Wednesday of the 18th week after Pentecost

There are some who have entertained the idea-and those, too, who are no contemptible handlers of sacred eloquence-that the Apostle John was more loved by Christ on the ground that he never married a wife, and lived in perfect chastity from early boyhood. There is, indeed, no distinct evidence of this in the canonical Scriptures: nevertheless it is an idea that contributes not a little to the suitableness of the opinion expressed above, namely, that that life was signified by him, where there will be no marriage.

(Tract. cxxiv) He calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved, because Jesus had a greater and more familiar love for him, than for the rest; so that He made him lie on His breast at supper. In this way John the more commends the divine excellency of that Gospel which he preached. Some think, and they no contemptible commentators upon Scripture, that the reason why John was loved more than the rest, was, because he had lived in perfect chastity from his youth up. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Peter, turning around, saw that disciple etc. Here secondly, Peter, knowing his own death, inquires about the death of John: for he desired that he to whom he had been joined in life through great love might be joined to him in a likeness of death. And because Peter knew that the Lord loved John, he wanted to know by what death he wished him to die: therefore he says: Peter, turning around, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved, following, namely John. And a sign of special love is shown when it is added: who also reclined at the Supper upon his breast, above in chapter thirteen, and said: Lord, who is it that will betray you? He asked him what was secret: and this was a sign of love, because it was revealed to him, as is said above in chapter thirteen: and this is a sign of friendship, as is said above in chapter fifteen: "I have called you friends, because whatever I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you."

It is asked about what he says: That disciple whom Jesus loved. How did he dare to say this, when it is said in Ecclesiastes nine: No one knows whether he is worthy of love or of hatred? Likewise, since Christ loved all, why did John attribute this to himself, namely that he was loved more? This seems false: because Peter loved more; therefore he was better; but God loves the better more; therefore he loved Peter more than John. To this it can be answered that John knew by revelation or by certain signs that he was loved. To the second, Augustine seems to say that John was loved more, but Peter loved more; and therefore he asks who was better; and he says that Peter was better, but John was happier; and he turns these words to allegory, saying that through John the contemplative life is signified, and through Peter the active life. But this increases the question further; whence Augustine himself says that justice is hidden here, and mercy is manifest. Therefore it must be said that to love more is understood in two ways: either with respect to a greater reward, and thus Jesus loved Peter more, this being understood in the sense that Peter always loved the Lord more. In another way, to love more refers to a greater outward demonstration, because he showed more signs of love: and thus he loved John more.

It is asked: why did he show himself more to John, since he loved Peter more than John? — It seems that there would be pretense in the Lord. To this it can be responded that although Peter merited a greater reward, nevertheless it was fitting for Christ to show greater familiarity to John, because John was young and was a virgin and innocent: and these are things which in a wondrous way, both in the sight of God and of men, make a person lovable and more pleasing. Whence Bede says: "This is John, who by the privilege of surpassing love merited to be honored by the Lord more highly than the rest; and the special prerogative of chastity had made him worthy of a more abundant love." And the Gloss says that "John was more intimate, because he was more tender."

For in Asia also great luminaries have fallen asleep who will rise again on the last day of the advent of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall search out all the saints.… And this is also where John is, who leaned on the bosom of the Lord, who was a priest wearing the miter, a martyr and a teacher, and he sleeps at Ephesus.

Wherefore hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He showeth also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts.

Imitate, therefore, the ambassador of our Lord, and be his follower in every thing. That John, again, who "reclined on the bosom of our Lord, and whom He greatly loved," [John 21:20] — he, too, was a holy person. For it was not without reason that our Lord loved him. Paul, also, and Barnabas, and Timothy, with all the others, "whose names are written in the book of life," [Philippians 4:3] — these, I say, all cherished and loved sanctity, and ran in the contest, and finished their course without blemish, as imitators of Christ, and as sons of the living God. Moreover, also, Elijah and Elisha, and many other holy men, we find to have lived a holy and spotless life. If, therefore, you desire to be like these, imitate them with all your power.

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because "by three witnesses must every word be established.

Why does the evangelist mention that he leaned on His breast and asked, "Who is it that will betray You?" Not simply or by chance, but to show that Peter, even after his denial, had boldness before the Lord. For he who before the Cross did not dare to ask about the betrayer, but entrusted the question to another, namely John, is now entrusted with the care of all, and not only does he not entrust the question about himself to another, but even concerning that very disciple who enjoyed a special love above all the others, he asks the Lord and becomes, as it were, an intercessor before Him.

Now we see that John is commended: first, as to his past; then with respect to his future (v 21). John is commended on three points in his past.

First, John had the privilege of having Christ's special love. The Evangelist says, Peter turned, for he had begun to follow Jesus even bodily, and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved. Here we see that Peter, already made a shepherd, was intent on the care of others: "And when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32). Now Jesus loved John without excluding the others, for above he said, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you" (15:9). But he loved John above the others with a special love. There were three reasons for this. First, because of his penetrating understanding: for teachers especially love their intelligent students: "A servant who deals wisely has the king's favor" (Prv 14:35). Secondly, because of his purity, for he was a virgin: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Thirdly, because of his youth, for we have tender feelings for the young and the weak, and act with friendship towards them. And this is the way Christ acted with the youthful John: "When Israel was a child, I loved him" (Hos 11:1). We can see from this that God especially loves those who serve him from their youth: "My soul desires the first ripe figs" (Mic 7:1).

But this seems to go against Proverbs (8:17): "I love those who love me." Peter loved Christ more than the others: "Do you love me more than these?" (21:15). Therefore, Christ should have loved Peter more than John. I answer: it could be said that John, because he was more loved, was happier; while Peter, because he loved more, was better. But this would be a violation of justice. Consequently, this refers to a mystery: that is, Peter and John stand for two kinds of life, the active and the contemplative, and the end and object of each is Christ. The active life, which Peter signifies, loves God more than the contemplative life (which is signified by John) because it feels more keenly the difficulties of this present life, and more intensely desires to be freed from them and to go to God. But God loves the contemplative life more, because he preserves it longer: it does not come to an end with death, as does the active life: "The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob" (Ps 87:2).

Some try to solve this problem using the literal sense. They distinguish two kinds of love in Christ, according to his two wills, his human and divine will. They say that Christ loved Peter more with his divine love, but he loved John more with his human love. The objection to this is that Christ's human will was entirely conformed to his divine will; and so the more he loved one with his divine will, so also he loved that one more with his human will. Therefore, we should say that he loves that one the more to whom he wills more good. He loved Peter more in the sense that he made Peter love him more; Christ loved John more in another sense, that is, by giving him a keener understanding. "The Lord will fill him with the spirit of wisdom and understanding" (Sir 15:3). Accordingly, Peter is better because charity is better than knowledge (cf. 1 Cor 13:8); but John is better in keenness of understanding. However, only God can weigh their merits: "The Lord weighs the spirit" (Prv 16:2).

And so others say, and this is better, that Peter loved Christ more in his members; and in this way he was also more loved by Christ. For this reason the Church was entrusted to him. But John loved Christ more in Himself, and in this way was more loved by Christ, who entrusted his mother to John's care. Or, one could say that Peter loved Christ more readily and fervently. While John was more loved by being given tokens of intimate friendship, which Christ gave him on account of his youth and purity.

John adds, who had lain close to his breast at the supper, which commends him to us on the second point, his special intimacy with Christ. This was just explained.

Thirdly, John is commended on account of the special confidence he had in Christ, so that he could question Christ with more assurance than all the others. Thus he adds that this disciple had said, Lord, who is it that is going to betray you? This was also explained before (13:25).

John is recalling his own privileges in order to exalt Peter. One might suppose that because Peter had denied Christ he would not be allowed back to his former intimacy. To reject this, John shows that he was admitted to a greater intimacy. The one who did not dare to question Christ at the supper, but asked John to do it, was made head over his brethren after the passion, and is now questioning Christ not only for himself, but also for John. We can understand from this that those who fall into sin sometimes rise in greater grace: "For just as you purposed to go astray from God, return with tenfold zeal to seek him" (Bar 4:28).

When Peter therefore had seen him, whom he knew to be specially beloved, he says to Jesus: Lord, but what about this man? supply: will he suffer, in order to come to you? Chrysostom: "Peter loved John greatly: because therefore the Lord had foretold great things to Peter, wishing to receive this one also as a sharer, he says: Lord, but what about this man?"

Wherefore hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He showeth also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts. When therefore Christ had foretold great things to him, and committed the world to him, and spake beforehand of his martyrdom, and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, desiring to have John also to share with him, he said, "And what shall this man do?" "Shall he not come the same way with us?" And as at that other time not being able himself to ask, he puts John forward, so now desiring to make him a return, and supposing that he would desire to ask about the matters pertaining to himself, but had not courage, he himself undertook the questioning. What then saith Christ? "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Since he spake from strong affection, and wishing not to be torn away from him, Christ, to show that however much he might love, he could not go beyond His love, saith, "If I will that he tarry—what is that to thee?" By these words teaching us not to be impatient, nor curious beyond what seemeth good to Him. For because Peter was ever hot, and springing forward to enquiries such as this, to cut short his warmth, and to teach him not to enquire farther, He saith this.

Our Lord then having foretold such great things of him, and committed the world to him, and prophesied his martyrdom, and made known his greater love, Peter wishing to have John admitted to a share of this calling, says, And what shall this man do? as if to say, Will he not go the same way with us? For Peter had great love for John, as appears from the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, which give many proofs of their close friendship. So Peter does John the same turn, that John had done him; thinking that he wanted to ask about himself, but was afraid, he puts the question for him.

When Peter heard this and was deemed worthy both of having the universe entrusted to him and of being crowned with martyrdom, then, out of his strong love for John, he asks about him as well: "And what about him? Will he not also go the same way as we? Will he not also be a partaker in the care and concern for the sheep?" For the words "follow Me" mean almost the same as: go, receive the sheep, go forth into the universe.

And so the Evangelist immediately shows Peter asking a question, When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about this man? This concerns the future of John. First, we have Peter's question; Christ's answer; and then the interpretation of the answer (v 23).

Regarding the first point, note that when our Lord said to Peter, "Follow me" (v 19), Peter did begin to follow him with bodily steps, and so did John. When Peter noticed John following he asked Christ about him, saying, Lord, what about this man? This was like saying: I am following you in your suffering. But this man, will he die also? John would have asked the same question had he dared.

But according to Chrysostom, Peter was questioning about the leadership of the Church, not about John's martyrdom. For Peter loved John more than all the other disciples, and they are always found together in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles. So Peter wanted to have John as his companion in the work of preaching. Peter says, Lord, what about this man? as if to say, "Let him come with me."

This is the disciple etc. Here is set forth the reason for confirming our faith. The Evangelist confirms this in us in two ways: by certifying in truth and by grounding in humility. He certifies in truth when he declares himself a true and reliable witness. He says therefore: This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things and has written these things, who is to be believed, all doubt being set aside, because we know that his testimony is true. Chrysostom: "Because he wrote with great certitude, he does not refuse to bring forward his own testimony, challenging each person to examine and scrutinize the things that were done. It is our custom, when we speak things that are very true, not to deny our own testimony: whence in Acts chapter five the Apostles said: We are witnesses of these words."

I think no wise man will doubt that the Lord would not have loved John if he had not been specially remarkable for virtue, and apt and perfectly equipped for every good work. For God can never be found to be inclined by any irrational leanings to those unworthy of His love, for such affections are more worthy of men. And He that was wholly proof against every assault and inroad of passion, and trod firmly in the path of every virtue, nay rather, was Virtue itself in all its forms, most assuredly would act in this, too, with judgment, and have His inclination free from all reproach----I mean, the inclination which led Him to deem him to whom this boon was due worthy of His love. After this admirable preface, then, and after having said that he was beloved, he modestly and with great humility says that he testified of these things; well and admirably inviting his hearers, as a necessary consequence, to assent to the things which he had written, and of which he had testified; for the preacher of truth cannot lie. Therefore, also, he says: We know that His witness is true. Dangerous, then, and awful is it assuredly, to lie at all; for man knoweth not how to bridle his tongue, and the Truth cannot love him that sinneth against truth.

John, who reclined on the bosom of Jesus, has left us one Gospel, although he confessed that he might have written so many that the world could not contain them. And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but he was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third. But not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain one hundred lines.

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Why is it, that then, when none of the others do so, he alone uses these words, and that for the second time, witnessing to himself? for it seems to be offensive to the hearers. What then is the cause? He is said to have been the last who came to writing, Christ having moved and roused him to the work; and on this account he continually sets forth his love, alluding to the cause by which he was impelled to write. Therefore also he continually makes mention of it, to make his record trustworthy, and to show, that, moved from thence, he came to this work. "And I know," he saith, "that the things are true which he saith. And if the many believe not, it is permitted them to believe from this."

"Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly.

(Hom. lxxxviii. 2) John appeals to his own knowledge of these events, having been witness of them: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things. When we assert any undoubted fact in common life, we do not withhold our testimony: much less would he, who wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:32) And thus the other Apostles, And we are witnesses of these things, and wrote these things. John is only one who appeals to his own testimony; and he does so, because he was the last who wrote. And for this reason he often mentions Christ's love for him, i. e. to show the motive which led him to write, and to give weight to his history. And we know that his testimony is true. He was present at every event, even at the crucifixion, when our Lord committed His mother to him; circumstances which both show Christ's love, and his own importance as a witness. But if any believe not, let him consider what follows: And there are also many other things which Jesus did. If, when there were so many things to relate, I have not said so much as the other, and have selected often reproaches and contumelies in preference to other things, it is evident that I have not written partially. One who wants to show another off to advantage does the very contrary, omits the dishonourable parts.

(Hom. lxxxviii) This is said to show the power of Him Who did the miracles; i. e. that it was as easy for Him to do them, as it is for us to speak of them, seeing He is God over all, blessed for ever.

The interpreter [that is, Theodore himself] says that the words, "But there are also, etc." are not by John but by someone else.

Of the other Evangelists, not one testified about himself. They say that he undertook the writing of the Gospel after all the others, having been moved and stirred to do so by Christ. For this reason he constantly mentions His love for him, showing the reason why he undertook the writing, and that Christ entrusted this task to the one whom He loved more than the rest. And I know that he speaks the truth, that is: "What I have written, I have written with complete confidence, since I was present at everything—at the deeds and words, at the sufferings and the events after the resurrection. Therefore I boldly say of myself as well that I am truthful, and I invite anyone to examine and investigate each event individually." It is customary among us humans, when we are completely confident in the truth, not to refuse to offer our own testimony about it. So also the apostles said: "We are His witnesses in what we say, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). From what is it evident that I speak the truth and not to please the Teacher? From the fact that I omitted many things, it is evident that I did not wish to flatter Him. For I brought to light everything reproachful, not concealing even the fact that He was called a lawbreaker and a deceiver, and even a demoniac. Obviously, I was not trying to please Him. For whoever flatters does the opposite: he omits what is shameful and brings to light what is glorious.

Now we have the last part of this Gospel, which is a kind of epilogue. First, the Gospel is commended; and then the vastness of the subject treated (v 25). The Gospel is commended because of two things: its author, and its truth. Three things are mentioned about the author.

First, there is the authority of the author, because This is the disciple ‑ understanding what was mentioned before who was loved above the others, intimate with Christ, able to question him with confidence, and to whom it was granted to remain until Christ came. All these things refer to the authority of the author.

