Volume 20 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca

In dictating the twentieth volume on the Gospel according to John, most God-loving and knowledge-seeking in the Lord Ambrose, we pray from the fullness of the Son of God, in whom all fullness was pleased to dwell, to receive complete and, so to speak, substantial insights, and having nothing deficient, that the Gospel may be revealed to us according to our examinations, without us either omitting anything necessary to be examined and recorded in interpretative writings, nor unduly increasing anything, nor misunderstanding the mind of our Savior Jesus. So may God send Him, the Word, revealing Himself, so that we may become spectators of His depth, granted by the Father.

[John 8:37] I know that you are Abraham’s seed, but you seek to kill me because my word has no place in you.

It may seem contentious to those who do not understand the significance of the term "seed" and the term "child" to interpret the phrase "I know that you are Abraham’s seed" and what will be immediately brought forward and said to them: "If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham." So that these matters may be considered, let us first examine physically the difference between "seed" and "child." It is clear that the seed has within itself the words of the one who sowed it, still resting in quiet and laid up; but the child, after the seed has transformed and worked on the material surrounding it from the woman and the accumulated nourishment, stands formed and prepared for birth; and if indeed a part is truly a child of someone, in terms of the bodily, it has arisen from seed, while if it is a seed, it does not necessarily become a child. With these distinctions having been pre-stated by us, if one were supposed to understand "I know that you are Abraham’s seed" physically, it would certainly follow that they are also Abraham’s children to whom the phrase is spoken, granted that the child is still seed and not given strictly. Since the children of Abraham are judged by their character and works, perhaps those who are seeds of Abraham should be identified by certain seminal words sowed, as I suppose, into certain souls. And just as not all humans physically are Abraham’s seed, so in the matters now considered regarding who are Abraham’s seed, it is clear that not all humans inherit the same seminal words implanted into their souls for the life of mankind. The cause for these differences, through great judgments and ineffable ways, viewed by those who have received the mind of Christ, to see the things granted to them by God, can only be comprehended by a few who diligently grasp things before and within every individual’s birth; and since such considerations might disturb some, although understanding these things, not investigating them accurately, we risk endangering ourselves in dealing with such matters, where discussing and unfolding such subjects is perilous, even if it is correct. And furthermore, it is precarious because the steward of God's mysteries must also seek the opportune moment for the presentation of such doctrines, so as not to harm the listener, and consider the measure of what is lacking or excessive; and even if the opportune moment is observed, and something is done contrary to right reason, it must be more carefully examined whether those to whom such things are delivered are fellow slaves, or slaves of someone else other than the Lord of the ruler. For that the steward of God's mysteries must examine all these things is indicated by the saying: "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will appoint over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?" Not all people, therefore, are the seed of Abraham; for they do not have the words sown within their souls which, if cultivated, could make them children of Abraham. And someone might argue that one who has become seed of Abraham could be condemned if he does not also become his child; but how could one reasonably blame someone for not doing the works of Abraham, who does not even have the initial condition of being the seed of Abraham, from which comes the becoming children of Abraham? We might answer this by using history as a stepping-stone and seeking the traces of truth regarding the place in the scriptures, that if someone is not a child of Abraham, but is seed of no righteous person, then one would be blameless among sinners, having no opportunity from the seeds for what is good. But now, just as in bodies one might be the seed of many righteous people, while another has fewer, as will be evident from the juxtaposition of what will be said, so also in matters of spiritual advancement it is fitting to speak proportionally. Abraham is the twentieth born from the first-formed: for there are ten generations from Adam to Noah, and ten from Noah to Abraham. And Abraham had brothers Nahor and Haran; for the three were the sons of Terah. Nahor and Haran were not descendants of Abraham; nor was Abraham himself a descendant of Abraham. The three were, however, descendants of righteous men, as we still seek to count those from Adam in certain numbers: of Seth, whom God raised in place of Abel; and of Enosh, who "began to call on the name of the Lord" and of Enoch, "who pleased God, after becoming the father of Methuselah for two hundred years"; and of Noah, of whom it is said that "Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generation; Noah walked with God"; and of Shem, whose "Lord God" seems first to have been addressed in Genesis, as it is plain from "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem." Among those who were unrighteous, these three sons of Terah were the descendants. Therefore, what we have said about the seed of Abraham, let it be understood about the seed of Shem and Noah and the aforementioned righteous men, whose characteristics Abraham, Nahor, and Haran seem to have inherited as they came into existence. But Abraham cultivated within himself the seminal reasons of all the righteous before him and added to them his own holy quality, particular to his own seed, from which those who followed after him, called "seed of Abraham," could partake. But Haran made little effort for himself and the paternal seeds in him, from which he managed, though weakly, to give forth Lot. Nahor, however, was lesser than both his brothers. Therefore, it is possible, even not being of the seed of Abraham, to be of the seed of Noah, since certainly by the history of the flood all descended from Noah. If this is so, then also of the seed of Enoch, surely also of the seed of Enosh and Seth. It is unclear to us among many of those lower than Noah, who is of the seed of Shem, who of Ham, and who of Japheth, and of those even lower; but no one is without some share in the seed of the righteous. I consider it possible that one having the starting points which Abraham had from prior seeds, even not being of the seed of Abraham, might become similar to Abraham. For as Abraham, though not from the seed of Abraham but from those previously mentioned, became Abraham, so it is possible for someone, having cultivated the superior things sown in him, to become another Abraham, not necessarily from the seed of Abraham but himself also capable of sowing like Abraham. And let us hear of all these matters, referring the spoken words not to bodies and people, but to certain intelligible things and words, more or fewer, which those entering into generation or existence participate in variously, and perhaps even ascending. And you may consider if such seeds can apply, now being named as particular to those who receive them, the phrase "They that go forth, go weeping, bearing their seeds"; for if one can, let him understand the journey of some souls into generation with weeping, carrying the seeds either of more just or fewer and even unjust things. And let him reflect, seeing as if gardeners agonizing over the seeds they hold, how to cultivate these (I mean those that are superior), and not to sow these, if they come with worse seeds. For what kind of weeping is it likely for these to weep about whom the saying is: "They that go forth, go weeping, bearing their seeds"? And there is indeed a good hope among those who go forth and weep, carrying their seeds; for these as usually "shall come with rejoicing, carrying their sheaves." Perhaps, however, there are others, concerning whom you might say: "They that go forth went forth and laughed, bearing their seeds"; and for them the following will be: "And they shall come with weeping, carrying their sheaves"; concerning whom you might say: "They were born like grass on the rooftops, which withers before it is plucked, of which the mower fills not his hand, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom. And they that pass by do not say: The blessing of the Lord be upon you." And observe if it can perhaps be said more deeply and mystically by our savior the saying "Blessed are those who weep now, for they shall laugh;" and "Woe to those who laugh now, for they shall mourn and weep." However much the seed of later just ones is, it produces that many more words of righteousness, as for this reason the phrase "The seed of Abraham his servants, the sons of Jacob his chosen ones" is written, and for this reason somehow the saying about John: "Among those born of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist." Having come to these places, consider if it has any meaning that some seeds disappear by God, so that there be no more evil on earth, if those not deriving from better sources are sown to cultivate those from superior seeds. For this reason, the flood occurs to destroy the seed of Cain, since those born from him could not have anything to cultivate but only from Adam. That the flood happened to destroy the seed of Cain is shown by the inscription of the Proverbs of Solomon through these words: “Departing from her, the unrighteous in his anger perished” (it being evident that it means wisdom), “killed by fratricidal lusts, for whom wisdom again saved the submerged earth, steering the righteous with a simple piece of wood.” The disappearance of Sodom and the land of those likewise seems to be depicted to me: "Their land remains a smoking wasteland, bearing plants at fruitless seasons." And it was the work of a good God to make Sodom disappear from the earth and to dry up whatever residue of mist remained from it, so that there would no longer be a vine of Sodom, nor a branch of Gomorrah, nor a grape of bitterness, nor a cluster of harshness, nor wine, the anger of dragons and the incurable wrath of asps. You would say the same about the Egyptians, about whom it is said: “He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamore trees with frost”; for it is a good God who kills the vines of the Egyptians and the sycamore trees of the ungodly. These things are set forth for the examination of the debate about seeds regarding Abraham or any of the righteous, so that it may be shown how and in what manner it is said by the Savior, “I know that you are Abraham’s seed,” and “If you are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham.” Concerning the children of Abraham doing the works of Abraham, we will speak, God willing, in better time, when we come to the testing of that statement. It is possible then for someone who happens to be a seed of Abraham to become his child through diligence, but it is also possible through neglect and lack of cultivation to lose even the standing of being his seed. Those to whom the word was addressed were still of hope, for Jesus knew that they were still Abraham’s seed and saw that they had not yet lost the ability to become children of Abraham; as it was still possible for them to become children of Abraham since they were his seed, he said to them, “If you are children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.” Just as there are some who are the seed of Abraham, there are others, as Daniel says, “the seed of Canaan and not of Judah,” and others, as Wisdom says, “a cursed seed from the beginning.” And we will say concerning these that just as in physical matters, from many seeds, sometimes one seed proves capable of more vigorous growth, so it is with spiritual seeds. What I say will be clear from the subsequent statements; for since the one who sows has within himself ancestral and kin-related reasons, sometimes his own reason prevails, and what is generated resembles the sower, sometimes the reason of the sower’s brother, or the sower’s father, or the sower’s uncle, or sometimes even the sower’s grandfather; hence, those who are begotten resemble one or another of these. One can see that the word of the wife or of the wife’s father or of her brother or of her grandfather prevails, in accordance with the comminglings in their fermentations while all of them are shaken, until some of the seminal words should prevail. Let these things be transferred to the soul filled with intelligible seeds, coming from certain named fathers of her, and from the mobility or ease of movement of the governing principle, let certain seminal words of the fathers emerge as images on such occasions. When cultivated, there will be a son, this one of Abraham, clearly the same also of Noah, another of Noah, not, however, to be also of Abraham, and another of Canaan, and another of someone among the just or the unjust. Yet, we have all come not with similar and the same seeds, but no one has come empty of salvific and holy seeds; unless one of us happens to entreat strongly and simultaneously offering the help from God that does not reject even the worst and those who have entered life without the best seeds, and to entreat from the saying, "God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." All things spoken about the seed of Abraham and those having an analogy to this, we would reasonably accept if indeed we have received that it was not spoken according to the physical that "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and "I have not found such faith in Israel," and whatever related things have been said similarly. These, to whom the word is directed, seem not to accommodate the word, unable to contain it through the excess of its own greatness beyond them, since they were still merely the seed of Abraham. But if in addition to being the seed of Abraham they had cultivated and the seed of Abraham had grown into greatness and increase, in the greatness and increase of the seed of Abraham the word of Jesus would have fitted. And even to this point, you will admit that the word does not fit in those not advancing from being the seed of Abraham and not coming into being his children. These also wish to kill the word and as it were to crush it, not being able to contain its greatness. And it is always possible to see those not accommodating the word, because they are lesser vessels, wishing to kill the unity of the greatness of the word, as if they could contain its members after its destruction and crushing. To those in whom the word thus happens, having, as it were, destroyed it, it will be said, "All my bones have been scattered." So if one of us is the seed of Abraham and yet the word of God does not fit in him, let him not seek to kill the word, but having changed from being the seed of Abraham to being the child of Abraham, he will be able to contain the word of God which he previously did not accommodate.

