4 Paralytic

Now this place has caused great perplexity to many, because while St. Luke says, Very early in the morning, Matthew says that it was in the evening of the sabbath that the women came to the sepulchre. But you may suppose that the Evangelists spoke of different occasions, so as to understand both different parties of women, and different appearances. Because however it was written, that in the evening of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, (Matt. 28:1.) our Lord rose, we must so take it, as that neither on the morning of the Lord's day, which is the first after the sabbath, nor on the sabbath, the resurrection should be thought to have taken place. For how are the three days fulfilled? Not then as the day grew towards evening, but in the evening of the night He rose. Lastly, in the Greek it is "late;" (ὀψὶ) but late signifies both the hour at the end of the day, and the slowness of any thing; as we say, "I have been lately told." Late then is also the dead of the night. And thus also the women had the opportunity of coming to the sepulchre when the guards were asleep. And that you may know it was in the night time, some of the women are ignorant of it. They know who watch night and day, they know not who have gone back. According to John, one Mary Magdalene knows not, for the same person could not first know and then afterwards be ignorant. Therefore if there are several Maries, perhaps also there are several Mary Magdalenes, since the former is the name of a person, the second is derived from a place.

(Lib. de Inc. Fil. Dei.) He might indeed at once have raised His body from the dead. But some one would have said that He was never dead, or that death plainly had never existed in Him. And perhaps if the resurrection of our Lord had been delayed beyond the third day, the glory of incorruption had been concealed. In order therefore to show His body to be dead, He suffered the interval of one day, and on the third day manifested His body to be without corruption.

The Lord's day is called the first of the sabbath. But the first day itself falls away when the second follows it. That day, which both the eighth and the first, represents eternity. It is that day which we abandoned at the beginning by sinning in our first parents and so came down into this mortal state, and also the last and, as it were, the eighth day, to which we again look ahead after the resurrection, once our last enemy death has been destroyed. Only then will this perishable thing put on imperishability and this mortal thing put on immortality. The returning son [prodigal] will receive the first robe, which is to be given back to him on the last and, so to say, eighth day, after the labors of his distant exile and his feeding of pigs, and the other miseries of mortal life, and the sevenfold circulation of the wheel of time.So it was perfectly reasonable that it should have been on the first, which is also the eighth day—Sunday—that our Lord chose to give us an example in his own flesh of bodily resurrection. "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him." To this exalted state of his we must go with humility.

(de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 24.) Or Matthew by the first part of the night, which is the evening, wished to represent the night itself, at the end of which night they came to the sepulchre, and for this reason, because they had been now preparing since the evening, and it was lawful to bring spices because the sabbath was over.

But on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. The first day of the week, or the first day after the Sabbath, is the day which Christians call the Lord's Day because of the Lord's resurrection. That the women came to the tomb very early in the morning shows, according to the historical account, the great fervor of love in seeking and finding the Lord. In a mystical sense, it gives us an example of approaching the most holy body of the Lord with an enlightened face and the darkness of vices dispelled. For that venerable tomb had the figure of the Lord's altar, on which the mysteries of His flesh and blood are celebrated. Hence the ecclesiastical custom holds that these mysteries should be consecrated not in silk, not in dyed cloth, but in pure linen similar to the shroud in which Joseph wrapped Him. Just as He offered the true substance of his earthly and mortal nature to death for us, so we also, in commemoration of the same dreadful and venerable sacrament, place pure linen from the earth's produce, white, and, as it were, chastened by many types of mortification, on the altar. Moreover, the spices which the women bring signify the fragrance of virtues and prayers with which we should approach the altar. Hence John in his Apocalypse, having described the golden bowls in the hands of the angels, that is, the pure consciences in the hearts of the elect, full of incense, added explaining, and said: "Which are the prayers of the saints."

According to the Gospel reading, holy women came to see the sepulcher "after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week." This is how we should understand this: they started to come during the evening but reached the sepulcher as the morning of Sunday was dawning; that is, they prepared the spices with which they desired to anoint our Lord's body on [Saturday] evening but brought the spices which they had prepared in the evening to the sepulcher in the morning. Matthew, for the sake of brevity, wrote this more obscurely, but the other Evangelists show more distinctly the order in which it was done. After our Lord had been buried on Friday, the women went away from the tomb and prepared spices and ointments for as long as they were allowed to work. Then they refrained from any activity on the sabbath, in accord with the commandment, as Luke clearly reports. When the sabbath was over, as evening was coming on, one could work again. Being unwavering in their devotion, they bought the spices which they had not prepared [earlier] (as Mark records it) so that they might come and anoint him.

Devout women not only on the day of preparation, but also when the sabbath was passed, that is, at sun-set, as soon as the liberty of working returned, bought spices that they might come and anoint the body of Jesus, as Mark testifies. (Mark 16:1.) Still as long as night time restrained them, they came not to the sepulchre. And therefore it is said, On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, &c. One of the Sabbath, (una Sabbathi) or the first of the Sabbath, is the first day from the Sabbath; which Christians are wont to call "the Lord's day," because of our Lord's resurrection. But by the women coming to the sepulchre very early in the morning, is manifested their great zeal and fervent love of seeking and finding the Lord.

According to the mystical meaning, by the women coming early in the morning to the sepulchre, we have an example given us, that having cast away the darkness of our vices, we should come to the Body of the Lord. For that sepulchre also bore the figure of the Altar of the Lord, wherein the mysteries of Christ's Body, not in silk or purple cloth, but in pure white linen, like that in which Joseph wrapped it, ought to be consecrated, that as He offered up to death for us the true substance of His earthly nature, so we also in commemoration of Him should place on the Altar the flax, pure from the plant of the earth, and white, and in many ways refined by a kind of crushing to death. But the spices which the women bring, signify the odour of virtue, and the sweetness of prayers by which we ought to approach the Altar.

After the Evangelist has treated of Christ's incarnation, preaching, and passion, here in the fourth place he treats of the resurrection. This part is divided into four. In the first of which is treated the revelation of the resurrection; in the second, the apparition of the risen one, at the passage: Behold, two of them; in the third, the certainty of the apparition, at the passage: And rising up that same hour; in the fourth, the proclamation of the certainty of the truth, at the passage: But you are witnesses of these things, etc.

The occasion for Christ's resurrection to be revealed was the coming of the women to anoint Christ; concerning which two things are touched upon, namely the manner of coming to the Lord's sepulchre and the manner of finding the sepulchre empty.

First, therefore, as to the manner of coming to the tomb, he says: Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, carrying the spices which they had prepared, namely the women. And it should be noted that the Sabbath refers to that entire sabbatical week, because for seven days there was to be a feast; Leviticus twenty-three: "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread," and "you shall offer sacrifice by fire to the Lord for seven days." And therefore that entire week was called the Sabbath, on whose first day, that is, the Lord's day, they came to the tomb at earliest morning, because it was fitting that on that day on which light was first made, Christ should rise from the darkness of death and hell to the light of life. And therefore this day is called one, because it is the principle of spiritual illuminations just as unity is the principle of numbers; and therefore Genesis one: "And there was evening and morning, one day." On this day, therefore, it was fitting for Christ to rise from the dead; and as to the day, all the Evangelists indeed agree, but as to the hour of the time they seem to disagree.

For in Matthew twenty-eight it is said: "Now in the evening of the Sabbath, which dawns on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to see the sepulchre"; but in Mark sixteen it is said that "they came, the sun having now risen"; yet in John twenty it is said that "Mary Magdalene came early in the morning, while it was still dark, to the tomb." — But in this there is no controversy, because, although they express it in different words, nevertheless all intend to say that they came at the beginning of the day, namely when the sun was beginning to shine upon our hemisphere, and yet the darkness had not yet been completely dispelled.

Nevertheless, concerning the hour of the resurrection, there is a controversy among the doctors, because some say that Christ rose at midnight, while others say at dawn; but God knows who speaks more truly. — But the controversy can be resolved, because the first group says that the resurrection occurred at midnight in reality, but became known at dawn: and "a thing is said to happen when it becomes known." It can, however, be said that just as, when the sun withdrew from our hemisphere, the Sun of Justice hid himself, so when the sun returned to our hemisphere, the Sun of Justice rose again, such that it was neither entirely in the day nor entirely at midnight, but in a middle way. And therefore both groups of doctors speak the truth in their own way.

The women came to the sepulcher, and when they could not find the body of Christ—for he had risen—they were quite perplexed. And what followed? For the sake of their love and zeal for Christ, they were counted worthy of seeing holy angels who then told them the joyful news as the heralds of the resurrection, saying, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen!" The Word of God ever lives and by his own nature is life. Yet, when he humbled and emptied himself, submitting to be made like us, he tasted death. But this proved to be the death of death, for he rose from the dead to be the way by which not so much he himself but rather we could return to incorruption. Let no one seek among the dead him who ever lives. But if he is not here, with mortality and in the tomb, where then is he? Obviously, in heaven and in godlike glory.

And Luke says: "They rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment. Now, upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared; and they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." This phrase "very early in the morning" probably indicates the early dawn of the first day of the week; and thus, when the Sabbath itself was wholly past, and also the whole night succeeding it, and when another day had begun, they came, bringing spices and myrrh, and then it became apparent that He had already risen long before.

You have heard, most beloved brethren, that the holy women who had followed the Lord came to the tomb with spices, and to him whom they had loved while living, they render service with devoted care even when dead. But this deed signifies something to be done in holy Church. For we must hear what was done in such a way that we may also consider what we ought to do in imitation of them. We therefore, believing in him who died, if we seek the Lord filled with the fragrance of virtues and with a reputation for good works, we indeed come to his tomb with spices. Those women see angels who came with spices, because those souls behold the heavenly citizens who set out toward the Lord with the fragrance of virtues through holy desires.

It was very meet that the man who buried the Lord should thus be noticed in prophecy, and thenceforth be "blessed; " since prophecy does not omit the (pious) office of the women who resorted before day-break to the sepulchre with the spices which they had prepared. For of this incident it is said by Hosea: "To seek my face they will watch till day-light, saying unto me, Come, and let us return to the Lord: for He hath taken away, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up; after two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up.

On the first day of the week the women came to the tomb, carrying with them spices. They came very early, which the evangelist Matthew (Matt. 28:1) calls the evening of the Sabbath. For the deep morning is almost the same as the very late evening.

And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, and upon entering, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. How the stone was rolled away by the angel, Matthew has sufficiently explained. But the rolling away of the stone mystically signifies the revelation of the sacraments which were hidden under the veil of the letter. For the Law is written on stone. When its covering is removed, the dead body of the Lord is not found but is proclaimed as living. For even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we no longer know Him that way.

Mystically, the rolling away of the stone implies the disclosure of the divine sacraments, which were formerly hidden and closed up by the letter of the law. The law was written on stone. Indeed, in the case of each of us, when we acknowledge our faith in the Lord's passion and resurrection, his tomb, which had been closed, is opened up. We enter the tomb but do not find the body of the Lord, when in our hearts we carefully think back over the order [of events] of his incarnation and his passion and recall that he has risen from the dead and is no longer to be seen in his mortal flesh. But the Jew and the pagan, who ridicule the death of our Redeemer which they believe in but refuse to believe further in the triumph of his resurrection, continue to be like a tomb still closed by a stone. They are not capable of entering to see that the body of the Lord has disappeared by his rising, because by the hardness of their infidelity they are prevented from becoming aware that a dead person, who has destroyed death's right of entry and has already passed into the heights of the heavens, cannot be found on earth.

The rolling back of the stone alludes to the unclosing of the Sacraments which were concealed by the veil of the letter of the law which was written on stone, the covering of which being taken away, the dead body of the Lord is not found, but the living body is preached; for although we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. (2 Cor. 5:16.)

Second, as to the manner of finding the tomb, he adds: And they found the stone rolled away from the monument. Concerning the rolling away of this stone they were anxious, as is said in Mark 16: "And they said among themselves: Who shall roll away the stone for us from the door of the monument? And looking up, they saw the stone rolled away. For it was very great." Now this stone was not rolled away at the resurrection, but after it; whence Bede says: "He who came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin was able to come forth from the closed tomb." But the Angel of the Lord did this for the sake of manifestation; whence Matthew 28: "The Angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming, rolled away the stone and sat upon it."

The Instrument of the Word lay dead, but a great stone enclosed the sepulchre, as if death had led Him captive. But three days had not yet elapsed, when life again puts itself forth after a sufficient proof of death, as it follows, And they found the stone rolled away.

(Hom. 90. in Matt.) But the stone was rolled away after the resurrection, on account of the women, that they might believe that the Lord had risen again, seeing indeed the grave without the body. Hence it follows, And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, for the Angel had rolled it away, as Matthew says (Matt. 28:2).

An angel had rolled it away, as Matthew declares.

Now he did this as the one manifesting the resurrection of Christ; whence he adds: And entering in, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And note that significantly, whereas he had previously called him Christ Jesus, he now calls him Lord Jesus, because now that word of Matthew 28 was verified in him: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth," and that of Philippians 2: "For which cause God also exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name," etc. The body of Christ, therefore, is not found in the tomb, because it had already been raised; whence below in the same chapter it is said: "Why do you seek the living among the dead?"

According to the spiritual understanding, however, by the tomb is understood Scripture, in which the Lord lies hidden as in a certain sepulcher: whence John 5: "Search the Scriptures, in which you think you have eternal life." — By the stone placed over it is understood the veil of Scripture, on account of which the Law was also written on tablets of stone; and concerning this veil, 2 Corinthians 3: "Until this present day, when Moses is read, a veil is placed over their heart." — This veil is removed through the angelic ministry, because the Angels also communicate illuminations to us, according to that passage in Revelation 22: "The Angel showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb." It also occurs through the ministry of teachers, who ought to be angelic men, according to that passage in Malachi 2: "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth." And of this sort is to descend from heaven, as Paul, who "was caught up into paradise and heard secret words," 2 Corinthians 12; or, if one cannot ascend to the innermost things of God, let him at least advance on the ladder of Jacob, whose summit touches heaven, as good contemplatives do. In whose figure, Genesis 28: "Jacob saw a ladder standing upon the earth and its summit touching heaven, and the Angels of God ascending and descending by it." This ladder is Christ: whence John 1: "You shall see the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." He therefore who thus removes the veil consequently also repels carnality and death and ascends to contemplate the Divinity and immortality of Christ: 2 Corinthians 5: "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no longer"; not that he did not know the flesh of Christ, but not with a carnal affection or understanding: on account of which, John 6: "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved in the thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion with which at present they seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the Lord, and the hope of the resurrection itself, by which they rightly supposed that all would be restored to them? But when "they found not the body (of the Lord Jesus)," "His sepulture was removed from the midst of them," according to the prophecy of Isaiah.

But how is it that Mark has mentioned one young man sitting in white garments, and Matthew one, but John and Luke relate that there were seen two angels sitting in white garments.

(de Con. Ev. ut sup.) We may understand that one Angel was seen by the women, as both Mark and Matthew say, so as supposing them to have entered into the sepulchre, that is, into a certain space which was fenced off by a kind of wall in front of the stone sepulchre; and that there they saw an Angel sitting on the right hand, which Mark says, but that afterwards when they looked into the place where our Lord was lying, they saw within two other Angels standing, (as Luke says,) who spoke to encourage their minds, and build up their faith. Hence it follows, And as they were afraid.

