ภาษาไทย

Hilary of Poitiers

Nicene & Post-Nicene · AD 325–500

625 passages across 25 books of the Bible · Who was this?

Commentary

20 of 625
  1. John 10:36
    He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the insolence, of such a charge as that of making himself God, though he was only a man. The law had conferred the title on holy people. The word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its sanction to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world?… The law gives the name of gods to those who are confessedly mortals. And so, if other people may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the man whom the Father has sanctified. Also, note here that throughout this argument he calls himself man, for the Son of God is also Son of man. He excels above the rest who, nonetheless, are guilty of no irreverence in styling themselves gods. He excels above them in that he has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification. … And so, the accusation of blasphemy against him in making himself God falls to the ground. For the Word of G…
    He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the insolence, of such a charge as that of making himself God, though he was only a man. The law had conferred the title on holy people. The word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its sanction to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world?… The law gives the name of gods to those who are confessedly mortals. And so, if other people may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the man whom the Father has sanctified. Also, note here that throughout this argument he calls himself man, for the Son of God is also Son of man. He excels above the rest who, nonetheless, are guilty of no irreverence in styling themselves gods. He excels above them in that he has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification. … And so, the accusation of blasphemy against him in making himself God falls to the ground. For the Word of God has conferred this name on many people; and he who was sanctified and sent by the Father did no more than proclaim himself the Son of God.

    ON THE TRINITY 7.24

  2. John 10:36
    (vii. de Trin. c. 24) Before proving that He and His Father are one, He answers the absurd and foolish charge brought against Him, that He being man made Himself God. When the Law applied this title to holy men, and the indelible word of God sanctioned this use of the incommunicable name, it could not be a crime in Him, even though He were man, to make Himself God. The Law called those who were mere men, gods; and if any man could bear the name religiously, and without arrogance, surely that man could, who was sanctified by the Father, in a sense in which none else is sanctified to the Sonship; as the blessed Paul saith, Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness. (Rom. 1:4) For all this reply refers to Himself as man; the Son of God being also the Son of man.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  3. John 10:38
    (vii. de Trin. 26) What place hath adoption, or the mere conception of a name then, that we should not believe Him to be the Son of God by nature, when He tells us to believe Him to be the Son of God, because the Father's nature showed itself in Him by His works? A creature is not equal and like to God: no other nature has power comparable to the divine. He declares that He is carrying on not His own work, but the Father's, lest in the greatness of the works, the nativity of His nature be forgotten. And as under the sacrament of the assumption of a human body in the womb of Mary, the Son of God was not discerned, this must be gathered from His work; But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works. Why doth the sacrament of a human birth hinder the understanding of the divine, when the divine birth accomplishes all its work by aid of the human? Then He tells them what they should gather from His works; That ye may know and believe, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him. The same declaration again, I am the Son of God: I and the Father are one.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  4. John 10:38
    What room is there here for adoption, or for permission to use the name or for denial that he was born from the nature of God when the proof that he is God's Son is that he does the works that belong to the Father's nature? No creature is equal or similar to God, no nature external to his is comparable in might to him. It is only the Son, born from himself, whom we can without blasphemy liken and make equal to him.… The Son performs the Father's works and on that ground demands that we should believe that he is God's Son. This is no claim of mere arrogance; for he bases it on his works and asks us to examine them. And he bears witness that these works are not his own but his Father's. He would not have our thoughts distracted by the splendor of the deeds from the evidence for his birth. And because the Jews could not penetrate the mystery of the body that he had taken, the humanity born of Mary, and recognize the Son of God, he appeals to his deeds for confirmation of his right to the name.… First, he would not have them believe that he is the Son of God, except on the evidence of Go…
    What room is there here for adoption, or for permission to use the name or for denial that he was born from the nature of God when the proof that he is God's Son is that he does the works that belong to the Father's nature? No creature is equal or similar to God, no nature external to his is comparable in might to him. It is only the Son, born from himself, whom we can without blasphemy liken and make equal to him.… The Son performs the Father's works and on that ground demands that we should believe that he is God's Son. This is no claim of mere arrogance; for he bases it on his works and asks us to examine them. And he bears witness that these works are not his own but his Father's. He would not have our thoughts distracted by the splendor of the deeds from the evidence for his birth. And because the Jews could not penetrate the mystery of the body that he had taken, the humanity born of Mary, and recognize the Son of God, he appeals to his deeds for confirmation of his right to the name.… First, he would not have them believe that he is the Son of God, except on the evidence of God's works, which he does. Next, if he does the works yet seems unworthy in his bodily humility to bear the divine name, he demands that they believe the works. Why should the mystery of his human birth hinder our recognition of his birth as God when he that is divinely born fulfills every divine task by the agency of that manhood that he has assumed? If we do not believe the man for the works' sake when he tells us that he is the Son of God, let us believe the works when they—which are beyond a doubt the works of God—are clearly done by the Son of God. For the Son of God possesses by virtue of his birth everything that is God's. Therefore the Son's work is the Father's work because his birth has not excluded him from that nature that is his source and in which he abides, and because he has in himself that nature to which he owes his eternal existence.

