1459 The word "God" is also used in three senses. Sometimes it signifies the divine nature itself, and then it is used only in the singular: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4). At other times it is taken in a denominative sense: in this way idols are called gods: "All the gods of the peoples are idols" (Ps 96:5). And sometimes someone is called a god because of a certain participation in divinity, or in some sublime power divinely infused. In this way, even judges are called gods in Scripture: "If the thief is not known, the owner of the house shall be brought to the gods," that is, to the judges [Ex 22:8]; "You shall not speak ill of the gods," that is, of the rulers [Ex 22:28]. This is the way the word "god" is taken here, when he says, I said, you are gods , i.e., you share in some divine power superior to the human.
1460 Then when he says, If he called them gods to whom the word of God came , he shows the meaning of the authority he cited. This was like saying: He called them gods because they participated in something divine insofar as they participated in God's word, which was spoken to them. For due to God's word a person obtains some participation in the divine power and purity: "You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you" (15:3); and in Exodus (c 34) we read that the face of Moses shone when he heard the words of the Lord.
From what has been said above, one might argue in this way: It is clear that a person by participating in the word of God becomes god by participation. But a thing does not become this or that by participation unless it participates in what is this or that by its essence: for example, a thing does not become fire by participation unless it participates in what is fire by its essence. Therefore, one does not become god by participation unless he participates in what is God by essence. Therefore, the Word of God, that is the Son, by participation in whom we become gods, is God by essence. But our Lord, rather than argue so profoundly against the Jews, preferred to argue in a more human way. He says, and scripture cannot be broken , in order to show the irrefutable truth of Scripture: "O Lord, your word endures forever" [Ps 118:89]. [35]
1461 Then when he says, do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming , he draws his conclusion. If, with Hilary, we refer this to Christ insofar as he has a human nature, the meaning is this: Some people are called gods only because they participate in God's word. How then can you say, you are blaspheming , that is, how can you consider it blasphemy, if that man who is united in person to the Word of God is called God? [36] This is why he says, whom the Father sanctified . For although God sanctifies all who are sanctified - "Sanctify them in truth" (17:17) - he sanctified Christ in a special way. He sanctifies others to be adopted children - "You have received the spirit of adoption" (Rom 8:15) - but he sanctified Christ to be the Son of God by nature, united in person to the Word of God. These words, whom the Father sanctified , show this in two ways. For if God sanctifies as Father, it is clear that he sanctifies Christ as his Son: "He was predestined to be the Son of God by the Spirit of sanctification" [Rom 1:4]. We can also see this by his saying, and sent into the world . For it is not fitting for a thing to be sent some place unless it existed before it was sent there. Therefore, he whom the Father sent into the world in a visible way, is the Son of God, who existed before he was visible: for as we saw above, "He was in the world, and the world was made through him" (1:10); and "God sent the Son into the world" (3:17). Do you say of him whom the Father sent into the world, you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? This was like saying: I, who am united in person to the Word, have much more reason to say this than those to whom the word of God came .
1462 But how did the Jews realize that he was claiming to be the Son of God? Our Lord did not say this expressly. I answer that although our Lord did not say this expressly, yet from what he did say - I and the Father are one and what my Father has given to me is greater than all - they understood that he received his nature from the Father and was one in nature with him. But to receive the same nature from another, and to be it, is to be a son.
1463 But if, with Augustine, we refer him whom the Father sanctified to Christ as God, then the meaning is this: him whom the Father sanctified is he whom he has begotten holy, or sanctified, from eternity. [37] The other things which follow should be explained in the same way as Hilary does. Yet the better explanation is to refer everything to Christ as man.
1464 Then when he says, If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me , he proves the truth of the foregoing. This is like saying: Although in your opinion I am only human, yet I am not blaspheming when I say that I am truly God, because I truly am. He does two things concerning this: first, he presents the argument of his works; secondly, he draws his conclusion (v 38b).
1465 He does two things concerning the first. In the first place he says that in the absence of his works they would have an excuse. He says, If I am not doing the works of my Father , i.e., the same ones that he does, and with the same might and power, then do not believe me . "Whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise" (5:19).
Secondly, he says that they are convicted by his very works: but if I do them , the same works the Father does, then even though you do not believe me , who appears as a son of man, believe the works , i.e., these works show that I am the Son of God: "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24).
1466 Now he draws his conclusion, saying, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I am in the Father . For the clearest indication of the nature of a thing is taken from its works. Therefore, from the fact that he does the works of God it can be clearly known and believed that Christ is God. Accordingly he says: I will argue from my works themselves, that you may know and believe what you cannot see with your own eyes, that is, that the Father is in me and I am in the Father : "I am in the Father and the Father in me," by a unity of essence (14:10). The Father is in me and I am in the Father and "I and the Father are one," have the same meaning.
Hilary explains this well by saying that there is this difference between God and man: man being a composite, is not his own nature; but God, being entirely simple, is his own existence and his own nature. Therefore, in whomever the nature of God is, there is God. [38] And so, since the Father is God and the Son is God, where the nature of the Father is, there is the Father, and where the nature of the Son is, there is the Son. Therefore, since the nature of the Father is in the Son, and conversely, the Father is in the Son, and conversely. But as Augustine remarks, although God is in man and man is in God - "He who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16) - this does not mean that they are one in essence. Rather, man is in God, that is, under the divine care and protection, and God is in man, by the likeness of his grace. [39] However, the only Son is in the Father and the Father is in him as equals.
1467 Now our Lord turns away from the obstinacy of the Jews. First, the Evangelist shows they were obstinate; secondly, we see that Christ turns away from this; thirdly, we see what effect this had.
1468 The Evangelist shows their inflexibility by the fact that after so many confirmations of the truth, after the evidence of so many miracles and wonders, they still persist in their evil. So again they tried to arrest him , to apprehend him, not in order to believe and understand, but in their rage to do him harm; they were even the more enraged because he had more clearly expressed his equality with the Father: "They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return" (Jer 8:5).
1469 But our Lord turns away from their rage, and so the Evangelist says, but he escaped from their hands . Here we see, first, that he left them by escaping from their hands. He did this for two reasons. To show that he could not be restrained unless he willed: "Passing through the midst of them he went away" (Lk 4:30); "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18). Secondly, to give us the example of turning away from persecution when this can be done without endangering the faith: "Do not make your stand against one who can injure you" [Sir 8:14].
We see, secondly, where he went when the Evangelist says, he went away again across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized . The mystical reason for this is that at some time, through the apostles, Jesus would go to convert the Gentiles. The literal reason is twofold. First, this place was near Jerusalem, and since his passion was near, he did not wish to be too far away. Secondly, he wanted to recall the witness which John had given there, when he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29), as well as the Father's testimony to his Son, Christ, at the time of his baptism.
1470 The effect of this turning away was that many were converted to the faith. Three points are made about this conversion. First, many imitated his works; so he says, and many came to him , namely, by imitating his works: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). Secondly, many professed him in word, and they said, John did no sign . By this they profess Christ's superiority to John. The reason for this was that John was sent as a witness to Christ; thus he should show that he was worthy to be believed and his testimony would be shown to be true. Now this is fittingly done by holiness of life. On the other hand, Christ came as God; consequently, it was fitting that he show the signs of divine power. And so John stood out by the sanctity of his life; Christ, however, in addition to this, performed works which manifested his divine power. This was in accord with the practice of the rulers of antiquity that when in the presence of a higher power a lesser power did not display the insignia of its power. Thus, in the presence of the Dictator, the Consuls took down their insignia. So it was not fitting that John, who possessed less power, because he was a precursor and witness, should employ the insignia of divine power; only Christ should have done this. They profess the truth of John's witness to Christ, saying, but everything that John said about this man , Christ, was true . They were saying: Although John did no sign, he nevertheless said all things truthfully about Christ. Thirdly, he reveals the faith in their hearts, saying, and many believed in him there . As Augustine remarks, they grasped Christ remaining, whom the Jews wanted to seize waning, because through the lamp they had come to the day. For John was that lamp and gave testimony to the day. [40]
[1] In Ioannem hom ., 59, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 324; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[2] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[3] Tract. in Io ., 45, ch. 2, col. 1720; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[4] loc. cit; also Tract. in Io ., 47, ch. 1, col. 1733; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13.
[5] In Ioannem hom ., 59, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 324; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[6] Tract. in Io ., 46, ch. 2, col. 1728; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[7] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[8] St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:10 in the Summa Theologiae : III, q. 50, a. 1, obj. 3; q. 55, a. 5, obj. 3.
[9] Tract. in Io ., 45, ch. 6, col. 1721; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:6.