[John 8:38] What I have seen from the Father, I speak; and you, therefore, what you have heard from the Father, you do.

Just as we might say that certain men from the beginning have been eyewitnesses of the word, concerning whom Luke says, “Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us,” so we will say that the Savior is an eyewitness of things from the Father, and thus the saying “No one knows the Father except the Son” is said, since there are no other eyewitnesses to whom the Son might reveal. Clearly, the statement in “What I have seen from the Father, I speak” indicates that the Savior is an eyewitness of things with the Father. If someone ever inquires whether there will be a time when the angels themselves will see the things with the Father, no longer seeing through an intermediary and servant; then those who have seen the Son have seen the Father who sent Him; in the Son, one sees the Father. But when one looks at the Father as the Son sees the Father and the things with the Father, one will be, as it were, an eyewitness of the Father and of the things of the Father, no longer understanding these things from the image of Him whom the image is. And I think this will be the end, when the Son hands over the kingdom to God the Father, and when God becomes all in all. Therefore, the Savior, having seen the things with the Father, speaks; but the Jews who believed in Him have not seen the things with the Father, but they heard from the Father to do what they heard. Therefore, the Lord tells them, “And you, therefore, do what you have heard from the Father.” Someone might ask when the Jews who believed in the Lord heard from the Father; and to this, one might say, having simply heard, “What you have heard from the Father, do,” that they heard from the Father through Moses and the prophets the things written in the Law and the Prophets to be done. He who uses the saying against heterodox opinions clearly demonstrates that the Father of Christ is no other than the God who gave the Law and the Prophets.
Another also, using the phrase "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me; not that anyone has seen the Father, except the one who is from the Father, he has seen the Father," will say that there are some souls that, having been embodied before coming into existence, have been taught by the Father and have heard from Him, who also come to the Savior. Among these were even those Jews who now believe in Him and were being examined, to whom He said, "You then do what you have heard from the Father." And he will say that these are those also called the seed of Abraham. But someone might oppose this, claiming that the statement "Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to me" necessarily means that the one who has heard from the Father and learned from Him comes to the Savior; but "You then do what you have heard from the Father," spoken to the Jews seeking to kill the Son of God, to whom it is said as if they were not yet children of Abraham, "If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham," shows that they do not yet have the fruits of having come to the Savior. To such an opposer it will be answered, stating that "Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned" is not the same as "You then do what you have heard from the Father"; for the one who has heard from the Father and learned necessarily comes to the Savior, while those who have heard but not necessarily learned are not yet children of Abraham. We might inquire from those introducing the natures and attributing to "My word has no place in you" according to Heracleon, that it is because they are unfit either in essence or in intention, how those who are unfit in essence have heard from the Father. Moreover, were these ever sheep of Christ, or were they originally strangers to Him? If they were strangers, how did they hear from the Father? Clearly, as they believe, it is said to the strangers, "For this reason you do not hear, because you are not of my sheep." Unless, being pressed by another absurdity, they surround themselves with the claim that the strangers have heard from the Father but do not hear from the Savior. If they were belonging to the Savior and of the blessed nature, how were they seeking to kill Him? And how did the word of the Savior not have a place in them?

[John 8:39] They answered and said to Him, "Our father is Abraham."

They might have made their answer much humbler, accepting concerning who was their father, as the Lord was saying. For Jesus, referring to God, said "You do the works you heard from the Father." But humbler, they acknowledge their father's nationality, saying, "Our father is Abraham." Someone might assist them, as replying well, by saying that as moderate and not claiming themselves to be sons of God, when Jesus said "You do the works you heard from the Father" referring to God, they say "Our father is Abraham." Clearly, the Savior redirects even this as falsely spoken through "If you were the children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham." Therefore, one might inquire about these things improperly, because, according to the Savior, denying them to be children of Abraham, saying to them "You do the works you heard from the Father," referring to the Father, which is God. For he who is not a child of Abraham can be much more criticized as those after Abraham against whom the word is directed, much more so will he not be a child of God. But see if also for this we can say it has not been said, "And you also should do the works you heard from your father or our father," but "from the Father," whosoever He may be, not necessarily the father of those who are not children of Abraham and are not formed from the seed of Abraham to the children of Abraham; or the saying, "You do the works you heard from the Father," can be taken indefinitely instead of "from My Father," and this will be clear from "What I have seen with My Father I speak," meaning "with My Father." And following, we are taught to whom God is Father, by which also the Savior says these things: "If God were your Father, you would love Me." It is clear that those seeking to kill the Son did not love Him; and those not loving Him could not be called sons of God. Thus it is clear that "You do the works you heard from the Father" is not equal to "from your father."

[John 8:39] Jesus said to them, "If you are children of Abraham, do the deeds of Abraham."