John is said to have been loved more than the others because of his unique charity: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (13:35). None of the other apostles speak so much of love for others as does John in his letters. We also read that as an old man he was carried to the church by his followers to teach the faithful. He taught only one thing: "Little children, love one another." This is the perfection of the Christian life.

Secondly, John's office is mentioned, which was to give testimony, for he says, who is bearing witness to these things. This is the special office of apostles: "You shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8); "You are my witnesses!" (Is 44:8).

Thirdly, he refers to his zeal when he says, and who has written these things. As an apostle he testified to the actions of Christ to those who were present; and in his zeal he recorded these actions in writing for those who were not with him and were to come after him: "Take a large tablet and write upon it in common characters" (Is 8:1); "The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise" (Sir 38:24). For it was granted to John to live until the time when the Church was at peace; and this is the time when he wrote all these things. John mentions such things so that we will not think that his gospel has less authority than the other three, seeing that he wrote after the death of all the other apostles, and the other gospels, especially that of Matthew, had been approved by them.

Now John states that his Gospel is true, and he speaks in the person of the entire Church which received it: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prv 8:7). We should note that although many have written about Catholic truth, there is a difference among them: those who wrote the canonical scriptures, such as the evangelists and apostles and the like, so constantly and firmly affirm this truth that it cannot be doubted. Thus John says, we know that his testimony is true: "If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). The reason for this is that only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith. The others have set forth this truth but in such a way that they do not want to be believed except in those things in which they say what is true.

"This is the disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also," he adds, "many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." We are not to suppose that in regard to local space the world would be unable to contain them; for how could they be written in it if it could not bear them when written? but perhaps it is that they could not be comprehended by the capacity of the readers: although, while our faith in certain things themselves remains unharmed, the words we use about them may not unfrequently appear to exceed belief. This will not take place when anything that was obscure or dubious is in course of exposition by the setting forth of its ground and reason, but only when that which is clear of itself is either magnified or extenuated, without any real departure from the pathway of the truth to be intimated; for the words may outrun the thing itself that is indicated only in such a way, that the will of him that speaketh, but without any intention to deceive, may be apparent, so that, knowing how far he will be believed, he, orally, either diminishes or magnifies his subject beyond the limit to which credit will be given. This mode of speaking is called by the Greek name hyperbole, by the masters not only of Greek, but also of Latin literature. And this mode is found not only here, but in several other parts also of the divine literature.

(Tract. cxxiv. 8) The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: though sometimes words themselves may exceed the truth, and yet the thing they express be true; a mode of speech which is used not to explain an obscure and doubtful, but to magnify or estimate a plain, thing: nor does it involve any departure from the path of truth; inasmuch as the excess of the word over the truth is evidently only a figure of speech, and not a deception. This way of speaking the Greeks call hyperbole, and it is found in other parts of Scripture.

There are also many other things which Jesus did. He shows that he did not write all things fully: in which he humbles our understanding, lest we believe ourselves capable of knowing all things. For this reason he says that he did not write them. Therefore he says: Which if they were written out one by one, I do not think the world itself could contain the books that would have to be written — the text should be construed thus: contain those books which would have to be written — because our capacity is small: whence above in chapter sixteen: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

It is asked: what does he mean when he says that the signs of Christ could not be contained in the whole world, since the world would contain the books not only if His deeds, but even all things that have been done from the beginning of the age, were written down? And it must be said that capacity is twofold: bodily and spiritual, which is through the intellect. If it is said of bodily capacity, it is spoken by way of hyperbole, as in other places of Scripture, as in the Psalm: They set their mouth against heaven: and concerning Solomon, that he made so great an abundance of silver as there are stones in Jerusalem, 3 Kings chapter ten. But if it is said or taken of the capacity of understanding, it is true according to the letter: whence Augustine: "We, knowing that our understanding could not contain the things that could be written concerning Christ: let us take care, by understanding with right faith what he wrote, and by practicing with right action what he taught, to arrive at the everlasting gifts which the Lord Himself promised," with the help of Him who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen.

Very great, then, says the apostle, will be the number of the miracles that God has done, and altogether without number will the list of his deeds be seen to be. And out of many thousands have these that are recorded been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. And let no one who is of a teachable spirit and loves instruction, John implies, blame the one who wrote this book because he has not recorded the rest. For if "the things" that he did "had been written"—every one, without any omission—then such an immeasurable number of the books would have filled the world. We maintain that, even as it is, the power of the Word has been displayed more than abundantly. For it is open to everyone to observe that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Savior. The preachers of the Gospels, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them, in all probability. They recorded what could best be confirmed by their hearers in incorruptible faith and those that would provide instruction in morality and doctrine. They did this so that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith and glorified by many works that result in righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above. And, being joined to the church of the firstborn in the faith, they might at length attain to the kingdom of heaven in Christ.

Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And I think it was for this reason that John, the son of thunder, who with the loud voice of the doctrines contained in his Gospel rose above that of the preaching that heralded them, said at the close of his Gospel, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, so many that, in fact, if all of them were written, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." He certainly does not mean by these the miracles of healing, for of these the narrative [in general terms] leaves none unrecorded, even though it does not mention the names of all who were healed. For when he tells us that the dead were raised, that the blind received their sight, that the deaf heard, that the lame walked and that he healed all kinds of sickness and disease, he does not in this leave any miracle unrecorded but embraces each and all in these general terms. But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone that he did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of his other work.… For since God has made all things in wisdom and to his wisdom there is no limit, … the world that is bounded by limits of its own cannot contain within itself the account of infinite wisdom. If, then, the whole world is too little to contain the teaching of the works of God, how many worlds could contain an account of the Lord of them all? For perhaps it will not be denied even by the tongue of the blasphemer that the maker of all things that have been created by the mere fiat of his will is infinitely greater than all. If, then, the whole creation cannot contain what might be said respecting itself—for this is, according to our explanation, what the great Evangelist is testifying to—how should human shallowness contain all that might be said of the Lord of creation?

"There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." "Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." (Acts v. 32.)

And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly. And if he has said that so many miracles had taken place, marvel thou not, but, considering the ineffable power of the Doer, receive with faith what is spoken. For it was as easy for Him to do whatever He would, as it is for us to speak, or rather much easier; for it sufficed that He should will only, and all followed.

And here we conclude … this commentary on the harp of the Spirit, on the heavenly theologian and Apostle who is the friend of the glory of the Lord, the holy John the younger.

Do not be amazed at what was said, that if books were written about the deeds of Jesus, the world could not contain them; but consider the ineffable power of God the Word and accept what was said with faith. For just as it is easy for us to speak, so it is easy for Him, and indeed far easier, to do whatever He pleases. Some say that this is said hyperbolically, according to the custom of Scripture; for Scripture habitually employs hyperboles. For example: "we saw cities reaching up to heaven" (Num. 13:29), "we saw sons, and we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers" (Num. 13:34), and the like. In the same sense, they say, it is said here that the world could not contain the books that would be written. Otherwise, by "the world" they understand a person who is minded toward worldly things; but the divine and mysterious works accomplished by Jesus in the invisible and visible world, and in the dispensation of the last times, which is full of mysteries, the worldly person cannot comprehend, according to the saying: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). But let us pray that the deeds and words of the Lord may never fall into oblivion among us, but that we may always open this book of the Beloved and seek out the treasure contained in the miracles and teaching of Jesus; that, having been purified in word and life, on the day of revelation we may be deemed worthy of the most ineffable deeds and mysteries which now, while we are in the world, we cannot contain, and may be made perfect in Christ Himself, Who loved us, and through His beloved disciple enlightened us with the theology and knowledge of Him — the Son, and of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.

Now John states the incompleteness of his Gospel as compared with the reality, because Christ not only did these things but there are also many other things which Jesus did.

His statement, were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, can be understood in two ways. First, the word contain can refer to the capacity of our minds to understand. So the meaning is: So much could be said about Christ that the world could not understand all that could be written: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," that is, understand them (16:12). We could also regard this statement as a deliberate exaggeration; and it then indicates the abundance of Christ's works.

How reconcile this? He had just said, we know that his testimony is true, and then immediately resorts to hyperbole, exceeding the truth. According to Augustine, Scripture does use figures of speech, such as "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne" (Is 6:1), and such statements are not false. This is so when hyperbole is used. The desire of the speaker is not that we accept the literal meaning of the words, but what they were intended to mean, that is, the great number of Christ's works. Hyperbole is not used to explain what is obscure or doubtful, but to exaggerate or minimize what is obvious. For example, to emphasize how plentiful something is, one can say that there is enough for a hundred or a thousand people. And to minimize something, one could say that there is hardly enough for three. This is not speaking falsely, because it is so obvious that the words contort the reality that they show that one does not intend to lie, but to indicate that something is great or small.

Or, this statement could be understood to refer to the power of Christ, who performed these signs; and the emphasis is on every one of them. For to write about each and every word and deed of Christ is to reveal the power of every word and deed. Now the words and deeds of Christ are also those of God. Thus, if one tried to write and tell of the nature of every one, he could not do so; indeed, the entire world could not do this. This is because even an infinite number of human words cannot equal one word of God. From the beginning of the Church Christ has been written about; but this is still not equal to the subject. Indeed, even if the world lasted a hundred thousand years, and books written about Christ, his words and deeds could not be completely revealed: "Of making many books there is no end" (Eccl 12:12); The works of God "are multiplied above number" (Ps 50:5).

It is fitting that it be recorded that the first Adam was cast out of Paradise into the desert, that you may observe how the second Adam returned from the desert to Paradise.… Adam brought death through the tree. Christ brought life through the cross. Adam, naked of spiritual things, covered himself with the foliage of a tree. Christ, naked of worldly things, did not desire the trappings of the body. Adam lived in the desert. Christ lived in the desert, for he knew where he could find the lost. With their error canceled, he could recall them to Paradise.…So Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, is led into the desert for a purpose, in order to challenge the devil. If he had not fought, he would not have conquered him for me.

He was led therefore into the wilderness, to the intent that He might provoke the devil, for if the one had not contended, the other it seems had not conquered. In a mystery, it was to deliver that Adam from exile who was cast out of Paradise into the wilderness. By way of example, it was to show us that the devil envies us, whenever we strive after better things; and that then we must use caution, lest the weakness of our minds should lose us the grace of the mystery. Hence it follows: And he was tempted of the devil.

There are three things which united together conduce to the salvation of man; The Sacrament, The Wilderness, Fasting. No one who has not rightly contended receives a crown, but no one is admitted to the contest of virtue, except first being washed from the stains of all his sins, he is consecrated with the gift of heavenly grace.

(Severus.) But if we order our lives according to our own will, how was He led about unwillingly? Those words then, He was led by the Spirit, have some meaning of this kind: He led of His own accord that kind of life, that He might present an opportunity to the tempter.

For not by word provoking the enemy, but by His actions rousing him, He seeks the wilderness. For the devil delights in the wilderness, he is not wont to go into the cities, the harmony of the citizens troubles him.

Now Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert for forty days. This, immediately after the baptism of the Lord, Matthew and Mark designate. One of them, after describing His baptism, immediately subjoined: Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil (Matthew IV). The other wrote thus: And immediately the Spirit drove him into the desert, and he was there for forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan (Mark I). Indeed, lest anyone should doubt by which spirit he was led or driven into the desert, Luke prudently wrote first that Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and then added, and was led by the Spirit into the desert, so that nothing might be thought to have prevailed against Him from an unclean spirit, who, full of the Holy Spirit, walked as He willed and did what He willed. For even later, where it is clearly stated that He was taken up or set up on high by the devil, it reflects not on His weakness, but on the enemy's arrogance who thinks to impose necessity on the Savior's will. Therefore, Jesus is not driven into the desert by the power of any evil spirit, but by the will of His own good Spirit, He enters the place of combat, certain of victory, to defeat the adversary. Here He also rightly shows us the order of virtuous living, so that after receiving in baptism the remission of sins and the grace of the Holy Spirit, we may gird ourselves more tightly against new snares of the ancient enemy, withdraw our mind from the world, and, like the manna in the desert, learn to hunger only for the joys of eternal life.

That there might be no doubt by what Spirit He was led, while the other Evangelists say, into the wilderness, Luke has purposely added, And he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness for forty days. That no unclean spirit should be thought to have prevailed against Him, who being full of the Holy Spirit did whatever He wished.

Merit consists in victory over temptations, because "the life of man upon earth is a warfare"; therefore the Evangelist describes how he overcame the diabolical temptation. For a complete description of this, three things are fitting, namely the occasion of the temptation; the manner of tempting; and the consummation of the temptation. The motive for tempting the devil drew from four things considered in Christ: the first is the fullness of grace, the second is the solitude of the place, the third is the suspicion of Divinity on account of his wondrous abstinence, the fourth is the observation of infirmity on account of his apparent need. The consideration of the fullness of grace moved the devil's will to tempt through envy; the consideration of solitude furnished the malice for tempting; the suspicion of Divinity incited the curiosity for tempting; the observation of necessity provided the opportunity for tempting.

He therefore introduces the fullness of grace in Christ, saying: But Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, not because He was first filled there, but because then His fullness first began to appear, by overflowing unto others, according to that passage of John chapter one: "And we saw His glory"; and afterwards: "Of His fullness we have all received." Full, I say, not only sufficiently, but also superabundantly: whence Colossians chapter one: "In Him it pleased all fullness to dwell"; and chapter two: "In whom all the fullness of the Divinity dwells bodily".

Then he adds the solitude of the place, because in the desert: on account of which he adds: And He was driven by the Spirit into the desert so that he might test whether He was God or the Son of God, because perhaps he had heard that word: "This is My beloved Son." To be driven by the Holy Spirit belongs to benignity: whence Romans chapter eight: "Whosoever are driven by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Hence Gregory says: "It is fittingly understood that He is believed to have been led by the Holy Spirit, so that His own Spirit might lead Him there where the evil spirit would find Him to tempt Him." Whence He led Him into the desert, where God is accustomed to speak intimately with the soul, according to that passage of Hosea chapter two: "I will lead her into the wilderness, and there I will speak to her heart." And therefore the holy soul says in the Psalm: "I went far off fleeing and remained in solitude"; so also David, in First Kings chapter twenty-three, "dwelt in the desert and remained in the mountain of solitude."

And note spiritually, that here Christ is said to be driven by the Spirit, in Matthew chapter four He is said to be led, in Mark chapter one He is said to be driven out. In which it is signified that one comes to the desert of penance in three ways, namely by the fear of severity, whose property it is to drive out from evil to good: Ecclesiasticus chapter one, "The fear of the Lord drives out sin," etc. By the splendor of truth, whose property it is to lead: Proverbs chapter four: "I will lead you through the paths of equity," etc., says Wisdom. By the love of goodness, whose property it is to drive: Romans chapter eight: "Whosoever are driven by the Spirit of God," etc. Or through threats, admonitions, and promises, which three correspond in us to the three powers of the soul, namely the irascible, the rational, and the concupiscible.

