Hilary of Poitiers — Commentary on Scripture

Mark 10:17

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

The young man became arrogant through the observance of the law. He did not recognize that the consummation of the law is Christ. He assumed he could be justified by works. He was not aware that Jesus had come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and that the law could not save except through justifying faith. He questioned the Lord of the law and the only begotten God as if he were an ordinary teacher of precepts that were written down in the law. Hence, the Lord rejected this declaration of a spurious faith, because the question was put to him as if he were merely a teacher of the law. He replied: “Why do you call me good?” In order to make known how much he was to be recognized and acknowledged as good, he declared: “No one is good but God only.” He would not have rejected the attribute of goodness if it had been attributed to him as God.

Mark 10:18 · 2 passages

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

He who is by nature God of God must possess the nature of his origin, which God possesses. The indistinguishable unity of a living nature cannot be divided by the birth of a living nature. But the troublers of church unity, under cover of the saving confession of the gospel faith, are subversively trying to take captive the truth by undermining it. By forcing their own interpretations on words spoken with other meanings and intentions, they are robbing the Son of his distinctive unity [with the Father].

A complete understanding of the reply must come from the reason that prompted the question, for the answer will be directed to the matter that led to the inquiry.… He voiced his objection to the title of “good master” in such a way as to challenge the faith of the questioner rather than the designation of himself as a master or as good.

Mark 10:21

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

He exercises the duties of goodness when he opens the treasures of heaven and becomes himself a guide to them. He abhors whatever is offered to him merely as a man. Yet he makes it clear that he is no stranger to those qualities attributed to God. While recognizing the one God as good, he himself speaks of and performs those very actions which are characteristic of the incomparable power, goodness and nature of God.

Mark 11:12

And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

As we behold the mystery of his tears, hunger and thirst, let us remember that the one who wept also raised the dead to life, rejoicing for Lazarus. From the very One who thirsted flowed rivers of living water. He who hungered was able to wither the fig tree which offered no fruit for his hunger. How could this be, that he who was able to strike the green tree dead merely by his word could also have a nature that could hunger? This was the mystery of his hunger, grief, and thirst, that the Word was assuming flesh. His humanity was entirely exposed to our weaknesses, yet even then his glory was not wholly put away as he suffered these indignities. His weeping was not for himself, his thirst was not for water, nor his hunger merely for food. He did not eat or drink or weep just to satisfy his appetites. Rather, in his incarnate humbling he was demonstrating the reality of his own body by hungering, by doing what human nature does. And when he ate and drank, it was not a concession to some necessity external to himself, but to show his full participation in the human condition.

Mark 12:29

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

If sacred truth, when challenged by blasphemy, is met by silence, even that silence may be falsely construed as consent. This is what has happened in the case of the Arian assertion that because God is one, therefore his Son is not God.… The same one who authorizes us to confess the Son of God as God justifies us in proclaiming the one God.

Mark 12:32

And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

The answer of the scribe seems to accord with the words of the Lord, for he too acknowledges the inmost love of one God, and professes the love of one’s neighbor as real as the love of self, and places love of God and love of one’s neighbor above all the burnt offerings of sacrifices.

Mark 12:36

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The scribe, therefore, is not far from the kingdom of God when he acknowledges the one God who is to be loved above all things. But he is admonished by his own confession in that he does not fully grasp the mystery of the law as being fulfilled in Christ.… The scribe only recognized him according to the flesh and the birth from Mary, who was descended from David, rather than as David’s Lord.

Mark 13:13

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Therefore the Lord exhorts us to wait with patient and reverent faith until the end comes, for “Blessed is he that endures to the end.” It is neither a blessed nothingness that awaits us, nor is nonexistence the fruit, nor annihilation the appointed reward of faith. Rather the end is the final attainment of the promised blessedness. They are blessed who endure until the goal of perfect happiness is reached, when the expectation of faith reaches toward complete fulfillment. Their end is to abide with unbroken rest in that condition toward which they are presently pressing.

Mark 13:32-37 · 2 passages

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

(de Trin. ix) This ignorance of the day and hour is urged against the Only-Begotten God, as if, God born of God had not the same perfection of nature as God. But first, let common sense decide whether it is credible that He, who is the cause that all things are, and are to be, should be ignorant of any out of all these things. For how can it be beyond the knowledge of that nature, by which and in which that which is to be done is contained? And can He be ignorant of that day, which is the day of His own Advent? Human substances foreknow as far as they can what they intend to do, and the knowledge of what is to be done, follows upon the will to act. How then can the Lord of glory, from ignorance of the day of His coming, be believed to be of that imperfect nature, which has on it a necessity of coming, and has not attained to the knowledge of its own advent? But again, how much more room for blasphemy will there be, if a feeling of envy is ascribed to God the Father, in that He has withheld the knowledge of His beatitude from Him to whom He gave a foreknowledge of His death. But if th…