Those who choose one of the deeds of Abraham, the "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness," and thinking this is what is referred to by "Do the deeds of Abraham" so that it may be granted to them that faith is a deed, which would not be granted by those accepting the "Faith without works is dead" nor by those hearing that it differs to be justified "by faith" rather than "by works of the law," let them respond why it was not said: "If you are children of Abraham, do the deed of Abraham" in the singular, but in the plural: "Do the deeds of Abraham," which, as I think, amounts to "Do all the deeds of Abraham." And if it equals "Do all the deeds of Abraham," neither must he who has a wife approach a maidservant fleshly nor, after the death of the married woman in old age, take another woman, who wishes to become a child of Abraham by doing the deeds of Abraham according to the teaching of the Savior. Clearly, we learn here that it is necessary for each one to do spiritually all the history allegorized according to Abraham, starting from "Go out of your land and from your kindred and from your father's house to the land that I will show you," spoken not only to Abraham but to everyone who will be his child. For each of us has a land, an unworthy kindred before the divine instruction, and the house of our father before the word of God reached us, from all of which we must exit according to the word of God if we hear the Savior saying: "If you are children of Abraham, do the deeds of Abraham"; thus we will arrive, leaving our land, at the land which God will show us, truly good and really vast, which properly should be given by the Lord God to those who have fulfilled what was commanded in the "Go out of your land." And just as abandoning a family that is not good, we shall become a great nation and greater than according to humans; and just as despising the house of a not praiseworthy father, we shall be blessed with our name being magnified, becoming so blessed, that those who bless us will be blessed by God, and those who curse us will be under a curse, and every tribe of the earth will be blessed in us (when it may be said about us: “He went,” as it was said about Abraham, “And Abraham went, as the Lord had spoken to him.” I think that in the beginnings and for some time Lot will follow us, of which there was a symbol: “And Lot went with him”), and returning to the land of Canaan, we shall pass through the land as far as the place of Shechem, thus advancing in the ascent of the mind until we come to the high oak. And the Lord God, who appeared to Abraham, will appear to us, and he will promise to give the land around the high oak to the seed of our intellectual soul. It is for the one who understands the phrase “Do the works of Abraham” also to build an altar to the Lord where the high oak is manifesting to us, and after these things to depart from the place of the high oak to the mountain, and from the mountain towards the east of Bethel, which is interpreted “House of God,” where he will pitch his tent, with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east; Ai is interpreted “Feasts.” And as such a one progresses, he will build again an altar to the Lord, now also able to call on the name of the Lord. And next, departing from there, the one who will be a child of Abraham, becoming somewhat more strategic and understanding against how many enemies he must prepare himself, will camp in the wilderness. After this, he will experience the trial of the famine in the land and will go down to Egypt to sojourn there, so that the famine which prevails in the land may not overpower him there. And he will go down to Egypt with his beautiful wife, making certain agreements with her, so that the Egyptians may treat him well because of her and give him in Egypt “sheep and oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and mules and camels.” Concerning each one of whom some wise person, capable of reaching the depths of the text with proficiency, it would be the work to speak and generally test every part of the history of Abraham and everything written about him, which things are allegorized; these we will attempt to do spiritually, as spiritual ones. But see if it does not clearly appear to us from the examination of the passage that it is the mark of a wise person endowed with every virtue to become a child of Abraham. For what need is there to say how much wisdom we need to understand the works of Abraham? And how much strength to carry them out? What wisdom or what power do we need, or of Christ, who is "the power of God and the wisdom of God?" Therefore, it is written: "If you are Abraham's children, do the works of Abraham"; correspondingly, you could say: if you are Isaac's children, do the works of Isaac; and similarly about Jacob and each one of the holy fathers. And by the opposites, each sinner in general is a child of the devil, since "everyone who commits sin is of the devil," or more specifically, of Cain, or of Ham, or of Canaan, or of Pharaoh, or of Nebuchadnezzar, or some of the impious ones. Accordingly, you will say to these that each one departing from this life will go to his own fathers; for it must be supposed to be said of not only Abraham, but also to all people at their departure: "You shall go to your fathers"; yet not to all people, but only to the saints: "In peace"; and to those completed and become spiritually aged also: "Having lived a good old age," since "Wisdom is gray hair to men and an unspotted life is old age among men" and "A crown of pride is old age" and the glory to the true and godly elders are the adornments of spiritual gray hairs.

[John 8:40] Now you seek to kill a man who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from God.

Those who seek to kill, since God is not killed, even if they do kill, they kill a man. Even if they seek to kill, not yet killing, they do not think they are devising against God but against a man; for no one who is persuaded that he is God to whom he devises would still devise against him. It is always possible to consider those devising against the word of God, that they seek to kill and make him disappear, supposing him to be a man, that is, human and mortal, or they attack his more human and visible aspect; so that even if they kill the body of the word, it is clear that after this they can do nothing more. Therefore, we should not fear those who kill the body and after that can do nothing more, nor should we fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul of the word. But if there is such a word that both his body and soul can be destroyed, considering them worthy of destruction, we should fear the one who can destroy and make disappear both soul and body in Gehenna or in whatever manner he wishes; for the Lord Jesus will consume with the spirit of his mouth and abolish with the brightness of his coming the opposing word and what is lifted up against everything called God or worshiped. And these who seek to kill a man who has spoken the truth he heard from God and received do so. Yet if we take the place more simply, the Savior clearly taught that what was sought by the Jews to be killed was not God but a man, who was also killed; for it is not proper to say that God dies; therefore, the Word in the beginning with God, which was God, did not die. But you may ask, since it is written that "The Word became flesh," whether the Word that became flesh became also a man or not. For if he became a man, he could be sought to be killed; but if he did not become a man, then the Word that became flesh was not killed and restores each to what he was before he became flesh.

[John 8:40] "This Abraham did not do."

It was altogether impossible for this to be done by Abraham, if Abraham had not done it, as it happened to be stated, it would seem, that 'This Abraham did not do.' For some would say toward this that it is vainly said, 'This Abraham did not do,' if he did not do what was not at all done in his time; for Jesus had not come in his time. But since I consider "This Abraham did not do," to be said, so to speak, in praise regarding Abraham, I would say that according to the teacher's discourse, 'Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day, and he saw it and was glad,' it means that a man speaking the truth he heard from God did arise in the time of Abraham, yet was not sought to be slain by Abraham. And understand that there is no time when the man allegorically understood as Jesus was not present in life, both after the times of the story about him and earlier. Therefore, I think that anyone who was once enlightened and has tasted the heavenly gift, and has become a partaker of the Holy Spirit, and has tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and has fallen away, again renews himself to repentance, either re-crucifying or re-nailing the Son of God to the cross and exposing him to public shame, whether before the bodily advent of our Savior or after. For he who, after enlightenment and the other beneficences of God towards him, sins again, re-crucifies the Son of God through his own sins to which he has returned, fulfills nothing short of the common bodily action known as crucifying the Son of God, nor was it done earlier and anyone sinning after hearing divine words pre-crucified the Son of God. But if anyone is pleased to accept what is recorded in the Acts of Paul as said by the Savior, ‘I am being crucified again above,’ this person, as he accepts 'I am being crucified again above' occurring after the advent, so also before the advent, whenever the same causes occur, might say, ‘Now I am being crucified.’ Why indeed should it not be said that ‘he is being crucified above,’ since he had been crucified before? But see if it is not only the voice of the saints after the presence that says 'I am crucified with Christ,' but also of those earlier, lest we say that the saints after the presence differ from Moses and the patriarchs. And the statement 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me' should also be said not only by those after the presence but also by those earlier. I also bring into focus the statement 'God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob; He is not the God of the dead but of the living' said by the Savior, lest it may be because of this that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living, since they too were buried with Christ and rose together with him, not necessarily according to the bodily burial or bodily resurrection of Jesus. These things are in regard to 'This Abraham did not do.' But what is 'this'? It is the seeking to kill a man who has spoken the truth which he heard from God. For we assert that the spiritual economy according to Jesus was never absent from the saints. If you elevate these things as we have hinted at in other instances, interpreting them mystically rather than commonly in reference to Abraham, you will try to harmonize all the circumstances related to the place, seeking the coherence of each of these."

[John 8:41] You are doing the works of your father.