"He was led, therefore," it says, "in the Spirit in the wilderness forty days, being tempted of the devil." What is the meaning of the word led? It signifies not so much that he was led there as that he dwelt and continued there.…He dwelt therefore in the wilderness in the Spirit, that is, spiritually. He fasted, granting no food whatsoever to the necessities of the body. I imagine someone may immediately object to this: And what harm, then, did it do Jesus to dwell in cities constantly? And in what way could it benefit him to choose to inhabit the wilderness? He did not lack one good thing. And why, too, did he fast also? Why was it necessary for him to labor? He does not know what it means to have a depraved desire. For we adopt the practice of fasting as a very useful expedient, by which we kill pleasure and attack the law of sin that is in our bodies and completely destroy those emotions which lead on to fleshly lust. But why did Christ need to fast? The Father slays the sin in the flesh by his body. He kills the motions of the flesh in us. He has abolished sin in miserable beings—in us. What kind of fasting could he need in anything that concerns himself? He is holy, undefiled by nature, wholly pure and without blemish. He cannot experience even the shadow of a change.

God said in times past, My Spirit shall not always abide in men, for that they are flesh. (Gen. 6:3. Vulg.) But now that we have been enriched with the gift of regeneration by water and the Spirit, we are become partakers of the Divine nature by participation of the Holy Spirit. But the first-born among many brethren first received the Spirit, who Himself also is the giver of the Spirit, that we through Him might also receive the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Behold, He is among the wrestlers, who as God awards the prizes. He is among the crowned, who crowns the heads of the saints.

Why didn't Satan tempt him before his thirtieth year? He tempted Jesus because a definite sign of Christ's divinity had not yet been given from heaven. He appeared modest like others, and he had not received any obvious homage in the presence of his people. Satan refrained from tempting him until the beginning of this event. When he heard, "Now, behold the Lamb of God is coming," and "This is he who takes away the sins of the world," Satan was astonished. Yet he waited until Jesus was baptized to see if he would be baptized as if he needed to be baptized.Then he saw the splendor of the light that appeared on the water, the voice that came from heaven. Then Satan knew that he who fulfills every need had gone down into the water and that he had not come to baptism as if he needed to be baptized. Satan reflected and said to himself, "As long as I have not tested him by combat through temptation I will not be able to identify him." But it was not fitting that the Benefactor should resist the will of him who had come to tempt him. For, not knowing how to tempt him, Satan did not dare approach him.

It is often doubted by some by what spirit Jesus was led into the desert. This question is properly understood if we believe he was led into the desert by the Holy Spirit, so that his own Spirit would lead him there, where the evil spirit would then find him to tempt him.

Therefore it is not unworthy of our Redeemer that he willed to be tempted, he who had come to be killed. For it was just that he should overcome our temptations by his temptations, just as he had come to conquer our death by his death.

But we should know that temptation occurs in three ways: by suggestion, by delight, and by consent. And when we are tempted, we frequently fall into delight or even into consent, because having been propagated from the sin of the flesh, we bear within ourselves that from which we endure struggles. But God, who was incarnate in the womb of a Virgin and came into the world without sin, tolerated no contradiction within himself. Therefore he could be tempted through suggestion, but the delight of sin did not bite his mind. And so all that diabolical temptation was external, not internal.

When therefore you read that Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit, and it is written in the Acts concerning the Apostles, that they were filled with the Holy Spirit, you must not suppose that the Apostles were equal to the Saviour. For as if you should say, These vessels are full of wine or oil, you would not thereby affirm them to be equally full, so Jesus and Paul were full of the Holy Spirit, but Paul's vessel was far less than that of Jesus, and yet each was filled according to its own measure. Having then received baptism, the Saviour, being full of the Holy Spirit, which came upon Him from heaven in the form of a dove, was led by the Spirit, because, as many as are led by the Spirit, they are the sons of God, (Rom. 8:14.) but He was above all, especially the Son of God.

By and by the Lord Himself consecrated His own baptism (and, in His own, that of all) by fasts; having (the power) to make "loaves out of stones," say, to make Jordan flow with wine perchance, if He had been such a "glutton and toper.

Christ is tempted after His baptism, showing us that after we are baptized, temptations await us. Hence it is said, But Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit, &c.

But mark the mystical number of days. For you remember that for forty days the waters of the deep were poured forth, and by sanctifying a fast of that number of days, He brings before us the returning mercies of a calmer sky. By a fast of so many days also, Moses earned for himself the understanding of the law. Our fathers being for so many years settled in the wilderness, obtained the food of Angels.

(de Con. Ev. lib. ii. c. 4.) Now that number is a sacrament of our time and labour, in which under Christ's discipline we contend against the devil, for it signifies our temporal life. For the seasons of the year run in courses of four, but forty contains four tens. Again, those ten are completed by the number one successively advancing up to four. This plainly shows that the fast of forty days, i. e. the humiliation of the soul, the Law and the Prophets have consecrated by Moses and Elias, the Gospel by the fast of our Lord Himself.

Or, the Lord remained for forty days untempted, for the devil knew that He fasted, yet hungered not, and dared not therefore approach Him. Hence it follows: And he eat nothing in those days. He fasted indeed, to show that He who would gird Himself for struggles against temptation must be temperate and sober.

(ex Const. Mon.) But we must not however so use the flesh, that through want of food our strength should waste away, nor that by excess of mortification our understandings wax dull and heavy. Our Lord therefore, once performed this work, but during this whole succeeding time He governed His body with due order, and so in like manner did Moses and Elias.

(ubi sup.) But because not to suffer hunger is above the nature of man, our Lord took upon Himself the feeling of hunger, and submitted Himself as it pleased Him to human nature, both to do and to suffer those things which were His own. Hence it follows: And those days being ended, he was a hungered. Not forced to that necessity which overpowers nature, but as if provoking the devil to the conflict. For the devil, knowing that wherever hunger is there is weakness, sets about to tempt Him, and as the deviser or inventer of temptations, Christ permitting him tries to persuade Him to satisfy His appetite with the stones. As it follows; But the devil said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command these stones that they be made bread.

And he ate nothing during those days, and when they were ended, he was hungry. The forty-day fast has authority both in the old books from the fast of Moses and Elijah, and from the Gospel, because the Lord fasted for the same number of days, demonstrating that the Gospel does not dissent from the law and the prophets. For the law is perceived in the person of Moses, and the prophets in the person of Elijah. Among them, he appeared gloriously on the mountain, so that it might more clearly stand out what the Apostle says about him: "Having a witness from the law and the prophets" (Romans 3). But in which part of the year is it more fitting that the observance of Lent should be established, if not adjacent and contiguous to the Lord's Passion, because in it is signified this laborious life, which requires continence, to fast from the friendship of this world. Otherwise: the Lord fasted while he was tempted before death, still needing food. However, he ate and drank after the resurrection, already not needing food. For here he was showing our labor in himself, but there his consolation in us, defining both in forty days. For this number seems to signify the course of this age, in those who are called by grace, to him who did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5). For there are ten commandments of the law, now diffused by the grace of Christ throughout the world, and the world is fourfold, and ten times four makes forty. Because those redeemed by the Lord, he has gathered from the regions. From the East, and the West, and the North, and the sea. Thus fasting for forty days before the death of the flesh, as if he were crying out: Abstain from the desires of this world (1 Peter 2). But eating and drinking for forty days after the resurrection of the flesh, as if he were crying out: Behold, I am with you until the end of the age (Matthew 28). Fasting is indeed in the tribulation of struggle, because he who is in the contest abstains from everything. But food is in the hope of peace, which will not be perfect until our body, whose redemption we await, puts on immortality, which we do not yet attain by glory, but are nourished by hope. The Apostle shows that we engage in both together, saying: Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation (Romans 12). As if that were in food, this in fasting. For simultaneously, as we tread the Lord's way, we fast from the vanity of the present age, and are refreshed by the promise of the future, not setting our hearts here, but feeding our hearts above. But the fact that the Lord was hungry after the days of fasting were ended, whereas nothing of the sort is written of Moses or Elijah when they fasted, happened so that he, fearing the temptation, would not flee away sad, whom he saw proclaimed with so many heavenly signs, and equal to the most excellent men in abstaining. For the humble God-man was hungry, so that he might not reveal to the enemy the sublime man-God.

And the time is specified, namely forty days, so that thus the truth might correspond to the figure: so Moses, Exodus chapter twenty-four; so Elijah, Third Kings chapter nineteen, so that thus Christ's fast might have testimony from both the Law and the Prophets. And lest you believe that Christ withdrew there for rest, it is added: And He was tempted by the devil, not interiorly, but only exteriorly. For as Gregory says: "The delight of sin did not bite His mind"; Hebrews chapter four: "We do not have a High Priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, tempted in all things according to likeness, without sin."

Third, he introduces a wondrous abstinence, when he adds: And he ate nothing in those days, namely the forty days. From this the devil suspected him to be God, because he was fasting beyond human power, which commonly does not extend beyond three days; hence in Matthew 15 it is said concerning the crowds who had been fasting for three days: "I am unwilling to send them away fasting, lest they faint on the way." And note here that the Savior fasted before the temptation and ate after the resurrection for our instruction. Hence Augustine: "Christ fasted before the death of the flesh, as if crying out: Abstain from carnal desires, while you are in the struggle. He ate after the resurrection, as if to say: while you have a mortal body, feed yourselves now on the hope of immortality, because while we travel the way of the Lord, we ought both to fast from the vanity of the world and to be refreshed by the promise of the future," so that we may always say: "I shall be satisfied when your glory appears."

Finally, he adds an apparent need, when he subjoins: And when they were completed, he was hungry. For he did not wish to abstain any longer, lest the devil be able to perceive it. Hence Ambrose: "He hungers, lest the sublime God be recognized; for the hunger of the Lord is a pious ruse, lest the devil beware of tempting him." And note that he hungered in the temptation, as is said here, and thirsted in the passion, as is said in John 19, to show that he had true humanity, and to invite to poverty and the painfulness of penance; hence the Apostle in 2 Corinthians 11: "In hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness, in many fastings." Moreover, he hungered and thirsted not for himself, but for us, for whom he merited the spiritual refreshment of his body and blood, by which we are fed and given drink; John 6: "My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink."

(Orat. 40.) He fasted in truth forty days, eating nothing. (For He was God.) But we regulate our fasting according to our strength, although the zeal of some persuades them to fast beyond what they are able.

But since the reading is fitting for these days—for we have heard of the forty days' abstinence of our Redeemer as we begin the season of Lent—we must discuss why this very abstinence is observed for the number of forty days. For Moses fasted twice for forty days in order to receive the law. Elijah abstained for forty days in the desert. The very Author of humanity, coming to humanity, took no food at all for forty days.

Why then is the number forty observed in abstinence, unless because the power of the Decalogue is fulfilled through the four books of the holy Gospel? For ten multiplied by four produces forty, because we fulfill the commandments of the Decalogue when we indeed keep the four books of the holy Gospel.

(3. Mor. sup. Job 2.) Our enemy was however unable to shake the purpose of the Mediator between God and men. For He condescended to be tempted outwardly, yet so that His soul inwardly, resting in its divinity, remained unshaken.

(Hom. 13. in Matt.) But very wisely, He exceeded not their number of days, lest indeed He should be thought to have come in appearance only, and not to have really received the flesh, or lest the flesh should seem to be something beyond human nature.

But Jesus is tempted by the devil forty days, and what the temptations were we know not. They were perhaps omitted, as being greater than could be committed to writing.

So, look at the arms of Christ with which he conquered for you, not for himself. For he who showed that stones could, through his majesty, be changed into bread by the transformation into a different nature, teaches that you must do nothing at the devil's behalf nor for the purpose of manifesting virtue. At the same time, learn from the temptation itself the ingenious cunning of the devil. The devil tempts that he may test. He tests that he may tempt. In contrast, the Lord deceives that he may conquer. He conquers that he may deceive. For if he had changed nature, he would have betrayed its Creator. Thus he responded neutrally, saying, "It is written, 'That man lives not by bread alone, but by every word of God.' " You see what kind of arms he wields, to defend humanity, surrounded and protected against the inducements of appetite, against the assault of spiritual wickedness. For he does not wield power as God—for what good would that be to me? So, as man, he summons common help for himself, so that eager for the food of the divine Word, he neglects the body's hunger and obtains the nourishment of the heavenly Word. Eager for this, Moses did not desire bread. Eager for this, Elijah did not feel the hunger of a long fast. For he who follows the Word cannot desire earthly bread when he receives the essence of the heavenly Bread. There is no doubt that the divine surpasses the human, as the spiritual the physical. Therefore he who desires true life awaits that Bread which through its intangible substance strengthens human hearts. At the same time, when he says, "Man lives not by bread alone," he shows that the man is tempted, that is, his acceptance of our flesh, not his divinity.

There are three especial weapons which we are taught the devil is wont to arm himself with, that he may wound the soul of man. One is of the appetite, another of boasting, the third ambition. He began with that wherewith he had already conquered, namely, Adam. Let us then beware of the appetite, let us beware of luxury, for it is a weapon of the devil. But what mean his words, If thou art the Son of God, unless he had known that the Son would come, but supposed Him not to have come from the weakness of His body. He first endeavours to find Him out, then to tempt Him. He professes to trust Him as God, then tries to deceive Him as man.

You see then what kind of arms He uses to defend man against the assaults of spiritual wickedness, and the allurements of the appetite. He does not exert His power as God, (for how had that profited me,) but as man He summons to Himself a common aid, that while intent upon the food of divine reading He may neglect the hunger of the body, and gain the nourishment of the word. For he who seeks after the word cannot feel the want of earthly bread; for divine things doubtless make up for the loss of human. At the same time by saying, Man lives not by bread alone, He shows that man was tempted, that is, our flesh which He assumed, not His own divinity.

(ubi sup.) He tried to persuade Christ to satisfy His appetite with stones, i. e. to shift his desire from the natural food to that which was beyond nature or unnatural.

The devil said to him: If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread. The ancient enemy recognized that the redeemer of the human race had come into the world, his conqueror, and thus said through a possessed man: What have we to do with you, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time? (Matt. VIII). However, when he first saw Him as vulnerable, observed Him able to endure mortal things due to His humanity, everything he suspected about His divinity came into doubt out of the pride of his arrogance. For nothing wise, except for the proud, doubted that He was God when he saw Him humble. Therefore, he turned to the means of temptations. But not like us who are pure humans, often shaken by attacking temptation, was the soul of our Redeemer troubled by the necessity of temptation. For our enemy, even if he was permitted to take Him to a high mountain, even if he proclaimed he would give Him the kingdoms of the world, even if he showed stones that could be turned into bread, still he could not shake the mind of the Mediator between God and men with temptation. For He graciously endured all these things outwardly, such that His mind inwardly, remaining attached to His divinity, remained unshaken. Even when it is said that He was troubled in spirit and groaned, He Himself divinely arranged how much He would be troubled humanly.

After he described the occasion of the temptation, here he describes the manner of tempting, and this according to a threefold motive. Now the motive to sin is a changeable good, which exists in a threefold difference: either it is inferior, and this belongs to the flesh; or exterior, and this belongs to the world; or interior, and this is the excellence of the mind. From the first, a person is made voluptuous; from the second, curious; from the third, presumptuous. In the first way, the tempter brings a suggestion through the inferior good, which belongs to the flesh, to entice to gluttony; in the second, through the exterior good, which belongs to the world, to entice to avarice; in the third, through the interior good, which is the excellence of the mind, to entice to pomp or pride. And these three correspond to the three things in which he tempted and conquered the first man, and these temptations follow an ordered progression from lower to higher: because by the first, one is assailed with respect to the act of the vegetative power; by the second, with respect to the act of the sensitive power; by the third, with respect to the act of the rational power.