    ON THE TRINITY 7.26

  5. John 11:41
    When He was about to restore Lazarus, He prayed to the Father: but what need had He of prayer, Who said, Father, "I thank Thee, that Thou hast heard Me; and I know that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the multitude I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me"? He prayed then for us, that we may know Him to be the Son; the words of prayer availed Him nothing, but He said them for the advancement of our faith. He was not in want of help, but we of teaching.

    On the Trinity, Book 10, Section 71

  6. John 11:42
    When he was about to restore Lazarus, he prayed to the Father. But he did not need to pray.… "But for the benefit of the people standing nearby I said it, that they may believe that you have sent me." He prayed then for us so that we might know that he is the Son. His prayer did not benefit himself but benefited our faith. He did not need any help, but we needed instruction.

    ON THE TRINITY 10.71

  7. John 11:42
    (lib. x. de Trin.) He did not therefore need to pray: He prayed for our sakes, that we might know Him to be the Son: But because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me. His prayer did not benefit Himself, but benefited our faith. He did not want help, but we want instruction.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  8. John 12:30
    We remember, indeed, that a voice was sometimes uttered from heaven for us so that the power of the Father’s words might confirm for us the mystery of the Son.… But the divine nature can dispense with the various combinations necessary for human functions, the motion of the tongue, the adjustment of the mouth, the forcing of the breath and the vibration of the air. God is a simple being: we must understand him by devotion and confess him by reverence. He is to be worshiped, not pursued by our senses, for a conditioned and weak nature cannot grasp with the guesses of its imagination the mystery of an infinite and omnipotent nature.

    ON THE TRINITY 9.72

  9. John 13:31
    In the words, "Now is the Son of Man honoured, and God is honoured in Him," we have first the glory of the Son of Man, then the glory of God in the Son of Man. So there is first signified the glory of the body, which it borrows from its association with the divine nature: and then follows the promotion to a fuller glory derived from an addition to the glory of the body. "If God hath been honoured in Him, God hath honoured Him in Himself, and straightway hath God honoured Him." God has glorified Him in Himself, because He has already been glorified in Him. "God was glorified in Him:" this refers to the glory of the body, for by this glory is expressed in a human body the glory of God, in the glory of the Son of Man is seen the divine glory. "God was glorified in Him, and therefore hath God glorified Him in Himself:" that is, by His promotion to the Godhead, whose glory was increased in Him, God has glorified Him in Himself. Already before this He was reigning in the glory which springs from the divine glory: from henceforth, however, He is Himself to pass into the divine glory. "God h…
    In the words, "Now is the Son of Man honoured, and God is honoured in Him," we have first the glory of the Son of Man, then the glory of God in the Son of Man. So there is first signified the glory of the body, which it borrows from its association with the divine nature: and then follows the promotion to a fuller glory derived from an addition to the glory of the body. "If God hath been honoured in Him, God hath honoured Him in Himself, and straightway hath God honoured Him." God has glorified Him in Himself, because He has already been glorified in Him. "God was glorified in Him:" this refers to the glory of the body, for by this glory is expressed in a human body the glory of God, in the glory of the Son of Man is seen the divine glory. "God was glorified in Him, and therefore hath God glorified Him in Himself:" that is, by His promotion to the Godhead, whose glory was increased in Him, God has glorified Him in Himself. Already before this He was reigning in the glory which springs from the divine glory: from henceforth, however, He is Himself to pass into the divine glory. "God hath glorified Him in Himself:" that is, in that nature by which God is what He is. "That God may be all in all:" that His whole being, leaving behind the Dispensation by which He is man, may be eternally transformed into divinity. Nor is the time of this hidden from us: "And God hath glorified Him in Himself, and straightway hath He glorified Him." At the moment when Judas arose to betray Him, He signified as present the glory which He would obtain after His Passion through the Resurrection, but assigned to the future the glory with which God would glorify Him with Himself. The glory of God is seen in Him in the power of the Resurrection, but He Himself, out of the Dispensation of subjection, will be taken eternally into the glory of God, that is, into God, the all in all.

