2 Apodosis of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross

And he went out from there and came into his own country, and his disciples followed him; and when the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing him were amazed at his teaching, saying: Where did this man get all these things? And what wisdom is this that is given to him, and such mighty works performed by his hands? He calls his country Nazareth, in which he was brought up. But how great is the blindness of the Nazarenes, who, if their minds were not obtuse, could have recognized him as the Christ through his words and deeds, yet they despise him solely because of knowing his family. They refer wisdom to teaching and power to healings and miracles that he performed. Which distinction the Apostle recalls aptly and beautifully, saying: Jews demand signs, and Greeks seek wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1). In this context, he refers power to signs because of the Jews and wisdom to teaching because of the Greeks, that is, the Gentiles.

(in Marc. 2, 23) He means by His country, Nazareth, in which He was brought up. But how great the blindness of the Nazarenes! they despise Him, Who by His words and deeds they might know to be the Christ, solely on account of His kindred. It goes on, And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? By wisdom is meant His doctrine, by powers, the cures and miracles which He did. It goes on, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?

How can he be said to go out and to come in, whom no space can enclose? What country can be his, who made, and who possesses, the whole universe? In truth, Christ goes out and comes in not of himself, nor for himself, but in you, and on behalf of you, until he recovers you from your exile, and calls you home from your captivity.

If, however, there be any one who, like Plato, supposes that two souls cannot, more than two bodies could, co-exist in the same individual, I, on the contrary, could show him not merely the co-existence of two souls in one person, as also of two bodies in the same womb, but likewise the combination of many other things in natural connection with the soul-for instance, of demoniacal possession; and that not of one only, as in the case of Socrates' own demon; but of seven spirits as in the case of the Magdalene; and of a legion in number, as in the Gadarene. Now one soul is naturally more susceptible of conjunction with another soul, by reason of the identity of their substance, than an evil spirit is, owing to their diverse natures.

The Lord comes to His homeland not because He did not know that they would disregard Him, but so that afterward they could not say: if He had come, we would have believed.

After the miracles which have been related, the Lord returns into His own country, not that He was ignorant that they would despise Him, but that they might have no reason to say, If Thou hadst come, we had believed Thee; wherefore it is said, And he went out from thence, and came into his own country.

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

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

(de Con. Evan. ii. 42) Matthew indeed says that He was called the son of a carpenter; nor are we to wonder, since both might have been said, for they believed Him to be a carpenter, because He was the son of a carpenter.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. The scandal and error of the Jews are our salvation and the condemnation of the heretics. For they so clearly saw the man Jesus Christ, that they called him the carpenter, and according to another Evangelist, the carpenter's son; they also testified that his brothers and sisters were with them. Yet these are not to be considered as the actual children of Joseph or Mary, according to the heretics, but rather, according to the custom of sacred Scripture, they must be understood as their relatives, in the same way that Abraham and Lot are called brothers, although Lot was the son of Abraham's brother. And you have many such examples.

However, not without the provision of a certain sacrament did the Lord, appearing in the flesh, wish to be considered and called a craftsman and the son of a craftsman: but rather, even through this, He taught that He was the son of Him before the ages, who, as the maker of all things, in the beginning created heaven and earth (John I). For although human things are not comparable to divine things, yet the type is perfect, because the Father of Christ works by fire and spirit. Hence also His precursor said about Him as the son of a craftsman: He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matthew III). He who in this great house of the world fabricates vessels of different kinds, or rather, by softening the vessels of wrath with the fire of His spirit, transforms them into vessels of mercy: but the Jews are ignorant of this sacrament: they look down upon the works of divine power out of contemplation of carnal lineage.

(ubi sup.) For although human things are not to be compared with divine, still the type is complete, because the Father of Christ works by fire and spirit. It goes on, The brother of James, and Joses, of Jude, and, of Simon. And are not his sisters here with us? They bear witness that His brothers and sisters were with Him, who nevertheless are not to be taken for the sons of Joseph or of Mary, as heretics say, but rather, as is usual in Scripture, we must understand them to be His relations, as Abraham and Lot are called brothers, though Lot was brother's son to Abraham. And they were offended at him. The stumbling and the error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of heretics. For so much did they despise the Lord Jesus Christ, as to call Him a carpenter, and son of a carpenter. It goes on, And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country. Even Moses bears witness that the Lord is called a Prophet in the Scripture, for predicting His future Incarnation to the sons of Israel, he says, A Prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you of your brethren. (Acts 7:37) But not only He Himself, Who is Lord of prophets, but also Elias, Jeremiah, and the remaining lesser prophets, were worse received in their own country than in strange cities, for it is almost natural for men to envy their fellow-townsmen; for they do not consider the present works of the man, but they remember the weakness of His infancy.

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

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

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

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

The ordinary workmen will come to the son of Joseph singing:"Blessed be your coming, O master of workers everywhere. The imprint of your labor is seen in the ark, And in the fashioning of the tabernacle Of the congregation that was for a time only! Our whole craft praises you, who are our eternal glory. Make for us a yoke that is light, even easy, for us to bear. Establish that measure in us in which there can be no falseness."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life).

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

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James", that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you" [Luke 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.

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

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

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

Jesus is called the son of a workman, of that one, however, whose work was the morning and the sun, that is, the first and second Church, as a figure of which the woman and the damsel are healed.

Oftentimes also the origin of a man brings him contempt, as it is written, (1 Sam. 25:10. Ps. 138:6) Who is the son of Jesse? for the Lord hath respect unto the lowly; as to the proud, He beholdeth them afar off.

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

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

He comes also to expose the envious character of His countrymen; for whereas they ought to have marveled at the Lord, Who so adorned their homeland with both teaching and miracles, they instead despised the Lord on account of His humble origin. What an evil thing envy is! It always strives to obscure what is good and does not allow the envious to see it. So even now many, out of ill will and extreme baseness, dishonor certain people because of their lowly birth, even though they are worthy of every honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He marveled because of their unbelief. Not that He could not perform many miracles even among the unbelievers, but that in doing many, He might condemn the unbelievers. However, it can also be understood otherwise, that Jesus is despised in His house and country, that is, among the Jewish people, and therefore He performed few signs there, lest they become utterly inexcusable. Greater signs, however, He performs daily among the nations through the apostles, not so much in the healing of bodies as in the salvation of souls. As for the Lord being said to marvel at their unbelief, it is not as if He marvels at something unexpected and unforeseen, He who knows all things before they happen, just as He did not begin to marvel at the faith of the centurion as something new and previously unknown when He heard the words of his pious confession and said: "I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel" (Luke VII). But He who knows the secrets of the heart shows that He marvels before men, indicating what is to be marveled at by men. Indeed, the faith of the centurion was marvelous, who, without a human teacher, without the eloquence of the Scriptures, without angelic oracles, recognized through miracles by divinely illuminated natural understanding that He who appeared as human in the frailty of humanity was truly God. Conversely, the unbelief of the Nazarenes was no less astonishing, who, despite having an abundance of teachers and divine words in which the coming of Christ was preached, and having Christ Himself present among them, pressing the knowledge of Himself on them through both words and signs, still persisted in their disbelief. But in one instance, the blindness of the Jews is noted as marvelous, who were unwilling to believe in their own prophets about Christ, nor in Christ Himself born among them. In the other instance, the faith of the Gentiles is crowned, who, even though Christ was born among the Jews and cast out by them, deserved to receive Him, the mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, with the sacred oracles.

(ubi sup.) Not as if He Who knows all things before they are done, wonders at what He did not expect or look forward to, but knowing the hidden things of the heart, and wishing to intimate to men that it was wonderful, He openly shows that He wonders. And indeed the blindness of the Jews is wonderful, for they neither believed what their prophets said of Christ, nor would in their own persons believe on Christ, Who was born amongst them. Mystically again; Christ is despised in His own house and country, that is, amongst the people of the Jews, and therefore He worked few miracles there, lest they should become altogether inexcusable. But He performs greater miracles every day amongst the Gentiles, not so much in the healing of their bodies, as in the salvation of their souls.

One meaning of "could not" is simply the limits of some human will. Take, for example, the point that Christ "could not" fulfill any signs in Nazareth was due to disbelief on their part. Something essential for healing is required on both sides—faith on the part of the patients, power on that of the healer. So one side without its counterpart "could not," so to speak, perform them. As this can be seen in medical care, it can also be seen in moral transformation. Similarly involving the limits of the will are the texts: "The world cannot not hate you" and "How can you speak good, being evil?" The metaphor of "impossibility" here must mean free refusal by the will. The same idea applies to those passages which say that what is impossible for humanity is possible for God. Note also those passages that say that a person "cannot" (in one sense) be born a second time and a needle's eye "cannot" let a camel through. What would stop these events happening if God willed them directly? Besides all these there is, as in the case we are presently considering, a "cannot" in the sense of that which is totally inconceivable. We cannot conceive that God can be evil or fail to exist. It is inconceivable that reality cannot exist or two times two is fourteen. So here it cannot be the case that the Son would do anything which the Father would not do.

In some cases he so richly poured forth the mighty work of healing that the Evangelist was led to exclaim: "He healed all their sick." But among others the unfathomable depth of Christ's goodness was so thwarted that it was said: "And Jesus could do there no mighty works because of their unbelief." So the bounty of God is actually curtailed temporarily according to the receptivity of our faith. So it is said to one: "According to your faith may it be to you," and to another: "Go your way, and as you have believed so let it be to you," and to another "Let it be to you according as you will," and again to another: "Your faith has made you whole."

If the faith of those who bring them or of the sick is lacking, it may prevent those who possess the gift of healing from exercising it.

And perhaps, as in the case of metallic substances there exists in some a natural attraction toward some other thing, as in the magnet for iron, and in naphtha for fire, so there is an attraction in such faith toward the divine power according to what Jesus said: "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say unto this mountain, 'Move to another place,' and it shall be moved." Matthew and Mark wished to present the all-surpassing value of that divine power as a power that works even in those who do not believe. But they did not deny that grace works even more powerfully among those who have faith. So it seems to me that they accurately said not that the Lord did not do any mighty works because of their unbelief, but that he did not do many there. Mark does not flatly say that he could do no mighty work there at all, and stop at that point, but added, "except that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and healed them." Thus the power in him overcame even their unbelief.

The Lord could not perform miracles there not because He was powerless, but because those people were unbelieving. Sparing them, He does not perform miracles, lest they serve for the greater condemnation of those people as unbelievers even in the presence of miracles. On the other hand, miracle-working requires, first, the power of the one performing it, and second, the faith of those receiving the miracle. Since the second of these conditions was lacking here, that is, the faith of those in need of healing, it was not fitting for Jesus to perform miracles. And so we should understand that the evangelist's expression "and He could not" is used in place of — He did not see fit to. The Lord taught not only in the cities, but also in the villages, so that we might know that we too ought neither to neglect the small towns nor constantly visit the large cities, but that we must sow the word even in insignificant places.

There follows, And he could there do no mighty work, &c. What, however, is here expressed by He could not, we must take to mean, He did not choose, because it was not that He was weak, but that they were faithless; He does not therefore work any miracles there, for he spared them, lest they should be worthy of greater blame, if they believed not, even with miracles before their eyes. Or else, for the working of miracles, not only the power of the Worker is necessary, but the faith of the recipient, which was wanting in this case: therefore Jesus did not choose to work any signs there. There follows, And he marvelled at their unbelief.

The Lord not only preached in the cities, but also in villages, that we may learn not to despise little things, nor always to seek for great cities, but to sow the word of the Lord, in abandoned and lowly villages. Wherefore it is said, And he went round about the villages, teaching.

And he went around the villages in a circuit, teaching; and he called the twelve and began to send them two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits. The kind and merciful Lord and master does not envy his servants and disciples his own virtues; and just as he had healed all sickness and all infirmity, he also gave his apostles power, to heal all infirmity and all sickness. But there is a great difference between having and giving, granting and receiving. He, whatever he does, acts by the power of the Lord; those, if they do anything, confess their own weakness and the power of the Lord, saying, like Peter: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk (Acts III).

(in Marc. 2, 24) Now our kind and merciful Lord and Master did not grudge His servants and their disciples His own virtues, and as He Him self had healed every sickness and every infirmity, so also He gave the same power to His disciples. Wherefore it goes on: And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits. Great is the difference between giving and receiving. Whatsoever He does, is done in His own power, as Lord; if they do any thing, they confess their own weakness and the power of the Lord, saying in the name of Jesus, Arise, and walk.

Hence also miracles were added to the holy preachers, so that the power displayed might give faith to their words, and that those who preached new things might do new things. When the world was flourishing, when the human race was increasing, when the flesh was subsisting long in this life, when the abundance of things was overflowing, who upon hearing would believe that there was another life? Who would prefer invisible things to visible things? But when the sick were returning to health, when the dead were rising to life, when lepers were receiving cleanliness of flesh, when demoniacs were snatched from the power of unclean spirits, with so many visible miracles performed, who would not believe what he heard about invisible things? For visible miracles shine forth for this purpose: that they may draw the hearts of those who see them to faith in invisible things, so that through what is done wondrously on the outside, what is within may be perceived to be far more wondrous.

(Hom. in Evan. 17) Further, the Lord sent the disciples to preach, two and two, because there are two precepts of charity, namely, the love of God, and of our neighbour; and charity cannot be between less than two; by this therefore He implies to us, that he who has not charity towards his neighbour, ought in no way to take upon himself the office of preaching.

Furthermore, not only did He Himself teach, but He also sends His disciples, and moreover in pairs of two, so that they might be bolder. For if He had sent them one by one, one alone could not have acted so boldly, and if He had sent more than two together, the number of apostles would not have sufficed for all the villages. So He sends them two by two: "Two are better than one," says Ecclesiastes (Eccl. 4:9).

