5 Myrrhbearing Women

(de Con. Evan. iii. 25) Now we must consider how the Lord appeared after the resurrection. For Mark says, Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

It was also a woman who first announced to the disciples that the Lord had come forth from the confinement of the grave, so that "where sin abounded grace might more abound."

Now, rising early on the first day of the week, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. How and where this appearance of the Lord took place, John teaches most fully. But the Lord rose early from the tomb, in which he had been laid late the day before, so that what was written in the Psalms might be fulfilled: Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning (Psalm 30). Therefore, having been buried on the sixth day of the week, which is called Preparation Day, around the evening hour, he was placed in the tomb on the following night and day of the Sabbath with the subsequent night, and thus on the third day, that is early on the first day of the week, he rose. Further, he did not lie in the tomb for one day and two nights only justly, because he deliberately joined the light of his singular death to the darkness of our double death. For he came to us, who were held in death of both the spirit and the flesh. He endured his own death, that is, of the flesh, and dissolved the double death that he found in us. For if he had borne both, he would have freed us from neither. But he mercifully accepted one, and justly condemned both. He joined his singular death to our double death, and by dying he conquered our double death.

He appeared first, he says, to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had expelled seven demons. She went and announced it to those who had been with him and were mourning and weeping. Just as at the beginning the woman was the author of sin for the man, and the man the executor of error, so now she who first brought and tasted death, saw the resurrection first. And lest she who had transferred guilt to the man should bear perpetual reproach among men, she also transferred grace. Hence, rightly, this woman who first announced to the mourning and weeping men the joy of the Lord's resurrection, is remembered to have been cured of seven demons, so that it is marked that she was full of all sins, but by divine gift was cleansed from all of them, and where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more. For the number seven is customarily mystically placed for entirety. Therefore, she who was cured of seven demons, that is, was liberated from all sins, first saw the Lord rising from the dead, so that no one who repents worthily might despair of the pardon for their misdeeds, seeing her who was once subject to so many and great vices being suddenly advanced to such a pinnacle by the merit of faith and love, that she first evangelized the miracle of the accomplished resurrection to the very evangelists and apostles of Christ.

(ubi sup.) John tells us most fully how and when this appearance took place. But the Lord rose in the morning from the sepulchre in which He had been laid in the evening, that those words of the Psalm might be fulfilled, Heaviness may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. (Ps. 30:5)

(ubi sup.) In the beginning also woman brought man into sin, now she, who first tasted death, first sees the resurrection, lest she should have to bear the reproach of perpetual guilt amongst men; and she who had been the channel of guilt to man, now has become the first channel of grace. For it goes on: And she went and told them that had been with him as they mourned and wept.

(ubi sup.) Fitly too is this woman, who was the first to announce the joy of our Lord's resurrection, said to have been cured of seven devils, lest any one worthily repenting of his sins should despair of pardon for what he had done, and that it might be shown that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. (Rom. 5:20)

This woman whom Luke calls a sinful woman, John names Mary, and we believe her to be that Mary from whom Mark testifies seven demons were cast out. And what is signified by seven demons, except all vices? For since all time is comprised in seven days, rightly by the number seven is universality represented. Therefore Mary had seven demons, because she was full of all vices. But behold, because she perceived the stains of her own shame, she ran to the fountain of mercy to be washed.

(ubi sup.) For as Samson at midnight not only left Gaza, but also carried away the gates of it, so also our Redeemer rising before the light, did not only come out free from hell, but destroyed also the very gates of hell. But Mark here testifies that seven devils were cast out of Mary; and what is meant by seven devils save all vices? for as by seven days is understood all time, so by the number seven a whole is fitly figured.

At the dawning of the Lord's day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord's Day contains the resurrection.

The sacredness of the Lord's Day is apparent from the holy Scripture. This was the first day of the world. On this day the elements of the creation were formed. On this day the angels were created. On this day Christ rose from the dead. On this day the Holy Ghost came down from heaven on the apostles. On this same day the manna in the wilderness was first given.

Again, He is shown to her, out of whom He had cast seven devils, because harlots and publicans shall go before the synagogue into the kingdom of heaven, as the thief reached it before the Apostles.

If, however, there be any one who, like Plato, supposes that two souls cannot, more than two bodies could, co-exist in the same individual, I, on the contrary, could show him not merely the co-existence of two souls in one person, as also of two bodies in the same womb, but likewise the combination of many other things in natural connection with the soul-for instance, of demoniacal possession; and that not of one only, as in the case of Socrates' own demon; but of seven spirits as in the case of the Magdalene; and of a legion in number, as in the Gadarene.

"Having risen" – pause here, then read: "early on the first day of the week, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene." For He did not rise early (who saw when He rose?), but He appeared early, on the day of the resurrection (since this day is the first day of the sabbath, that is, of the week). "From whom He had cast out seven demons," that is, many (for Sacred Scripture sometimes takes the number "seven" in the sense of a multitude), or seven demons opposed to the seven spirits of virtue, such as: the spirit of fearlessness (lack of fear of God), the spirit of folly, the spirit of ignorance, the spirit of falsehood, and others opposed to the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Or else put a stop at, Now when Jesus was risen, and then read, early the first day of the week he appeared, &c.

But Mary had seven devils, because she was filled with all vices. Or else, by seven devils are meant seven spirits contrary to the seven virtues, as a spirit without fear, without wisdom, without understanding, and whatsoever else is opposed to the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) Mary brings the news, not now as a woman, but in the person of the Church, so that, as above woman was silent, here as the Church she might bring tidings and speak. There follows, And they when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, believed not.

They mourn and weep because they had not yet seen, but after a short time they shall receive a consolation. For blessed are they that weep now, for they shall be comforted.

And they, hearing that he was alive, and had been seen by her, did not believe. Because the disciples were slow to believe in the Lord's resurrection, it was not so much their infirmity as our (so to speak) future firmness. For that very resurrection was shown to them, who doubted, through many proofs, which we, recognizing while reading, are otherwise solidified by their doubt. For Mary Magdalene, who believed sooner, rendered me less a service than Thomas, who doubted longer. For by doubting he touched the scars of the wounds, and removed the wound of doubt from our heart.

(Hom. in Evan. xxix.) That the disciples were slow in believing our Lord's resurrection was not so much a weakness of theirs as it is our strength. For the resurrection itself through their doubts was manifested by many proofs; and whilst we read and acknowledge them, what do we but become firmer through their doubting?

It seems as if some impediment to recognition had been effected in the eyes of those who beheld him; and when it is plainly said elsewhere: "He appeared to them in another shape"—obviously in his own body with another appearance—some effect was produced which acted as an impediment to prevent them, that is, their eyes were subjected to a delay in recognition.

Their eyes were obstructed, that they should not recognize him until the breaking of the bread. And thus, in accordance with the state of their minds, which were still ignorant of the truth (that the Christ would die and rise again), their eyes were similarly hindered. It was not that the truth himself was misleading them, but rather that they were themselves unable to perceive the truth.

Jesus appeared; he was visible to their eyes, yet he was not recognized. The master walked with them on the way; in fact, he was the way on which they were not yet walking; but he found that they had wandered some distance from the way. For when he was with them before his passion, he had foretold all—that he would suffer, that he would die, that he would rise again on the third day—he had predicted all; but his death was as a loss of memory for them. They were so disturbed when they saw him hanging on the cross that they forgot his teaching, did not look for his resurrection, and failed to keep his promises in mind.

(Con. Evang. iii. 25) Luke relates the whole story respecting these two, one of whom was Cleophas, but Mark here touches but slightly upon it. That village of which Luke speaks may without absurdity be supposed to be what is here called a farm house, and indeed in some Greek manuscripts it is called the country. But by this name are understood not only villages, but also boroughs and country towns, because they are without the city, which is the head and mother of all the rest. That which Mark expresses by the Lord's appearance in another form, is what Luke means by saying that their eyes were holden that they could not know him. For something was upon their eyes, which was allowed to remain there, until the breaking of bread.

After this, however, he was shown in another form to two of them, as they walked and went into the country. And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them. How this happened, Luke explains more fully. But what Mark says, he was shown in another form, Luke says more plainly, because their eyes were held, so that they should not recognize him, until, coming to the village where they were going and setting a meal for him as for a stranger, they finally recognized him in the breaking of bread (Luke 24). As the same Luke adds subsequently, they rose up that same hour, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them saying, the Lord has truly risen, and appeared to Simon. And they recounted the things that happened on the way, and how they recognized him in the breaking of bread (Ibid.). But as Mark says, they reported it to the others, and they did not believe them, while Luke says that they were already speaking, that he had truly risen and had appeared to Simon. What is to be understood, if not that there were some among them who did not want to believe it? Who, however, does not see that Mark left out what Luke narrated in detail? That is, what Jesus had spoken to them before they recognized him, and how they recognized him in the breaking of bread. Since as soon as he said that he appeared to them in another form as they went into the country, he immediately added: And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them. As if they could report what they did not recognize, or recognize what appeared to them in another form. How then did they recognize him to be able to report it, Mark undoubtedly omitted. Which is worth recording so that we may become accustomed to noticing the habit of the evangelists, of omitting what they do not mention, and joining what they do mention, so that for those who do not have the practice in this consideration, no other error mainly arises, by which they think that they do not agree with each other.