And it came to pass, while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. They were perplexed, because they were astonished at the stone of such immense size having been rolled away, and grieved at not finding the body of such great reverence. Just as when the Lord was tempted in the wilderness, immediately after the completion of victory, angels came and ministered to Him, so also after the Savior had suffered in the flesh, following the contests of conquered death, angels came who announced the glory of the triumphant not only with comforting words but also with shining attire. Just as it is read that when the Savior's body was placed in the tomb, angels stood by, so it is also believed that during the consecration of the most sacred mysteries of His body, angels are present, with the Apostle urging women to wear a veil in the Church because of the angels (I Cor. XI).

But as when the Body of our Lord lay in the sepulchre, Angels are said to have stood by, so also at the time of consecration are they to be believed to stand by the mysteries of Christ.

And it came to pass, while they were perplexed in mind. After describing the occasion for the revelation of the resurrection, he here describes the certainty of the revelation, which is gathered from two things, namely from the assertion of the witnesses and the confirmation of the testimonies.

First, therefore, as regards the assertion of the witnesses, he says: And it came to pass, while they were terrified in mind about this, behold, two men stood beside them in shining garments. These two men were Angels in masculine form, who were in shining garments to signify the splendor of our solemnity; whence also Revelation 7: "Before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palms in their hands." Significantly, however, he says in shining garments, in which there was not only an intensity of brightness but also an excellence of light, so as to soothe the devout and terrify the impious; whence the last chapter of Matthew: "The Angel of the Lord descended from heaven." "And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment like snow."

But then there appears a discrepancy among the Evangelists. For Luke says that there were two, but Matthew that there was one.

Likewise, Matthew says that he was sitting upon the rolled-back stone, but Mark that he was sitting on the right.

Likewise, John says that one was sitting at the head and the other at the feet; but Luke says that they stood beside them.

But it should be understood that, according to the expositors, one appeared first and the other afterward; and at first indeed they were sitting, but afterward they rose and spoke with the women, and thus they are described by the Evangelists in different dispositions. All, however, agree in this, that they were terrible and testifying.

Angels also brought the joyful tidings of the nativity to the shepherds in Bethlehem. Now they tell of his resurrection. Heaven yields its service to proclaim him, and the hosts of the spirits which are above attend the Son as God, even though he is in the flesh.

When then they found not the body of Christ which was risen, they were distracted by various thoughts, and for their love of Christ and the tender care they had shown Him, were thought worthy of the vision of angels. For it follows, And it came to pass as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

The messengers of the health-bearing resurrection and their shining garments stand for tokens of pleasantness and rejoicing. For Moses preparing plagues against the Egyptians, perceived an angel in the flame of fire. But not such were those who appeared to the women at the sepulchre, but calm and joyful as became them to be seen in the kingdom and joy of the Lord. And as at the Passion the sun was darkened, holding forth signs of sorrow and woe to the crucifiers of our Lord, so the angels, heralds of life and resurrection, marked by their white garments the character of the health-bearing feast day.

But we must note what it means that the angel is seen sitting on the right side. For what is designated by the left except the present life, and what by the right except eternal life? Hence it is written in the Song of Songs: "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me." Since therefore our Redeemer had already passed beyond the corruption of the present life, rightly the angel who had come to announce his eternal life was sitting on the right. He appeared covered with a white robe because he announced the joys of our festival. For the brightness of the garment proclaims the splendor of our solemnity. Should we say ours, or his? But to speak more truly, let us say both his and ours. For that resurrection of our Redeemer was both our festival, because it brought us back to immortality, and the festival of the angels, because by calling us back to heavenly things it filled up their number. Therefore at his own and our festival the angel appeared in white garments, because while we are brought back to heavenly things through the Lord's resurrection, the losses of the heavenly homeland are repaired.

For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved in the thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion with which at present they seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the Lord, and the hope of the resurrection itself, by which they rightly supposed that all would be restored to them? But when "they found not the body (of the Lord Jesus)," "His sepulture was removed from the midst of them," according to the prophecy of Isaiah. "Two angels however, appeared there." For just so many honorary companions were required by the word of God, which usually prescribes "two witnesses.

When they entered inside, two men appear to them. One, mentioned by Matthew (Matt. 28:2), was sitting on the stone, while these two men stood inside the tomb. These are different visions.

But as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them: Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Do not (they say) seek among the dead, that is in the tomb, which is properly the place of the dead, him who has already risen to life from the dead. And therefore, when we enter the Church following the example of the women devoted to God, and approach the heavenly mysteries, either because of the presence of angelic power or because of the reverence of the holy offering, we ought to enter with all humility and fear. Indeed we bow our faces to the ground in the sight of the angels, humbly remembering that we are dust and ashes, when contemplating the eternal joys of the heavenly citizens. Just as blessed Abraham said: I will speak to my Lord, though I am dust and ashes (Gen. XVIII). And it should be noted that the holy women, with the angels standing before them, are not said to have fallen to the ground, but to have bowed their faces to the ground. And we do not read that any of the saints, at the time of the Lord's resurrection, either when the Lord himself or the angels appeared to them, worshipped prostrate on the ground. From this, the ecclesiastical custom has arisen, that either in memory of the Lord's resurrection or in hope of our own resurrection, on all Sundays and throughout the entire period of Pentecost, we pray not on bended knees, but with faces bowed to the ground.

The holy women, when the Angels stood beside them, are reported not to have fallen to the ground, but to have bowed their faces to the earth; nor do we read that any of the saints, at the time of our Lord's resurrection, worshipped with prostration to the ground either our Lord Himself, or the Angels who appeared to them. Hence has arisen the ecclesiastical custom, either in memory of our Lord's resurrection, or in the hope of our own, of praying on every Lord's day, and through the whole season of Pentecost, not with bended knees, but with our faces bowed to the earth. But not in the sepulchre, which is the place of the dead, was He to be sought, who rose from the dead to life. And therefore it is added, They said to them, that is, the Angels to the women, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

Let us then after the example of the devout women, whenever we approach the heavenly mysteries, because of the presence of the Angels, or from reverence to the Sacred Offering, with all humility, bow our faces to the earth, recollecting that we are but dust and ashes.

And therefore Luke adds: But as they were afraid and bowed down their faces to the earth, namely out of fear and reverence, as Daniel, Daniel 10: "When he spoke to me, I cast down my face to the earth and was silent"; and such persons are fit to hear the truth. — Whence he adds: They said to them: Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen; in which they at once reprove unbelief and affirm the truth. This word was of the highest joy; and thus it was fitting that, just as the Angel had announced with joy the nativity of Christ, above in chapter two: "I announce to you a great joy," so also the Angels should now announce with joy the resurrection. And that word of the Psalm was fulfilled: "I have slept and taken my rest, and I have risen, and I am still with you"; and again: "For you will not abandon my soul in hell." Therefore Acts 2: "This Jesus God raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, inasmuch as it was impossible that he should be held by it. For David says concerning him: I foresaw the Lord, etc., down to: You will not give your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life," etc.

[Lewis draws an analogy between his error of seeking Joy in past experiences and the angel's rebuke at the empty tomb, arguing the resemblance is not accidental but reflects a universal spiritual pattern]

In my scheme of thought it is not blasphemous to compare the error which I was making with that error which the angel at the Sepulchre rebuked when he said to the women, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, He is risen." The comparison is of course between something of infinite moment and something very small; like comparison between the Sun and the Sun's reflection in a dewdrop. Indeed, in my view, very like it, for I do not think the resemblance between the Christian and the merely imaginative experience is accidental. I think that all things, in their way, reflect heavenly truth, the imagination not least. "Reflect" is the important word. This lower life of the imagination is not a beginning of, nor a step towards, the higher life of the spirit, merely an image. In me, at any rate, it contained no element either of belief or of ethics; however far pursued, it would never have made me either wiser or better. But it still had, at however many removes, the shape of the reality it reflected.

There are certain writers to whom humanity owes much, whose talent is yet of so shy or delicate or retrospective a type that we do well to link it with certain quaint places or certain perishing associations. It would not be unnatural to look for the spirit of Horace Walpole at Strawberry Hill, or even for the shade of Thackeray in Old Kensington. But let us have no antiquarianism about Dickens, for Dickens is not an antiquity. Dickens looks not backward, but forward; he might look at our modern mobs with satire, or with fury, but he would love to look at them. He might lash our democracy, but it would be because, like a democrat, he asked much from it. We will not have all his books bound up under the title of 'The Old Curiosity Shop.' Rather we will have them all bound up under the title of 'Great Expectations.' Wherever humanity is he would have us face it and make something of it, swallow it with a holy cannibalism, and assimilate it with the digestion of a giant. We must take these trippers as he would have taken them, and tear out of them their tragedy and their farce. Do you remember now what the angel said at the sepulchre? 'Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here; he is risen.'

There are people who say they wish Christianity to remain as a spirit. They mean, very literally, that they wish it to remain as a ghost. But it is not going to remain as a ghost. What follows this process of apparent death is not the lingering of the shade; it is the resurrection of the body. These people are quite prepared to shed pious and reverential tears over the Sepulchre of the Son of Man; what they are not prepared for is the Son of God walking once more upon the hills of morning. These people, and indeed most people, were indeed by this time quite accustomed to the idea that the old Christian candle-light would fade into the light of common day. To many of them it did quite honestly appear like that pale yellow flame of a candle when it is left burning in daylight. It was all the more unexpected, and therefore all the more unmistakable, that the seven-branched candle-stick suddenly towered to heaven like a miraculous tree and flamed until the sun turned pale.

But let us hear what he says to the women as they arrive: "Do not be afraid." As if he were saying openly: Let those fear who do not love the coming of the heavenly citizens; let those be terrified who, weighed down by carnal desires, despair of being able to reach their fellowship. But why should you be afraid, who see your fellow citizens?

Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." On the third day, the Lord, as He predicted to His disciples and also to the women who followed Him (which we learn from this passage), celebrated the triumph of His resurrection. Indeed, on the day of the Preparation, He handed over His spirit at the ninth hour, was buried in the evening, and rose on the morning of the first day of the week, as the evangelist Mark clearly indicates. Therefore, it is not unjust that He lay in the tomb for one day and two nights, because He joined the light of His simple death to the darkness of our double death. For He came to us who were held in the death of both spirit and flesh, He brought us His one death, that is, of the flesh, and dissolved the two deaths He received from us. If He had taken on both, He would have delivered us from neither, but He mercifully accepted one and justly condemned both. He conferred His simple death to our double death and, by dying, overcame our double death.

He is not here, but is risen. On the third day then, as He Himself foretold to the women, together with the rest of His disciples, He celebrated the triumph of His resurrection. Hence it follows, Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, &c. For on the day of the preparation at the ninth hour giving up the ghost, buried in the evening, early on the morning of the first day of the week He rose again.

Second, as to the proof of certain testimonies, he adds: Remember how he spoke to you, when he was still in Galilee, saying: That the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise again. For Matthew 20: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn him to death and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and the third day he shall rise again." Similarly Mark 8: "The Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the chief priests and be killed, and after three days rise again." Similarly above, chapter 18: "All things shall be accomplished which were written by the Prophets concerning the Son of man. For he shall be delivered to the Gentiles," etc., and afterward he adds: "And the third day he shall rise again." Now he had foretold these things to them in order to establish faith; whence John 14: "And now I have told you before it comes to pass, that when it shall come to pass, you may believe."

But now let us hear what the angel adds: "You seek Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus in the Latin tongue means "salutary," that is, it is interpreted as "Savior." But indeed many at that time could be called Jesus, yet not substantially, but only nominatively. Therefore the place is also added, so that it might be made clear which Jesus is meant: "of Nazareth." And he immediately added the reason: "the Crucified One." And he added: "He has risen, He is not here." "He is not here" is said with respect to the presence of His flesh, though He is nowhere absent with respect to the presence of His majesty.

For the same thing was said by the angels to the women: "Remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered up, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." "Must be delivered up; "and why, except that it was so written by God the Creator? He therefore upbraided them, because they were offended solely at His passion, and because they doubted of the truth of the resurrection which had been reported to them by the women, whereby (they showed that) they had not believed Him to have been the very same as they had thought Him to be.

Men appear in shining garments, on account of the brightness of the resurrection, and remind the women of what the Lord had told them, namely: that it was "necessary," that is, inevitable, for Him "to be delivered into the hands of sinful men," that is, the Romans, pagans and defiled ones, "and on the third day to rise again." Concerning how the resurrection is on the third day, we have spoken sufficiently in the commentary on Matthew (see ch. 28).

And they remembered His words. The women standing at the Lord's tomb remembered the words He had previously spoken about His dispensation, providing us a model, that during the celebration of the mysteries of the Lord's passion, we should always remember with worthy veneration not only His blessed passion, but also His resurrection from the dead and His glorious ascension into heaven.

And this was the way leading to faith, and therefore he adds: And they remembered his words; whence John 2: "What sign do you show us, since you do these things? Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." "But he was speaking of the temple of his body. When therefore he had risen from the dead, they remembered that he said this" concerning the temple of his body. Similarly also Matthew 12: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth."

Whence the Lord foretold his passion and resurrection, that he might at once move them to sorrow and draw them to love; on account of which Ecclesiasticus 11: "In the day of good things, be not unmindful of evil things, and in the day of evil things, be not unmindful of good things."

Now the women, when they had received the sayings of the Angels, hastened to tell them to the disciples; as it follows, And they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. For woman who was once the minister of death, is now the first to receive and tell the awful mystery of the resurrection. The female race has obtained therefore both deliverance from reproach, and the withdrawal of the curse.

And having departed from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the others. Just as in the beginning the woman was the author of the fault to man, and man the executor of the error, so now the one who first tasted death saw resurrection first, and so that she might not bear the reproach of perpetual guilt among men, the grace she had conferred upon man she also conferred upon herself.

(ex Amb.) For that the woman might not endure the everlasting reproach of guilt from men, she who had transfused sin into the man, now also transfuses grace.

And having returned from the tomb etc. After having described the occasion and certitude of the revelation, here he describes its manifestation; concerning which the Evangelist introduces two things, namely the testimony of the women and the inspection of the disciples.

First therefore, as regards the testimony of the women, he adds: And departing from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now the women reported these things because they had been so charged by the Angels: whence in the last chapter of Matthew: "Go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee." For this was done by divine ordinance, so that the announcement of the resurrection should come to men through women: just as death and sin took their beginning from a woman, so now through women the announcement and knowledge of life and immortality would return to men, so that through this an example of humility might also be given. Whence Chrysostom: "The Evangelist does not deprive the woman of praise, nor does he think it shameful to have learned from a woman." The reproach of women is also taken away, and especially of sinful women.

It is not allowed to women to teach in the church, but they shall ask their husbands at home. (1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Cor. 14:35.) To those then who are at home is the woman sent... For that the woman might not endure the everlasting reproach of guilt from men, she who had transfused sin into the man, now also transfuses grace.

Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the others who were with them, who told these things to the apostles. Mary Magdalene herself is the sister of Lazarus, who anointed the Lord with ointment. Joanna, wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod, about whom it has been read above. Mary of James is the mother of James the Less and Joseph, as the evangelist Mark says, the sister of the Lord's mother, hence James himself deserved to be called the Lord's brother.

(who Was also the sister of Lazarus,) and Joanna, (the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward,) and Mary the mother of James, (that is, the mother of James the less, and Joseph.) And it is added generally of the others, and other women that were with them, which told these things to the Apostles.

And therefore especially among the others that sinful woman is named, when he adds: Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary of James and the others who were with them, who were telling these things to the Apostles. Now Mary Magdalene is notably placed before the others, because she loved more fervently than the others and, as is handed down, came first to the tomb and persevered longer than the rest. And therefore John, the most loving of the Lord, notably names that lover of the Lord; John 20: "Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping"; and it follows there that she saw the Angels and that at last she saw the Lord. John therefore speaks only of Mary Magdalene. Matthew speaks of two Marys: in the last chapter of Matthew: "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre." But Mark speaks of three Marys: in the last chapter of Mark: "Mary Magdalene and Mary of James and Salome bought spices." But Luke, the best narrator, speaks of these and of others. And thus it appears that among the Evangelists there is absolutely no controversy, but each is principally directed to his own intention.

All the Evangelists, however, mention the Magdalene, and especially the friend of God, John, because he appeared to her first, as is said in Mark 16: "Jesus rising early on the first day of the week appeared first to Mary Magdalene." And this for a fourfold reason: first, because she loved more ardently: above in chapter seven: "Her many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much." Second, to show that he had come for sinners: Matthew 9: "For I came not to call the just, but sinners," to repentance. Third, to crush human pride: on account of which, Matthew 21: "Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdom of God." Fourth, to give confidence; on account of which, Romans 5: "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound," etc.

The women came to the tomb, but they didn't find the body in the tomb. Instead, they were told by angels that Christ had risen. The women reported this to men. And what's written? What did you hear? These things seemed in their eyes like an idle tale. How very unhappy is the human condition! When Eve related what the serpent had said, she was listened to straightaway. A lying woman was believed, and so we all died. But [the disciples] didn't believe women telling the truth so that we might live. If women are not to be trusted, why did Adam trust Eve? If women are to be trusted, why did the disciples not trust the holy women?So in this fact we have to reflect on the goodness of the Lord's arrangements, because this, of course, was the doing of the Lord Jesus Christ that it should be the female sex which would be the first to report that he had risen again. Humanity fell through the female sex; humankind was restored through the female sex. A virgin gave birth to Christ; a woman proclaimed that he had risen again. Through a woman death, through a woman life. But the disciples didn't believe what the women had said. They thought they were raving, when in fact they were reporting the truth.

This hope, this gift, this promise, this tremendous grace—when Christ died his disciples lost it from their spirits, and on his death they fell away from hope. Here we see them receiving the news of his resurrection, and the words of the messengers seemed to them like an idle tale. Truth became like an idle tale. If ever the resurrection is proclaimed nowadays, and someone thinks it's an idle tale, doesn't everybody say he's all twisted up? Doesn't everybody loathe and detest what he says, turn away, close their ears and refuse to listen? That's what the disciples were when Christ died. What we abhor is what they were. The leading rams had the disease which the lambs shudder at.

And these words appeared to them as an idle tale, and they did not believe them. That the disciples were slow to believe in the Lord's resurrection was not so much their weakness as our (so to speak) future firmness. For the resurrection itself was shown to them with many proofs while they doubted. As we acknowledge these things by reading, what else are we but strengthened by their doubt?

(ex Greg.) Which was not so much their weakness, as so to speak our strength. For the resurrection itself was demonstrated to those who doubted by many proofs, which while we read and acknowledge we are through their doubts confirmed in the truth.

Secondly, as regards the sight of the disciples, it is added: And these words seemed before them as idle talk, and they did not believe them. Hence they did not believe what they heard, both because what was being said was wondrous, and because this was being brought about by divine dispensation, so that a greater and more certain assertion of the truth might be obtained. Hence Gregory: "That the disciples were slow to believe was not so much their incredulity as our future firmness, so to speak. For while they doubted, the resurrection was demonstrated by many proofs, which, when we recognize them as we read, what else happens but that we are strengthened by their doubt?"

The Spirit of truth would by no means have permitted this hesitation, wavering in human weakness, to enter the hearts of his preachers, if their trembling anxiety and questioning delay were not to have established the foundations of our faith. Consequently it was our doubts and our danger that was being considered in the apostles. We, in the guise of the apostles, were being instructed against the slanders of the wicked and the proofs of earthly wisdom. Their "seeing" instructed us, their "hearing" informed us, their "touching" strengthened us. Let us give thanks for the divine plan and the necessary "slowness" of the holy fathers. They "doubted" so that we need not doubt.

When they returned from the tomb and told the apostles about this, they were regarded as dreamers. So, by nature, the miracle of the resurrection seems incredible to people!

Now the miracle of the resurrection is naturally incredible to mankind. Hence it follows, And their words seemed to them as idle tales.

Luke is supposed to have mentioned this concerning Peter, recapitulating. For Peter ran to the sepulchre at the same time that John also went, as soon as it had been told to them alone by the women, (especially Mary Magdalene,) that the body was taken away. But the vision of Angels took place afterwards. Luke therefore mentioned Peter only, because to him Mary first told it. It may also strike one, that Luke says that Peter, not entering but stooping down, saw the linen clothes by themselves, and departed wondering, whereas John says, that he himself saw the linen clothes in the same position, and that he entered after Peter. We must understand then that Peter first saw them stooping down, which Luke mentions, John omits, but that he afterwards entered before John came in.

But Peter arose and ran to the tomb, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths alone, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened. Luke briefly mentions Peter's run; but how this happened is more fully detailed by John, who also says that the disciple whom Jesus loved ran with Peter, thus implying himself. Therefore, it is asked how Luke says of Peter: "And stooping down, he saw the linen cloths alone" (Luke 24), while John signifies that he himself did this, but that Peter, upon entering the tomb, saw not only the linen cloths but also the napkin that had been on his head. It must be understood that Peter, stooping down, saw what Luke records, which John is silent about; but after entering, to more carefully discern the interior, he entered, yet before John entered.

Therefore the doubt arising from hearing incited them to seek certainty through sight; on account of which he adds: But Peter rising up ran to the tomb, and stooping down he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves, and he went away, wondering within himself at what had happened. Now Luke narrates these things specifically about Peter, to show that he had not abandoned his fervor. But John narrates this more expressly in chapter twenty, that not Peter alone went, but also John; and that "they ran together," and that "John ran ahead more quickly than Peter, but did not enter the tomb first." Luke therefore narrates that Peter, stooping down, saw the linen cloths laid; but John pursues more expressly that he not only saw these things, but also "entered the tomb," and yet, as is said here, he went away wondering within himself, not yet believing, because it is said in John chapter twenty: "For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead."

And it should be noted that by the linen cloths laid are understood the mysteries of the humanity, which have been set forth for us to believe and understand through the mystery of the resurrection; hence Revelation chapter five: "Behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, to open the book and to loose its seven seals." But because not all things can be comprehended by reason of the united Divinity, therefore it is said that he went away wondering. For it is said in the Psalm: "Your knowledge is become wonderful beyond me." And therefore, in designation of this, it is said in John chapter twenty that "the cloth which had been upon the head of Jesus, he saw not laid with the linen cloths, but separately rolled up in one place." There the Gloss: "The incomprehensible mysteries of the Divinity are removed from the knowledge of our infirmity; for in what is rolled up neither beginning nor end is seen, so the loftiness of the Divinity neither began to be nor ceased to be." And therefore Peter went away wondering; the Psalm: "Wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it exceedingly."

If he left his clothes behind in the tomb, it was so that Adam could enter into paradise without clothing, just as he had been before he had sinned. In place of having to leave paradise clothed, he now had to strip himself before entering there [again]. Or [alternatively], he abandoned them to symbolize the mystery of the resurrection of the dead, for just as [the Lord] rose into glory without clothes, so we also [will rise] with our works and not with our clothes.

For he alone believed the women saying that they had seen Angels; and as he was of more ardent feelings than the rest, he anxiously put himself foremost, looking every where for the Lord; as it follows, And stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves.

However, Peter does not delay, like fire that has taken hold of material, but runs to the tomb and sees only the linen cloths lying there. And from the fact that he reached the tomb, the first benefit is that instead of mocking, he marvels: "and he went away (it says), wondering in himself at what had happened." For how did the linen cloths alone remain, and that when the body had been anointed with myrrh? How much leisure did the thief have, when he left them properly folded, carried out the body, and that when soldiers had been posted? By "Mary, the mother of James," understand the Theotokos, for she was so called as the supposed mother of James, the son of Joseph, who was called the Less; I mean the Brother of God. For there was also James the Greater, one of the Twelve, the son of Zebedee.

Peter, as soon as he heard this, delays not, but runs to the sepulchre; for fire when applied to matter knows no delay; as it follows, Then arose Peter, and ran to the sepulchre.

But now when he was at the tomb, he first of all obtained that he should marvel at those things which had before been derided by himself or the others; as it is said, And departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass; that is, wondering in himself at the way in which it had happened, how the linen clothes had been left behind, since the body was anointed with myrrh; or what opportunity the thief had obtained, that putting away the clothes wrapped up by themselves, he should take away the body with the soldiers standing round.

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 ought not to be a matter of wonder that a miracle was wrought by God; the wonder would be if man had wrought it. Rather ought we to rejoice than wonder that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was made man, than that He performed divine works among men. It is of greater importance to our salvation what He was made for men, than what He did among men: it is more important that He healed the faults of souls, than that He healed the weaknesses of mortal bodies. But as the soul knew not Him by whom it was to be healed, and had eyes in the flesh whereby to see corporeal deeds, but had not yet sound eyes in the heart with which to recognise Him as God concealed in the flesh, He wrought what the soul was able to see, in order to heal that by which it was not able to see.

He entered a place where lay a great multitude of sick folk - of blind, lame, withered; and being the physician both of souls and bodies, and having come to heal all the souls of them that should believe, of those sick folk He chose one for healing, thereby to signify unity. If in doing this we regard Him with a commonplace mind, with the mere human understanding and wit, as regards power it was not a great matter that He performed; and also as regards goodness He performed too little. There lay so many there, and yet only one was healed, whilst He could by a word have raised them all up. What, then, must we understand but that the power and the goodness was doing what souls might, by His deeds, understand for their everlasting salvation, than what bodies might gain for temporal health? For that which is the real health of bodies, and which is looked for from the Lord, will be at the end, in the resurrection of the dead. What shall live then shall no more die; what shall be healed shall no more be sick; what shall be satisfied shall no more hunger and thirst; what shall be made new shall not grow old. But at this time, however, the eyes of the blind, that were opened by those acts of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, were again closed in death; and limbs of the paralytics that received strength were loosened again in death; and whatever was for a time made whole in mortal limbs came to nought in the end: but the soul that believed passed to eternal life. Accordingly, to the soul that should believe, whose sins He had come to forgive, to the healing of whose ailments He had humbled Himself, He gave a significant proof by the healing of this impotent man.

(de Con. Evang. l. iv. c. 10) After the miracle in Galilee, He returns to Jerusalem: After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

That principal part has been concluded in which the manifestation of the incarnate Word is treated insofar as it regards conditions on the part of those to whom the manifestation is made: here begins the second principal part, in which the manifestation of the incarnate Word is treated insofar as it regards conditions on the part of the Word Himself who is manifested. For He shows that the Son of God Himself, who is the Word of the Father, manifests Himself as healer, preserver, director, and life-giver.

First, therefore, He shows Himself as healer in the present chapter. Second, as preserver in the sixth chapter. Third, as director from the beginning of the seventh chapter up to the eleventh. Fourth, as perfect restorer in the raising of Lazarus, at the beginning of the eleventh chapter.

The present chapter, therefore, in which He manifests Himself as healer through the wondrous liberation of the paralytic, has four parts according to the four things that are determined therein. In the first is touched upon the miraculous healing. In the second, the calumniation of the healing. In the third, the refutation of the calumniation. In the fourth, the corroboration of the refutation, and this through many testimonies.

The wondrous healing, therefore, is described according to the letter from four aspects: first, from the fitness of the time; second, from the disposition of the place; third, from the need of the sick man; fourth, from the power of the one healing.

First, therefore, it is described from the fitness of the time, because it was a festive time, in which the Lord was accustomed to bestow benefits. For this reason he says: "After these things," namely those things which were narrated above, "there was a feast day of the Jews." Chrysostom says that this feast day was Pentecost, which was midway between Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is, the solemnity of booths. "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem," as all the Jews had in custom: Luke 2: "They went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast day."

But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the passover. First of all, after He had made the water wine at Cana of Galilee, He went up to the festival day of the passover, on which occasion it is written, "For many believed in Him, when they saw the signs which He did," as John the disciple of the Lord records. Then, again, withdrawing Himself [from Judaea], He is found in Samaria; on which occasion, too, He convened with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance, cured the son of the centurion by a word, saying, "Go thy way, thy son liveth." Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover in Jerusalem; on which occasion He cured the paralytic man, who had lain beside the pool thirty-eight years, bidding him rise, take up his couch, and depart. Again, withdrawing from thence to the other side of the sea of Tiberias, He there seeing a great crowd had followed Him, fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread, and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above. Then, when He had raised Lazarus from the dead, and plots were formed against Him by the Pharisees, He withdrew to a city called Ephraim; and from that place, as it is written "He came to Bethany six days before the passover," and going up from Bethany to Jerusalem, He there ate the passover, and suffered on the day following. Now, that these three occasions of the passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge.

"After this there was a feast of the Jews." What "feast"? Methinks that of Pentecost. "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Continually at the feasts He frequenteth the City, partly that He might appear to feast with them, partly that He might attract the multitude that was free from guile; for during these days especially, the more simply disposed ran together more than at other times.

And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, "the law and the prophets were until John," and the fishpool of Bethsaida until the advent of Christ: thereafter it ceased curatively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them blasphemed, as it is written: "On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles: " for it is from them that the infamy (attached to that name) began, and (was propagated during) the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian.

If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain.

He chose the time when everybody gathered to offer his help to everyone. Therefore he went to Jerusalem at that time. He did not think it was necessary to travel around and go to every place where people were ill, so that it might not appear that he was looking for fame. Instead he healed one only and through him he revealed himself to many.

The feast of the Jews was at hand; I think it was the feast of Pentecost. The Lord goes to the feast partly so as not to appear an opponent of the law, but to show Himself a participant in the feast of the people; and partly in order to attract a greater number of people to Himself through teaching and signs, especially the simple folk. For at the feasts, both farmers and city craftsmen usually gather, who on other days are occupied with their work.

Above, our Lord dealt with spiritual rebirth; here he deals with the benefits God gives to those who are spiritually reborn. Now we see that parents give three things to those who are physically born from them: life, nourishment, and instruction or discipline. And those who are spiritually reborn receive these three from Christ: spiritual life, spiritual nourishment, and spiritual teaching. And so these three things are considered here: first, the giving of spiritual life; secondly, the giving of spiritual food (c 6); and thirdly, spiritual teaching (c 7).