Again He sends the Apostles two and two that they, might become more active; for, as says the Preacher, Two are better than one. (Eccl. 4:9) But if He had sent more than two, there would not have been a sufficient number to allow of their being sent to many villages.

"When the chief priests, therefore, and attendants saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him and crucify him; for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by the law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God." Behold another and still greater ground of hatred. The former, indeed, seemed but a small matter, as that shown towards the usurpation, by an unlawful act of daring, of the royal power; and yet of neither did Jesus falsely claim possession, but each of them is truly His as both the only-begotten Son of God, and by Him appointed King upon His holy hill of Zion; and both might He now have shown to be His, were it not that in proportion to the greatness of His power, He preferred to manifest the corresponding greatness of His patience.

(Tr. cxvi) The envy of the Jews does not subside at Christ's disgraces; yea, rather rises: When the chief priests therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify Him. crucify Him.

When therefore they had seen him. Here upon the showing of Christ there follows thirdly the hardening of the obstinacy of the Jews, especially of the chief priests: whence he says: When therefore the chief priests and ministers had seen him, they cried out saying: Crucify, crucify him. Isaiah 5: "I expected that he would do judgment: and behold, a cry." They say crucify twice to show the obstinacy of their mind: Jeremiah 12: "My inheritance has become to me as a lion in the forest: it has uttered its voice against me"; and the Psalm: "They opened their mouth against me like a lion seizing and roaring," on account of the cry.

Pilate says to them. Above, Pilate strove to free Christ by a judgment of kindness and of severity: here he strives by a judgment of equity, recurring to innocence, that it is just to release an innocent man and never to kill without cause. And the Jews resist this in two ways: first by accusing and then by threatening.

First therefore is set forth the justification of Christ, on account of which Pilate does not wish to condemn him, but offers him to the Jews: whence he says: Pilate says to them, who were seeking that Christ be crucified: Take him yourselves and crucify him: for I find no cause in him: and therefore I am unwilling to crucify without cause. Truly he did not find cause, because, 1 Peter 2, "he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth."

Pilate is in consternation, that the people of the Jews and the inhuman crowd of the chief priests should attain to such a pitch of presumption, as not even to shrink from subjecting Christ to so frightful a death, though no fault was found in Him to bring Him to such a doom. And, therefore, he says, almost like one annoyed at an insult offered to himself: "Make you me a judge of this unjust shedding of blood? Am I, contrary to all Roman Law, become the murderer of the Innocent? and shall I, at your beck and call, fling to the winds all thought of myself? and shall I not, if I minister at my own peril to your requests, live in expectation of paying the penalty? If you do not think that you are doing an unholy deed; if you think the work presents no difficulty; do you yourselves, he says----you, who boast of Divine instruction, you, who vaunt so highly your knowledge of your Law----do you fix the cross, dare the murder, do of yourselves the unholy deed, bringing down on your own heads the charge of this great impiety; let the presumptuous act be the act of Jews, and upon them let the blood-guiltiness rest. If you have a Law that subjects the Sinless to so fearful a penalty, that chastises the Guiltless, execute it with your own hands; I will not endure to be a party to it." We may imagine this to be what Pilate says, for his words are pregnant with some such meaning. And the shamelessness of the Jews may here also well excite our amazement, for they are not even put to shame by the just judgment of a foreigner, though the Divine Law said concerning this people: For the priest's lips should keep judgment, and they should seek the Law from his mouth

Never yet was the devil in so shameful a plight. For whilst expecting to have Him, he lost even those he had; and when That Body was nailed to the Cross, the dead arose. There death received his wound, having met his death-stroke from a dead body. And as an athlete, when he thinks he has hit his adversary, himself is caught in a fatal grasp; so truly doth Christ also show, that to die with confidence is the devil's shame.

For he would have done everything to persuade men that He did not die, had he had the power. For seeing that of His Resurrection indeed all succeeding time was proof demonstrative; whilst of His death, no other time save that whereat it happened could ever furnish proof; therefore it was, that He died publicly in the sight of all men, but He arose not publicly, knowing that the aftertime would bear witness to the truth. For, that whilst the world was looking on, the serpent should be slain on high upon the Cross, herein is the marvel. For what did not the devil do, that He might die in secret? Hear Pilate saying, "Take ye Him away, and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him," and withstanding them in a thousand ways. And again the Jews said unto Him, "If Thou art the Son of God, come down from the Cross." Then further, when He had received a mortal wound, and He came not down, for this reason He was also committed to burial; for it was in His power to have risen immediately: but He did not, that the fact might be believed. And yet in cases of private death indeed, it is possible to impute them to a swoon, but here, it is not possible to do this either. For even the soldiers brake not His legs, like those of the others, that it might be made manifest that He was dead. And those who buried The Body are known; and therefore too the Jews themselves seal the stone along with the soldiers. For, what was most of all attended to, was this very thing, that it should not be in obscurity. And the witnesses to it are from enemies, from the Jews. Hear them saying to Pilate, "That deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be guarded by the soldiers." This was accordingly done, themselves also sealing it. Hear them further saying even afterwards to the Apostles, "Ye intend to bring this Man's blood upon us." He suffered not the very fashion of His Cross to be put to shame. For since the Angels have suffered nothing like it, He therefore doth everything for this, showing that His death achieved a mighty work. There was, as it were, a single combat. Death wounded Christ: but Christ, being wounded, did afterwards kill death. He that seemed to be immortal, was destroyed by a mortal body; and this the whole world saw. And what is truly wonderful is, that He committed not this thing to another.

But not even so was their rage quenched, but they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him." Then Pilate, seeing that all was done in vain, said, "Take ye him, and crucify him." Whence it is clear that he had permitted what had been done before, because of their madness. "For I," he saith, "find no fault in him."

See in how many ways the judge makes His defense, continually acquitting Him of the charges; but none of these things shamed the dogs from their purpose. For the, "Take ye him and crucify him," is the expression of one clearing himself of the guilt, and thrusting them forward to an action not permitted to them. They therefore had brought Him, in order that the thing might be done by the decision of the governor; but the contrary fell out, that He was rather acquitted than condemned by the governor's decision. Then, because they were ashamed, "We have," they said, "a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

"How then when the judge said, 'Take ye him, and judge him according to your law,' did ye reply, 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' while here ye fly to the law? And consider the charge, 'He made himself the Son of God.' Tell me, is this a ground of accusation, that He who performed the deeds of the Son of God should call Himself the Son of God?" What then doth Christ? While they held this dialogue one with the other, He held His peace, fulfilling that saying of the Prophet, that "He openeth not his mouth: in His humiliation His judgment was taken away."

The martyr Abel was envied by Cain and later murdered. This is what Christ also endured: Though he desired this envious people, He incited them to anger, while showing affection; He healed those who were sick, and instead of gratitude, he suffers and is crucified, In order that Adam might dance in celebration. The crowd of the lawless, feeling an antipathy towards the plethora of miracles Cried out: "Kill! Crucify him!" The One who sustains all things was delivered over to Pilate; They handed over to the court of justice Him who will judge both kings and paupers; The condemned judges the just Judge; The one who lives in obscurity Threatened to murder the Redeemer as a thief! Meanwhile he, in order to suffer, endures so long, in silence, standing speechless, In order that Adam might dance in celebration

But they were not tamed even by this, and cry out: "Crucify, crucify Him!" Pilate, seeing that everything he was doing remained in vain, says: "Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him." He says this, urging them toward an act not permitted to them, so that Jesus might be released. "I," he says, "who have the authority to crucify, find no fault; but you, who have no authority to crucify, say that He is guilty. So take Him and crucify Him. But you have no authority." Therefore, this Man ought to be released. Such is Pilate's aim. He is more merciful, yet not steadfast for the truth.

2383 Now we see the effect of this exhibition on the Jews. No matter how disgraced and wretched and beaten he appeared, their hatred did not lessen, but was still burning and growing. When the chief priests and the officers saw him, when Jesus was brought out, they cried out, Crucify him, crucify him! Their desire was so strong that they shouted this twice. And they will not be satisfied with any kind of death, but demand the most dishonorable kind, crucifixion: "Let us condemn him to a shameful death" (Wis 2:20). He said, When they saw him, because the sight of the one they hated only served to incite and inflame their hearts with more hatred: "The very sight of him is a burden to us" (Wis 2:15).

2384 Now the Evangelist shows how Pilate tried to free Christ by declaring his innocence. As a result, a disagreement arose because, first, Pilate declared the innocence of Christ; while secondly, the Jews repeated his guilt, We have a law.

2385 As to Christ's innocence, Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him. It is like saying: I do not want to be a judge who judges unjustly. I will not crucify him. You crucify him if you want, but I find no crime in him, deserving of crucifixion: "The ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me" (14:30); Jesus "whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him" (Acts 3:13).

"When the chief priests, therefore, and attendants saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him and crucify him; for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by the law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God." Behold another and still greater ground of hatred. The former, indeed, seemed but a small matter, as that shown towards the usurpation, by an unlawful act of daring, of the royal power; and yet of neither did Jesus falsely claim possession, but each of them is truly His as both the only-begotten Son of God, and by Him appointed King upon His holy hill of Zion; and both might He now have shown to be His, were it not that in proportion to the greatness of His power, He preferred to manifest the corresponding greatness of His patience.

(Tr. cxvi) Lo, another greater outbreak of envy. The former was lighter, being only to punish Him for aspiring to a usurpation of the royal power. Yet did Jesus make neither claim falsely; both were true: He was both the Only-begotten Son of God, and the King appointed by God upon the holy hill of Sion. And He would have demonstrated His right to both now, had He not been as patient as He was powerful.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 8) This agrees with Luke's account, We found this fellow perverting the nation, (Luke 23:2) only with the addition of, because He made Himself the Son of God.

The Jews answered him. Here is set forth the accusation of the Jews: whence they said: We have a Law, which namely we observe by the will of the Roman rulers. They allege the Law in their favor, when it is against them: above in chapter 7: "Did not Moses give you the Law, and none of you keeps the Law"? And according to the Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God, and thus blasphemed: Leviticus 24: "He who blasphemes shall die the death"; whence above in chapter 10: "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God."

When their false accusation that they had at first contrived proved fruitless, and they established against Him no attempt at revolution or revolt against Caesar's rule (for the Lord parried these charges, saying: My Kingdom is not of this world; if my Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews), and when Pilate thereupon gave a just and impartial verdict, and did not as yet comply with their will, but said openly that He found no fault in Him, the audacious Jews completely changed their tactics, and asserted that they had a law, which condemned the Saviour to death. What law was that? That which fixes the punishment for blasphemers; for in the book called Leviticus it is recorded, that certain men, who were counted among Jews, strove together, according to the Scripture, in the camp, and that one of them made mention of the Name of God, and blessed Him, for thus saith the Scripture euphemistically, meaning that he cursed and blasphemed Him, and was then doomed to die, and to pay a bitter penalty for his impious tongue, God plainly declaring: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin, and he that taketh the Name of the Lord in vain, shall be put to death, and all the congregation of Israel shall stone him: as well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he taketh the Name of the Lord in vain, shall be put to death.

But, perhaps, someone may be in doubt, and ask this question: "What, then, does the Law say, and what does it intend to signify hereby?" For that a man who is convicted of blasphemy against God should die is, indeed, just, and he very rightly meets his doom. But suppose a man treat a false god with contumely, is he then not free from guilt? For the words of the Law are, If any man curse God, he shall bear his sin. What do we reply? The Lawgiver is infallible, for to love to hurl scorn upon false gods is, as it were, a course of preparation which makes us ready to utter blasphemies against the true God. Therefore also, in another passage, He dissuades us from it, saying: Gods thou shalt not revile; for He thought it meet to give unto the name of Godhead, though it be sometimes misplaced, the honour that is its due. The Law, however, did not certainly bid us ascribe any honour to gods erroneously so called, but teaches us to regard as holy the name of Godhead, though it be stolen by some.

As the Law, then, orders that the man who is convicted of blasphemy should be rewarded with death, they say that Christ is subject to the penalty, for that He made Himself the Son of God. We ought to bear in mind where, and in what sense, this was said by Christ. At the pool that was called after the sheep-gate, He healed the impotent man of his long and grievous infirmity on the Sabbath-day. And the Jews, when they ought to have marvelled at the wonders that He wrought, were, on the contrary, offended at His breaking the Sabbath, and for that reason only railed against Him. Then Christ answered, and said: My Father worketh even until now, and I work; and thereupon says the Evangelist: For this cause therefore the Jews persecuted Jesus, because He not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. The Jews, then, were offended when Christ called the Lord of all His Father; and then He made this most mild reply to them, saying: It is written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods, and are all sons of the Most High. If he called them gods unto whom the Word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), say ye of Him Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? But the people of the Jews, remembering none of these things, make the truth a charge against the truth; and because Christ said what was in fact the truth, they assert that He is worthy of death. Here I will make use of the Prophet's words: How do ye say, We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us? For would it not have been right, either first to ascertain by the strictest scrutiny Who Christ was, and whence He came; and if He had been convicted of falsehood, then, very justly, to pass sentence upon Him, or if He spoke the truth, to worship Him? Why, then, did you Jews give up searching and satisfying yourselves by Holy Writ, and betake yourselves to making a mere outcry against Him? and why made you what was in fact the truth, the ground for accusation? You ought, when you said unto Pilate: He made Himself the Son of God, to have charged Him also with the works of Godhead, and to have made His mighty wonder-working power a count in the indictment; you ought to have cried out thereafter, that a man who had been three days dead, rose again, and came back to life at the mere bidding of the Saviour; you ought to have brought forward the only child of the widow, and the daughter of the leader of the synagogue; you ought to have called to mind that Divine saying, spoken unto the son of the widow: Young man, I say unto thee, Arise; and to the damsel: Maiden, Arise. You ought, besides, to have told Pilate, that He gave sight to the blind, and cleansed the lepers of their leprosy; and also, that by a single word of command He calmed the storm of the angry sea, and the onslaught of the raging billows; and whatever else Christ did. All this, however, they bury in the silence of ingratitude, and passing over those miracles whereby Christ was seen to be God, in malice they proceed to basely state the paradox; and, miserable wretches that they were, they cried out to a foreigner, who had no knowledge of the Divine Scripture, and saw that Jesus was a Man: He made Himself the Son of God; though the inspired Scripture declared that the Word of God should visit the world in human form: Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. And what could that which was born of a virgin be but a man, like unto us in bodily appearance and nature? But, besides being Man, He was also truly God.