Therefore the Lord performed outwardly in the eyes of the body what was happening within them in the eyes of the heart. For they themselves within were both loving and doubting, while the Lord outwardly was both present to them and yet did not reveal who He was. To those speaking about Him He showed His presence, but from those doubting Him He hid the appearance of His recognition.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) But let no one suppose that Christ changed the form of His face by His resurrection, but the form is changed when of mortal it becomes immortal, so that this means that He gained a glorious countenance, not that He lost the substance of His countenance. But He was seen of two; because faith in the resurrection is to be preached and shown to two people, that is, the Gentiles and the Jews.

But in a mystic sense we may understand that faith here labours, leading the active life, but there it reigns secure in the contemplative vision. Here we see His face through a glass, there we shall see the truth face to face, wherefore He was shown to them as they were walking, that is, labouring, in another form. And when it was told, the disciples did not believe, because they saw, like Moses, that which was not enough for them, for he said, show me thyself; (Exod. 33:18. Sept.) forgetting his flesh, he prays in this life for that which we hope for in the life to come.

"After this He appeared in another form to two of them on the road, as they were going into the village." About these two, Luke also speaks (Luke 24:13–35).

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) There follows, And they went and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them. How are we to understand the words of Mark compared with the account of Luke, that they then said, The Lord hath risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon, (Luke 24:34) if we do not suppose that there were some there who would not believe?

"And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them." How then does Luke say that they "returned and found the eleven Apostles gathered together, and those who were with them, who said that the Lord is risen indeed" (Luke 24:33–34), whereas according to Mark's testimony they did not believe even those who came from the village? We answer: when the Evangelist says that "they told the residue," he does not mean the eleven apostles, but certain others. These he called "the residue," since the eleven had seen Him (Christ) on that same day on which those who returned from the village found them saying "that the Lord is risen indeed."

For he does not say this of the eleven, but of some others, whom He calls the residue.

The Lord Jesus himself chided his disciples, his earliest followers who remained close to him, because they did not believe that he was now alive, but grieved over him as dead. They were the fathers of the faith, but they were not yet fully believers. They did not yet believe, although they were made teachers so that the whole world might believe what they were destined to preach and what they were going to die for. They did not yet believe that he, whom they had seen raising others from the dead, had himself arisen. Deservedly, then, were they rebuked.

He also showed himself on one final occasion to the eleven as they sat at table together—that is, on the fortieth day itself. He was now on the point of leaving them and ascending into heaven. He was minded on that memorable day especially to reprove them for their refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen, until they had seen him themselves. For when they would preach the gospel after his ascension, the nations themselves would be ready to believe what they did not see.… If, therefore, they were charged to preach that those who do not believe will be condemned, when they themselves had not believed what they had just seen, was it not fitting that they should themselves first be thus reproved for their own refusal to believe those to whom the Lord had shown himself at an earlier stage until they should have seen him with their own eyes?

(Con. Evang. iii. 25) But how was this done the last time? The last occasion on which the Apostles saw the Lord upon earth happened forty days after the resurrection; but would He then have upbraided them for not believing those who had seen Him risen, when they themselves had so often seen Him after His resurrection? It remains therefore that we should understand that Mark wished to say it in few words, and said for the last time, because it was the last time that He showed Himself that day, as night was coming on, when the disciples returned from the country into Jerusalem, and found, as Luke says (Luke 24:33.), the eleven and those who were with them, speaking together concerning the resurrection of our Lord. But there were some there who did not believe; when these then were sitting at meat, (as Mark says,) and were still speaking, (as Luke relates,) The Lord stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you; (Luke 24:36) as Luke and John say. (John 20:19) The rebuke therefore which Mark here mentions, must have been amongst those words, which Luke and John say, that the Lord at that time spoke to the disciples. But another question is raised, how Mark says that He appeared when the eleven sat at meat, if the time was the first part of the night on the Lord's day, when John plainly says that Thomas was not with them, who, we believe, had gone out, before the Lord came in to them, after those two had returned from the village, and spoken with the eleven, as we find in Luke's Gospel. But Luke in his relation leaves room for supposing that Thomas went out first, while they spoke these things, and that the Lord entered afterwards; Mark however from his saying, for the last time he appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, forces us to believe that he was there, unless indeed, though one of them was absent, he chose to call them the eleven, because the company of the Apostles was then called by this number, before Matthias was chosen into the place of Judas. Or if this be a harsh way of understanding it, let us understand that it means that after many appearances, He showed Himself for the last time, that is, on the fortieth day, to the Apostles, as they sat at meat, and that since He was about to ascend from them, He rather wished on that day to reprove them for not having believed those who had seen Him risen before seeing Him themselves, because after His ascension even the Gentiles on their preaching were to believe a Gospel, which they had not seen. And so the same Mark immediately after that rebuke says, And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. And lower down, He that believeth not shall be condemned. Since then they were to preach this, were not they themselves to be first rebuked, because before they saw the Lord they had not believed those to whom He had first appeared?

Last of all, as they were reclining at the table, he appeared to the eleven and reproached their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen him risen. How "last of all," as if they would no longer see him? For it is the last time that the Apostles saw the Lord on earth when he ascended into heaven, which happened on the fortieth day after his resurrection. Would he then reproach them, for not having believed those who had seen him risen, when by that time they had themselves seen him so many times after the resurrection? Therefore, let us understand this: after many demonstrations of himself, during which he was presented to his disciples over forty days, he also lastly appeared to those eleven while they were reclining at the table, that is, on the very fortieth day. And because he was about to ascend to heaven from them, he wanted especially to reproach them on that day, because they had not believed those who had seen him risen before they themselves saw him, while certainly after his ascension, the nations, which had not seen him, were to believe through their preaching of the Gospel. After that reproach, as Marcus follows:

(non occ.) Mark, when about to finish his Gospel, relates the last appearance of our Lord to His disciples after His resurrection, saying,1 For the last time he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat. (Acts 1:4, 9)

The fact that the disciples were slow to believe in the Lord's resurrection was not so much their weakness as, so to speak, our future strength. For the resurrection itself was demonstrated to them through many proofs while they doubted: and when we recognize these things as we read them, what else happens but that we are strengthened by their doubt? For Mary Magdalene, who believed more quickly, did less for me than Thomas, who doubted for a long time. For by doubting he touched the scars of the wounds, and cut away the wound of doubt from our hearts.

To establish the truth of the Lord's resurrection, we should also note what Luke reports, saying: "Eating together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem." And a little later: "While they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud received him from their sight." Note the words, mark the mysteries. Eating together he was lifted up. He ate, and he ascended, so that through the act of eating the truth of his flesh might be made evident.

Mark, however, recalls that before the Lord ascended to heaven, he rebuked the disciples for their hardness of heart and unbelief. In this matter, what should be considered except that the Lord rebuked the disciples at that time when he was leaving them bodily, so that the words he spoke as he departed might remain more deeply impressed upon the hearts of his hearers?

(ubi sup.) We should observe that Luke says in the Acts, As he was eating with them he commanded that they should not depart from Jerusalem, and shortly afterwards, while they beheld he was taken up. For He ate, and then ascended, that by the act of eating, the truth of the flesh might be declared; wherefore it is also here said, that he appeared to them for the last time as they sat at meat.

(ubi sup.) Another reason also why our Lord rebuked His disciples, when He left them as to His bodily presence, was, that the words which He spoke on leaving them might remain more deeply impressed upon the hearts of His hearers.

In some copies, and especially in the Greek codices, it is written according to Mark at the end of his Gospel: "At length Jesus appeared to the eleven as they were at table."

As he showed them real hands and a real side, so he really ate with his disciples;4 really walked with Cleophas; conversed with men with a real tongue;6 really reclined at supper; with real hands took bread, blessed and broke it, and was offering it to them. … Do not put the power of the Lord on a level with the tricks of magicians, so that he may appear to have been what he was not, and may be thought to have eaten without teeth, walked without feet, broken bread without hands, spoken without a tongue, and showed a side which had no ribs.

But He appeared when all the eleven were together, that all might be witnesses, and relate to all men what they had seen and heard in common. It goes on: And upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them who had seen him after his resurrection.

But He rebukes their want of faith, that faith might take its place; He rebukes the hardness of their stony heart, that the fleshy heart, full of love, might take its place.

