5 The Life-Giving Spring of the Most-holy Theotokos

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).

Our Lord's brethren are the relations of Mary and Joseph, not the sons of Mary and Joseph. For not only the blessed Virgin, but Joseph also, the witness of her chastity, abstained from all conjugal intercourse.

Or Capernaum, we may interpret "a most beautiful village," and so it signifies the world, to which the Word of the Father came down.

"He went down," as the evangelist says, "to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples; and they continued there not many days." Behold He has a mother, and brethren, and disciples: whence He has a mother, thence brethren. For our Scripture is wont to call them brethren, not only that are sprung from the same man and woman, or from the same mother, or from the same father, though by different mothers; or, in truth, that are of the same degree as cousins by the father's or mother's side: not these alone is our Scripture wont to call brethren. The Scripture must be understood as it speaks. It has its own language; one who does not know this language is perplexed and says, Whence had the Lord brethren? For surely Mary did not give birth a second time? Far from it! With her begins the dignity of virgins. She could be a mother, but a woman known of man she could not be. She is spoken of as mulier [which usually signifies a wife], but only in reference to her sex, not as implying loss of virgin purity: and this follows from the language of Scripture itself. For Eve, too, immediately she was formed from the side of her husband, and as yet not known of her husband, is, as you know, called mulier: "And he made her a woman [mulier]." Then, whence the brethren? The kinsmen of Mary, of whatever degree, are the brethren of the Lord. How do we prove this? From Scripture itself. Lot is called "Abraham's brother;" he was his brother's son. Read, and thou wilt find that Abraham was Lot's uncle on the father's side, and yet they are called brethren. Why, but because they were kinsmen? Laban the Syrian was Jacob's uncle by the mother's side, for he was the brother of Rebecca, Isaac's wife and Jacob's mother. Read the Scripture, and thou wilt find that uncle and sister's son are called brothers. When thou hast known this rule, thou wilt find that all the blood relations of Mary are the brethren of Christ.

But rather were those disciples brethren; for even those kinsmen would not be brethren were they not disciples: and to no advantage brethren, if they did not recognize their brother as their master. For in a certain place, when He was informed that His mother and His brethren were standing without, at the time He was speaking to His disciples, He said: "Who is my mother? or who are my brethren? And stretching out His hand over His disciples, He said, These are my brethren;" and, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, the same is my mother, and brother, and sister." Therefore also Mary, because she did the will of the Father. What the Lord magnified in her was, that she did the will of the Father, not that flesh gave birth to flesh. Give good heed, beloved. Moreover, when the Lord was regarded with admiration by the multitude, while doing signs and wonders, and showing forth what lay concealed under the flesh, certain admiring souls said: "Happy is the womb that bare Thee: and He said, Yea, rather, happy are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." That is to say, even my mother, whom ye have called happy, is happy in that she keeps the word of God: not because in her the Word was made flesh and dwelt in us; but because she keeps that same word of God by which she was made, and which in her was made flesh. Let not men rejoice in temporal offspring, but let them exult if in spirit they are joined to God.

(Tr. x. in Joan. 1, 2) The Lord our God is He, high, that He might create us; low, that He might create us anew; walking among men, suffering what was human, hiding what was divine. So He hath a mother, hath brethren, hath disciples: whence He hath a mother, thence hath He brethren. Scripture frequently gives the name of brethren, not to those only who are born of the same womb, or the same father, but to those of the same generation, cousins by the father's or mother's side. Those who are unacquainted with this way of speaking, ask, Whence hath our Lord brothers? did Mary bring forth again? That could not be: with her commenced the dignity of the virgin state. Abraham was uncle of Lot, and Jacob was nephew to Laban the Syrian. Yet Abraham and Lot are called brethren; and likewise Jacob and Laban.

(de Cons. Ev. c. ii. c. xvii. [39.]) And His disciples; it is uncertain whether Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, were of their number or not at this time. For Matthew first relates that our Lord came and dwelt at Capernaum, and afterwards that He called those disciples from their boats, as they were fishing. Is Matthew perhaps supplying what he had omitted? For without any mention that it was at a subsequent time, he says, Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee saw two brethren. (Matt. 4:18) Or is it better to suppose that these were other disciples? For the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, call not the twelve only, but all who believing in God were prepared for the kingdom of heaven by our Lord's teaching, disciplesa. (id. cap. 18). How is it too that our Lord's journey to Galilee is placed here before John the Baptist's imprisonment, when Matthew says, Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee: and Mark the same? Luke too, though he says nothing of John's imprisonment, yet places Christ's visit to Galilee after His temptation and baptismc, as the two former do. We should understand then that the three Evangelists are not opposed to John, but pass over our Lord's first coming into Galilee after his baptism; at which time it was that He converted the water into wine.

It tends to disturb some people that in the opening portion of this Gospel reading it is said that when our Lord went down to Capernaum, not only his mother and his disciples followed him, but also his brothers. There have been heretics who supposed that Joseph, the husband of the blessed Virgin Mary, begot of another wife those whom the Scriptures call the Lord's brothers. Others, with greater lack of faith, have supposed that he begot these of Mary herself after our Lord's birth. But we, dearly beloved brothers, without any hesitation or questioning must be aware and confess that not only the blessed Mother of God, but also Joseph, the most blessed witness and guardian of her chastity, always remained wholly aloof from the conjugal act; and further, that those who after the customary manner of the Scriptures are called our Savior's brothers or sisters were not their children but their relatives. Abraham spoke to Lot in the following way, "I beseech you, let there be no wrangling between you and me, and your shepherds and mine; for we are brothers." Laban [said] to Jacob, "Because you are my brother, why should you have to serve me for nothing?" It is a fact that Lot was the son of Haran, Abraham's brother, and Jacob the son of Rebekah, Laban's sister; but on account of their kinship they were called brothers. Because of this most common practice in the holy Scriptures, we should, as I have said, understand that the relatives of Mary and Joseph are called our Lord's brothers.

He did not stay many days there, on account of the Passover, which was approaching: And the Jews' passover was at hand.

But He continued there only a few days, because he lived with men in this world only a short time.

The Lord manifested himself above to the disciples. In this part up to the fourth chapter, the manifestation made to the Jews is treated, to whom he manifests himself in a threefold manner, namely by sign, by word, and by Sacrament. Therefore this part has three parts. In the first, the manifestation made through a sign of power is treated: in the second, through a word of instruction, at the passage: Now there was a certain man of the Pharisees: in the third, through the Sacrament of regeneration, at the passage: After these things Jesus came into Judea.

The first part has two parts. In the first he manifests himself by a sign of authority: in the second, by a sign of power and might, at the passage: The Jews answered and said.

The sign of authority was in the authoritative correction of the transgressors, which is described in this order. First, the Lord's readiness to reprove is indicated; second, the manifest transgression of the Jews: third, the correction of the transgressors: fourth, the approbation of the correction.

The Lord's readiness to reprove is noted in this, that he went down to Capernaum, so that he might leave his Mother and brethren there: therefore it says: After these things, namely those which have been narrated, he went down to Capernaum, he and his Mother and his brethren and his disciples. He went down with all of them, because he came to dwell there: Matthew 4: "Having left the city of Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum." Therefore he went down with all of them, so that he might ascend more freely: therefore it says: And they remained there not many days. And the reason for this is added:

(Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. iii. c. 24) When copies of the three Gospels had come to the Evangelist John, he is reported, while he confirmed their fidelity and correctness, to have at the same time noticed some omissions, especially at the opening of our Lord's ministry. Certain it is that the first three Gospels seem only to contain the events of the year in which John the Baptist was imprisoned, and put to death. And therefore John, it is said, was asked to write down those acts of our Saviour's before the apprehension of the Baptist, which the former Evangelists had passed over. Any one then, by attending, will find that the Gospels do not disagree, but that John is relating the events of a different date, from that which the others refer to.

"After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples; and they continued there not many days."

Wherefore comes He with "His mother to Capernaum"? for He hath done no miracle there, and the inhabitants of that city were not of those who were rightminded towards Him, but of the utterly corrupt. And this Christ declared when He said, "And thou, Capernaum, which are exalted to heaven, shall be thrust down to hell." Wherefore then goes He? I think it was, because He intended a little after to go up to Jerusalem, that He then went to Capernaum, to avoid leading about everywhere with Him, His mother and His brethren. And so, having departed and tarried a little while to honor His mother, He again commences His miracles after restoring to her home her who had borne Him. Therefore the Evangelist says, After "not many days,"

"He went up to Jerusalem."

He received baptism then a few days before the passover. But on going up to Jerusalem, what did He, a deed full of high authority; for He cast out of the Temple those dealers and money changers, and those who sold doves, and oxen, and sheep, and who passed their time there for this purpose.

The other three authors of the Gospels say that after the Lord's struggle with the devil, he withdrew into Galilee. Matthew and Luke, however, say that he was in Nazareth first after these events and that he left there and went to settle in Capernaum. Matthew and Mark also mention a reason for his withdrawal from there: he had heard that John had been delivered up. …We must let the reader know, then, that the truth of these accounts lies in the spiritual meanings, because if the discrepancy is not solved, many will dismiss the Gospels as not credible, or not written by a divine spirit or not successfully recorded. The composition of these Gospels, in fact, is said to have involved both. Let those who accept the four Gospels and who think the apparent discrepancy is not to be solved through the anagogical sense tell us when the Lord came to Capernaum in relation to the difficulty we mentioned earlier concerning the forty days of temptation that can have no place at all in John. For if it occurred six days after the time when he was baptized, since his ministry at the marriage in Cana of Galilee took place on the sixth day, it is clear that he has not been tempted, nor was he in Nazareth, nor had John yet been delivered up.… The four Evangelists … made full use of many things done and said in accordance with the prodigious and unexpected power of Jesus. In some places they have interwoven in Scripture something made clear to them in a purely intellectual manner, with language as though it were something perceptible to the senses. But I do not condemn the fact that they have also made some minor changes in what happened so far as history is concerned, with a view to the usefulness of the mystical object. Consequently, they have related what happened in this place as though it happened in another, or what happened at this time as though at another time, and they have composed what is reported in this manner with a certain degree of adaptation. For their intention was to speak the truth spiritually and materially at the same time where that was possible but, where it was not possible in both ways, to prefer the spiritual to the material.

We must ask, however, why his brothers are not invited to the wedding (nor were they present, for they are not mentioned), but they go down to Capernaum with him and his mother and the disciples.

The Lord comes to Capernaum for no other purpose than to leave His Mother there, so as not to lead Her with Him everywhere. Since they had gone to Cana for the wedding, and the wedding had passed, He returns His Mother to Capernaum, to Her home. That the Lord comes to Capernaum for this very reason is revealed by the fact that He stayed there only a few days and did not perform miracles there, because the inhabitants of that city had no faith in Him, which is why the Lord in another place pronounces woe upon it (Matt. 11:23).

Above, the Evangelist presented the sign Christ worked in order to confirm his disciples; and this sign pertained to his power to change nature. Now he deals with the sign of his resurrection; a sign pertaining to the same power, but proposed by Christ to convert the people.

The Evangelist does two things as to this miracle. First, he mentions its occasion. Secondly, the prediction of the miracle (v 18). As to the first he does two things. First, he describes the place. Secondly, he tells of the incident which was the occasion for proposing this miracle (v 14). Now the place where this happened was Jerusalem. And so the Evangelist recounts step by step how the Lord had come to Jerusalem. First, then, he shows how he went down to Capernaum. Secondly, how he then went up to Jerusalem. As to the first he does three things. First, he mentions the place to which he went down. Secondly, he describes his company. Thirdly, he mentions the length of his stay.

The place to which Christ went down was Capernaum; and so he says, After this, i.e., the miracle of the wine, he went down to Capernaum. Now as far as the historical truth is concerned, this seems to conflict with Matthew's account that the Lord went down to Capernaum after John had been thrown into prison (Mt 4:12), while the entire series of events the Evangelist refers to here took place before John's imprisonment.

I answer that in order to settle this question we should bear in mind what is learned from the Ecclesiastical History, that is, that the other Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, began their account of the public life of Christ from the time that John was thrown into prison. Thus Matthew (4:12), after describing the baptism, fast and temptation of Christ, began at once to weave his story after John's imprisonment, saying: "When Jesus heard that John had been arrested." And Mark (1:14) says the same: "After John had been arrested, Jesus came into Galilee." John, who outlived the other three Evangelists, approved the accuracy and truth of their accounts when they came to his notice. Yet he saw that certain things had been left unsaid, namely, things which the Lord had done in the very first days of his preaching before John's imprisonment. And so, at the request of the faithful, John, after he began his own Gospel in a loftier manner, recorded events that took place during the first year in which Christ was baptized before John's imprisonment, as is plain from the order of the events in his Gospel. According to this, then, the Evangelists are not in disagreement. Rather, the Lord went down to Capernaum twice: once before John's imprisonment (which is the one dealt with here), and once after his imprisonment, which is dealt with in Matthew (4:13) and Luke (4:31).

Now "Capernaum" means "very pretty village," and signifies this world, which has its beauty from the order and disposition of divine wisdom: "The beauty of the land is mine" (Ps 49:2). So the Lord went down to Capernaum, i.e., this world, with his mother and brethren and disciples. For in heaven the Lord has a Father without a mother; and on earth a mother without a father. Thus, he significantly mentions only his mother. In heaven he does not have brothers either, but is "the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" (above 1:18). But on earth he is "the Firstborn of many brothers" (Rom 8:29). And on earth he has disciples, to whom he can teach the mysteries of the divinity, which were not known to men before: "In these days he has spoken to us in his Son" as we read in Hebrews (1:1).

Or, "Capernaum" means "the field of consolation"; and this signifies every man who bears good fruit: "The odor of my son is like the odor of a fruitful field" (Gn 27:27). Such a person is called a field of consolation because the Lord is consoled and rejoices in his achievement: "God will rejoice over you" (Is 62:5), and because the angels rejoice over his good: "There is joy in the angels of God over one repentant sinner" (Lk 15:10).

His companions were, first of all, his mother. So he says, with his mother, for because she had come to the wedding and had brought about the miracle, the Lord accompanied her back to the village of Nazareth. Nazareth was a village in Galilee, whose chief town was Capernaum.

Secondly, his companions were his brethren; and so he says, his brethren. We must avoid two errors here. First, that of Elvidius, who said that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ; and he called these the brothers of the Lord. This is heretical, because our faith maintains that just as the mother of Christ was a virgin before giving birth, so in giving birth and after giving birth, she remained a virgin. We must also avoid the error of those who say that Joseph fathered sons with another wife, and that these are called the brothers of the Lord; for the Church does not admit this.