If you [Arians] will not learn who Christ is from those who know him, learn it at least from those who do not.… Can't you see your fellowship with the … Jews [of Jesus' day] in which your denial of the divine Sonship has involved you! For they have put on record the reason of their condemnation: "And by our law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God." Isn't this the same charge that you are blasphemously bringing against him, that, while you pronounce him a creature, he calls himself the Son? He confesses himself the Son, and they declare him guilty of death. You too deny that he is the Son of God. What sentence do you pass on him? You have the same repugnance to his claim as had the Jews. You agree with their verdict. I want to know whether you will quarrel about the sentence. Your offense, in denying that he is the Son of God, is exactly the same as theirs, though their guilt is less, for they sinned in ignorance.

"How then when the judge said, 'Take ye him, and judge him according to your law,' did ye reply, 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' while here ye fly to the law? And consider the charge, 'He made himself the Son of God.' Tell me, is this a ground of accusation, that He who performed the deeds of the Son of God should call Himself the Son of God?" What then doth Christ? While they held this dialogue one with the other, He held His peace, fulfilling that saying of the Prophet, that "He openeth not his mouth: in His humiliation His judgment was taken away." (Isa. liii. 7, 8 LXX.)

And they, having been put to shame by this, say: "By our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God." See how wickedness is inconsistent with itself. Previously Pilate said to them: "Take Him yourselves and judge Him according to your law"; they did not agree to this. But now they say that according to our law He ought to die. Before they accused Him of making Himself a King, but now, when that lie has been exposed, they accuse Him of making Himself the Son of God. And what is the crime in this? If He does the works of God, then what prevents Him from being the Son of God? Behold the Divine economy. They handed the Lord over to many tribunals in order to disgrace Him and obscure His glory; but this dishonor turns back upon their own heads, for with the most thorough investigation of the case, His innocence was proven all the more. How many times even Pilate declared that he found nothing in Him worthy of death.

2386 But the Jews repeat Christ's offense: We have a law.... They seemed to understand from Pilate's response that he would not go against Christ because of a charge of claiming a kingdom, although they had thought he would be especially inclined by this to kill him. And since this crime was not enough to put Christ to death, the Jews thought that when Pilate said, Take him yourselves and crucify him, he was asking if they had another crime, a violation of the law, for which he could be condemned and for which they were condemning him. Thus they say, by that law he ought to die. First, they charge Christ with a crime against the law of the Jews; secondly, against the law of the Romans (v 12). In regard to the first, we see the accusation of the Jews against Christ; secondly, the effect of this on Pilate, he was the more afraid.

2387 The crime against the Jewish law that they charged Christ with was that he has made himself the Son of God, and for this he deserved death: "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (5:18); and again, "We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God" (10:33). They always said that "he made himself the Son of God," assuming he was not. But this was not against the law, as Christ proved to them before (10:34), by citing the Psalm (82:6): "I say, You are gods." For if other people, who are adopted children, can call themselves children of God without blasphemy, how much more can Christ do this, who is the Son of God by nature. But they regarded him as a liar and blasphemer, each of which deserved death, because they did not understand his eternal generation.

It was not the law that he was afraid of, as he was a stranger: but he was more afraid, lest he should slay the Son of God.

When therefore he had heard. Here is placed thirdly the inquiry. He inquires, therefore, moved by the accusation of the Jews: whence he says: Pilate, when he had heard this saying, was the more afraid, lest, if he released him, he would act against the Law; and if he did not release him, he would crucify the Son of God. A good judge ought not to fear: whence Ecclesiasticus 7: "Do not seek to be made a judge, unless you have strength to break through iniquities."

The malicious design of the Jews had a result they little expected. They wanted to build up an indictment against Christ by saying that he had ventured to sin against the person of God himself. But the weighty character of the accusation itself increased Pilate's caution, and he was more alarmed and more careful concerning Christ than before. He became more particular in his questions: what Jesus was and where he came from. I think he believed that, though Jesus was a man, he might also be the Son of God. This idea and belief of his was not derived from holy Scripture but the mistaken notions of the Greeks. Greek fables call many men demi-gods and sons of gods. The Romans, too, who in such matters were still more superstitious, gave the name of god to the more distinguished of their own monarchs, and set up altars to them, and allotted them shrines and put them on pedestals. Therefore Pilate was more earnest and anxious than before in his inquiry of who Christ was and where he came from.

Then Pilate is alarmed when he hears from them, that He made Himself the Son of God, and dreads lest the assertion may possibly be true, and he should seem to transgress; but these men who had learnt this, both by His deeds and words, did not shudder, but are putting Him to death for the very reasons for which they ought to have worshiped Him.

For Him it behoved to be made a sacrifice on behalf of all Gentiles, who "was led as a sheep for a victim, and, like a lamb voiceless before his shearer, so opened not His mouth" (for He, when Pilate interrogated Him, spake nothing ); for "in humility His judgment was taken away: His nativity, moreover, who shall declare? "Because no one at all of human beings was conscious of the nativity of Christ at His conception, when as the Virgin Mary was found pregnant by the word of God; and because "His life was to be taken from the land.

Pilate, having heard only the one word that He is the Son of God, was afraid. But they saw His divine works, and yet they put Him to death for the very thing for which they ought to have worshipped Him.

2388 Now the Evangelist mentions the effect the accusation of the Jews had on Pilate. The first was that it produced fear: When Pilate heard these words, that is, that Christ made himself the Son of God, he was the more afraid that it might be true and that it would be disastrous to proceed against him without cause.

"When Pilate, therefore, heard that saying, he was the more afraid; and entered again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer." It is found, in comparing the narratives of all the evangelists, that this silence on the part of our Lord Jesus Christ took place more than once, both before the chief priests and before Herod, to whom, as Luke intimates, Pilate had sent Him for a hearing, and before Pilate himself; so that it was not in vain that the prophecy regarding Him had preceded, "As the lamb before its shearer was dumb, so He opened not His mouth," especially on those occasions when He answered not His questioners. For although He frequently replied to questions addressed to Him, yet because of those in regard to which He declined making any reply, the metaphor of the lamb is supplied, in order that in His silence He might be accounted not as guilty, but innocent. When, therefore, He was passing through the process of judgment, wherever He opened not His mouth it was in the character of a lamb that He did so; that is, not as one with an evil conscience who was convicted of his sins, but as one who in His meekness was sacrificed for the sins of others.

(Tr. cxvi. 4) In comparing the accounts of the different Evangelists together, we find that this silence was maintained more than once; viz. before the High Priest, before, Herod, and before Pilate. So that the prophecy of Him, As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so opened He not His mouth, (Isa. 53:7.) was amply fulfilled. To many indeed of the questions put to Him, He did reply, but where He did not reply, this comparison of the sheep shows us that His was not a silence of guilt, but of innocence; not of self-condemnation, but of compassion, and willingness to suffer for the sins of others.

He entered again into the praetorium and said to Jesus: Whence art thou? He asks about his origin, because they accused him of this: he asks a great question beyond his powers: whence Isaiah 53: "His generation, who shall declare it?" And therefore he does not hear a response: Ecclesiasticus 3: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy strength." Whence he says: But Jesus gave him no answer, so that the word of Isaiah 53 might be fulfilled: "As a lamb before his shearer shall be dumb, and shall not open his mouth." Augustine: "For this reason the similitude of the lamb was given, so that in his silence he might be held not as guilty, but as innocent"; Lamentations 3: "Out of the mouth of the Most High shall proceed neither good nor evil."

It is asked: why did the Lord not respond to Pilate asking: Where are you from? This seems to have been from arrogance. I respond that he did not answer that question because he could not grasp it: hence the Lord said to his disciples above in the sixteenth chapter: I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. So also here.

On this account he no more asks Him, "What hast thou done?" but, shaken by fear, he begins the enquiry again, saying, "Art thou the Christ?" But He answered not. For he who had heard, "To this end was I born, and for this came I," and, "My Kingdom is not of this world," he, when he ought to have opposed His enemies and delivered Him, did not so, but seconded the fury of the Jews. Then they being in every way silenced, make their cry issue in a political charge, saying, "He that maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar." Pilate ought therefore to have accurately enquired, whether He had aimed at sovereignty, and set His hand to expel Caesar from the kingdom. But he makes not an exact enquiry, and therefore Christ answered him nothing, because He knew that he asked all the questions idly. Besides, since His works bare witness to Him, He would not prevail by word, nor compose any defense, showing that He came voluntarily to this condition.

Since he willed to suffer on behalf of the world, he is silent when examined and beaten by Pilate. For if he had spoken, he would not have been crucified from weakness, since there is no weakness in the words that the Word speaks.

The Thunderer stood voiceless The Word, without a word; For if he had raised his voice He would not have been overcome, And, victorious, he would not have been crucified, and Adam would not have been saved: Therefore, in order that he might suffer He who captures the wise Conquered by keeping silent. But when the judge saw that he did not speak out, overcome with desperation, He said: "What am I to do with one who does not speak?" But they answered: "He is guilty of those things about which we ask: Thus, he keeps silent.…" "Death now is a debt I owe," said my Savior "To the lawless people"—as for Pilate, Jesus did not consider the unspeakable brute Worthy of a word

He asks Him not as before – "What have You done?" – but "Who are You?" Then they were accusing Him as a king, so naturally he asked "What have You done?" But now, when they slander that He makes Himself out to be the Son of God, he asks: "Where are You from?" Jesus is silent, for He had already declared to Pilate: "For this I was born," and "My Kingdom is not from here." However, Pilate did not make any use of this and did not stand for the truth, but yielded to the demand of the people. Therefore the Lord, disdaining his questions as being asked in vain, answers nothing.

2389 Secondly, he mentions another effect it produced: doubt and questioning (v 9). First, we have the question Pilate asked; secondly, the silence of Christ; and thirdly, the reproach of Pilate.

2390 In regard to the first he says, he entered the praetorium again, stricken with fear, and said to Jesus, whom he had led back with himself, Where are you from? trying to find out whether Jesus was God, with a divine origin, or a man, with an earthly origin. This could be answered by what was said before, "You are from below, I am from above" (8:23).

2391 Jesus, because he chose to, did not give an answer, so that he might show that he was unwilling to overwhelm by words and to make excuses, since he had come to suffer. At the same time he is for us an example of patience, and fulfilled what is found in Isaiah (53:7): "like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." It says, "like a sheep," to show that the silence of Jesus was not that of a man convicted of sin and aware of his evil, but the silence of a gentle person being sacrificed for the sins of others.

Pilate said to him: Speakest thou not to me? As if to say: you err in despising my question, when you ought rather to seek my goodwill, as one placed in my hands: and this he adds: Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee? and therefore both to be feared and to be entreated. Whence he marveled at this, that Christ in such great necessity did not seek his favor: Matthew 27: "And he answered him not a word, so that the governor wondered exceedingly." And because Pilate boasted, Christ prudently responded in a way that humbled his pride, teaching him "not to be high-minded."

Pilate thought this silence of Jesus was the silence of a madman. Therefore, he stretches over him, as it were, the wand of his official power and thought that he could, through fear, induce Jesus to return a fruitless answer against his will. For he says that nothing could hinder his inclining whichever way he chose, either to punish him or to take compassion on him. He [implies] that there was nothing that could make him give a verdict against his will since it was with him alone that the fate of the accused rested. He rebukes Jesus, therefore, as though he felt himself insulted by untimely silence.

When He was silent, Pilate saith, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee?" Seest thou how he condemned himself beforehand; for, "if the whole rests with thee, why dost not thou let Him go, when thou hast found no fault in Him?" When then Pilate had uttered the sentence against himself, then He saith, "He that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin." Showing that he also was guilty of sin. Then, to pull down his pride and arrogance, He saith, "Thou wouldst have no power except it were given thee."

Showing that this did not come to pass merely in the common order of events, but that it was accomplished mystically. Then lest, when thou hearest, "Except it were given thee," thou shouldest deem that Pilate was exempt from all blame, on this account therefore He said, "Therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin." "And yet if it was given, neither he nor they were liable to any charge." "Thou objectest idly; for the 'given' in this place means what is 'allowed'; as though He had said, 'He hath permitted these things to be, yet not for that are ye clear of the wickedness.'" He awed Pilate by the words, and proffered a clear defense. On which account that person sought to release Him.

It turns out that Pilate has no firmness whatsoever, but any chance danger can shake him. He feared the Jews; he also trembled before Jesus, as the Son of God. Let us see, then, how he condemns himself by his own words: "I have power to crucify You and I have power to release You." If everything depended on you, why then did you not release Him whom you found innocent?

2392 Then the Evangelist shows how Pilate reproached him for his silence (v 10): first, we see Pilate boasting of his power; secondly, we have what Christ said about this power.

2393 Pilate was displeased that Jesus did not answer him, and said, You will not speak to me? He has condemned himself, for if this entire matter lay in his power, why does he not release Jesus since he has found him without crime? "I will condemn you out of your own mouth" (Lk 19:22); "Because you have authority among men, mortal though you are, you do what you please" (2 Mac 7:16).

(Tr. cxvi) Pilate was before afraid not of violating their law by sparing Him, but of killing the Son of God, in killing Him. But he could not treat his master Caesar with the same contempt with which he treated the law of a foreign nation: When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

Lithostraton, i. e. laid with stone; the word signifies pavement. It was an elevated place.