With respect to this saying, it is not clear which father He means to say to the Jews who have believed in Him and have not yet known the truth; for He says all these things to them. And if He had not shortly after added, "You are of your father the devil" and "you want to do the desires of your father," we would have understood clearly the intent of what was spoken. It is not remarkable if He said to those Jews who believed in Him but had not yet remained in His word, so that they might truly become His disciples and know the truth by being freed by it, "You are doing the works of your father" and as he shortly after added, "You are of your father the devil." For though such words may seem harsh when said of those who believe in Him and somewhat have become His disciples, though not yet truly being disciples of Jesus, it should be understood in the light of what is written in the Catholic epistle by John concerning the children of God and the children of the devil: "For the one who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Everyone born of God does not commit sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil: whoever does not do righteousness is not of God, neither he who does not love his brother." Therefore, with these words being so, understand this if it isn’t clearly said that everyone who commits sin is of the devil. As much as we commit sins, we have not yet shed the generation of the devil, even though we may be counted as believing in Jesus; and it follows from this that Jesus said to the believing Jews, "You are doing the works of your father," referring with "father" to the devil because of "You are of your father the devil." And if everyone who commits sin is of the devil, then everyone who is not of the devil does not commit sin. But even if "the Son of God was manifested for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil," so long as He has not yet destroyed the works of the devil within us, by our not presenting ourselves to the One who destroys the works of the devil, we have not yet cast away being children of the devil, as we are known by our fruits as to whose children we are. And from these things, it is clear that no one is by nature a son of the devil, nor is anyone called a son of God among men because he was so created; and it is clear that one who was once a son of the devil can become a son of God, which is also evident from Matthew, who reports the Savior saying thus: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." Note that from "love your enemies" and "pray for those who persecute you," he who was not previously a son of the heavenly Father, afterward becomes His son; and indeed, because of "By this the works of God and the works of the devil are manifest," it was said concerning the children of the devil that "He who commits sin is of the devil"; but concerning the children of God, it was said that "Everyone who is born of God does not commit sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." It is therefore clear that every person completing the word is either a child of God or a child of the devil; for either he commits sin or he does not commit sin, with nothing in between committing sin and not committing sin; and if he commits sin, he is of the devil; but if he does not commit sin, he is born of God. Thus, what is said in the same letter concerning the children of God and the children of the devil stands: "Everyone who abides in Him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen Him." Therefore, if everyone who abides in Him does not sin, he who sins does not abide in the Son; and if everyone who sins has not seen Him, he who has seen Him does not sin. At the same time, note what John meant by saying, "Everyone who sins has not seen Him," indicating through "has seen Him" that those who always see the Son of God and from having seen Him gain power to by no means sin. You might also say that the saying "You do the works of your father" can sometimes refer to the children of the devil and at other times to the children of God. For those who sin do the works of their father the devil, but those who do right do the works of their father, God. It is possible that someone might be moved by these things, not being able to be the same, doing good and evil deeds alternately, being a child of God due to the good deeds and a child of the devil due to the contrary ones. But this, besides being highly irrational, is not stated in the Scriptures. For John declares that "Everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin, because His seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." Therefore, everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin; but it is not written that everyone who has been born of the devil does not practice righteousness, but "the one who commits sin is of the devil". Again, it is not stated in the same way, "The one who commits sin is of the devil," as it is written, "the one who practices righteousness is of God." Pay attention to the distinctions of the statements, how with all precision John has said them, so as to marvel how perfectly and, as some might say, dialectically he expressed them, not bringing forth similar things about those born of the devil and those born of God. Similarly, he would have expressed it if he had said, just as "The one who commits sin is of the devil," so "the one who practices righteousness is of God," or as he wrote, "Everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin," he might have written "everyone who has been born of the devil does not practice righteousness." Perhaps also by using "is" for the one of the devil, and not using it for those of God, or by using "born" for those of God and not using it for those of the devil, he expressed it very wisely. For he exalted the one of God by attributing "born" to him; which, if it had been said of the one of the devil, would have shown something worse than "is of the devil." But even if he had used "is" as he did for the one of the devil, he would have shown less for the one of God, as being born of God is much greater than being from God. Some might say that some creatures are indeed from God but are not born of God, and these undoubtedly occupy a lesser rank in the universe than those who are said to be born of God. And indeed, being according to the distinction of "It is of the devil" and "Born of God," do not ever seek if there is someone who is both born of the devil and who is certainly of the devil, for not everyone who is of the devil is born of the devil; and again there is someone who is of God who is not entirely born of God, hence not everyone who is of God is born of God. However, the one born of God is characterized by not committing sin, because the seed of God remains in him, and due to the power of that seed residing within him, he is unable to sin any longer. And in the last parts of the letter, it is said: "Everyone who is born of God does not sin, but the one born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him." If the one born of God keeps himself and the wicked one does not touch him, then the one who does not keep himself so that the wicked one does not touch him is not born of God, and everyone who the wicked one touches is not born of God. The wicked one touches those who do not keep themselves. Since there is no interval between the matters concerning Abraham, it follows: "You do the works of your father," we seek whether this is written on account of the first command given to Abraham. The first instruction to him is as follows: "Get out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house, and go to the land that I will show you." So Abraham went out from his father's house, which those who are being rebuked for not speaking soundly have not done; "Our father is Abraham," they say. For if you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham; the first of his works was to leave his country, and his kindred, and his father's house, and go to the land that God shows him. Therefore, those to whom this word applies are reproved as not being the children of Abraham, clearly because they have not gone out from their father's house they are reprimanded as still being of their wicked father and still doing the works of that father. With these things being clearly stated in the text, I think those who assume from this that there are some who are by nature children of the devil are refuted.

[John 8:41] They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, God."

I seek whether, when reproved as not being children of Abraham, those who are said to have believed in Him, the Jews, answered more bitterly, covertly hinting that the Savior was born out of fornication, as they probably insinuate this by denying His notorious and widely discussed birth from the Virgin. For it seems quite irrational to me that they should dismiss these words offhand. Neither do they suit the preceding nor the following context if the phrase "We were not born of fornication" spoken by them is understood more literally. But since the Savior said that God was His own Father, not admitting any human father, it is likely that they brought up again the phrase "We have one Father, God" to confront the "We were not born of fornication." As if they were saying, "We have one Father, God, rather than you, who, claiming to be born of a virgin, were born of fornication, and by boasting of your virgin birth, claim to have God as your only Father," acknowledging both God as Father and not denying a human father. But someone will say that understood in this manner, these cannot be the words of Jews who believed in Him. To this it must be replied that, at the beginning of His conversation with them, "If you remain in My word, you are truly My disciples, and you shall know the truth," as they were capable of remaining in Jesus’ word and also of not remaining, it was not impossible that some of those reproved did not remain in His word, and those who did not remain spoke bitterly and reactively by saying, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, God." It seems to me that they answered more contentiously; for having previously said, "We are Abraham's seed," and confirming this more plainly by saying, "Our father is Abraham," on hearing in response, "If you are Abraham's children, do the works of Abraham," they claim a greater father than Abraham for themselves by saying, "We have one Father, God." Perhaps because some men are of the devil and others are born of God, we might rightly say that all who are not born of God are born of fornication. For the devil begets or makes those who are from him, not from a bride, but from a prostitute, from matter, those who are attached to bodily things and clinging to material lusts, becoming one body with her, whereas those who are born of God refrain from the prostitute matter, cleaving to the Lord, and being united with the Word who was in the beginning with God, and with His wisdom, "which He created as the beginning of His ways for His works," that they may become one spirit with her; for "He who is joined to the prostitute is one body with her; but he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

[John 8:42] Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here."