Jerome refutes this opinion: for on the cross the Lord entrusted his virgin mother to the care of his virgin disciple. Therefore, since Joseph was the special guardian of the Virgin, and of the Savior too, in his childhood, one may believe that he was a virgin. Consequently, it is a reasonable interpretation to say that the brothers of the Lord were those related to his virgin mother in some degree of consanguinity, or even to Joseph, who was the reputed father. And this conforms to the custom of Scripture which generally refers to relatives as brothers. Thus we read: "Let us not quarrel, for we are brothers" (Gn 13:8), as Abram said to Lot, who was his nephew. And note that he distinguishes between relatives and disciples, because not all of Christ's relatives were his disciples; hence we read: "Even his brethren did not believe in him" (below 7:5).

Thirdly, his disciples were his companions; hence he says, and his disciples. But who were his disciples? For it seems, according to Matthew, that the first ones to be converted to Christ were Peter and Andrew, John and James; but they were called after John's imprisonment, as is clear from Matthew (4:18). Thus it does not seem that they went down to Capernaum with Christ, as it says here, since this was before John's imprisonment.

There are two answers to this. One is from Augustine, in his De Consensu Evangelistarum, namely, that Matthew does not follow the historical order, but in summarizing what he omitted, relates events that occurred before John's imprisonment as though they happened after. So, without any suggestion of a time lapse he says, "As Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers" (Mt 4:18), without adding "after this" or "at that time." The other answer, also by Augustine, is that in the Gospel not only the twelve whom the Lord chose and named apostles are called disciples of the Lord (Lk 6:13), but also all who believed in him and were instructed for the kingdom of heaven by his teaching. Therefore, it is possible that although those twelve did not yet follow him, others who adhered to him are called disciples here. But the first answer is better.

His stay there was short; hence he says, but they did not remain there many days. The reason for this was that the citizens of Capernaum were not eager to accept the teachings of Christ, being very corrupt, so that in Matthew (11:23) the Lord rebukes them for not doing penance in spite of the miracles done there and of Christ's teaching: "And you Capernaum, will you be lifted up to heaven? You will go down to hell. For if the mighty works that were done in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have stood until this day." But although they were evil, he went there to accompany his mother, and to stay there for a few days for her consolation and honor.

As for its mystical sense, this signifies that some cannot remain long with the many words spoken by Christ; a few of these words are enough for them, to enlighten them, because of the weakness of their understanding. Hence as Origen said, Christ reveals few things to such persons, according to "I have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now" (Jn 16:12).

And He went up to Jerusalem. The Gospels mention two journeys of our Lord to Jerusalem, one in the first year of His preaching, before John was sent to prison, which is the journey now spoken of; the other in the year of His Passion. Our Lord has set us here an example of careful obedience to the Divine commands. For if the Son of God fulfilled the injunctions of His own law, by keeping the festivals, like the rest, with what holy zeal should we servants prepare for and celebrate them?

This account of the multitude of sellers who were cast out of the temple is given by all the Evangelists, but John introduces it in a remarkably different order. After recording the testimony borne by John the Baptist to Jesus and mentioning that he went into Galilee at the time when he turned the water into wine, and after he has also noticed the sojourn of a few days in Capernaum, John proceeds to tell us that he went up to Jerusalem at the season of the Jews' Passover, and when he had made a scourge of small cords, drove out of the temple those who were selling in it. This makes it evident that this act was performed by the Lord not on a single occasion but twice over; but that only the first instance is put on record by John, and the last by the other three.

What follows upon this? "And the Jews' passover was at hand; and He went up to Jerusalem." The narrator relates another matter, as it came to his recollection. "And He found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when He had made, as it were, a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple; the oxen likewise, and the sheep; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; and make not my Father's house a house of merchandise." What have we heard, brethren? See, that temple was still a figure, and yet the Lord cast out of it all that sought their own, all who had come to market. And what did they sell there? Things which people needed in the sacrifices of that time. For you know, beloved, that sacrifices were given to that people, in consideration of the carnal mind and stony heart yet in them, to keep them from falling away to idols: and they offered there for sacrifices oxen, sheep, and doves: you know this, for you have read it. It was not a great sin, then, if they sold in the temple that which was bought for the purpose of offering in the temple: and yet He cast them out thence. If, while they were selling what was lawful and not against justice (for it is not unlawful to sell what it is honorable to buy), He nevertheless drove those men out, and suffered not the house of prayer to be made a house of merchandise; how, if He found drunkards there, what would the Lord do? If the house of God ought not to be made a house of trading, ought it to be made a house of drinking?

And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And for this reason he went down to prepare himself. Chrysostom: "He went down for this reason, being about to go up to Jerusalem shortly after, so that he would not drag his brothers and Mother everywhere." He went up, moreover, according to the custom of the Jews and the commandment of the Law: Deuteronomy 16: "Three times in a year shall all your males appear before the Lord." And although the Lord was not subject to the Law, he nevertheless observed it, lest he appear contrary to it.

But those who act contrary to these things-the avaricious, the liars, the hypocrites, those who make merchandise of the truth-the Lord cast out of His Father's court, not willing that the holy house of God should be the house of unrighteous traffic either in words or in material things.

The words "the Passover was near" show by the evangelist that Jesus was baptized not long before the Passover.

Then when he says, The Jewish Passover was near at hand, he mentions the place to which he went up. And concerning this he does two things. First, the occasion is given. Secondly, the going up.

Now the occasion for his going up was the Jewish Passover. For in Exodus (13:17) it is commanded that every male be presented to the Lord three times a year; and one of these times was the Jewish Passover. So, since the Lord came to teach everyone by his example of humility and perfection, he wished to observe the law as long as it was in force. For he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17). And so, because the Passover of the Jews was at hand, he went up to Jerusalem. So we, after his example, should carefully observe the divine precepts. For if the Son of God fulfilled the decrees of a law he himself had given, and celebrated the great feasts, with what zeal for good works ought we both to prepare for them and observe them?

It should be noted that in John's Gospel mention is made of the Passover in three passages: here, and in (6:4), when he worked the miracle of the loaves, where it is said: "Now the Jewish Passover was near at hand," and again in (13:1), where it says: "Before the feast day of the Passover." So, according to this Gospel, we understand that after the miracle of the wine Christ preached for two years plus the interval between his baptism and this Passover. For what he did here occurred near the Passover, as it says here, and then a year later, near the time of another Passover, he performed the miracle of the loaves, and in the same year John was beheaded. Thus John was beheaded near the time of the Passover, because we read in Matthew (14:13) that immediately after John was beheaded Christ withdrew to the desert, where he worked the miracle of the loaves; and this miracle took place near Passover time, as stated below (6:4). Nevertheless, the feast of this beheading of John is celebrated on the day his head was found. It was later, during another Passover, that Christ suffered.

So, according to the opinion of those who say that the miracle worked at the wedding and the events being discussed here occurred in the same year in which Christ was baptized, there was an interval of two and one half years between Christ's baptism and his passion. So, according to them, the Evangelist says, The Jewish Passover was near at hand, in order to show that Christ had been baptized just a few days before.

But the Church holds the opposite. For we believe that Christ worked the miracle of the wine on the first anniversary of the day of his baptism; then a year later, near Passover time, John was beheaded; and then there was another year between the Passover near which John was beheaded and the Passover during which Christ suffered. So between the baptism of Christ and the miracle of the wine there had to be another Passover which the Evangelist does not mention. And so, according to what the Church holds, Christ preached for three and one half years.

He says, the Jewish Passover, not as though the people of other nations celebrated a Passover, but for two reasons. One, because when people celebrate a feast in a holy and pure way, it is said that they celebrate it for the Lord; but when they celebrate it in neither of those ways, they do not celebrate it for the Lord, but for themselves: "My soul hates your new moons and your feasts" (Is 1:14). It is as though he said: Those who celebrate for themselves and not for me, do not please me: "When you fasted, did you fast for me?" (Zec 7:5), as if to say: You did not do it for me, but for yourselves. And so because these Jews were corrupt and celebrated their Passover in an unbecoming manner, the Evangelist does not say, "the Passover of the Lord," but the Jewish Passover was at hand.

Or, he says this to differentiate it from our Passover. For the Passover of the Jews was symbolic, being celebrated by the immolation of a lamb which was a symbol. But our Passover is true, in which we recall the true passing of the Immaculate Lamb: "Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed" (1 Cor 5:7).

The journey was to Jerusalem, and so he says, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Note here that according to the historical order, Jesus went up to Jerusalem near the time of the Passover and expelled the merchants from the temple on two occasions. The first, before John's imprisonment, is the one the Evangelist mentions here; the other is mentioned by Matthew (21:13) as occurring when the Passover and the hour of his passion were at hand. For the Lord frequently repeated works that were similar. For example, the two cases of giving sight to the blind: one in Matthew (9:28) and another in Mark (10:46). In like manner he twice cast merchants from the temple.

In the mystical sense, Jesus went up to Jerusalem, which is translated as the "vision of peace," and signifies eternal happiness. It is to here that Jesus ascended, and he took his own with him. There is no lack of mystery in the fact that he went down to Capernaum and later went up to Jerusalem. For if he did not first go down, he would not have been suited to go up, because, as it is said: "He who descended is the same as he who ascended" (Eph 4:10). Further, no mention is made of the disciples in the ascent to Jerusalem because the ascent of the disciples comes from the ascent of Christ: "No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who lives in heaven" (below 3:13).

Well, who sell oxen? They who have dispensed to us the Holy Scriptures are understood to mean the oxen. The apostles were oxen, the prophets were oxen. Whence the apostle says: "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it for our sakes? Yea, for our sakes He saith it: that he who ploweth should plow in hope; and he that thresheth, in hope of partaking." Those oxen, then, have left to us the narration of the Scriptures. For it was not of their own that they dispensed, because they sought the glory of the Lord. Now, what have ye heard in that psalm? "And let them say continually, The Lord be magnified, they that wish the peace of His servant." God's servant, God's people, God's Church. Let them who wish the peace of that Church magnify the Lord, not the servant: "and let them say continually, The Lord be magnified." Who, let say? "Them who wish the peace of His servant." The voice of that people, of that servant, is clearly that voice which you have heard in lamentations in the psalm, and were moved at hearing, because you are of that people. What was sung by one, re-echoed from the hearts of all. Happy they who recognized themselves in those voices as in a mirror. Who, then, are they that wish the peace of His servant, the peace of His people, the peace of the one whom He calls His "only one," and whom He wishes to be delivered from the lion: "Deliver mine only one from the power of the dog"? They who say always, "The Lord be magnified." Those oxen, then, magnified the Lord, not themselves. See this ox magnifying his Lord, because "the ox knoweth his owner;" observe that ox in fear lest men desert the ox's owner and rely on the ox: how he dreads them that are willing to put their confidence in him: "Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" Of what I gave, I was not the giver: freely ye have received; the dove came down from heaven. "I have planted," saith he, "Apollos watered; but God gave the increase: neither he that planteth is anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." "And let them say always, The Lord be magnified, they that wish the peace of His servant."

These men, however, deceive the people by the very Scriptures, that they may receive honors and praises at their hand, and that men may not turn to the truth. But in that they deceive, by the very Scriptures, the people of whom they seek honors, they do in fact sell oxen: they sell sheep too; that is, the common people themselves. And to whom do they sell them, but to the devil? For if the Church be Christ's sole and only one, who is it that carries off whatever is cut away from it, but that lion that roars and goes about, "seeking whom he may devour"? Woe to them that are cut off from the Church! As for her, she will remain entire. "For the Lord knoweth them that are His." These, however, so far as they can, sell oxen and sheep, they sell doves too: let them guard against the scourge of their own sins. But when they suffer some such things for these their iniquities, let them acknowledge that the Lord has made a scourge of small cords, and is admonishing them to change themselves and be no longer traffickers: for if they will not change, they shall at the end hear it said, "Bind ye these men's hands and feet, and cast them forth into outer darkness."

(Tr. x. c. 4) Such sacrifices were prescribed to the people, in condescension to their carnal minds; to prevent them from turning aside to idols. They sacrificed sheep, and oxen, and doves.

(Tr. x. c. 7) By the oxen may be understood the Apostles and Prophets, who have dispensed to us the holy Scriptures. Those who by these very Scriptures deceive the people, from whom they seek honour, sell the oxen; and they sell the sheep too, i. e. the people themselves; and to whom do they sell them, but to the devil? For that which is cut off from the one Church, (1 Pet. 5:8) who taketh away, except the roaring lion, who goeth about every where, and seeketh whom he may devour?

(de Cons. Ev. l. ii. c. 67) It is evident that this was done on two several occasions; the first mentioned by John, the last by the other three.

Our Lord on coming to Jerusalem, immediately entered the temple to pray; giving us an example that, wheresoever we go, our first visit should be to the house of God to pray. And He found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting. (Mat. 21)

Those however, who came from a distance, being unable to bring with them the animals required for sacrifice, brought the money instead. For their convenience the Scribes and Pharisees ordered animals to be sold in the temple, in order that, when the people had bought and offered them afterwards, they might sell them again, and thus make great profits. And changers of money sitting; changers of money sat at the table to supply change to buyers and sellers.

And he found in the temple. Here is touched upon the manifest transgression of the Jews, because they had made the temple into a marketplace; on account of which he says: He found in the temple those selling sheep and oxen and doves. For the avarice of the priests had introduced this, so that those wishing to offer sacrifice would not lack an offering. And money-changers sitting, supply: he found; and the priests had introduced these, so that those wishing to offer sacrifice would not lack the price; and thus they were entirely serving avarice. Therefore the Lord complained through Jeremiah 6: "From the greatest to the least, all are devoted to avarice."

It is asked concerning the finding of sheep in the temple. The priests did not permit unclean persons to enter the temple; how much less, then, would they permit sheep and oxen, which would defile the temple? This seems far less probable.

I respond: It must be said that there were four courts in the temple: the first was that of the priests; the second, of clean men; the third, of clean women; the fourth, of the unclean and the Gentiles. And any of these was broadly called the temple, and in this fourth court He found animals of this kind.

Mystically, three things are to be noted here, namely the coming of the Lord into the temple, the discovery of the transgressors, and their expulsion.

Concerning the coming, Jerome says: "According to the mystical understanding, Jesus daily enters the temple of the Father and casts out all from the Church, holding those who sell and those who buy equally guilty of one crime. For it is written: Freely you have received, freely give," Matthew 10.