Pilate therefore, when he had heard. The perversity of the Jews has been shown in their malice of resisting the judgment of truth: here their perversity is shown in extorting a judgment of falsehood concerning the condemnation of Christ.

The place is noted when he says: Pilate therefore, when he had heard these words. In which it is noted that he had already fallen from just resolve through fear of Caesar, as if to say: terrified by fear: he brought Jesus outside, that is, to a public place: therefore outside, so that he might be condemned in the sight of all. And he sat on the judgment seat in the place which is called Lithostrotos. Here the place is described specifically: on the judgment seat, that is, in the judicial seat. For the tribunal belongs to judges, the throne to kings, but the chair to teachers. Lithos, as Victor says, is interpreted as judgment: stratos from sterno means a pavement laid with various stones, in which kind of place the consistory was, where judgment was rendered. And this place in Hebrew is Gabbatha, that is, elevation, because judges are accustomed to sit in an elevated place. Or Gabbatha is interpreted as ornamentation or polishing and signifies the same as Lithostrotos, that is, the judicial place, painted or polished.

The tribunal is the seat of the judge, as the throne is the seat of the king, and the chair the seat of the doctor.

On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathaea had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord's day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord's Day contains the resurrection.

But O what shamelessness and ill-time cowardice! For Pilate, deeming that he should now incur some danger were he to overlook these words, comes forth as though to enquire into the matter, (for the "sitting down" showed this,) but without making any enquiry, he gave Him up to them, thinking to shame them. For to prove that he did it for this purpose, hear what he saith.

After his public ministry, Jesus did not eat of the lamb, but he himself suffered as the true Lamb in the Paschal feast, as John, the divine and Evangelist teaches us in the Gospel written by him. "… And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the third hour," as the correct books render it and the copy itself that was written by the hand of the Evangelist, which by divine grace has been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus and is there adored by the faithful.… On that day, therefore, on which the Jews were about to eat the Passover in the evening, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was crucified. He was made the victim to those who were about to partake by faith of the mystery concerning him. This is what is written by the blessed Paul, "For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." It is not the case, as some who, carried along by ignorance, confidently affirm that after he had eaten the Passover, he was betrayed. We neither learn this from the holy Evangelists, nor has any of the blessed apostles handed it down to us. At the time, therefore, in which our Lord and God Jesus Christ suffered for us, according to the flesh, he did not eat of the legal Passover. Rather, as I have said, he himself, as the true Lamb, was sacrificed for us in the feast of the typical Passover on the day of the preparation, the fourteenth of the first lunar month. The typical Passover, therefore, then ceased, the true Passover being present: "For Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us," as was said earlier. And he was that chosen vessel, as the apostle Paul teaches.

It was the day of preparation, that is, the sixth holy day of the week, and it was about the sixth hour. For those who think that the words of the Evangelists are in contradiction, as some say at the third hour, others at about the sixth, it is necessary that we say something in this regard. Matthew and Luke, like John, said that there was darkness at about the sixth hour. Indeed, Pilate went out immediately and sat at the tribunal and handed Jesus over to be crucified. And after he was fixed to the cross, the darkness began to spread, as the Evangelists said. There are any number of reasons why it is not surprising that Mark said that it was the third hour. He said this, first of all, because he was not present. Second, he was not a disciple of our Lord but learned these facts from Peter or some other apostle. And finally, everyone has different opinions about times and hours, and the doubt about the hours does not affect in any way the reported facts. In addition, we especially must notice that Mark did not say that it was the third hour about any specific and well-known fact. But by relating in a simple and general way the things that happened, he rightly said that they took place at the third hour and so designated the entire interval of time in which these facts happened. Then he added, "They crucified him." Therefore the sentence, "It was nine in the morning" refers to the account of all those events, which happened in the meantime. "They crucified him" is added concerning the previous events.

But how little courage there was in Pilate, when he considered it dangerous for himself to leave such an accusation without investigation! He goes out, as if with the intention of investigating the matter, for this is what the words "sat down on the judgment seat" mean; meanwhile, having made no investigation, he hands Him over, thinking thereby to win them over.

2401 In treating the condemnation of Christ, the Evangelist mentions the place, secondly the time (v 14), and thirdly the manner of the condemnation (v 14b).

2402 In regard to the first, the Evangelist indicates the motive of Pilate when he says, When Pilate heard these words he grew more fearful, for it was not as easy for him to ignore Caesar, the source of his power, as it was to disdain the laws of a foreign people. So he says, he brought Jesus out. But there was no reason for Pilate to fear, because Jesus was not setting himself against Caesar. Christ had no purple, no scepter, no diadem, no chariots, no soldiers to indicate that he was seizing a kingdom. Rather, Christ always sat alone with his disciples, plain in food, in clothing and in dwelling. Yet as we read in Proverbs (28:1), "The wicked flee when no one pursues." "They trembled in fear when there was no fear" [Ps 53:5]; "Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks" (Ez 2:6).

2403 Then he mentions the place saying, and sat down on the tribunal. A tribunal is the seat of a judge, like the throne is the seat of a king, and the professor's chair is the seat of a master: "A king who sits on the throne of judgment winnows all evil with his eyes" (Prv 20:8). It was called a tribunal because among the Romans it was the tribunes (named from the tribes they headed) who adjudicated in certain cases. This tribunal was at a place called Lithostrotos, that is, a pavement of stones. "Lithos" in Greek means the same as "stone," and the place where Pilate sat in his judgment seat had been paved with stones. In Hebrew this place was called Gabbatha, that is, a mound formed from stones.

Parasceve, i. e. preparation. This was a name for the sixth day, the day before the Sabbath, on which they prepared what was necessary for the Sabbath; as we read, On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread. (Exod. 16:22) As man was made on the sixth day, and God rested on the seventh; so Christ suffered on the sixth day, and rested in the grave on the seventh. And it was about the sixth hour.

On Pilate's judgment and condemnation before the tribunal, they took the Lord Jesus Christ, about the sixth hour, and led Him away. "And He, bearing His cross, went forth into the place that is called Calvary, but in Hebrew, Golgotha; where they crucified Him." What else, then, is the meaning of the evangelist Mark saying, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him," but this, that the Lord was crucified at the third hour by the tongues of the Jews, at the sixth hour by the hands of the soldiers? That we may understand that the fifth hour was now completed, and there was some beginning made of the sixth, when Pilate took his seat before the tribunal, which is expressed by John as "about the sixth hour;" and when He was led forth, and nailed to the tree with the two robbers, and the events recorded were enacted beside His cross, the completion of the sixth hour was fully reached, being the hour from which, on to the ninth, the sun was obscured, and the darkness took place, we have it jointly attested on the authority of the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But as the Jews attempted to transfer the crime of slaying Christ from themselves to the Romans, that is to say, to Pilate and his soldiers, therefore Mark suppresses the hour at which Christ was crucified by the soldiers, and which then began to enter upon the sixth, and remembers rather to give an express place to the third hour, at which they are understood to have cried out before Pilate, "Crucify, crucify him," that it not only may be seen that the former crucified Jesus, namely, the soldiers who hung Him on the tree at the sixth hour, but the Jews also, who at the third hour cried out to have Him crucified.

There is also another solution of this question, that we should not here understand the sixth hour of the day, because John says not, And it was about the sixth hour of the day, or about the sixth hour, but says, "And it was the parasceve of the passover, about the sixth hour." And parasceve is in Latin praeparatio (preparation); but the Jews are fonder of using the Greek words in observances of this sort, even those of them who speak Latin rather than Greek. It was therefore the preparation of the passover. But "our passover, Christ," as the apostle says, "has been sacrificed;" and if we reckon the preparation of this passover from the ninth hour of the night (for then the chief priests seem to have given their verdict for the sacrifice of the Lord, when they said, "He is guilty of death," and when the hearing of His case was still proceeding in the high priest's house: whence there is a kind of harmony in understanding that therewith began the preparation of the true passover, whose shadow was the passover of the Jews, that is, of the sacrificing of Christ, when the priests gave their sentence that He was to be sacrificed), certainly from that hour of the night, which is conjectured to have been then the ninth, on to the third hour of the day, when the evangelist Mark testifies that Christ was crucified, there are six hours, three of the night, and three of the day.

(Tract. cxvii) Why then doth Mark say, And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him? (Mark 15:25) Because on the third hour our Lord was crucified by the tongues of the Jews, on the sixth by the hands of the soldiers. So that we must understand that the fifth hour was passed, and the sixth began, when Pilate sat down on the judgment seat, (about the sixth hour, John says,) and that the crucifixion, and all that took place in connection with it, filled up the rest of the hour, from which time up to the ninth hour there was darkness, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But since the Jews tried to transfer the guilt of putting Christ to death from themselves to the Romans, i. e. to Pilate and his soldiers, Mark, omitting to mention the hour at which He was crucified by the soldiers, has expressly recorded the third hour; in order that it might be evident that not only the soldiers who crucified Jesus on the sixth hour, but the Jews who cried out for His death at the third, were His crucifiers. There is another way of solving this difficulty, viz. that the sixth hour here does not mean the sixth hour of the day; as John does not say, It was about the sixth hour of the day, but, It was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour. Parasceve means in Latin, praeparatio. For Christ our passover, as saith the Apostle, is sacrificed for us. The preparation for which passover, counting from the ninth hour of the night, which seems to have been the hour at which the chief priests pronounced upon our Lord's sacrifice, saying, He is guilty of death, between it and the third hour of the day, when He was crucified, according to Mark, is an interval of six hours, three of the night and three of the day.

And it was the preparation of the Passover.

Now it was the preparation. Behold, the time is added, because it was the sixth day of the week, which is called the preparation of the Passover, that is, the preparation of the Passover, because the preparation was made on Friday for the Sabbath day, as is said in Exodus 16, that on that day they gathered for two days. About the sixth hour. Here the specific time is touched upon, and he says about, because it is difficult to determine the exact hour of time.

And he says to the Jews. Here is noted the cause of Christ's condemnation, and this was not his fault, but the hardness of perversity in the Jews and the denial of truth: the hardness of perversity in this, that they seek him to be condemned by a most cruel death: whence he says: Behold, your king, as if Pilate were saying: you have nothing else to object against him.

It is asked concerning what he says, that Christ was condemned at about the sixth hour: because in Mark 15 it is said: And it was about the third hour of the day, and they crucified him. Likewise, in Matthew twenty-seven it is said that darkness was made from the sixth hour until the ninth hour: therefore before the sixth hour he was judged. Augustine responds: "At the third hour the Lord was crucified by the tongues of the Jews, at the sixth hour by the hands of the soldiers: so that we may understand that the fifth hour had passed, and something of the sixth had begun, when Pilate sat on the judgment seat: and while he was being led away, and the things narrated as having been done were being carried out, the sixth hour was completed, from which hour until the ninth the sun was darkened." Victor responds differently, that the Lord was crucified at the middle hour between the third and the sixth: and because the extremes are named, and the middle often receives the name of the extremes, therefore Mark says the third hour, but John the sixth, not simply, but with a qualification: about the sixth.

The Evangelist, when he thus speaks, throws the whole burden, as it were, of the charge of shedding Christ's blood upon the Jews. For he now clearly says, that Pilate was well-nigh overcome against his will by their opposition, so that he put away the thought of justice, and paid little heed to the consequence; and, therefore, he was dragged down to do the will of Christ's murderers, though he had often expressly told them, that Jesus had been found guilty of no fault at all, and it is this which will make Him subject to the worst of penalties. For, by preferring the pleasure of a mob to honouring the Just, and giving over a guiltless Man to the frenzy of the Jews, he will be convicted out of his own mouth of impiety. He ascends, therefore, to his usual judgment-seat, as about to pronounce sentence of death against Christ. The inspired Evangelist is induced to signify to our profit the day and hour, because of the resurrection itself, and His three days' sojourn among the departed, that the truth of our Lord's saying to the Jews might appear: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so also shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The Roman ruler on his judgment-seat, pointing to Jesus, says: Behold your King! Either he was jesting with the multitude, and was granting, with a scornful smile, the innocent blood to those who thirsted for it without a cause, or, perhaps, he was casting in the teeth of the savage Jews the reproach that they endured to see in such evil plight Him Whom they themselves named and asserted to be King of Israel.

At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the "ark overlaid with pure gold," with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the "ark" made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be. And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: "Now it was the sixth hour," he says, intimating by that, one-half of the day. But a day with the Lord is 10000 years; and the half of that, therefore, is 500 years. For it was not meet that He should appear earlier, for the burden of the law still endured, nor yet when the sixth day was fulfilled (for the baptism is changed), but on the fifth and half, in order that in the remaining half time the gospel might be preached to the whole world, and that when the sixth day was completed He might end the present life.