While such things are mystifying if we take them in a carnal sense, we may be warned thereby to think of them as ineffably spiritual. For this reason, even if we think of the Lord's body, which was raised from the tomb and ascended into heaven, only as having a human appearance and parts, we are not to think that he sits at the right hand of the Father in such a way that the Father should seem to sit [literally] at his left hand. Indeed, in that bliss which surpasses human understanding, the only right hand and the same right hand is a name for that same bliss.

Do not doubt, then, that the man Christ Jesus is now there whence he shall come again. Cherish in your memory and hold faithfully to the profession of your Christian faith that he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come from no other place but there to judge the living and the dead. He will so come, on the testimony of the angel's voice, as he was seen going into heaven, that is, in the same form and substance of flesh to which, it is true, he gave immortality, but did not take away its nature. According to this fleshly form, we are not to think that he is everywhere present. We must beware of so stressing the divinity of the man that we destroy the reality of his body. It does not follow that what is in God is in him so as to be everywhere as God is. The Scripture says, with perfect truth: "In him we live and move and are," yet we are not everywhere present as he is, but man is in God after one manner, while God is in man quite differently, in his own unique manner. God and man in him are one person, and both are the one Jesus Christ who is everywhere as God, but in heaven as man.

Having vanquished the devil by the resurrection, he sits at the right hand of the Father, where he dies no more, and death no longer over him shall have dominion.

(Con. Evang. iii. 25) By which words He seems to show clearly enough that the foregoing discourse was the last that He spake to them upon earth, though it does not appear to bind us down altogether to this opinion. For He does not say, After He had thus spoken unto them, wherefore it admits of being understood not as if that was the last discourse, but that the words which are here used, After the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received into heaven, might belong to all His other discourses. But since the arguments which we have used above make us rather suppose that this was the last time, therefore we ought to believe that after these words, together with those which are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, our Lord ascended into heaven.

(de Symbolo, 4) Let us not therefore understand this sitting as though He were placed there in human limbs, as if the Father sat on the left, the Son on the right, but by the right hand itself we understand the power which He as man received from God, that He should come to judge, who first had come to be judged. For by sitting we express habitation, as we say of a person, he sat himself down in that country for many years; in this way then believe that Christ dwells at the right hand of God the Father. For He is blessed and dwells in blessedness, which is called the right hand of the Father; for all is right hand there, since there is no misery.

And indeed the Lord Jesus, after having spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God. We must consider what it is that Mark says: He sits at the right hand of God, and Stephen says, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts VII). What is it that Mark says he sees sitting, while Stephen testifies he sees standing? But we know that to sit pertains to one who judges, and to stand to one who fights or helps. Therefore, because our Redeemer, taken up into heaven, now judges everything and will come as the judge of all at the end, Mark describes him as sitting after the ascension, because he will be seen as the judge in his glory at the end. But Stephen, positioned in the struggle of toil, saw him standing, whom he had as a helper. Because he, in order to overcome the unbelief of the persecutors on earth, was fought for by the grace of him from heaven. It follows:

(ubi sup.) Observe that in proportion as Mark began his history later, so he makes it reach in writing to more distant times, for he began from the commencement of the preaching of the Gospel by John, and he reaches in his narrative those times in which the Apostles sowed the same word of the Gospel throughout the world.

After forty days He ascended into the heavens, where, exalted above every creature, He sits at the right hand of the Father. This expression is understood not with respect to position, which does not pertain to God the Father, but with respect to the excellence of goods, because He resides in the more excellent goods of the Father.

In order to raise us to hope, he ascended to the heavenly glory which we hope for. But because hope does not arise except from faith in future immortality, therefore he did not ascend immediately, but with an interval of forty days interposed, in which through many signs and proofs he established the true resurrection, by which the mind might be strengthened in faith and lifted up to hope for heavenly glory.

He dies, but he makes alive and by death destroys death. He is buried, yet he rises again. He goes down to Hades, yet he leads souls up, ascends to heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead, and to probe discussions like these.

And indeed the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God.

In the Old Testament we learned that Elijah was caught up into heaven. But the aerial heaven is one thing, the ethereal heaven another. For the aerial heaven is nearest to the earth; whence we also speak of the birds of heaven, because we see them flying in the air. Elijah therefore was lifted up into the aerial heaven, so that he might suddenly be led to a certain secret region of the earth, where he might live in great rest of flesh and spirit, until he returns at the end of the world and pays the debt of death. For he postponed death, he did not escape it. But our Redeemer, because he did not postpone it, overcame it, and by rising again consumed it, and by ascending declared the glory of his resurrection.

It should also be noted that Elijah is recorded to have ascended in a chariot, so that it might be openly demonstrated that a mere man needed the help of another. For those aids were made and shown through angels, because he could not ascend even into the aerial heaven by himself, whom the weakness of his own nature weighed down. But our Redeemer is not recorded to have been lifted up by a chariot or by angels, because he who had made all things was certainly borne above all things by his own power. For he was returning to where he was, and he was going back from where he remained, because when he ascended into heaven through his humanity, through his divinity he equally contained both earth and heaven.

Just as Joseph, sold by his brothers, prefigured the selling of our Redeemer, so Enoch, translated, and Elijah, raised up to the aerial heaven, designated the Lord's Ascension. Therefore the Lord had forerunners and witnesses of His Ascension, one before the law, the other under the law, so that He Himself might come in due time who could truly penetrate the heavens. Hence the very order in the elevation of both of them is also distinguished by certain gradations. For Enoch is recorded as having been translated, but Elijah as having been carried up to heaven, so that He might come afterward who, neither translated nor carried up, would penetrate the ethereal heaven by His own power.

We must consider what it means that Mark says: He sits at the right hand of God; while Stephen says: I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. What does it mean that Mark testifies he is sitting, while Stephen testifies that he saw him standing? But you know, brothers, that sitting belongs to one who judges, while standing belongs to one who fights or helps. Therefore, because our Redeemer, having been taken up into heaven, both now judges all things and at the end comes as judge of all, Mark describes him as sitting after his assumption, because after the glory of his Ascension he will be seen as judge at the end. But Stephen, placed in the labor of struggle, saw him standing whom he had as helper, because in order that Stephen might overcome on earth the unbelief of his persecutors, his grace fought for him from heaven.

(ubi sup.) Are we then without faith because we cannot do these signs? Nay, but these things were necessary in the beginning of the Church, for the faith of believers was to be nourished by miracles, that it might increase. Thus we also, when we plant groves, pour water upon them, until we see that they have grown strong in the earth; but when once they have firmly fixed their roots, we leave off irrigating them. These signs and miracles have other things which we ought to consider more minutely. For Holy Church does every day in spirit what then the Apostles did in body; for when her Priests by the grace of exorcism lay their hands on believers, and forbid the evil spirits to dwell in their minds, what do they, but cast out devils? And the faithful who have left earthly words, and whose tongues sound forth the Holy Mysteries, speak a new language; they who by their good warnings take away evil from the hearts of others, take up serpents; and when they are hearing words of pestilent persuasion, without being at all drawn aside to evil doing, they drink a deadly thing, but it will never hurt them; whenever they see their neighbours growing weak in good works, and by their good example strengthen their life, they lay their hands on the sick, that they may recover. And all these miracles are greater in proportion as they are spiritual, and by them souls and not bodies are raised.

(ubi sup.) We have seen in the Old Testament that Elias was taken up into heaven. But the ethereal heaven is one thing, the aerial is another. The aerial heaven is nearer the earth, Elias then was raised into the aerial heaven, that he might be carried off suddenly into some secret region of the earth, there to live in great calmness of body and spirit, until he return at the end of the world, and pay the debt of death. We may also observe that Elias mounted up in a chariot, that by this they might understand that a mere man requires help from without. But our Redeemer, as we read, was not carried up by a chariot, not by angels, because He who had made all things was borne over all by His own power. We must also consider what Mark subjoins, And sat at the right hand of God, since Stephen says, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. Now sitting is the attitude of a judge, standing of one fighting or helping. Therefore Stephen, when toiling in the contest, saw Him standing, whom he had for his helper; but Mark describes Him as sitting after His assumption into heaven, because after the glory of His assumption, He will in the end be seen as a judge.

(ubi sup.) But what should we consider in these words, if it be not that obedience follows the precept and signs follow the obedience? For the Lord had commanded them, Go into all the world preaching the Gospel, and, Ye shall be witnesses even unto the ends of the earth.