He found those selling oxen: Bede says: "The oxen are preachers, by whom the land of the Lord is plowed and sown with the seed of the word"; 1 Corinthians 9: You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain. Likewise Bede says: "Those sell them who bestow the word of preaching upon their hearers not out of divine love, but with a view to gain."

He also found those selling sheep. "The sheep, as Bede says, are works of piety and mercy. Those sell them who practice works of piety for the sake of human praise, like hypocrites." He found those selling doves. "The doves are the gifts of the Holy Spirit," because He appeared upon Christ in the form of a dove, Matthew 3. "Those sell these doves who give the received grace of the Holy Spirit for a price; who bestow the laying on of hands, by which the Holy Spirit is received, if not for the gain of money, nevertheless for the favor of the crowd; who confer sacred orders not according to the merit of life, but for favor." He found the money-changers: Bede says: "Those lend money in the temple who serve in the Church not under the pretense of heavenly things, but openly for earthly things, seeking their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ": Philippians 2: All seek their own interests.

The Jews are again hereby too convicted of despising the laws given them, and making of no account the Mosaic writings, looking only to their own love of gain. For whereas the law commanded that they who were about to enter into the Divine temple should purify themselves in many ways; those who had the power of forbidding it hindered not the bankers or money-changers, and others besides, whose employment was gain, usury and increase, in their lusts (for the whole aim of merchants is comprised in these things): they hindered them not from defiling the holy court, from entering into it as it were with unwashen feet, yea rather they themselves altogether used to enjoin it, that God might say truly of them, Many pastors have destroyed My vineyard, they have: trodden My portion under foot, they have made My pleasant portion a desolate wilderness, they have made it desolate. For of a truth the Lord's vineyard was destroyed, being taught to trample on the Divine worship itself, and through the sordid love of gain of those set over it left bare to all ignorance.

[Heracleon says] that those found in the temple selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting, represent those who give nothing away free but suppose the entrance of foreigners into the temple to be a matter of merchandise and profit. They furnish the sacrifices for the service of God for the sake of their own profit and greed.… The whip, in turn, was made from cords by Jesus, who did not receive it from another.… The whip is an image of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit who blows away the wicked.… The whip, the cord, the linen, and all such things are an image of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit.… The whip was tied to a piece of wood. The wood is a type of the cross … that the gamblers, the merchants and all evil have been nailed upon and destroyed by this wood.

He found in the temple, which is also said to be the house of the Savior's Father, that is, in the church or in the proclamation of the sound message of the church, some who were making his Father's house a house of merchandise.

(tom. x. in Joan. c. 16) Jerusalem, as our Saviour Himself saith, is the city of the great King, into which none of those who remain on earth ascend, or enter. Only the soul which has a certain natural loftiness, and clear insight into things invisible, is the inhabitant of that city. Jesus alone goes up thither. But His disciples seem to have been present afterwards. The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up. But it is as though in every one of the disciples who went up, it was Jesus who went up.

Having a symbolic purpose in mind, Jesus obscured his intent with allusions instead of stating plainly what he was doing. He thought that his hearers could not understand yet what he said. The disciples themselves did not understand either, as the Evangelist observes. They believed that by driving away the sellers of cattle and sheep, he abolished the market, but in truth what he meant was that the sacrifices of animals would be abolished.

Having come to Jerusalem, He performs a deed revealing complete authority, namely: He drives out of the temple those who sold sheep and oxen. Although Matthew (Matt. 21:12–13) narrates this, know that He did this not just once. What Matthew recounts He performs close to His Passion, while the present account — in John — He performs at the beginning of the signs.

Then when he says, In the temple precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, sheep and doves, the Evangelist sets down what moved Christ to propose the sign of the resurrection. He does three things with this. First, he exposes the faulty behavior of the Jews. Secondly, he discloses Christ's remedy (v 15). Thirdly, he gives the announcement of the prophecy (v 22).

With respect to the first, we should note that the devil plots against the things of God and strives to destroy them. Now among the means by which he destroys holy things, the chief is avarice; hence it is said: "The shepherds have no understanding. All have turned aside to their own way; everyone after his own gain, from the first one to the last" (Is 56:11). And the devil has done this from the earliest times. For the priests of the Old Testament, who had been established to care for divine matters, gave free rein to avarice. God commanded, in the law, that animals should be sacrificed to the Lord on certain feasts. And in order to fulfill this command, those who lived nearby brought the animals with them. But those who came a long distance were unable to bring animals from their own homes. And so because offerings of this kind resulted in profit for the priests, and so animals to offer would not be lacking to those who came from a distance, the priests themselves saw to it that animals were sold in the temple. And so they had them shown for sale in the temple, i.e., in the atrium of the temple. And this is what he says: In the temple precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, sheep and doves.

Mention is first made of two land animals, which according to the law could be offered to the Lord: the ox and the sheep. The third land animal offered, the goat, is implied when he says "sheep"; similarly, the turtle-dove is included when he says "doves."

It sometimes happened that some came to the temple not only without animals, but also without money to buy them. And so the priests found another avenue for their avarice; they set up moneychangers who would lend money to those who came without it. And although they would not accept a usurious gain, because this was forbidden in the law, nevertheless in place of this they accepted certain "collibia," i.e., trifles and small gifts. So this also was turned to the profit of the priests. And this is what he says, moneychangers seated at tables, i.e., in the temple, ready to lend money.

This can be understood mystically in three ways. First of all, the merchants signify those who sell or buy the things of the Church: for the oxen, sheep and doves signify the spiritual goods of the Church and the things connected with them. These goods have been consecrated and authenticated by the teachings of the apostles and doctors, signified by the oxen: "When there is an abundant harvest the strength of the ox is evident" (Prv 14:4); and by the blood of the martyrs, who are signified by the sheep: so it is said for them: "We are regarded as sheep for the slaughter" (Rom 8:36); and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, signified by the doves, for as stated above, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. Therefore, those who presume to sell the spiritual goods of the Church and the goods connected with them are selling the teachings of the apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, it happens that certain prelates or heads of churches sell these oxen, sheep and doves, not overtly by simony, but covertly by negligence; that is, when they are so eager for and occupied with temporal gain that they neglect the spiritual welfare of their subjects. And this is the way they sell the oxen, sheep and doves, i.e., the three classes of people subject to them. First of all, they sell the preachers and laborers, who are signified by the oxen: "Happy are you who sow beside all the streams, letting the ox and the donkey range free" (Is 32:20); because prelates ought to arrange the oxen, i.e., teachers and wise men, with the donkeys, i.e., the simple and uneducated. They also sell those in the active life, and those occupied with ministering, signified by the sheep: "My sheep hear my voice" (below 10:27); and as is said in 2 Samuel (24:17): "But these, who are the sheep, what have they done?" They also sell the contemplatives, signified by the doves: "Who will give me wings like a dove, and I will fly?" (Ps 54:7).

Thirdly, by the temple of God we can understand the spiritual soul, as it says: "The temple of God is holy, and that is what you are" (1 Cor 3:17). Thus a man sells oxen, sheep and doves in the temple when he harbors bestial movements in his soul, for which he sells himself to the devil. For oxen, which are used for cultivating the earth, signify earthly desires; sheep, which are stupid animals, signify man's obstinacy; and the doves signify man's instability. It is God who drives these things out of men's hearts.

Yet we say, brethren (for He did not spare those men: He who was to be scourged by them first scourged them), that He gave us a certain sign, in that He made a scourge of small cords, and with it lashed the unruly, who were making merchandise of God's temple. For indeed every man twists for himself a rope by his sins: "Woe to them who draw sins as a long rope?" Who makes a long rope? He who adds sin to sin. How are sins added to sins? When the sins which have been committed are covered over by other sins. One has committed a theft: that he may not be found out to have committed it, he seeks the astrologer. It were enough to have committed theft: why wilt thou add sin to sin? Behold two sins committed. When thou art forbidden to go to the astrologer, thou revilest the bishop: behold three sins. When thou hearest it said of thee, Cast him forth from the Church; thou sayest, I will betake me to the party of Donatus: behold thou addest a fourth sin. The rope is growing; be thou afraid of the rope. It is good for thee to be corrected here, when thou art scourged with it; that it may not be said of thee at the last, "Bind ye his hands and feet, and cast him forth into outer darkness." For, "With the cords of his own sins is every one bound." The former of these is the saying of the Lord, the latter that of another Scripture; but yet both are the sayings of the Lord. With their own sins are men bound and cast into outer darkness.

(Tr. x. c. 5) He who was to be scourged by them, was first of all the scourger; And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple.

(Tr. x. c. 5) Our Lord intended a meaning to be seen in His making a scourge of small cords, and then scourging those who were carrying on the merchandize in the temple. Every one by his sins twists for himself a cord, in that he goes on adding sin to sin. So then when men suffer for their iniquities, let them be sure that it is the Lord making a scourge of small cords, and admonishing them to change their lives: which if they fail to do, they will hear at the last, Bind. him hand and foot. (Mat. 23)

But our Lord disapproving of any worldly business in His house, especially one of so questionable a kind, drove out all engaged in it.

The Evangelist sets before us both natures of Christ: the human in that His mother accompanied Him to Capernaum; the divine, in that He said, Make not My Father's house an house of merchandize.

(in loc.) They then are the sellers of doves, who, after receiving the free grace of the Holy Spirit, do not dispense it freely, as they are commanded, but at a price: who confer the laying on of hands, by which the Holy Spirit is received, if not for money, at least for the sake of getting favour with the people, who bestow Holy Orders not according to merit, but favour.

(in loc.) Or, the sheep are works of purity and piety, and they sell the sheep, who do works of piety to gain the praise of men. They exchange money in the temple, who, in the Church, openly devote themselves to secular business. And besides those who seek for money, or praise, or honour from Holy Orders, those too make the Lord's house a house of merchandize, who do not employ the rank, or spiritual grace, which they have received in the Church at the Lord's hands, with singleness of mind, but with an eye to human recompense.

(in loco.) With a scourge then made of small cords, He cast them out of the temple; for from the part and lot of the saints are cast out all, who, thrown externally among the Saints, do good works hypocritically, or bad openly. The sheep and the oxen too He cast out, to show that the life and the doctrine of such were alike reprobate. And He overthrew the change heaps of the money-changers and their tables, as a sign that, at the final condemnation of the wicked, He will take away the form even of those things which they loved. The sale of doves He ordered to be removed out of the temple, because the grace of the Spirit, being freely received, should be freely given.

This virtue gives nobility to the soul. But because at times a man may be indignant at another, there is need for gentleness, which is the remedy against irascibility and anger—not that man should never be angry at all, but that he should be so only in the right circumstances of place and time. Hence, he must have both the face of a man and the face of a lion. At times, however, you believe a man to be kind when he remains silent while knowing of another's sin. Such is not kindness. Listen, therefore: it is said of Jesus that He was troubled, and that He made a kind of whip. Hence, in the First Book of the Machabees, it is written: Woe is me! Wherefore was I born to see the ruin of my people and the ruin of the holy city? Jesus is the Lamb and the Lion.

When he had made a sort of whip. Here is touched upon the Lord's authoritative correction, because he rebuked not only by word, but also by deed. Therefore he says: And when he had made a sort of whip from cords, namely for striking, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, as being unworthy to be in the temple; as the Lord said to Shebna, the overseer of the temple, in Isaiah 22: "I will drive you from your station, and I will depose you from your ministry." And he poured out the money of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And thus he harshly rebuked by deed. He also rebuked by word, and this, those selling doves.

Here there is a question concerning the order of the history. For here it is said that this expulsion took place immediately after the first miracle; but in Matthew 21 it is narrated that this took place near the passion, when he sat upon the donkey.

To this Augustine responds in On the Harmony of the Evangelists that this was done twice, but the first was recorded by John, the second by the others.

And by this are resolved the contradictions which could be objected, because there he rebukes in a harsher manner and speaks different words than here.

It is asked concerning correction. For it is said in Matthew 15: Let them alone: they are blind and leaders of the blind; He does not seem to have cared about the correction of the Jews. Why then does He now rebuke them so sharply, since they were incorrigible?

I respond: It must be said that even though He knew them to be incorrigible, He nevertheless wished to show His zeal for the house of God, so that He might give an example to prelates, and so that He might show Himself in accord with the Father and a friend of the Law, which He came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

It is also asked: since the Jews were many and fierce, and Christ was alone and unarmed, how did they not rise up against Him and kill Him, when He was thus casting them out along with their goods?

To this some say that even though they were evil, nevertheless they were hypocrites; and therefore, lest they should show their avarice and malice, they neither showed themselves disturbed nor harmed Him. Jerome responds differently, that "something fiery and starlike radiated from His eyes, and the majesty of the Divinity shone in His face," changing their minds, so that they did not dare to lay hands upon Him. Whence Jerome considers this a greater sign than the raising of Lazarus, that one unarmed man drove out so many and was not afraid.

He cast out those selling sheep and oxen, as Bede says, "because he showed that the life and doctrine of such men alike are reprobate."

He poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables: "because when the reprobate are condemned at the end, he will take away even the very form of those things which they had loved, according to what is written: The world passes away and its concupiscence," 1 John 2; and: The form of this world passes away, 1 Corinthians 7.

What is alleged is false, for it was not at all to the human being he applied the scourge, but he adopted an admirable and becoming and appropriate course, for he scourged the brute beasts only, as it is written: And having made a scourge of small cords he drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen, as much as to say: He scourged animals, but only the irrational, driving also out of the temple even those that were brought for sacrifice according to the law, showing by this means that the Judaic dispensation was coming to an end. Things, again, that had neither life nor sensation he pushed away and overthrew, as it is written: And he poured out the money-changers' money and overthrew their tables. The rational beings, however, he neither scourged nor drove away, but he chastised the irrational, as it is written: And to those that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not my Father's house a house of merchandise—showing by all these words and acts that the things offered for sacrifice in the first tabernacle according to the law were to cease, and that another dispensation would be introduced in its place, harmonising with the inner tabernacle, which was a type of the things in heaven—that is, of the future dispensation.

Reasonably is the Saviour indignant at the folly of the Jews. For it befitted to make the Divine Temple not an house of merchandise, but an house of prayer: for so it is written. But He shows His emotion not by mere words, but with stripes and a scourge thrusts He them forth of the sacred precincts, justly devising for them the punishment befitting slaves; for they would not receive the Son Who through faith maketh free. See I pray well represented as in a picture that which was said through Paul, If any man dishonour the Temple of God, him shall God dishonour.