(Hom. lxxxiv) Pilate, despairing of moving them, did not examine Him, as he intended, but delivered Him up. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

The Evangelist Mark says that when Christ was crucified, "it was the third hour" (Mark 15:25), while John says that it was the "sixth" hour. How can this be? Some think to resolve this by saying that there is a scribal error. And that this could have happened, and that in John as well the third hour was written, and not the sixth as it now reads, is evident from the following. Three evangelists — Matthew, Mark, and Luke — agree in saying that from the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. Clearly, our Lord was crucified before the sixth hour, before the onset of the darkness, namely around the third hour, as Mark noted, and likewise John, although the error of scribes changed the gamma into the sign of the episemon. Thus they resolve this disagreement. Others, however, say that Mark clearly and indisputably indicated the hour of the sentence regarding the crucifixion of the Lord. For it is said that judges crucified and executed from the time at which they pronounced the sentence, because in words the punishment and death received its force. Therefore Mark says that He was crucified at the third hour, the hour in which Pilate pronounced the sentence. And since Mark notes the time of the sentence, John recorded the hour at which the Lord was crucified. Moreover, consider how much was accomplished between Pilate's sentence of crucifixion and the hour at which the Lord ascended the cross. Having released Barabbas, he scourged Jesus and definitively handed Him over to crucifixion; for the release of Barabbas was the condemnation of the Lord. The soldiers mock Him. And consider how much time would have been spent on the prolonged mockery. Pilate brought Him out, conversed with the Jews; he goes back in again and judges Jesus; he comes out again and talks with the Jews. All of this could have occupied the time from the third hour to the sixth. Therefore John, having set forth these things with precision, as one who followed everything closely, mentions the sixth hour, when Pilate handed Him over completely "to be crucified," no longer conversing with the Jews nor judging Jesus, but having pronounced the final decision concerning Him. If someone should ask why, having already pronounced the sentence of crucifixion around the third hour, he again wished to release Him — first, let such a person know that he pronounced the sentence under compulsion from the crowd; then he was troubled by his wife's dream, for she had warned him: "Have nothing to do with that Righteous Man" (Matt. 27:19). With all this, notice how John expressed it: "It was about the sixth hour." He did not say affirmatively "it was six o'clock," but as if hesitantly and without certainty — "about the sixth hour." Therefore it should be of no importance to us that the Evangelists apparently do not perfectly agree with one another, even if we were to grant this disagreement. For consider: did they not all say that Jesus was crucified? And that concerning the hour one says it was the third, and another the sixth — does this in any way harm the truth? But it has been quite sufficiently demonstrated that there is not even a disagreement at all. We have said many times that Pilate is more weak and fearful than malicious. And now, look: he gives the matter the appearance of investigation and trial, but in everything acts weakly. "Behold," he says, "your King": he neither condemns Jesus nor directly exposes the Jews, but as if covertly reproaches them for their slander. "Behold," he says, "what kind of man you are accusing of seeking kingship over you—a poor man who does not even think of seeking this. The accusation is false. For what does He have that is characteristic of a usurper of power? Soldiers? Wealth? Noble birth? 'Behold your King.' What benefit is it to you if you kill Him, a Man who cannot cause the slightest harm?" So speaks Pilate, but without persistence and firmness, and without fighting for the truth.

Some suppose it to be a fault of the transcriber, who for the letter y, three, puts, six.

As if to say, See the kind of Man whom ye suspect of aspiring to the throne, a humble person, who cannot have any such design.

2404 The time of the condemnation is given when he says, Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. Among the Jews the Sabbath was in some respects more solemn than any other feast, insofar as out of reverence for that day no food was prepared on the Sabbath; it was prepared on the preceding Friday. Thus this Friday was called the day of Preparation of the Passover. This practice had its origin when the Jews in the desert were forbidden to gather manna on the Sabbath, but were directed to gather a double supply the day before (Ex 16:24). In this matter they yielded to no feast. Accordingly, although the present Friday was a solemn feast for them, they still prepared the Sabbath food on that day.

2405 He adds, it was about the sixth hour. This does not agree with Mark (15:25), who says, "And it was the third hour, when they crucified him." It is clear that Christ was before the tribunal before he was crucified.

According to Augustine, there are two explanations for this. The first, and better, is that Christ was crucified two times: once by the tongues and words of the shouting Jews, "Crucify him, crucify him" (v 6), and the second time by the hands of the soldiers who nailed him to the cross. Now the Jews wanted to blame the crucifixion on the Gentiles. And so Mark, who wrote his gospel for the Gentiles, blamed it on the Jews, saying that Christ was crucified by the Jews when at the third hour they shouted, "Crucify him, crucify him." It is John who follows the real time and he says, it was about the sixth hour. For when Christ was on the cross it was at the end of the fifth hour and at the beginning of the sixth, when darkness came and lasted three hours, that is, until the ninth hour. He says, about the sixth hour because the sixth hour had not yet begun.

The second explanation is that the preparation of the Passover was mentioned, and our Passover, Christ, was about to be immolated. Thus the preparation of the Passover is the preparation for the immolation of Christ. This preparation began at the ninth hour of the night, when the Jews shouted, to the captured Christ, "He deserves death" (Mt 26:66). If to the three remaining hours of the night we add the three hours of the day, when Christ was crucified, we can see that he was crucified at the sixth hour of the preparation, although this was the third hour of the day, as Mark says. And it was appropriate that he was crucified at the sixth hour because by his cross he restored human nature which was created on the sixth day.

2406 Now the Evangelist tells us about the manner and order of the condemnation (v 14). Pilate still wanted to free Christ, although his fear of Caesar weighed upon him. First we see Pilate's attempt to free Christ; secondly, he consents to have him crucified. (v 16). Concerning the first, we see the attempt of Pilate; and then the malice of the Jews (v 15b).

2407 The Evangelist says that after Pilate sat down on the judgment seat, he said to the Jews, in exasperation, Here is your King! It was like saying: I am astonished that you fear to have this man, so humiliated and destitute, as your king. For only the wealthy and strong aspire to the throne, and this man is neither. As the Psalm [88:15] said: "I am poor and in labor from my youth."

...the judge, who was a stranger, "washed his hands, and said, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. But Israel cried out, His blood be on us, and on our children." And when Pilate said, "Shall I crucify your king? they cried out, We have no king but Caesar: crucify Him, crucify Him; for every, one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." And, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend." And Pilate the governor and Herod the king commanded Him to be crucified...

Because, indeed, they drew servitude upon themselves voluntarily, when they said, "We have no king but Caesar;" and, "If we do not slay Christ, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and will take away both our place and nation." And so they prophesied unwittingly. For accordingly the nations believed on Him, and they themselves were deprived by the Romans of their power, and of their legal worship; and they have been forbidden to slay whom they please, and to sacrifice when they will.

As yet, however, the evangelist proceeds to say: "But when Pilate heard these sayings, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down before the tribunal, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour." When Pilate, therefore, had sat down before the tribunal, "he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your king?" As yet he tries to overcome the terror with which they had inspired him about Caesar, by seeking to break them from their purpose on the ground of the ignominy it brought on themselves, with the words, "Shall I crucify your king?" when he failed to soften them on the ground of the ignominy done to Christ; but by and by he is overcome by fear.

For "the chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified." For he would have every appearance of acting against Caesar if, on their declaration that they had no king but Caesar, he were wishing to impose on them another king by releasing without punishment one whom for these very attempts they had delivered unto him to be put to death. "Therefore he delivered Him unto them to be crucified." But was it, then, anything different that he had previously desired when he said, "Take ye him, and crucify him;" or even earlier still, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law?" And why did they show so great reluctance, when they said, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," and were in every way urgent to have Him slain not by themselves, but by the governor, and therefore refused to receive Him for the purpose of putting Him to death, if now for the same purpose they actually do receive Him? Or if such be not the case, why was it said, "Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified?" Or is it of any importance? Plainly it is. For it was not said, "Then delivered he Him therefore unto them" that they might crucify Him, but "that He might be crucified," that is, that He might be crucified by the judicial sentence and power of the governor. But it is for this reason that the evangelist has said that He was delivered to them, that he might show that they were implicated in the crime from which they tried to hold themselves aloof; for Pilate would have done no such thing, save to implement what he perceived to be their fixed desire.

(Tr. cxvi. 8) Pilate still tries to overcome their apprehensions on Caesar's account; Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? He tries to shame them into doing what he had not been able to soften them into by putting Christ to shame. The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

But they cried out: Away, away, crucify him. The doubling signifies the intensity of desire for Christ's death: Jeremiah twenty-six, "The priests and prophets spoke to the princes and to all the people, saying: The judgment of death is upon this man." And because the hardness of perversity would not suffice unless the denial of truth were added, therefore there follows Pilate's inquiry: Shall I crucify your king? as if by this word noting to them their perverse will in this, that they were seeking their own disgrace. But the reproach of a king redounds upon the people, and therefore, so that they might seem to flee reproach, they deny the truth: whence: The chief priests answered, saying: We have no king but Caesar; and thus this man is not our king, nor is his disgrace ours.

The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Hereupon the well-beloved Israel spurned his God, and started aside from his allegiance, and, as Moses said, abandoned the God that was his Father, and remembered not the Lord his helper. For see how he turned his eyes upon an harlot, according to the Scripture, refused to be ashamed, disowned his own glory, and denied his Lord. Of this very charge God accused Israel of old, speaking by the mouth of Jeremiah: For pass over the isles of Chittim, and send unto Kedar, and see whether the nations change their gods, who are yet no gods; but My people have changed their glory. And again: The heavens were astonished thereat, and were horribly afraid, saith the Lord; for My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and have hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that hold no water. For while other nations throughout the whole world clung fast to the deceitfulness of their idols, and steadfastly adhered to the gods whom they so deemed, and did not readily undergo a change of faith, nor easily alter their form of worship, the Israelites started aside, and joined themselves to the empire of Caesar, and cast off the rule of God. Therefore, very justly, were they given over into Caesar's hands, and, having at first welcomed his rule, afterwards brought themselves to grievous ruin, and underwent expulsion from their country, and the sufferings of war, and those irremediable calamities that befell them.

Observe, too, here the minuteness of the writer. For he does not say that the people started the impious cry, but rather their rulers. For he says: the chief priests cried out, everywhere pointing out, that it was through their submissively following their leaders that the multitude was carried down the precipice, and fell into the abyss of perdition. The chief priests incur the penalty, not merely as losing their own souls, but also as having been leaders and responsible guides of the people subject unto them, in the fatal shedding of blood; just as also the prophet rebuked them, saying: Because ye have been a snare unto the watch-tower, and as a net stretched out upon Tabor, which they who catch the prey have spread. The Prophet here means by the watch-tower the multitude, who were subject unto them, who were arrayed, as it were, to observe the conduct of their rulers, and to conform their own to it. And, therefore, the leading men of the people are called watchmen in Holy Writ. The chief priests themselves, then, were a snare and a net unto the watch-tower; for they both started this denial, and also induced all the rest to cry: We have no king but Caesar. These miserable men presumed so to say, though God the Father, by the mouth of the Prophet, predicted the coming of the Saviour, and cried out: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass. These men, who had once brought Jesus into Jerusalem riding upon an ass, and honoured Him as a God with blind praises, with one accord, for they cried: Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord! now make an outcry against Him, accusing Him only of attacking the Roman rule, and shaking off, as it were, the yoke of the Kingdom of God from their necks. For this was the plain meaning of the cry: We have no king but Caesar. But we shall find that then, too, it was the people that raised the shout for the Saviour Christ, and that it was the chief priests who presumed in their madness to make this exclamation, just as the others had proceeded from them.

They reiterate their old cry with the same fury, and desisted not from their lust for blood, and were not softened at all by the insults He had endured, nor inclined to clemency by the outrages inflicted upon Him; but were rather goaded to a greater pitch of fury, and intreat that He Who had raised the dead in their midst, and shown Himself the worker of such marvels, should be crucified; at which Pilate was sore amazed, seeing that they declared with such vehemence, that He, Who had acquired such eminence among them as to be deemed the Son of God, and King, was not merely worthy of death, but that He deserved so cruel a fate, for crucifixion is the worst of deaths. The judge, therefore, makes their outcry a charge and reproach against them, that they should be desirous that He should be crucified, Who had excited so great admiration by deeds which were so pre-eminent as to transcend anything on earth. For what is there that is equal to what does not fall short of the Son of God, and King?

If any one, again, will look into Jacob's actions, he shall find them not destitute of meaning, but full of import with regard to the dispensations. Thus, in the first place, at his birth, since he laid hold on his brother's heel, he was called Jacob, that is, the supplanter-one who holds, but is not held; binding the feet, but not being bound; striving and conquering; grasping in his hand his adversary's heel, that is, victory. For to this end was the Lord born, the type of whose birth he set forth beforehand, of whom also John says in the Apocalypse: "He went forth conquering, that He should conquer." In the next place, [Jacob] received the rights of the first-born, when his brother looked on them with contempt; even as also the younger nation received Him, Christ, the first-begotten, when the elder nation rejected Him, saying, "We have no king but Caesar." But in Christ every blessing [is summed up], and therefore the latter people has snatched away the blessings of the former from the Father, just as Jacob took away the blessing of this Esau. For which cause his brother suffered the plots and persecutions of a brother, just as the Church suffers this self-same thing from the Jews.

[Daniel 13:60] "And the whole congregration (Vulgate: assembly) cried out with a great voice and blessed God, who saveth those who trust in Him..." If the whole congregation put them to death, the view which we mentioned earlier is apparently refuted, namely that these were the elders Ahab and Zedekiah, in conformity with Jeremiah's statement (Jeremiah 29:22). The only other possibility is that instead of taking the statement, "They killed them," literally, we interpret it as meaning that they gave them over to the king of Babylon to be put to death. That would be just like when we say that the Jews put the Savior to death; not that they smote Him themselves, but they gave Him over to be slain and cried out, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" (John 19:15).

"Behold your king!" But when they said, "Crucify him," he added again, "Shall I crucify your king?" But they cried out, "We have no king but Caesar."

Of their own will they subjected themselves to punishment; therefore also God gave them up, because they were the first to cast themselves out from His providence and superintendence; and since with one voice they rejected His sovereignty, He allowed them to fall by their own suffrages.

Still what had been said should have been sufficient to calm their passion, but they feared, lest, being let go, He should again draw the multitudes, and they did all they could to prevent this. For a dreadful thing is love of rule, dreadful and able to destroy the soul; it was on account of this that they had never heard Him.

And yet Pilate, in consequence of a few words, desired to let Him go, but they pressed on, saying, "Crucify him." And why did they strive to kill Him in this manner? It was a shameful death. Fearing therefore lest there should afterwards be any remembrance of Him, they desired to bring Him to the accursed punishment, not knowing that truth is exalted by hindrances.