(de Trin. ix) This ignorance of the day and hour is urged against the Only-Begotten God, as if, God born of God had not the same perfection of nature as God. But first, let common sense decide whether it is credible that He, who is the cause that all things are, and are to be, should be ignorant of any out of all these things. For how can it be beyond the knowledge of that nature, by which and in which that which is to be done is contained? And can He be ignorant of that day, which is the day of His own Advent? Human substances foreknow as far as they can what they intend to do, and the knowledge of what is to be done, follows upon the will to act. How then can the Lord of glory, from ignorance of the day of His coming, be believed to be of that imperfect nature, which has on it a necessity of coming, and has not attained to the knowledge of its own advent? But again, how much more room for blasphemy will there be, if a feeling of envy is ascribed to God the Father, in that He has withheld the knowledge of His beatitude from Him to whom He gave a foreknowledge of His death. But if there are in Him all the treasures of knowledge, He is not ignorant of this day; rather we ought to remember that the treasures of wisdom in Him are hidden; His ignorance therefore must be connected with the hiding of the treasures of wisdom, which are in Him. (Col. 2:3) For in all cases, in which God declares Himself ignorant, He is not under the power of ignorance, but either it is not a fit time for speaking, or it is an economy of not acting. But if God is said then to have known that Abraham loved Him, when He did not hide that His knowledge from Abraham, it follows, that the Father is said to know the day, because He did not hide it from the Son. (Gen. 22:12) If therefore the Son knew not the day, it is a Sacrament of His being silent, as on the contrary the Father alone is said to know, because He is not silent. But God forbid that any new and bodily changes should be ascribed to the Father or the Son. Lastly, lest He should be said to be ignorant from weakness, He has immediately added, Take ye heed, watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is.

It is sometimes turned into a reproach against the only begotten God that he did not know the day and the hour. It is said that, though God, born of God, he is not in the perfection of divine nature, since he is subjected to the limitation of ignorance, namely, to an external force stronger than himself, triumphing, as it were, over his weakness. The heretics in their frenzy would try to drive us to this blasphemous interpretation: that he is thus captive to this external limitation, which makes such a confession inevitable. The words are those of the Lord himself. What could be more unholy, we ask, than to corrupt his express assertion by our attempt to explain it away? But, before we investigate the meaning and occasion of these words, let us first appeal to the judgment of common sense. Is it credible, that he, who stands to all things as the author of their present and future, should not know all things?… All that is derives from God alone its origin, and has in him alone the efficient cause of its present state and future development. Can anything be beyond the reach of his natu…

It is sometimes turned into a reproach against the only begotten God that he did not know the day and the hour. It is said that, though God, born of God, he is not in the perfection of divine nature, since he is subjected to the limitation of ignorance, namely, to an external force stronger than himself, triumphing, as it were, over his weakness. The heretics in their frenzy would try to drive us to this blasphemous interpretation: that he is thus captive to this external limitation, which makes such a confession inevitable. The words are those of the Lord himself. What could be more unholy, we ask, than to corrupt his express assertion by our attempt to explain it away? But, before we investigate the meaning and occasion of these words, let us first appeal to the judgment of common sense. Is it credible, that he, who stands to all things as the author of their present and future, should not know all things?… All that is derives from God alone its origin, and has in him alone the efficient cause of its present state and future development. Can anything be beyond the reach of his nature, through which is effected, and in which is contained, all that is and shall be? Jesus Christ knows the thoughts of the mind, as it is now, stirred by present motives, and as it will be tomorrow, aroused by the impulse of future desires.… Whenever God says that he does not know, he professes ignorance indeed, but is not under the defect of ignorance. It is not because of the infirmity of ignorance that he does not know, but because it is not yet the time to speak, or in the divine plan to act.… This knowledge is not, therefore, a change from ignorance, but the coming of a fullness of time. He waits still to know, but we cannot suppose that he does not know. Therefore his not knowing what he knows, and his knowing what he does not know, is nothing else than a divine economy in word and deed.

Mark 14:34

And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

What is meant by “sorrowful even unto death?” It cannot mean the same as “to be sorrowful because of death”; for where there is sorrow because of death, it is the death that is the cause of the sadness. But a sadness even unto death implies that death is the completion, not the cause, of the sadness.

Mark 14:36 · 4 passages

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Though with God nothing is impossible, yet for human nature it is impossible to ignore the fear of suffering. Only by trial can faith be proved. Thus as a human being he prays in a human manner that the cup may pass away, but as God from God, his will is in unison with the Father’s effectual will.