    On the Trinity, Book 11, Section 42

  10. John 13:31-32
    (xi. de. Trin. c. 42) That God is glorified in Him, refers to the glory of the body, which glory is the glory of God, in that the body borrows its glory from its association with the Divine nature. Because God is glorified in Him, therefore He will glorify Him in Himself, in that He who reigns in the glory arising from the glory of God, He forthwith passes over into God's glorya, leaving the dispensation of His manhood, wholly to abide in God. Nor is He silent as to the time: And shall straightway glorify Him. This referring to the glory of His resurrection which was immediately to follow His passion, which He mentions as present, because Judas had now gone out to betray Him; whereas that God would glorify Him in Himself, He reserves for the future. The glory of God was shown in Him by the miracle of the resurrection; but He will abide in the glory of God when He has left the dispensation of subjection. The sense of these first words, Now is the Son of man glorified, is not doubtful: it is the glory of the flesh which is meant, not that of the Word. But what means the next, And God i…
    (xi. de. Trin. c. 42) That God is glorified in Him, refers to the glory of the body, which glory is the glory of God, in that the body borrows its glory from its association with the Divine nature. Because God is glorified in Him, therefore He will glorify Him in Himself, in that He who reigns in the glory arising from the glory of God, He forthwith passes over into God's glorya, leaving the dispensation of His manhood, wholly to abide in God. Nor is He silent as to the time: And shall straightway glorify Him. This referring to the glory of His resurrection which was immediately to follow His passion, which He mentions as present, because Judas had now gone out to betray Him; whereas that God would glorify Him in Himself, He reserves for the future. The glory of God was shown in Him by the miracle of the resurrection; but He will abide in the glory of God when He has left the dispensation of subjection. The sense of these first words, Now is the Son of man glorified, is not doubtful: it is the glory of the flesh which is meant, not that of the Word. But what means the next, And God is glorified in Him? The Son of man is not another Person from the Son of God, for, the Word was made flesh. (John 1:14) How is God glorified in this Son of man, who is the Son of God? The next clause helps us; If God is glorified in Him, God also will glorify Him in Himself. A man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God who is glorified in man, because He receives glory, cease to be God. So the words, God is glorified in Him, either mean that Christ is glorified in the flesh, or that God is glorified in Christ. If God means Christ, it is Christ who is glorified in the flesh; if the Father, then it is the Sacrament of unity, the Father glorified in the Son. Again, God glorifies in Himself God glorified in the Son of man. This overthrows the impious doctrine that Christ is not very God, in verity of nature. For how can that which God glorifies in Himself be out of Himself? He whom the Father glorifies must be confessed to be in His glory, and He who is glorified in the glory of the Father, must be understood to be in the same case with the Father.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  11. John 13:32
    The meaning of his opening words can hardly be disputed when he says, “Now is the Son of man glorified.” He was saying that all the glory that [the Son of man] obtains is not for the Word but for his flesh.… What, then, is the meaning of what follows … when he says that “God is glorified in him,” that is, in the Son of man? Tell me, then, is the Son of man the same as the Son of God? And since the Son of man is not one entity and the Son of God another—but he who is the Son of God is himself also the Son of man—who, pray tell, is the God who is glorified in this Son of man who is also the Son of God?… The third clause helps us with this when he adds, “If God is glorified in him, God has also glorified him in himself.” … Now, a man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God, who is glorified in the man, cease being God just because he receives glory.… “God is glorified in him” must certainly be referring either to Christ, who is glorified in the flesh, or to the Father, who is glorified in Christ. If it is Christ, Christ is clearly God who is glorified in the flesh…
    The meaning of his opening words can hardly be disputed when he says, “Now is the Son of man glorified.” He was saying that all the glory that [the Son of man] obtains is not for the Word but for his flesh.… What, then, is the meaning of what follows … when he says that “God is glorified in him,” that is, in the Son of man? Tell me, then, is the Son of man the same as the Son of God? And since the Son of man is not one entity and the Son of God another—but he who is the Son of God is himself also the Son of man—who, pray tell, is the God who is glorified in this Son of man who is also the Son of God?… The third clause helps us with this when he adds, “If God is glorified in him, God has also glorified him in himself.” … Now, a man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God, who is glorified in the man, cease being God just because he receives glory.… “God is glorified in him” must certainly be referring either to Christ, who is glorified in the flesh, or to the Father, who is glorified in Christ. If it is Christ, Christ is clearly God who is glorified in the flesh. If it is the Father, we are face to face with the mystery of the unity, since the Father is glorified in the Son.… But when we consider that God glorifies in himself God who is glorified in the Son of man, by what loophole, pray tell, can your profane doctrine escape from the confession that Christ is very God according to the truth of his nature?… The Father glorifies him, not with a glory from without but in himself. By taking him back into that glory that belongs to himself and that [the Son] had with him before, the Father glorifies [the Son] with himself and in himself.