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;" confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

And so while at Easter it was the Lord's resurrection which was the cause of our joy, our present rejoicing is due to his ascension into heaven. With all due solemnity we are commemorating that day on which our poor human nature was carried up in Christ above all the hosts of heaven, above all the ranks of angels, beyond those heavenly powers to the very throne of God the Father. It is upon this ordered structure of divine acts that we have been firmly established, so that the grace of God may show itself still more marvelous when, in spite of the withdrawal from our sight of everything that is rightly felt to command our reverence, faith does not fail, hope is not shaken, charity does not grow cold.… It was in order that we might be capable of such blessedness that on the fortieth day after his resurrection, after he had made careful provision for everything concerning the preaching of the gospel and the mysteries of the new covenant, our Lord Jesus Christ was taken up to heaven before the eyes of his disciples, and so his bodily presence among them came to an end. From that time onward he was to remain at the Father's right hand until the completion of the period ordained by God for the church's children to increase and multiply, after which, in the same body with which he ascended, he will come again to judge the living and the dead. And so our redeemer's visible presence has passed into the sacraments. Our faith is nobler and stronger because empirical sight has been replaced by a reliable teaching whose authority is accepted by believing hearts, enlightened from on high.

Hail! Thou king of all the living; Hail! Thou judge of all the dead, At the right hand of thy Father, Thou art throned in highest power, And from thence just judge of sinners, Thou shalt one day come again.

The Lord Jesus, who had descended from heaven to give liberty to our weak nature, Himself also ascended above the heavens; wherefore it is said, So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven.

It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven, and also descends to the inner parts of the earth. "He sits at the Father's right hand"—not the Father at his own. He is seen by Stephen at his martyrdom by stoning, still sitting at the right hand of God, where he will continue to sit, until the Father shall make his enemies his footstool. He will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as he appeared when he ascended into heaven.

That, however, which we have reserved for a concluding argument, will now stand as a plea for all, and for the apostle himself, who in very deed would have to be charged with extreme indiscretion, if he had so abruptly, as some will have it, and as they say, blindfold, and so indiscriminately, and so unconditionally, excluded from the kingdom of God, and indeed from the court of heaven itself, all flesh and blood whatsoever; since Jesus is still sitting there at the right hand of the Father, man, yet God-the last Adam, yet the primary Word-flesh and blood, yet purer than ours-who "shall descend in like manner as He ascended into heaven" the same both in substance and form, as the angels affirmed, so as even to be recognised by those who pierced Him.

"He sitteth at the Father's right hand " -not the Father at His own.

But we must also know from this that words are confirmed by deeds as then in the Apostles works confirmed their words, for signs followed. Grant then, O Christ, that the good words which we speak may be confirmed by works and deeds, so that at the last, Thou working with us in word and in deed, we may be perfect, for Thine as is fitting is the glory both of word and deed. Amen.

Let us draw near, then, my beloved, to faith, since its powers are so many. For faith raised up [Enoch] to the heavens, and overcame the deluge. It caused the barren to bring forth. It delivered from the sword. Faith raised up from the pit. It enriched the poor. It released the captives. It delivered the persecuted. It brought down the fire. It divided the sea. Faith cleft the rock and gave to the thirsty water to drink. It satisfied the hungry. It raised the dead and brought them up from Sheol. It stilled the billows. It healed the sick.

It goes on: And they went forth and preached every where, the Lord working with than, and confirming the word with signs and wonders.

(Epist. cxcix. 12.) (Acts 1:8) But how was this preaching fulfilled by the Apostles, since there are many nations in which it has just begun, and others in which it has not yet begun to be fulfilled? Truly then this precept was not so laid upon the Apostles by our Lord, as though they alone to whom He then spoke were to fulfil so great a charge; in the same way as He says, Behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, apparently to them alone; but who does not understand that the promise is made to the Catholic Church, which though some are dying, others are born, shall be here unto the end of the world?

But they, having departed, preached everywhere, with the Lord working with them and confirming the word with the accompanying signs. What is to be considered in this, what to be commended to memory, except that they followed the command with obedience, and obedience was followed by signs? Among these, it is notable that Mark, although he began his Gospel later than the others, extended it to longer times in his writing. For he neither mentioned the birth of the Lord himself or his forerunner, nor any account of their infancy or childhood, nor did he write in depth about the birth of the Savior, except that he called him the Son of God at the beginning of his Gospel. He began from the start of the evangelical preaching, which happened through John, and continued narrating up to the time when the apostles disseminated the entire Gospel word by preaching around the world.

"And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

What is to be considered in these things, what is to be committed to memory, except that obedience followed the command, and signs indeed followed obedience?

Do you see? Everywhere our action comes first, and then God's cooperation follows. For God cooperates with us when we act and make a beginning, but when we do not act, He does not cooperate. Notice also that deeds follow words and the word is confirmed by deeds, just as with the apostles the word was confirmed by the deeds and signs that followed. Would that, O Christ the Word, our words too, which we speak concerning virtue, were confirmed by deeds and actions, so that we might stand before You perfect, You who cooperate with us in all deeds and words! For to You belongs the glory both in our words and in our deeds.

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).

(non occ.) After the passion and death of Christ, the Evangelist relates His burial, saying, And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathæa.

Blessed Joseph, while still serving the Law, recognized Christ as God, which is why he dared to undertake this praiseworthy feat. He did not reason thus: here I am, a wealthy man, and I may lose my wealth if I ask for the body of One Who was condemned for claiming royal power for Himself, and I shall become hateful to the Jews — no, he did not deliberate on anything of the sort within himself, but, setting aside everything as less important, he asked for one thing alone — to commit the body of the Condemned One to burial.

He was bold with a praiseworthy boldness; for he did not consider within himself, I shall fall from my rich estate, and I shall be expelled by the Jews, if I beg for the body of Him, who was condemned as a blasphemer.

Joseph of Arimathea, a noble councilor, who also awaited the kingdom of God, came and boldly approached Pilate and requested the body of Jesus. This Joseph indeed is praised for his great standing in the world but is lauded even more for his merit with God. For it was fitting that such a man should exist who would bury the body of the Lord, one who by his righteousness of merits would be worthy of such a ministry, and by the nobility of his secular power would have the capacity to obtain the ability to minister. For not just anyone, unknown or of moderate status, could approach the governor and request the body of the crucified.

(ubi sup.) But the man who buried the body of the Lord must needs by his righteous merits have been worthy, and by the nobility of worldly power able to perform this service. Therefore it is said, An honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God. He is called in Latin, decurio, because he is of the order of the curia, and served the office of a provincial magistracy; this officer was also called curialis, from his care of civic duties. Arimathæa is the same as Ramathain, the city of Elkanah and Samuel.

(ubi sup.) But it was not an obscure person, nor a man of mean rank, who could come to the governor and obtain the body. There follows: And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen.

On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathaea had laid Him.

This was Joseph, who had been concealing his discipleship. Now he became very bold, after the death of Christ. For neither was he an obscure person nor unnoticed. He was one of the council, and highly distinguished, and as we see, courageous. For he exposed himself to death, taking upon himself the enmity of all by his affection to Jesus. He begged for the body and did not desist until he obtained it. Not only that, but by laying it in his own new tomb, he actively demonstrated his love and courage.

It is interpreted, taking down, of which was Joseph, who came to take down the body of Christ from the cross. There follows: Came and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

These things also fit the Jewish people, which finally is believing, which is ennobled by faith to become the child of Abraham. It lays aside its despair, it waits for the kingdom of God, it goes in to the Christians, that it may be baptized; which is implied by the name of Pilate, which is interpreted, 'One who works with a hammer,' that is, he who subdues the iron nations, that he may rule them with a rod of iron. It seeks for the sacrifice, that is, the viaticum, which is given to penitents at their last end, and wraps it up in a heart clean and dead to sin; it makes it firm in the safeguard of faith, and shuts it up with the covering of hope, through works of charity; (for the end of the commandment is charity;) (1 Tim. 1:5) whilst the elect, who are the stars of the sea, are looking on from afar, for, if it be possible, the very elect shall be offended.

As the Gospel declares, those who were present particularly marveled at this: After the lament in which he expressed the figure of sin, he immediately gave up his spirit. For those who were suspended on the cross were tortured by a lingering death. Consequently, the legs of the thieves were broken, in order that they might quickly die and be taken down from the cross before the Sabbath. But that he was found to be already dead was a cause for amazement. And we read that Pilate also wondered at this, when the body of the Lord was asked of him for burial.

"Pilate marveled that He was already dead," for he thought that Christ would endure suffering for a long time, as the robbers did, which is why he asked the centurion, "Has He been dead long?" That is, could He really have died before the expected time?

It goes on: And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead. For he thought that He should continue long alive upon the cross, as also the thieves used to live long, upon the instrument of their execution. It goes on: And calling unto him the centurion, he asked him if he had been any while dead; that is, before the time when other executed persons usually died. There follows: And when he knew it of the centurion, (that is, that He was dead,) he gave the body to Joseph.

