not question merely of a barren
faith, is proved by the comparison in the next verse between this
knowledge and Christ’s. If it be objected that all Christians do not love
Christ, we reply that, _as far as in Him lies_, they do; and the purpose
of the parable is to show Christ’s love and solicitude for His sheep, to
show forth what He does for them, not what they do for Him. He knows them,
gathers them into His one fold, saves them by His grace here, and conducts
them to heaven hereafter. What the sheep must do on their part after
entering the fold, is outside the scope of the parable.
15. Sicut novit me Pater, et 15. As the Father knoweth me,
ego agnosco Patrem: et animam and I know the Father: and I
meam pono pro ovibus meis. lay down my life for my sheep.
15. Connect with 14: *I know mine, and mine know me, as the Father knoweth
me, and I know the Father.* The knowledge is similar, but not, of course,
equal; just as our perfection can never equal the infinite perfection of
God, though Christ says: “Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father
is perfect.” Matt. v. 48.
*And I lay down my life for my sheep.* Perfect knowledge and sympathy
bring forth the perfect remedy, and Christ’s knowledge and love of His
sheep receive their fitting consummation in His sacrifice. The words “I
lay down My life” show that Christ gave up His life freely and voluntarily
(see verse 18); while the closing words of the verse prove the vicarious
character of Christ’s sacrifice.
16. Et alias oves habeo, quae 16. And other sheep I have,
non sunt ex hoc ovili: et that are not of this fold;
illas oportet me adducere, et them also I must bring, and
vocem meam audient, et fiet they shall hear my voice, and
unum ovile, et unus pastor. there shall be one fold and
one shepherd.
16. Having referred to His death for men, Christ goes on to speak of the
call of the Gentiles, thereby indicating the efficacy of His sacrifice for
all, whether Jews or Gentiles. *And other sheep I have, that are not of
this fold.* The other sheep were those Gentiles who were outside the
Jewish Church, but were to be brought within the Church of Christ, so that
there might be one fold (rather _flock_), and one shepherd. Strictly
speaking, the Gentiles except very few were not yet His sheep, but those
who were to obey the call are spoken of as such by anticipation, and
because in the designs of God it was decreed that they should be
efficaciously called to the faith. *And there shall be one fold and one
shepherd.* The “one fold,” or rather “one flock” (ποίμνη), distinctly
implies the unity of Christ’s Church, and the “one shepherd,” is Jesus
Christ Himself as invisible head, with the Pope His representative as
visible head.(73) We have therefore three very important declarations in
this verse. (1) The faith was to be preached to the Gentiles; (2) Christ
was to have but one flock composed alike of Jews and Gentiles; (3) that
one flock was to have one supreme visible head. Some, like Mald., think
that the expression “_this_ fold” implies that there was another fold,
that is to say, those who were to be called from among the Gentiles. But
this does not necessarily follow, as the contrast may be, and we believe
is, not between a fold of the Jews and a fold of the Gentiles, but between
the fold of the Jewish Church which excluded the Gentiles, and the fold of
the Christian Church which was to include them.
17. Propterea me diligit 17. Therefore doth the Father
Pater: quia ego pono animam love me: because I lay down my
meam, ut iterum sumam eam. life that I may take it again.
17. After the parenthetical statement in verse 16, Christ takes up what He
had said in the end of verse 15, about laying down His life. *Therefore*:
that is to say, because I lay down My life, and so obey Him, the Father
loveth Me. *That I may take it again.* “Ut” (ἱνα) cannot be taken to
express a purpose here, but means either _so as_, as Mald. holds, or, _on
the condition that_, as Patrizzi. The supreme dominion which Christ here
claims over His own life and death, is a proof of His Divinity.
18. Nemo tollit eam a me: sed 18. No man taketh it away from
ego pono eam a meipso, et me: but I lay it down of
potestatem habeo ponendi eam: myself, and I have power to
et potestatem habeo iterum lay it down; and I have power
sumendi eam. Hoc mandatum to take it up again. This
accepi a Patre meo. commandment have I received of
my Father.
18. *No man taketh it away from me; but I lay it down of myself.* Christ
declares that His death would be voluntary, because He would lay down His
life _freely_. But a difficulty here presents itself. How was He free in
laying down His life, if, as He declares, in the end of this same verse,
He had a command from His Father to do so? Surely He was bound not to
disobey that command, and thus bound to die, and so not free in dying? The
difficulty then is to reconcile Christ’s freedom in dying with the
Father’s command that He should die. Many answers have been given.