He introduces the devil tempting, when he says: And the devil said to him: If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread, which he says so that he himself might gain proof concerning him and so that he might incite him to gluttony. For since you are a hungry man, command that you may be refreshed: not because the refreshment of Christ pertained to him in any way: Proverbs twenty-three: "Eat and drink, he will say to you, and his heart is not with you"; but if you are the Son of God, say this very thing, so that, if it comes to pass, you may be recognized as omnipotent: Ecclesiastes eight: "His word is full of power, and whatever he wills, he will do." Hence note the cunning of the devil in tempting, because, when he saw Christ's weakness and doubted his Divinity, he wished to guard against the Divinity by discovering it and to cast down his humanity by seducing it. In which there was at once deceit and pride, according to that passage of Job forty-one: "He beholds every high thing, and he himself is king over all the children of pride."

Every year God makes a little corn into much corn: the seed is sown and there is an increase, and men, according to the fashion of their age, say "It is Ceres, it is Adonis, it is the Corn King," or else "It is the Laws of Nature." The close-up, the translation, of this annual wonder is the feeding of the five thousand. Bread is not made there of nothing. Bread is not made of stones, as the Devil once suggested to our Lord in vain. A little bread is made into much bread. The Son will do nothing but what He sees the Father do. There is, so to speak, a family style.

Satan said, "If you are the Son of God, bid this stone become bread." He approaches him, therefore, as an ordinary man and as one of the saints, yet he had a suspicion that possibly he might be the Christ. How, then, did he hope to learn if this was the case? He reasoned that to change the nature of any thing into that which it was not would be the act and deed of a divine power. For it is God who makes these things and transforms them. "If he does this," said the devil, "certainly it is he who is expected to subvert my power. But if he refuses to work this change, I am dealing with a man. I will set aside my fear. I am delivered from danger." Therefore it was that Christ, knowing the monster's plan, neither made the change nor said that he was either unable or unwilling to make it. Rather, the Lord shakes him off as annoying and meddlesome, saying, "Man shall not live by bread alone." He means this: If God grants a man the ability, he can survive without eating and live as Moses and Elijah, who by the Word of the Lord passed forty days without taking food. If, therefore, it is possible to live without bread, why should I make the stone bread? He purposely does not say, "I cannot," that he may not deny his own power. Nor does he say, "I can," lest the devil, knowing that he is God, for whom alone such things are possible, should depart from him.: Observe, I beg you, how the nature of man in Christ casts off the faults of Adam's gluttony. By eating we were conquered in Adam, by abstinence we conquered in Christ.

But if we examine the very order of his temptation, let us consider with what great power we are freed from temptation. The ancient enemy raised himself against the first man, our parent, in three temptations, because he tempted him with gluttony, vainglory, and avarice; but by tempting he overcame him, because he subjected him to himself through consent. Indeed, he tempted him through gluttony when he showed him the food of the forbidden tree and persuaded him to eat. He tempted him through vainglory when he said: You shall be as gods. And he tempted him through the advancement of avarice when he said: Knowing good and evil. For avarice is not only of money, but also of exaltation. For it is rightly called avarice when loftiness is sought beyond measure. For if the seizure of honor did not pertain to avarice, Paul would never say of the only-begotten Son of God: He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God. Moreover, the devil drew our parent to pride in this, that he aroused him to avarice for exaltation.

But by the same means by which he overthrew the first man, by those same means he was overcome when he tempted the second man. For he tempts through gluttony when he says: "Command that these stones become bread." He tempts through vainglory when he says: "If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down." He tempts through the greed of ambition when he shows all the kingdoms of the world, saying: "All these things I will give you, if you fall down and worship me." But by the same means by which he boasted of having conquered the first man, he is conquered by the second man, so that he might depart from our hearts, captured at the very entrance by which he had entered and held us. But there is something else, dearest brothers, that we ought to consider in this temptation of the Lord: that when tempted by the devil, the Lord responded with the precepts of sacred Scripture, and he who could have plunged his tempter into the abyss by that Word which he was, did not display the power of his might, but gave only the precepts of divine Scripture, so that he might offer us an example of his patience, that whenever we suffer anything from wicked people, we might be stirred to teaching rather than to vengeance. Consider how great is the patience of God, and how great is our impatience. If we are provoked by injuries or some harm, moved by fury, we either avenge ourselves as much as we can, or we threaten what we cannot do. Behold, the Lord endured the adversity of the devil, and answered him with nothing but words of gentleness. He bore him whom he could have punished, so that his praise might grow higher from this: that he overcame his enemy not by destroying him, but by enduring him for the time being.

And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God. Yea, even the demons exclaimed, on beholding the Son: "We know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God." And the devil looking at Him, and tempting Him, said: "If Thou art the Son of God;" -all thus indeed seeing and speaking of the Son and the Father, but all not believing [in them].

When a father is asked by his son for bread, he does not give him a stone for bread, but the devil like a crafty and deceitful foe gives stones for bread.

I suppose also that even now at this very time the devil shows a stone to men that he may tempt them to speak, saying to them, Command this stone to be made bread. If thou seest the heretics devouring their lying doctrines as if they were bread, know that their teaching is a stone which the devil shows them.

By and by the Lord Himself consecrated His own baptism (and, in His own, that of all) by fasts; having (the power) to make "loaves out of stones," say, to make Jordan flow with wine perchance, if He had been such a "glutton and toper.

Truly in a moment of time, the kingdoms of this world are described. For here it is not so much the rapid glance of sight which is signified as is declared the frailty of mortal power. For in a moment all this passes by, and oftentimes the glory of this world has vanished before it has arrived. It follows, And he said unto him, I will give thee all this power.

And the devil led him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. When God, made man, is said to be led by the devil, the mind recoils, human ears shudder to hear this. Yet we recognize these things are not incredible, if we consider other deeds in him. Certainly the devil is the head of all the wicked, and all the wicked are members of this head. Therefore, what wonder if he allowed himself to be led by him to a mountain, who also endured being crucified by his members? It is not unworthy of our Redeemer, who willed to be tempted, having come to be killed. For it was just that he should overcome our temptations with his own temptations, just as he came to conquer our death with his death. But indeed, worldly and temporal things are shown in a moment of time. For it does not so much indicate the speed of sight, as it expresses the fragility of fleeting power. For in a moment all these things pass away, and often the honor of the world departs before it arrives. For what can be long-lasting in the world, when even the ages themselves are not long-lasting?

Here the second temptation is described, concerning which two things are to be noted. The first is the diabolical suggestion, and the second is the Lord's response. Concerning the devil's suggestion, note the leading, the showing, the promising, the persuading. The leading is done as if to one who is powerless, although it is said in Wisdom 12: "Power is at hand for you whenever you will it." Whence he says: And the devil led him to a high mountain: he led, I say, as one who was weak, yet not unwilling, as Peter, of whom it is said in the last chapter of John: "When you are old, another will gird you and lead you where you do not wish to go"; but as one humbly permitting, after the manner of him of whom Isaiah 53 says: "He shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer he shall be silent," etc. If therefore he endured this from the members of the devil, what wonder if he patiently endured it from the head of the wicked? And he led him to a mountain, because, being proud, he always seeks high places: Isaiah 14: "I will ascend above the stars, I will sit upon the mountain of the covenant"; and because in a place of eminence man easily falls: whence 3 Kings 22: "I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains."

The showing is done as if to one who is ignorant, although "in him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," Colossians 2. Whence he adds: And he showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And note that he is said to have shown him all the kingdoms of the world, not individually, but generally, as a certain author says, that is, all their parts. Or, according to Bede, "he showed all the desirable things of the world, in which men reign," whence it is pointedly said in Matthew 4: "He showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." "He showed them, however, not in order to enlarge his sight, but, as Bede says, displaying the vanity of human pomp, which he loved, as though it were beautiful, he wished to make it be loved." And because these things do not endure but quickly pass away, therefore he showed them in a brief time; on account of which he adds: In a moment of time. Whence Bede: "Not so much the swiftness of sight is noted as the fragility of fleeting power. For in a moment all things pass away," according to that saying of Isaiah 40: "Behold, the nations are as a drop from a bucket and are reckoned as the turning of a balance"; because, Wisdom 11, "as the turning of a balance, so is the world before you"; "for in a moment, the nation that was most illustrious was destroyed," as is said in Wisdom 18, and in the Psalm: "I saw the wicked highly exalted, etc. And I passed by, and behold, he was no more."

But O thou malignant, and wicked, and accursed being, how didst thou dare to shew the Lord all the kingdoms of the whole creation, and say, "All these are mine? Now therefore if Thou wilt fall down and worship me, I will give them Thee." How dost thou promise that which is not thine? Who made thee heir of God's kingdom? Who made thee lord of all under heaven? Thou hast seized these things by fraud. Restore them therefore to the incarnate Son, the Lord of all. Hear what the prophet Isaiah says respecting thee; "Hath it been prepared for thee also to reign? a deep gulf, fire, and brimstone, and wood laid in order; the anger of the Lord as a gulf burning with brimstone." How then dost thou, whose lot is the inextinguishable flame, promise to the King of all that which is His own? Didst thou think to have Him as thy worshipper at Whom all things tremble, while the Seraphim, and all the angelical powers hymn His glory?

But behold, when it is said that God made man was taken up by the devil onto a high mountain, the mind recoils, human ears are terrified to hear this. Yet we recognize that these things are not incredible if we consider other things that were done to him. Certainly the devil is the head of all the wicked, and all the wicked are members of this head. Was not Pilate a member of the devil? Were not the Jews who persecuted and the soldiers who crucified Christ members of the devil? What wonder is it then if he allowed himself to be led onto a mountain by him, who also allowed himself to be crucified by his members?

(Hom. 6. in Ev.) What marvel that He permitted Himself to be led by the devil into the mountains, who even endured to be crucified in His own body?

We should not think that when the devil showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world, he showed him, for example, the kingdom of the Persians and of the Indians. "He showed him all the kingdoms of the world," that is, his own kingdom, how he reigned in the world.

Or, to view the whole in another light. Two kings are earnestly contending for a kingdom; The king of sin who reigneth over sinners, that is, the devil; The king of righteousness who ruleth the righteous, that is, Christ. The devil, knowing that Christ had come to take away his kingdom, shows Him all the kingdoms of the world; not the kingdoms of the Persians and of the Medes, but his own kingdom whereby he reigned in the world, whereby some are under the dominion of fornication, others of covetousness. And he shows Him them in a moment of time, that is, in the present course of time, which is but a moment in comparison of eternity. For the Saviour needed not to be shown for any longer time the affairs of this world, but as soon as He turned His eyes to look, He beheld sins reigning, and men made slaves to vice. The devil therefore says unto Him, Camest Thou to contend with me for dominion? Worship me, and behold I give Thee the kingdom I hold. Now the Lord would indeed reign, but being Righteousness itself, would reign without sin; and would have all nations subject to Him, that they might obey the truth, but would not so reign over others as that He Himself should be subject to the devil. Hence it follows, And Jesus answering said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.

Or else, All these, he says, I would have subject to me, that they might worship the Lord God, and serve Him alone. But dost thou wish sin to begin from Me, which I came hither to destroy?

The enemy had first assailed Christ by the temptation of the appetite, as also he did Adam. He next tempts Him with the desire of gain or covetousness, showing Him all the kingdoms of the world. Hence it follows, And the devil taking him up.

But how did the devil show Him all the kingdoms of the world? Some say that he presented them to Him in imagination, but I hold that he brought them before Him in visible form and appearance.

Or, the devil described the world in language, and as he thought brought it vividly before our Lord's mind as though it were a certain house.

For it is elsewhere said, that all power is from God. (Rom. 13:1.) Therefore from God's hands comes the disposal of power, the lust of power is from the evil one; power is not itself evil, but he who evilly uses it. What then; is it good to exercise power, to desire honour? Good if it is bestowed upon us, not if it is seized. We must distinguish however in this good itself. There is one good use of the world, another of perfect virtue. It is good to seek God; it is a good thing that the desire of becoming acquainted with God should be hindered by no worldly business. But if he who seeks God, is from the weakness of the flesh, and the narrowness of his mind, often tempted, how much more is he exposed who seeks the world? We are taught then to despise ambition, because it is subject to the power of the devil. But honour abroad is followed by danger at home, and in order to rule others a man is first their servant, and prostrates himself in obedience that he may be rewarded with honours, and the higher he aspires the lower he bends with feigned humility; whence he adds, If thou will fall down and worship me.

And he said: I will give you all this power and their glory, for they have been delivered to me, and I give them to whom I will. Therefore, if you will fall down and worship before me, all will be yours. Arrogant and proud, he even speaks this out of boastfulness, not that he holds power over the whole world, such that the devil could give all kingdoms, since we know that many holy men were made kings by God. He says, if you will fall down and worship before me. Therefore, he who will worship the devil has already fallen.

The promise is made to him as if to one who is in need, although his is "the world and its fullness." On account of which is added: And he said to him: I will give you all this power and their glory, etc., so that you may have the dominion of power and the proclamation of praise, as though he were promising something great, although the power and glory of the world are as nothing, according to that saying of Isaiah 40: "All flesh is grass, and all its glory is as the flower of the field"; and 1 Maccabees 2: "The glory of a sinful man is dung and worms"; and that saying of Hosea 4: "I will change their glory into shame."

And to show that faith must be given to the promise, he adds: Because they have been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish, I give them; Job 9: "The earth is given into the hands of the wicked," that is, earthly power. But this is understood permissively, not absolutely, but for a time, as is said in Daniel 11: "The king shall do according to his will and shall magnify himself against every god"; "and he shall multiply glory and shall give power over many and shall divide the land gratuitously"; and in Apocalypse 13 it is said that "the dragon gave power to the beast." But God permits this by his just judgment. "He therefore transfers kingdoms and establishes them," as is said in Daniel 2. Or, as Bede says, he says this out of arrogance, not because the whole world was his, since only the Son says truly: "All things have been delivered to me by the Father," Matthew 11; and again in the last chapter of Matthew: "All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth," etc. But because every disorder of power is ascribed to him, he, as one who is proud, ascribes the whole to himself. Whence every ordering of power is from God, as is said in Romans 13; but disorder is from the devil, because in First John 3 it is said: "He who sins is of the devil."

And dost thou, whose lot is the unquenchable fire, promise to the Lord of all that which is His own? Didst thou think to have Him for thy worshipper, from dread of whom the whole creation trembles?

He tempts through the greed of ambition when he shows all the kingdoms of the world. For avarice is not only of money, but also of exaltation. For it is rightly called avarice when loftiness is sought beyond measure. For if the seizure of honor did not pertain to avarice, Paul would never say of the only-begotten Son of God: He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God.

Yea, thou even darest, most accursed one, to appropriate the works of God to thyself, and to declare that the dominion over these was delivered to thee. And thou dost set forth thine own fall as an example to the Lord, and dost promise to give Him what is really His own, if He would fall down and worship thee. And how didst thou not shudder, O thou spirit more wicked through thy malevolence than all other wicked spirits, to utter such words against the Lord?

For he himself confesses that to adore him, and to do his will, is to fall from the glory of God. And in what thing either pleasant or good can that man who has fallen participate? Or what else can such a person hope for or expect, except death? For death is next neighbour to him who has fallen. Hence also it follows that he will not give what he has promised. For how can he make grants to him who has fallen? Moreover, since God rules over men and him too, and without the will of our Father in heaven not even a sparrow falls to the ground, it follows that his declaration, "All these things are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give them," proceeds from him when puffed up with pride. For the creation is not subjected to his power, since indeed he is himself but one among created things. Nor shall he give away the rule over men to men; but both all other things, and all human affairs, are arranged according to God the Father's disposal. Besides, the Lord declares that "the devil is a liar from the beginning, and the truth is not in him." If then he be a liar and the truth be not in him, he certainly did not speak truth, but a lie, when he said, "For all these things are delivered to me, and to whomsoever I will I give them."