And with that thought came a larger one, and the colossal figure of her Master had also crossed the theatre of my thoughts. The same modern difficulty which darkened the subject-matter of Anatole France also darkened that of Ernest Renan. Renan also divided his hero's pity from his hero's pugnacity. Renan even represented the righteous anger at Jerusalem as a mere nervous breakdown after the idyllic expectations of Galilee. As if there were any inconsistency between having a love for humanity and having a hatred for inhumanity! Altruists, with thin, weak voices, denounce Christ as an egoist. Egoists (with even thinner and weaker voices) denounce Him as an altruist. In our present atmosphere such cavils are comprehensible enough. The love of a hero is more terrible than the hatred of a tyrant. The hatred of a hero is more generous than the love of a philanthropist. There is a huge and heroic sanity of which moderns can only collect the fragments. There is a giant of whom we see only the lopped arms and legs walking about. They have torn the soul of Christ into silly strips, labelled egoism and altruism, and they are equally puzzled by His insane magnificence and His insane meekness. They have parted His garments among them, and for His vesture they have cast lots; though the coat was without seam woven from the top throughout.

Instead of looking at books and pictures about the New Testament I looked at the New Testament. There I found an account, not in the least of a person with his hair parted in the middle or his hands clasped in appeal, but of an extraordinary being with lips of thunder and acts of lurid decision, flinging down tables, casting out devils, passing with the wild secrecy of the wind from mountain isolation to a sort of dreadful demagogy; a being who often acted like an angry god--and always like a god. Christ had even a literary style of his own, not to be found, I think, elsewhere; it consists of an almost furious use of the a fortiori. His "how much more" is piled one upon another like castle upon castle in the clouds. The diction used about Christ has been, and perhaps wisely, sweet and submissive. But the diction used by Christ is quite curiously gigantesque; it is full of camels leaping through needles and mountains hurled into the sea. Morally it is equally terrific; he called himself a sword of slaughter, and told men to buy swords if they sold their coats for them. That he used other even wilder words on the side of non-resistance greatly increases the mystery; but it also, if anything, rather increases the violence. We cannot even explain it by calling such a being insane; for insanity is usually along one consistent channel. The maniac is generally a monomaniac. Here we must remember the difficult definition of Christianity already given; Christianity is a superhuman paradox whereby two opposite passions may blaze beside each other. The one explanation of the Gospel language that does explain it, is that it is the survey of one who from some supernatural height beholds some more startling synthesis.

The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.

Why do you not recall before the eyes of your mind that our Redeemer, entering the temple, overturned the seats of those selling doves and poured out the money of the money-changers? For who are those in the temple of God today who sell doves, if not those who in the Church receive payment for the imposition of hands? Through which imposition, namely, the Holy Spirit is given from heaven. Therefore the dove is sold, because the imposition of hands, through which the Holy Spirit is received, is offered for a price. But our Redeemer overturned the seats of those selling doves, because he destroys the priesthood of such merchants.

Whence also entering into the temple, he made as it were a whip from cords by himself, and casting out the wicked merchants from the house of God, he overturned the seats of those selling doves, because he strikes the faults of subjects through pastors, but he strikes the vices of pastors through himself. Behold, now what is done secretly can be denied to people. That Judge will certainly come, from whom no one can hide himself by keeping silent, whom no one can deceive by denying.

"And wherefore," says one, "did Christ do this same, and use such severity against these men, a thing which He is nowhere else seen to do, even when insulted and reviled, and called by them 'Samaritan' and 'demoniac'? for He was not even satisfied with words only, but took a scourge, and so cast them out." Yes, but it was when others were receiving benefit, that the Jews accused and raged against Him; when it was probable that they would have been made savage by His rebukes, they showed no such disposition towards Him, for they neither accused nor reviled Him.

Since he was about to heal on the Sabbath day, and to do many such things which were thought by them transgressions of the Law, in order that He might not seem to do this as though He had come to be some rival God and opponent of His Father, He takes occasion hence to correct any such suspicion of theirs. For One who had exhibited so much zeal for the House was not likely to oppose Him who was Lord of the House, and who was worshiped in it. No doubt even the former years during which He lived according to the Law, were sufficient to show His reverence for the Legislator, and that He came not to give contrary laws; yet since it was likely that those years were forgotten through lapse of time, as not having been known to all because He was brought up in a poor and mean dwelling, He afterwards does this in the presence of all, (for many were present because the feast was nigh at hand,) and at great risk. For he did not merely "cast them out," but also "overturned the tables," and "poured out the money," giving them by this to understand, that He who threw Himself into danger for the good order of the House could never despise his Master. Had He acted as He did from hypocrisy, He should only have advised them; but to place Himself in danger was very daring. For it was no light thing to offer Himself to the anger of so many market-folk, to excite against Himself a most brutal mob of petty dealers by His reproaches and His blows, this was not the action of a pretender, but of one choosing to suffer everything for the order of the House.

They do not in this contradict each other, but show that he did this a second time, and that both these expressions were not used on the same occasion, but that He acted thus once at the beginning of His ministry, and again when He had come to the very time of His Passion. Therefore, (on the latter occasion,) employing more strong expressions, He spoke of it as (being made) "a den of thieves," but here at the commencement of His miracles He does not so, but uses a more gentle rebuke; from which it is probable that this took place a second time.

(tom. x. in Joan. c. 16) Should it appear something out of the order of things, that the Son of God should make a scourge of small cords, to drive them out of the temple? We have one answer in which some take refuge, viz. the divine power of Jesus, Who, when He pleased, could extinguish the wrath of His enemies however innumerable, and quiet the tumult of their minds: The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought. (Ps. 32, 33:10) This act indeed exhibits no less power, than His more positive miracles; nay rather, more than the miracle by which water was converted into wine: in that there the subject-matter was inanimate, here, the minds of so many thousands of men are overcome.

(tom. x. in Joan. c. 17) John says here that He drove out the sellers from the temple; Matthew, the sellers and buyers. The number of buyers was much greater than of the sellers: and therefore to drive them out was beyond the power of the carpenter's Son, as He was supposed to be, had He not by His divine power put all things under Him, as it is said.

Why does He drive such people out of the temple altogether? Not without reason: He will heal on the Sabbath and, as it were, violate the law concerning it; therefore, so that they would not then consider Him an opponent of God, He forestalls such a thought by the present occasion. For he who showed such zeal for the temple would not reject God, the Lord of the temple. And He drove them out not simply, but striking with a whip made of cords, and overturned the tables, and scattered the coin or money of the money-changers, and undertook a very dangerous deed. And he who subjects himself to danger for the house of God would permit a departure from the law of God not as an opponent of God, but undoubtedly as the Son, having equal authority with God the Father, who gave the law concerning the Sabbath.

Nor did He cast out only those who bought and sold, but their goods also: The sheep, and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables, i. e. of the money changers, which were coffers of pence.

The Lord's remedy is at once set forth. Here the Lord's remedy consisted in action and in words, in order to instruct those who have charge of the Church that they must correct their subjects in deed and in word. And he does two things with respect to this. First, he gives the remedy Christ applied by his action. Secondly, the remedy he applied by word (v 16).

As to the first he does three things. First, he drives the men out. Secondly, the oxen and sheep. Thirdly, he sweeps away the money.

He drives the men out with a whip; and this is what he says, when he had made a kind of whip from cords. This is something that could be done only by divine power. For as Origen says, the divine power of Jesus was as able, when he willed, to quench the swelling anger of men as to still the storms of minds: "The Lord brings to nought the thoughts of men" (Ps 32:10). He makes the whip from cords because, as Augustine says, it is from our own sins that he forms the matter with which he punishes us: for a series of sins, in which sins are added to sins, is called a cord: "He is bound fast by the cords of his own sins" (Prv 5:22); "Woe to you who haul wickedness with cords" (Is 5:18). Then, just as he drove the merchants from the temple, so he swept away the gold of the moneychangers and knocked over their tables.

And mark well that if he expelled from the temple things that seemed somehow licit, in the sense that they were ordained to the worship of God, how much more if he comes upon unlawful things? The reason he cast them out was because in this matter the priests did not intend God's glory, but their own profit. Hence it is said: "It is for yourselves that you placed guardians of my service in my sanctuary" (Ez 44:8).

Further, our Lord showed zeal for the things of the law so that he might by this answer the chief priests and the priests who were later to bring a charge against him on this very point. Again, by casting things of this kind out of the temple he let it be understood that the time was coming in which the sacrifices of the law were due to cease, and the true worship of God transferred to the Gentiles: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you" (Mt 21:43). Also, this shows us the condemnation of those who sell spiritual things: "May your money perish together with you" (Acts 8:20).

Zeal, taken in a good sense, is a certain fervour of the Spirit, by which the mind, all human fears forgotten, is stirred up to the defence of the truth.

To take the passage mystically, God enters His Church spiritually every day, and marks each one's behaviour there. Let us be careful then, when we are in God's Church, that we indulge not in stories, or jokes, or hatreds, or lusts, lest on a sudden He come and scourge us, and drive us out of His Church.

"Then the disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up:" because by this zeal of God's house, the Lord cast these men out of the temple. Brethren, let every Christian among the members of Christ be eaten up with zeal of God's house. Who is eaten up with zeal of God's house? He who exerts himself to have all that he may happen to see wrong there corrected, desires it to be mended, does not rest idle: who if he cannot mend it, endures it, laments it. The grain is not shaken out on the threshing-floor that it may enter the barn when the chaff shall have been separated. If thou art a grain, be not shaken out from the floor before the putting into the granary; lest thou be picked up by the birds before thou be gathered into the granary. For the birds of heaven, the powers of the air, are waiting to snatch up something off the threshing-floor, and they can snatch up only what has been shaken out of it. Therefore, let the zeal of God's house eat thee up: let the zeal of God's house eat up every Christian, zeal of that house of God of which he is a member. For thy own house is not more important than that wherein thou hast everlasting rest. Thou goest into thine own house for temporal rest, thou enterest God's house for everlasting rest. If, then, thou busiest thyself to see that nothing wrong be done in thine own house, is it fit that thou suffer, so far as thou canst help, if thou shouldst chance to see aught wrong in the house of God, where salvation is set before thee, and rest without end? For example, seest thou a brother rushing to the theatre? Stop him, warn him, make him sorry, if the zeal of God's house doth eat thee up. Seest thou others running and desiring to get drunk, and that, too, in holy places, which is not decent to be done in any place? Stop those whom thou canst, restrain whom thou canst, frighten whom thou canst, allure gently whom thou canst: do not, however, rest silent. Is it a friend? Let him be admonished gently. Is it a wife? Let her be bridled with the utmost rigor. Is it a maid-servant? Let her be curbed even with blows. Do whatever thou canst for the part thou bearest; and so thou fulfillest, "The zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up." But if thou wilt be cold, languid, having regard only to thyself, and as if thyself were enough to thee, and saying in thy heart, What have I to do with looking after other men's sins? Enough for me is the care of my own soul: this let me keep undefiled for God;-come, does there not recur to thy mind the case of that servant who hid his talent and would not lay it out? Was he accused because he lost it, and not because he kept it without profit? So hear ye then, my brethren, that ye may not rest idle. I am about to give you counsel: may He who is within give it; for though it be through me, it is He that gives it. You know what to do, each one of you, in his own house, with his friend, his tenant, his client, with greater, with less: as God grants an entrance, as He opens a door for His word, do not cease to win for Christ; because you were won by Christ.

(Tr. x. c. 9) He then is eaten up with zeal for God's house, who desires to correct all that he sees wrong there; and, if he cannot correct, endures and mourns. In thine house thou busiest thyself to prevent matters going wrong; in the house of God, where salvation is offered, oughtest thou to be indifferent? Hast thou a friend? admonish him gently; a wife? coerce her severely; a maid-servant? even compel her with stripes. Do what thou art able, according to thy station.

(in loc.) His disciples seeing this most fervent zeal in Him, remembered that it was from zeal for His Father's house that our Saviour drove the ungodly from the temple.

The disciples remembered. Here is noted the approval of the correction made through Scripture. Therefore he says: His disciples indeed remembered, not then, but after the resurrection, when they understood the Scripture; then, I say, they remembered that it is written: The zeal of your house has consumed me, in that Psalm 68: "Save me, O God." Concerning this consuming of zeal, Augustine says: "He is consumed by zeal for the house of God who desires to correct all things that he sees there to be perverse, who does not rest from amending them; if he cannot amend them, he endures and groans."

It is also asked concerning the statement that zeal was in Christ. For if zeal implies anger, and anger implies disturbance, and in Christ there could not be disturbance, therefore neither could there be zeal.

To this, Victor responds that zeal is spoken of in two ways: in one way it implies a disturbance of the soul, just as anger does, and thus it was not in Christ: Isaiah 42: He shall not be sad nor turbulent. In another way, zeal is the same as fervent love, and thus it was in Christ; whence the Gloss of Augustine says: "Good zeal is a fervor of the soul, by which the mind, having cast aside human fear, is kindled for the defense of truth."

The disciples in a short time get perfection of knowledge, and comparing what is written with the events, already show great progress for the better.

"They," His disciples, it says, "Remembered that it is written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."

But the Jews did not remember the Prophecy, and said, "What sign showest Thou unto us?" both grieving that their shameful traffic was cut off, and expecting by these means to stop Him, and also desiring to challenge Him to a miracle, and to find fault with what He was doing.

The disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for Your house consumes me" (Ps. 69:9). They had been growing in goodness for only a short time, yet they were already recalling passages from the Scriptures, and finding testimonies in them, they were being more and more confirmed in their knowledge of Christ.

Then when he says, His disciples then remembered, he sets down a prophecy which was written in Psalm 69 (v 9): "Zeal for your house consumes me." Here we should remark that zeal, properly speaking, signifies an intensity of love, whereby the one who loves intensely does not tolerate anything which is repugnant to his love. So it is that men who love their wives intensely and cannot endure their being in the company of other men, as this conflicts with their own love, are called "zelotypes." Thus, properly speaking, one is said to have zeal for God who cannot patiently endure anything contrary to the honor of God, whom he loves above all else: "I have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts" (1 Kgs 19:10). Now we should love the house of the Lord, according to the Psalm (25:8): "O Lord, I have loved the beauty of your house." Indeed, we should love it so much that our zeal consumes us, so that if we notice anything amiss being done, we should try to eliminate it, no matter how dear to us are those who are doing it; nor should we fear any evils that we might have to endure as a result. So the Gloss says: "Good zeal is a fervor of spirit, by which, scorning the fear of death, one is on fire for the defense of the truth. He is consumed by it who takes steps to correct any perversity he sees; and if he cannot, he tolerates it with sadness."