(1) The command of the Father was not really a command or precept, but
only a wish, with which Christ, without sinning, was free not to
correspond. But this answer is commonly rejected by commentators and
theologians, who hold that there was a strict command. Hence:—
(2) Christ was commanded to redeem man, but not to die. He could have
redeemed us in many other ways; therefore in choosing death as the way, He
died freely. But it is replied to this that St. Paul tells us that Christ
was _obedient even unto death_ (Phil. ii. 8), thereby implying that His
death was commanded.
(3) Christ was commanded to die, but was left free as to the manner and
circumstances of His death, and therefore was free as to the actual death
He underwent upon the cross. But it is again replied that St. Paul
declares “He was obedient unto death, even the _death of the cross_”
(Phil. ii. 8).
(4) De Lugo and others hold that Christ’s freedom in dying consisted in
the fact that He could have asked and obtained a dispensation from His
Father. He freely chose not to ask a dispensation; therefore He died
freely.
(5) Franzelin inclines to the view that the will of the Father was merely
a “beneplacitum,” a wish, until Christ freely accepted it, when it became
a command: consequent, however, upon Christ’s free acceptance. Thus, in
virtue of this free acceptance, Christ died freely, though having a
command from His Father that He should die.
(6) Lastly, there is the opinion of Suarez, who explains thus: Christ’s
human will had, strictly speaking, the _power_ of resisting the will of
God, and of sinning, and was therefore free: consequently, His human will
was free in accepting the command to die, because, strictly speaking, it
had the power to resist. No doubt this power could never be reduced to act
in our Divine Lord, for the Second Divine Person, in virtue of its
hypostatic union with Christ’s humanity, was bound to preserve His human
will from sin by the operation of grace.
“On account of this perpetual watchfulness on the part of the Second
Divine Person,” says A Lap., who adopts this opinion, “the humanity of
Christ is said to be extrinsically impeccable; not that the Divinity took
away the _power_ of sinning (non quod Verbum illam (humanitatem)
praedeterminaret), but that it always supplied the grace, under the
influence of which it was foreseen that Christ’s human will would freely
fulfil each precept.” This view we prefer; and hence we hold—(1) that
Christ had a _strict command_ from His Father to die; (2) that His human
will had the _power_ to disobey this command, and was consequently free in
accepting death; (3) that the Second Divine Person provided that this
power to disobey could _never be reduced to act_, and hence Christ was
always extrinsically impeccable.
19. Dissensio iterum facta est 19. A dissension rose again
inter Iudaeos propter sermones among the Jews for these
hos. words.
20. Dicebant autem multi ex 20. And many of them said: He
ipsis: Daemonium habet, et hath a devil, and is mad: why
insanit: quid eum auditis? hear you him?
21. Alii dicebant: Haec verba 21. Others said: These are not
non sunt daemonium habentis; the words of one that hath a
numquid daemonium potest devil: Can a devil open the
caecorum oculos aperire? eyes of the blind?
19‐21. Again, as on previous occasions there was a difference of opinion
among the leaders of the Jews.
22. Facta sunt autem encaenia 22. And it was the feast of
in Ierosoylmis: et hiems erat. the dedication at Jerusalem;
and it was winter.
22. A new chapter might well have been begun here. The events and
discourses recorded by the Evangelist, from chapter viii., probably
followed close upon the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2). Now the Evangelist
suddenly passes on to the Feast of Purification. During the period of more
than two months that intervened (see above on v. 1), Christ returned to
Galilee (Luke ix. 51; xiii. 22); or, as Patrizzi holds, spent his time in
the country parts of Judea, away from Jerusalem. The Feast of the
Dedication instituted by Judas Maccabeus, about 165 B.C., in memory of the
cleansing of the temple and dedication of the altar of holocausts after
the defeat of the Syrians, was celebrated annually for eight days. The
first day of the feast was the 25th of Casleu, the ninth month of the
Jewish sacred year, which corresponded to the latter part of our November
and the first part of December. See 1 Mach. iv. 59.
23. Et ambulabat Iesus in 23. And Jesus walked in the
templo, in porticu Salomonis. temple in Solomon’s porch.
23. And because it was winter, Jesus was walking in Solomon’s porch. This
was probably a cloister, open on one side, and covered overhead, and
stood, according to Beel. (Comm. on Acts iii. 11), on the eastern side of
the court of the Gentiles. That the Porch of Solomon referred to in 3
Kings vi. 3; 2 Paral. iii. 4, is not meant here (as Mald. holds), we feel
certain; for that being within the court of the priests, Christ would not
have been permitted by the Jewish priests to approach, much less walk,
there.