As therefore the devil lied at the beginning, so did he also in the end, when he said, "All these are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give them." For it is not he who has appointed the kingdoms of this world, but God; for "the heart of the king is in the hand of God." And the Word also says by Solomon, "By me kings do reign, and princes administer justice. By me chiefs are raised up, and by me kings rule the earth." Paul the apostle also says upon this same subject: "Be ye subject to all the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: now those which are have been ordained of God." And again, in reference to them he says, "For he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath to him who does evil." Now, that he spake these words, not in regard to angelical powers, nor of invisible rulers-as some venture to expound the passage-but of those of actual human authorities, [he shows when] he says, "For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, doing service for this very thing." This also the Lord confirmed, when He did not do what He was tempted to by the devil; but He gave directions that tribute should be paid to the tax-gatherers for Himself and Peter; because "they are the ministers of God, serving for this very thing."

For since man, by departing from God, reached such a pitch of fury as even to look upon his brother as his enemy, and engaged without fear in every kind of restless conduct, and murder, and avarice; God imposed upon mankind the fear of man, as they did not acknowledge the fear of God, in order that, being subjected to the authority of men, and kept under restraint by their laws, they might attain to some degree of justice, and exercise mutual forbearance through dread of the sword suspended full in their view, as the apostle says: "For he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath upon him who does evil." And for this reason too, magistrates themselves, having laws as a clothing of righteousness whenever they act in a just and legitimate manner, shall not be called in question for their conduct, nor be liable to punishment. But whatsoever they do to the subversion of justice, iniquitously, and impiously, and illegally, and tyrannically, in these things shall they also perish; for the just judgment of God comes equally upon all, and in no case is defective. Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of nations, and not by the devil, who is never at rest at all, nay, who does not love to see even nations conducting themselves after a quiet manner, so that under the fear of human rule, men may not eat each other up like fishes; but that, by means of the establishment of laws, they may keep down an excess of wickedness among the nations. And considered from this point of view, those who exact tribute from us are "God's ministers, serving for this very purpose."

As, then, "the powers that be are ordained of God," it is clear that the devil lied when he said, "These are delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give them." For by the law of the same Being as calls men into existence are kings also appointed, adapted for those men who are at the time placed under their government. Some of these [rulers] are given for the correction and the benefit of their subjects, and for the preservation of justice; but others, for the purposes of fear and punishment and rebuke: others, as [the subjects] deserve it, are for deception, disgrace, and pride; while the just judgment of God, as I have observed already, passes equally upon all. The devil, however, as he is the apostate angel, can only go to this length, as he did at the beginning, [namely] to deceive and lead astray the mind of man into disobeying the commandments of God, and gradually to darken the hearts of those who would endeavour to serve him, to the forgetting of the true God, but to the adoration of himself as God.

[Daniel 4:4] "I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace." The narrative is clear indeed and requires but little interpretation. Because he displeased God, Nebuchadnezzar was turned into a madman and dwelt for seven years amongst the brute beasts and was fed upon the roots of herbs, Afterwards by the mercy of God he was restored to his throne, and praised and glorified the King of heaven, on the ground that all His works are truth and His ways are justice and He is able to abase those who walk in pride. But there are some who claim to understand by the figure of Nebuchadnezzar the hostile power which the Lord speaks of in the Gospel, saying: "I beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Likewise John in Revelation, in the passage where the dragon falls upon the earth drawing a third of the stars with him (Revelation 12:4). Likewise Isaiah: "How hath the morning star fallen, which used to rise early in the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). These authorities assert that it was absolutely impossible for a man who was reared in luxury to subsist on hay for seven years and to dwell among wild beasts for seven years without being at all mangled by them. Also they ask how the imperial authority could have been kept waiting for a mere madman, and how so mighty a kingdom could have gone without a king for so long a period. If, on the other hand, anyone had succeeded him on the throne, how foolish he would have to be thought to surrender an imperial authority which he had possessed for so long. Such a thing would be especially incredible since the historical records of the Chaldeans contain no such record, and since they recorded matters of far less import, it is impossible that they should have left things of major importance unmentioned. And so they pose all of these questions and offer as their own reply the proposition that since the episode does not stand up as genuine history, the figure of Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil. To this position we make not the slightest concession; otherwise everything we read in Scripture may appear to be imperfect representations and mere fables. For once men have lost their reason, who would not perceive them to lead their existence like brutish animals in the open fields and forest regions? And to pass over all other considerations, since Greek and Roman history offer episodes far more incredible, such as Scylla and the Chimaera, the Hydra and the Centaurs, and the birds and wild beasts and flowers and trees, the stars and the stones into which men are related to have been transformed, what is so remarkable about the execution of such a divine judgment as this for the manifestation of God's power and the humbling of the pride of kings? Nebuchadnezzar says, "'I was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace...'" or as Theodo-tion renders it "upon my throne." Now those who follow the interpretation we are opposing understand by the devil's home this world of ours. Concerning the world Satan himself in the Gospel says to the Savior: "All these things have been given over to me" (Luke 4:6). Likewise the Apostle says: "The world lieth in the Wicked One" (1 John 5:19).

He lied in two respects. For he neither had to give, nor could he give that which he had not; he gains possession of nothing, but is an enemy reduced to fight.

Fourth, the persuasion is made as if to one who desires, when nevertheless he himself "gives to all abundantly," James 1. Whence he says: If you therefore, falling down, will worship before me, etc. In this persuasion he strives to incline toward true adoration on account of a false promise, whence that passage in Isaiah 51: "Bow down, that we may pass over." For he cannot ascend over man unless man falls down before him voluntarily. But he was demanding the honor of adoration, against that passage in Exodus 34: "You shall not worship a strange god."

And in order to drag him to unlawful service, he promises a false reward, when he adds: All things shall be yours. He pledges false power in order to drag to true servitude, because, in John 8, "he who commits sin is a slave of sin"; and he who is a slave does not have mastery of himself, and through this not all things are his, but he himself is subject to all things as a slave; and in Second Peter 2: "By whom a man is overcome, of the same he is the slave."

"All these things I will give you, if you fall down and worship me." By the same means by which the ancient enemy overthrew the first man through avarice—for he tempted him through the advancement of avarice when he said: Knowing good and evil—by those same means he was overcome when he tempted the second man.

You see, ancient errors are undone in Christ's footprints, and the snares, first of the stomach, second of sexual sin, and third of ambition, are loosed. For Adam was enticed by food. Because he willingly transgressed in the matter of the forbidden tree, he also was charged with heedless ambition, for he desired to be like the Godhead. Therefore the Lord first remitted the debt of the ancient wrong, in order that, having shaken off the yoke of captivity, we may learn to overcome our faults with the help of the Scriptures.… The devil shakes the whole world with cunning deceit, in order to corrupt people, and fights with all the enticements of this age. You must beware of his flattery all the more. Food had not persuaded Eve, nor had the forgetfulness of the commands deprived her. If she had been willing to worship the Lord alone, she would not have sought what was not due to her. So a remedy is given, which blunts the dart of ambition, so that we serve the Lord alone. Pious devotion lacks ambition.

The next weapon he uses is that of boasting, which always causes the offender to fall down; for they who love to boast of the glory of their virtue descend from the stand and vantage ground of their good deeds. Hence it is said, And he led him to Jerusalem.

It is the fate of boasting, that while a man thinks he is climbing higher, he is by his pretension to lofty deeds brought low. Hence it follows, And he said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, throw thyself down.

(non occ.) The devil entered not into a contest with God, (for he durst not, and therefore said, If thou art the Son of God,) but he contended with man whom once he had power to deceive.

(de con. Ev. lib. ii. c. 6.) The whole of this narrative Matthew relates in a similar manner, but not in the same order. It is uncertain therefore which took place first, whether the kingdoms of the earth were first shown unto Him, and He was afterwards taken up to the pinnacle of the temple; or whether this came first, and the other afterwards. It matters little however which, as long as it is clear that they all took place.

And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple. So that whom neither gluttony nor avarice could overcome, he might tempt with vain glory, if perhaps by boasting of his victory he might cast him down.

And he said to him: If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence. In all temptations, the devil aims to understand if he is the Son of God, but the Lord so moderates his answer that he leaves him uncertain. Cast thyself down. The voice of the devil, by which he always desires all to fall downwards. Cast thyself, he says: he can persuade, but he cannot precipitate.

Here the third temptation is described, concerning which two things are to be attended to as before. The first is the suggestion of the devil; the second is the response of Christ. Concerning the persuasion of the devil, attend to three things. For first, he chooses a fitting place for persuasion; second, he expresses the persuasion to cast himself down; third, through the authority of the Psalm he dispels the fear of harm. Therefore, as regards the choice of a fitting place, it is said: He led him into Jerusalem, as to a famous and public place. He was led, however, by permission, not from weakness; whence Chrysostom says that "in Christ there was not weakness, but patience; in the devil, however, not power, but pride." And the Gloss on Matthew 4 says that "this vision was accomplished through the bodily senses"; Chrysostom, however, says that "the devil so took him up that he might be seen by all; but Christ, without the devil's knowledge, so acted invisibly that he was seen by no one." Whence, so that he might be better seen, it is added: And he set him upon the pinnacle of the temple. That was a high and prominent place, where doctors and priests were accustomed to speak to the people. And according to some expositors, it was the summit of the roof of the temple, which is called the upper floor, in 3 Kings 6. Or according to others, it was a certain gallery above the gate of the temple, where one ascended by steps. According to others, however, it is said that there was a roof there with a certain parapet of the wall, because in Palestine the houses have flat roofs, and the temple had a flat roof, like the tabernacle, and on such roofs doctors and preachers were accustomed to stand, according to that passage in Matthew 10: "What you hear in the ear, preach upon the housetops."

As regards the urging of the casting down, it is added: And he said to him: If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down. Because the devil had fallen downward, he would gladly drag all downward; below in chapter 10: "I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven." But Christ could say to the devil and his angels what he said to the Jews in John 8: "You are from below, but I am from above"; whence it was not his part to descend, but to ascend. But the devil was suggesting this so that, by descending bodily, he might make him become proud spiritually, so that there would be at once a vain ascent and a true descent. In this we are taught that humiliation and exaltation are always joined together, according to that passage below in chapter 18: "Everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted"; and Proverbs 18: "Before destruction the heart of man is exalted, and before he is glorified, he is humbled." And note the manner of suggesting, when he says: Cast yourself down. Chrysostom: "He did not push, he did not touch, he did not approach, but only said: Cast yourself down, so that we may know that everyone who obeys the devil casts himself down." And Jerome: "He is sufficiently weak, because he can harm no one unless that person has cast himself down." And therefore the counsel is sound, in Ecclesiastes 10: "If the spirit of him who has power rises up against you, do not leave your place," neither by presumption nor by despair.

[Satan] set [Jesus] up on the pinnacle of the temple. Satan wanted him to suppose that he who was a man could become God, by means of the godly house, just as Satan had once made Adam suppose that he could become God by means of that tree. He brought him up to the mountain, as though he were in need. "To you will I give the kingdoms, if you will adore me." When he changed his mode of cunning, he did not change the true One with it. In the beginning God made him, and, when complete, he was in need and a worshiper. But Satan became blind in the arrogance of his worship, because of all that he had acquired, and for this reason he was punished even more. Because Satan did not recognize the One who knew him intimately, our Lord addressed him by his name, Satan. But he did not know how he should address our Lord.Therefore he said to him, "Fall down from here, for it is written, 'They will guard you lest you stumble.' " Tempter, if it is concerning him that the psalm is fulfilled, is it not also written there, "With his wings, that he may deliver you"? It is not possible for a bird to fall, for the air beneath its wings is like the earth. Is it not also written, "You will tread on the serpent and the lion"? Satan studied only those passages from Scriptures that were convenient to him and omitted those which were harmful to him. The heretics are like this too. They appropriate from Scripture those passages that suit their erroneous teaching and omit those that refute their errors, thereby demonstrating that they are disciples of this master.

But behold, when it is said that God made man was taken up by the devil into the holy city, the mind recoils, human ears are terrified to hear this. Yet we recognize that these things are not incredible if we consider other things that were done to him. Certainly the devil is the head of all the wicked, and all the wicked are members of this head. What wonder is it then if he allowed himself to be led by him, who also allowed himself to be crucified by his members?

For it is of the devil to cast one's self into dangers, and try whether God will rescue us.

He followed evidently as a wrestler, gladly setting out to meet the temptation, and saying, as it were, Lead me where you will, and you will find me the stronger in every thing.

Still the pinnacle stands, outlasting the temple's destruction, For the corner raised up from that stone which the builders rejected Will remain throughout all ages forever and ever. Now it is head of the temple and holds the new stones together.

That is truly the devil's language, which seeks to cast down the soul of man from the high ground of its good deeds, while he shows at the same time both his weakness and malice, for he can injure no one that does not first cast himself down. For he who forsaking heavenly things pursues earthly, rushes as it were wilfully down the self-sought precipice of a falling life. As soon then as the devil perceived his dart blunted, he who had subdued all men to his own power, began to think he had to deal with more than man. But Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, and often from the Holy Scriptures weaves his mesh for the faithful: hence it follows, It is written, He shall give, &c.

Let not the heretic entrap thee by bringing examples from the Scriptures. The devil makes use of the testimony of the Scriptures not to teach but to deceive.

For it is written that he has commanded his angels concerning you, to keep you, and that they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. We read this in the ninetieth Psalm. Indeed, the prophecy there is not about Christ, but about a holy person. Therefore, the devil interprets the Scriptures wrongly. Certainly, if he had truly known it was written about the Savior, he should have quoted what follows in the same Psalm against himself: "You will tread on the asp and the basilisk, and you will trample the lion and the dragon" (Psalm XC). He speaks of the help of angels as if to a weak person, but he is silent about the trampling of himself, like a trickster.

As for the dispelling of fear, he adds: For it is written, that He has given His angels charge over you: this is written in the Psalm. He therefore cites Scripture because he saw that Christ always defended Himself through Scripture. Whence Pope Leo says: "He finds occasions for tempting where he has seen men more intensely engaged." Whence he asserts it is written, so as to induce credulity, and also adduces a Scripture that would exclude faintheartedness on account of the promise of angelic aid, both in prosperity and in adversity. On account of aid in prosperity he says: That they may guard you in all your ways, that is, in your works: Exodus twenty-three: "Behold, I send My Angel, who shall go before you and guard you on the way." Thus the Angel guarded Tobias, as is said in Tobit twelve: thus also Judith, as is said in the thirteenth chapter: thus also they guard all just men, according to that passage in Hebrews one: "All are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister," etc.: and the whole Church, according to that passage in Isaiah sixty-two: "Upon your walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen." But Christ did not need guarding: and therefore the devil was perverting that authority and adducing it in a sinister manner.

He tempts through vainglory when he says: "If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down from hence." By the same means by which the ancient enemy tempted our first parent through vainglory when he said "You shall be as gods," so he now tempts the second Adam: but by the same means by which he boasted of having conquered the first man, he is conquered by the second man.