Although he was obedient, it was a voluntary obedience. The only begotten Son humbled himself, and obeyed his Father even to the death of the cross. But was it as human or as God that he was subjected to the Father? His subjection is that of one to whom all things have been subjected. This subjection is not a sign merely of a temporal obedience, for his allegiance is eternal. Rather it was an instance in time of the dispensation of the eternal mystery of his humbling. His actual humbling occurred within time. Yet in its very unpretentiousness it displays the eternal mystery of his humiliation.

He does not pray that the cup may pass around him. He prays that the cup may pass away from him, but it cannot pass away unless he drinks it. To pass away does not mean to depart from its place, but not to exist at all. And this is indeed the very meaning that the apostles have in mind when they say: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

The Father from whom every nature has derived its laws is not subject to the laws of nature. The Father who transcends every measure of power is not limited in anything, either by deficiency or by changeability in his nature. As the Son said: “Father, all things are possible to thee.” So much so that the human mind cannot grasp as much as lies within his power.

Mark 14:39

And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words.

Is the cause of this sadness and this prayer any longer doubtful? He bids them to watch and pray with him for this purpose, that they may not enter into temptation; “for the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” If they had remained firm under the promise to faithful souls, they would not have violated their trust. Yet through the weakness of the flesh, they did fall away. It is not, therefore, for himself that the Lord is sorrowing and prays. It is for those whom he exhorts to watchfulness and prayer, lest the cup of suffering should be their lot, lest that cup which he prays may pass away from him should rest with them.

Mark 14:61

But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

If you will not learn who Christ is from those who received him, at least learn from those who rejected him. The ironic confession his adversaries were inadvertently forced to make stands as reproof of their very mockery. His accusers did not recognize Christ when he came bodily. Yet they had grasped firmly that the true Christ must be the Son of God. Thus, when the false witnesses whom they had hired against him did not score any blows, the priest interrogated him: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the most high God.” They did not realize that the mystery was already being fulfilled in him. But they did, ironically, recognize that the divine nature was the condition of its fulfillment. They did not question the assumption that Christ would be the Son of God. They only asked whether he indeed was the Christ, the Son of God. They were mistaken about the person, but not about the Son of God. They had no doubt that Christ would be the Son of God. So while they asked whether he indeed was the Christ, they did so without denying that the Christ is the Son of God.

Luke 8:28-31

When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

Did not the devils know the real nature of this name? It is fitting that the heretics should be found guilty, not by the teachings of the apostles but by the mouth of demons. The latter often exclaim, “What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?” The truth drew out this reluctant confession, and being forced to obey, their grief testifies to the strength of this nature. This power overcomes them, since they abandon bodies that they have possessed for a long time. They pay their tribute of honor when they acknowledge the nature of Christ. In the meantime, Christ testifies that he is the Son by his miracles as well as by his name. O heretic, where do you find the name of a creature or the favor of an adoption among those words by which the demons admit who he is?

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(ii. de Trin. c. 13) Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was. (ii. de Trin. c. xiii) Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and thou wouldest contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman (meus piscator [Hil.]) is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was. (ii. de Trin) From the beginning He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author. (ii. de Trin. c. 15) Thou wilt say, that a word is the sound of the voice, the enunciation of a thing, the expression of a thought: this Word was in the beginning with God, because the utterance of thought is eternal, when He who…

(ii. de Trin. c. 13) Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was.

(ii. de Trin. c. xiii) Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and thou wouldest contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman (meus piscator [Hil.]) is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was.

(ii. de Trin) From the beginning He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author.

(ii. de Trin. c. 15) Thou wilt say, that a word is the sound of the voice, the enunciation of a thing, the expression of a thought: this Word was in the beginning with God, because the utterance of thought is eternal, when He who thinketh is eternal. But how was that in the beginning, which exists no time either before, or after, I doubt even whether in time at all? For speech is neither in existence before one speaks, nor after; in the very act of speaking it vanishes; for by the time a speech is ended, that from which it began does not exist. But even if the first sentence, in the beginning was the Word, was through thy inattention lost upon thee, why disputest thou about the next; and the Word was with God? Didst thou hear it said, "In God," so that thou shouldest understand this Word to be only the expression of hidden thoughts? Or did John say with by mistake, and was not aware of the distinction between being in, and being with, when he said, that what was in the beginning, was not in God, but with God? Hear then the nature and name of the Word; and the Word was God. No more then of the sound of the voice, of the expression of the thought. The Word here is a Substance, not a sound; a Nature, not an expression; God, not a nonentity.

(vii. de Trin. c. 9, 10, 11.) But the title is absolute, and free from the offence of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given thee for a god to Pharaoh: (Exod. 7:1) but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, ye are gods. (Ps. 82) But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.