24. Circumdederunt ergo eum 24. The Jews therefore came
Iudaei, et dicebant ei: round about him, and said to
Quousque animam nostram him: How long dost thou hold
tollis? si tu es Christus, dic our souls in suspense? if thou
nobis palam. be the Christ tell us plainly.
24. *How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense?* The phrase here used
by the Evangelist to record the words of the Jews is a Hebraism (see Exod.
xxxv. 21; Deut. xxiv. 15; Prov. xix. 23). They wished Christ to state
openly that He was their Messias, their King, probably in order that they
might accuse Him before the Roman authorities of treason against Rome.
25. Respondit eis Iesus. 25. Jesus answered them: I
Loquor vobis, et non creditis: speak to you, and you believe
opera quae ego facio in nomine not: the works that I do in
Patris mei, haec testimonium the name of my Father, they
perhibent de me: give testimony of me.
26. Sed vos non creditis, quia 26. But you do not believe:
non estis ex ovibus meis. because you are not of my
sheep.
25, 26. He again appeals to His miracles, and upbraids their incredulity.
27. Oves meae vocem meam 27. My sheep hear my voice:
audiunt: et ego cognosco eas, and I know them, and they
et sequntur me: follow me.
27. We prefer to understand the *sheep* here, as in verse 14, not of the
just merely, nor of the elect only, but, with A Lap., of all the faithful.
All the faithful hear Christ, so as to _believe_, and in this they are
contrasted with those addressed in the preceding verse, who believe not;
and all too follow Christ so as to imitate His example, _as far as lies in
Him_.
28. Et ego vitam aeternam do 28. And I give them life
eis: et non peribunt in everlasting; and they shall
aeternum, et non rapiet eas not perish for ever, and no
quisquam de manu mea. man shall pluck them out of my
hand.
28. In the same sense He gives them life eternal, and they shall not
perish, and (= for) no one can snatch them from His hand. As far as their
salvation depends upon Him, they shall be saved; they may indeed fail to
correspond with His grace, but they shall not perish through His fault.
They may desert Him themselves, but no one shall snatch them from Him.
29. Pater meus quod dedit 29. That which my Father hath
mihi, maius omnibus est: et given me is greater than all:
nemo potest rapere de manu and no one can snatch _them_
Patris mei. out of the hand of my Father.
30. Ego et Pater unum sumus. 30. I and the Father are one.
29, 30. He proves that no one shall snatch them from Him. No one shall
snatch them from the Father (_who_ is greater and more powerful than all).
But I and the Father are one in nature and power; therefore no one shall
snatch them from Me. This is the argument in the more probable Greek
reading, and is more natural than that afforded by the Vulgate. We would
read then instead of the present Vulgate text in verse 29: “Pater meus
_qui_ dedit mihi _major_ omnibus est,” &c.(74) Note that the unity with
the Father to which Christ here lays claim is not a _moral_ union, but a
unity of _nature and power_, else the proof of His statement that no one
could snatch His sheep from His hands would not be valid.
31. Sustulerunt ergo lapides 31. The Jews then took up
Iudaei, ut lapidarent eum. stones to stone him.
31. See above on viii. 59.
32. Respondit eis Iesus: Multa 32. Jesus answered them: Many
bona opera ostendi vobis ex good works I have shewed you
Patre meo, propter quod eorum from my Father; for which of
opus me lapidatis? those works do you stone me?
32. *For which of those works do you stone me?* _i.e._, wish to stone
Me.(75)
33. Responderunt ei Iudaei: De 33. The Jews answered him: For
bono opere non lapidamus te, a good work we stone thee not,
sed de blasphemia; et quia tu but for blasphemy; and because
homo cum sis, facis teipsum that thou, being a man, makest
Deum. thyself God?
34. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne 34. Jesus answered them: Is it
scriptum est in lege vestra not written in your law: _I
quia: Ego dixi, dii estis? said you are gods_?
34. To the charge of blasphemy Christ replies, and His reply has been
often urged by Arians and Unitarians to show that He did not claim to be
the natural Son of God, but merely meant to call Himself God in some
improper sense, analogous to that in which the Sacred Scriptures sometimes
speak of judges, who were merely men, as gods.
The sense of verse 34 is: men are called gods in your own law, the
reference being to Psalm lxxxi. 6.
35. Si illos dixit deos, ad 35. If he called them gods, to
quos sermo Dei factus est, et whom the word of God was
non potest solvi scriptura: spoken, and the scripture
cannot be broken;
36. Quem Pater sanctificavit, 36. Do you say of him, whom
et misit in mundum, vos the Father hath sanctified and
dicitis: Quia blasphemas, quia sent into the world: Thou
dixi, Filius Dei sum. blasphemest, because I said, I
am the Son of God?