    ON THE TRINITY 9.40-42

  12. John 14:1
    Our Lord speaks in words deliberately chosen, so that whatever he claims for the Father, he signifies in modest language to be appropriate to himself. Take for example the command, “Believe in God, and believe in me.” He is identified with God in honor. How, I ask you, can he be separated from his nature? He says, “Believe in me also,” just as he said “Believe in God.” Do not the words “in me” signify his nature? Separate the two natures, but then you must also separate the two beliefs. If it is life that we should believe in God without Christ, strip Christ of the name and qualities of God. But if perfect life is given to those who believe in God only when they believe in Christ also, let the careful reader ponder the meaning of the saying, “Believe in God, and believe in me also,” for these words, uniting faith in him with faith in God, unite his nature to God’s. He enjoins first of all the duty of belief in God but adds to it the command that we should believe in himself also, which implies that he is God, since those who believe in God must also believe in him. Yet he excludes th…
    Our Lord speaks in words deliberately chosen, so that whatever he claims for the Father, he signifies in modest language to be appropriate to himself. Take for example the command, “Believe in God, and believe in me.” He is identified with God in honor. How, I ask you, can he be separated from his nature? He says, “Believe in me also,” just as he said “Believe in God.” Do not the words “in me” signify his nature? Separate the two natures, but then you must also separate the two beliefs. If it is life that we should believe in God without Christ, strip Christ of the name and qualities of God. But if perfect life is given to those who believe in God only when they believe in Christ also, let the careful reader ponder the meaning of the saying, “Believe in God, and believe in me also,” for these words, uniting faith in him with faith in God, unite his nature to God’s. He enjoins first of all the duty of belief in God but adds to it the command that we should believe in himself also, which implies that he is God, since those who believe in God must also believe in him. Yet he excludes the suggestion of a unity contrary to religion, for the exhortation “Believe in God, believe in me also” forbids us to think of him as alone in solitude.