"The Jews said unto Him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" And the Lord answered, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and dost thou say, In three days I will rear it up?" Flesh they were, fleshly things they minded; but He was speaking spiritually. But who could understand of what temple He spoke? But yet we have not far to seek; He has discovered it to us through the evangelist, he has told us of what temple He said it. "But He spake," saith the evangelist, "of the temple of His body." And it is manifest that, being slain, the Lord did rise again after three days. This is known to us all now: and if from the Jews it is concealed, it is because they stand without; yet to us it is open, because we know in whom we believe.

For inasmuch as they sought a sign from our Lord of His right to eject the customary merchandize from the temple, He replied, that that temple signified the temple of His Body, in which was no spot of sin; as if He said, As by My power I purify your inanimate temple from your merchandize and wickedness; so the temple of My Body, of which that is the figure, destroyed by your hands, on the third day I will raise again.

The Jews answered etc. The Lord manifested himself by the sign of authority: here he manifests himself by the sign of power, not exhibited, but requested and promised. And this sign was the wondrous raising of himself, and it proceeds in this order. In this manifestation, first is set forth the requesting of this sign; second, the offering of what was requested; third, the exposition of what was offered; fourth, the consequent building up of the faith of the Jews and through this the manifestation of Christ.

First, then, is described the requesting of the sign, which was made by the Jews seeing that he showed himself to be of such great authority. Therefore he says: The Jews therefore answered, namely the Lord who was rebuking them, and said to him: What sign do you show us, since you do these things? They seek a sign of power: 1 Corinthians 1: "Jews demand signs." They said something similar in Matthew 21: "Tell us: By what authority do you do these things?" And they were foolish to ask, because the deed itself was a great sign: Chrysostom: "O madness! Was a sign needed for him to make cease the things that were being done wrongly? Indeed, to receive such zeal for the house of God, was this not the greatest sign of virtue?"

But the Jews having perceived how he was shadowing forth to them the cessation of the Jewish dispensation, questioned him, saying: What sign showest thou that thou dost these things? But taking appropriate advantage of the question, he promised them that he would do something darkly to foreshadow the answer. I refer to the destruction of the temple and to its renovation, because the destruction of the temple—that is, of his body—is the destruction of this world, while the renovation and change made upon the temple—that is, upon his body—is a manifestation of the future state.

The multitude of the Jews are startled at the unwonted authority, and they who are over the temple are extremely vexed, deprived of their not easily counted gains. And they cannot convict Him of not having spoken most rightly in commanding them not to exhibit the Divine Temple as a house of merchandise. But they devise delays to the flight of the merchants, excusing themselves that they ought not to submit to Him off-hand, nor without investigation to receive as Son of God Him Who was witnessed to by no sign.

And what say they? "What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?" Alas for their utter madness! Was there need of a sign before they could cease their evil doings, and free the house of God from such dishonor? and was it not the greatest sign of His Excellence that He had gotten such zeal for that House? In fact, the well-disposed were distinguished by this very thing.

At one time then He said, that the Temple was made by them "a den of thieves," showing that what they sold was gotten by theft, and rapine, and covetousness, and that they were rich through other men's calamities; at another, "a house of merchandise," pointing to their shameless traffickings. "But wherefore did He this?" Since he was about to heal on the Sabbath day, and to do many such things which were thought by them transgressions of the Law in order that He might not seem to do this as though He had come to be some rival God and opponent of His Father, He takes occasion hence to correct any such suspicion of theirs.

Wherefore He will not give them a sign; and before, when they came and asked Him, He made them the same answer, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." Only then the answer was clear, now it is more ambiguous. This He doth on account of their extreme insensibility; for He who prevented them without their asking, and gave them signs, would never when they asked have turned away from them, had He not seen that their minds were wicked and false, and their intention treacherous. Think how full of wickedness the question itself was at the outset. When they ought to have applauded Him for His earnestness and zeal, when they ought to have been astonished that He cared so greatly for the House, they reproach Him, saying, that it was lawful to traffic, and unlawful for any to stop their traffic, except he should show them a sign. What saith Christ?

"Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Many such sayings He utters which were not intelligible to His immediate hearers, but which were to be so to those that should come after. And wherefore doth He this? In order that when the accomplishment of His prediction should have come to pass, He might be seen to have foreknown from the beginning what was to follow; which indeed was the case with this prophecy.

When the Jews saw that the Lord was doing this with great authority and saying "do not make My Father's house a marketplace," they said: "Convince us by some miracle that You are the Son of God and that You were sent by Him. For how is it evident that the Lord of this house is Your Father?"

The Jews seeing Jesus thus acting with power, and having heard Him say, Make not My Father's house an house of merchandize, ask of Him a sign; Then answered the Jews and said unto Him, What sign shewest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?

Having set forth the occasion for showing the sign, the Evangelist then states the sign which would be given. First, he gives the sign. Secondly, he mentions the fruit of the signs Christ performed (v 23). As to the first he does three things. First, the request for the sign is given. Secondly, the sign itself (v 19). Thirdly, the way the sign was understood (v 20).

The Jews ask for a sign; and this is what he says: What sign can you show us authorizing you to do these things?

Here we should note that when Jesus drove the merchants out of the temple, two things could be considered in Christ: his rectitude and zeal, which pertain to virtue; and his power or authority. It was not appropriate to require a sign from Christ concerning the virtue and zeal with which he did the above action, since everyone may lawfully act according to virtue. But he could be required to give a sign concerning his authority for driving them out of the temple, since it is not lawful for anyone to do this unless he has the authority.

And so the Jews, not questioning his zeal and virtue, ask for a sign of his authority; and so they say, What sign can you show us authorizing you to do these things? i.e., Why do you drive us out with such power and authority, for this does not seem to be your office? They say the same thing in Matthew (21:23): "By what authority are you doing these things?"

The reason they ask for a sign is that it was the usual thing for Jews to require a sign, seeing that they were called to the law by signs: "There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, with all his signs and wonders," as is said in Deuteronomy (34:10), and "The Jews require signs," as we find in 1 Corinthians (1:22). Hence David complains for the Jews saying: "We have not seen our signs" (Ps 73:9). However, they asked him for a sign not in order to believe, but in the hope that he would not be able to provide the sign, and then they could obstruct and restrain him. And so, because they asked in an evil manner, he did not give them an evident sign, but a sign clothed in a symbol, a sign concerning the resurrection.

Note, that they allude here not to the first temple under Solomon, which was finished in seven years, but to the one rebuilt under Zorobabel. (Ezra 4:5) This was forty-six years building, in consequence of the hindrance raised by the enemies of the work.

But perhaps this is demanded of us, whether the fact that the temple was forty and six years in building may not have in it some mystery. There are, indeed, many things that may be said of this matter; but what may briefly be said, and easily understood, that we say meanwhile. Brethren, we have said yesterday, if I mistake not, that Adam was one man, and is yet the whole human race. For thus we said, if you remember. He was broken, as it were, in pieces; and, being scattered, is now being gathered together, and, as it were, conjoined into one by a spiritual fellowship and concord. And "the poor that groan," as one man, is that same Adam, but in Christ he is being renewed: because an Adam is come without sin, to destroy the sin of Adam in His own flesh, and that Adam might renew to himself the image of God. Of Adam then is Christ's flesh: of Adam the temple which the Jews destroyed, and the Lord raised up in three days.

Now, what does the number Forty-six mean? Meanwhile, how Adam extends over the whole globe, you have already heard explained yesterday, by the four Greek letters of four Greek words. For if thou write the four words, one under the other, that is, the names of the four quarters of the world, of east, west, north, and south, which is the whole globe,-whence the Lord says that He will gather His elect from the four winds when He shall come to judgment;-if, I say, you take these four Greek words, anatole, which is east; dysis, which is west; arctos, which is north; mesembria, which is south; Anatole, Dysis, Arctos, Mesembria,-the first letters of the words make Adam. How, then, do we find there, too, the number forty-six? Because Christ's flesh was of Adam. The Greeks compute numbers by letters. What we make the letter A, they in their tongue put Alpha, and Alpha is called one. And where in numbers they write Beta, which is their b, it is called in numbers two. Where they write Gamma, it is called in their numbers three. Where they write Delta, it is called in their numbers four; and so by means of all the letters they have numbers. The letter we call M, and they call My, signifies forty; for they say My, tessarakonta. Now look at the number which these letters make, and you will find in it that the temple was built in forty-six years. For the word Adam has Alpha, which is one: it has Delta, which is four; there are five for thee: it has Alpha, again, which is one; there are six for thee: it has also My, which is forty; there hast thou forty-six. These things, my brethren, were said by our elders before us, and that number forty-six was found by them in letters. And because our Lord Jesus Christ took of Adam a body, not of Adam derived sin; took of him a corporeal temple, not iniquity which must be driven from the temple: and that the Jews crucified that very flesh which He derived from Adam (for Mary was of Adam, and the Lord's flesh was of Mary); and that, further, He was in three days to raise that same flesh which they were about to slay on the cross: they destroyed the temple which was forty-six years in building, and that temple He raised up in three days.

(Tr. x. in Joan c. 11.) The Father also raised Him up again; to Whom He says, Raise Thou me up, and I shall reward them. (Ps. 41:10) But what did the Father do without the Word? As then the Father raised Him up, so did the Son also: even as He saith below, I and My Father are one. John 10:30.

(iv. de Trin. c. 9. [v.]) Or it may be that this number fits in with the perfection of the Lord's Body. For six times forty-six are two hundred and seventy-six days, which make up nine months and six days, the time that our Lord's Body was forming in the womb; as we know by authoritative traditions handed down from our fathers, and preserved by the Church. He was, according to general belief, conceived on the eighth of the Kalends of April, (March 24) the day on which He suffered, and born on the eighth of the Kalends of January. (Dec. 25) The intervening time contains two hundred and seventy-six days, i. e. six multiplied by forty-six.

(b. lxxxiii. Quæst. 2. 5. f.) The process of human conception is said to be this. The first six days produce a substance like milk, which in the following nine is converted into blood; in twelve more is consolidated, in eighteen more is formed into a perfect set of limbs, the growth and enlargement of which fills up the rest of the time till the birth. For six, and nine, and twelve, and eighteen, added together are forty-five, and with the addition of one (which stands for the summing up, all these numbers being collected into one) forty-six. This multiplied by the number six, which stands at the head of this calculation, makes two hundred and seventy-six, i. e. nine months and six days. It is no unmeaning information then that the temple was forty and six years building; for the temple prefigured His Body, and as many years as the temple was in building, so many days was the Lord's Body in forming.

(in Joan. Tr. x. c. 12) Or thus, if you take the four Greek words, anatole, the east; dysis, the west; arctos, the north; and mesembria, the south; the first letters of these words make Adam. And our Lord says that He will gather together His saints from the four winds, when He comes to judgment. Now these letters of the word Adam, make up, according to Greek figuring, the number of the years during which the temple was building. For in Adam we have alpha, one; delta, four; alpha again, one; and mi, forty; making up together forty-six. The temple then signifies the body derived from Adam; which body our Lord did not take in its sinful state, but renewed it, in that after the Jews had destroyed it, He raised it again the third day. The Jews however, being carnal, understood carnally; He spoke spiritually. He tells us, by the Evangelist, what temple He means; But He spake of the temple of His Body.

The Jews therefore said to him. Here is touched upon the exposition of the sign offered, because he was not saying this about the material temple, but about the temple of his body; and the Jews understood it of the material temple. On account of which he says: The Jews therefore said: Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days? As if they were saying: this is entirely incredible and impossible for you. It should be understood that the temple in its first building was completed in seven years, but in the second, on account of wars and impediments under Zerubbabel, over forty-six years. The Lord was not speaking of this.

They mock at the sign, not understanding the depth of the Mystery, but seize on the disease of their own ignorance, as a reasonable excuse for not obeying Him, and considering the difficulty of the thing, they gave heed rather as to one speaking at random, than to one who was promising ought possible to be fulfilled, that that may be shown to be true that was written of them, Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not, and ever bow Thou down their backs: in order that in a manner ever stooping downwards and inclining to the things alone of the earth, they may receive no sight of the lofty doctrines of piety towards Christ, not as though God Who is loving to man grudged them those things, but rather with even justice was punishing them that committed intolerable transgressions.

For see how foolishly they insult Him, not sparing their own souls. For our Lord Jesus Christ calls God His Father, saying, Make not My Father's House an House of merchandise. Therefore when they ought now to deem of Him as Son and God, as shining forth from God the Father, they believe Him to be yet bare man and one of us. Therefore they object the time that has been spent in the building of the Temple, saying, Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt Thou rear it up in three days? O drunken with all folly, rightly, I deem, one might say to you, if a wise soul had been implanted in you, if ye believe that your Temple is the House of God, how ought ye not to have held Him to be God by Nature, Who dares fearlessly tell you, Make not My Father's House an House of merchandise? How then, tell me, should He have need of a long time for the building of one house? or how should He be powerless for anything whatever, who in days only seven in number, fashioned this whole universe with ineffable Power, and has His Power in only willing? For these things the people skilled in the sacred writings ought to have considered.

But at the time when this was spoken, the Jews were perplexed as to what it might mean, and cast about to discover, saying,

"Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?"

"Forty and six years," they said, referring to the latter building, for the former was finished in twenty years' time.

The Jews, thinking that He was speaking of the lifeless temple, laugh at Him. "How," they say, "do You say that You will raise it up in three days, when it took forty-six years to build?" One must know that when the temple was first built under Solomon, everything was completed without difficulty in twenty years. But afterwards, when the Jews after the captivity received permission to build the temple, they began to rebuild it in the reign of Cyrus; then, having met with hindrance from envious persons, they continued the construction until the reign of Artaxerxes; and under him, enjoying complete security, they were barely able to finish this work. When it is said that the Jews during the construction held a spear in one hand and a building tool in the other, they were in such great fear from the neighboring Idumeans, and not from the Persians, for from them, that is from the Persians, as I said, they enjoyed complete safety. Concerning this construction, which took place after the captivity, they say that it lasted forty-six years, since the Jews were being hindered, and therefore they extended it from the reign of Cyrus to Artaxerxes.

The Jews, supposing that He spoke of the material temple, scoffed: Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will Thou rear it up in three days?

Then when he says, The Jews then retorted, we have the interpretation of the sign he gave. First, the false interpretation of the Jews. Secondly, its true understanding by the apostles (v 21).

The interpretation of the Jews was false, because they believed that Christ was saying this of the material temple in which he then was; consequently, they answer according to this interpretation and say: This temple took forty-six years to build, i.e., this material temple in which we are standing, and you are going to raise it up again in three days!