35, 36. While all Catholic commentators and theologians contend that
Christ does not in these two verses withdraw His claim to true Divinity,
yet they differ as to the sense of His reply, and hence as to the
interpretation of the verses.
(1) Some, as Franzelin, hold that Christ here proves both that He is God,
and that He has a right to call Himself God. The argument then is
according to these: if your judges could be called gods, even in an
improper sense, how much more _in the strictest sense_ can He be called
and is He God, whom the Father generated _holy with His own holiness_, and
sent into the world?
(2) Others, as Maran, Jungmann, &c., explain the argument here from the
context in the 81st Psalm. Christ, they say, reasons thus. If men could be
called gods, as they are in Sacred Scripture (and the Sacred Scripture
cannot be gainsaid), how much more, in a strict sense, can He be called
God, and is He God, whom the same Scriptures address in the 8th verse of
the same 81st Psalm: “Arise, _O God_, judge Thou the earth, for Thou shalt
inherit among the nations”?
(3) Others hold that Christ in these two verses does not insist upon the
_nature_ of His Sonship, but contents Himself with showing that He has a
right to _call_ Himself God; then in the following verses He shows that He
is God in the strictest sense. In this view Christ prescinds in these
verses from the sense in which He is God, and shows that _in some sense_,
as the legate of the Father, He has a right to be called God. This was
sufficient for the moment to shut the mouths of His adversaries. Whether
He is God in the truest and strictest sense, or only in an improper sense,
He does not here insist, though His language shows that even in these
verses He speaks of Himself as truly God. For the argument shows that in
concluding, in verse 36, that He has a right to call Himself “Son of God,”
He means to justify his original statement: “I and the Father are one”
(verse 30); but these statements are synonymous, and the one justifies the
other only when there is question of natural Sonship. No merely adopted
son of God could say that He is one with the Father.
Any of these answers solves the objection drawn from these verses against
Christ’s Divinity; but we prefer the last, and hold, therefore, that
Christ first proves against the Pharisees that He has a right to _call_
Himself God, and then goes on to show in what sense He is God.
37. Si non facio opera Patris 37. If I do not the works of
mei, nolite credere mihi. my Father, believe me not.
38. Si autem facio, et si mihi 38. But if I do, though you
non vultis credere, operibus will not believe me, believe
credite, ut cognoscatis et the works: that you may know
credatis quia Pater in me est, and believe that the Father is
et ego in Patre. in me, and I in the Father.
37, 38. He appeals to His miracles as a proof that He is God in the
strictest sense. See notes on iii. 2. *That the Father is in me, and I in
the Father.* According to the fathers, this is a statement in other words
of what He said above: “I and the Father are one.” “The Son,” says St.
Augustine on this verse, does not say: “The Father is in Me, and I in Him,
in the sense in which men who think and act aright may say the like;
meaning that they partake of God’s grace, and are enlightened by His
Spirit. The Only‐begotten Son of God is in the Father, and the Father in
Him, as an equal in an equal.”
39. Quaerebant ergo eum 39. They sought therefore to
apprehendere: et exivit de take him; and he escaped out
manibus eorum. of their hands.
39. *They sought therefore to take him.* These words prove that His
hearers did not understand Christ to retract what He had said.
40. Et abiit iterum trans 40. And he went again beyond
Iordanem, in eum locum ubi the Jordan into that place
erat Ioannes baptizans primum: where John was baptizing
et mansit illic. first: and there he abode.
40. He went again to Bethania beyond the Jordan. See above on i. 28. The
name of Bethania must have been dear to our Evangelist, because it was
probably in its neighbourhood he had first met his heavenly Master.
41. Et multi venerunt ad eum, 41. And many resorted to him,
et dicebant: Quia Ioannes and they said: John indeed did
quidem signum fecit nullum. no sign.
41. *John indeed did no sign.* This remark is of great importance as
showing how little tendency there was to invest great and popular teachers
with miraculous powers. And yet the Rationalists will have us believe that
our Lord’s miracles were all a popular delusion!
42. Omnia autem quaecumque 42. But all things whatsoever
dixit Ioannes de hoc, vera John said of this man were
erant. Et multi crediderunt in true. And many believed in
eum. him.
42. *And many believed in him.* Most authorities add the note of place
_there_ (ἐκεῖ), as if the Evangelist wished to bring out into bolder
relief the incredulity of the Jews (verse 39), by contrasting it with the
faith of those beyond the Jordan.