See, how wickedly he tempts using the scriptures. He wants to take away the glory of the Lord, as if he needed angelic assistance, as if he were about to stumble if angels did not help him. It was not spoken concerning Christ, nor does the master of the angels need angels. But I say the opposite to you, o devil; if Jesus does not help the angels, they stumble. And you have fallen "from heaven" because you considered yourself self-sufficient and not needing the help of Jesus. But to know that the things written are not spoken concerning Jesus, but are referred to a righteous man, listen. For it is written: "He who dwells in the help of the Most High shall lodge in the shelter of the God of heaven." This applies more to a righteous man than to the Son of God. And again: "A thousand shall fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand." This also refers to the righteous man. These words are said in the ninety-first Psalm; but they do not speak about Christ, but about the righteous. For Christ does not fear the midday demon nor the night demon, nor does He need the help of angels, He Himself keeping them unscathed to God; but even if it is said concerning Christ, it skillfully omits the intermediate matter. For it continues: "You shall tread upon the adder and the basilisk, and you shall trample the lion and the dragon." For these things were He Himself.

Whence knowest thou, Satan, that those things are written? Hast thou read the Prophets, or the oracles of God? Thou hast read them indeed, but not that thyself mightest be the better for the reading, but that from the mere letter thou mightest slay them who are friends to the letter. (2 Cor. 3:6.) Thou knowest that if thou wert to speak from His other books, thou wouldest not deceive.

But mark how wily he is even in this testimony. For he would fain throw a slur upon the glory of the Saviour, as though He needed the assistance of angels, and would stumble were He not supported by their hands. But this was said not of Christ, but of the saints generally; He needs not the aid of angels, Who is greater than angels. But let this teach thee, Satan, that the angels would stumble did not God sustain them; and thou stumblest, because thou refusest to believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God. But why art thou silent as to what follows, Thou shalt walk upon the asp and the basilisk, (Ps. 91:13.) except that thou art the basilisk, thou art the dragon and the lion?

On account of aid however in adversity, he adds: And that in their hands they shall bear you up, as bearers, according to how it is read that an Angel carried Habakkuk, in the last chapter of Daniel. Lest perhaps you strike your foot against a stone, that is, so that you might be harmed by no injury, as is said in Job five: "With the stones of the lands your covenant shall be, and the beasts of the earth shall be at peace with you."

And note that the devil, being crafty, did not add what follows: "You shall walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and you shall trample upon the lion and the dragon," because this was against him. Wherein it is shown that it is a diabolical vice to truncate authorities and draw them to one's own side: whence Revelation, the last chapter: "If anyone shall take away from the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall take away his part from the book of life."

He would not have said that all the temptation was ended, had there not been in the three temptations which have been described the materials for every crime; for the causes of temptations are the causes of desire, namely, the delight of the flesh, the pomp of vain-glory, greediness of power.

You see then that the devil is not obstinate on the field, is wont to give way to true virtue; and if he ceases not to hate, he yet dreads to advance, for so he escapes a more frequent defeat. As soon then as he heard the name of God, he retired (it is said) for a season, for afterwards he comes not to tempt, but to fight openly.

(non occ.) The enemy came to Him as man, but not finding in Him the marks of his ancient seed, he departed.

When the Lord had been tempted with this triple temptation—because in all the allurements of the world these three are to be found, either pleasure or curiosity or pride—what did the Evangelist say? After the devil had concluded every temptation—every kind, but of the alluring sort—there remained the other sort of temptation, by harsh and hard treatment, savage treatment, atrocious and ferocious treatment. Yes, there remained the other sort of temptation. The Evangelist knew this, knew what had been carried out, what remained, and so he said, "After the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him until the time." He departed from him in the form, that is, of the insidious serpent. He is going to come in the form of the roaring lion. The one who will trample on the lion and the cobra will conquer him. Satan will return. He will enter Judas and will make him betray his master. He will bring along the Jews, not flattering now, but raging. Taking possession of his own instruments, he will cry out with the tongues of all of them, "Crucify him, crucify him!" That Christ was the conqueror there, why should we be surprised? He was almighty God.

And when all temptation was finished, the devil departed from him for a time. You see, the devil himself is not persistent in effort, but usually yields to virtue. And although he never ceases to envy, he fears to persist, because he often flees from being triumphed over. Therefore, hearing the name of God, he departed (he says) for a time. Later, he came not to tempt, but to openly fight. Although often the ancient enemy, after he has inflicted the struggle of temptations on our mind, retreats temporarily from his own contest, not to end the malice he has inflicted, but so that, returning suddenly, he may burst in more easily and unexpectedly on hearts made secure through peace. It should be noted, however, that after the three deceptions of the tempter were exposed, he says that all temptation was finished. Because indeed, in these are embraced the origins and sources of all vices. With John attesting who said: For all that is in the world, is the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2). And in the gospel parable, only three affairs of the reprobate exclude them from the feasts of eternal life. The first (he says) said: I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them. And another said: I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. The desire for a wife, like gluttony, concerns the lust of the flesh. The purchase of a villa, which is not devoid of greed, pertains to the pride of life. The trial of five yokes, that is, curiosity about physical things, which is vain glory, is related to the lust of the eyes. For curiosity prevails mostly through the eyes, and the Lord Himself is indeed tempted face to face as if by a stronger one. But we, having received the grace of the Spirit in baptism, enter the desert of virtues, when we undertake the Lenten fast, that is, determining to abstain from worldly enticements throughout our life, we are either tempted by hidden snares or sometimes even struck closer. He who, persuading, says: You are a strong man, eat and drink, and remain the same, should be guarded against, lest he unknowingly offers us the serpent's old poison. And it must be said: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word of God. Indeed, many who have overcome the lust of the flesh are immediately tempted by greed and are often also overcome, so much so that they do not fear to worship the devil for the gifts offered. When many praise their continence, and even greater persons honor them, giving gifts, it happens that the victors over pleasures are conquered by love of money, and with growing madness over time, they not only do not refrain from consorting with the demon-filled rich whom they recognize through blatant crimes, but also bow their heads in worship and embrace them. Hence the Apostle says that greed is idolatry. If, following the Savior's example, they triumph over this by worshiping the Lord, their God, and serving Him alone for eternal joys, the third pestilence of vain glory will come, which exalts the victors over the previous vices because of their own strength, presuming that those placed on the height of virtues can no longer fall. And this is clearly to tempt God with curious eyes, boasting of one's merits. Against this, the Lord, increasing the disciples' faith, said: When you have done all that is commanded you, say: We are unworthy servants; we have done what we ought to do (Luke XVII). For when He elsewhere commanded that we do not perform our righteousness before men, He added only fasting, almsgiving, and prayer in the same definition, opposing three weapons of defense against the triple weapon of the enemy: that fasting may drive away the lust of the flesh, almsgiving may drive away greed, and prayers may drive away the boast of merits. It is sufficient to have said these things about the principles of the gospel dispensation in one book; however, considering both our own peace and the benefit of the readers, let us look at the following deeds or words of the Savior more attentively from another beginning. For, as Augustine says, in some way the reader's concentration is refreshed at the end of a book, like the traveler's strength at a hostel.

After he described the occasion of the temptation and the manner of tempting, here he describes thirdly the consummation of the temptation, concerning which three things are intimated. The first is the manifestation of perfection on the part of Christ resisting: with respect to which he says: And when all the temptation was ended, because, as was said before, every temptation is reduced to the three aforementioned: whence First John 2: "All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh," etc. This he consummated, because by patiently enduring he overcame, according to that passage in Hebrews 2: "It was fitting for him who had brought many sons into glory to consummate through suffering," because it is said in Deuteronomy 32: "The works of God are perfect."

The second is the confutation of presumption on the part of the devil withdrawing; with respect to which he says: The devil departed from him: according to that passage in James 4: "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." He departed, namely confounded: which was signified in the king of the Assyrians, Fourth Kings 19: "The king of the Assyrians Sennacherib departed and went away"; which is interpreted as taking away deserts, because the devil especially pursues those who live in austerity of life.

The third indeed is the predetermination of time on the part of God disposing: on account of which he adds: Until a time, namely "of the passion," he departed, because that malignant one is not permitted to do evil except for the time which God permits, although he always has an evil will; Ecclesiasticus 19: "If he finds a time to do evil, he will do evil." And therefore the counsel is in Ecclesiasticus 4: "My son, preserve the time and turn away from evil"; and Ephesians 5: "See how you walk cautiously, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." Whence since the devil tempts in two ways: as a dragon and as a lion, first he tempted as a dragon to seduce, afterwards as a lion to break in the passion. For in the first he tempts to soften through blandishments, but afterwards, seeing that he has little time, he tempts to break through punishments: whence Apocalypse 12: "The devil has come down, having great wrath, knowing that he has little time." And therefore those did not arrive at the consummation of time about whom it is said below in chapter 8, that "they believe for a time and in the time of temptation they fall away."

(ubi sup.) In lawful contests the battle is terminated either when the adversary surrenders of his own accord to the conqueror, or is defeated in three falls, according to the rules of the art of fighting. Hence it follows, And all the temptation being completed, &c.

But it should be noted that when the devil departed, the temptation was complete. By the same means by which the ancient enemy boasted of having conquered the first man, he is conquered by the second man, so that he might depart from our hearts, captured at the very entrance by which he had entered and held us.

Consider how great is the patience of God, and how great is our impatience. Behold, the Lord endured the adversity of the devil, and answered him with nothing but words of gentleness. He bore him whom he could have punished, so that his praise might grow higher from this: that he overcame his enemy not by destroying him, but by enduring him for the time being.

(lib. ad. piet. ex. 12.) Or the devil had prompted Christ in the desert to prefer the things of the world to the love of God. The Lord commanded him to leave Him, (which itself was a mark of Divine love.) It was afterwards then enough to make Christ appear the false advocate of love to His neighbours, and therefore while He was teaching the paths of life, the devil stirred up the Gentiles and Pharisees to lay traps for Him that He might be brought to hate them. But the Lord, from the feeling of love which He had towards them, exhorted, reproved, ceased not to bestow mercy upon them.

(ut sup.) But the reason why one Evangelist places this event first, and another that, is because vain-glory and covetousness give birth in turn to one another.

Or, having tempted Him in the desert with pleasure, he retires from Him until the crucifixion, when he was about to tempt Him with sorrow.

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding region. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. The power of the Spirit here means the signs of miracles. As also elsewhere, the Jews marveled. "Whence," they say, "does this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?" (Matt. XIII). That is, they refer wisdom to teaching, and power to deeds. Both are equally combined in this passage, as it declares that Jesus, having entered in the power of the Spirit, also taught in their synagogues. Hence, deservedly, he was magnified by those present and his fame spread through the absent ones. This could not happen unless by the evidence of his deeds or words manifest to those present. But anyone searching for the time and order of these events will find it in the Gospel of John, as has been mentioned. Setting aside other details, I will quote one testimony: "When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast" (John IV). It should be noted that first Jesus demonstrated the power of the Spirit and later dispensed the grace of doctrine; he recalls that first fame spread because of the miracles, and then the teaching was magnified. According to the order briefly commended in the Acts of the Apostles: "Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts I). For he first began to do, and then to teach, lest any teacher should presume to command his hearers things which he himself has not yet accomplished.

By the power of the Spirit he means showing forth of miracles.

The Evangelist showed above the authority of the doctrine of Christ from the merit of life: here secondly he shows it from the testimony of Scripture. He therefore introduces first the testimony as authentic for the instruction of believers: secondly, the authentic testimony for the confutation of detractors. In the explanation of the prophetic testimony, four things are introduced by blessed Luke: the first is renown in preaching; the second is opportuneness in testifying; the third is congruity in the testimony; the fourth is belief among the people. As to the first, note that the renown of the preaching of Christ is gathered from four things, namely from the fullness of grace, breadth of fame, certainty of doctrine and greatness of efficacy.

As to the fullness of grace, it is said: And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee. He returned, namely to preach, because, as it is said in the Psalm, "The Lord shall give the word to those who preach the good tidings with great power." And although he had assumed weakness from us, he nevertheless showed power from himself, according to that passage of Wisdom chapter twelve: "For you show your power, you who are not believed to be perfect in power." And it is notably said: In the power of the Spirit. For such ought perfect preaching to be, that it be joined to spiritual power, according to that passage of First Corinthians chapter two: "Our speech and our preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

As to the breadth of fame, it is said: And the fame of him went out through the whole region, according to that passage of Job chapter twenty-eight: "With our ears we have heard the fame thereof"; he speaks of the wisdom of Christ, who is "the power of God and the wisdom of God." Another Evangelist agrees with this: Matthew chapter four: "His fame went out into all Syria." Now a figure of this preceded in Solomon, of whom it is said in Second Chronicles chapter nine, that "all desired to see his face"; of whom it is said in Sirach chapter forty-seven: "Your name was spread abroad to distant islands."

After he mightily defeated Satan—after he crowned human nature in his own person with the spoils won by the victory over Satan—he returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, both exercising might and authority. He performed very many miracles and greatly astonished his people. He performed miracles, because he is by nature and in truth the Son of God the Father, not because he received the grace of the Spirit from the outside as a gift, as the company of the saints do. He took what was his as his own proper inheritance. Yes, he said to the Father, "All that is mine is yours, and yours mine, and I am glorified in them." He is glorified therefore by exercising as his own might and power the power of the Spirit who shares his substance.

Now He performed miracles not from any external power, and from having as it were the acquired grace of the Holy Spirit, as other saints, but rather as being by nature the Son of God, and partaking of all things which are the Father's, He exercises as by His own power and operation that grace which is of the Holy Spirit. But it was right that from that time He should become known, and that the mystery of His humanity should shine forth among those who were of the seed of Israel. It therefore follows, And his fame went out.

What was the custom of him who had come just now? He had come to Galilee and had begun to teach, not outside of the synagogue but within it. Since the matter was known through their worship service, he came to talk to them about their God. Otherwise it would have been in order for him to proclaim to them outside their synagogue.

For Christ does not fear the midday demon nor the night demon, nor does He need the help of angels, He Himself keeping them unscathed to God; but even if it is said concerning Christ, it skillfully omits the intermediate matter. For it continues: "You shall tread upon the adder and the basilisk, and you shall trample the lion and the dragon." For these things were He Himself. Since He was about to be tested in the temptation against the devil, the term "spirit" is mentioned twice without any addition; but when He had fought and overcome the three recorded temptations, pay attention to the accuracy of the text, what it says about the spirit, that "Jesus returned in the power of the spirit," and it added "in the power" because of the athlete who had overcome.

But John, who had commenced his Gospel from God, saying, In the beginning was the Word, did not describe the temptation of the Lord, because God can not be tempted, of whom he wrote. But because in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the human generations are given, and in Mark it is man who is tempted, therefore Matthew, Luke, and Mark have described the temptation of the Lord.

The Lord having overcome the tempter, power was added to Him, i. e. as far as regards the manifestation of it. Hence it is said, And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit.

For you will not be able to affirm that "son" to be David rather than Christ; or the "bounds of the earth" to have been promised rather to David, who reigned within the single (country of) Judea, than to Christ, who has already taken captive the whole orb with the faith of His gospel; as He says through Isaiah: "Behold, I have given Thee for a covenant of my family, for a light of Gentiles, that Thou mayst open the eyes of the blind"-of course, such as err-"to outloose from bonds the bound"-that is, to free them from sins-"and from the house of prison"-that is, of death-"such as sit in darkness" -of ignorance, to wit.