There is a literal objection against this. For the temple in Jerusalem was built by Solomon, and it is recorded in 2 Chronicles (6:1) that it was completed by Solomon in seven years. How then can it be said that this temple took forty-six years to build? I answer that according to some this is not to be understood of the very first temple, which was completed by Solomon in seven years: for that temple built by Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. But it is to be understood of the temple rebuilt under Zerubbabel, after they returned from captivity, as recorded in the book of Ezra (5:2). However, this rebuilding was so hindered and delayed by the frequent attacks of their enemies on all sides, that the temple was not finished until forty-six years had passed.

Or it could be said, according to Origen, that they were speaking of Solomon's temple: and it did take forty-six years to build if the time be reckoned from the day when David first spoke of building a temple and discussed it with Nathan the prophet, as we find in 2 Samuel (7:2), until its final completion under Solomon. For from that first day onward David began preparing the material and the things necessary for building the temple. Accordingly, if the time in question is carefully calculated, it will come to forty-six years.

But although the Jews referred their interpretation to the material temple, nevertheless, according to Augustine, it can be referred to the temple of Christ's body. As he says in The Book of Eighty-three Questions, the conception and formation of the human body is completed in forty-five days in the following manner. During the first six days, the conception of a human body has a likeness to milk; during the next nine days it is converted into blood; then in the next twelve days, it is hardened into flesh; then the remaining eighteen days, it is formed into a perfect outlining of all the members. But if we add six, nine, twelve and eighteen, we get forty-five; and if we add "one" for the sacrament of unity, we get forty-six.

However a question arises about this: because this process of formation does not seem to have taken place in Christ, who was formed and animated at the very instant of conception. But one may answer that although in the formation of Christ's body there was something unique, in that Christ's body was perfect at that instant as to the outlining of its members, it was not perfect as to the quantity due the body; and so he remained in the Virgin's womb until he attained the due quantity.

However, let us take the above numbers and select six, which was the first, and forty-six, which was the last, and let us multiply one by the other. The result is two hundred seventy-six. Now if we assemble these days into months, allotting thirty days to a month, we get nine months and six days. Thus it was correct to say that it took forty-six years to build the temple, which signifies the body of Christ; the suggestion being that there were as many years in building the temple as there were days in perfecting the body of Christ. For from March twenty-five, which Christ was conceived, and (as is believed) when he suffered, to December twenty-five, there are this number of days, namely, two hundred seventy-six, a number that is the result of multiplying forty-six by six.

Augustine has another mystical interpretation of this number. For he says that if one adds the letters in the name "Adam," using for each the number it represented for the Greeks, the result is forty-six. For in Greek, A represents the number one, since it is the first letter of the alphabet. And according to this order, D is four. Adding to the sum of these another one for the second A and forty for the letter M, we have forty-six. This signifies that the body of Christ was derived from the body of Adam.

Again, according to the Greeks, the name "Adam" is composed of the first letters of the names of the four directions of the world: namely, Anathole, which is the east; Disis, which is the west; Arctos, which is the north; and Mensembria, the south. This signifies that Christ derived his flesh from Adam in order to gather his elect from the four parts of the world: "He will gather his elect from the four winds" (Mt 24:31).

With perfect justice he banished the wicked from the temple, since the temple represented the temple of his body, in which there was no stain of any kind of sin.

But he was speaking of the temple of his body. For if our bodies "are the temple of the Holy Spirit," 1 Corinthians 6: how much more the body of Christ, "in whom the Divinity dwells bodily," as is said in Colossians 2. And this spiritual understanding neither the Jews nor the carnal disciples possessed, but only after the resurrection.

It is asked: why does the Lord call Himself a temple and compare Himself to a temple?

And Augustine responds that this is not only on account of the indwelling of the Divinity, but also on account of the likeness to the temple: because, just as the temple was built in forty-six years, so the conceived fetus is formed in forty-six days, and when those are multiplied by six, it is born.

But this seems to have no bearing on the matter at hand, because the body of Christ was perfect from the instant of conception, and His soul was perfect, and He had the use of free will.

On account of this, it must be said that a body is perfected in two ways: either by organization or by mass. Other bodies besides the body of Christ are built up and perfected within that time or in that time — that is, they tend toward perfection by organization and by mass; but the body of Christ only by mass, not by the distinction of members.

Acceptable to the wise man is the word of wisdom, and the knowledge of discipline abideth more easily with men of understanding, and as in wax not too hard, the impression of seals is well made, so in the more tender hearts of men the Divine Word is readily infixed: wherefore the hard of heart is also called wicked. The disciples then, being of a good disposition, become wise, and ruminate the words of divine Scripture, nourishing themselves to more accurate knowledge, and thence coming firmly to belief. Since the Body of Christ is called a temple also, how is not the Only-Begotten Word Which indwelleth therein, God by Nature, since he that is not God cannot be said to dwell in aTemple? Or let one come forward and say, what saint's body was ever called a temple; but I do not suppose any one can show this. I say then, what we shall find to be true, if we accurately search the Divine Scripture, that to none of the Saints was such honour attached. And indeed the blessed Baptist, albeit he attained unto the height of all virtue, and suffered none to exceed him in piety, was through the madness of Herod beheaded, and yet is no such thing attributed to him. On the contrary, the Evangelist devised a grosser word for his remains, saying this too, as appears to me by an oeconomy, in order that the dignity may be reserved to Christ Alone. For he writes thus; And the blood-shedder to wit, Herod, sent and beheaded John in the prison, and his disciples came and took up his carcase. If the body of John be called a carcase, whose temple will it be? In another sense indeed, we are called temples of God, by reason of the Holy Ghost indwelling in us. For we are called the temples of God, and not of ourselves.

But haply some one will say: How then, tell me, doth the Saviour Himself call His own Body a carcase, For wheresoever He saith the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. To this we say, that Christ saith this not of His Own Body, but in manner and guise of a parable He signifieth that concourse of the Saints to Him, that shall be at that time when He appeareth again to us, with the holy angels, in the glory of His Father. For like as, saith He, flocks of carnivorous birds rush down with a sharp whizzing to fallen carcases, so shall ye too be gathered together to Me. Which indeed Paul too doth make known to us, saying, For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible; And again in another place, and we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. That therefore which is taken by way of similitude for an image will no wise damage the force of the truth.

Wherefore then did He not resolve the difficulty and say, "I speak not of that Temple, but of My flesh"? Why does the Evangelist, writing the Gospel at a later period, interpret the saying, and Jesus keep silence at the time? Why did He so keep silence? Because they would not have received His word; for if not even the disciples were able to understand the saying, much less were the multitudes. "When," saith the Evangelist, "He was risen from the dead, then they remembered, and believed the Scripture and His word." There were two things that hindered them for the time, one the fact of the Resurrection, the other, the greater question whether He was God that dwelt within; of both which things He spake darkly when He said, "Destroy this Temple, and I will rear it up in three days." And this St. Paul declares to be no small proof of His Godhead, when he writes, "Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the Resurrection from the dead."

[Christ] meant that his passion would be brief and that when he was put to death … he would raise himself up on the third day. For he himself was the true temple of God.… For when there was no justice on the earth, [God] sent a teacher, a living law, as it were, to establish his name and a new temple, to sow the seeds of true and loving worship throughout the whole earth by his words and example.

For He showed to what belongs (the incidents of) being destroyed, thrown down, and kept down-even to that to which it also appertains to be lifted and raised up again; although He was at the same time bearing about with Him "a soul that was trembling even unto death," but which did not fall through death, because even the Scripture informs us that "He spoke of His body." So that it is the flesh which falls by death; and accordingly it derives its name, cadaver, from cadendo.

Apollinaris attempts to find here a defense for his heresy. Wishing to confirm that the Lord's flesh was without a soul, he says: "The flesh is called a temple, and a temple is soulless; therefore, it too is soulless." Thunder-struck and dizzy fool! You would perhaps make the Lord's flesh into wood and stones as well, since the temple is made of them?! When you hear the Lord's words: "My soul is now troubled" (John 12:27) and "I have power to lay down My soul" (John 10:18), how do you understand them? If you say that this is spoken not of a rational and intellectual soul, then where will you place the words "Father! into Your hands I commit My spirit" (Luke 23:46)? Will you understand even this as referring to an irrational soul? And this: "You will not leave my soul in Hades" (Ps. 16:10), how does it seem to you? But perish you along with those who share your opinions.

From this Apollinarius draws an heretical inference: and attempts to show that Christ's flesh was inanimate, because the temple was inanimate. In this way you will prove the flesh of Christ to be wood and stone, because the temple is composed of these materials. Now if you refuse to allow what is said, Now is My soul troubled; (John 12:27) and, I have power to lay it (My life) down, (ib. 10:18) to be said of the rational soul, still how will you interpret, Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend My spirit? (Luke 23:46) you cannot understand this of an irrational soul: or again, the passage, Thou shall not leave My soul in hell. (Ps. 16:11)

Then, the true interpretation of this sign as understood by the apostles is given. First, the way they understood it is given. Secondly, the time when they understood it (v 22).

He says therefore: The Jews said this out of ignorance. But Christ did not understand it in their way; in fact, he meant the temple of his body, and this is what he says: He was speaking, however, of the temple of his body. We have already explained why the body of Christ could be called a temple.

Apollinaris misunderstood this and said that the body of Christ was inanimate matter because the temple was inanimate. He was mistaken in this, for when it is said that the body of Christ is a temple, one is speaking metaphorically. And in this way of speaking a likeness does not exist in all respects, but only in some respect, namely, as to indwelling, which is referred to the nature, as was explained. Further, this is evident from the authority of Sacred Scripture, when Christ himself said: "I have the power to lay down my life," as we read below (10:18).

For before the resurrection they did not understand the Scriptures, because they had not yet received the Holy Ghost, Who was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39) But on the day of the resurrection our Lord appeared and opened their meaning to His disciples; that they might understand what was said of Him in the Law and the Prophets. And then they believed the prediction of the Prophets that Christ would rise the third day, and the word which Jesus had spoken to them: Destroy this temple, &c.

When therefore he had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, about his own body. For then he opened their understanding to comprehend: Luke, last chapter: "He opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." And from then on they believed the Scripture, in which, namely, the resurrection of Christ was prefigured, as in Jonah; and they believed also the word that Jesus had said, because for this reason he had foretold it: below, chapter fourteen: "Now I have told you before it comes to pass, that, when it shall come to pass, you may believe."

Many such sayings He utters which were not intelligible to His immediate hearers, but which were to be so to those that should come after. And wherefore doth He this? In order that when the accomplishment of His prediction should have come to pass, He might be seen to have foreknown from the beginning what was to follow; which indeed was the case with this prophecy. For, saith the Evangelist, "When He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

The question still remains, "How was it that the disciples did not know that He must rise from the dead?" It was, because they had not been vouchsafed the gift of the Spirit; and therefore, though they constantly heard His discourses concerning the Resurrection, they understood them not, but reasoned with themselves what this might be. For very strange and paradoxical was the assertion that one could raise himself, and would raise himself in such wise. And so Peter was rebuked, when, knowing nothing about the Resurrection, he said, "Be it far from Thee." And Christ did not reveal it clearly to them before the event, that they might not be offended at the very outset, being led to distrust His words on account of the great improbability of the thing, and because they did not yet clearly know Him, who He was. For no one could help believing what was proclaimed aloud by facts, while some would probably disbelieve what was told to them in words. Therefore He at first allowed the meaning of His words to be concealed; but when by their experience He had verified His sayings, He after that gave them understanding of His words, and such gifts of the Spirit that they received them all at once. "He," saith Jesus, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." For they who in a single night cast off all respect for Him, and fled from and denied that they even knew Him, would scarcely have remembered what He had done and said during the whole time, unless they had enjoyed much grace of the Spirit.

"But," says one, "if they were to hear from the Spirit, why needed they to accompany Christ when they would not retain His words?" Because the Spirit taught them not, but called to their mind what Christ had said before; and it contributes not a little to the glory of Christ, that they were referred to the remembrance of the words He had spoken to them. At the first then it was of the gift of God that the grace of the Spirit lighted upon them so largely and abundantly; but after that, it was of their own virtue that they retained the Gift. For they displayed a shining life, and much wisdom, and great labors, and despised this present life, and thought nothing of earthly things, but were above them all; and like a sort of light-winged eagle, soaring high by their works, reached to heaven itself, and by these possessed the unspeakable grace of the Spirit.

Even though it is said that the Father raises Christ, the meaning of this expression is not dubious. The unity that is between them both in all operations causes both Father and Son to be attributed with equal rights.

And it is not surprising that the Jews did not understand the words of Jesus, nor did the disciples. For them there were two greatest difficulties: one — that the matter of the resurrection is very hard to comprehend, all the more so since it was entirely unknown to them; the other — that He who lives in the body is God. However, after the resurrection the disciples understood and believed the Scripture. Which Scripture? Both every Scripture that foretells the resurrection, and, as the clearest, this one: "You will not leave my soul in Hades" (Ps. 16:10), and this one: "The Lord desires to cleanse him of his wound and to show him light" (Isa. 53:11). For these passages of Scripture very clearly foretell the resurrection.

The time when the apostles acquired this true understanding is then shown by the Evangelist when he says, When, therefore, he had risen from the dead, his disciples recalled that he had said this. Prior to the resurrection it was difficult to understand this. First, because this statement asserted that the true divinity was in the body of Christ; otherwise it could not be called a temple. And to understand this at that time was above human ability. Secondly, because in this statement mention is made of the passion and resurrection, when he says, I will raise it up again; and this is something none of the disciples had heard mentioned before. Consequently, when Christ spoke of his resurrection and passion to the apostles, Peter was scandalized when he heard it, saying, "God forbid, Lord" (Mt 16:22). But after the resurrection, when they now clearly understood that Christ was God, through what he had shown in regard to his passion and resurrection, and when they had learned of the mystery of his resurrection, his disciples recalled that he had said this of his body, and they then believed the Scriptures, i.e., the prophets: "He will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up" (Hos 6:3), and "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jon 2:1). So it is that on the very day of the resurrection he opened their understanding so that they might understand the Scriptures and the statement Jesus had made, namely, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.

In the anagogical sense, according to Origen, we understand by this that in the final resurrection of nature we will be disciples of Christ, when in the great resurrection the entire body of Jesus, that is, his Church, will be made certain of the things we now hold through faith in a dark manner. Then we shall receive the fulfillment of faith, seeing in actual fact what we now observe through a mirror.