And they say: "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him"; they insist upon and demand the cross, because they wish to give Christ an evil reputation. For such a death was the most shameful and accursed, as it is said: "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" (Deut. 21:23). But they did not know that just as by a tree came the fall, so by a tree would come the restoration. Note also how they themselves declare that they have no other king but Caesar, and through this they voluntarily submit themselves to the authority of the Romans and cut themselves off from the Kingdom of God. Therefore God also delivered them over to the Romans, whom they themselves had called their kings, having renounced the Providence and Protection of God.

2408 This did not lessen the malice of the Jews. In inexhaustible hatred they cried out, doubling their already great malice by repeating the words, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! This shows that they could not stand the sight of him: "They say to God, 'Depart from us! We do not desire the knowledge of thy ways'" (Job 21:14); "The very sight of him is a burden to us" (Wis 2:15). Therefore, "Let us condemn him to a shameful death" (Wis 2:20), which is the same as crucify him!

2409 Now we see how Pilate tried to free Christ by shaming the Jews. First, we see Pilate's attempt, Shall I crucify your King? He is saying in effect: If you are not affected by his humiliation, your own sense of shame should move you, because I am going to crucify the one who is trying to be your king. And this is to your disgrace since it is being done by a foreigner.

Secondly, we see how unyielding the Jews are when they say, We have no king but Caesar. By thus refusing to be subject to the authority of Christ, they have submitted themselves to perpetual subjection. And so even to this very day, they are strangers to Christ, and have become servants of Caesar and earthly powers: "For they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them" (1 Sam 8:7); "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water and hewed out cisterns for themselves; broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jer 2:13).

(Tr. cxvi) But Pilate is at last overcome by fear: Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified. For it would be taking part openly against Caesar, if when the Jews declared that they had no king but Caesar, he wished to put another king over them, as he would appear to do if he let go unpunished a Man whom they had delivered to him for punishment on this very ground. It is not however, delivered Him unto them to crucify Him, but, to be crucified, i. e. by the sentence and authority of the governor. The Evangelist says, delivered unto them, to show that they were implicated in the guilt from which they tried to escape. For Pilate would not have done this except to please them.

Then he handed him over to them, to be crucified. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the sentence itself, by which he was condemned to the punishment of the cross: and rightly he says: He handed him over to them, because he did it at their request: Acts three: "God glorified his Son Jesus, whom you indeed handed over and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged that he should be released"; and Luke twenty-three: "Pilate adjudged that their request be carried out," namely the Jews'. Pilate acted against the Law; Exodus twenty-three: "You shall not follow the crowd to do evil, nor in judgment shall you acquiesce to the sentence of the many, so as to deviate from the truth."

They took Jesus therefore. First therefore the vileness of the passion in the procession is noted in this, that he is led as a robber, and he himself carries his own punishment; therefore it says: They took Jesus therefore: the Psalm: "They received me as a lion ready for prey," namely the soldiers Jesus: they led him, as a criminal, namely outside the camp: on account of which in the last chapter of Hebrews: "Let us go forth to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach" of his cross.

It is asked here concerning that custom which they had of releasing a prisoner, whether it was praiseworthy. And it seems that it was, because the Lord accepts mercy more than judgment, as is evident from the adulterous woman, above in chapter eight. But then it is objected: because it was commanded by the Law that evildoers be put to death; therefore to absolve the guilty was against the Law and a bad custom. It must be said that the custom was good, provided that he who was more fitting was released: because, even if it was then the time of justice, nevertheless they ought to have been mindful of the mercy done to them and yet to come at the Passover: and therefore as a sign this was permitted to them. As to the objection from the Law, it must be said that the excellence of the solemnity outweighed the severity of the Law.

Likewise it is asked whether they sinned by requesting Barabbas. That they did, it seems: in Acts three it is reproached to them: "You asked for a murderer to be given to you, but the author of life you killed." But that they did not sin, it seems: because it was permitted to them to request whomever they wished without distinction. I respond that they did not sin in this, that they freed one who was worthy of death; but in this, that they preferred him to an innocent man: hence there was there partiality of persons. Hence Augustine: "We do not reproach you, O Jews, because at the Passover you release a guilty man, but because you kill an innocent one."

It is asked: how did Pilate dare to hand him over to death? To this it must be said that he was terrified by fear lest he be accused before Caesar, and deceived by error, because he thought that the entire guilt belonged to the Jews, since he was laying hands on him at their request: hence it is said in Matthew twenty-seven that he took water and washed his hands and said: I am innocent; and the Jews took all the guilt upon themselves, hence they said: His blood be upon us and upon our children. But he erred, because one cannot consent to the death of an innocent person without sin.

Pilate henceforward permits the Jews, in their unbridled resentment, to run to all lengths in lawlessness; and, divesting himself of the power due unto a judge, suffers their uncontrolled passions at length to take their course unreproved, in allowing them to crucify One Who was wholly guiltless, and Who received this monstrous condemnation merely because He said He was the Son of God. One must lay the whole guilt of the impious crime at the door of the Jews; and rightly and justly, I think, accuse them of being the prime movers in the act, for with them originated this impiety against Christ. Yet we cannot acquit Pilate of complicity in their iniquity; for he shared their responsibility, inasmuch as when he might have delivered and rescued Him from the madness of His murderers, he did not merely refrain from releasing Him, but even gave Him up to them for the very purpose, that they might crucify Him

By the command of the governor, the soldiers took Christ to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led Him away.

"Successes" have terrible power to cast down or draw aside those who take not heed. Thus the Jews, who at first enjoyed the influence of God, sought the law of royalty from the Gentiles, and in the wilderness after the manna remembered the onions. In the same way here, refusing the Kingdom of Christ, they invited to themselves that of Caesar. Wherefore God set a king over them, according to their own decision. When then Pilate heard these things, he delivered Him to be crucified. Utterly without reason. For when he ought to have enquired whether Christ had aimed at sovereign power, he pronounced the sentence through fear alone. Yet that this might not befall him, Christ said beforehand, "My kingdom is not of this world"; but he having given himself wholly up to present things, would practice no great amount of wisdom. And yet his wife's dream should have been sufficient to terrify him; but by none of these things was he made better, nor did he look to heaven, but delivered Him up.

"Then at last he handed Him over to them." Madman! He ought to have investigated whether He could actually claim royal power for Himself, but instead you hand Him over, yield out of fear, and conclude the trial in a manner unworthy of a man.

2410 Then the Evangelist mentions the consent of Pilate to the killing of Christ, Then he handed him over to them, to the Jews, who had been subject to the power and the will of the Romans, to be crucified. This was against the advice of Exodus (23:2): "You shall not follow a multitude to do evil." "The earth is given into the hand of the wicked" (Job 9:24); "I have given my dear soul into the hands of her enemies" [Jer 12:7].

"And they took Jesus, and led Him away; and He, bearing His cross, went forth into the place that is called Calvary, in the Hebrew, Golgotha; where they crucified Him." Jesus, therefore, went to the place where He was to be crucified, bearing His cross. A grand spectacle! but if it be impiety that is the onlooker, a grand laughing-stock; if piety, a grand mystery: if impiety be the onlooker, a grand demonstration of ignominy; if piety, a grand bulwark of faith: if it is impiety that looketh on, it laughs at the King bearing, in place of His kingly rod, the tree of His punishment; if it is piety, it sees the King bearing the tree for His own crucifixion, which He was yet to affix even on the foreheads of kings, exposed to the contemptuous glances of the impious in connection with that wherein the hearts of saints were thereafter to glory. For to Paul, who was yet to say, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," He was commending that same cross of His by carrying it on His own shoulders, and bearing the candelabrum of that light that was yet to burn, and not to be placed under a bushel.

Jesus, therefore, went to the place where He was to be crucified, bearing His cross. A grand spectacle! but if it be impiety that is the onlooker, a grand laughing-stock; if piety, a grand mystery: if impiety be the onlooker, a grand demonstration of ignominy; if piety, a grand bulwark of faith: if it is impiety that looketh on, it laughs at the King bearing, in place of His kingly rod, the tree of His punishment; if it is piety, it sees the King bearing the tree for His own crucifixion, which He was yet to affix even on the foreheads of kings, exposed to the contemptuous glances of the impious in connection with that wherein the hearts of saints were thereafter to glory. For to Paul, who was yet to say, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," He was commending that same cross of His by carrying it on His own shoulders, and bearing the candelabrum of that light that was yet to burn, and not to be placed under a bushel. "Bearing," therefore, "His cross, He went forth into the place that is called Calvary, in the Hebrew, Golgotha; where they crucified Him, and two others with Him on either side one, and Jesus in the midst." These two, as we have learned in the narrative of the other evangelists, were thieves with whom He was crucified, and between whom He was fixed, whereof the prophecy sent before had declared, "And He was numbered among the transgressors."

(de Con. Evang. iii. x) Both bore it; first Jesus, as John says, then Simon, as the other three Evangelists say. On first going forth, He bore His own cross.

(Tract. cxvii) Great spectacle, to the profane a laughing-stock, to the pious a mystery. Profaneness sees a King bearing a cross instead of a sceptre; piety sees a King bearing a cross, thereon to nail Himself, and afterwards to nail it on the foreheads of kings. That to profane eyes was contemptible, which the hearts of Saints would afterwards glory in; Christ displaying His own cross on His shoulders, and bearing that which was not to be put under a bushel, the candlestick of that candle which was now about to burn.

And bearing his own cross, on which, namely, he was to be punished as a robber. Then was fulfilled what had been said in Isaiah twenty-two: "I will place the key of David upon his shoulder"; and in Isaiah nine: "The government was placed upon his shoulder," because there he triumphed. On this Augustine says: "A great spectacle! But if impiety looks on, a great mockery; if piety, a great mystery."

He went out to the place which is called Calvary. Here the degradation is indicated by the place: because he suffered in that place where robbers and criminals were punished. For that place is called Calvary because there the heads of the condemned were stripped bare. For Calvary means the skull of the head stripped of flesh: in Hebrew Golgotha, that is, "the place of beheading."

It is asked concerning what was said, that Jesus went out bearing his own cross: because in Matthew chapter twenty-seven it is said that they compelled a certain Simon to carry his cross. Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists: "Jesus was carrying the cross when he went out to Calvary; but that Simon was pressed into service along the way, to whom the cross was afterward given to be carried to the place. Thus we read that both things happened: first what John says, then what Matthew says."

Isaac (for the narrative may be interpreted otherwise) is a type of the Lord, a child as a son. For he was the son of Abraham, as Christ was the Son of God, and a sacrifice as the Lord, but he was not immolated as the Lord. Isaac only bore the wood of the sacrifice, as the Lord the wood of the cross. And he laughed mystically, prophesying that the Lord should fill us with joy, who have been redeemed from corruption by the blood of the Lord. Isaac did everything but suffer, as was right, yielding the precedence of suffering to the Word. Furthermore, there is an intimation of the divinity of the Lord with his not being slain. For Jesus rose again after his burial, having suffered no harm, like Isaac released from sacrifice.

They lead away, then, to death the Author of Life; and for our sakes was this done, for by the power and incomprehensible Providence of God, Christ's death resulted in an unexpected reversal of things. For His suffering was prepared as a snare for the power of death, and the death of the Lord was the source of the renewal of mankind in incorruption and newness of life. Bearing the Cross upon His shoulders, on which He was about to be crucified, He went forth; His doom was already fixed, and He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. For He became a curse for us, according to the Scripture: For cursed is everyone, it is said, that hangeth on a tree. And accursed are we all, for we are not able to fulfil the Law of God: For in many things we all stumble; and very prone to sin is the nature of man. And since, too, the Law of God says: Cursed is he which con-tinueth not in all things that are written in the book of this Law, to do them, the curse, then, belongeth unto us, and not to others. For those against whom the transgression of the Law may be charged, and who are very prone to err from its commandments, surely deserve chastisement. Therefore, He That knew no sin was accursed for our sakes, that He might deliver us from the old curse. For all-sufficient was the God Who is above all, so dying for all; and by the death of His own Body, purchasing the redemption of all mankind.

The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law. For as He was numbered among the dead, not for Himself, but for our sakes, that we might find in Him, the Author of everlasting life, subduing of Himself the power of death; so also, He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law, that the mouth of all lawlessness might henceforth be stopped, according to the saying of the Psalmist; the Sinless having suffered condemnation for the sin of all. And of great profit will the deed which Christ performed be to our souls----I mean, as a type of true manliness in God's service. For in no other way can we triumphantly attain to perfection in all virtue, and perfect union with God, save by setting our love toward Him above the earthly life, and zealously waging battle for the truth, if occasion calls us so to do. Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ says: Every man that doth not take his cross and follow after Me, is not worthy of Me. And taking up the Cross means, I think, nothing else than bidding farewell to the world for God's sake, and preferring, if the opportunity arise, the hope of future glory to life in the body. But our Lord Jesus Christ is not ashamed to bear the Cross that is our due, and to suffer this indignity for love towards us; while we, poor wretches that we are, whose mother is the insensate earth beneath our feet, and who have been called into being out of nothing, sometimes do not even dare to touch the skirt of tribulation in God's service; but, if we have anything to bear in the service of Christ, at once account the shame intolerable, and shrinking from the ridicule of our adversaries, and those who sit in the seat of the scornful, as an accursed thing, and preferring to God's pleasure this paltry and ill-timed craving for reputation, fall sick of the disease of disdainful arrogance, which is the mother, so to say, of all evils, and so make ourselves subject to the charge. For thus is the servant above his lord, and the disciple above his master, and thinks and acts accordingly. Alas, for this grievous infirmity, which always in some strange shape lies athwart our path, and leads us astray from the pursuit of what is meet!