And because wisdom belongs to teaching, but power to works, both are joined here, as it follows, And he taught in the synagogue. Synagogue, which is a Greek word, is rendered in Latin congregatio. By this name then the Jews were accustomed to call not only the gathering together of people, but also the house where they met together to hear the word of God; as we call by the name of Church, both the place and the company of the faithful. But there is this difference between the synagogue which is called congregation, and the Church which is interpreted convocation, that flocks and cattle, and any thing else can be gathered together in one, but only rational beings can be called together. Accordingly the Apostolical doctors thought right to call a people which was distinguished by the superior dignity of a new grace rather by the name of Church, than Synagogue. But rightly also was the fact of His being magnified by those present proved, by actual evidence of word and deed, as it follows, And he was magnified by all.

As to the certainty of doctrine, it is added: And he taught in their synagogues, not in secret, as do men who have suspect doctrine; John chapter eighteen: "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and in secret I have said nothing." On the contrary, the wisdom of heretics is called "earthly, sensual, devilish," which is designated by the evil woman: Proverbs chapter nine: "Stolen waters are sweeter, and hidden bread is more pleasant." Whence Christ fulfilled that passage of Proverbs chapter five: "Let your fountains be dispersed abroad, and divide your waters in the streets." And therefore it is said in Proverbs chapter one: "Wisdom cries aloud outside; in the streets she utters her voice," etc.

As for the greatness of efficacy, it is added: And he was magnified by all, because all perceived the greatness of his efficacy to such a degree that they could say that word of the Psalm: "Your mercy is magnified even unto the heavens, and your truth unto the clouds," namely in preaching. Nor is this surprising, because he himself was the one designated by that Solomon, of whom it is said in 3 Kings 10: "King Solomon was magnified above all the kings of the whole earth in riches and wisdom," etc. Below in chapter seven: "A great prophet has risen among us."

But you must not think that they only were happy, and that you are deprived of Christ's teaching. For now also throughout the world He teaches through His instruments, and is now more glorified by all men, than at that time when those only in one province were gathered together.

While the soldiers were doing their cruel work, He was thinking anxiously of His mother: These things therefore the soldiers did. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Mary, the mother of the Lord, stood by her Son's cross. No one has taught me this but the holy Evangelist John. Others have related how the earth was shaken at the Lord's passion, the sky was covered with darkness, the sun withdrew itself and how the thief was, after a faithful confession, received into paradise. John tells us what the others have not told, how the Lord while fixed on the cross called to his mother. He thought it was more important that, victorious over his sufferings, Jesus gave her the offices of piety than that he gave her a heavenly kingdom. For if it is the mark of religion to grant pardon to the thief, it is a mark of much greater piety that a mother is honored with such affection by her Son. "Behold," he says, "your son." … "Behold your mother." Christ testified from the cross and divided the offices of piety between the mother and the disciple.…Nor was Mary below what was becoming the mother of Christ. When the apostles fled, she stood at the cross and with pious eyes beheld her Son's wounds. For she did not look to the death of her offspring but to the salvation of the world. Or perhaps, because that "royal hall" knew that the redemption of the world would be through the death of her Son, she thought that by her death she also might add something to that universal gift. But Jesus did not need a helper for the redemption of all, who saved all without a helper. This is why he says, "I am counted among those who go down to the pit. I am like those who have no help." He received indeed the affection of his mother but sought not another's help. Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue. For neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.

Mary the mother of our Lord stood before the cross of her Son. None of the Evangelists hath told me this except John. The others have related how that at our Lord's Passion the earth quaked, the heaven was overspread with darkness, the sun fled, the thief was taken into paradise after confession. John hath told us, what the others have not, how that from the cross whereon He hung, He called to His mother. He thought it a greater thing to show Him victorious over punishment, fulfilling the offices of piety to His mother, than giving the kingdom of heaven and eternal life to the thief. For if it was religious to give life to the thief, a much richer work of piety it is for a son to honour his mother with such affection. Behold, He saith, thy son; behold thy mother. Christ made His Testament from the cross, and divided the offices of piety between the Mother and the disciples. Our Lord made not only a public, but also a domestic Testamnet. And this His Testament John sealed, a witness worthy of such a Testator. A good testament it was, not of money, but of eternal life, which was not written with ink, but with the spirit of the living God: My tongue is the pen of a ready writer. (Ps. 45:1) Mary, as became the mother of our Lord, stood before the cross, when the Apostles fled, and with pitiful eyes beheld the wounds of her Son. For she looked not on the death of the Hostage, but on the salvation of the world; and perhaps knowing that her Son's death would bring this salvation, she who had been the habitation of the King, thought that by her death she might add to that universal gift. But Jesus did not need any help for saving the world, as we read in the Psalm, I have been even as a man with no help, free among the dead. (Ps. 87) He received indeed the affection of a parent, but He did not seek another's help. Imitate her, ye holy matrons, who, as towards her only most beloved Son, hath set you an example of such virtue: for ye have not sweeter sons, nor did the Virgin seek consolation in again becoming a mother.

(de Con. Ev. iii. 21) If Matthew and Mark had not mentioned by name Mary Magdalen, we should have thought that there were two parties, one of which stood far off, and the other near. But how must we account for the same Mary Magdalen and the other women standing afar off, as Matthew and Mark say, and being near the cross, as John says? By supposing that they were within such a distance as to be within sight of our Lord, and yet sufficiently far off to be out of the way of the crowd and Centurion, and soldiers who were immediately about Him. Or, we may suppose that after our Lord had commended His mother to the disciple, they retired to be out of the way of the crowd, and saw what took place afterwards at a distance: so that those Evangelists who do not mention them till after our Lord's death, describe them as standing afar off. (Matthew and Mark.) That some women are mentioned by all alike, others not, makes no matter.

Simeon … prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross and seeing what is being done and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every human being—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all people by his own blood.

She paid this price as a woman strong and devout, namely when Christ suffered on the cross to pay this price, so that he might purify, wash, and redeem us; then the blessed Virgin was present, accepting and consenting to the divine will. And it pleased her that the price of her womb should be offered on the cross for us. Whence in John: "There stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple standing, whom he loved, he said to his mother: Woman, behold your son," namely, who will be handed over as the price of redemption of the human race: as if he were saying: it is necessary for you to be without me, and for me to be without you; and you yourself, as a holy woman, conceived him, and as a devout woman, you offer him; may it please you, O Virgin, that I redeem the human race and appease God. And lest she be left desolate, he said to the disciple: "Behold, your mother"; he gave a virgin man to the Virgin.

Now there stood by the cross etc. Here is noted the paucity of those who shared in his suffering: because out of all his dear ones, three women were present, among whom was also the Mother of the Lord, for whom the Lord also felt compassion. And four things are noted here: the compassion of the women toward the Lord, the Lord's solicitude toward his Mother, and from that solicitude, his commendation, and lastly, the acceptance of the commendation.

Therefore the compassion of the women is noted in this that he says: They stood near the cross of Jesus: they drew near in body because the feeling of compassion drew them. Others indeed had withdrawn far away through lack of compassion; whence it is said in the Psalm: "Those who were near me stood afar off." But these women stood near, who loved more, namely his Mother, who suffered with him above all others: whence Luke chapter two: "A sword shall pierce through your own soul"; and the sister of his Mother, Mary of Cleophas: she was the mother of James. It should be noted that Anne is said to have had three husbands: Joachim, Cleophas, and Salome, and from these three husbands she had three Marys, namely the Mother of the Lord, who was the daughter of Joachim; the mother of James, who was the daughter of Cleophas; the mother of Simon and Jude, who was the daughter of Salome. And Mary Magdalene, who was so called from the town of Magdala. These three women, as being more compassionate, stood near the cross of the Lord.

This also the inspired Evangelist mentions to our profit, showing herein also, that none of the words of Holy Writ fall to the ground. What do I mean by this? I will tell you. He represents, as standing by the Cross, His mother, and with her the rest, clearly weeping. For women are ever prone to tears, and very much inclined to lament, especially when they have abundant occasion for shedding tears. What, then, induced the blessed Evangelist to go so much into detail, as to make mention of the women as staying beside the Cross? His object was to teach us that, as was likely, the unexpected fate of our Lord was an offence unto His mother, and that His exceeding bitter death upon the Cross almost banished from her heart due reflection; and, besides the insults of the Jews, and the soldiers also, who probably stayed by the Cross and derided Him Who hung thereon, and who presumed, in His mother's very sight, to divide His garments among themselves, had this effect. For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: "I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?" The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought; for we shall do well to remember, that the character of these events was such as to awe and subdue the most sober mind. And no marvel if a woman fell into such an error, when even Peter himself, the elect of the holy disciples, was once offended, when Christ in plain words instructed him that He would be betrayed unto the hands of sinners, and would undergo crucifixion and death, so that he impetuously exclaimed: Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall never be unto Thee. What wonder, then, if a woman's frail mind was also plunged into thoughts which betrayed weakness? And when we thus speak, we are not shooting at a venture, as some may suppose, but are led to suspect this by what is written concerning the mother of our Lord. For we remember that the righteous Simeon, when he received the infant Lord into his arms, after having blessed Him, and said: Now lettest Thou Thy servant depart, O Lord, according to Thy Word, in peace; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, he also said to the holy Virgin herself: Behold, this Child is set for the falling and rising up of many in Israel; and for a sign which is spoken against; yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul, that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed. By a sword he meant the keen pang of suffering, which would divide the mind of the woman into strange thoughts; for temptations prove the hearts of those who are tempted, and leave them bare of the thoughts that filled them.

Let's begin with some things that we ought to know about John, but which we usually don't. John was very likely the Lord's first cousin on their mothers' side. John was a son of Zebedee, and his mother's name was Salome, which we can find out by comparing Mark 16:1 and Matt.27:56. Mark says that the third woman who went to the tomb was Salome and Matthew said it was the mother of Zebedee's children. And then in John 19:25, it says that four women were present at the crucifixion—two Marys from Mark and Matthew, the Lord's mother, and the Lord's aunt. This helps make sense of how the Lord would entrust the care of His mother to John, which on this reading would be her nephew. It also helps explain the particular closeness of Jesus and John (John 21:7).

John was also from a well-to-do family with respectable connections. His father had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Salome was one of the women who was a financial patroness of the Lord's ministry (Luke 8:3; Mark 15:40). John was known to the high priest (John 18:15-16), and was able to get Peter into the place where the Lord was being tried.

We also know a great deal about John's giftedness and related challenges. Jesus named him, together with his brother, a son of thunder (Mark 3:17). He was a fire-eater, and sometimes succumbed to the temptations that come with that—which would be misdirected zeal and ambition. He was one of the disciples who wanted Jesus to torch a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54), and it was Salome who made the request for James and John to sit at Christ's left and right hand (Matt. 20:20; Mark 10:37). John was not formally trained (Acts 4:13), but was nonetheless a staggering genius. He was a tender and humble man as revealed by all his writings, but it is very plain that this was the result of the Spirit taming a lot of horsepower.

He remained in Jerusalem for a number of years—at least 14 (Gal. 2:9), but then moved to Ephesus, where he wrote his gospel (according to Irenaeus. That was the time during which he was exiled to Patmos. According to early reports, he lived until the reign of Trajan (which started in 98 A.D.)

After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

1. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording, a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom.

Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.

But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: "Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor."

And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.

The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign.

He writes as follows: "They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified."

Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor... They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

The Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphæus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist "Mary of Clopas," whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, "Mary the mother of James the Less," and here, "Mary of Clopas," you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names.

The Mary which in Mark and Matthew is called the mother of James and Joses, was the wife of Alpheus, and sister of Mary the mother of our Lord: which Mary John here designates of Cleophas, either from her father, or family, or for some other reason. She need not be thought a different person, because she is called in one place Mary the mother of James the less, and here Mary of Cleophas, for it is customary in Scripture to give different names to the same person.

But the women stood by the Cross, and the weaker sex then appeared the manlier; so entirely henceforth were all things transformed.

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

[NOTE: This is often erroneously attributed to Papias of Hierapolis, AD 130]

The lamb, Mary, beholding her lamb advancing to the slaughter, Followed him wearily with the other women, saying, "Where are you going, O my son?… Is there another wedding again in Cana, And are you hurrying there now In order that you may make wine from water for them? Shall I go with you, my child, or should I wait for you instead? Give me some word, O Word, And do not pass me by in silence, You who have kept me pure, My son and my God.…

"You go on, O child, to an unjust death, And no one shares in your suffering with you. Peter does not accompany you— He who said to you, 'I shall never deny you, even if I die.' Thomas has left you—the one who cried out, 'Let us all die with him.' And again the others, family and sons [of God], Destined to judge the twelve tribes, where are they now? Not one of all of them is here. But the one above all, You, alone, O Son, saved all who were opposed [to you]. You reconciled all who were against [you], My son and my God." …

[Jesus replies] "O Mother, hold on for a little longer, and you will see how, like a healer, I strip down and come where they lie dead And heal their wounds, Cutting their callousness and hardness with the point of the spear. And when I receive the vinegar, I use it as an astringent on the wound; And when I have opened up the cut with the scalpel of the nails, I will use my tunic as a dressing, Having my cross as the remedy, I use it, O Mother, so that you may sing with understanding: 'By suffering he has redeemed suffering, My son and my God.'

"Therefore leave behind your grief, O Mother And set out on your journey with joy. For I am already hurrying towards that for which I came, To fulfill the plan of him who sent me; For, this was from the beginning what was ordained for me Even by my Father, and it did not displease my spirit then that I should become incarnate And suffer on behalf of the fallen. Hurry then, O Mother, announce to all, 'By suffering he strikes down the one who hates Adam And, having conquered, he comes, My son and my God.' "

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John's uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the "father of the Lord"—she was considered to be the Lord's sister; and her son, John, the Lord's nephew. Salome means "peaceful"; John means "the grace of her." May every soul understand that Christ's peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

Why is Mary of Cleopas called the sister of His Mother, when Joachim had no other child? Cleopas was a brother of Joseph. When Cleopas died childless, according to the account of some, Joseph took his wife for himself and begat children for his brother. One of them is the Mary now mentioned. She is called a sister of the Theotokos, that is, a relative. For Scripture has the custom of calling kinsmen brothers. For example, Isaac says of Rebekah that she is his sister, although she was his wife. So here too the reputed daughter of Cleopas is called the sister of the Theotokos by kinship. In the Gospels there appear four Marys: one is the Theotokos, who is called the Mother of James and Joses, for they were children of Joseph, born from his first wife, perhaps the wife of Cleopas. The Theotokos is called their Mother, as a stepmother, for She was considered the wife of Joseph. Another is the Magdalene, from whom the Lord cast out seven demons; the third is the wife of Cleopas, and the fourth is the sister of Lazarus.

2434 Thirdly, we see the part played by the friends of Jesus. First, the Evangelist mentions the women who were standing there; secondly, his eagerness for the care of his mother (v 26); thirdly, the ready obedience of the disciple (v 27).

2435 Three women are mentioned as standing by the cross of Jesus: his mother, then his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When the Evangelists mention the women who were standing with Christ, it is only John who mentions the Blessed Virgin. Two questions occur about this incident.