About the first he does three things. First, he sets forth a visible sign in which he shows Christ's power to produce and to restore life. This is the usual practice in this Gospel: to always join to the teaching of Christ some appropriate visible action, so that what is invisible can be made known through the visible. Secondly, the occasion for this teaching is given (v 9b). Thirdly, the teaching itself is given (v 19). As to the first he does three things. First, the place of the miracle is given. Secondly, the illness involved. Thirdly, the restoration of the sick person to health (v 8).

The place of this miracle is described in two ways: in general and in particular. The general place is Jerusalem; so he says, After this, i.e., after the miracle performed in Galilee, there was a Jewish festival, that is Pentecost, according to Chrysostom. For above, when Christ went to Jerusalem, it was the Passover that was mentioned; and now, on the following festival of Pentecost, Jesus went up to Jerusalem again. For as we read in Exodus (23:17), the Lord commanded that all Jewish males be presented in the temple three times a year: on the festival days of the Passover, Pentecost, and the Dedication.

There were two reasons why our Lord went up to Jerusalem for these festivals. First, so that he would not seem to oppose the law, for he said himself: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to complete it" (Mt 5:17); and in order to draw the many people gathered there on the feast days to God by his signs and teaching: "I will praise him in the midst of the people" (Ps 108:30); and again, "I have declared your justice in the great assembly" (Ps 39:10). So Christ himself says, as we read below (18:20): "I have spoken openly to the world."

The pool by the sheep-market, is the place where the priest washed the animals that were going to be sacrificed.

Of this pool, which was surrounded with five porches, in which lay a great multitude of sick folk, I remember that I have very often treated. That pool and that water seem to me to have signified the Jewish people. For that peoples are signified under the name of waters the Apocalypse of John clearly indicates to us, where, after he had been shown many waters, and he had asked what they were, was answered that they were peoples. That water, then - namely, that people - was shut in by the five books of Moses, as by five porches. But those books brought forth the sick, not healed them. For the law convicted, not acquitted sinners. Accordingly the letter, without grace, made men guilty, whom on confessing grace delivered. For this is what the apostle saith: "For if a law had been given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Why, then, was the law given? He goes on to say, "But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." What more evident? Have not these words expounded to us both the five porches, and also the multitude of sick folk? The five porches are the law. Why did not the five porches heal the sick folk? Because, "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Why, then, did the porches contain those whom they did not heal? Because "the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

(Tr. xvii. c. 1) Judging on low and human notions of this miracle, it is not at all a striking display of power, and only a moderate one of goodness. Of so many, who lay sick, only one was healed; though, had He chosen, He could have restored them all by a single word. How must we account for this? By supposing that His power and goodness were asserted more for imparting a knowledge of eternal salvation to the soul, than working a temporal cure on the body. That which received the temporal cure was certain to decay at last, when death arrived: whereas the soul which believed passed into life eternal. The pool and the water seem to me to signify the Jewish people: for John in the Apocalypse obviously uses water to express people. (Rev. 17:15.)

(Tr. xvii. c. 2) The water then, i. e. the people, was enclosed within five porches, i. e. the five books of Moses. But those books only betrayed the impotent, and did not recover them; that is to say, the Law convicted the sinner, but did not absolve him.

It is fitly described as a sheep pool. By sheep are meant people, according to the passage, We are Thy people, and the sheep of Thy pasture. (Ps. 95:7)

Here second is touched upon the disposition of the place where the healing was done, because it was in the place of healing, which was the sheep pool; on account of which he says: "Now there is at Jerusalem a sheep pool," that is, a pool for livestock, because there the victims from the flocks were washed; and this pool was near the temple and from this function had received its name. Therefore he says: "Which is called in Hebrew Bethsaida," that is, house of livestock, because it had this function. It also had an adornment; whence he says: "Having five porticoes." And the reason is given for why it had these.

Morally, it should be noted here what this pool having five porticoes is, who the sick are, and how they are healed. The pool, which is gathered from rainwaters, is penance, in which there is an outpouring of tears for the loss of heavenly things. Concerning this rain, Jeremiah 5: "They did not say: Let us fear our God, who gives us the early rain," that is, compunction for evils committed, "and the latter rain," for goods omitted. This rain descends to the valleys; it is not on the mountains and the proud: 2 Kings 1: "Mountains of Gilboa, let neither dew nor rain come upon you."

This pool of penance has five porticoes, in which rests a multitude of the infirm: because there are five considerations which ought to make a person remain in penance. The first consideration is the guilt of sin, by which one has bound oneself to punishment: Psalm: "For I am ready for scourges, and my sorrow is continually before me." The second consideration is the severity of judgment: Sirach 2: "If we do not do penance, we shall fall into the hands of the Lord": Hebrews 10: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." The third consideration is the opportunity of time, because afterward there will be no place for penance: Ecclesiastes 9: "Whatever your hand is able to do, do it earnestly, because neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge will be in the netherworld, to which you hasten." The fourth consideration is the uncertainty of the last day: Ecclesiastes 9: "Man does not know his end: but as fish are caught with a hook, and as birds are seized with a snare, so are men caught in an evil time, when it suddenly comes upon them." The fifth consideration is the uncertainty of one's own state, because one does not know whether one has done anything pleasing to God: therefore he said in the Psalm: "And I said: Now I have begun": Sirach 10: "Every dominion is a brief life."

Not for nothing does the blessed Evangelist straightway connect with what has been said the Saviour's return thence to Jerusalem: but his aim probably was to show how superior in obedience were the aliens to the Jews, how great a difference of habit and manners is seen between them. For thus and in no other way could we learn, that by the just judgment of God Who ruleth all and knoweth not to accept the person of man, Israel with reason falleth from the hope, and the fulness of the Gentiles is brought in in his place. It is not hard by looking at the contrast of the chapters o test what has been said. He showed therefore that He had by one miracle saved the city of the Samaritans, by one likewise the nobleman, and by it had profited full surely (I ween) and exceeding much those who were therein. Having by these things testified the extreme readiness of the aliens to obedience, he brings the Miracle-worker back to Jerusalem, and shows Him accomplishing a God-befitting act. For He wondrously frees the paralytic from a most inveterate disease even as He had the nobleman's son just dying. But the one believed with his whole house, and confessed that Jesus is God, while the others. who ought to have been astonished, straightway desire to kill, and persecute, as though blasphemously transgressing, their Benefactor, themselves against themselves pronouncing more shameful condemnation in that they are found to fall short of the understanding of the aliens, and their piety towards Christ. And this it was which was spoken of them in the Psalms, as to our Lord Jesus, Thou shalt make them the back. For they having been set in the first rank because of the election of the fathers, will come last and after the calling of the Gentiles. For when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, then shall all Israel be saved.

This line of thought the well-arranged order of the compilation of chapters brings forth to us. But we will make accurate inquiry part by part of the meaning of single verses.

What manner of cure is this? What mystery doth it signify to us? For these things are not written carelessly, or without a purpose, but as by a figure and type they show in outline things to come, in order that what was exceedingly strange might not by coming unexpectedly harm among the many the power of faith. What then is it that they show in outline? A Baptism was about to be given, possessing much power, and the greatest of gifts, a Baptism purging all sins, and making men alive instead of dead. These things then are foreshown as in a picture by the pool, and by many other circumstances. And first is given a water which purges the stains of our bodies, and those defilements which are not, but seem to be, as those from touching the dead, those from leprosy, and other similar causes; under the old covenant one may see many things done by water on this account.

First then, as I before said, He causeth defilements of our bodies, and afterwards infirmities of different kinds, to be done away by water. Because God, desiring to bring us nearer to faith in baptism, no longer healeth defilements only, but diseases also. For those figures which came nearer in time to the reality, both as regarded Baptism, and the Passion, and the rest, were plainer than the more ancient; and as the guards near the person of the prince are more splendid than those before, so was it with the types. And "an Angel came down and troubled the water," and endued it with a healing power, that the Jews might learn that much more could the Lord of Angels heal the diseases of the soul. Yet as here it was not simply the nature of the water that healed, (for then this would have always taken place,) but water joined to the operation of the Angel; so in our case, it is not merely the water that worketh, but when it hath received the grace of the Spirit, then it putteth away all our sins. Around this pool "lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water"; but then infirmity was a hindrance to him who desired to be healed, now each hath power to approach, for now it is not an Angel that troubleth, it is the Lord of Angels who worketh all. The sick man cannot now say, "I have no man"; he cannot say, "While I am coming another steppeth down before me"; though the whole world should come, the grace is not spent, the power is not exhausted, but remaineth equally great as it was before. Just as the sun's beams give light every day, yet are not exhausted, nor is their light made less by giving so abundant a supply; so, and much more, the power of the Spirit is in no way lessened by the numbers of those who enjoy it. And this miracle was done in order that men, learning that it is possible by water to heal the diseases of the body, and being exercised in this for a long time, might more easily believe that it can also heal the diseases of the soul.

The pool was called "Sheep" because sacrificial sheep were driven to it and their entrails were washed in it. By the Sheep Pool, understand, if you will, the grace of baptism, by which the Lord Jesus, the Lamb slain for us, was washed, having been baptized for us. This pool has five porches. For in baptism the four virtues and contemplation with dogmas are manifested. Rightly can it be called a sheep pool. For in it, as sheep, the inward parts and thoughts of the holy and innocent are washed, those who prepare themselves as a living sacrifice acceptable to God.

The specific place of the miracle was the pool called the Sheep Pool; so he says, Now at Jerusalem there is a Sheep Pool. This is described here in four ways: by its name, its structure, from its occupants, and from its power.

First, it is described from its name when he says, there is a Sheep Pool (probatica piscina), for probaton is Greek for "sheep." It was called the Sheep Pool for it was there that the priests washed the sacrificial animals; especially the sheep, who were used more than the other animals. And so in Hebrew it was called Bethsaida, that is, the "house of sheep." This pool was located near the temple, and formed from collected rain water.

In its mystical sense, this pool, according to Chrysostom, has prefigured Baptism. For the Lord, wishing to prefigure the grace of baptism in different ways, first of all chose water: for this washes the body from the uncleanness which came from contact with what was legally unclean (Nm 19). Secondly, he gave this pool a power that expresses even more vividly than water the power of Baptism: for it not only cleansed the body from its uncleanness, but also healed it from its illness; for symbols are more expressive, the closer they approach the reality. Thus it signified the power of Baptism: for as this water when applied to the body had the power (not by its own nature, but from an angel) to heal its illness, so the water of Baptism has the power to heal and cleanse the soul from sins: "He loved us, and washed us from our sins" (Rv 1:5). This is the reason why the passion of Christ, prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Law, is represented in Baptism: "All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death" (Rom 6:3).

According to Augustine, the water in this pool signified the condition of the Jewish people, according to: "The waters are the peoples" (Rv 17:15). The Gentiles were not confined within the limits of the divine law, but each of them lived according to the vanity of his heart (Eph 4:17). But the Jews were confined under the worship of the one God: "We were kept under the law, confined, until the faith was revealed" (Gal 3:23). So this water, confined to the pool, signified the Jewish people. And it was called the Sheep Pool, for the Jews were the special sheep of God: "We are his people, his sheep" (Ps 94:7).

The pool is described in its structure as having five porticoes, i.e., round about, so that a number of the priests could stand and wash the animals without inconvenience. In the mystical sense these five porticoes, according to Chrysostom, signify the five wounds in the body of Christ; about which we read: "Put your hand into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe" (below 20:27). But according to Augustine, these five porticoes signify the five books of Moses.

Lastly, many kinds of impotent folk lay near the pool: the blind, i. e. those who are without the light of knowledge; the lame, i. e. those who have not strength to do what they are commanded; the withered, i. e. those who have not the marrow of heavenly love.

"In these lay a great multitude of the sick," and incurable by nature: whence he says: "Of the blind, the lame, the withered, waiting for the moving of the water," so that they might be healed through the benefit of divine grace, which was bestowed in the descent of the Angel.

Morally, the infirm are: the blind, sinning through ignorance: Matthew 15: "They are blind and leaders of the blind. And if a blind man offers guidance to a blind man, both fall into a pit." There are the lame, who sin through weakness: Hebrews 12: "Make straight steps with your feet, so that you do not go lame." There are the withered, who sin through malice or hardness: Sirach 3: "The hard heart shall fare ill at the last": Sirach 37: "O most wicked presumption! Whence were you created to cover the earth with its malice and deceitfulness?"

A great crowd of ill people, struck with different infirmities, had gathered here hoping to be healed as if these waters might effect something because the entrails of sheep offered as victims to God [for the temple] were washed in them. And God also supported this belief by causing the waters to move sometimes. Since they believed that the waters were moved by divine power, they obtained the grace of healing after they had come down [into the water]. It was not that many people were healed at the same time but that the one who came down first obtained the aid afforded by grace. [This happened] in order that the facility of the healing might not diminish the effect of the miracle. And so, because they waited with great attention and anticipation for the movement of the waters, once they recovered their health, they might have a better memory of their healing. Even though many lay ill there, he did not heal all of them. But, in order to show his power, he chose one affected with a very serious infirmity and who was hopeless already about his recovery.

The pool is also described from its occupants, for in these porticoes lay a great number of people: feeble, blind, lame and withered. The literal explanation of this is that since all the afflicted persons gathered because of the curative power of the water, which did not always cure nor cure many at the same time, it was inevitable that there be many hanging around waiting to be cured. The mystical meaning of this, for Augustine, was that the law was incapable of healing sins: "It is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats" (Heb 10:4). The law merely shed light on them, for "The knowledge of sin comes from the law" (Rom 3:20).

And so, subject to various illnesses, these people lay there, unable to be cured. They are described in four ways. First, by their posture: for there they lay, i.e., clinging to earthly things by their sins; for one who is lying down is in direct contact with the earth: "He had compassion on them, for they were suffering, and lying like sheep without a shepherd" (Mt 9:36). But the just do not lie down, but stand upright, toward the things of heaven: "They," i.e., sinners, "are bound, and have fallen down; but we," the just, "have stood and are erect" (Ps 19:9).

Secondly, they are described as to their number, for there was a great number of them: "The evil are hard to correct, and the number of fools is infinite" (Ecc 1:15); and in Matthew (7:13): "The road that leads to destruction is wide, and many go this way."

Thirdly, these sick people are described as to their condition. And he mentions four things which a person brings on himself through sin. First, a person who is ruled by sinful passions is made listless or feeble: and so he says, feeble. So it is that Cicero calls certain passions of the soul, such as anger and concupiscence and the like, illnesses of the soul. And the Psalm says: "Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak" (Ps 6:3).

Secondly, due to the rule and victory of a man's passions, his reason is blinded by consent; and he says as to this, blind, that is, through sins. According to Wisdom (2:21): "Their own evil blinded them"; and in the Psalm (57:9): "Fire," that is the fire of anger and concupiscence, "fell on them, and they did not see the sun."

Thirdly, a person who is feeble and blind is inconstant in his works and is, in a way, lame. So we read in Proverbs (11:18): "The work of the wicked is unsteady." With respect to this the Evangelist says, lame. "How long will you be lame?" (1 Kgs 18:21).

Fourthly, a man who is thus feeble, blind in understanding, and lame in his exterior actions, becomes dry in his affections, in the sense that all the fatness of devotion withers within him. This devotion is sought in the Psalm (62:6): "May my soul be filled with fat and marrow." With respect to this the Evangelist says, withered. "My strength is dried up like baked clay" (Ps 21:16).

But there are some so afflicted by the lassitude of sin, who do not wait for the motion of the water, wallowing in their sins, according to Wisdom (14:22): "They live in a great strife of ignorance, and they call so many and great evils peace." We read of such people: "They are glad when they do evil, and rejoice in the worst of things" (Prv 2:14). The reason for this is that they do not hate their sins: they do not sin from ignorance or weakness, but from malice. But others, who do not sin from malice, do not wallow in their sins, but wait by desire for the motion of the water. So he says, waiting. "Every day of my service I wait for my relief to come" (Jb 14:14). This is the way those in the Old Testament waited for Christ: "I will wait for your salvation, O Lord" (Gn 49:18).

No one was healed before the angel had descended. Because of those who did not believe, the water was troubled as a sign that the angel had descended. They had a sign, you have faith; for them an angel descended, for you the Holy Spirit; for them the creation was troubled, for you Christ himself, the Lord of creation, worked. Then, one was healed, now all are made whole.… For that pool was as a type so that you might believe that the power of God descends upon this font.

What did the angel declare in this type but the descent of the Holy Spirit, which was to come to pass in our day and should consecrate the waters when invoked by the prayers of the priest? That angel, then, was a herald of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as by means of the grace of the Spirit medicine was to be applied to our infirmities of soul and mind. The Spirit, then, has the same ministers as God the Father and Christ. He fills all things, possesses all things, works all and in all in the same manner as God the Father and the Son work.

What was done, then, that they who could not be healed in the porches might be healed in that water after being troubled? For on a sudden the water was seen troubled, and that by which it was troubled was not seen. Thou mayest believe that this was wont to be done by angelic virtue, yet not without some mystery being implied. After the water was troubled, the one who was able cast himself in, and he alone was healed: whoever went in after that one, did so in vain. What, then, is meant by this, unless it be that there came one, even Christ, to the Jewish people; and by doing great things, by teaching profitable things, troubled sinners, troubled the water by His presence, and roused it towards His own death? But He was hidden that troubled. For had they known Him, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. Wherefore, to go down into the troubled water means to believe in the Lord's death. There only one was healed, signifying unity: whoever came thereafter was not healed, because whoever shall be outside unity cannot be healed.

(Tr. xvii. c. 3) So then Christ came to the Jewish people, and by means of mighty works, and profitable lessons, troubled the sinners, i. e. the water, and the stirring continued till He brought on His own passion. But He troubled the water, unknown to the world. For had they known Him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. 11) But the troubling of the water came on all at once, and it was not seen who troubled it. Again, to go down into the troubled water, is to believe humbly on our Lord's passion. Only one was healed, to signify the unity of the Church: whoever came afterwards was not healed, to signify that whoever is out of this unity cannot be healed. Wo to them who hate unity, and raise sects.

"Now an Angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pool," namely to heal: and he adds the sign of this descent: "And the water was stirred," so that those who could not see the Angel might see the water: and he adds the divine effect: "And whoever first descended into the pool after the stirring of the water," as being more diligent, "was made well from whatever infirmity held him," without distinction, because, as is said in Acts 10, "God is no respecter of persons."

Morally, these are healed at the coming of the Angel, that is, of the divine visitation; Job 33: "He rebukes through pain upon the bed." After the stirring of the water, that is, of interior weeping: Lamentations 2: "Pour out your heart like water before the face of the Lord." Through the descent into the pool of water, that is, the humility of penance: Isaiah 47: "Come down, sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne for the daughter of the Chaldeans."

Here the inquiry concerns the power of this pool: from where did it have this power, and by what reason was it thus continually conferred upon that pool? Likewise, since the power was so great, how is it that Scripture makes no mention of it? It seems that this was due to the negligence of the writers. If you say that this power appeared near the time of Christ's passion, it is then asked: why did it appear near the passion, and why did it cease when the passion came? Some respond that in that pool was the wood of the cross, which at that time began to appear and float to the surface; therefore, to ennoble the trophy of his passion, the Lord willed to show that miracle, and near the passion, because then it began to float, and not after the passion, because the wood was extracted from it. But because this has no authority from the Scriptures, it is destroyed by the same reason by which it is proved. On account of this, others say that in that water there was no power, but the Angel descending at a fixed time did this in the water by a power given to him by the Lord. It must be said, therefore, that this power was given to the Angel in the water as a figure of baptism, in which cleansing is accomplished through water and healing through the Spirit. And therefore it was sent forth near the time of baptism, and when baptism came, it ceased. Therefore, because it lasted a short time and began late, Scripture made no mention of it. And thus the response to all the objections is clear.

Likewise it is asked: since it was equally easy for the Lord to cure all as to cure one, and he himself is most generous, why did he not give that water the effect of curing all? Likewise, concerning the Lord himself it is similarly asked: why did he cure only one, when he could cure all as easily as one? I respond: It must be said that that bodily healing was more as a sign than as a benefit for the one to whom it belonged, for it was ordered to the healing of the soul. Because, therefore, it was ordered to designating and prefiguring that healing, it ought to have been done in the way that would best signify it. And because healing in the Church exists only in the unity of faith and charity, therefore only one was cured. What is therefore objected does not hold, because it was not only for a benefit, but also for a sign.

If it belongs to mercy to have compassion on misery, then where there is greater misery, mercy ought to be more inclined; therefore it was not the one who descended first who ought to have been healed, but the one who was more in need. I respond: It must be said that, as has been stated, it was a sign of the healing of the soul; and because the soul is healed by God according to its disposition for receiving grace, not according to the gravity of its guilt, therefore the one who descended first and most eagerly obtained health first.

That water [at the pool of Bethesda] was moved once a year; this water of the church's baptism is always ready to be moved. That water was moved only in one place; this water is moved throughout the entire world. Then an angel descended; now it is the Holy Spirit. Then it was the grace of the angel; now it is the mystery of the Trinity. That water cured only once in a year; this water saves people every day. That water healed the body; this water heals both body and soul. That water healed a person's health; this heals from sin. There, the body was only healed of its infirmities; here, body and soul are freed from sin. There, many who were weary lay sick at that water because it only cured one person a year. No one will be left lying sick here where the waters of baptism are, if they resolve to come and be healed.

Many thought that the water received a certain divine power from the mere fact that the entrails of the sacrifices were washed in it, and that therefore the Angel also descended upon this water as upon a chosen one and worked miracles. It seems that Divine Providence pre-ordained the miracle in this pool in order to lead the Jews from afar to faith in Christ. Since baptism was to be bestowed, having great power and the greatest gift, for it cleanses from sins and gives life to souls, God prefigures baptism in the Jewish rites and gives the Jews, for example, water that cleanses them from impurities, though not real ones but imagined ones, such as impurity from touching a dead body or a leper, and many similar things; He also gives the miracle of this pool, guiding them toward the acceptance of baptism. An angel, descending from time to time, troubled the water and imparted healing power to it. For it was not from the nature of the water that it could heal by itself (for in that case this would have happened always), but everything depended on the action of the angel. So also with us, the water of baptism is simple water, but through divine descent, having received the grace of the Spirit, it destroys the diseases of the soul. Whether one is blind, that is, has damaged eyes of the soul and cannot distinguish good from evil; whether one is lame, that is, immovable toward doing good and advancing in good; whether one has completely withered, that is, is in a state of despair and has nothing good in himself — this water heals all. And then weakness did not allow some to receive healing, but now we have no obstacle to baptism. For with the recovery of one, the rest do not remain without healing; but even if the whole world were to come together, the grace would not be diminished. The troubling of the water in the pool signifies that the spirits of wickedness are troubled in it, being crushed and trampled by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Oh, if only we too could receive health! We who are paralyzed and immobile toward every good deed, and have no man, that is, no human sense, as though we have become like senseless beasts, to lower us into the pool of tearful repentance, into which whoever enters first receives healing. For he who relies on future time and postpones repentance, and does not hasten to repent here but delays, does not receive healing. Therefore, strive to enter first, lest death overtake you. This pool of repentance is stirred by an Angel. Which one? The Angel of the great counsel of the Father, Christ and Savior. For if divine teaching does not touch our heart and does not produce in it a stirring by the reminder of the torments in the age to come, then this pool will not be effective, and there will be no healing for the paralyzed soul.

Finally, the power of the pool is described, for it healed all physical illnesses in virtue of an angel who came to it; so he says, From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool. In certain ways, the power of this pool is like that of Baptism. It is like it, first, in the fact that its power was unperceived: for the power of the water in this pool did not come from its very nature, otherwise it would have healed at all times; its power was unseen, being from an angel. So he says, From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool. The water of Baptism is like this in that precisely as water it does not have the power to cleanse souls, but this comes from the unseen power of the Holy Spirit, according to: "Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (above 3:5). It is like it, in a second way, in its effect: for as the water of Baptism heals, so also the water of that pool healed. So he says, the first one into the pool was healed. Further, God gave to that water the power to heal so that men by washing might learn through their bodily health to seek their spiritual health.

Yet the water of this pool differs from the water of Baptism in three ways. First, in the source of its power: for the water in the pool produced health because of an angel, but the water of Baptism produces its effect by the uncreated power not only of the Holy Spirit, but of the entire Trinity. Thus the entire Trinity was present at the baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Son in person, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. This is why we invoke the Trinity in our baptism.

Secondly, this water differs in its power: for the water in the pool did not have a continuous power to cure, but only from time to time; while the water of Baptism has a permanent power to cleanse, according to: "On that day a fountain will be open to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse the sinner and the unclean" (Zec 13:1).

Thirdly, this water differs as regards the number of people healed: for only one person was cured when the water of this pool was moved; but all are healed when the water of Baptism is moved. And no wonder: for the power of the water in the pool, since it is created, is finite and has a finite effect; but in the water of Baptism there is an infinite power capable of cleansing an infinite number of souls, if there were such: "I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed from all your uncleanness" (Ez 36:25).

According to Augustine, however, the angel signifies Christ, according to this reading of Isaiah (9:6): "He will be called great counsel." Just as the angel descended at certain times into the pool, so Christ descended into the world at a time fixed by the Father: "The time is near" (Is 14:1); "When the fulness of time had come God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law" (Gal 4:4). Again, just as the angel was not seen except by the motion of the water, so Christ was not known as to his divinity, for "If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). For as Isaiah (45:15) says: "Truly, you are a hidden God." And so the motion of the water was seen, but not the one who set it in motion, because, seeing the weakness of Christ, the people did not know of his divinity. And just as the one who went into the pool was healed, so a person who humbly believes in God is healed by his passion: "Justified by faith, through the redemption which is in Christ, whom God put forward as an expiation" (Rom 3:24). Only one was healed, because no one can be healed except in the oneness or unity of the Church: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Therefore, woe to those who hate unity, and divide men into sects.

Now let us see what He intended to signify in the case of that one whom He Himself, keeping the mystery of unity, as I said before, deigned to heal out of so many sick folk. He found in the number of this man's years the number, so to speak, of infirmity: "He was thirty and eight years in infirmity." How this number refers more to weakness than to health must be somewhat more carefully expounded. The number forty is commended to our attention as one consecrated by a kind of perfection. The Holy Scriptures very often testify to the fact. Fasting was consecrated by this number, as you are well aware. For Moses fasted forty days, and Elias as many; and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did Himself fulfill this number of fasting. By Moses is signified the law; by Elias, the prophets; by the Lord, the gospel. It was for this reason that these three appeared on that mountain, where He showed Himself to His disciples in the brightness of His countenance and vesture. For He appeared in the middle, between Moses and Elias, as the gospel had witness from the law and the prophets. Whether, therefore, in the law, or in the prophets, or in the gospel, the number forty is commended to our attention in the case of fasting. Now fasting, in its large and general sense, is to abstain from the iniquities and unlawful pleasures of the world, which is perfect fasting: "That, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live temperately, and righteously, and godly in this present world." What reward does the apostle join to this fast? He goes on to say: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the appearing of the glory of the blessed God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ." In this world, then, we celebrate, as it were, the forty days' abstinence, when we live aright, and abstain from iniquities and from unlawful pleasures. But because this abstinence shall not be without reward, we look for "that blessed hope, and the revelation of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." In that hope, when the reality of the hope shall have come to pass, we shall receive our wages, a penny (denarius). For the same is the wages given to the workers laboring in the vineyard. A denarius, then, which takes its name from the number ten, is given, and this joined with the forty makes up fifty; whence it is that before Easter we keep the Quadragesima with labor, but after Easter we keep the Quinquagesima with joy, as having received our wages. Now to this, as if to the wholesome labor of a good work, which belongs to the number forty, there is added the denarius of rest and happiness, that it may be made the number fifty.

The Lord Jesus Himself showed this also far more openly, when He companied on earth with His disciples during forty days after His resurrection; and having on the fortieth day ascended into heaven, did at the end of ten days send the wages, the Holy Ghost. These were done in signs, and by a kind of signs were the very realities anticipated. By significant tokens are we fed, that we may be able to come to the enduring realities. We are workmen, and are still laboring in the vineyard: when the day is ended and the work finished, the wages will be paid. But what workman can hold out to the receiving of the wages, unless he be fed while be labors? Even thou thyself wilt not give thy workman only wages; wilt thou not also bestow on him that where with he may repair his strength in his labor? Surely thou feedest him to whom thou art to give wages. In like manner also doth the Lord, in those significant tokens of the Scriptures, feed us while we labor. For if that joy in understanding holy mysteries be withdrawn from us, we faint in labor, and there will be none to come to the reward.

How, then, is work perfected in the number forty? The reason, it may be, is, because the law was given in ten precepts, and was to be preached throughout the whole world: which whole world, we are to mark, is made up of four quarters, east and west, south and north, whence the number ten, multiplied by four, comes to forty. Or, it may be, because the law is fulfilled by the gospel, which has four books: for in the gospel it is said, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Whether, then, it be for this reason or for that, or for some other more probable, which is hid from us, but not from more learned men; certain it is, however, that in the number forty a certain perfection in good works is signified, which good works are most of all practised by a kind of abstinence from unlawful lusts of the world, that is, by fasting in the general sense.