This above all shows the foolishness of those who say that the Word was changed into bones and flesh. For if this had been so, there would have been no need of a tomb. For the body would have gone by itself to preach to the spirits in Hades. But as it was, he himself went to preach, while the body that Joseph wrapped in a linen cloth laid away at Golgotha. And so it is demonstrated to all that the body was not the Word, but body of the Word.

Joseph then bought a linen cloth, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth. And by the simple burial of the Lord, the ambition of the rich is condemned, who cannot even do without riches in their tombs. We can, however, understand this spiritually to mean that the body of the Lord should not be wrapped in gold, gems, or silk, but in pure linen, although this also signifies that he who wraps Jesus in clean linen has received Him with a pure mind. Hence the custom obtained in the Church that the sacrifice of the altar is celebrated not in silk, nor in dyed cloth, but in plain linen, just as the body of the Lord was buried in a clean linen cloth, as we read it was decreed in the pontifical acts by the blessed Pope Sylvester.

And they laid him in a tomb, which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone to the door of the tomb. Those who have come from Jerusalem to Britain in our age report of the Lord's tomb, that it was a round house hewn from underlying rock, of such height that a man standing inside could scarcely touch the top with an outstretched hand. It has an entrance from the East, to which that great stone was rolled and placed. In the northern part of this tomb, the actual sepulcher, that is, the place of the Lord's body, was made from the same rock, being seven feet long and measuring three palms higher than the surrounding floor. The place indeed is not open from above, but from the southern side it is open throughout, from where the body was brought in. The color of this same tomb and the coffin is said to be a mix of reddish and white.

(ubi sup.) By this however, according to a spiritual meaning, we may understand that the body of the Lord should not be wrapped in gold or gems, or silk, but in a clean linen cloth. Hence it became a custom in the Church that the sacrifice of the altar should not be celebrated in silk, or in a dyed cloth, but in linen produced from the earth, just as the body of the Lord was wrapped in clean linen; as, we read in the Pontifical acts, it was ordered by the blessed Sylvesterf. Though it has also another meaning, that he who receives Jesus in a pure mind wraps Him in clean linen. There follows: And laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. It is said that the sepulchre of the Lord is a round cell, hewn out of the rock which was around it, so high, that a man standing upright could scarcely touch the roof with his outstretched hand; and it has an entrance to the east, to which the great stone was rolled, and placed upon it. In the northern part of it is the tomb itself, that is, the place where our Lord's body lay, made of the same rock, seven feet in length, raised three palms higher than the floor. It is not open from above, but on the south side, the whole of which is open, and through which the body was brought in. The colour of the sepulchre and of the recess is said to be a mixed white and red.

By the burial of Christ we rise again, by His going down into hell we mount up into heaven; here is found the honey in the mouth of the dead lion.

Having received the body, Joseph bought a linen shroud and, taking the body down, wrapped it in it, honorably committing what is honorable to burial. For he was himself a disciple of Christ and knew how to honor the Master. He was "prominent," that is, a man of honor, pious, and blameless. As for the title of councillor, this was a certain dignity or, rather, a service and civil office, the holders of which had to manage the affairs of the court, and in this they were often exposed to dangers from the abuses characteristic of that position. Let the wealthy and those occupied with public affairs hear how the dignity of councillor in no way hindered the virtue of Joseph. The name "Joseph" means "offering," and "Arimathea" means "take it up." Let us also, following the example of Joseph, always apply zeal to virtue and take it up, that is, the true good. May we be deemed worthy to receive the Body of Jesus through Communion and to lay it in a tomb hewn from rock, that is, in a soul that firmly remembers and does not forget God. May our soul be hewn from rock, that is, having its foundation in Christ, Who is the Rock. May we wrap this Body in a linen shroud, that is, may we receive it in a pure body, for the body is, as it were, the shroud of the soul. The Divine Body must be received not only into a pure soul but also into a pure body. And one must indeed wrap it, that is, cover it and not expose it, for the Mystery must be covered, kept hidden, and not disclosed.

Burying the precious body preciously; for being a disciple of our Lord, he knew how greatly the Lord's body ought to be honoured.

Let us too imitate Joseph, taking to ourselves the body of Christ by Unity, and let us place it in a sepulchre, hewn out of the rock, that is, in a soul recollected, never forgetful of God; for this is a soul hewn out of the rock, that is, out of Christ, for He is our rock, who holds together our strength. We ought also to wrap Him in linen, that is, to receive Him in a pure body; for the linen is the body which is the clothing of the soul. We must, however, not throw open, but wrap Him up; for He is secret, closed and hidden.

But Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid. In Luke, we read that all his acquaintances and the women who followed him stood at a distance. Therefore, with Jesus' acquaintances returning to their own homes after his body was laid down, it was only the women who loved more fervently who cared to observe how he was placed, so they might offer him a fitting gift of devotion at an appropriate time. Likewise, until now, holy women on the day of Preparation, that is, the day of Preparation for the Sabbath, do the same, diligently following the footsteps of his passion in this world, where the future rest is to be prepared. And if they might perhaps be able to imitate with pious curiosity, they consider in what order the same passion was completed.

We read in Luke, that His acquaintances and the women who had followed Him stood afar off. When these then who were known to Jesus returned home after the burial of His body, the women alone, who were bound to Him with a closer love, after following the funeral, took care to see how He was laid, that they might be able at a fitting season to offer Him the sacrifice of their devotion. But on the day of the parasceue, that is, of the preparation, the holy women, that is, humble souls, do the same, when they burn with love for the Saviour, and diligently follow the steps of His Passion in this life, where their future rest is to be prepared; and they weigh with a pious minuteness the order in which His passion was accomplished, if perchance they be able to imitate it.

There follows: And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

In the time of the old covenant, the sabbath was highly revered. Now under the gospel the sabbath has been recast, now viewed as the Lord's resurrection day. The sabbath formerly had pertained to the pedagogy and rudiments of the law. When the great master himself came and fulfilled them all for us, all that had prefigured his coming was transformed. The old sabbath was like a candle lit in the night before the rising and appearing of the sun.

And when the Sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke, it is written that returning from the tomb, they prepared spices and ointments, and on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. Therefore, the commandment of the law was that the silence of the Sabbath be maintained from evening to evening; and so the devout women, after the Lord was buried, as long as they were allowed to work, that is, until sunset, were occupied in preparing the ointments, as Luke writes. And because then, due to the shortness of the time, they were unable to complete the work, they hurried soon after the Sabbath had passed, that is, at sunset, when the permission to work had returned, to buy spices, as Mark recounts, so that coming early they might anoint his body. For neither did they wish to visit the tomb in the evening of the Sabbath, with the approach of nightfall already impending.

And Mark follows this, and says: "They had bought sweet spices, in order that they might come and anoint Him. And very early (in the morning), the first day of the week, they come unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." For this evangelist also has used the term "very early," which is just the same as the "very early in the morning" employed by the former; and he has added, "at the rising of the sun." Thus they set out, and took their way first when it was "very early in the morning," or (as Mark says) when it was "very early;" but on the road, and by their stay at the sepulchre, they spent the time till it was sunrise.

(ord. ex Bedâ.) For these religious women after the burial of the Lord, as long as it was lawful to work, that is, up to sunset, prepared ointment, as Luke says. (Luke 23:56) And because they could not finish their work from the shortness of the time, when the sabbath was over, that is, at sunset, as soon as the time for working came round again, they hastened to buy spices, as Mark says, that they might go in the morning to anoint the body of Jesus. Neither could they come to the sepulchre on the evening of the sabbath, for night prevented them. Wherefore it goes on: And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

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.

(Hom. in Evan. 21) But if we believe on Him who is dead, and are filled with the sweet smell of virtue, and seek the Lord with the fame of good works, we come to His sepulchre with spices. There follows: And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

The women were first to honor the risen Christ, the apostles first to suffer for him. The women were ready with spices; the apostles prepared for scourges. The women entered the tomb; the apostles would soon enter the dungeon. The women hastened to express their eulogy; the apostles embraced chains for his sake. The women poured oils; the apostles poured out their blood.

(occ. ap. Chrysologum, serm. 82) The women in this place run abroad with womanly devotion, for they do not bring Him faith as though He were alive, but ointments as to one dead; and they prepare the service of their grief for Him as buried, not the joys of heavenly triumph for Him as risen.

After the sadness of the sabbath, a happy day dawns upon them, which holds the chief place amongst days, for in it the chief light shines forth, and the Lord rises in triumph. Wherefore it is said, And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices.

The women think nothing great or worthy of the divinity of Jesus, as they sit at the tomb and buy myrrh in order to anoint the body according to the Jewish custom, so that it would be fragrant and not give off an unpleasant smell from decay, and so that the body would be preserved unharmed by the power of the myrrh, which dries and absorbs the moisture of the body. This is what the women were thinking.