2436 Matthew (27:55) and Mark (15:40) say that the women were standing far off, while John says that they stood by the cross. One could say in answer that the women mentioned by Matthew and Mark were not the same as those mentioned by John. However, the difficulty with this answer is that Mary Magdalene is in the group mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and also in the group mentioned by John. So one should say that all were referring to the same women. But there is no contradiction. Near and far are relative; and nothing prevents something from being near in one sense and far in another. The women were said to be near because they were within the range of sight, and they could be described as afar because other people were between them and Jesus. Or, one could say that when the crucifixion was beginning, the women were standing near Christ and were able to speak to him; while later, when a number of people came forward to taunt him, the women withdrew and stood further away. Thus John is telling what happened at first, and the other Evangelists what happened after.

2437 The other issue is that John mentions Mary of Clopas, while in place of her, Matthew and Mark mention Mary, the mother of James, who is also described as Mary of Alphaeus. We should say about this that Mary of Clopas, mentioned by John, is the same as Mary of Alphaeus, mentioned by Matthew. For this Mary had two husbands, Clopas and Alphaeus. Or, one could say that Clopas was her father.

2438 The fact that the women stood by the cross while the disciples left Christ and ran away is an expression of their unfailing affection. As Job (19:20) says: "My flesh is consumed, my bones cleave to my skin," where the flesh can stand for the disciples, who ran off, and the skin can stand for the women, for they stayed close to Christ.

This is the disciple etc. Here is set forth the reason for confirming our faith. The Evangelist confirms this in us in two ways: by certifying in truth and by grounding in humility. He certifies in truth when he declares himself a true and reliable witness. He says therefore: This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things and has written these things, who is to be believed, all doubt being set aside, because we know that his testimony is true. Chrysostom: "Because he wrote with great certitude, he does not refuse to bring forward his own testimony, challenging each person to examine and scrutinize the things that were done. It is our custom, when we speak things that are very true, not to deny our own testimony: whence in Acts chapter five the Apostles said: We are witnesses of these words."

I think no wise man will doubt that the Lord would not have loved John if he had not been specially remarkable for virtue, and apt and perfectly equipped for every good work. For God can never be found to be inclined by any irrational leanings to those unworthy of His love, for such affections are more worthy of men. And He that was wholly proof against every assault and inroad of passion, and trod firmly in the path of every virtue, nay rather, was Virtue itself in all its forms, most assuredly would act in this, too, with judgment, and have His inclination free from all reproach----I mean, the inclination which led Him to deem him to whom this boon was due worthy of His love. After this admirable preface, then, and after having said that he was beloved, he modestly and with great humility says that he testified of these things; well and admirably inviting his hearers, as a necessary consequence, to assent to the things which he had written, and of which he had testified; for the preacher of truth cannot lie. Therefore, also, he says: We know that His witness is true. Dangerous, then, and awful is it assuredly, to lie at all; for man knoweth not how to bridle his tongue, and the Truth cannot love him that sinneth against truth.

John, who reclined on the bosom of Jesus, has left us one Gospel, although he confessed that he might have written so many that the world could not contain them. And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but he was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third. But not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain one hundred lines.

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Why is it, that then, when none of the others do so, he alone uses these words, and that for the second time, witnessing to himself? for it seems to be offensive to the hearers. What then is the cause? He is said to have been the last who came to writing, Christ having moved and roused him to the work; and on this account he continually sets forth his love, alluding to the cause by which he was impelled to write. Therefore also he continually makes mention of it, to make his record trustworthy, and to show, that, moved from thence, he came to this work. "And I know," he saith, "that the things are true which he saith. And if the many believe not, it is permitted them to believe from this."

"Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly.

(Hom. lxxxviii. 2) John appeals to his own knowledge of these events, having been witness of them: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things. When we assert any undoubted fact in common life, we do not withhold our testimony: much less would he, who wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:32) And thus the other Apostles, And we are witnesses of these things, and wrote these things. John is only one who appeals to his own testimony; and he does so, because he was the last who wrote. And for this reason he often mentions Christ's love for him, i. e. to show the motive which led him to write, and to give weight to his history. And we know that his testimony is true. He was present at every event, even at the crucifixion, when our Lord committed His mother to him; circumstances which both show Christ's love, and his own importance as a witness. But if any believe not, let him consider what follows: And there are also many other things which Jesus did. If, when there were so many things to relate, I have not said so much as the other, and have selected often reproaches and contumelies in preference to other things, it is evident that I have not written partially. One who wants to show another off to advantage does the very contrary, omits the dishonourable parts.

(Hom. lxxxviii) This is said to show the power of Him Who did the miracles; i. e. that it was as easy for Him to do them, as it is for us to speak of them, seeing He is God over all, blessed for ever.

The interpreter [that is, Theodore himself] says that the words, "But there are also, etc." are not by John but by someone else.

Of the other Evangelists, not one testified about himself. They say that he undertook the writing of the Gospel after all the others, having been moved and stirred to do so by Christ. For this reason he constantly mentions His love for him, showing the reason why he undertook the writing, and that Christ entrusted this task to the one whom He loved more than the rest. And I know that he speaks the truth, that is: "What I have written, I have written with complete confidence, since I was present at everything—at the deeds and words, at the sufferings and the events after the resurrection. Therefore I boldly say of myself as well that I am truthful, and I invite anyone to examine and investigate each event individually." It is customary among us humans, when we are completely confident in the truth, not to refuse to offer our own testimony about it. So also the apostles said: "We are His witnesses in what we say, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). From what is it evident that I speak the truth and not to please the Teacher? From the fact that I omitted many things, it is evident that I did not wish to flatter Him. For I brought to light everything reproachful, not concealing even the fact that He was called a lawbreaker and a deceiver, and even a demoniac. Obviously, I was not trying to please Him. For whoever flatters does the opposite: he omits what is shameful and brings to light what is glorious.

Now we have the last part of this Gospel, which is a kind of epilogue. First, the Gospel is commended; and then the vastness of the subject treated (v 25). The Gospel is commended because of two things: its author, and its truth. Three things are mentioned about the author.

First, there is the authority of the author, because This is the disciple ‑ understanding what was mentioned before who was loved above the others, intimate with Christ, able to question him with confidence, and to whom it was granted to remain until Christ came. All these things refer to the authority of the author.

John is said to have been loved more than the others because of his unique charity: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (13:35). None of the other apostles speak so much of love for others as does John in his letters. We also read that as an old man he was carried to the church by his followers to teach the faithful. He taught only one thing: "Little children, love one another." This is the perfection of the Christian life.

Secondly, John's office is mentioned, which was to give testimony, for he says, who is bearing witness to these things. This is the special office of apostles: "You shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8); "You are my witnesses!" (Is 44:8).

Thirdly, he refers to his zeal when he says, and who has written these things. As an apostle he testified to the actions of Christ to those who were present; and in his zeal he recorded these actions in writing for those who were not with him and were to come after him: "Take a large tablet and write upon it in common characters" (Is 8:1); "The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise" (Sir 38:24). For it was granted to John to live until the time when the Church was at peace; and this is the time when he wrote all these things. John mentions such things so that we will not think that his gospel has less authority than the other three, seeing that he wrote after the death of all the other apostles, and the other gospels, especially that of Matthew, had been approved by them.

Now John states that his Gospel is true, and he speaks in the person of the entire Church which received it: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prv 8:7). We should note that although many have written about Catholic truth, there is a difference among them: those who wrote the canonical scriptures, such as the evangelists and apostles and the like, so constantly and firmly affirm this truth that it cannot be doubted. Thus John says, we know that his testimony is true: "If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). The reason for this is that only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith. The others have set forth this truth but in such a way that they do not want to be believed except in those things in which they say what is true.

"This is the disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also," he adds, "many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." We are not to suppose that in regard to local space the world would be unable to contain them; for how could they be written in it if it could not bear them when written? but perhaps it is that they could not be comprehended by the capacity of the readers: although, while our faith in certain things themselves remains unharmed, the words we use about them may not unfrequently appear to exceed belief. This will not take place when anything that was obscure or dubious is in course of exposition by the setting forth of its ground and reason, but only when that which is clear of itself is either magnified or extenuated, without any real departure from the pathway of the truth to be intimated; for the words may outrun the thing itself that is indicated only in such a way, that the will of him that speaketh, but without any intention to deceive, may be apparent, so that, knowing how far he will be believed, he, orally, either diminishes or magnifies his subject beyond the limit to which credit will be given. This mode of speaking is called by the Greek name hyperbole, by the masters not only of Greek, but also of Latin literature. And this mode is found not only here, but in several other parts also of the divine literature.

(Tract. cxxiv. 8) The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: though sometimes words themselves may exceed the truth, and yet the thing they express be true; a mode of speech which is used not to explain an obscure and doubtful, but to magnify or estimate a plain, thing: nor does it involve any departure from the path of truth; inasmuch as the excess of the word over the truth is evidently only a figure of speech, and not a deception. This way of speaking the Greeks call hyperbole, and it is found in other parts of Scripture.

There are also many other things which Jesus did. He shows that he did not write all things fully: in which he humbles our understanding, lest we believe ourselves capable of knowing all things. For this reason he says that he did not write them. Therefore he says: Which if they were written out one by one, I do not think the world itself could contain the books that would have to be written — the text should be construed thus: contain those books which would have to be written — because our capacity is small: whence above in chapter sixteen: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

It is asked: what does he mean when he says that the signs of Christ could not be contained in the whole world, since the world would contain the books not only if His deeds, but even all things that have been done from the beginning of the age, were written down? And it must be said that capacity is twofold: bodily and spiritual, which is through the intellect. If it is said of bodily capacity, it is spoken by way of hyperbole, as in other places of Scripture, as in the Psalm: They set their mouth against heaven: and concerning Solomon, that he made so great an abundance of silver as there are stones in Jerusalem, 3 Kings chapter ten. But if it is said or taken of the capacity of understanding, it is true according to the letter: whence Augustine: "We, knowing that our understanding could not contain the things that could be written concerning Christ: let us take care, by understanding with right faith what he wrote, and by practicing with right action what he taught, to arrive at the everlasting gifts which the Lord Himself promised," with the help of Him who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen.

Very great, then, says the apostle, will be the number of the miracles that God has done, and altogether without number will the list of his deeds be seen to be. And out of many thousands have these that are recorded been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. And let no one who is of a teachable spirit and loves instruction, John implies, blame the one who wrote this book because he has not recorded the rest. For if "the things" that he did "had been written"—every one, without any omission—then such an immeasurable number of the books would have filled the world. We maintain that, even as it is, the power of the Word has been displayed more than abundantly. For it is open to everyone to observe that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Savior. The preachers of the Gospels, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them, in all probability. They recorded what could best be confirmed by their hearers in incorruptible faith and those that would provide instruction in morality and doctrine. They did this so that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith and glorified by many works that result in righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above. And, being joined to the church of the firstborn in the faith, they might at length attain to the kingdom of heaven in Christ.

Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And I think it was for this reason that John, the son of thunder, who with the loud voice of the doctrines contained in his Gospel rose above that of the preaching that heralded them, said at the close of his Gospel, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, so many that, in fact, if all of them were written, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." He certainly does not mean by these the miracles of healing, for of these the narrative [in general terms] leaves none unrecorded, even though it does not mention the names of all who were healed. For when he tells us that the dead were raised, that the blind received their sight, that the deaf heard, that the lame walked and that he healed all kinds of sickness and disease, he does not in this leave any miracle unrecorded but embraces each and all in these general terms. But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone that he did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of his other work.… For since God has made all things in wisdom and to his wisdom there is no limit, … the world that is bounded by limits of its own cannot contain within itself the account of infinite wisdom. If, then, the whole world is too little to contain the teaching of the works of God, how many worlds could contain an account of the Lord of them all? For perhaps it will not be denied even by the tongue of the blasphemer that the maker of all things that have been created by the mere fiat of his will is infinitely greater than all. If, then, the whole creation cannot contain what might be said respecting itself—for this is, according to our explanation, what the great Evangelist is testifying to—how should human shallowness contain all that might be said of the Lord of creation?

"There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." "Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." (Acts v. 32.)

And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly. And if he has said that so many miracles had taken place, marvel thou not, but, considering the ineffable power of the Doer, receive with faith what is spoken. For it was as easy for Him to do whatever He would, as it is for us to speak, or rather much easier; for it sufficed that He should will only, and all followed.

And here we conclude … this commentary on the harp of the Spirit, on the heavenly theologian and Apostle who is the friend of the glory of the Lord, the holy John the younger.

Do not be amazed at what was said, that if books were written about the deeds of Jesus, the world could not contain them; but consider the ineffable power of God the Word and accept what was said with faith. For just as it is easy for us to speak, so it is easy for Him, and indeed far easier, to do whatever He pleases. Some say that this is said hyperbolically, according to the custom of Scripture; for Scripture habitually employs hyperboles. For example: "we saw cities reaching up to heaven" (Num. 13:29), "we saw sons, and we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers" (Num. 13:34), and the like. In the same sense, they say, it is said here that the world could not contain the books that would be written. Otherwise, by "the world" they understand a person who is minded toward worldly things; but the divine and mysterious works accomplished by Jesus in the invisible and visible world, and in the dispensation of the last times, which is full of mysteries, the worldly person cannot comprehend, according to the saying: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). But let us pray that the deeds and words of the Lord may never fall into oblivion among us, but that we may always open this book of the Beloved and seek out the treasure contained in the miracles and teaching of Jesus; that, having been purified in word and life, on the day of revelation we may be deemed worthy of the most ineffable deeds and mysteries which now, while we are in the world, we cannot contain, and may be made perfect in Christ Himself, Who loved us, and through His beloved disciple enlightened us with the theology and knowledge of Him — the Son, and of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.

Now John states the incompleteness of his Gospel as compared with the reality, because Christ not only did these things but there are also many other things which Jesus did.

His statement, were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, can be understood in two ways. First, the word contain can refer to the capacity of our minds to understand. So the meaning is: So much could be said about Christ that the world could not understand all that could be written: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," that is, understand them (16:12). We could also regard this statement as a deliberate exaggeration; and it then indicates the abundance of Christ's works.

How reconcile this? He had just said, we know that his testimony is true, and then immediately resorts to hyperbole, exceeding the truth. According to Augustine, Scripture does use figures of speech, such as "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne" (Is 6:1), and such statements are not false. This is so when hyperbole is used. The desire of the speaker is not that we accept the literal meaning of the words, but what they were intended to mean, that is, the great number of Christ's works. Hyperbole is not used to explain what is obscure or doubtful, but to exaggerate or minimize what is obvious. For example, to emphasize how plentiful something is, one can say that there is enough for a hundred or a thousand people. And to minimize something, one could say that there is hardly enough for three. This is not speaking falsely, because it is so obvious that the words contort the reality that they show that one does not intend to lie, but to indicate that something is great or small.

Or, this statement could be understood to refer to the power of Christ, who performed these signs; and the emphasis is on every one of them. For to write about each and every word and deed of Christ is to reveal the power of every word and deed. Now the words and deeds of Christ are also those of God. Thus, if one tried to write and tell of the nature of every one, he could not do so; indeed, the entire world could not do this. This is because even an infinite number of human words cannot equal one word of God. From the beginning of the Church Christ has been written about; but this is still not equal to the subject. Indeed, even if the world lasted a hundred thousand years, and books written about Christ, his words and deeds could not be completely revealed: "Of making many books there is no end" (Eccl 12:12); The works of God "are multiplied above number" (Ps 50:5).