2. Likewise, since the Lord ought to give us an example not only of humility in deed, but also in knowledge: it seems that, just as for our example he was baptized and circumcised, he ought to have been a disciple before being a teacher.
If you say that he could learn nothing, since he knew all things: it is objected that it is said in Hebrews 5: "He learned obedience from the things he suffered." If he learned obedience, why not knowledge?
The Gloss responds that what he said, he said on the authority of Scripture: therefore they knew that he knew letters. They also knew that he had not learned them, because, as Augustine says, they knew his upbringing, his place, and his parents.
2. To the objection that he ought to have learned: I say first that he had no need, nor ought he to have had need, because he ought to have assumed all our sufferings except ignorance and sin, since these would be entirely useless to us and to our salvation. Nor ought he to have given an example in this, because in learning he would have shown himself to be ignorant, and then the act would have been feigned.
As for what he says about circumcision, it must be said that it was for the purpose of distinguishing; lest therefore he should appear to be of another rite and nation, he observed circumcision and the baptism of John, in order to sanctify the waters and to make himself known.
To the objection that he learned: it must be said briefly that to learn in one sense is to arrive at knowledge of the unknown through instruction, and in another sense to learn is to experience what is already known. In the first sense he did not learn, because it presupposes ignorance; in the second sense he did learn, because it presupposes sufferings, which Christ assumed and experienced.
26. Question III. Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: My teaching is not my own:
1. Because thus it is removed from himself, and therefore it seems false.
2. Likewise, how does this satisfy the Jews? Because similarly I could say the same thing, that my teaching is not from me but from God, since all wisdom is from the Lord God.
Chrysostom responds that he says his teaching was not devised by himself, but is from the Father; whence the sense is: my teaching, namely that which I teach, is not my own, but is from the Father.
And in this he answers their question, by sending them to the Father, and calms their fury through humility; whence the teaching was his own, because he is wisdom itself by essence; but he said it was not his own, because he received it from another.
But why did he not simply say: I am wisdom itself, but rather humbled himself?
Chrysostom assigns five reasons: the first, to show that he is from another and is the Son, not unbegotten.
The second, to show that he is not contrary to God, as the Antichrist will be, who will exalt himself above all that is called God.
Third, to show that he is a true man.
Fourth, on account of the weakness of the hearers.
Fifth, to teach humility, according to that passage in Romans 11: Be not highminded.
Otherwise it is answered that this contradiction is resolved according to the rule of Augustine, by looking to the twofold nature, so that the sense is: my doctrine according to the Divinity is not mine according to the humanity. That is called ours which has been acquired by us, and thus it satisfies the question.
In the third way, emphasis is placed on that which is mine; mine signifies the freedom of possessing and the principle of producing, as my field, my book, which I made. But this can be said in two ways: either absolutely or distinctively, just as both of me and to me. Speaking absolutely, therefore, that doctrine was Christ's, who freely possessed it, and from him it flowed forth to the hearers. But it was not distinctively Christ's alone, because this same doctrine was also the Father's, and also this same doctrine was from the Father.
Or I answer otherwise: there is a threefold mine: mine according to nature or origin, mine according to the divine nature or the human, mine absolutely or distinctively.
The second part treats of the communication of the doctrine in two ways.
27. Did not Moses give etc. This is the second part, in which the communication of the doctrine is treated.
And because the work of the wise man is twofold: "to expose those who lie and not to lie about the things he knows"; therefore first he refutes the perversity of the Jews; second, he manifests the nobility of his doctrine, below in the eighth chapter: Again Jesus spoke to them: I am the light of the world. The first part has four parts. For first he refutes those who are malicious in heart; second, those speaking against him with their mouth, at the passage: Therefore some of those from Jerusalem said; third, those rising up through power, at the passage: Therefore the Pharisees heard; fourth, those plotting through malice, at the passage: But Jesus went, at the beginning of the eighth chapter.
Therefore he refutes the malicious in this order. First is set forth the rebuke itself; second, the resistance of the Jews; third, the explanation of the rebuke; fourth, the calling back from evil.
(Verse 19). Therefore the Lord rebukes them for the hidden malice of their heart, because they wished to kill him — against the commandment of the Law; for this reason he says: Did not Moses give you the Law? which you are bound to observe by your own promise, according to that passage in Exodus 24: "All things that the Lord has commanded us, we will do." And none of you keeps the Law? The Psalm says: "They have all turned aside, they have together become unprofitable: there is none who does good, no, not even one"; because already in your heart you have transgressed it; which he shows by revealing the malice of the heart.