For they do not understand the greatness and dignity of the wisdom of Christ. But they came according to the custom of the Jews to anoint the body of Christ, that it might remain sweet-smelling, and might not burst forth into moisture, for spices have the property of drying up, and absorb the moisture of the body, so that they keep the body from corruption.

All the Gospels refer to the period when the heavens were just beginning to brighten in the east. This, of course, does not take place until the sunrise is at hand. For it is the brightness which is diffused by the rising sun that is familiarly designated by the name of the dawn. Mark does not contradict the other Evangelist who uses the phrase, "When it was yet dark." For as the day breaks, what remains of the darkness passes away just in proportion as the sun continues to rise.

(Con. Evang. iii. 24) What Luke expresses by very early in the morning, and John by early when it was yet dark, Mark must be understood to mean, when he says, very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun, that is, when the sky was growing bright in the east, as is usual in places near the rising sun; for this is the light which we call the dawning. Therefore there is no discrepancy with the report which says, while it was yet dark. For when the day is dawning, the remains of darkness lessen in proportion as the light grows brighter; and we must not take the words very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun, to mean that the sun himself was seen upon the earth, but as expressing the near approach of the sun into those parts, that is, when his rising begins to light up the sky.

And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb, the sun having already risen. The first of the Sabbath is the first day after the Sabbath, that is, the days of rest, which now the ecclesiastical custom calls the Lord's Day because of the resurrection of the Lord Savior. It is the same when we read of the "one of the Sabbaths" or "one of the first of the Sabbaths," which means the first day after the Sabbath, that is, the days of rest which were observed among the Sabbaths. The holy women, who had followed the Lord, came to the tomb with spices, and even in death, they showed the devotion of their humanity to Him whom they had loved while alive. So, we too, believing in Him who has died, if we seek the Lord filled with the fragrance of virtues, with the reputation of good works, we indeed come to His tomb with spices. But that the women came very early to the tomb with the rising of the sun, that is, when the sky began to brighten from the eastern part, which surely does not happen except by the proximity of the rising sun, indeed, according to history, shows the great fervor of love in seeking and finding the Lord. According to the mystical understanding, an example is given to us, with an enlightened face, having dispelled the darkness of vices, to offer the fragrance of good works and the sweetness of prayers to the Lord.

(in Marc. 4, 45) As then the women show the great fervency of their love, by coming very early in the morning to the sepulchre, as the history relates, according to the mystical sense an example is given to us, that with a shining face, and shaking off the darkness of wickedness, we may be careful to offer the fragrance of good works and the sweetness of prayer to the Lord.

(ubi sup.) Or else, by this phrase is meant the first day from the day of sabbaths, or rests, which were kept on the sabbath. There follows: And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

By very early in the morning, (Luke 24:1. diluculo Vulg.) he means what another Evangelist expresses by at the dawning. But the dawn is the time between the darkness of night, and the brightness of day, in which the salvation of man is coming forth with a happy closeness, to be declared in the Church, just as the sun, when he is rising and the light is near, sends before him the rosy dawn, that with prepared eyes she may bear to see the graciousness of his glorious brightness, when the time of our Lord's resurrection has dawned; that then the whole Church, after the example of the women, may sing the praises of Christ, since He has quickened the race of man after the pattern of His resurrection, since He has given life, and has poured upon them the light of belief.

He says, On the first of the sabbaths, (μιᾱς σαββάτων.) that is, on the first of the days of the week. For the days of the week are called sabbaths, and by the word 'una' is meant 'prima.'

And they said to each other, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?" And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. For it was very large. How the stone was rolled away by the angel, Matthew explains sufficiently. But the rolling away of the stone mystically suggests the uncovering of the mysteries of Christ, which were covered by the veil of the legal letter. For the law is written on stone, whose covering having been removed, the glory of the resurrection is shown, and the abolition of the ancient death and the eternal life to be hoped for by us began to be proclaimed throughout the whole world.

Is it from the door of the sepulcher, or of your own hearts? From the tomb, or from your own eyes? You whose heart is shut, whose eyes are closed, are unable to discover the glory of the open grave. Pour then your oil, if you wish to see that glory, not on the body of the Lord, but on the eyes of your hearts. By the light of faith you will then see that which through the deficiency of faith now lies hidden in darkness.

(ubi sup.) Matthew shows clearly enough, that the stone was rolled away by an Angel. This rolling away of the stone means mystically the opening of the Christian sacraments, which were held under the veil of the letter of the law; for the law was written on stone. It goes on: For it was very great.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) Your breast was darkened, your eyes shut, and therefore ye did not before see the glory of the opened sepulchre. It goes on: And they looked, and saw that the stone was rolled away.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) Great indeed by its office rather than its size, for it can shut in and throw open the body of the Lord.

Neither the stone nor the bolts of the tomb could hold Christ a captive; Death lies conquered by him, he has trampled on hell's fiery chasm. With him a throng of saints ascended to heavenly regions, And to many he showed himself, letting them see and touch him.

But while they were pondering this, the Angel rolled away the stone, though the women did not perceive it. So too Matthew says that the Angel rolled away the stone after the women had arrived. But Mark was silent about this, because Matthew had already said by whom the stone was rolled away.

Mark tells us that the women entered the sepulcher, and there saw a young man sitting on the right side, covered with a long white garment, and that they were frightened. In Matthew's version, the stone was already rolled away from the sepulcher and the angel was sitting upon it. The explanation may be that Matthew has simply said nothing about the angel whom they saw when they entered into the sepulcher, and that Mark has said nothing about the one whom they saw sitting outside upon the stone. In this way they would have seen two angels, and have assumed two separate angelic reports.

(Con. Evang. iii. 24) Either let us suppose that Matthew was silent about that Angel, whom they saw on entering, whilst Mark said nothing of him, whom they saw outside sitting on the stone, so that they saw two and heard severally from two, the things which the Angels said concerning Jesus; or we must understand by entering into the sepulchre, their coming within some inclosure, by which it is probable that the place was surrounded a little space before the stone, by the cutting out of which the burial place had been made, so that they saw sitting on the right hand in that space him whom Matthew designates as sitting on the stone.

And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were amazed. Entering from the east into that round house carved in the rock, they saw an angel sitting on the southern part of that place, where the body of Jesus had been laid, for this was indeed on the right side. For surely the body, lying supine with its head towards the west, must have its right side towards the south. Matthew writes that they first saw the angel who rolled back the stone from the door of the tomb sitting upon the stone, who commanded them to enter the place where the Lord had been laid and to see that He had already risen from the dead. Luke writes that entering the tomb, they found two angels standing there. Therefore, the women who came with spices saw the angels, for indeed those minds see the heavenly citizens who, with virtues, travel to God through holy desires. We must note, indeed, what it means that the angel is seen sitting on the right hand. For what is signified by the left but the present life? And by the right but eternal life? Hence it is written: "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me." (Cant. II). For the Church places the left hand of God, namely the prosperity of the present life, as under the head, which it presses with the intention of supreme love. But God's right hand embraces it, because under its eternal bliss it is wholly contained with devotion. Therefore, because our Redeemer had already passed beyond the corruption of the present life, rightly did the angel who came to announce His eternal life sit at the right. He appeared clothed in a white robe because he announced the joys of our festivity. For the whiteness of the garment signifies the splendor of our festivity. Let us say ours or his? But to more truly confess, let us say both his and ours. For the resurrection of our Redeemer was both our festivity because it restored us to immortality, and the festivity of angels, because by bringing us back to the heavens, it fulfilled their number. Therefore, in his and our festivity, the angel appeared in white garments, because as we are led back to heaven through the resurrection of the Lord, the losses of the heavenly homeland are repaired. But now, let us hear him who addresses the women who come.

(ubi sup.) Now they saw a young man sitting on the right side, that is, on the south part of the place where the body was laid. For the body, which was lying on its back, and had its head to the west, must have had its right to the south.

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.

(Hom. in Evan. 21) But the women who came with spices see the Angels; because those minds who come to the Lord with their virtues, through holy desires, see the heavenly citizens. Wherefore it goes on: And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

(ubi sup.) But what is meant by the left hand, but this present life, and what by the right, but everlasting life? Because then our Redeemer had already gone through the decay of this present life, fitly did the Angel, who had come to announce His everlasting life, sit on the right hand.

(ubi sup.) Or else, he appeared covered with a white robe, because he announced the joys of our festivity, for the whiteness of the robe shows the splendour of our solemnity.