Therefore, since those who bring in the natures use this saying, narrating it thus, that you would have recognized me as your own and as a brother, but also as your own, you would have loved me if God were your Father, it must be questioned thus towards them: there was a time when Paul hated Jesus, and he hated him when he devastated and persecuted the church of God, and indeed the first divine communication correctly said to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' If therefore it is true that 'If God were your Father, you would love me,' it is clearly also valid to reverse it: 'If you do not love me, God is not your Father.' Therefore, for those who do not love Jesus, God is not the Father; there was a time when Paul did not love Jesus, therefore there was a time when God was not Paul's Father. Hence, Paul was not by nature a son of God, but later became a son of God, when we also properly take what follows, namely that 'But indeed God, O Paul, is your Father, therefore you love Jesus.' But even before the times of Paul's faith, being true the saying 'If God were your Father, you would love me,' it would have been correct to accept Jesus saying, 'But indeed you do not love me, therefore God is not your Father, O Paul.' But when does God become anyone's Father? Or when one keeps the commandments, through which he, who was not previously a son of the heavenly Father, becomes His son, when also the Father, leading him to rebirth, who becomes His son, takes him as such a Father. This can be addressed from what is written in the Gospel according to Matthew: 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven.' Pay attention to 'so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven,' which shows that someone does not become a son of the heavenly Father before. By keeping carefully also concerning what pertains to 'the Father,' which is 'yours' (for it is written, 'so that you may become sons of your Father'), you will ask whether it is said more plainly, or whether it is added by error of the scribes (for we would not have questioned if it had been written, 'so that you may become sons of the Father who is in heaven'); and especially since it seems to contain contention about someone becoming a son, not simply of the heavenly Father, but of one's own Father. For if He is his Father, he does not later become his son; but if he becomes his son, He was not his Father. Moreover, you will note that some of those thought to have believed are called slaves of God, but others are called His sons, that perhaps not just by any commandment but by some notable achievement, someone becomes a son of God who achieves it. Observe, then, that in the Gospel of Matthew, it is stated, "That you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven," in connection with, "But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." For indeed, the likeness to God and imitation of Him who loves all things and abhors nothing of what He has made, and spares all (for all things are His), is shown in the one who loves his enemies and prays for those who persecute him. How fitting would it be for "That you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven," to be joined with, "You have heard it said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and concerning the loss of one of your members rather than the whole body being cast into hell? Furthermore, if it were added to "You have heard it said to the ancients, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord'; but I say to you, do not swear at all," it would cause great offense. But now, as the Father who is in heaven makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, so each of the sons of God, having love in themselves as a kind of sun, makes it rise on the evil when he loves his enemies. And again, as He sends rain on the just and on the unjust, so does the holy one send prayer as a kind of rain upon those below who persecute him and prays for such people. This is made clear in our teaching of, "If God were your Father, you would love me." Let us also consider the statement, "I came forth from God and am here," which seems useful for me to relate to the prophecy of Micah, saying, "Hear, O peoples, the word, and let the earth listen, and all that is in it. And the Lord will be a witness against you, the Lord from His holy house." For behold, the Lord is going forth from His place, and He will come down and step upon the high places of the earth, and the mountains will melt under Him, and the valleys will be split like wax before the fire, like waters poured down a steep place. And see if perchance “I proceeded from God” is equivalent to “The Lord goes forth from His place,” since when the Son is in the Father, being in the form of God before He emptied Himself, God is as it were His place. And if anyone understands that, before emptying Himself, He existed in the previous form of God, he will see the Son, not yet having gone forth from God, nor yet having proceeded from His place. But when comparing that state of the Son with taking on the form of a servant, emptying Himself, he will understand how the Son of God went forth and came to us, and as it were has come outside of the one who sent Him, even if in another way the Father did not leave Him alone but is with Him, and is in the Son as He is in the Father. And if in no other way you understand the Son to be in the Father as He was before He went forth from God, it will seem as though the going forth from God and being in God while having gone forth from God contain a contradiction. Others have narrated that “I proceeded from God” instead means “I was begotten from God,” following which they assert that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father, as it were diminishing and lacking the substance which He previously had, when He begets the Son, as if one would understand this also of those who are pregnant. These also follow and say that the Father and the Son have a body, and that the Father is divided, which are the doctrines of men who have not at all conceived in thought the nature that is invisible and incorporeal, being truly essence. And it is clear that they will place the Father in a bodily place, and the Son as having changed place bodily, having visited life, and not from state to state, as we have understood.

[John 8:42] For I have not come of myself, but He who sent me.

I think these words are spoken to those who come of themselves and are not sent by the Father. Concerning such men, who pretend to teaching or prophecy, we are also taught by Jeremiah, where it is written: "I have not sent the prophets, yet they ran." And if certain powers come to men not sent by the Father, you understand and know if some of them are from God and have erred in this by not being sent from Him. But it must not be left unexamined in the discussion concerning the soul: perhaps the soul of Jesus, being in its own perfection in God and the fullness, having come forth from there, because it was sent by the Father, took up the body from Mary. But others have not come forth from God in this way, that is, they were not sent nor dispatched by the divine will.

[John 8:43] Why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to hear my word.

The reason, he says, that you do not understand my speech is that you are not able to hear my word. Therefore, one must first acquire the capacity to hear the divine word, so that afterward we may be able to understand all the speech of Jesus; for it is possible for one who was previously unable to hear the word of Jesus to later come to be able to hear it, just as someone who has not yet had his ears healed by the word saying to the deaf, "Be opened," cannot hear. But when the cause of deafness has been removed, then one will be able to hear Jesus, at which point he can also understand his speech. Or let those who believe and through these things construct the argument about nature tell us whether they were still able to hear when they were deaf, whom he later healed, or were they unable to hear? Since it is clear that "they were unable," it is evident that one can transition from being unable to hear the words of Jesus to being able to hear them, and not due to an incurable nature where one cannot hear. These things should particularly be applied to the heterodox, who delight in allegories and interpret the stories of healings as concerning the healing of the soul, relieved by Jesus from every disease and every weakness. I think that hearing now pertains to understanding the things being spoken, and knowing pertains to apprehending them with assent, enlightened by the light of understanding regarding the things being spoken. However, Heracleon assumes that the reason they could neither hear Jesus' word nor understand his speech is given in "You are of your father the devil."

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?

When the word clearly demonstrates its intention so that none of the listeners can oppose it, and even if it says these things to implore those not consenting; because if you cannot convict the words spoken as erroneous, you might justly demand assent. The statement also has, according to the saying, the frankness of the Savior, with no person being able to say with confidence from not having sinned, "Who among you convicts me of sin?" except our Lord alone, who did not commit sin, yet was tempted "in every way in likeness without sin," being able to say this to all who have ever known him. I hear "Who among you" being said not only to those present but also to the entire human race, as if it were clarified in this way: who from your race? or what kind of person will be able to convict me of sin? But I know well that none. And insofar as it is possible for human nature through the "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" in every way should strive to take up such a pure conscience's frankness towards all people, so as to say about subsequent times and after the beginning of faith to each of those who know us, "Who among you convicts me of sin?" although it may not be possible to say this from the time we completed the word. And this not only would the Savior say to people but also to the devil and the powers under him, having nothing to say against regarding his sin. And this is indeed consistent with "The ruler of this world comes, and he has nothing in me." It is also possible for us with much diligence to take up from a certain period such frankness to say to the devil seeking occasion against us and his angels before the time of departure: "Who among you convicts me of sin?"

[John 8:46] If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

It is worth seeing what appears from the puffiness. But we shall see this if even those to whom the word was directed did not bring forth the proper response. For someone might say: For this reason we do not believe, because we do not perceive in what way what is said is true; and we do not perceive because our natural faculties of perceiving the truth have not yet been cleansed; and since we are such, we are not of God; if we are not yet of God, but also the faculties of perceiving the truth are not cleansed, due to them being covered or thickened or clouded by wickedness. Understanding, then, what it means to truly believe according to which "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," and realizing how far we fall short of believing in this way, let us answer these things, asking the physician of the sight of the soul to do everything by his wisdom and benevolence to uncover our eyes, which are still covered by the dishonor brought about by our wickedness, as it is said somewhere: "Our dishonor has covered us"; for he will listen to us confessing the reasons for our not yet believing, and, as he assists, will aid in us receiving the gift to believe, placed third in Paul’s list of gifts after the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, to which he adds: "To another faith by the same Spirit"; about which he also says elsewhere: "For to you it has been granted not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for him." And from this operation it will be evident that it is no chance gift of God, among the many different teachings preached by many who claim to teach the truth, to believe in no one or only the true one; for this is already the work of an approved banker, whom you would not err in calling perfect, as also is written in the epistle to the Hebrews: "But solid food belongs to those who are mature, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

[John 8:47] He who is from God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not from God.

Those who introduce myths about different natures and say that they are sons of God by nature and from the initial construction, only because of kinship with God, are receptive to God's words, and from this they demonstrate what is at hand for them. But they indeed seize upon even this saying, applying it to those who are uncritical and unable to respond to the plausibility of the use of the saying, nor seeing its solution thus lying: if all those who received “the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world," did not receive it by being from God (for if they had received it by being from God, it would not have been written about them: “But as many as received him, he gave them the authority to become children of God, to those who believe in his name”), it is evident that those who are not from God, before receiving the light, they in no way have authority to become children of God; but when they receive it, they do not yet become children of God, but they receive authority through accepting the light to become children of God. Then, having become from God, they also hear His words, no longer merely believing simply but now understanding the matters of piety more insightfully. Moreover, those who are not such, having not aspired to be children, do not become of God, and for that reason do not hear His words nor understand His will; but they remain in the state of those who, before they were children of God, only believed, being servants of God by having received the spirit of slavery in fear and not having strived to advance and progress to also occupy the place of adoption, in which those who have it cry out: “Abba, Father.” For it is clear that no person is initially a son of God, as also is demonstrated by Paul's saying, “We were by nature children of wrath;” this he also said about himself. It is evident from “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may become sons of your Father in heaven.” For if Paul was by nature a “son of wrath,” who, more so than Paul, as far as nature is concerned, would not be a son of wrath before receiving the authority to become a child of God and before becoming a child of God? And if one can only become a son of the heavenly Father by loving his enemies and praying for those who persecute him, it is clear that no one hears God’s words by being from God by nature, but by receiving the authority to become a child of God and properly using the authority, and by loving his enemies and praying for those who offend him, thus becoming a son of the heavenly Father. Then it is from God and hears the words of God, understanding them and acquiring knowledge of them; which is characteristic not of slaves but of children of God, who have abandoned all fleshly genesis and have taken up the one from God through "the spirit of adoption." Simultaneously, it should be understood more carefully how to accept "He hears the words of God" in a manner similar to "My sheep hear My voice." For if we take hearing in the sense of mere consent, even those who believe for a time would be from God, as testified by the Word that some believe for a time. But if we take "hearing" in the sense of keeping the commandments, it is clear that even if someone sins in one matter, he would not be a son of God; this would not trouble us who say that someone becomes a son of God through change, but it would trouble those who are unable to show themselves entirely sinless and those involved in similar teachings. But if we take "hearing" in the sense of understanding and comprehending, let them show anyone who hears all the words of the new covenant in such a manner, so that we may call them sons of God if this definition of theirs does not accept reversal into the holy scriptures. For we imagine even in these matters a great and marvelous person who is already a son of God, and we will not be condemned unworthily as those from God receiving "The one who is from God hears the words of God."