The Lord had a body. And just as he deigned to assume a physical body for our sake, so also did he deign to be hungry and thirsty. As a result of the fact that he deigned to be hungry and thirsty, he condescended to be fed by those he himself enriched. He condescended to be received as a guest, not from need but from favor.Martha was busy satisfying the needs of those who were hungry and thirsty. With deep concern, she prepared what the Holy of Holies and his saints would eat and drink in her house. It was an important but transitory work. It will not always be necessary to eat and drink, will it? When we cling to the most pure and perfect Goodness, serving will not be a necessity.

(Ser. 103.) But the Lord, who came to his own, and his own received him not, (John 1:12.) was received as a guest, for it follows, And a certain woman named Martha received him into her house, &c. as strangers are accustomed to be received. But still a servant received her Lord, the sick her Saviour, the creature her Creator. But if any should say, "O blessed are they who have been thought worthy to receive Christ into their houses," grieve not thou, for He says, For inasmuch as ye have done it to the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:40.) But taking the form of a servant, He wished therein to be fed by servants, by reason of His condescension, not His condition. He had a body in which He was hungry and thirsty, but when He was hungry in the desert, Angels ministered to Him. (Matt. 4:11.) In wishing therefore to be fed, He came Himself to the feeder.

Now every work and word of our Savior is a rule of piety and virtue For to this enddid He put on our body, that as much as we can we might imitate His conversation. It is foolish also to take food for the support of the body, and thereby in return to hurt the body, and to hinder it in the performance of the divine command. If then a poor man come, let him receive a model and example of moderation in food, and let us not prepare our own tables for their sakes, who wish to live luxuriously. For the life of the Christian is uniform, ever tending to one object, namely, the glory of God. But the life of those who are without is manifold and vacillating, changed about at will. And how in truth can you, when you set your table before your brother with profusion of meats, and for the pleasure of feasting sake, accuse him of luxury, and revile him as a glutton, censuring his indulgence in that which you yourself afford him? Our Lord did not commend Martha when busied about much serving.

It happened, as they were going, that he entered a certain village, and a certain woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister named Mary. This reading is beautifully connected to the preceding one. For as that one designates love of God and neighbor through words and parables, this one designates it through deeds and truth. These two beloved sisters of the Lord demonstrate the two spiritual lives by which the present holy Church is exercised. Indeed, Martha represents the active life, by which we are united to our neighbor in charity; Mary represents the contemplative life, by which we long for the love of God. For the active life is to give bread to the hungry, to teach the ignorant the word of wisdom, to correct the erring, to bring back the proud to the way of humility, to take care of the sick, to dispense what is expedient to each one, and to foresee how those entrusted to us may be able to subsist. The contemplative life, however, is to retain the love of God and neighbor with the whole mind, but to rest from external action, adhering solely to the desire of the Creator, so that one no longer wishes to act but, having cast aside all cares, the soul burns with the desire to behold the face of its Creator, so that it regrets to bear the burden of the corruptible flesh and with all its desires aspires to join the hymnic choirs of angels, to be mixed with the heavenly citizens, to rejoice in the eternal incorruption in the sight of God.

The love of God and our neighbour, which was contained above in words and parables, is here set forth in very deed and reality; for it is said, Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village.

For the instruction of the disciples, a human example is subjoined, set forth in a twofold manner.

Now it came to pass, as they went, etc. After he handed down a form of living through the divine precept, here secondly he hands it down through a human example. Whence the Gloss of Bede: "Having given a discourse on the love of God and neighbor, he supplies an example of each." For here is introduced literally an example of perfection, an example of the active and contemplative life, and a comparison of the two. Whence this part has two parts: in the first of which there is set forth a rational comparison; and in the second there is added a judicial determination, at the place: And the Lord answering said to her. Concerning the rational comparison, however, four things are introduced: the first is the fellowship of the divine presence, the second is the leisure of the contemplative life, the third is the exercise of the active life, the fourth is the dispute between the two.

First, therefore, as regards the fellowship of the divine presence, it is said: Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain town, either for the sake of preaching the kingdom of God, according to what is said above in the eighth chapter: "He journeyed through cities and towns, preaching and evangelizing the kingdom of God"; or for the sake of seeking lodging, according to what is said above in the ninth chapter, that when the Samaritans were unwilling to receive him and his disciples as guests, they "departed to another town." Concerning this town it is stated more explicitly in John 11: "There was a certain man who was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the town of Mary and Martha, his sisters." In this town, I say, he found lodging.

On account of which it is added: And a certain woman, Martha by name, received him into her house, namely, as one who was poor and needy. Hence to such persons he will say that word at the judgment in Matthew 25: "I was a stranger, and you took me in," namely, to those like Martha, such as Job was, of whom it is said in the thirty-first chapter: "The stranger did not remain outside, and my door was open to the traveler." And in that lodging he was present bodily, just as he is present to those in the active and contemplative lives spiritually, according to that word of Revelation 3: "I stand at the door and knock: if anyone shall open to me, I will enter in to him and will sup with him"; because in Proverbs 8 it is said: "My delights are to be with the sons of men"; and conversely, whence Wisdom 8: "Entering into my house, I shall find rest with her: for her conversation has no bitterness, nor her company any weariness."

By His own example then He teaches His disciples how they ought to behave in the houses of those who receive them, namely, when they come to a house, they should not remain idle, but rather fill the minds of those who receive them with sacred and divine teaching. But let those who make ready the house, go to meet their guests gladly and earnestly, for two reasons. First, indeed, they will be edified by the teaching of those whom they receive; next also they will receive the reward of charity.

To cling always to God and to the things of God—this must be our major effort, this must be the road that the heart follows unswervingly. Any diversion, however impressive, must be regarded as secondary, low-grade and certainly dangerous. Martha and Mary provide a most beautiful scriptural paradigm of this outlook and of this mode of activity. In looking after the Lord and his disciples, Martha did a very holy service. Mary, however, was intent on the spiritual teaching of Jesus, and she stayed by his feet, which she kissed and anointed with the oil of her good faith.… In saying "Mary chose the good portion," he was saying nothing about Martha, and in no way was he giving the appearance of criticizing her. Still, by praising Mary he was saying that the other was a step below her. Again, by saying "it will not be taken away from her," he was showing that Martha's role could be taken away from her, since the service of the body can only last as long as the human being is there, whereas the zeal of Mary can never end.

The name of which village Luke indeed here omits, but John mentions, calling it Bethany. (John 11.)

Great is the good that comes from hospitality, as Martha showed, and it should not be neglected; but an even greater good is to attend to spiritual discourse. For by the former the body is nourished, but by the latter the soul is given life.

What was Mary enjoying while she was listening? What was she eating? What was she drinking? Do you know? Let's ask the Lord, who keeps such a splendid table for his own people, let's ask him. "Blessed," he says, "are those who are hungry and thirsty for justice, because they shall be satisfied." It was from this wellspring, from this storehouse of justice, that Mary, seated at the Lord's feet, was in her hunger receiving some crumbs. You see, the Lord was giving her then as much as she was able to take. But as for the whole amount, which he was going to give at his table of the future, not even the disciples, not even the apostles themselves, were able to take in at the time when he said to them, "I still have many things to say to you, but you are unable to hear them now." ...What was Mary enjoying? What was she eating? I'm persistent on this point, because I'm enjoying it too. I will venture to say that she was eating the one she was listening to. I mean, if she was eating truth, didn't he say himself, "I am the truth"? What more can I say? He was being eaten, because he was the Bread. "I," he said, "am the bread who came down from heaven." This is the bread which nourishes and never diminishes.

Martha then, setting about and preparing to feed our Lord, was occupied in serving; but Mary her sister chose rather to be fed by the Lord, for it follows, And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

(ubi sup.) Now as was her humility in sitting at His feet, so much the more did she receive from Him. For the waters pour down to the lowest part of the valley, but flow away from the rising of the hill.

And she also, sitting beside the feet of the Lord, listened to His word, but Martha was distracted by frequent ministering. No one doubts that these things suit both lives. And the uniform perfection of the contemplative life is indeed to have a mind stripped of all earthly things, and, as much as human weakness allows, to unite with Christ. But the frequent ministry of active life is taught by the Master of the nations, who in the numerous statements of his Epistles, recounts his labors by land and sea for Christ, his dangers. In which, also commending the visions and revelations of the Lord, he signifies that he was also completed in the speculative virtue, which is imitable by very few. Hence he says: For whether we are beside ourselves, it is to God; or whether we are sober, it is for your cause (II Cor. V).

Second, with regard to the leisure of the contemplative life, he adds: And she had a sister, named Mary, who was perfect in the leisure of contemplation; whence it is added: Who also, sitting at the feet of the Lord, heard his word. This indeed was the leisure of this woman: to attend to the Lord, to be at rest, to sit, and to be silent. Whence it is said in John eleven that "Mary sat at home," and this at his feet: because, in Deuteronomy thirty-three, "those who approach his feet shall receive of his teaching." By sitting at his feet is understood humility, which ought to be in contemplative persons so that they may abound in the fruits of devotion, according to that verse of the Psalm: "Who sends forth springs in the valleys," etc. But he who so sits as a humble person is watered by the tears of compunction, according to that passage of Jeremiah fifteen: "I sat alone, because you have filled me with bitterness"; and that is the office of the contemplative soul, namely to devote oneself to the tears of compunction and devotion. Whence this Mary, the exemplar of contemplation, is always described as it were weeping: above, namely in chapter seven, where it is said that "standing behind at the feet of the Lord, she began to wash his feet with tears," etc.; and in John eleven, where it is said that "Mary, when she had come where Jesus was, seeing him, fell at his feet. Jesus therefore, when he had seen her weeping, groaned in spirit"; and in John twenty: "Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping." And the first are tears of compunction; the second, of compulsion; the third, of devotion, which contemplatives ought to have, sitting at the feet of the Lord.

Mary came and sat at his feet. This was as though she were sitting on firm ground at the feet of him who had forgiven the sinful woman her sins. She had put on a crown in order to enter into the kingdom of the Firstborn. She had chosen the better portion, the Benefactor, the Messiah himself. This will never be taken away from her. Martha's love was more fervent than Mary's, for before he had arrived there, she was ready to serve him. "Do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone?" When he came to raise Lazarus to life, she ran and came out first.

Something of the same thing may be said about the incident of Martha and Mary; which has been interpreted in retrospect and from the inside by the mystics of the Christian contemplative life. But it was not at all an obvious view of it; and most moralists, ancient and modern, could be trusted to make a rush for the obvious. What torrents of effortless eloquence would have flowed from them to swell any slight superiority on the part of Martha; what splendid sermons about the Joy of Service and the Gospel of Work and the World Left Better Than We Found It, and generally all the ten thousand platitudes that can be uttered in favour of taking trouble--by people who need take no trouble to utter them. If in Mary the mystic and child of love Christ was guarding the seed of something more subtle, who was likely to understand it at the time? Nobody else could have seen Clare and Catherine and Teresa shining above the little roof at Bethany.

(6. Mor. c. 18.) Or by Mary who sat and heard our Lord's words, is signified the contemplative life; by Martha engaged in more outward services, the active life. Now Martha's care is not blamed, but Mary is praised, for great are the rewards of an active life, but those of a contemplative are far better. Hence Mary's part it is said will never be taken away from her, for the works of an active life pass away with the body, but the joys of the contemplative life the rather begin to increase from the end.

It is not said of Mary simply that she sat near Jesus, but at His feet, to show her diligence, stedfastness, and zeal, in hearing, and the great reverence which she had for our Lord.

"Sat at Jesus' feet and listened to His word." By the feet one can understand active virtue, for they signify movement and walking. And sitting is a sign of immobility. So whoever sits at the feet of Jesus, that is, whoever becomes firmly established in active virtue and through imitation of the walking and life of Jesus is strengthened in it, that person after this arrives at the hearing of divine utterances or at contemplation. Since Mary also first sat down, and then listened to the words.

(ubi sup.) Martha was well engaged in ministering to the bodily wants or wishes of our Lord, as of one who was mortal, but He who was clothed in mortal flesh; in the beginning was the Word. Behold then what Mary heard, The Word was made flesh. Behold then Him to whom Martha ministered. The one was labouring, the other at rest. But yet Martha, when much troubled in her occupation and business of serving, interrupted our Lord, and complained of her sister. For it follows, And said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? For Mary was absorbed in the sweetness of our Lord's words; Martha was preparing a feast for our Lord, in whose feast Mary was now rejoicing. While then she was listening with delight to those sweet words, and was feeding on them with the deepest affection, our Lord was interrupted by her sister. What must we suppose was her alarm, lest the Lord should say to her, "Rise, and help thy sister?" Our Lord therefore, who was not at a loss, for He had shewn He was the Lord, answered as follows, And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha. The repetition of the name is a mark of love, or perhaps of drawing the attention, that she should listen more earnestly. When twice called, she hears, Thou art troubled about many things, that is, thou art busied about many things. For man wishes to meet with something when he is serving, and can not; and thus between seeking what is wanting and preparing what is at hand, the mind is distracted. For if Martha had been sufficient of herself, she would not have required the aid of her sister. There are many, there are diverse things, which are carnal, temporal, but one is preferred to many. For one is not from many, but many from one. Hence it follows, But one thing is needful. Mary wished to be occupied about one, according to that, It is good for me to cling close unto the Lord. (Ps. 73:28.) The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, are one. To this one he does not bring us, unless we being many have one heart. (Acts 4:32.)

(Const. Mon. c. 1.) Now every work and word of our Saviour is a rule of piety and virtue. For to this end did He put on our body, that as much as we can we might imitate His conversation.

(in reg. fus. int. 19.) It is foolish also to take food for the support of the body, and thereby in return to hurt the body, and to hinder it in the performance of the divine command. If then a poor man come, let him receive a model and example of moderation in food, and let us not prepare our own tables for their sakes, who wish to live luxuriously. For the life of the Christian is uniform, ever tending to one object, namely, the glory of God. But the life of those who are without is manifold and vacillating, changed about at will. And how in truth canst thou, when thou settest thy table before thy brother with profusion of meats, and for the pleasure of feasting sake, accuse him of luxury, and revile him as a glutton, censuring his indulgence in that which thou thyself affordest him? Our Lord did not commend Martha when busied about much serving.

And she stood and said: Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her therefore to help me. He speaks from the perspective of those who, still ignorant of divine contemplation, consider that the work of brotherly love alone is pleasing to God, and therefore think that all who wish to be devoted to Christ should be bound to this. And it is well described that Martha stood while Mary sat beside the feet of the Lord, because the active life toils in laborious struggle, while the contemplative life, with the tumults of vices pacified, enjoys the desired repose of the mind in Christ.