Why a "young man"? The resurrection of the dead, as the apostle declares, will be "unto the fullness of the measure of the stature of Christ," that is, in the season of youth, which needs no further development and which is free from all defect, complete in every respect, having fullness of strength.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) The women, then, entered the sepulchre, that being buried with Christ, they might rise again from the tomb with Christ. They see the young man, that is, they see the time of the Resurrection, for the Resurrection has no old age, and the period, in which man knows neither birth nor death, admits of no decay, and requires no increase. Wherefore what they saw was a young man, not an old man, nor an infant, but the age of joy.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) Again, they saw a young man sitting on the right, because the Resurrection has nothing sinister in it. They also see him dressed in a long white robe; that robe is not from mortal fleece, but of living virtue, blazing with heavenly light, not of an earthly dye, as saith the Prophet, Thou deckest thyself with light as with a garment; and of the just it is said, Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun. (Ps. 104:2) (Matt. 13:43)

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) The Angel indeed sits on the sepulchre, the women fly from it; he, on account of his heavenly substance, is confident, they are troubled because of their earthly frame. He who cannot die, cannot fear the tomb, but the women both fear from what was then done, and still, as being mortals, fear the sepulchre as mortals are wont.

The white robe is also true joy, now that the enemy is driven away, the kingdom won, the King of Peace sought for and found and never let go by us. This young man then shows an image of the Resurrection to them who feared death. But their being frightened shows that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man to conceive the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. (1 Cor 2:9)

If Matthew says that the Angel was sitting on the stone, while Mark says that the women, having entered the tomb, saw him sitting inside, one should not be troubled by this. For they could have seen the Angel sitting outside on the stone, as stated in Matthew, and could have seen him again inside the tomb, as having preceded them and gone in. However, some say that the women mentioned in Matthew were different from those in Mark, and that the Magdalene was the companion of all, as the most zealous and fervent.

Though Matthew says that the Angel was sitting on the stone, whilst Mark relates that the women entering into the sepulchre saw a young man sitting, yet we need not wonder, for they afterwards saw sitting within the sepulchre the same Angel as sat without on the stone.

But some say the women mentioned by Matthew were different from those in Mark. But Mary Magdalene was with all parties, from her burning zeal and ardent love.

The resurrection in which we believe is that which has already been demonstrated in the resurrection of our Lord. For it is he that raised Lazarus after he had been in the grave four days, and Jairus' daughter, and the widow's son. It is he that raised himself by the command of the Father in the space of three days, who is the pledge of our resurrection. For he says: "I am the resurrection and the life." Now the very One who brought Jonah alive and unhurt out of the belly of the whale in the space of three days, and who brought the three children out of the furnace of Babylon and Daniel out of the mouth of the lions, does not lack power to raise us up also.

He died, but he vanquished death; in himself he put an end to what we feared; he took it upon himself and he vanquished it, as a mighty hunter he captured and slew the lion. Where is death? Seek it in Christ, for it exists no longer; but it did exist and now it is dead. O life, O death of death! Be of good heart; it will die in us, also. What has taken place in our head will take place in his members; death will die in us also. But when? At the end of the world, at the resurrection of the dead in which we believe and concerning which we do not doubt.

Christ descended into hell to liberate its captives. In one instant he destroyed all record of our ancient debt incurred under the law, in order to lead us to heaven where there is no death but only eternal life and righteousness. By the baptism which you, the newly enlightened, have just received, you now share in these blessings. Your initiation into the life of grace is the pledge of your resurrection. Your baptism is the promise of the life of heaven. By your immersion you imitated the burial of the Lord, but when you came out of the water you were conscious only of the reality of the resurrection.… The grace of the Spirit works in a mysterious way in the font, and the outward appearance must not obscure the wonder of it. Although water serves as the instrument, it is grace which gives rebirth. Grace transforms all who are placed in the font as the seed is transformed in the womb. It refashions all who go down into the water as metal is recast in a furnace. It reveals to them the mysteries of immortality; it seals them with the pledge of resurrection. These wonderful mysteries are symbolized for you, the newly enlightened, even in the garments you wear. See how you are clothed in the outward signs of these blessings. The radiant brightness of your robe stands for incorruptibility. The white band encircling your head like a diadem proclaims your liberty. In your hand you hold the sign of your victory over the devil. Christ is showing you that you have risen from the dead. He does this now in a symbolic way, but soon he will reveal the full reality if we keep the garment of faith undefiled and do not let sin extinguish the lamp of grace. If we preserve the crown of the Spirit, the Lord will call from heaven in a voice of tremendous majesty, yet full of tenderness: Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you since the beginning of the world. To him be glory and power for ever, through endless ages, amen.

Do not be afraid, you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him. Do not be afraid, he says. As if he clearly states: Let those who do not love the coming of the citizens of heaven be afraid. Let those who are burdened by carnal desires and despair of being able to reach their company be afraid. But why are you afraid, who see your fellow citizens? Hence also Matthew, describing the angel who appeared, says: His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow (Matthew 28). For there is fear in lightning, but there is comfort in the whiteness of snow. Because Almighty God is both terrible to sinners and gentle to the righteous, the angel, witness of his resurrection, is rightly shown both in the lightning of his face and in the whiteness of his clothing, that he might terrify the reprobate by his appearance and console the pious. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus, in the Latin language, is interpreted as "savior." Indeed, many could be called by this name at that time, not substantively, but nominally. Therefore, the place is added to clarify which Jesus is being spoken of: the Nazarene; and the reason is immediately added, who was crucified, and he added, he has risen, he is not here. He is not here in the presence of the flesh, though he is never absent in the presence of majesty.

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? Hence Matthew also, describing the angel's appearance, says: "His appearance was like lightning, and his garments like snow." For in lightning there is the terror of fear, but in snow there is the gentleness of brightness. Since indeed almighty God is both terrible to sinners and gentle to the just, rightly the angel, witness of his resurrection, is shown both with a countenance like lightning and with garments of brightness, so that by his very appearance he might both terrify the reprobate and soothe the devout.

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.

(Hom. in Evan. 21) As though he had said, Let them fear, who love not the coming of the inhabitants of heaven; let them fear, who, weighed down with carnal desires, despair that they can ever attain to their company; but why should ye fear, ye who see your own fellow citizens.

(ubi sup.) But let us hear what the Angel adds; Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus means the Saviour, but at that time there may have been many a Jesus, not indeed really, but in name, therefore the place Nazareth is added, that it might be evident of what Jesus it was spoken. And immediately he subjoins the reason, Which was crucified.

(ubi sup.) He is not here, is spoken of His carnal presence, for He was not absent from any place as to the presence of His majesty.

When we worship the likeness of the priceless and life-giving cross, we know that it is made out of a tree. We are not honoring the tree as such (God forbid), but the likeness as a symbol of Christ. For he said to his disciples, admonishing them, "Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven," meaning the cross. And so also the angel of the resurrection said to the woman, "You seek Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified." And the apostle said, "We preach Christ crucified." For there are many named Jesus and many who may claim to be the Christ, but we worship the one crucified. He does not say pierced but crucified. It behooves us, then, to worship the sign of Christ. For wherever the sign may be, there also will he be. But it does not behoove us to worship the material of which the image of the cross is composed, even though it is gold or precious stones.

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted.

For there is no fear in love. Why should they fear, who had found Him whom they sought?

But the bitter root of the Cross has disappeared. The flower of life has burst forth with its fruits, that is, He who lay in death has risen in glory. Wherefore he adds, He is risen; he is not here.

The Angel who appeared said to the women: "Do not be alarmed." First he frees them from fear, and then proclaims the good news of the Resurrection. He calls Jesus Christ "the Crucified," for he is not ashamed of the Cross, which is the salvation of mankind and the foundation of all blessings. "He is risen"; from what is this evident? From the fact that "He is not here." And do you wish to be convinced? "Behold the place where He was laid." For this reason he rolled away the stone, in order to show this place.

For he does not blush at the Cross, for in it is the salvation of men, and the beginning of the Blessed.

As if he had said, Do ye wish to be certain of His resurrection, he adds, Behold the place where they laid him. This too was the reason why he had rolled away the stone, that he might show the the place.

(Con. Evan. iii. 25) By saying, He will go before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, as he said unto you, he seems to imply, that Jesus would not show Himself to His disciples after His resurrection except in Galilee, which showing of Himself Mark himself has not mentioned. For that which He has related, Early the first day of the week he appeared to Mary Magdalene, and after that to two of them as they walked and went into the country, we know took place in Jerusalem, on the very day of the resurrection; then he comes to His last manifestation, which we know was on the Mount of Olives, not far from Jerusalem. Mark therefore never relates the fulfilment of that which was foretold by the Angel; but Matthew does not mention any place at all, where the disciples saw the Lord after He arose, except Galilee, according to the Angel's prophecy. But since it is not set down when this happened, whether first, before He was seen any where else, and since the very place where Matthew says that He went into Galilee to the mountain, does not explain the day, or the order of the narration, Matthew does not oppose the account of the others, but assists in explaining and receiving them. But nevertheless since the Lord was not first to show Himself there, but sent word that He was to be seen in Galilee, where He was seen subsequently, it makes every faithful Christian on the look out, to find out in what mysterious sense it may be understood.