Hear also the apostle when he says, "Love is the fulfilling of the law." Whence the love? By the grace of God, by the Holy Spirit. For we could not have it from ourselves, as if making it for ourselves. It is the gift of God, and a great gift it is: for, saith he, "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which is given to us." Wherefore love completes the law, and most truly it is said, "Love is the perfecting of the law." Let us inquire as to this love, in what manner the Lord doth commend it to our consideration. Remember what I laid down: I want to explain the number thirty-eight of the years of that impotent man, why that number thirty-eight is one of weakness rather than of health. Now, as I was saying, love fulfills the law. The number forty belongs to the perfecting of the law in all works; but in love two precepts are committed to our keeping. The precepts of love, given to us by the Lord, are two: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;" and, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." With good reason did the widow cast "two mites," all her substance, into the offerings of God: with good reason did the host take "two" pieces of money, for the poor man that was wounded by the robbers, for his making whole: with good reason did Jesus spent two days with the Samaritans, to establish them in love. Thus, whilst a certain good thing is generally signified by this number two, most especially is love in its twofold character set forth to us thereby. If, therefore, the number forty possesses the perfecting of the law, and the law is fulfilled only in the twin precepts of love, why dost thou wonder that he was weak and sick, who was short of forty by two?

(Tr. xvii. c. 1) It was a greater act in Christ, to heal the diseases of the soul, than the sicknesses of the perishable body. But as the soul itself did not know its Restorer, as it had eyes in the flesh to discern visible things, but not in the heart wherewith to know God; our Lord performed cures which could be seen, that He might afterwards work cures which could not be seen. He went to the place, where lay a multitude of sick, out of whom He chose one to heal: And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

(Tr. xvii. c. 3) Again, he who was healed had had his infirmity thirty and eight years: this being a number which belongs to sickness, rather than to health. The number forty has a sacred character with us, and is significative of perfection. For the Law was given in Ten Commandments, and was to be preached throughout the whole world, which consists of four parts; and four multiplied into ten, make up the number forty. And the Law too is fulfilled by the Gospel, which is written in four books. So then if the number forty possesses the perfectness of the Law, and nothing fulfils the Law, except the twofold precept of love, why wonder at the impotence of him, who was two less than forty? Some man was necessary for his recovery; but it was a man who was God. He found the man falling short by the number two, and therefore gave two commandments, to fill up the deficiency. For the two precepts of our Lord signify love; the love of God being first in order of command, the love of our neighbour, in order of performance.

Here the third point is touched upon, namely the necessity of the sick man, because he had long been sick and destitute of all help. He had long been sick, whence he says: "Now there was a certain man there: a certain one," singular in his misery, "having thirty-eight years in his infirmity." Behold, the length of infirmity, by which the Lord was moved to have mercy and to seek out and address him.

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal – is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see...

The miracles of healing fall into the same pattern. This is sometimes obscured for us by the somewhat magical view we tend to take of ordinary medicine. The doctors themselves do not take this view. The magic is not in the medicine but in the patient's body. What the doctor does is to stimulate Nature's functions in the body, or to remove hindrances. In a sense, though we speak for convenience of healing a cut, every cut heals itself; no dressing will make skin grow over a cut on a corpse. That same mysterious energy which we call gravitational when it steers the planets and biochemical when it heals a body is the efficient cause of all recoveries, and if God exists, that energy, directly or indirectly, is His. All who are cured are cured by Him, the healer within. But once He did it visibly, a Man meeting a man. Where He does not work within us in this mode, the organism dies. Hence Christ's one miracle of destruction is also in harmony with God's wholesale activity. His bodily hand held out in symbolic wrath blasted a single fig tree; but no tree died that year in Palestine, or any year, or in any land, or even ever will, save because He has done something, or (more likely) ceased to do something, to it.

The Jews having celebrated their feast of unleavened bread, in which it is their custom to kill the sheep, to wit, at the time of the Passover, Christ departeth from Jerusalem, and mingleth with the Samaritans and aliens, and teacheth among them, being grieved at the stubbornness of the Jews. And having barely returned at the holy Pentecost (for this was the next solemnity in Jerusalem and at no great interval), He heals at the waters of the pool the paralytic, who had passed long time in sickness (for it was even his thirty-eighth year): but who had not yet attained unto the perfect number of the Law, I speak of four times ten or forty.

Here then will end the course of the history; but we must transform again the typical letter unto its spiritual interpretation. That Jesus grieved departs from Jerusalem after the killing of the sheep, goes to the Samaritans and Galileans, and preaches among them the word of salvation, what else will this mean, save His actual withdrawal from the Jews, after His sacrifice and Death at Jerusalem upon the Precious Cross, when He at length began to freely give Himself to them of the Gentiles and aliens, bidding it to be shown to His Disciples after His Resurrection, that He goeth before them all into Galilee? But His return again at the fulfilment of the weeks of holy Pentecost to Jerusalem, signifies as it were in types and darkly, that there will be of His Loving Kindness a return of our Saviour to the Jews in the last ages of the present world, wherein they who have been saved through faith in Him, shall celebrate the all-holy feasts of the saving Passion. But that the paralytic is healed before the full time of the law, signifies again by a corresponding type, that Israel having blasphemously raged against Christ, will be infirm and paralytic and will spend a long time in doing nothing; yet will not depart to complete punishment, but will have some visitation from the Saviour, and will himself too be healed at the pool by obedience and faith. But that the number forty is perfect according to the Divine Law, will be by no means hard to learn by them who have once read the Divine Scriptures.

Moreover, there was also a certain other person healed by the Lord, after he had suffered for eight-and-thirty years: they ought therefore to affirm that the Aeon who occupies the thirty-eighth place suffered. For if they assert that the things which were done by the Lord were types of what took place in the Pleroma, the type ought to be preserved throughout. But they can neither adapt to their fictitious system the case of her who was cured after eighteen years, nor of him who was cured after thirty-eight years. Now, it is in every way absurd and inconsistent to declare that the Saviour preserved the type in certain cases, while He did not do so in others. The type of the woman, therefore, [with the issue of blood] is shown to have no analogy to their system of Aeons.

Let us be ashamed then, beloved, let us be ashamed, and groan over our excessive sloth. "Thirty and eight years" had that man been waiting without obtaining what he desired, and withdrew not. And he had failed not through any carelessness of his own, but through being oppressed and suffering violence from others, and not even thus did he grow dull; while we if we have persisted for ten days to pray for anything and have not obtained it, are too slothful afterwards to employ the same zeal. And on men we wait for so long a time, warring and enduring hardships and performing servile ministrations, and often at last failing in our expectation, but on our Master, from whom we are sure to obtain a recompense greater than our labors, (for, saith the Apostle, "Hope maketh not ashamed"-Rom. v. 5,) on Him we endure not to wait with becoming diligence.

They saw a paralytic, who had grown up, as it were, and become one with his infirmity, at His bidding loosed from his disease.

The patience of the paralytic is astonishing! For thirty-eight years he was sick, each year expecting deliverance from his illness, but was preceded by the stronger; nevertheless, he did not give up and did not despair.

Then (v 5), the Evangelist mentions the disability of a man who lay by the pool. First, we are told how long he was disabled; and secondly, why it was so long (v 7).

He was disabled for a long time, for There was one man lying there who had been sick for thirty-eight years with his infirmity. This episode is very aptly mentioned: the man who could not be cured by the pool was to be cured by Christ, because those whom the law could not heal, Christ heals perfectly, according to: "God did what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as a sin-offering, he condemned sin in his flesh" (Rom 8:3), and in Sirach (36:6): "Perform new signs and wonders."

The number thirty-eight is well-suited to his infirmity, for we see it associated with sickness rather than with health. For, as Augustine says, the number forty signifies the perfection of justice, which consists in observing the law. But the law was given in ten precepts, and was to be preached to the four corners of the world, or be completed by the four Gospels, according to: "The end of the law is Christ" (Rom 10:4). So since ten times four is forty, this appropriately signifies perfect justice. Now if two is subtracted from forty, we get thirty-eight. This two is the two precepts of charity, which effects perfect justice. And so this man was sick because he had forty minus two, that is, his justice was imperfect, for "On these two commandments all the law and the prophets depend" (Mt 22:40).

"The sick man answered him: Lord, I have no man, so that when the water is stirred, he might put me into the pool": and so I am destitute, and there is none to help: the Psalm: "Trouble is near and there is none to help," and I of myself am powerless. Whence he adds: "While I am coming, another descends before me": and so I cannot be healed, because only one is healed, and that the one who descends first. And thus the necessity of the sick man is indicated.

About the day of the holy Pentecost, Angels coming down from heaven used to trouble the water of the pool, then they would make the plash therefrom the herald of their presence. And the water would be sanctified by the holy spirits, and whoever was beforehand of the multitude of sick people in getting down, he would come up again disburdened of the suffering that troubled him,, yet to one alone, him who first seized it, was the might of healing meted out. But this too was a sign of the benefit of the law by the hands of Angels, which extended to the one race of the Jews alone, and healed none other save they. For from Dan so called even unto Beer-sheba, the commandments given by Moses were spoken, ministered by Angels in Mount Sinai in the days afterwards marked out as the holy Pentecost. For this reason, the water too of the pool used not to be troubled at any other time, signifying therethrough the descent of the holy Angels thereon. The paralytic then not having any one to thrust him into the water, with the disease that holds him, was bewailing the want of healers, saying, I have no man, to wit to let him down into the water. For he fully expected that Jesus would tell and advise him this.

So then, let everyone who wants approach Him, and let the one say: "Son of David, have mercy on me"; and, if he hears, "What do you want Me to do for you?" let him say quickly, "Lord, let me receive my sight," and right away he will hear, "So I desire. Receive your sight" [Luke 18:38-42]. Let another say, "Lord, my daughter"-i.e. my soul-"is severely possessed by a demon" [Matthew 15:22], and he will hear: "I will come to heal her" [Matthew 8:7]. If someone is hesitant and does not wish to approach the Master, even if He comes to him and says, "Follow Me" [Matthew 9:9], then let him follow Him as the publican once did, abandoning his counting tables and his avarice, and, I am sure, He shall make of him, too, an evangelist rather than a tax collector. If someone else is a paralytic, lying for years in sloth, carelessness, and love of pleasure, and if he should see another, be it the Master Himself or one of His disciples, come to him and ask, "Do you want to be healed?" (John 5:2-7), let him receive the word joyfully and reply immediately: "Yes, Lord, but I have no man to put me into the pool of repentance." And then if he should hear, "Rise, take up your bed, and follow me," let him get up right away and run after the footsteps of the One Who has called him from on high. - "Second Ethical Discourse"

What then does he do? He answers very meekly. "Yes," he says, "Lord, I desire to, but I have no man to put me into the water." He utters no blasphemy, he does not reject Christ as having asked an inappropriate question, he does not curse the day of his birth, as we, the fainthearted, do, and that in far lighter illnesses, but he answers meekly and timidly. Although he did not know Who was asking him, he perhaps considered Christ useful to himself in this one thing alone, that He would lower him into the water, and therefore he wishes to attract and dispose Him favorably toward himself by his words.

Then (v 7), the answer of the sick man is given. Two reasons are given for the length of his illness: his poverty and his weakness. As he was poor, he could not afford a man to plunge him into the pool; so he says, Sir, I have no one to plunge me into the pool. Perhaps he thought, as Chrysostom says, that Christ might even help to put him into the water. Someone else always reached the pool before him because he was weak and not able to move fast; so he says, By the time I get there, someone else has gone in before me. He could say with Job: "I cannot help myself" (Jb 6:13). This signifies that no mere man could save the human race, for all had sinned and needed the grace of God. Mankind had to wait for the coming of Christ, God and man, by whom it would be healed.

"And immediately the man was made well;" behold, restored health: "and he took up his bed:" behold, strength: "and he walked:" behold, the certainty of health. And all this was done by the word of Christ: the Psalm: "He spoke, and they were made"; whence in Esther 13, Mordecai said: "Lord, almighty King, all things are placed in your dominion."

"Now it was the Sabbath" etc. After the miraculous healing of the paralytic has been described, here secondly the calumniation of the healing is described, in the description of which the Evangelist proceeds in this order. First is introduced the reproof of the healed man; second, the devolution of the calumny upon the healer; third, the manifestation of the healer; fourth, the persecution of him who was manifested; fifth, obstinacy in the persecution.

The reproof of the healed man is therefore first introduced from the fact that he was carrying his mat on the day of the Sabbath, on which he had been made well. On account of which, intimating the occasion for calumny, the Evangelist says: "Now it was the Sabbath on that day," namely on which he had been healed and was carrying his mat, and on this occasion the Jews were reproving him.

On the Sabbath day doth Christ heal the man, when healed He immediately enjoins him to break through the custom of the law, inducing him to walk on the Sabbath and this laden with his bed, although God clearly cries aloud by one of the holy Prophets, Neither carry forth a burthen out of your house on the Sabbath day. And no one I suppose who is sober-minded would say that the man was rendered a despiser or unruly to the Divine commands, but that as in a type Christ was making known to the Jews, that they should be healed by obedience and faith in the last times of the world (for this I think the Sabbath signifies, being the last day of the week): but that having once received the healing through faith, and having been re-modelled unto newness of life, it was necessary that the oldness of the letter of the law should become of no effect, and that the typical worship as it were in shadows and the vain observance of Jewish custom should be rejected. Hence (I think) the blessed Paul too taking occasion of speech writes to them who after the faith were returning again to the Law, I say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and again, Ye are severed from Christ, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.

Look, if you will, how he at once heard and believed. He did not think to himself or say: "Is He joking, commanding me to get up immediately? In thirty-eight years of illness I have not received healing, and now I will suddenly get up?" He thought nothing of the sort, but believed and arose.

Next we see the man's obedience. First, the obedience of his nature, because, The man was immediately cured. And no wonder, because Christ is the Word through whom heaven and earth were made: "He commanded and they were created" (Ps 148:5); "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made" (Ps 32:6). Secondly, we see the obedience of the man's will: first, because he picked up his mat, and secondly, because he walked. "We will do everything that the Lord commands, and obey him" (Ex 24:7).

Having seen a visible miracle which shows the power of Christ to restore spiritual life, we now see an opportunity given to him to teach. This opportunity was the persecution launched against him by the Jews. These Jews, who were envious of Christ, persecuted him for two reasons: first, the above act of his mercy; secondly, his teaching of the truth (v 17). As to the first, the Evangelist does three things. First, he gives the occasion for their persecution. Secondly, the false accusation against the man who was just cured (v 10). And thirdly, their attempt to belittle Christ (v 12).

Their opportunity to persecute Christ was the fact that he cured the man on the Sabbath; accordingly, the Evangelist says, That day, however, was a Sabbath, when Christ performed the miracle of commanding the man to pick up his mat.

Three reasons are given why our Lord began to work on the Sabbath. The first is given by Ambrose, in his commentary, On Luke. He says that Christ came to renovate the work of creation, that is, man, who had become deformed. And so he should have begun where the Creator had left off the work of creation, that is, on a Sabbath, as mentioned in Genesis (c 1). Thus Christ began to work on the Sabbath to show that he was the renovator of the whole creature.

Another reason was that the Sabbath day was celebrated by the Jews in memory of the first creation. But Christ came to make, in a way, a new creature, according to Galatians (6:15): "In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor the lack of circumcision is a benefit; what counts is a new creation," i.e., through grace, which comes through the Holy Spirit: "You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created; and you will renew the face of the earth" (Ps 103:30). And so Christ worked on the Sabbath to show that a new creation, a re-creation, was taking place through him: "that we might be the first fruits of his creatures" (Jas 1:18).

The third reason was to show that he was about to do what the law could not do: "God did what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, he condemned sin in his flesh, in order that the requirements of the law might be accomplished in us" (Rom 8:3).