Now, from the contrary, it may be possible to demonstrate something paradoxical. What is the paradox or the matter that one may be more a son of God than another, and doubly that another is a son of God over another? How this is shown from the opposite we shall present as follows: In Matthew, the second rebuke against the scribes and Pharisees is as follows: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you traverse sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." Hence, according to this, there are no natural children of hell, nor are the children of hell equally children of it if one is doubly a child of it over another. But if one person is twice the son of Gehenna as another, why not also twice the son of destruction and death and darkness and of the other things, of which those who sin differently are sons? But if in these cases, why also not sons of light twice as much as others, and sons of life, and sons of wisdom, and thus sons of God? If indeed one becomes a son of God twice as much as another, why not also many times and as many times as one can conceive the firstborn of all creation to be the son of God compared to the other sons of God and those no longer having a spirit of bondage to fear but having received the spirit of adoption? Consequently therefore, since there are more sayings of God, not only those that are written but also those which are unspeakable, which it is not lawful for a man to speak, and of those about which John says, "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written," anyone hearing any of the sayings of God is already from God; and the more one hears the sayings of God, by that much more will he become from God; so that if one hears all the sayings of God, if indeed it comes to pass for any of those receiving the spirit of adoption, he absolutely and consummately becomes a son of God, and wholly and entirely from God. It is necessary to interpret the phrase "wholly and entirely" with understanding in relation to all doctrines and all knowledge and all mysteries, so that it might be said that one has become wholly and entirely from God who knows all the mysteries and all knowledge, and has accomplished those of perfect love. Consider then if it is possible consistently with "We know in part and we prophesy in part" to say, "we are sons of God in part," and again, "when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away," the perfection of becoming a son of God will come, abolishing the partial becoming a son of God. Nor should it be left unexamined whether it is possible to be a son in part of the distinguished portion concerning the divine, and in part of the contrary, or whether this is impossible to be so. With which examination, consider how many sons can be called of one father, whether through the forefathers and those of their lineage, or according to such an intention. Therefore having received the authority to become children of God, let us do all things so that we may become from God and hear His words, and advance in being from God, so that we may advance also in hearing the words of God, always proclaiming more of these, until we grasp all the words of God, as many as it is possible to grasp now and after this for those deemed worthy of the spirit of adoption. As often as we do not hear the words of God that are spoken, that is, do not understand them, it must be supposed that we are rebuked as not being from God. For because of this, he who does not hear the words of God does not hear them, because he is not from God, and he is not from God regardless of himself. And yet sometimes having already received authority to become a child of God, and being able from loving the enemies and praying for those who persecute, to become a son of the Father in heaven.

[John 8:48] The Jews answered him, saying, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?"

It is likely that many often said these things silently among themselves about the Savior, calling him a Samaritan as one who distorts Jewish [ways] similarly to the Samaritans; "For Jews do not associate with Samaritans," differing in many doctrines from them. But it is worth investigating how, with the Samaritans denying the future age and not admitting even the survival of the soul, they dared to call the Savior [a Samaritan], who taught much about the resurrection and judgment. But perhaps they said this as an insult to him and not because he actually shared the same doctrines as those people. And it is likely that some also thought he did not teach about the future age and about judgment and resurrection with sincere intent, being disposed like a Samaritan, as if nothing awaited humans after life, but feigned it for the sake of glory and to please the Jews by presenting things about resurrection and eternal life; and they also said he had a demon because of his superhuman words, by which he called God his own father, and claimed to have come down from heaven, and that he himself was the bread of life much better than manna, so that whoever eats this bread will live forever, and countless other things with which the Gospels are filled. It could also have been said because of their suspicion about Beelzebul: "You have a demon," since some thought "by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," he was casting out demons, as if having Beelzebul within himself. Indeed, the enemies will know, saying he has a demon; but we believe him when he says, "I do not have a demon"; for neither can a demon open the eyes of the blind or perform these signs which are recorded, of which traces and remnants remain in the churches to this day in the name of Jesus. After this, anyone would seek to understand why, of the two accusations directed at him, "You are a Samaritan" and "You have a demon," the Jews responded to him not by those who believed in him, but by answering to the second accusation only, saying, "I do not have a demon." And look if this can compare to the parable in the Gospel according to Luke about the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho who fell among robbers, whom the priest and the Levite passed by, but the traveling Samaritan came upon him and, seeing him, had compassion, and approached, bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. For if anyone is able to explain the parable, showing that no one but the Savior is represented by the Samaritan, who healed the half-dead man fallen among robbers, he will explain why he did not deny being a Samaritan. Another considering the distinction between Jews and those under the law, bringing those under the law to the Samaritans, and realizing the Savior was made all things to all men to win everyone, will say that because he was among those under the law as under the law, it is as though he became a Samaritan, and thus did not deny being a Samaritan. And a third, interpreting the Samaritan as "guardian," will say that even if the Jews called him a Samaritan in another sense, he did not deny the meaning derived from the name, knowing that he is the guardian of human souls, as it is said, "Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep," and "The Lord guards the little ones." The Hebrews call the guardian "Shomer," and they relate that the Samaritans got their name because they were appointed by the king of the Assyrians to guard the land of Israel after the captivity, when another Israel fell into Assyrian captivity because of many sins.

[John 8:49-50] Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. I do not seek my own glory. There is one who seeks and judges."

If the planted tree 'by the rivers of water' is such that it yields its fruit 'in its season' and its leaf does not wither but prospers in whatever it does, what should be thought concerning our Savior Jesus, who Himself is the tree of life in being wisdom, and that wisdom is 'a tree of life to those who lay hold of her,' and who bears fruit and whose other leaves are such that not one of them withers? Therefore, no word of Jesus, as also these granted worthy to be recorded by His holy disciples, should be disregarded, but every scrutiny even to those deemed clear should be applied, not denying that even about His simple and straightforward words an apt thing will be found for those rightly seeking as worthy of that sacred mouth. Now when we do not find, we should blame ourselves and not the word of Jesus as if it does not breathe doctrines full of truth and wisdom from the entirety.