Call to mind, too, how the inspired Peter could not endure Christ's prophecy, when He foretold His sufferings upon the Cross, for He said: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man is betrayed unto the hands of sinners; and they shall crucify Him, and kill Him. The disciple, not yet understanding the mysterious ways of God's providence, God-loving and teachable as he was, was moved by his scruples to exclaim: Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall never be unto Thee. What answered Christ? Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumblingblock unto Me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. But we may hence derive no small profit, for we shall know, that when occasion calls us to exhibit courage in God's service, and we are compelled to endure conflicts that ensue for virtue's sake; yea, even if they who honour and love us best strive to hinder us from doing anything that may tend to stablish virtue, alleging, it may be, our consequent dishonour among men, or from some worldly motive, we must not yield. For they, then, are in nowise unlike Satan, who loves and is ever wont to cast stumblingblocks in our path by divers deceits, and sometimes by smooth words, so as to divert from the pursuit of what is meet, the man who is urged thereto by the spirit of piety. And methinks Christ meant something like this, when He said: If, therefore, thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. For that which does us injury is no longer our own, even though united to us by the bond of love, and though its connection with us be but its natural desert.

They led away the author of life to die—to die for our sake. In a way beyond our understanding, the power of God brought from Christ's passion an end far different from that intended by his enemies. His sufferings served as a snare for death and rendered it powerless. The Lord's death proved to be our restoration to immortality and newness of life. Condemned to death though innocent, he went forward bearing on his shoulders the cross on which he was to suffer. He did this for our sake, taking on himself the punishment that the law justly imposed on sinners. He was cursed for our sake according to the saying of Scripture: "A curse is on everyone who is hanged on a tree." … We who have all committed many sins were under that ancient curse for our refusal to obey the law of God. To set us free he who was without sin took that curse on himself. Since he is God who is above all, his sufferings sufficed for all, his death in the flesh was the redemption of all. And so, Christ carried the cross, a cross that was rightfully not his but ours, who were under the condemnation of the law.… Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ has warned us that anyone who does not take up his cross and follow him is not worthy of him. And I think taking up the cross means simply renouncing the world for God's sake and, if this is required of us, putting the hope of future blessings before the life we now live in the body. Our Lord Jesus Christ was not ashamed to carry the cross we deserved, and he did so because he loved us.

Now Golgotha is interpreted "the place of a skull." Who were they, then, who prophetically named this spot Golgotha in which Christ the true head endured the cross? The apostle calls him "the image of the invisible God," and a little after, "the head of the body, the church." And again, "The head of every man is Christ." And again, "[He] is the head over all principalities and powers." The head suffered in "the place of the skull." O wondrous prophetic appellation! The very name also reminds you, saying, "Do not think of the Crucified as a mere man." He is "the head of all principalities and powers." That head that was crucified is the head of all power and has for his head the Father, "for the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God."

[The tradition that Adam died at Calvary is] an apt connection and smooth to the ear but not true. For the place where they cut off the heads of people condemned to death, called in consequence Calvary, was outside the city gates, whereas we read in the book of Jesus [i.e., Joshua] the son of Nave [Nun], that Adam was buried by Hebron and Arbah.

Well, then, to bring forward something still more out of place, we must go back to yet remoter times. Tradition has it that in this city, in fact, on this very spot, Adam lived and died. The place where our Lord was crucified is called Calvary, because the skull of the first man was buried there. So it came to pass that the second Adam, that is, the blood of Christ, as it dropped from the cross, washed away the sins of the buried one who was first formed, the first Adam, and thus the words of the apostle were fulfilled: "Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light."

(super Matt. c. xxvii.) An apt connection, and smooth to the ear, but not true. For the place where they cut off the heads of men condemned to death, called in consequence Calvary, was outside the city gates, whereas we read in the book of Jesus the son of Nave, that Adam was buried by Hebron and Arbah.

And now they laid the cross upon Him as a malefactor. For even the wood they abominated, and endured not even to touch it. This was also the case in the type; for Isaac bare the wood. But then the matter stopped at the will of his father, for it was the type; while here it proceeded to action, for it was the reality.

"And He came to the place of a skull." Some say that Adam died there, and there lieth; and that Jesus in this place where death had reigned, there also set up the trophy. For He went forth bearing the Cross as a trophy over the tyranny of death: and as conquerors do, so He bare upon His shoulders the symbol of victory.

When our Lord was handed over to the will of his cruel foes, they ordered him, in mockery of his royal dignity, to carry the instrument of his own torture. This was done to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah: "A child is born for us, a son is given to us; sovereignty is laid on his shoulders." To the wicked, the sight of the Lord carrying his own cross was indeed an object of derision. But to the faithful a great mystery was revealed, for the cross was destined to become the scepter of his power. Here was the majestic spectacle of a glorious conqueror mightily overthrowing the hostile forces of the devil and nobly bearing the trophy of his victory. On the shoulders of his invincible patience he carried the sign of salvation for all the kingdoms of the earth to worship, as if on that day he would strengthen all his future disciples by the symbol of his work and say to them, "Anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

But it was fitting not only that the Savior should take his own cross but that we also should bear it, fulfilling our being pressed into service in the cause of salvation. But yet again, we do not profit from taking his cross as much as we do when Jesus himself takes his cross and bears it.

The place of the skull is said to have some special appropriateness for the death of him who was to die for humankind. A Hebraic tradition has come down to us that says that the body of Adam the first man was buried just where Christ was crucified. And so, as in Adam all die, so in Christ all should be made alive. In the place that is called the place of the skull or head, the head of the human race should find resurrection along with the whole people through the resurrection of the Lord and Savior who suffered there and rose again. For it was unfitting that when many born from him received remission of sins and attained the blessing of resurrection, the very father of all people should not also attain this grace.

"In you, Abraham, I foreshadow my plans, For indeed, O righteous one, You are clearly my figure in relief. Do you want to know what is to come after you as a result of your [actions]? For this is why I had you ascend here, to show you. For just as you did not spare Your son on account of me, So also I on account of all Will not spare my son; Instead I will give him to be slain for the sake of the world." … "In the same way that your Isaac carried The wood on his shoulders, My son will bear the cross upon his shoulders. Your great love has revealed Also what is about to happen. See now the ram [caught up] in the wood; When you see where its superior strength comes from, you will understand the mystery: It is by the horns that these bonds are overcome; The horns signify the hands of my son. Not only did they slaughter [my son] for me, But I also continue to protect your son for you."

Isaac the son of Abraham personally carried the wood for his own sacrifice when God had enjoined that he should be made a victim to God himself. But these had been mysteries that were being kept for perfect fulfillment in the times of Christ. Therefore Isaac, with his wood, was preserved when the ram that was caught by the horns in the bramble was offered in his place. Christ, however, carried his wood on his own shoulders, adhering to the horns of the cross with a thorny crown encircling his head. For he chose to be made a sacrifice on behalf of all.

Accordingly, to begin with, Isaac, when led by his father as a victim, and himself bearing his own "wood," was even at that early period pointing to Christ's death; conceded, as He was, as a victim by the Father; carrying, as He did, the "wood" of His own passion.

" Of course on His body that "wood" was put; for so Christ has revealed, calling His body "bread," whose body the prophet in bygone days announced under the term "bread.

When Christ was condemned, they laid his cross on him. However, on the way out to Golgotha, they met Simon of Cyrene and transferred it on to him. In this way there is no disagreement among the Evangelists.

Since they considered touching the wood of the cross a dishonorable thing, they laid the accursed wood upon Him as one already condemned and cursed. Note also that this takes place in accordance with the Old Testament prefiguration. Just as there Isaac, carrying the wood, went to the slaughter, so here the Lord goes carrying the Cross, and, like some warrior, bears the weapon by which He overthrows His adversary. That Isaac served as a type of the Lord is clear. Isaac means laughter or joy. And who else became our joy, if not He Who through the Angel at the very conception granted joy to human nature? For the glad tidings which the Virgin heard were received by all of human nature. Isaac's father Abraham means father of many nations and is a type of the God of all, Who is the Father of Jews and Gentiles, by Whose good pleasure and decree His Son bears the cross. Only in the Old Testament the matter was limited to the intention of the father, since that was a prefiguration, but here it was fulfilled in actual deed, because this was the truth. There may be yet another similarity. Just as there Isaac was released and a ram was slain, so here the divine nature remained free from suffering, while the human nature was slain, which is also called the Lamb, as the offspring of the lost sheep — Adam. How then does the other Evangelist (Mark 15:21) say that "they compelled Simon to carry the Cross"? Both things happened. At first the Lord went out carrying the Cross Himself, since everyone abhorred this wood and would not allow themselves even to touch it. But when they went out, they met Simon coming from the field, and then they laid this wood upon him. This place was called "The Place of the Skull," for there was a tradition preserved that Adam was buried here, so that where death had its beginning, there also its abolition would be accomplished. For there is a church tradition that after man's expulsion from paradise, his first dwelling place was Judea, given to him as consolation after the bliss of paradise, as a land better and more abundant than all others. It was also the first to receive the dead man. The people of that time, marveling at the dead skull, removed the skin from it and buried it here, and from it gave this place its name. And after the flood, Noah passed down the account of this to all. Therefore the Lord also accepts death there, where the source of death was, in order to dry it up.

But as there Isaac was let go, and a ram offered; so here too the Divine nature remains impassible, but the human, of which the ram was the type, the offspring of that straying ram, was slain. But why does another Evangelist say that they hired Simon to bear the cross?

2411 Now the Evangelist deals with the crucifixion of Christ: first, the dishonor of the cross; secondly, the events surrounding the crucifixion (v 19).

The dishonor of the cross is indicated by those who crucified Christ, by the way he was led to his death, by the place where this happened, and by those crucified with him.

2412 Those who crucified him were soldiers. So they took Jesus. This was done in deed by the soldiers ‑ for we read below (v 23), "When the soldiers had crucified Jesus" ‑ but done in desire by the Jews, because they brought about by threats what happened. For this they ought to lose the benefits of Christ's cross and have the Gentiles acquire them: "The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it" (Mt 21:43).

2413 The way Christ was brought to his crucifixion was a dishonor, bearing his own cross, for death on a cross was a disgrace: "A hanged man is accursed by God" (Deut 21:23). Avoiding the cross as something unholy, and fearing even to touch it, they laid the cross on the condemned Jesus. He went out, bearing his own cross.

2414 Matthew (27:32) says that they compelled a certain Simon of Cyrene, on his way from the fields, to carry Christ's cross. We should say that Christ carried his cross from the beginning, but as he went along they found Simon to help him.

This does not lack its own mystery: for although Christ was the first to endure the sufferings of the cross, others did so after in imitation of him, especially strangers, that is, the Gentiles: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example" (1 Pet 2:21); "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt 16:24).

Although this seems extremely bizarre to the irreligious and to unbelievers, it is a great mystery for believers and the devout: "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). Christ bore his cross as a king does his scepter; his cross is the sign of his glory, which is his universal dominion over all things: "The Lord will reign from the wood" [Ps 95:9]; "The government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called 'Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.'" (Is 9:6). He carried his cross as a victor carries the trophy of his victory: "He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in himself" [Col 2:15]. Again, he carried his cross as a teacher his candelabrum, as a support for the light of his teaching, because for believers the message of the cross is the power of God: "No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a bushel but on a stand, that those who enter may see the light" (Lk 11:33).

2415 The place where Christ suffered was also dishonorable, and for two reasons. First, it was outside the city, he went out to the place called Calvary, which is outside the walls of the city: "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood" (Heb 13:12). This passion of Christ was outside the walls of the city to show that the effectiveness of his passion was not enclosed within the boundaries of the Jewish nation, and to indicate that those who want to obtain the fruit of his passion also have to go out from the world, at least with their affections. Thus the Apostle says in his next sentence, "Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp" (Heb 13:13).

2416 Secondly, this place was dishonorable because it was one of the lowest and basest, to the place called Calvary. "I am reckoned among those who go down to the Pit" (Ps 88:4). Chrysostom tells us that there are some who say that Adam died and was buried at this very place. This is why it was called Calvary, from the skull (calvaria) of the first man. And just as death reigned there, so there also Christ erected the trophy of his victory.

However, as Jerome says, this is the popular interpretation and attractive to the people, but it is not true, because Adam was buried at Hebron: "Adam the greatest among the Anakim was buried there" [Jos 14:15]. So we should say that this place was outside the gate of Jerusalem, and it was there that the heads of the condemned were cut off. It was called Calvary because the skulls of the beheaded were strewn there.

(Tr. cxvi) They, i. e. the soldiers, the guards of the governor, as appears more clearly afterwards; Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus; though the Evangelist might justly have attributed the whole to the Jews, who were really the authors of what they procured to be done.

(Tr. xxxi. in fin.) Yea, even the cross, if thou consider it, was a judgment seat: for the Judge being the middle, one thief, who believed, was pardoned, the other, who mocked, was damned: a sign of what He would once do to the quick and dead, place the one on His right hand, the other on His left.

Where they crucified him. Here the degradation of the passion is noted from the kind of death, because it was the most degrading kind of death; Wisdom two: "Let us condemn him to a most shameful death."

And with him two others, on this side and on that, and Jesus in the middle. Here the degradation is noted from the company, because these two were robbers; whence Mark fifteen: "They crucify with him two robbers." Then was fulfilled what is said in Isaiah fifty-three: "And he was reckoned among the wicked." But he was placed in the middle to signify that he is the mediator: whence at his nativity he was in the midst of the animals, Habakkuk last chapter; and in his passion in the midst of robbers, because he is the true peace, Ephesians two.

It is asked concerning this, that the Jews asked for the Lord to be crucified: why did they wish the Lord to be killed by that kind of death rather than another? Chrysostom responds that "this was the most shameful death. Fearing therefore lest any memory of him should remain after him, they strive to lead him to a punishment declared accursed, not knowing that through obstacles the truth is exalted." On God's part the reason was both a mystery, because we sinned by a tree, and an example, lest anyone should dread a shameful death, and a judgment, because it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.