Third, with regard to the exercise of the active life, it is added: But Martha was busy about much serving; and this as a good active person, avoiding idleness, according to the counsel of the Wise Man, in Ecclesiastes nine: "Whatever your hand is able to do, work diligently, because neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge shall be in the netherworld, to which you hasten." Martha always did this; whence it is said in John twelve that "Jesus came to Bethany; and they made a supper for him there, and Martha served." And note that it says she was busy, that is, she was doing enough, about much serving, to show that in her work there was at once perfection and due measure, according to the counsel of blessed Peter, in Second Peter one: "Brothers, be the more diligent, that by good works you may make your calling and election sure." For the work of ministry is that which most pleases the Lord, and in which one most imitates Christ, as is said below in chapter twenty-two: "But I am in your midst as one who serves"; and again in Matthew twenty: "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve." Whence such ministry is pleasing and honorable before God and worthy of reward, according to that passage of John twelve: "If anyone serves me, my Father will honor him," etc.

Fourth, as to the dispute between the two, he adds: Who stood and said: Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Here the industrious Martha complains about the idle Mary, as though she could not alone bear the weight of labor, according to what Moses complained to the Lord in Numbers 11: "I cannot alone sustain all this people, because it is heavy for me." So also Martha, on account of the heaviness of the burden, sought Mary's help, knowing that what is said in Galatians 6 pertains to the law of Christ: "Bear one another's burdens." Therefore she confidently sought Christ's judgment, that she might obtain her sister's help.

For which reason she adds: Tell her therefore to help me, that she might act according to the counsel of the Apostle in Galatians 5: "Through the charity of the Spirit, serve one another"; and in Ephesians 4: "Bearing with one another in charity."

In this dispute Mary is silent; and Gregory gives the reason for this: "Mary does not respond, but as one at leisure commits her cause to the Judge. For if she were preparing a word of response, she would relax her attention to listening." For it is not for contemplatives to contend, but rather to be silent and to listen and to meditate, according to that passage in Lamentations 3: "He shall sit alone and be silent"; whence Job 4: "Moreover, a hidden word was spoken to me, and as if by stealth I received the veins of its whisper." But Mary loses nothing by being silent, because the Lord takes up her cause by defending it. Whence Bernard: "Everywhere the Lord answers for Mary, whether when she is reproached by the Pharisee, above in chapter seven, or when she is accused by her sister, as here, or when by the disciples, as is said in Matthew 26."

Now Martha sometimes complains by placing her own office above others, and then it is blameworthy. Whence the Gloss: "Martha speaks in the person of those who, still ignorant of divine contemplation, say that only the work of fraternal love, which they have learned, is pleasing to God, and therefore think that all who wish to be devoted to Christ should be bound to this work." — Sometimes she complains by preferring Mary's leisure. Whence Bernard: "Do you think that in the house in which Christ is received, the voice of murmuring is heard?" And he adds: "Happy the house and blessed the congregation in which Martha complains about Mary." And the reason for this is that the contemplative life is to be chosen for its own sake without complaint, but Martha, that is, the active life, is to be sustained out of necessity. Whence Jacob chose Rachel, but as was necessary, he first received Leah, as is said in Genesis 29.

It is therefore permissible for Martha to complain in order to be like Mary, because this is of humility; but if she complains about the fact that she is not helped, this is of weakness; but if she complains about the fact that Mary at some time wishes to help, and she herself does not wish it, this is of impiety, because such a complaint impedes the law of charity.

When certain brethren have received God, they will not be anxious about much service, nor ask for those things which are not in their hands, and are beyond their needs. For every where and in every thing that which is superfluous is burdensome. For it begets weariness in those who are wishing to bestow it, while the guests feel that they are the cause of trouble.

Note also the prudence of the Lord. He said nothing to Martha before He received from her an occasion for reproof. But when she attempted to draw her sister away from listening, then the Lord, taking the occasion, reproves her. For hospitality is praiseworthy only so long as it does not distract and draw us away from what is more needful; but when it begins to hinder us in the most important matters, then it is right to prefer the hearing of divine things to it.

Our Lord does not then forbid hospitality, but the troubling about many things, that is to say, hurry and anxiety. And mark the wisdom of our Lord, in that at first He said nothing to Martha, but when she sought to tear away her sister from hearing, then the Lord took occasion to reprove her. For hospitality is ever honoured as long as it keeps us to necessary things. But when it begins to hinder us from attending to what is of more importance, then it is plain that the hearing of the divine word is the more honourable.

Mary was more blessed in accepting the faith of Christ than in conceiving the flesh of Christ. To someone who said, "Blessed is the womb that bore you," he replied, "Rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it."Finally, for his brothers, his relatives according to the flesh who did not believe in him, of what advantage was that relationship? Even her maternal relationship would have done Mary no good unless she had borne Christ more happily in her heart than in her flesh.

It happened that, as he was saying these things, a certain woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him: "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you." This woman is shown to be of great devotion and faith, who, while the scribes and Pharisees were testing and blaspheming the Lord, recognized his incarnation with such sincerity above all, confessed with such confidence, as to confound the calumny of the present nobles and the perfidy of future heretics. For just as the Jews then, by blaspheming the works of the Holy Spirit, denied the true and consubstantial Son of God to the Father, so later heretics, by denying that Mary, ever a virgin, ministered the material of flesh to the only-begotten God born from human members by the operation of the Holy Spirit's power, said that the Son of Man should not be confessed as truly consubstantial to his mother. But if the flesh of the Word of God, born according to the flesh, is proclaimed foreign to the flesh of the virgin mother, the womb that bore him and the breasts that nursed him are blessed in vain. For by what logic is he believed to have been nourished by her milk, whose seed is denied to be conceived? Since both liquids are proven, according to the natural philosophers, to emanate from the origin of one and the same source. Unless perhaps it is thought that the virgin could supply the material of her flesh to nourish the Son of God in the flesh through a lesser and familiar miracle, but could not do so for the incarnation through a greater and unusual miracle. But the Apostle counters this opinion, saying: "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal. IV). Nor should we listen to those who believe it should be read as "born of a woman, made under the law," but rather, "made of a woman." For conceived from the virgin's womb, he drew flesh not from nothing, not from elsewhere, but from maternal flesh. Otherwise, he could not truly be called the Son of Man, who would not have originated from a human. And so, in these words spoken against Eutyches, let us lift up our voice with the Catholic Church, of which this woman was a type, lifting up our minds from the midst of the crowds, and let us say to the Savior: "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you" (Luke XI). For truly blessed is the mother, who, as someone said, gave birth to the childbearing King. Who holds heaven and earth through the ages, whose divinity and eternal embrace encompasses all things, his empire remaining without end; who, with a blessed womb, having the joys of a mother with the honor of virginity, has neither been seen to have a first like her nor having a second to follow her.

While the Scribes and Pharisees were tempting our Lord, and uttering blasphemies against Him, a certain woman with great boldness confessed His incarnation, as it follows, And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, &c. by which she refutes both the calumnies of the rulers present, and the unbelief of future heretics. For as then by blaspheming the works of the Holy Spirit, the Jews denied the true Son of God, so in after times the heretics, by denying that the Evervirgin Mary, by the cooperating power of the Holy Spirit, ministered of the substance of her flesh to the birth of the only-begotten Son, have said, that we ought not to confess Him who was the Son of man to be truly of the same substance with the Father. But if the flesh of the Word of God, who was born according to the flesh, is declared alien to the flesh of His Virgin Mother, what cause is there why the womb which bare Him and the paps which gave Him suck are pronounced blessed? By what reasoning do they suppose Him to be nourished by her milk, from whose seed they deny Him to be conceived? Whereas according to the physicians, from one and the same fountain both streams are proved to flow. But the woman pronounces blessed not only her who was thought worthy to give birth from her body to the Word of God, but those also who have desired by the hearing of faith spiritually to conceive the same Word, and by diligence in good works, either in their own or the hearts of their neighbours, to bring it forth and nourish it; for it follows, But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

But she was the mother of God, and therefore indeed blessed, in that she was made the temporal minister of the Word becoming incarnate; yet therefore much more blessed that she remained the eternal keeper of the same ever to be beloved Word. But this expression startles the wise men of the Jews, who sought not to hear and keep the word of God, but to deny and blaspheme it.

In Luke: "A certain woman from the crowd, raising her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you." And Jesus said: "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it."

Not only is she blessed who conceived and nursed him, but also those who follow her. And who are they? Those who hear the word of God and fulfill it. Eve, having transgressed the commandment of God, destroyed the house which God had prepared for us unto salvation; but the wise woman built the house and restored our salvation.

And it came to pass, etc. After the expression of Jewish fraud and the reprobation of the expressed fraud, the Evangelist here adds the commendation of open truth. And this indeed was fitting, so that, with the truth made manifest, Truth itself manifesting itself might be praised openly before the whole multitude. In the description of this commendation, three things are introduced: the first is the condition of the praising person, the second is the expression of divine praise, the third is the approbation of the expressed praise.

First, therefore, as regards the condition of the praising person, he says: And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, namely for the confutation of falsehood: a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him, for the commendation of truth and the confutation of the Pharisees: in which a twofold condition is noted in the praising person, namely courage and lowliness. Courage is noted in this, that she lifted up her voice, according to that passage of Isaiah 40: "Lift up your voice with strength, lift it up, fear not"; lowliness in this, that a certain woman, not named nor noble, but from the crowd, so that that word of the Psalm might be fulfilled: "The poor and needy shall praise your name." From which it is apparent that the praiser of the divine name ought not to be timid, so as not to dare to praise, nor puffed up, so as to blush at praising, but courageous and humble. Whence, while some were silent from fear, and some blasphemed from pride and swelling: this humble and courageous woman neither was silent with the timid nor reviled with the blasphemers: whence in the Gloss: "With great confidence among blasphemers she confesses the Son of God." Therefore that word of Matthew 15 could be said to her: "O woman, great is your faith," which namely has so greatly strengthened you, since it is said in the last chapter of Proverbs: "Who shall find a strong woman?" In you is verified that word of Ecclesiasticus 26: "Eternal foundations upon solid rock, and the commandments of God in the heart of a holy woman."

Second, as regards the expression of divine praise, it is added: Blessed is the womb that bore you; in which she praises Christ the Son of God, extolling the proclamation of his praise from the blessedness of the Mother: as if to say, blessed is the woman who bore so good a son. And rightly so, because it was fitting for the female sex to praise thus, and not only women, but indeed also men. For above in chapter one the Virgin said: "From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

And note that she declares blessed the womb of the Virgin, and this because she carried the Son of God for nine months and six days, which are reckoned as one month: Wisdom 7: "In the womb of my mother I was made flesh in a time of ten months." Whence in praise of the Virgin it is said in Song of Songs 7: "Your womb is like a heap of wheat", because Christ was a grain of wheat, according to what is said in John 12: and with this wheat her womb was filled, and therefore blessed on account of three privileges: because, as Bernard says, "she was made fruitful without corruption, pregnant without heaviness, and a mother without pain"; Isaiah, the last chapter: "Who has ever heard such a thing? And who has seen the like of this"? — Or on account of three miracles. The first is the conjunction of infinitely distant things. For there God was made man: the Creator, a creature: the immense, small: the Word, an infant: the Eternal, temporal, according to that saying in John 1: "And the Word was made flesh"; and Jeremiah 31: "The Lord will create a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall encompass a man". The second miracle is that he who made the womb was made in the womb: whence in the Psalm: "Glorious things are said of you, O city of God"; and afterwards: "A man is born in her, and the Most High himself founded her". Concerning this can be expounded that passage from Sirach 43: "A wondrous vessel, the work of the Most High". The third miracle, that he who contains all things is contained in this womb; he is held there, "whom the whole world cannot hold". Whence the Church sings: "Because him whom the heavens could not contain, you bore in your lap"; whence Isaiah 45: "Truly you are a hidden God".

Nor does she declare the Virgin blessed only on account of the carrying, but the breasts on account of the nursing, when she adds: And the breasts which you sucked, blessed, namely: from which it is given to understand that the most blessed one was nursed from the breasts of the Virgin alone. This was prefigured in Moses, who, as it is said, refused to be nursed by an Egyptian woman: and therefore a Hebrew woman was sought, namely his own mother, as is said in Exodus 2. Now this prefigures the Virgin Mary, at whose breasts Christ nursed, according to that passage in Song of Songs 8: "Who will give you to me as my brother, nursing at the breasts of my mother" etc. Now she joined these two together so that it might be shown that the Virgin Mary was the true and perfect mother of Christ, because she not only bore him but also nourished him: and just as she truly nourished him, so she truly bore him: and in this is refuted, as is said in the Gloss, the impiety of the Manicheans and others who say that he brought with him an ethereal body. Whence Bede: "From the same source flows both milk for nourishing and seed for begetting children. Therefore from the seed of the Virgin, according to the physicians, he who could be nourished by her milk could also be conceived".

"Blessed is the womb that bore you." He took blessedness from the one who bore him and gave it to those who were worshiping him. It was with Mary for a certain time, but it would be with those who worshiped him for eternity. "Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it."

Knowing therefore these things, let us neither pride ourselves on children that are of good report, unless we have their virtue; nor upon noble fathers, unless we be like them in disposition. For it is possible, both that he who begat a man should not be his father, and that he who did not beget him should be. Therefore in another place also, when some woman had said, "Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked;" He said not, "The womb bare me not, neither did I suck the paps," but this, "Yea rather, blessed are they that do the will of my Father." Seest thou how on every occasion He denies not the affinity by nature, but adds that by virtue?

Now, as Marcion was apprehensive that a belief of the fleshly body would also involve a belief of birth, undoubtedly He who seemed to be man was believed to be verily and indeed born. For a certain woman had exclaimed, "Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked!" And how else could they have said that His mother and His brethren were standing without? But we shall see more of this in the proper place. Surely, when He also proclaimed Himself as the Son of man, He, without doubt, confessed that He had been born.

Besides, how could His kingdom be still standing, with its boundaries, and laws, and functions, whom, even if the whole world were left entire to Him, Marcion's god could possibly seem to have overcome as "the stronger than He," if it were not in consequence of His law that even Marcionites were constantly dying, by returning in their dissolution to the ground, and were so often admonished by even a scorpion, that the Creator had by no means been overcome? "A (certain) mother of the company exclaims, `Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked; 'but the Lord said, `Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.'" Now He had in precisely similar terms rejected His mother or His brethren, whilst preferring those who heard and obeyed God.

But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother's "womb and paps," but designating those as more "blessed who hear the word of God."

While the Pharisees and scribes disparage the miracles of the Lord, a woman, a guileless and simple person, glorifies Him. Where are those who say that the Lord appeared in mere semblance? For behold the testimony that He was even nursed at the breast!

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).