    ON THE TRINITY 9.19

  13. John 14:6
    He who is the way does not lead us into by-paths or trackless wastes. He who is the truth does not mock us with lies. He who is the life does not betray us into delusions, which are death. He himself has chosen these winning names to indicate the methods that he has appointed for our salvation. As the way, he will guide us to the truth. As the truth, he will establish us in the life. And therefore it is all-important for us to know what the mysterious mode is that he reveals for attaining this life. “No one comes to the Father except through me.” The way to the Father is through the Son.

    ON THE TRINITY 7.33

  14. John 14:6
    Except through him there is no approach to the Father. But there is also no approach to him unless the Father draws us. Understanding him to be the Son of God, we recognize in him the true nature of the Father. And so, when we learn to know the Son, God the Father calls us. When we believe the Son, God the Father receives us. For our recognition and knowledge of the Father is in the Son who shows us in himself God the Father. The Father draws us by his fatherly love, if we are devout, into a mutual bond with his Son.

    ON THE TRINITY 11.33

  15. John 14:6
    (vii. de Trin) For He who is the way doth not lead us into devious courses out of the way; nor does He who is the truth deceive us by falsehoods; nor does He who is the life leave us in the darkness of death.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  16. John 14:7
    (vii. de Trin) Or thus: When it is said that the Son is the way to the Father, is it meant that He is so by His teaching, or by His nature? We shall be able to see from what follows: If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also. In His incarnation asserting His Divinity, He maintained a certain order of sight and knowledge: separating the time of seeing from that of knowing. For Him, who He saith must be known, He speaks of as already seen: that henceforward they might from this revelation have knowledge of the Divine Nature which they had all along seen in Him.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  17. John 14:7
    How can knowledge of him be knowledge of the Father? For the apostles see him wearing the aspect of that human nature that belongs to him. But God is not encumbered with body and flesh and is unrecognizable by those who dwell in our weak and fleshly body. The answer is given by the Lord, who asserts that under the flesh that, in a mystery, he had taken, his Father’s nature dwells within him.… He makes a distinction between the time of seeing and the time of knowing. He says that from this time onward they shall know him whom they had already seen and so shall possess, from the time of this revelation onward, the knowledge of that nature on which, in him, they had gazed for so long.

    ON THE TRINITY 7.34

  18. John 14:7
    It was not the carnal body that he had received by birth from the Virgin that could manifest to them the image and likeness of God. The human aspect that he wore could be no aid toward the mental vision of the incorporeal God. But God was recognized in Christ by those who recognized Christ as the Son on the evidence of the powers of his divine nature. And a recognition of God the Son produces a recognition of God the Father. For the Son is in such a sense the image as to be one in kind with the Father and yet in a way that indicates that the Father is his origin.

    ON THE TRINITY 7.37

  19. John 14:8
    (vii. de Trin) A declaration so new startled Philip. Our Lord is seen to be man. He confesses Himself to be the Son of God, declares that, if He were known, the Father would be known, that, if He is seen, the Father is seen. The familiarity of the Apostle therefore breaks forth into questioning our Lord, Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.He did not deny He could be seen (non visum negavit), but wished to be shown him; nor did he wish to see with his bodily eyes, but that He whom he had seen might be made manifest to his understanding. He had seen the Son in the form of man, but how through that form He saw the Father, he did not know. This he wants to be shown him, shown to his understanding, not set before his eyes; and then he will be satisfied: And it sufficeth us.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  20. John 14:8
    When he hears the words, He that hath, seen Me hath seen the Father also, he jumps to the blasphemous conclusion of an inseparable and indistinguishable identity of nature in Father and Son, because he fails to see that the revelation of the birth is the mode in which Their unity of nature is manifested to us. For the fact that the Father is seen in the Son is a proof of the Son's Divinity, not a disproof of His birth. Thus our knowledge of Each of Them is conditioned by our knowledge of the Other, for there is no difference of nature between them and, since in this respect they are One, a reverent study of the character of Either will give us a true insight into the nature of Both.

    On the Trinity, Book 7

All writers