These things I have said to examine 'I do not have a demon,' through which we all who encounter the gospel learn something we did not know before encountering the gospel. What then is to be understood by this? It pleases scripture for those who err to do mostly against reason because they have become receptive to the activity of an evil spirit or impure will of a demon. Therefore, they did not shrink even those considered minimal sins to attribute to demons, calling anger a demon, similarly slander too. Likewise, countless other things fantasized by and acting in us according to their will; and among men, just as no one is 'pure from filth,' and no 'one is righteous on earth who does good and does not sin,' so too no one is always cleansed of demons and never susceptible to their activity. Consequently, interpreting the healings in the gospel allegorically, which include the expulsions of demons, we will say that always demons are expelled by Jesus from those who no longer accept the demons' activities upon being healed by the word. Therefore, I think it is only Jesus' voice, who alone stripped the principalities and powers and made a public example of them triumphing over them in it, setting the cross as a trophy against all opposing power, just as 'The ruler of this world is coming, but he has no claim on me,' so also 'I neither had, nor have, nor will have a demon.' We too can utter the voice and say, 'I do not have a demon,' but we will be refuted like those who denied their possession and were proven by their very deeds that they lied." Or is it not proof that we are demonized when we, having the condition of madmen, shout, burning with anger and rage, or neighing like horses and mounting our own wives like frenzied stallions, casting aside the words of God regarding impassibility? But even if we are humbled and dragged down by sorrow and have lost the inherent pride of rational beings, let us not forget that a sparrow does not fall into a snare without God and that the judgments concerning each event that happens to people are just. What shall we say but that we suffer these things because the demon has overcome us and obscured our governing faculty? But what about fears of things not to be feared and excessive delight in worthless things—what are these but the activities of demons filling those who cannot truthfully say, "I have no demon"? But suppose some of the holy patriarchs, or the sacred servant, or the wonderful prophets, or the most powerful apostles of our savior Jesus, were brought in for examination. Would they not also say, like Jesus, "I have no demon"? To whom it can be said: Did these also ever sin, or is the statement "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" false, and is it not true that "No one is pure from filth"? Or has it not been considered when it is said, "There is no righteous person on earth who does good and never sins"? But clearly all scriptures are true and those who have turned to a virtuous life were not always, nor from the beginning, able to say, "I have no demon," but this phrase originally belonged only to the one conceived as our savior. Therefore, most sovereignly and truly, this was the voice of the only one who honored the Father: for no one honoring something that is not honored by God honors the one who despises what is honored by Him. How can it be said that one honors the Father if he has not even received the spirit of adoption initially? And no one who sins has the spirit of adoption, for the one born of God does not sin. And how does one who honors earthly glory or money or the material wealth or the beauty born of flesh and blood or anything attached to matter and corruption honor the Father? It is clear then how this is the voice of the savior, "I honor the Father," which, as far as we can, we ought to strive to say with a conscience bearing witness with us in the Holy Spirit, rendering to "Him honor to whom honor is due," and not bestowing it elsewhere. And indeed, at the fulfillment of time, he who was sent by God to be born of a woman and born under the law, complying with the law that says "Honor your father and your mother so that you may have a long life," having no other father but the God in heaven, says, "But I honor my Father." So we too shall say this phrase, understanding the baptism of regeneration and having been washed in it to become sons of God and no longer calling anyone on earth "father" because we have become sons of the Father in heaven and brothers of the one who said, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Thus, it is clear that when Jesus most sovereignly and perfectly said, "I have no demon but I honor my Father," his imitators, each according to his ability, being strengthened in Christ Jesus who empowers them, will also say, "I have no demon but I honor my Father." Who, being among the dead and dwelling in tombs, could possibly say, “I do not have a demon”? Or who, honoring anything other than God and His word and the commands given by the Word, giving honor to another when it should be rendered to Him who deserves the honor, would as a disciple of Jesus say, “But I honor my father”? Following this is the statement, “And you dishonor Me,” spoken to those who dishonored Him and said to Him, “Do we not rightly say that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” thinking that their evil statement was spoken correctly; for by wrongly judging, they declared the Savior to be a Samaritan and demon-possessed. It should be assumed that the statement “And you dishonor Me” was not just spoken to those at that time, but also to those who always dishonor Him by doing things contrary to the right reasoning of God, and who dishonor Him by wronging Christ, who is justice, and dishonor Him by performing acts of weakness and infirmity against the power of God, which is the Savior; “For Christ is the power of God.” And to everyone who disregards wisdom could it be said, “You dishonor Me,” since Christ is also wisdom. But even if it were necessary for someone to be at peace with all men, so as to be able to say that prophetic phrase, “I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war,” and if it were necessary to take up the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, guarding the heart and the thoughts of the one who has taken it up. If someone is warlike, biting, accusing, and consuming their neighbor, and filled with the stirring of passions within their dominant part, to them as well could it be said, “You dishonor Me.” For Christ is our peace. Further, “Everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light,” and the light is He who said, “I am the light of the world”; clearly, the one who does evil, dishonoring the light, dishonors Christ, and will also hear, “And you dishonor Me.” And why do I need to extend the discourse further, unfolding and showing who are those reproved by Jesus and hearing from him “You dishonor me,” being clear from the stated facts and those that can be logically connected to them? After these things, let us see what is the meaning of “I do not seek my own glory; there is one who seeks and judges.” God seeks, having given us his Son, in each of those who have received him the glory of Christ; which he will indeed find in those who care for themselves and work out the virtues implanted in them; he will not find it in those who are not such, and in those whom he does not find the glory of his Son, he will judge them, saying to them: “Because of you, my name is blasphemed among the nations continuously.”

But one might be puzzled about the statement “There is one who seeks and judges,” if it should be referred to God, clearly the Savior having said: “For not even the Father judges anyone, but he has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” But see if you can use this: “I can do nothing on my own initiative; as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.” For if as he hears, our Savior judges according to the Father, not seeking his own will but the will of the Father who sent him, and therefore his judgment is just, perhaps the authority of judgment, which the hearing one executes, is not of the hearer but of the one who speaks to him.

And even if he says that “My judgment is just,” hear in the same Gospel it is being said: “All that is mine is yours.” For if what the Savior says is true, “All that is mine is yours,” it is clear that even the judgment about which he says “My judgment is just” is the Father’s judgment. But if it is the Father’s judgment, the puzzle concerning “I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks and judges” can be resolved. Moreover, the statement “I do not seek my own glory” holds a certain significance of humility appropriate to the Savior; for it would not be fitting for him to demand his own glory and judge those who have not given it, but the Father who gave glory to the Son should demand it from those who withhold it and judge them for it. Moreover, the Savior, as an imitator of the Father, seeks the glory of God from those who learn about God; and if he does not find the Father’s glory in some, he would judge them, having received authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man.

However, Heracleon does not attribute the phrase “There is one who seeks and judges” to the Father, saying such things: The one who seeks and judges is the avenger of me, the servant appointed for this, not bearing the sword in vain, the avenger of the king; this is Moses, according to what he had previously said to them: “In whom you have hoped.”

Then he adds that the one who judges and punishes is Moses, that is, the lawgiver himself.

And after this Heracleon is perplexed within himself, saying: How then does he not say that all judgment has been given to him? And thinking to resolve the objection, he says these things: He speaks correctly; for the judge, acting as a servant, carrying out the will of this one, judges, just as it is seen happening among men.

But how does he attribute the judgment to someone else as inferior to the Savior, as he considers the Creator, nor can he demonstrate it this way, clearly written that "For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son"; and that "He has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man."

[John 8:51] Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.

Just as there is a sort of indifferent life, which is neither good nor evil, in which we say that both the impious and the irrational animals live; and another different, but good life, about which Paul says: "Our life is hidden with Christ in God"; and our Lord himself about himself: "I am the life," thus you would call the death opposite to the indifferent life indifferent; but the enemy of the one who says, "I am the life," you would call a certain evil and grievous death, in which the one who dies is in death; about which it is written: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." And concerning this death, the apostle must surely mean these things: "Therefore, just as by one man sin entered into the world and by sin death, so also death passed upon all men, for which all sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world (for sin is not imputed when there is no law), but death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression"; and soon after: "For if by one man's trespass death reigned through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ." For what is the death that came into the world through sin, but the last enemy of Christ to be destroyed? And what is the death that passed unto all men, by which all sinned, but this very one which also reigned from Adam to Moses? But Moses, that is, the law, was until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus, and it reigned in one man's trespass through the one, until those who received the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, this death will not be seen forever by the one who keeps the word of the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation, as it naturally prevents death from being seen. In this way, therefore, one must understand the saying, "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death," as if the one who said this, having granted light to those who hear, were saying to them: if anyone keeps this light of mine, he will never see darkness. For it is impossible for darkness to be to the one who keeps the light; but if one loses this light, it follows immediately that he sees the darkness who has lost it. So also, then, in the beginning with the Word, which was with God, life came into being. Hence the beginning (that is, the wisdom that says, “God created me as the beginning of his ways for his works”) regarding the Word in her, in which came into being the life, will teach and say: “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” For one will keep the word and the life inseparable from it, which also is the light of men, shining in the darkness and the darkness not overcoming it. If, then, the prophet asks, as it were, “Who is the man who will live and not see death?” we answer, having learned from our Savior, and we say that the man who “will live and will not see death” is the one who keeps the word of the one who said, “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” Together in the same place, I inquire whether “for eternity” ought to be taken generally, so that the whole should be such: if anyone keeps my word for eternity, he will never see death. For, indeed, it seems that one does not see death as long as he keeps the word of Jesus; for as soon as one loses it, he sees death.

If one also can go back to deeper words and understand how it might be said by a man, “You have brought me down to the dust of death,” and by Paul, “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” he will see in what way, as long as the word was kept, death was not seen by the one keeping it. But when one, being weary in attention and keeping the word, or having been careless in keeping it, no longer has kept it, then he saw death by none other than himself. And this must be considered a doctrine and an eternal law, always to be spoken to us who receive the word of “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” Just as, if the darkness might be observed to flow over, it obliterates the sight of the one observing, so also, observed death kills and deadens the sight that saw it and blinds, as therefore needing the one who opens the eyes of the blind. And I think, indeed, because of this the blind, of whom the blind in the gospel were a symbol, have lost their sight, since not keeping the word, they saw death.