The Jews, however, did not do any work on the Sabbath, as a symbol that there were certain things pertaining to the Sabbath which were to be accomplished, but which the law could not do. This is clear in the four things which God ordained for the Sabbath: for he sanctified the Sabbath day, blessed it, completed his work on it, and then rested. These things the law was not able to do. It could not sanctify; so we read: "Save me, O Lord, for there are no holy people left" (Ps 11:1). Nor could it bless; rather, "Those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse" (Gal 3:10). Neither could it, complete and perfect, because "the law brought nothing to perfection" (Heb 7:19). Nor could it bring perfect rest: "If Joshua had given them rest, God would not be speaking after of another day" (Heb 4:8).

These things, which the law could not do, Christ did. For he sanctified the people by his passion: "Jesus, in order to sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate" (Heb 13:12). He blessed them by an inpouring of grace: "Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing of heaven, in Christ" (Eph 1:3). He brought the people to perfection by instructing them in the ways of perfect justice: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). He also led them to true rest: "We who have believed will find rest," as is said in Hebrews (4:3). Therefore, it is proper for him to work on the Sabbath, who is able to make perfect those things that pertain to the Sabbath, from which an impotent law rested.

The man did this, and the Jews were offended. For they saw a man carrying his bed on the Sabbath-day, and they did not blame the Lord for healing him on the Sabbath, that He should be able to answer them, that if any of them had a beast fallen into a well, he would surely draw it out on the Sabbath-day, and save his beast; and so, now they did not object to Him that a man was made whole on the Sabbath-day, but that the man was carrying his bed. But if the healing was not to be deferred, should a work also have been commanded? "It is not lawful for thee," say they, to do what thou art doing, "to take up thy bed."

(Tr. xvii. c. 10) They did not charge our Lord with healing on the sabbath, for He would have replied that if an ox or an ass of theirs had fallen into a pit, would not they have taken it out on the sabbath day: but they addressed the man as he was carrying his bed, as if to say, Even if the healing could not be delayed, why enjoin the work?

"The Jews therefore said to him who had been made well," calumniating him: "It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to take up your mat." For to take up a mat seemed to be servile work, which was forbidden to be done on the Sabbath: Leviticus twenty-three: "The seventh day shall be more solemn and more holy; you shall do no servile work in it."

Since the precept concerning the Sabbath is a precept of the first tablet, in which, as Bernard says, God cannot dispense, it seems that the Lord acted wrongly by breaking the Sabbath. If you say that in the precept there is something moral and something ceremonial: and insofar as it is moral it pertains to the first tablet, and thus he did not break it; insofar as it is ceremonial it does not pertain to the Decalogue, and thus he did break it; then the question is: what in it is moral, and what is ceremonial? Likewise the question is: why does the third precept have a ceremonial observance annexed to it more than any other commandment of the Decalogue? And it seems that it should not be mixed with it, just as shadow should not be mixed with truth.

I respond: It must be said that, as has been stated, the commandment concerning the Sabbath has something moral, and also has something ceremonial: and therefore in the Law it is placed not only among the moral precepts, but also among the ceremonial ones. As to what is asked, namely what in it is moral and ceremonial: I say that in that commandment man is commanded to be free for God, so that he may become a temple of God through love, and this is the moral element. Furthermore, there is in it the signification of the day, and besides this the cessation from all servile works; and these two are ceremonial elements.

To what is asked — why does it have ceremony more closely joined to it? — Augustine responds, in his letter to Januarius, that it is the precept of love, because the third precept regards the third Person in the Trinity, and love is commanded therein. Therefore, to show that all ceremonial observances are to be referred to the love of God and neighbor and are to be explained toward that end, he joined ceremonial observance to the commandment of love. Another reason can be given: that in the commandment of love the other commandments are directed and fulfilled. Again, in devoting oneself to God and considering the divine law, a person becomes diligent in this kind of observance of the law. Because therefore in this commandment love and devotion to God are commanded, the observance of all commandments depends on this; and therefore, if this were neglected and given over to oblivion, the rest would be neglected. Therefore, lest it be given over to oblivion, the Lord designated a day; lest it also be neglected on account of other things, he commanded cessation from all other things; and this is ceremonial.

Most seasonably (I think) doth He cry over them, Hear now this O foolish people and heartless, which have eyes and see not. For what can be more uninstructed than such people, or what greater in senselessness? For they do not even admit into their mind that they ought to wonder at the Power of the Healer: but being bitter reprovers, and skilled in this alone, they lay the charge of breaking the law about him who had just and with difficulty recovered from a long disease, and foolishly bid him lie down again, as though the honour due to the Sabbath were paid by having to be ill.

Jesus does not pray to relieve the patient's sickness in case he [Jesus] should seem to be like one of the holy prophets. Rather, as the Lord of powers, he commands with authority that it be so. He tells him to go home rejoicing, to take his bed on his shoulders, to be a memento to those who would see the might of the one who had healed him. And so the man does as he is asked and by obedience and faith gains the threefold longed for grace.… Christ heals the man on the sabbath, and when healed immediately enjoins him to break through the custom of the law. He induces him to walk on the sabbath, and this while carrying his bed, although God clearly cries aloud by one of the holy prophets, "Neither carry a burden out of your house on the sabbath day." And no one, I suppose, who is sober-minded would say the man was then a despiser or unruly in the face of the divine commands. They would instead see that, as in a type, Christ was making known to the Jews that they should be healed by obedience and faith in the last times of the world (for this is what I think "the sabbath" signifies, being the last day of the week). But once they have received healing through faith and are remodeled into a new life, it was necessary that the old letter of the law should become of no effect and that the typical worship in shadows and empty Jewish customs should be rejected.

What followed was even far more admirable. That he believed at first, when no one troubled him, was not so marvelous, but that afterwards, when the Jews were full of madness and pressed upon him on all sides, accusing and besieging him and saying, "It is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed," that then he gave no heed to their madness, but most boldly in the midst of the assembly proclaimed his Benefactor and silenced their shameless tongues, this, I say, was an act of great courage. For when the Jews arose against him, and said in a reproachful and insolent manner to him, "It is the Sabbath day, it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed"; hear what he saith: "He that made me whole, the Same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk." All but saying, "Ye are silly and mad who bid me not to take Him for my Teacher who has delivered me from a long and grievous malady, and not to obey whatever He may command." Had he chosen to act in an unfair manner, he might have spoke differently, as thus, "I do not this of my own will, but at the bidding of another; if this be a matter of blame, blame him who gave the order, and I will set down the bed." And he might have concealed the cure, for he well knew that they were vexed not so much at the breaking of the Sabbath, as at the curing of his infirmity. Yet he neither concealed this, nor said that, nor asked for pardon, but with loud voice confessed and proclaimed the benefit. Thus did the paralytic; but consider how unfairly they acted. For they said not, "Who is it that hath made thee whole?" on this point they were silent, but kept on bringing forward the seeming transgression.

He heals "on the Sabbath," teaching people to understand the rites of the law differently and to place the honoring of the Sabbath not in bodily understood inactivity, but in abstaining from evil. For the law, being the law of the ever-beneficent God, cannot forbid doing good on the Sabbath.

Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives the accusation brought against the man who was healed. First, we have the accusation; and secondly, the explanation given by the man who was healed (v 11).

The man was accused for carrying his mat on the Sabbath, and not for being healed; so they say: It is the Sabbath; it is not permitted for you to carry your mat. There are several reasons for this. One is that the Jews, although frequently charging Christ with healing on the Sabbath, had been embarrassed by him on the ground that they themselves used to pull their cattle from ditches on the Sabbath in order to save them. For this reason the Jews did not mention his healing, as it was useful and necessary; but they charge him with carrying his mat, which did not seem to be necessary. As if to say: Although your cure need not have been postponed, there was no need for you to carry your mat, or for the order to carry it. Another reason was that the Lord had shown, contrary to their opinion, that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath. And so, because being healed is not the same as doing good, but being done a good, they attack the one healed rather than the one healing. The third reason was that the Jews thought that they were forbidden by the law to do any work on the Sabbath; and it was the carrying of burdens that was especially forbidden on the Sabbath: "Do not carry a burden on the Sabbath" (Jer 17:21). Accordingly, they made a special point of being against the carrying of anything on the Sabbath, as being opposed to the teaching of the prophet. But this command of the prophet was mystical: for when he forbade them to carry burdens, he wanted to encourage them to rest from the burdens of their sins on the Sabbath. Of these sins it is said: "My iniquities are a heavy burden and have weighed me down" (Ps 37:5). Therefore, since the time had come to explain the meaning of obscure symbols, Christ commanded him to take up his mat, i.e., to help his neighbors in their weaknesses: "Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfil the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2).

"But he that was made whole knew not who it was" that had said this to him. "For Jesus," when He had done this, and given him this order, "turned away from him in the crowd." See how this also is fulfilled. We bear our neighbor, and walk towards God; but Him, to whom we are walking, we do not yet see: for that reason also, that man did not yet know Jesus. The mystery herein intimated to us is, that we believe on Him whom we do not yet see; and that He may not be seen, He turns aside in the crowd. It is difficult in a crowd to see Christ: a certain solitude is necessary for our mind; it is by a certain solitude of contemplation that God is seen. A crowd has noise; this seeing requires secrecy. "Take up thy bed" - being thyself borne, bear thy neighbor; "and walk," that thou mayest come to the goal. Do not seek Christ in a crowd: He is not as one of a crowd; He excels all crowd. That great fish first ascended from the sea, and He sits in heaven making intercession for us: as the great high priest He entered alone into that within the veil; the crowd stands without. Do thou walk, bearing thy neighbor: if thou hast learned to bear, thou, who wast wont to be borne.

(Tr. xvii. c. 9) Carry him then with whom thou walkest, that thou mayest come to Him with Whom thou desirest to abide. As yet however he wist not who Jesus was; just as we too believe in Him though we see Him not. Jesus again does not wish to be seen, but conveys Himself out of the crowd. It is in a kind of solitude of the mind, that God is seen: the crowd is noisy; this vision requires stillness.

"But he who had been made well did not know who it was:" therefore they necessarily failed in their inquiry: the Psalm: "They failed who searched with scrutiny." Therefore it was said to the Jews below in the seventh chapter: "You will seek me, and you will not find me"; because they were not seeking in order to possess, but in order to persecute.

Here the third point is touched upon, namely the manifestation of Christ sought and not found, which was made not in the crowd, but in the Church. "But Jesus withdrew from the crowd gathered in the place," namely from the multitude that was in the place of healing: therefore that man did not know him, because he had remained in the crowd.

Insatiable unto bloodshed is the mind of the Jews. For they search out who it was who had commanded this, with design to involve Him together with the miraculously healed (for he alone, it seems, was like to be vexing them in respect of the Sabbath, who had but now escaped impassable toils and snares, and had been drawn away from the very gates of death) but he could not tell his Physician, although they make diligent enquiries, Christ having well and economically concealed Himself, that He might escape the present heat of their anger. And not as though He could suffer anything of necessity, unless He willed to suffer, doth He practise flight: but making Himself an Example to us in this also.

Jesus hid Himself partly so that in His absence the testimony about the healing would be free from all suspicion, and they would not think that this man was favoring Him, but was witnessing to the truth; and partly so as not to inflame the fury of the Jews even more. For even the mere sight of the one who is hated kindles no small spark of hatred in those who hate. Therefore He withdraws, so that this matter might be investigated on its own. For the Jews — the accusers — by subjecting the event to investigation and deliberation, make it all the more widely known.

As to the second, the Evangelist says, But he who was cured had no idea who it was. This cured man signifies those who believe and have been healed by the grace of Christ: "You are saved by grace" (Eph 2:8). Indeed, they do not know who Christ is, but they know only his effects: "While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith, and not by sight" (2 Cor 5:6). We will know who Christ is when "we shall see him as he is," as said in 1 John (3:2).

Next, the Evangelist gives the reason for the man's ignorance, saying, for Jesus had slipped away from the crowd that had gathered in that place. There are both literal and mystical reasons why Christ left. Of the two literal reasons, the first is to give us the example of concealing our good deeds and of not using them to seek the applause of men: "Take care not to perform your good actions in the sight of men, in order to be seen by them" (Mt 6:1). The second literal reason is to show us that, in all our actions, we should leave and avoid those who are envious, so as not to feed and increase their envy: "Do not be provoked by one who speaks evil of you, so he will not trap you by your own words" (Sir 8:14).

There are also two mystical reasons why Christ slipped away. First, it teaches us that Christ is not easy to find in the midst of men, or in the whirlwind of temporal cares; rather, he is found in spiritual seclusion: "I will lead her into the wilderness, and there I will speak to her heart" (Hos 2:14); and in Ecclesiastes (9:17): "The words of the wise are heard in silence." Secondly, this suggests to us that Christ was to leave the Jews for the Gentiles: "He hid his face for a while from the house of Jacob" (Is 8:17), i.e., he withdrew the knowledge of his truth from the Jewish people.

The man, then, after he saw Jesus, and knew Him to be the author of his healing, was not slothful in preaching Him whom he had seen: "He departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus that had made him whole." He brought them word, and they were mad against him; he preached his own salvation, they sought not their own salvation.

(Tr. xviii. c. 12) Now that the man had seen Jesus, and knew Him to be the author of his recovery, he was not slow in preaching Him to others: The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus which had made him whole.

"That man went away." Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the persecution of the manifested Christ. For the Jews learned, through that man's report, that Christ had made him well. Hence he says: "That man went away and" announced to the "Jews," who had namely inquired of him, "that it was Jesus who had made him well." He did not say this by way of detraction or accusation, but by announcing the name of Christ: hence the Gloss: "He announces salvation to the Jews, that they might follow: but they on the contrary persecute."

He makes Jesus known to the Jews, not that they by daring to do anything against Him should be found to be blasphemers, but in order that, if they too should be willing to be healed by Him, they might know the wondrous Physician. For observe how this was his aim. For he does not come like one of the faultfinders, and say that it was Jesus Who had bidden him walk on the Sabbath day, but Which had made him whole. But this was the part of one doing nought save only making known his Physician.

"Afterward Jesus findeth him in the Temple," which is an indication of his great piety; for he departed not into the market places and walks, nor gave himself up to luxury and ease, but remained in the Temple, although about to sustain so violent an attack and to be harassed by all there. Yet none of these things persuaded him to depart from the Temple. Moreover Christ having found him, even after he had conversed with the Jews, implied nothing of the kind. For had He desired to charge him with this, He would have said to him, "Art thou again attempting the same sins as before, art thou not made better by thy cure?" Yet He said nothing of the kind, but merely secureth him for the future.

"The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus that had made him whole." Again observe him continuing in the same right feeling. He saith not, "This is he who said, Take up thy bed," but when they continually advanced this seeming charge, he continually puts forward the defense, again declaring his Healer, and seeking to attract and attach others to Him. For he was not so unfeeling as after such a benefit and charge to betray his Benefactor, and to speak as he did with an evil intention. Had he been a wild beast, had he been something unlike a man and of stone, the benefit and the fear would have been enough to restrain him, since, having the threat lodged within, he would have dreaded lest he should suffer "a worse thing," having already received the greatest pledges of the power of his Physician.

Besides, had he wished to slander Him, he would have said nothing about his own cure, but would have mentioned and urged against Him the breach of the Sabbath. But this is not the case, surely it is not; the words are words of great boldness and candor; he proclaims his Benefactor no less than the blind man did. For what said he? "He made clay, and anointed mine eyes" (c. ix. 6); and so this man of whom we now speak, "It is Jesus who made me whole."

Having recognized Jesus, see how wisely he announces Him to the Jews. He does not say, as they wished to hear, that Jesus said "take up your bed," but rather "He healed me," which they did not wish to hear, accusing Him of violating the Sabbath.

Then when he says, The man went off and related to the Jews, we see Jesus identified. Some think, as Chrysostom reports, that this man identified Jesus out of malice. But this does not seem probable: that he would be so ungrateful after receiving such a favor. He related to the Jews that it was Jesus who had cured him, in order to make it clear that Christ had the power to heal: "Come... and I will tell you what great things the Lord has done for me," as we read in the Psalm (65:16). This is obvious, for they had asked him who commanded him to pick up his mat, but he told them that it was Jesus who had cured him.

(Verse 53, 54.) And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that he departed from there. And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, so that they marveled and said. After the parables that he spoke to the people, and that only the apostles understood, he went to his own country to teach more openly there.

Where does this wisdom and these virtues come from? The Nazarenes marvel at where he gets his wisdom and virtue; but the error is obvious, for they suspect that he is the son of a carpenter.

After the parables which the Lord spake to the people, and which the Apostles only understand, He goes over into His own country that He may teach there also.

Wonderful folly of the Nazarenes! They wonder whence Wisdom itself has wisdom, whence Power has mighty works! But the source of their error is at hand, because they regard Him as the Son of a carpenter; as they say, Is not this the carpenter's son?

Matthew says "these parables" because in a short time He would tell them other ones. He departed so that He could benefit others by His presence. "His own country" means Nazareth, for He was raised there. He was teaching in the synagogue, speaking openly in public, that they might not later have grounds to claim that He was teaching things contrary to the law.

The Nazarenes were foolish to think that low birth and plain ancestry hinder anyone from pleasing God. Let us suppose that Jesus was simply man and not God. What would have prevented Him from being a great wonderworker? So they are proven to be foolish and spiteful. They ought rather to have taken pride that their native city had produced such a good man.

The Lord is dishonored by his own. Although his wisdom in teaching and his mighty works excited admiration, their faithlessness held them back from true discernment. For they did not believe that God was doing these things in a man. Moreover, they referred to his father, his mother, brothers and sisters and took offense at him.

Thus the Lord is held in no honour by His own; and though the wisdom of His teaching, and the power of His working raised their admiration, yet do they not believe that He did these things in the name of the Lord, and they cast His father's trade in His teeth. Amid all the wonderful works which He did, they were moved with the contemplation of His Body, and hence they ask, Whence hath this man these things? And thus they were offended in him.

And what doth he now call His country? As it seems to me, Nazareth. "For He did not many mighty works there," it is said, but in Capernaum He did miracles: wherefore He said also, "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto Heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

But having come there, while He slackens somewhat in His miracles; so as not to inflame them unto more envy, nor to condemn them more grievously, by the aggravation of their unbelief: He yet puts forth a doctrine, having no less of wonder in it than the miracles. For these utterly senseless men, when they ought to have marvelled, and to have been amazed at the power of His words, they on the contrary hold Him cheap, because of him who seemed to be His father; yet we know they had many examples of these things in the former times, and from fathers of no note had seen illustrious children. For so David was the son of a certain mean husbandman, Jesse; and Amos, the child of a goatherd, and himself a goatherd; and Moses too, the lawgiver, had a father very inferior to himself. When they therefore, for this especially, ought to adore and be amazed, that being of such parents He spake such things, it being quite manifest, that so it was not of man's care, but of God's grace: yet they, what things they should admire Him for, for those they despise Him.

He is moreover continually frequenting the synagogues, lest if He were always abiding in the wilderness, they should the more accuse Him as making a schism, and fighting against their polity. Being amazed therefore, and in perplexity, they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these powers?" either calling the miracles powers, or even the wisdom itself.

The synagogues could not be his. A malicious and disbelieving crowd gathered there. A people full of hate rather than love came together. A group of ill-disposed and ill-mannered people assembled. "He began to teach in their synagogues, so that they were astonished." They were astonished because of indignation and not because of grace. They were amazed because of envy and not because of praise. They raged because what the proud seated on the floor were unable to discern, humility on its feet was thoroughly teaching.

"So that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did he get this wisdom?' " The one who speaks this way does not know God, from whom is wisdom and from whom are mighty works. Solomon points to that source of wisdom. While still young, he accepted the highest honor of the kingdom so he might rule the people entrusted to him with virtue and not with arrogance, with wisdom and not with pride, with his heart and not with his head. He wanted wisdom from God, earnestly asked for it and received it. "Where did he get this wisdom and these mighty works?" The mighty power that gives eyesight denied by nature, that restores hearing to those drowned in silence, that unscrambles the words of those who are mute, that enables the lame to walk again and that orders souls headed for the realm of the dead to return to their bodies is from God, unless someone envious of salvation should deny it.

He taught in their synagogues where great numbers were met, because it was for the salvation of the multitude that He came from heaven upon earth. It follows; So that they marvelled, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these many mighty works? His wisdom is referred to His doctrine, His mighty works to His miracles.

As the case stood, however, it was actually the ordinary condition of His terrene flesh which made all things else about Him wonderful, as when they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? " Thus spake even they who despised His outward form.

And coming into his own country. His country is sometimes called Nazareth, where he was brought up, and there he worked few miracles; sometimes Bethlehem, where he was born; sometimes Capharnaum, because he worked miracles there. And he taught them in their synagogues, etc. There follows the wonder. And first the wonder is set forth; secondly, its effect is identified. He says: so that they wondered. It was not surprising if they wondered; Ps 118:129: your testimonies are wonderful. They wondered whence those powers came: for wonder is caused when the effect is seen but the cause is unknown. They saw the manifest effect, but did not know the cause; hence they said: whence has this man this wisdom and these mighty works? But this was a foolish wonder, because 1 Cor 1:24 states that he is the power and the wisdom of God. But they did not know this, and therefore they wondered.

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.

Those heretics were called Antidicomarites who denied the virginity of Mary to the point that they claim that after the birth of Christ she had intercourse with her husband.

(Quæst. in Matt. q. 17.) No wonder then that any kinsmen by the mother's side should be called the Lord's brethren, when even by their kindred to Joseph some are here called His brethren by those who thought Him the son of Joseph.

Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, while knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,"— of Him as Lord; but "the brother of James." [Jude 1] For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph.

And verily the blessed Jeremiah says, as to our Lord Jesus Christ, "For both thy brethren and the house of thy father, they too despised Thee, and they cried out; of thy followers were they gathered together: believe them not, for they will speak fair words unto Thee." [Jeremiah 12:6] For His brethren who before the faith thought little of Him, and in the words just spoken, all but attempt to cry out against Him, were gathered together through faith, and have spoken fair words unto Him, both aiding others, and striving with words in behalf of the faith. Very watchfully did the Prophet, having named His brethren, profitably add, The house of Thy father, lest they too should be supposed to have been of the blessed Virgin, rather than of His father Joseph alone.

It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin

Because there are those who dare to say that Mary cohabited with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, we reply, 'How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined by a mortal being, and gave birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?' If Mary was blessed of women, she would have been exempt from the curse from the beginning, and from the bearing of children in birthpangs and curses. It would be impossible therefore to call one who gave birth with these birthpangs blessed.

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

And yet some very depraved men take from this the basis of their view that there were many brothers of our Lord as a point of tradition. If there had been sons of Mary who were not rather produced from a previous marriage of Joseph's, Mary never would have been transferred to the apostle John as his mother at the time of the Passion, nor would the Lord have said to them both, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother," [John 19:26-27] unless perhaps he was leaving his disciple's filial love in order to comfort her who was left behind.

But clearly this was the son of the carpenter who was subduing iron with fire, melting away all the might of the world with good judgment and forming the mass into every work that was humanly useful. He was molding the formless material of our bodies into members for different ministries and for every work of eternal life. They all became irritated at these things. Among the many astonishing things he did, they were most deeply moved by his contemplativeness and his bodily self-control.

And this was the carpenter's son who subdues iron by means of fire, who tries the virtue of this world in the judgment, and forms the rude mass to every work of human need; the figure of our bodies, for example, to the divers ministrations of the limbs, and all the actions of life eternal.

How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord's brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren — by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, [Deuteronomy 15:12] "If your brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, and serve you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." And in the same book, [Deuteronomy 17:15] "You shall in anywise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, which is not your brother." And again, [Deuteronomy 22:1] "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again unto your brother. And if your brother be not near unto you, or if you know him not, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him again." And the Apostle Paul says, [Romans 9:3-4] "I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites." Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis [Genesis 13:8, 11] we read, "And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and you, and between my herdmen and your herdmen; for we are brethren." And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother." Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begot Lot. Again we read, [Genesis 12:4] "And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son." But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. [Genesis 14:14] "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew near and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. [Genesis 29:11] "And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, [Genesis 29:15] "Laban said to Jacob. Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall your wages be." And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, [Genesis 31:36-37] "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two." Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob's brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca.

Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." And in another psalm the Saviour says, "I will declare your name unto my brethren." And elsewhere, [John 20:17] "Go unto my brethren and say to them." I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. [Isaiah 66:5] "Tell these who hate you," says the prophet, "you are our brethren." And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: [1 Corinthians 5:11] "If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat." I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, "Behold, your brethren seek you," for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, [Genesis 20:11] "She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's," that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister...

It is clear that our Lord's brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: [Luke 1:18] "I and your father sought you sorrowing." It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, [John 1:45] "Philip finds Nathanael, and says unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father.

(Verse 55, 56.) Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did he get all these things? And they took offense at him. The error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of the heretics. For they saw Jesus Christ merely as a man, so that the carpenters thought him to be the son: Isn't this the carpenter's son? Are you surprised if they err about his brothers, when they err about his father? This place has been explained more fully in the aforementioned book against Helvedius.

(in Helvid. 14.) Those who are here called the Lord's brethren, are the sons of a Mary, His Mother's sister; she is the mother of this James and Joseph, that is to say, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and this is the Mary who is called the mother of James the Less.

And when they are mistaken in His Father, no wonder if they are also mistaken in His brethren. Whence it is added, Is not his mother Mary, and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

This error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of the heretics, for they perceived Jesus Christ to be man so far as to think Him the son of a carpenter.

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."

"Is not this the carpenter's son?" The greater then the marvel, and the more abundant the ground of amaze. "Is not His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and His sisters, are they not all with us? Whence hath this man these things? And they were offended in Him."

Seest thou that Nazareth was where He was discoursing? "Are not his brethren," it is said, "such a one, and such a one?" And what of this? Why, by this especially you ought to have been led on to faith. But envy you see is a poor base thing, and often falls foul of itself. For what things were strange and marvellous, and enough to have gained them over, these offended them.

I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [Matthew 13:55-56] They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," [Luke 1:35] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Galatians 1:19] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." [Jude 1]

(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]

And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel.

(non occ. cf. Serm. 135. App.) For the Father of Christ is that Divine Workman who made all these works of nature, who set forth Noah's ark, who ordained the tabernacle of Moses, and instituted the Ark of the covenant; that Workman who polishes the stubborn mind, and cuts down the proud thoughts.

Come, now, if you have read in the utterance of the prophet in the Psalms, "God hath reigned from the tree," I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may perhaps think some carpenter-king is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from His passion of "the tree.

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).

The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.

Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards...

Some, as Jerome says on Matthew 12:49-50, "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection." Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."

And they set forth their wonder and their knowledge: hence they said, is not this the carpenter's son? For he was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was not an ironworker but a woodworker: although he could also be called the son of the craftsman who fashioned the dawn and the sun, Ps 73:16. Is not his mother called Mary? They knew all the things that pertained to his humanity. About Mary it is stated above at 1:18: when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, etc. And his brethren James and Joseph, Simon and Jude. Helvidius understood these to be sons of Mary. But this is false; rather they were his cousins. Or they are called brethren because they were of the kindred of Joseph, who was thought to be the father of Jesus. Gen 13:8: let there be no strife between me and you, for we are brethren, Abraham said to Lot: although Lot was the son of his brother.

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonorable, impious, unworthy or evil... I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.

And in the same way is to be understood what follows: and his sisters, are they not all with us? Therefore from those things which pertained to the flesh, they went forth into wonder, saying: whence then has this man all these things?

(Verse 58) And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. Not because he was unable to do many miracles for them, who were unbelieving; but rather because in doing many miracles he would condemn the unbelieving citizens. It can also be understood in another way, that Jesus is despised in his own home and country, that is, among the Jewish people. And therefore, he performed only a few signs there, so that they would not become completely without excuse. But he performs greater signs daily among the nations through his apostles, not so much in the healing of bodies, but in the salvation of souls.

Not that because they did not believe He could not do His mighty works; but that He might not by doing them be condemning His fellow-citizens in their unbelief.

Or we may understand it otherwise, that Jesus is despised in His own house and country, signifies in the Jewish people; and therefore He did among them few miracles, that they might not be altogether without excuse; but among the Gentiles He does daily greater miracles by His Apostles, not so much in healing their bodies, as in saving their souls.

But if His miracles raised their wonder, why did He not work many? Because He looked not to display of Himself, but to what would profit others; and when that did not result, He despised what pertained only to Himself that He might not increase their punishment. Why then did He even these few miracles? That they should not say, We should have believed had any miracles been done among us.

It seems to me that the production of miracles is similar in some ways to the case of physical things. Cultivation is not sufficient to produce a harvest of fruits unless the soil, or rather the atmosphere, cooperates to this end. And the atmosphere of itself is not sufficient to produce a harvest without cultivation. The one who providentially orders creation did not design things to spring up from the earth without cultivation. Only in the first instance did he do so when he said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, with the seed sowing according to its kind and according to its likeness."It is just this way in regard to the production of miracles. The complete work resulting in a healing is not displayed without those being healed exercising faith. Faith, of whatever quality it might be, does not produce a healing without divine power.

Christ indeed came to his own country, because it was written, "He came among his own, and his own did not receive him." In plain fact, when he says, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country," he is teaching that it is a painful situation to have influence among his own. To stand out among the local denizens is similar to an inflammation. A near relation's glory burns the near relations. If neighbors have to pay homage to a neighbor, they consider it servitude. "And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief." Power has no effect where unbelief does not deserve it. And while Christ does not demand a reward when he heals, he becomes indignant when injustice is shown to him instead of honor.

Hence it follows: and he did not work many miracles there; not because he could not, since he was omnipotent, but he did not, because the purpose for which he worked miracles was that they might believe in him. But they held him in contempt, because they interpreted things in a bad sense, and therefore they were not disposed to faith: yet he worked some, so that they might be rendered inexcusable; and therefore he says not many, because he worked some. And this was on account of their unbelief.