It is also signified that the grace of Christ is about to pass over from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, by whom the Apostles would never have been received when they preached, if the Lord had not gone before them and prepared a way in their hearts; and this is what is meant by, He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, that is, there shall ye find His members.

But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. We must ask why Peter is specifically named when mentioning the disciples. But if the angel had not explicitly named him, he who had denied the Master would not have dared to come among the disciples. Therefore, he is called by name so that he may not despair because of his denial. In this matter, we must consider why Almighty God allowed the one whom he had planned to place over the entire Church to fear the voice of a maid and deny himself. We recognize that this was done with a great disposition of mercy, that he who was to be the shepherd of the Church might learn from his own fault how he ought to be merciful to others. Therefore, he first revealed himself to him, and then placed him over the others, so that from his own weakness he might understand how mercifully he should bear the weaknesses of others. It is fittingly said of our Redeemer: He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see him, just as he told you. For Galilee is interpreted as 'transmigration.' For indeed our Redeemer had already migrated from passion to resurrection, from death to life, from punishment to glory, from corruption to incorruption. And he is first seen by the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, because we will joyfully see the glory of his resurrection if we now migrate from vices to the height of virtues. Therefore, he is announced in the tomb and shown in the 'transmigration,' because he who is recognized in the mortification of the flesh is seen in the migration of the mind.

There remains indeed a not insignificant question, how the same evangelist wrote that the angel said to the women, "Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you into Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you," yet did not report that the Lord was seen by the disciples in Galilee at any point after this in his Gospel. And indeed, Matthew says that the disciples went to Galilee, saw and worshipped the Lord there, and received the command from him to go, teach, and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. However, considering the writings of the other evangelists, it shows that he was seen by the disciples several times before in Jerusalem, and in the village of Emmaus, especially on the day of his resurrection. Why then did he specially predict that he would go ahead of them to Galilee and be seen by the disciples there, when he was seen neither first nor only there? Let us examine for what mystery he rising said, according to Matthew and Mark, "I will go ahead of you to Galilee, there you will see me." And even if this was accomplished, it was after many other things were completed, since the command was such (though not by necessity) that it might have been expected that either this alone, or this first, should have happened. Therefore, without doubt, since this is the voice not of the evangelist narrating what happened, but of the angel by the command of the Lord, and of the Lord himself, narrated by the evangelist as it was said by the angel and the Lord, it must be accepted as a prophetic statement. For Galilee is interpreted either as "transmigration" or "revelation". So first, according to the meaning of "transmigration", what else occurs to be understood? He will go before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you, unless the grace of Christ was destined to be transferred from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, to whom the apostles would in no way be believed when preaching the Gospel, unless the Lord himself prepared the way in the hearts of men for them? And we understand this: He will go before you into Galilee. But what they joyfully marvel at, with difficulties being broken and conquered, that the door is opened for them in the Lord through the enlightenment of the faithful, is understood thus: there you will see him, that is, there you will find his members. There you will recognize his living body in those who receive you. According to that which Galilee is interpreted as revelation, it is not now to be understood in the form of a servant, but in that in which he is equal to the Father, which he promised to his beloved in John, when he said: I will love him, and will manifest myself to him (John XIV). Certainly not according to that which they now saw, and which, even resurrected with scars, he afterwards showed not only to be seen but also to be touched: but according to that ineffable light, which illuminates every man coming into this world: according to which he shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend him (Ibid.). He has gone before us there, from where, coming to us, he did not precede us, and to where, going before us, he did not abandon us. That will be a revelation, as it were the true Galilee, when we will be like him, there we will see him as he is. That will also be the more blessed migration from this world to that eternity, if we embrace his precepts so as to deserve to be gathered at his right hand. For then the wicked will go into eternal fire, but the righteous into eternal life. From here they will migrate there, and there they will see him as the wicked do not see. For the wicked will be taken away so as not to see the glory of the Lord, and the wicked will not see the light. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (Ibid. XVII), just as he is known in that eternity, where he will lead his own through the form of a servant, so that they may freely contemplate him through the form of the Lord.

"But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goes before you into Galilee." We must ask why, when the disciples are named, Peter is designated by name. But if the angel had not expressly named him who had denied his Master, he would not have dared to come among the disciples. Therefore he is called by name, lest he despair because of his denial. In this matter we must consider why Almighty God permitted him whom He had determined to place over the whole Church to fear the voice of a servant girl and to deny himself. This we recognize was done by a dispensation of great mercy, so that he who was to be the Pastor of the Church might learn through his own fault how he ought to show mercy to others. Therefore He first showed him to himself, and then set him over the rest, so that from his own weakness he might learn how mercifully he should bear with the weaknesses of others.

It is well said of our Redeemer: "He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." For Galilee is interpreted as "migration accomplished." Indeed, our Redeemer had already migrated from passion to resurrection, from death to life, from punishment to glory, from corruption to incorruption. And he was first seen by the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, because we will joyfully see the glory of his resurrection afterward, if we now migrate from vices to the heights of virtues. Therefore, he who is announced at the tomb is shown in the migration, because he who is recognized in the mortification of the flesh is seen in the migration of the mind.

(Hom. in Evan. 21) If again the Angel had not expressly named him who had denied his Master, he would not have dared to come amongst the disciples; he is therefore called by name, lest he should despair on account of his denial.

(ubi sup.) For Galilee means 'a passing over;' for our Redeemer had already passed from His Passion to His resurrection, from death unto life, and we shall have joy in seeing the glory of His resurrection, if only we pass over from vice to the heights of virtue. He then who is announced at the tomb, is shown in 'passing over,' because He who is first known in mortification of the flesh, is seen in this passing over of the soul.

But immortality is shown to mortals as1 due to thankfulness, that we may understand what we were, and that we may know what we are to be. There follows, But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee. The women are ordered to tell the Apostles, that as by a woman death was announced, so also might life rising again. But He says specially unto Peter, because he had shown himself unworthy of being a disciple, since he had thrice denied his Master; but past sins cease to hurt us when they cease to be pleasing to us.

This sentence is but short in the number of syllables, but the promise is vast in its greatness. Here is the fountain of our joy, and the source of everlasting life is prepared. Here all that are scattered are brought together, and the contrite hearts are healed. There, he says, ye shall see Him, but not as ye have seen Him.

"But go, tell His disciples and Peter." He separates Peter from the disciples either as the chief one, naming him specially apart from the others by preeminence, or for this reason: since Peter had denied, if the women had said they were commanded to announce only to the disciples, he would have said: I denied Him, therefore I am no longer His disciple, and so the Lord has rejected me and been disgusted with me. Therefore the Angel also added "and Peter," so that Peter would not be troubled by the thought that he was not deemed worthy even of a word, as one who had denied and was therefore no longer worthy to be numbered among the disciples. He sends them "to Galilee," drawing them away from the turmoil and great fear of the Jews.

There follows: And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed.

(de Con. Evan. iii. 24.) We may however enquire how Mark can say this, when Matthew says, they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word, (Matt. 28:8) unless we understand it to mean, that they did not dare to say a word to any of the Angels themselves, that is, to answer the words which they had spoken to them; or else to the guards whom they saw lying there; for that joy of which Matthew speaks is not inconsistent with the fear which Mark mentions. For we ought to have understood that both feelings were in their minds, even though Matthew had not mentioned the fear. But since he has also said that they came out with fear and great joy, he does not allow room for any question to be raised.

But they went out and fled from the tomb (for trembling and amazement had seized them) and they said nothing to anyone. For they were afraid. It rightly raises the question of how Mark writes: And they said nothing to anyone. Whereas Luke says: And returning from the tomb, they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Similarly, Matthew: And they departed quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28). Unless we understand that they dared not say anything to anyone about the angels themselves, that is, to respond to what they had heard from them; or certainly the guards whom they saw lying down. For that joy which Matthew mentions does not contradict the fear of which Mark speaks. For we must understand both to have happened in their minds, even if Matthew himself did not speak of fear.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) It is said also in a marked manner, that they said nothing to any one, because it is the part of women to hear, and not to speak, to learn, not to teach.

This also is spoken of the life to come, in which grief and groaning will flee away. For the women prefigure before the resurrection all that is to happen to them after the resurrection, namely, they flee away from death and fear. There follows, Neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid.

Then "trembling and astonishment" seized the women, that is, they were struck both by the vision of the Angel and by the awe of the Resurrection, and therefore "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Either they were afraid of the Jews, or they were so gripped by fear from the vision that they had, as it were, lost their senses. And so they said nothing to anyone, having forgotten everything they had heard.

That is, they trembled because of the vision of Angels, and were amazed because of the resurrection.

Either on account of the Jews, or else they said nothing because the fear of the vision prevented them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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