[John 8:52] The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon."

Many, even among the wise, think that every kind of sin, including sin in word, arises from evil judgments; but those who trust in the holy scriptures as divine believe that what is done by men contrary to reason is not without the influence of demons or some other opposing powers. So the Jews attributed the saying of Jesus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he shall never see death," to the influence of a demon. They did not understand this because they neither kept his word nor understood its power. For Jesus, knowing of a certain kind of death as an enemy to his word, which sinners experience, said that this death would never be seen by anyone who kept his word. However, they, thinking he spoke of the physical death experienced by common people, believed that he was insane, considering that Abraham and the prophets had died, and so did not understand that anyone who keeps his word would never experience death in the eternal sense.

[John 8:52-53] Abraham died, and the prophets, and you say: "If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death." Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died; whom do you make yourself out to be?

If, according to the simpler interpretation, as we ourselves too have delivered, it seems clear the understanding of the Jews, answering the word of the Savior about Abraham and the prophets as having died, nevertheless, it does not permit the examination without comparison to other similar ones. For did they think without any reason that the Savior had said, "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death," and for this reason replied clearly to his word? Or did they understand that he was not speaking about common death, and considering Abraham and the prophets, as also having once died the worse death, they did not accept his word nor thought him to be as great as he claimed to be, saying: "Now we know that you have a demon"? The same is examined in other statements of his and their responses in the above instances; as with the Samaritan woman, when Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink," and added other such words: "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." And the woman said to him, "Lord, you have no vessel, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?" And again, "Lord, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or come here to draw." For it is not likely that the Samaritan woman would respond to him concerning perceptible water and ask him for physical water so as not to thirst anymore or come to draw from the perceptible well of Jacob. But also when the Lord said, "The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh," when the Jews were disputing among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" we showed that the listeners would not be so foolish as to think that the speaker was inviting them to come and eat his flesh. And it is likely that the Jews, referring to the words being examined by us now, said, “Abraham died and the prophets,” having learned how “through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death; and so death passed to all men, for all sinned,” and they saw that “death reigned over those who had sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression,” and the word was about how, because of sin, death passed to all men, since all have sinned. But having learned these things following, as they did not accept the words of Jesus, they did not know that “the gift is not like the transgression.” Neither could they reason that “if by the transgression of one many died, much more the grace of God and the gift in grace by the one man Jesus Christ abounded to many.” They also did not understand how the gift was not like the death resulting from one who sinned; because they had not yet learned that the gift came from many transgressions into justification. Nor did they see that “those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.” And they focused on the death of Abraham and the prophets, hearing that even Samuel, as being under the earth because of death, was brought up by the witch, thinking that there were gods somewhere under the earth and saying, “I have seen gods ascending from the earth”; but they did not grasp the life of Abraham and the prophets, nor that the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob was not the God of the dead but of the living. And assuming the prophets to be dead, they built their tombs, and thus were punished. Even if Abraham died, he lived and no longer saw death, since he rejoiced and was glad upon seeing Jesus’ day. I think this is why the Savior, in response to “Abraham died,” declared, teaching that Abraham lived, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad.” But if anyone wishes not to accept this concerning Abraham, let them tell us whether he who saw the day of our Savior and rejoiced and was glad, still sees death, or if he who saw the Savior’s day and rejoiced and was glad, being deemed worthy of such a vision as worthy of it, later was deprived of what he had seen. For if either of these is absurd, having seen Jesus’ day, Abraham, upon seeing it, also heard His word and kept it and no longer sees death; and the Jews were not correctly saying that “Abraham died” as though he were still in death. Similarly, you will say the same about the prophets. For if God is not the God of the dead but of the living, and He is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, so He is also the God of the rest of the prophets, and the prophets live. For they have kept the word of the Son of God, when the word of the Lord came to Hosea, or the word came to Jeremiah, or the word came to Isaiah; for no other word of God came to any of these, but the one who was in the beginning with God, His Son, God the Word. And this Word, if any other, the prophets have kept, and from whom they received the word, they no longer saw death. Likewise, it is false as the Jews said, "Now we know that you have a demon," when they said "Abraham died, and the prophets" because they did not recognize that the one who commanded demons had a demon (for no one recognizes what does not exist), nor were Abraham and the prophets still in death when the Jews said, "Abraham died, and the prophets." After these things, we seek why, when the Savior said about everyone who keeps His word that "he shall never see death forever," the Jews, after the discussions, ought properly to have said about "he shall never see death forever"; "And you say: If anyone keeps my word, he shall never see death forever"; but they did not say this, rather they said what was not said by the Savior; for He did not say, "If anyone keeps my word, he shall never taste death forever," which they bring forth as said by our Lord. Observe if it were not said with a difference between not seeing death and not tasting death by the rest of the evangelists about those standing near Jesus, until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, by Matthew: "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"; by Mark: "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power"; and by Luke: "Truly there are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man in His glory." For just as in the body there are different sensations, taste and sight, so according to what is said by Solomon about divine sensations, there would be another seeing power and contemplation of the soul, and another tasting and perception of the quality of the intellectual foods. And since the Lord, on one hand, is the living bread from heaven and is tasted, being nourishment to the soul, and on the other hand, is wisdom and visible, whose beauty the lover confesses to be saying, "I became a lover of her beauty," and commands us saying, "Love her, and she will keep you," therefore in the Psalms it is said, "Taste and see that the Lord is good." Just as the Lord is tasted and seen, so also His enemy, death, is tasted and seen. And His tasting is demonstrated by the saying, "There are some standing here who will not taste death," and what follows; and His sight by the saying, "If anyone keeps My word, he will never see death forever." One tastes death, and not only tastes it but also bears it as food of death, who contradicts the words of eternal life. And there is a promise that some of those standing in the place shown by Jesus will not taste death; for note that the three sayings, "There are some standing here," or "There are some of those standing here," have been spoken of in connection with the statement, "They will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom," or "in His glory," or "until they see the kingdom of God coming with power." And since it is possible for the one standing to fall—it has been said, "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall"—therefore, it is written not concerning all who are standing but concerning some: "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here." Therefore, someone standing does not taste death by maintaining their standing; and the one who receives and keeps the word will not see death. If indeed there is any difference between tasting death and seeing death, as the Jews, who were not wise listeners and confused the Lord's words, said, instead of "He will not see death," they said, "He will not taste death," falling upon the inferior sense of the word. You might inquire whether, just as there is seeing death and tasting death, so in the other senses there is either hearing death or smelling death or touching death; for if the hands of the apostles handled concerning the word of life, perhaps the hands of the false apostles and deceitful workers, transforming themselves into angels of righteousness, handle concerning the word of death; and if the sheep of Christ hear His voice, perhaps the sheep that are not His, to whom He might say, "You are not of My sheep," hear the voice of death. But see if the smell of death is not in the wounds from sin, about which it has been said: "My wounds stink and are corrupt," and the smell of death in Lazarus before he was raised from the dead, which the apostles did not desire to smell and said to the Savior, "Lord, by now he stinks, for he has been dead four days." Regarding the intellectual scent of death or the scent of life, the apostolic saying should be observed as follows: "We are the sweet aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and those who are perishing; to some, a scent from death to death, and to others, a scent from life to life." For those in Christ are a sweet aroma of Christ and in no way a stench in every place. But as physical fragrance is said to kill some animals, so also the fragrance of Christ, because of prior wickedness, could become for some a scent from death to death, but to others it results in life. These matters seemed relevant to our examination of tasting death and seeing or not seeing death. After these things, not seeing how much Christ surpasses the patriarchs and prophets, and not even believing that Christ, who teaches such great things, is greater, they question, saying: "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?" But they do not see that not only is he greater than Abraham but also greater than anyone born of women, being born of a virgin, and the greatest of all prophets, who was prophesied by them, and the one who gives life to the dead, not making himself such but receiving from the Father. "Just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted the Son to have life in himself," who can do nothing by himself and seeks not his own will but the will of the one who sent him. And the question, "Who do you make yourself out to be?" was voiced without understanding that Jesus did not make himself what he is. Therefore, it seems to me he replies to this by teaching who made him what he is, saying, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is the Father who glorifies me." And let this also be understood here, having received ample consideration in the twentieth volume of the commentary on the Gospel of John, so that by God's revelation to us we may contemplate the subsequent passages in what follows from Jesus' response, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing."