In these very words he says, »Why can you not hear my word? Is it because you are from your father, the devil?» instead of saying «from the substance of the devil,» clearly indicating to them their nature, and having convicted them that they are neither children of Abraham (for then they would not hate him), nor of God, hence they do not love him.
And if indeed he received the "You are of your father, the devil" as we have previously narrated, and said: "Because you are still of the devil, you cannot hear my word," although we had accepted his account. But now it is clear that he speaks of some people as being of the same essence as the devil, considering them to be of another substance, contrary to what those from him think, calling them either psychic or spiritual.
[John 8:44] You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.
The word is ambiguous; for it indicates either that the devil has a father, from who these (to whom the word is spoken) are said to be, according to the statement; or, which is more likely, that you are from this father, in whom "the devil" is accused. So, the statement would be ambiguous even if the first article "the" were omitted, but the intention of the statement would appear clearer. But certainly, not agreeing with those who believe that the devil has a father, whose sons those to whom the word is spoken are supposed to be, will use the text as it is: "When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it," and will say that the devil is falsehood and that another is the father of falsehood apart from him. But this will not be said correctly; for falsehood rather fits the opponent of the one who said, "I am the truth;" and I mean the Antichrist, whose father is the devil, being a liar. But it is likely that one might stumble at believing that the Antichrist is falsehood, which would not be blameworthy, if in substance he is not otherwise false. Relating to this, the phrase "You have become desolation, and you will not exist forever" spoken in Ezekiel about someone who had turned into desolation because of his wickedness, similarly explains that someone may become false not by nature, but by perversion and personal choice, and thus, to use a new term, puffed up. Therefore, one avoiding the strange notion of calling the Antichrist falsehood, will say that the statement "When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own" applies to all who lie; for the falsehood in each liar, when he speaks, speaks "of his own falsehood." But also "He is a liar and the father of it" † can be applied to each who utters falsehood from his own mouth, falsely calling him the father of the falsehood he speaks. Such an interpretation would not be unreasonable. These matters have been spoken as lying next to the ambiguity of the present text given to us. But in recounting "You do the works of your father" previously addressed, and having spoken to this, having gathered many helpful things from different sources to the narration, it would not be reasonable now to dwell on the topic. Except if someone, by committing sin, is born of the devil and has not eliminated the birth from him within himself, this person wishes to do not just one, but many desires of such a father. And it is clear that the desires of every son of the devil, which are born from the desires in the devil, are desires of earthly mindedness and corruption, which might properly be called enmities against God. Murders, injustices, and greed he indeed claims to be his desires, engendering in his sons similar desires, he does not negate; but also generally he says that these desires, which happen to be contrary to the nature of purity, are his desires, from which the desires towards impurity become inherent in the children of the devil, it is not difficult to accept. But to say that this desire is fornication or adultery or child corruption or effeminacy is not easily accepted, even if one is puzzled as to how these desires in humans arise from those in him. Just as desires present themselves in humans, just as, therefore, men want to do the desires of their father, so everything that they desire unlawfully was the desires of their father first. For such is the saying, "And the desires of your father you want to do." It must be said, however, that the devil desires this one, let’s say, to perish, and that one to be adulterated, and for these to prostitute, and inspires these desires in those able to minister to him, to desire to do what he wishes to perform, so that in this way one might say beforehand that the one committing fornication or adultery is first performing the devil's fornication and adultery. The same you will say about all sins: for example, the devil does not desire silver, but desires to make men covetous and attached to material things; and doing this, they wish to fulfill his desire who loves money. Therefore, it is necessary that we halt in all things we wish to do and examine whether what we wish to do is from the desires of the devil; so that from recognizing what comes from the desires of the devil, we may cease wishing to do those things, knowing that everyone who wishes to do the desires of the devil is by no means a child of God but has become a child of the devil and is being formed and made in the likeness of his evil father, from whom come and are shaped those images of that earthly one. For he was the first earthly one, having fallen from higher things first and having desired another life instead of the higher life, becoming worthy of being the beginning neither of creation nor workmanship but of "the molding of the Lord, made to be ridiculed by his angels." And indeed our previous existence is in the image of the creator; but the present existence is due to the mold taken from the earth’s dust. And if indeed, as if having forgotten the better essence within us, we subject ourselves to the substance made from dust, the better part will take the image of the earthly; but if we understand what has been made according to the image and taken from the dust of the earth, we might all incline towards Him in whose image we have been made, and we shall be according to the likeness of God, leaving behind every attachment to matter and bodies and any likeness. Since, according to the divine scriptures, the desire of the middle things is, not knowing the Greek precision of the meanings among those who articulate such things accurately, so as to name the noble desire, which they define as a reasonable longing, and the base desire, which they say is an irrational longing or a violent longing, it must be stated that every created nature wishes to fulfill the desires of its own father, just as every one does the works of its own father, with the first holy father being uncreated (this is God), and the first wicked father being from no one as a father; for no one introduced wickedness in him, but the deviation from God generated it. Therefore, what is now being examined according to "And you wish to do the desires of your father" clearly refers to the devil, since it is first stated "You are from your father the devil" and adding "He was a murderer from the beginning." And to each it would be healthily said not only to those from the devil but also to those from God "You wish to do the desires of your father." For some desires are also called God's, naming thus His wills. For in the eighteenth psalm it is said: "The judgments of the Lord are true, justified together; more to be desired than gold and much precious stone." And if, as one of the manuscripts has, it reads "the desires are more to be desired than gold and much precious stone," you would say that the desires to desire them are worthy, just as the blessed things to bless, and the beloved things to love. Just as therefore the blessings are more blessed by God and the beloved things more loved by God, so too the desires would more blessedly desired by God, more gratefully heard by us, as we have said, of the desire. And the Savior also says: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." Concerning the fact that there is also a base desire, the present statement was sufficient; however, nothing prevents us from also presenting "Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It is not always the case that one who desires desires an absent thing, just as not always the one who wishes wishes absent things. This we have previously attended to because of the desires of God and the desires of the perfect. Every son, therefore, desires to do the desires of his father, and every son does the works of his father. Thus also the Savior desires to do the desires of His Father and does the works of His Father. And "the man of sin, the son of perdition" desires to do the desires of his father, and does the works of his father. And among us men, certainly, the works are either of God or of the devil, and what we desire to do is either a desire of our good Father in heaven or of His enemy, the devil. And if we do the works of God and desire to do His desires, we are sons of God; but if we do the deeds of the devil, desiring to do what he desires, we are from the father, the devil. Therefore, let us consider not only what we do but also what we desire. For it is sufficient to be a son of the devil merely to desire to do his desires. Perhaps this is why, after "You do the works of your father," it is said, "You desire to do the desires of your father," so that we might learn that even if we merely desire to do what the devil desires, we are sons of the devil. It is most probable that one might argue from this that it suffices to be a son of God by desiring to do His desires, even if performing the works of God does not accompany this. But it must be said that the one desiring to do the desires of God must also do the works of God; for not only the will but also the working, as Paul says, is from God, necessarily following good willing with the working that matches it (for "all things work together for good to those who love God"), and the one who does all things well will not let good willing be incomplete. Nor can good willing be conceived without the working that is good in accordance with such willing being joined to it. Yet the working accompanying willing, even if it is often hindered by Providence for some common benefit, or for some other useful reason, interrupts the more harmful work according to the will. Heracleon, however, says of these matters: to whom the words apply, they were of the substance of the devil, as if the substance of the devil is different from that of other rational beings. But this seems to me similar to those who say that the substance of an eye that sees incorrectly is different from one that sees correctly, or that there is a different substance of hearing when it hears improperly and when it hears correctly. For in these things, it is not the substance that is different, but some cause has intervened leading to the improper seeing or hearing. Thus, in every being naturally endowed with reasoning, the reasoning faculty is the same, whether it follows reason or turns away from it. For what would the difference be among us humans between one who follows and one who does not follow if, even after understanding what is said, one person approves and consents to what is said, and another rejects it. We have often said that if this impossible thing is conceded (I mean that there could be a different and impervious substance of the devil to better things), then we will argue that he (the devil) cannot be blamed for evil; we will assign the blame to the one who created and made him, which is the most absurd thing of all. The irrationality becomes evident to one who understands the nature of human souls and sees that it is impossible, just as it is impossible for human bodies to be of different and diverse substances, so also for souls, and the intellectual part apart from the intellectual part, and the thoughtful part apart from the thoughtful. You would say the same about the rational part and the powers in the soul, both the memory and the imaginative faculties; for if one human being is of a different substance from another, then the powers of the soul must also be of different kinds, and we must say, for example, that the memory is different from the memory and the intellectual part different from the intellectual.
Examine then the argument about these things, which can equally be understood and grasped mentally, so that one may similarly agree or suspend judgment or reject what they say is spiritual and what they claim to be earthly. For is it that the similar has been created in different substances, or has the passion become similar due to this, since it was of the same substance with that in which the passion occurred? It is not reasonable to say that the same forms of imaginations, agreements, thoughts, and memories have occurred in those of different substances; while it is foolish to say that, even in those of the same substance, there is another and different substance among them.
Let them indicate another substance alongside these powers, one that neither understands nor thinks nor remembers nor imagines in those they say are spiritual better than the one that understands and thinks, or in the earthly ones either resembling or inferior; for they will not claim it is better. But it is likely they will say that just as it is possible to be impressed with the same seal in different substances of gold and silver and tin and lead and wax, so it is possible for similar forms to arise from the same imaginations in those who find themselves in different substances and are imagining. They will say similar things about thoughts and understanding and memory. But see if this argument, even if it seems very plausible, is more capable of seizing and crafting notions unfittingly combined, rather than persuading someone who meticulously examines the example; for in the case of the image, I can show that either in gold or in silver, where the form appears similar, the particularity of it being in gold stands out as opposed to being imprinted in silver or the other materials.
Thus, let them demonstrate to us the distinctiveness of the one receiving the form being better or lesser or inferior, and let them try even to proclaim with full clarity the different substances of those receiving the same forms; for even if they illustrate, they will not prove it.
Such things are also said concerning the argument of Heracleon: "From the father of the devil" should be said instead of "from the substance of the father".
Again regarding "You want to do the desires of your father," he distinguishes saying that the devil does not have will but desires.
And from this, the irrationality of the argument becomes evident; for everyone would acknowledge that it is the wicked things he desires. And you will gather likewise, even if we do not have it available at the moment to present, if anywhere in the Scripture the will is ascribed to the devil. Thereafter, Heracleon says that these things are not spoken of those who are the natural sons of the devil, the earthly ones, but of those who are psychic, becoming sons of the devil by disposition; from whom some, by nature, are able to become sons of God by disposition.
And he says indeed that because they love the desires of the devil and do his works, these become children of the devil, not being such by nature.
And thus it is distinguished that there are three ways to hear the designation "children" — first by nature, second by will, third by worth. By nature, he says, it is what is begotten by someone begotten, which is also properly called a child. By will, when someone does the will of another and is called the child of the one whose will he performs. By worth, in the sense that some are called children of Gehenna, darkness, lawlessness, and offspring of serpents and vipers. For these are not begotten by anyone by nature, for they are destructive and consuming those thrown into them. But since they have done their works, they are called their children.
Having made such a distinction, he did not even seek a measure of consolation for his own account from the scriptures. We might say to him, "If not by nature, but by the worthiness of hell's children and of darkness and lawlessness (for these are destructive and consuming rather than constructing), how does Paul somewhere say, 'We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest'? Or let them say to us how wrath is not destructive and especially corruptive, according to him, of which we were children. Again, he says that these are now called children of the devil, not because the devil begets anyone, but because by doing the works of the devil, they have become like him."
How much better would it be to declare this concerning all the children of the devil, that they become like him by doing his works and not by the essence and construction that, without works, names them children of the devil?
[John 8:44] He was a murderer from the beginning, and he did not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
For indeed there is a more common murderer, whoever has ever killed a man, who is even comparable, as Phinehas did with zeal for God, killing the Israelite who fornicated and the Midianite woman, and David will not be reproachfully called a murderer either, “in the name of the Lord of hosts, God of the armies of Israel,” having struck down Goliath. It is necessary to seek the true life of a man and his death opposite to it, to understand the reproachful murderer. And as much as you say about Adam and Eve in the narrative, as long as they did not sin, they would not have been killed; but on the day they ate from the forbidden tree, they immediately died, not by being killed by another but by the murderer devil, when he deceived Eve through the serpent and Eve gave to her husband from the tree, and the man ate. However, understanding the deeper doctrines of "I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord," and what the Savior spoke to the Sadducees most profoundly to those able to understand the meaning, in the Gospel according to Matthew: "Regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," and in the Gospel according to Luke: "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, as he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him." And also in the Gospel according to Mark: "Concerning the dead, have you not read that they are raised in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," you will see that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead, before they live again risen from the dead; indeed, no one is called dead who has not first lived. Take note of "In Adam all die, and in Christ all will be made alive," in which neither the intermediate death is signified by "In Adam all die," nor the indifferent life which is neither good in itself nor evil by "In Christ all will be made alive," and you will see the life of the human being in the image of God. Then, understanding his life, you will understand in what way the murderer killed the living man, not through a specific characteristic alone, but through the entire race, which he killed, as “in Adam all die,” and he will be properly called a murderer. This murder he committed beginning from the beginning, for which murder each of those understanding it and his own body, and to whom it belongs, will say this, lamenting upon having died in Adam: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Seeing also how it is said, "You have brought me down to the dust of death," and "You have humbled us in a place of affliction," and "The body of our humiliation." There is also something more secret, for which the murderer from the beginning is the ruler of this world, I mean of the earthly place where there are those whom people have killed. Thus, the murderer killed us; but we by the grace of God have been buried with Christ and raised with him, if indeed we have become conformed to his resurrection and walk in newness of life. The murderer rules over the slain and rules over the dead but cannot command any living one. If you study also what is written about the dead, like this: "For this Christ died and arose, that he might lord over both the dead and the living," you will understand in what manner, through the death of Jesus, he does not rule over the dead anymore; for Jesus died to also rule over the dead. So long as man lives, he does not bear the image of the earthly; but in dying and being slain by the murderer, he neither keeps the image of God nor takes up the image of the earthly and dead; for the earthly is dead, just as the heavenly is living; and God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Therefore, if we have risen together, walking in the newness of life, God is our God; but if we are still among the dead, God will not be our God who is not the God of the dead.
But it remains to examine the things concerning the murderer from the beginning and to see some who are dead, yet not in another but in Christ dead, who will also rise first; concerning whom it is spoken thus in the letter to the Corinthians: "For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed;" and in the letter to the Thessalonians: "For this we declare to you by a word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep; for the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever." And I consider those who are perfected and no longer committing sin to be living in Christ, and those dead in Christ to be those disposed according to the faith in Christ and choosing to live well but not yet perfecting it, still sinning, either through ignorance of the true word concerning righteousness or being overcome by the weakness of judgments from the flesh desiring against the spirit. And after these things, it follows naturally that Paul, being aware of himself, says, "We who are alive." And those whom we have said are dead, these are indeed those who need resurrection, neither can those living be seized up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, before first the dead in Christ rise; thus it is written: "The dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are alive" and what follows. And you would observe that even because of his murder, the things on the accursed earth were not constituted in the works of him who was cast out of "the paradise of delight," Adam. Yet this one became a murderer from the beginning of those existing, who, I believe, being "the beginning of the Lord's creation," envied those created "to exist." Thus "through envy, death entered into the world," always murdering those living whenever he finds them until all enemies are subjected under the feet of the Son of God, and the last enemy, death, is abolished.
But let us also see regarding "and in the truth he does not stand." Every person and solely the one who securely holds sound doctrines and through the certainty of doctrines remains unshaken in his judgments at all times, and under no circumstance or bodily excuse, such as unbearable pains or intense desires of sensual pleasures or any other cause, being shaken so as to be moved even slightly from the good, would reasonably be considered to stand in the truth; but let this saying hasten even upon the natures outside flesh and blood; for even in their life there are those who accomplish to stand in the truth correctly; if anyone does not live thus, "he does not stand in the truth."
However, I suggest that perhaps there is one and uniform manner of standing in the truth, but varied and manifold is the manner of not standing in it: some, with trembling and shaking, as I might phrase it, their foundations, being forced to stand in it and not yet having it; others, not having experienced this, yet being established in danger of falling into it, such as one who says, "But as for me, my feet had almost slipped," and others who have fallen into it, concerning whom I believe it is said, "Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces." To this standing in the truth, the Lord urged Moses, saying to him, "Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon the rock"; for if the rock was Christ, and Christ says, "I am the truth," maybe "you shall stand upon the rock" could mean "you shall stand upon the truth." Yet rarely and only after much does this happen to someone. Up to the point of "Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand on the rock," Moses had not yet stood upon the rock. And if anyone would examine more closely the nature of humanity, not easily able to be free from false doctrines, he shall see that just as "every man is a liar," so also every man does not stand in the truth. For if there is anyone who is not a liar and stands in the truth, such a person is not a man, so that God could say to him and to those like him, "I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High,'" without the addition of "But you shall die like men." Therefore, if also another does not stand in the truth, it is evident that the devil from the beginning, a murderer of men, and the cause of his not standing in the truth has been said in this manner: "Because there is no truth in him." For this reason, there is no truth in him, because he has been deceived and considers false things and is deceived by himself, being reckoned worse than the rest who are deceived, because they are deceived by him, but he is the creator of his own deception. It is worthwhile to investigate how it is said, "There is no truth in him," whether it means that he does not have any true doctrine, but all that he ever believes are lies, or that he does not partake in Christ, as those who partake of Christ do partake of Him who said, "I am the truth." For those who partake of Him partake of Him also inasmuch as He is truth, and therefore truth is in them. And thirdly, one might inquire whether it is necessary to say that there is no truth in anyone who thinks any falsehood, even if he believes many true things together with it. For as a falsehood mixed with countless truths is still regarded as a falsehood, so in the one who believes one falsehood with many truths, such a condition is as if mixed, so that one might say that there is no truth in such a person. I show that one who believes one falsehood among many truths. And all three might seem to have a reason, with one saying that "There is no truth in him" because he does not partake of Christ, whom he opposes, another saying so because he does not think anything true but is deceived in everything, and because of this, he is the devil and wicked and worse than any other offender, as perhaps in many there is also something true among the many errors, but in this one, there is nothing true. And thirdly, someone might agree with the rest, saying it is impossible for a rational being to believe falsehood in everything and not even weakly think the truth about anything. Certainly, the devil might at least have some true doctrine, considering that he is rational and that such-as-such a thing is a man, such-as-such is an angel, and such-and-such a thing is a body, and the nature of the body and something else different from the body. But that he should not even think or say the last thing would indeed be enough to prove that it cannot be true about him that he does not think anything true. Therefore, while we hear, "He does not stand in the truth" as not indicating such a nature nor presenting impossibility regarding his standing in the truth. But Heracleon says in these words, "For his nature is not from truth but from the opposite of truth, from error and ignorance. Therefore," he says, "he can neither stand in the truth nor have truth in himself, having falsehood from his own nature, unable by nature ever to speak the truth; and he says that not only he is a liar but also his father, specifically taking 'his father' as his nature, since he is made up of error and falsehood."
