SR
← Benjamin Minor (The Twelve Patriarchs / Preparation of the Mind for Contemplation)/Book 1 · Benjamin Minor (De praeparatione animi ad contemplationem)
Chapter 82BenjaminMinor.1.82

CAPUT LXXXII. Quam sint incomprehensibilia, quae mens per excessum videt ex revelatione divina

The Falling of the Disciples and the Birth of Benjamin

The disciples witness the Transfiguration but do not yet fall prostrate, for the Father's voice has not yet thundered; when it does, human reason fails and Rachel dies so that Benjamin, contemplative ecstasy, may be born.

See how great the things taking place on this mountain are—but still greater than these are the things that follow. For the disciples, still standing, look on all this; they do not yet fall face down. The Father's voice is not yet heard; the hearer is not yet thrown prostrate. Rachel has not yet died; Benjamin has not yet been born. For as soon as the Father's voice thundered, it cast the disciples down. So at the thunder of the divine voice the hearer falls, because the capacity of human sense gives way before what is inspired from God; and unless it leaves the narrow confines of human reasoning, it does not open the breast of understanding to receive the secret of divine inspiration.1 So the hearer falls there, where human reason fails. There Rachel dies so that Benjamin may be born.2

The Failure of Three Powers and the Father's Voice

The falling of the three disciples signifies the failure of sense, memory, and reason in ecstasy, and the Father's declaration 'This is my beloved Son' is examined in its Gospel variants to reveal the mystery of divine self-delight in the Son.

So, unless I'm mistaken, the same thing is illustrated by Rachel's death and the disciples' falling—except that in the three disciples, the failure of three faculties is shown: namely, sense, memory, and reason. For there, bodily sense is cut off, there the memory of outward things, there human reason—wherever the mind, seized above itself, is lifted into the things above. Let's carefully consider how graspable the Father's voice really is, and we'll understand how rightly the hearer gives way: "This is," he says, "my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."✦3 It's one thing to say "I was well pleased," and another to say "he was well pleasing"—and yet one evangelist wrote down the first, another the second.4 It follows, then, that if "I was well pleased" was truly spoken there, the sense the other evangelist records can truly be understood—but it cannot be turned the other way.5 Truly and without contradiction: in him it was well pleasing to me, in whom I myself was well pleased—but it doesn't follow at once that in whoever it was well pleasing to me, in that one I myself was well pleased. If, then, "I was well pleased" hadn't been spoken there, the evangelist would in no way have dared to say this: "This is," he says, "my Son in whom I am well pleased." Certainly, if the Son were something other than the Father, it would be possible for him to be well-pleasing to the Father in the Son—but the Father himself could not be well-pleasing to himself in the Son.6

The Mystery of Divine Good Pleasure in the Trinity

The Father's 'I am well pleased' is interpreted as expressing His self-delight in the Son and the Holy Spirit, affirming the unity of substance in distinct persons, though the full depth of this ministry remains beyond human grasp.

What does it mean to say "I am well pleased," if not that as I am well pleased with myself in myself, so I am well pleased with myself in the Son? Or perhaps in saying "I am well pleased," He shows that He has a companion in this good pleasure of His? Because just as the Father is well pleased in the Son, so in the Son it is also well pleasing to the Holy Spirit.7 Or perhaps "I am well pleased" is said for this reason: so that from it one may understand that just as the Father is well pleased with Himself in the Son, so of course He is well pleased with Himself in the Holy Spirit. Which of these is more rightly said? Or is it rather the whole of this that is meant, rather than any one of these taken by itself? These words could still be distinguished in various other ways, if they were not enough to make known the depth of this ministry.8 But this much is certain: whichever of these is chosen, if it is rightly understood, affirms the unity of substance in distinct persons.

The Incomprehensibility of the Trinity and the Fall of Reason

The revelation that the Son is distinct in person yet one in essence with the Father surpasses all creaturely analogy and human reason, so that only faith can lift the mind to certainty, and rightly the hearer falls at this mystery.

For what is said — "This is my Son" — shows the distinction of the persons: one and the same being couldn't be both Father and Son to itself. But how can sense take this in — how one stands to another as a different person, yet the same in essence? If you look for an example, you won't find one anywhere among creatures that can satisfy you; if you consult reason, every human reason cries out against it. For this claim stands so far above every human judgment and beyond every human reason that reason would never yield to it unless faith raised it to certainty about this truth. Rightly, then, at the revelation of this mystery the hearer falls, sense fails, and human reason gives way.

Read the original Latin

Ecce quam magna sunt, quae in hoc monte geruntur, sed adhuc his majora sunt ea quae sequuntur. Hoc enim totum discipuli stantes aspiciunt, nondum in faciem cadunt. Nondum paterna vox auditur, nondum auditor prosternitur. Nondum Rachel moritur, nondum Benjamin nascitur. Mox enim ut paterna vox intonuit, discipulos prostravit. Ad tonitruum itaque divinae vocis auditor cadit, quia ad id quod divinitus inspiratur, humani sensus capacitas succumbit, et nisi humanae ratiocinationis angustias deserat, ad capiendum divinae inspirationis arcanum intelligentiae sinum non dilatat. Ibi itaque auditor cadit, ubi humana ratio deficit. Ibi Rachel moritur, ut Benjamin oriatur.

Idem itaque, nisi fallor, per mortem Rachel, et casum discipulorum figuratur, nisi quod trium in tribus discipulis, sensus videlicet, memoriae et rationis defectus ostenditur. Ibi enim sensus corporeus, ibi exteriorum memoria, ibi ratio humana intercipitur, ubi mens supra semetipsam rapta in superna elevatur. Attendamus quam comprehensibile sit quod paterna vox insonuit, et intelligemus quam recte auditor succumbit: Hic est, inquit, Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi complacui. Aliud est dicere complacui, et aliud est dicere complacuit: et tamen hoc unus, illud alter evangelista posuit. Consequens est autem ut, si ibi veraciter dictum est complacui, sensus qui ab alio evangelista ponitur, possit veraciter intelligi, sed non potest converti. Vere et absque contradictione, in ipso mihi complacuit, in quo ipse mihi complacui, sed non statim in quocunque mihi complacuit, in illo ipse mihi complacui. Si igitur complacui ibi dictum non esset, nullo modo evangelista hoc dicere auderet: Hic est, inquit, Filius meus in quo mihi complacui. Certe si Filius aliud quam Pater esset, posset Patri in Filio complacere, sed ipse sibi Pater in Filio complacere non posset.

Quid est dicere complacui, nisi quomodo placui mihi, in meipso, ita placui mihi in Filio. An forte in eo quod dicit, mihi complacui, in hoc suo beneplacito socium se habere ostendit? Quia quomodo Pater complacet in Filio, sic in Filio complacet et Spiritui sancto. Vel forte idcirco dicitur complacui, ut inde detur intelligi, quia quomodo Pater sibi complacet in Filio, sic sibi nimirum complacet in Spiritu sancto. Quid horum rectius dicitur? An potius totum hoc, quam unum horum aliquod singulariter intelligitur? Haec adhuc verba aliter atque aliter distingui possent, si ad ministerii profunditatem intimandam, minus ista sufficerent. Certum est autem, quia quidquid horum eligitur, unitatem substantiae in diversis personis astruit, si recte intelligatur.

Nam illud quod dicitur, hic est Filius meus, personarum diversitatem ostendit: unus enim atque idem sibi ipsi, et Pater et Filius esse non posset. Sed quid sensus hoc capiat, quomodo unus ad alium sit, alius in persona, idem in essentia? Si exemplum quaeris, nusquam creaturarum invenis, quod tibi satisfacere valeat, si rationem consulas, omnis humana ratio reclamat. Intantum enim est ista assertio, supra omnem humanam aestimationem et praeter omnem humanam rationem, ut nunquam ei ratio acquiesceret, nisi ad hujus rei certitudinem fides eam sublevaret. Merito ergo in hujus mysterii revelatione auditor cadit, sensus deficit, humana ratio succumbit.

Scripture echoes

  1. ↩Matt.3.17;2Pet.1.17 — And behold, a voice from the heavens said, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' 2Pet.1.17 — For he received from God the Father honor and glory when a voice was brought to him by the Majestic Glory: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Notes

  1. 1 ↩intelligentiae sinum dilatat keeps the classical metaphor of opening the 'breast/bosom' of understanding; humani sensus capacitas is the limited reach of human sense/perception before divinely inspired content.
  2. 2 ↩oriatur rendered as 'be born' to match the Rachel–Benjamin allegory (cf. nascitur in s4); oriri also carries 'arise/come forth,' which the following section develops as contemplative excess.
  3. 3 ↩Latin has comprehensibile, not incomprehensibile; the chapter concerns what exceeds human grasp, so the invitation may be partly ironic—attend to how far this can be grasped, and you will see why the hearer falls.
  4. 4 ↩complacui is first-person perfect ("I was well pleased / I took delight"); complacuit is third-person ("it/he was well pleasing"). The argument turns on that grammatical difference.
  5. 5 ↩non potest converti = logical conversion cannot be performed: from complacui you may rightly understand complacuit, but not the reverse.
  6. 6 ↩First clause has dative Patri (the one pleased) without an explicit subject; the contrast with ipse sibi Pater implies that an other could please the Father in the Son, whereas the Father's self-delight in the Son requires that the Son not be aliud than the Father.
  7. 7 ↩Latin shifts construction: Pater is nominative subject of complacet, then Spiritui sancto is dative with complacet ('it is well-pleasing to the Holy Spirit'). Rendered to keep both the shared good pleasure and the dative force.
  8. 8 ↩ministerii is kept as 'ministry' (sacred economy/dispensation of the revealed word). Neighboring section speaks of mysterii; if a source variant with mysterii is preferred, render 'mystery' instead.

Benjamin Minor (The Twelve Patriarchs / Preparation of the Mind for Contemplation) companion

A daily portion of stillness

Chosen Portion delivers one short contemplative reading and a guided moment of silence each day — the ascent, one step at a time.

Chosen Portion is the paced doorway into this collection: it portions the dense mystical treatises into one daily reading plus guided silence, exactly as the 14-day plan teaches.

  • Daily bite-sized excerpts from the contemplative classics, never a wall of text
  • A built-in timed stillness practice that grows from 2 minutes to 10
  • Gentle progression through the tradition — the app remembers where you are on the ascent
Chosen Portion — Daily Prayer (free iOS app) →