All these things absolve the devil of every charge, accusation, and blame; for no one could reasonably blame, accuse, or censure one who is not by nature inclined towards better things. Thus, according to Heracleon, the devil is rather unfortunate than blameworthy. It should be noted, however, that just as the devil does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him, so also those who are of the father, the devil, do not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in them. All those who still commit sins, even if they say they belong to Christ, are like this: "For everyone who commits sin is born of the devil."
[John 8:44] "When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it."
Having previously referred to 'You are of your father the devil,' we recalled the saying and have spoken what occurred to us concerning it, seeking what the lie and its father are. Let what is said now be examined together with those things. I believe that every evil and deceitful spirit is a lie and that each of them, when it speaks, speaks from its own resources and not at all from the things of God; and the liar, father of these, is the devil. But why we are moved to call every evil spirit a lie, we shall now set forth. It is written in the Third Book of Kings how Micaiah, when summoned by Ahab to prophesy about whether he should go up to Ramoth-Gilead to battle or refrain, said, 'I saw the God of Israel seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing around Him on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said: Who will persuade Ahab, king of Israel, to go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said this manner, and another said that. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord and said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said to him: In what way? And he said: I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' In the Second Book of Chronicles, the same Micaiah says to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 'Hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said: Who will persuade Ahab, king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one spoke in this way, and another spoke in that way. Then a spirit went out and stood before the Lord and said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said: In what way? And he said: I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Clearly, then, from these passages it is shown that if a spirit is a lying spirit, all similar spirits would be lies, having received their lying nature from the father of lies, according to falsehood and wickedness, and not in essence. But the Holy Spirit or an angelic spirit, when it speaks, does not speak from its own resources, but from the Word of truth and wisdom; which indeed is shown also in the Gospel of John, where it teaches about the Paraclete and says, 'He will take of Mine and declare it to you.' However, a lie, when it speaks, speaks from its own resources; and the lying spirit that deceived Ahab spoke from its own resources. Note, however, that the name 'liar' is similarly applied both to the devil who begot lies and to a man; for here it is not said about a man, 'For he is a liar and the father of it,' but in the Psalms, 'I said in my haste, All men are liars.' These things we have set forth so that we may flee with all might from being mere men and strive to become 'gods,' since as long as we are men, we are liars, just as the father of lies is a liar. It is similar in us sharing the same name and the thing signified by the name; I say us, if we still remain men, and the devil, who is called a liar."
[John 8:45] But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
If we remember to whom these words were spoken, we will see that they were addressed to the Jews who had believed in him, who had received the promise that if they remain in the word of Jesus, then they are truly his disciples and they will know the truth that will set them free. We will wonder how he says to these people, "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." And consider whether it is possible for someone to believe one aspect of a thing but not another. For example, those who believe in Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate in Judea but do not believe in the one who was born of Mary the virgin, these believe and do not believe in the same one. Similarly, those who believe in Jesus who performed the recorded wonders and signs in Judea but do not believe in the Son of the one who created heaven and earth, these believe and do not believe in the same one. Again, those who believe in the Father of Jesus Christ but do not believe in the creator and maker of all things, these believe and do not believe in the same one. Furthermore, those who believe in the creator of heaven and earth but do not believe in the Father of Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate, these believe in God and do not believe in him. Therefore, to avoid any contradiction indicating that the writer of the gospel was unaware of this, you will say that the one who said to the Jews who believed in him, "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me," meant that they believed in one sense and did not believe in another. And it is likely that they believed in him according to what they saw because of the miracles, but did not believe in the deeper things he said. And it fits with the statement, "You will know the truth," that those who have not known the truth, to them it was said, "Because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." "Believe me," as if he were saying: On the one hand you believe me because I perform wonders, but on the other hand, you do not believe me because I speak the truth. You might even see this now in many people, marveling at Jesus when they observe the story about him, but no longer believing him when a deeper and greater discourse than their own understanding is unfolded to them, but suspecting him to be false. Therefore, let us be careful lest the word also says to us, "Because I speak the truth, you do not believe me."
[John 8:46] Who among you convicts me of sin?