Two robbers were crucified together with Christ, and this was owing to the malice of the Jews. For, as though to emphasize the dishonour of our Saviour's death, they involved the just Man in the same condemnation as the transgressors of the Law. And we may take the condemned criminals, who hung by Christ's side, as symbolical of the two nations who were shortly about to be brought into close contact with Him, I mean the children of Israel and the Gentiles. And why do we take condemned criminals as the type? Because the Jews were condemned by the Law, for they were guilty of transgressing it; and the Greeks by their idolatry, for they worshipped the creature more than the Creator.

And after another manner those who are united with Christ are also crucified with Him; for enduring, as it were, death to their old conversation in the flesh, they are reformed into a new life, according to the Gospel. Yea, Paul said: And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh, with the passions and the lusts thereof; and again, speaking of himself in words applicable to all men: For I, through the Law, died unto the Law, that I might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ: yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me. And he exhorts also the Colossians: Wherefore, if ye died from the world, why do ye behave yourselves as though living in the world? For, by becoming dead unto worldly conversation, we are brought to the rudiments of conduct and life in Christ. Therefore the crucifixion of the two robbers, side by side with Christ, signifies in a manner to us, through the medium of that event, the juxtaposition of the two nations, dying together, as it were, with the Saviour Christ, by bidding farewell to worldly pleasures, and refusing any longer to live after the flesh, and preferring to live with their Lord, so far as may be, by fashioning their lives according to Him, and consecrating them in His service. And the meaning of the figure is in no way affected by the fact, that the men who hung by His side were malefactors; for we were by nature children of wrath, before we believed in Christ, and were all doomed to death, as we said before.

The two criminals who hung by Christ's side symbolize the two nations who were about to be brought into close contact with him, namely, the children of Israel and the Gentiles. And why do we take condemned criminals as the type? Because the Jews were condemned by the Law, for they were guilty of transgressing it. And the Greeks were condemned by their idolatry, for they worshiped the creature more than the Creator.… Therefore, the crucifixion of the two robbers, side by side with Christ, signifies … the juxtaposition of the two nations, dying together, as it were, with the Savior Christ by bidding farewell to worldly pleasures, refusing any longer to live after the flesh and preferring to live with their Lord, as far as possible, by fashioning their lives according to him and consecrating them to his service. And the meaning of the figure is in no way affected by the fact that the men who hung by his side were criminals. For we were by nature children of wrath before we believed in Christ and were all doomed to death.

What matter if the Jews did these things with a different intent. They crucified Him too with thieves, in this also unintentionally fulfilling prophecy; for what they did for insult contributed to the truth, that thou mayest learn how great is its power, since the Prophet had foretold of old, that "He was numbered with the transgressors." (Isa. liii. 12.) The devil therefore wished to cast a veil over what was done, but was unable; for the three were crucified, but Jesus alone was glorious, that thou mayest learn, that His power effected all. Yet the miracles took place when the three had been nailed to the cross; but no one attributed anything of what was done to either of those others, but to Jesus only; so entirely was the plot of the devil rendered vain, and all returned upon his own head. For even of these two, one was saved. He therefore did not insult the glory of the Cross, but contributed to it not a little. For it was not a less matter than shaking the rocks, to change a thief upon the cross, and to bring him unto Paradise.

Crucified with Him were also two others. The Jews wished by this to spread a bad rumor, as though He too were a robber. Meanwhile, they involuntarily fulfill the prophecy which says: "And He was numbered with the transgressors" (Isa. 53:12). Observe then the Wisdom of God, how It turned to the glory of the Lord that which they did to His dishonor. For on the very Cross He saved the robber, which is no less wondrous, and even more proves His Divinity. For He alone was glorified, even though others were crucified together with Him. This would not have happened if He were guilty and a transgressor of the law, and were not Himself above the law and the Judge of the lawless.

2417 Those who suffered with him also added to his dishonor, for they crucified with him two others, who were criminals, as Luke mentions (Lk 23:33). One on either side, one on the right and one on the left, and Jesus between them, in the middle. Even in his suffering Christ stood in the middle, a fact that the Jews intended should add to his dishonor, for it implied that the cause of his death was similar to that of the criminals: "He was numbered with the transgressors" (Is 53:12).

But if we contemplate this mystery, we see that it is related to the glory of Christ. It shows that by his suffering Christ merited the authority to judge: "Your cause has been judged as one of the wicked. You will recover cause and judgment" [Job 36:17]. And it is the function of a judge to be in the middle of the parties; so the Philosopher says that to go to a judge is to go to the middle. Christ was also placed in the middle, one on his right, another on his left, because in the judgment he will place the sheep on his right, and the goats on his left. It was the criminal on his right who believed and was saved; the one on his left, who reproached him, was condemned.

The title placed over his cross, on which was written "The King of the Jews," showed that they could not keep him from being their king even by his death.

But is Christ king only of the Jews, or of the Gentiles also? Yes, of the Gentiles also. For when He said in prophecy, "I am set king by Him upon His holy hill of Zion, declaring the decree of the Lord," that no one might say, because of the hill of Zion, that He was set king over the Jews alone, He immediately added, "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession." Whence He Himself, speaking now with His own lips among the Jews, said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one flock and one Shepherd." Why then would we have some great mystery to be understood in this superscription, wherein it was written, "King of the Jews," if Christ is king also of the Gentiles? For this reason, because it was the wild olive tree that was made partaker of the fatness of the olive tree, and not the olive tree that was made partaker of the bitterness of the wild olive tree. For inasmuch as the title, "King of the Jews," was truthfully written regarding Christ, who are they that are to be understood as the Jews but the seed of Abraham, the children of the promise, who are also the children of God? For "they," saith the apostle, "who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." And the Gentiles were those to whom he said, "But if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Christ therefore is king of the Jews, but of those who are Jews by the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God; who belong to the Jerusalem that is free, our eternal mother in heaven, the spiritual Sarah, who casteth out the bond maid and her children from the house of liberty. And therefore what Pilate wrote he wrote, because what the Lord said He said.

Wherein was shown that His kingdom was not, as they thought, destroyed, but rather strengthened.

Pilate also wrote a title. Here is noted the second principal point, namely the dignity of the one suffering, and it is indicated in the title, because the title was that of a king.

The inscription of the title, therefore, is touched upon when he says: Pilate also wrote a title and placed it on the cross: Isaiah nineteen: "There shall be an altar of the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar of the Lord near its border." And note that a certain title is memorial, as for the dead; a certain one is proclamatory, as for a house; a certain one is triumphal: and this one is triumphal, whence it is to the praise of Christ and the reproach of the Jews, because, although he had been condemned as a robber, he was nevertheless not a robber but a king; and this the title declared: And it was written: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. Scripture approves this title: whence in Psalm two: "I have been appointed king by him over Sion, his holy mountain," etc. In this title Pilate describes him by name, when he says Jesus: Luke one: "You shall call his name Jesus"; by homeland, Nazarene: Luke two: "He went down with them and came to Nazareth"; by royal dignity, when he says king: Jeremiah twenty-three: "I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign."

According to Matthew, the title is called a cause: Matthew twenty-seven: "They placed over his head his written charge": because in that title it is indicated why he died, namely for the sake of saving, because Jesus, and for the sake of making us a kingdom for our God: Revelation five: "You are worthy, Lord God, to receive the book: because you were slain and have redeemed us for God in your blood and have made us a kingdom for our God."

It is asked concerning the inscription, whether Pilate wrote it sincerely or mockingly. That he wrote it sincerely seems evident from the text, because when the Jews requested it, he refused to erase it, but responded: What I have written, I have written. But that he wrote it mockingly seems evident, because he permitted him to be mocked by the soldiers as a fool, not as a true king—soldiers who had placed a crown of thorns on him and were striking him. To this it must be responded that Pilate had some illumination by which he recognized that he was innocent; hence he knew that they had handed him over out of envy, Matthew twenty-seven; by which he also recognized that he was the king promised to the Jews: hence he always called him king. Hence Augustine says: "It could not be torn from the heart of Pilate that Christ was the King of the Jews, as though truth itself had fixed this in his heart." As for the objection that he caused or permitted him to be mocked: I say that he permitted the king to be mocked just as he permitted the innocent one to be scourged, so that he might satisfy the Jews with his punishments and humiliations and incline them to mercy.

This is, in fact, the bond against us which, as the inspired Paul says, the Lord nailed to His Cross, and in it led in triumph the principalities and the powers as vanquished, and as having revolted from His rule. And if it were not Christ Himself that fixed the title on the Cross, but the fellow-worker and minister of the Jews, still, as He suffered it so to be, it is as though He were recorded as having inscribed it with His own Hand. And He triumphed over principalities in it. For it was open to the view of all who chose to learn, pointing to Him Who suffered for our sake, and Who was giving His Life as a ransom for the lives of all. For all men upon the earth, in that they have fallen into the snare of sin (for all have gone aside, and have all together become filthy, according to the Scripture), had made themselves liable to the accusation of the devil, and were living a hateful and miserable life. And the title contained a handwriting against us----the curse that, by the Divine Law, impends over the transgressors, and the sentence that went forth against all who erred against those ancient ordinances of the Law, like unto Adam's curse, which went forth against all mankind, in that all alike broke God's decrees. For God's anger did not cease with Adam's fall, but He was also provoked by those who after him dishonoured the Creator's decree; and the denunciation of the Law against transgressors was extended continuously over all. We were, then, accursed and condemned, by the sentence of God, through Adam's transgression, and through breach of the Law laid down after him; but the Saviour wiped out the handwriting against us, by nailing the title to His Cross, which very clearly pointed to the death upon the Cross which He underwent for the salvation of men, who lay under condemnation. For our sake He paid the penalty for our sins. For though He was One that suffered, yet was He far above any creature, as God, and more precious than the life of all. Therefore, as the Psalmist says, the mouth of all lawlessness was stopped, and the tongue of sin was silenced, unable any more to speak against sinners. For we are justified, now that Christ has paid the penalty for us; for by His stripes we are healed, according to the Scripture. And just as by the Cross the sin of our revolt was perfected, so also by the Cross was achieved our return to our original state, and the acceptable recovery of heavenly blessings; Christ, as it were, gathering up into Himself, for us, the very fount and origin of our infirmity.

"And Pilate wrote a title." At the same time requiting the Jews, and making a defense for Christ. For since, they had given Him up as worthless, and attempted to confirm this sentence by making Him share the punishment of the robbers, in order that for the future it might be in no man's power to prefer evil charges against him, or to accuse him as a worthless and wicked person, to close moreover their mouths and the mouths of all who might desire to accuse Him, and to show that they had risen up against their own King, Pilate thus placed, as on a trophy, those letters, which utter a clear voice, and show forth His Victory, and proclaim His Kingdom, though not in its completeness. And this he made manifest not in a single tongue, but in three languages; for since it was likely that there would be a mixed multitude among the Jews on account of the Feast, in order that none might be ignorant of the defense, he publicly recorded the madness of the Jews, in all the languages. For they bore malice against Him even when crucified. "Yet what did this harm you? Nothing. For if He was a mortal and weak, and was about to become extinct, why did ye fear the letters asserting that He is the King of the Jews?" And what do they ask? "Say that 'he said.' For now it is an assertion, and a general sentence, but if 'he said' be added, the charge is shown to be one arising from his own rashness and arrogance." Still Pilate was not turned aside, but stood to his first decision. And it is no little thing that is dispensed even from this circumstance, but the whole matter. For since the wood of the cross was buried, because no one was careful to take it up, inasmuch as fear was pressing, and the believers were hurrying to other urgent matters; and since it was in after times to be sought for, and it was likely that the three crosses would lie together, in order that the Lord's might not be unknown, it was made manifest to all, first by its lying in the middle, and then by the title. For those of the thieves had no titles.

As letters are inscribed on a trophy declaring the victory, so Pilate wrote a title on Christ's cross. And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross: thus at once distinguishing Christ from the thieves with Him, and exposing the malice of the Jews in rising up against their King: And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.

Whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed king, and every letter bears witness of his reign, whether of Greeks, or Romans, or Hebrews. And for a crown above his head was written, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews." And since no other cause is found for his death (for there was none), this alone is put forward, "He was king of the Jews." … And the high priest according to the letter of the law used to carry on his head the form of the sign and the sanctification of the Lord written on the plate. But the true high priest and king, Jesus, on the cross has it written, "This is the King of the Jews." But ascending to the Father and receiving the Father into himself, he has for letters and for a name what he [God] is named and has him [the Father] as a crown.

Pilate writes a title on the cross, that is, the charge, the inscription, the declaration. The inscription indicated whose cross it was. So Pilate makes this inscription, on the one hand, in order to take revenge on the Jews for not having listened to him, and to show their malice, by which they rose up against their own king, and on the other hand, in order to defend the glory of Christ. They crucified Him with robbers, wishing to dishonor His name.

2418 The Evangelist just told of Christ's crucifixion; now he mentions things that accompanied and followed it: first, as they relate to Pilate; secondly as they relate to the soldiers; and finally, he tells about Christ's friends who were standing by (v 25). Concerning Pilate, we see the title being written on the cross, its being read, and its retention.

2419 Two things are mentioned about the first of these. First, the writing of the title, Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. This was understandable, for it was a way of getting back at the Jews by showing their malice in rising up against their own king. It was also appropriate for this mystery, for just as inscriptions are placed on trophies of victory so the people will remember and celebrate the victory ‑ "Let us make a name for ourselves, before we are scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth" [Gen 11:4] ‑ so it was arranged that a title was put on the cross so that the sufferings of Christ would be remembered: "Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall!" (Lam 3:19).

2420 Secondly, he mentions the content of the title, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, words which are very fitting for this mystery of the cross. The word Jesus, which means Savior, corresponds to the power of the cross by which we have been saved: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (Mt 1:21). The word Nazareth, which means abounding in flowers, corresponds to the innocence of the one suffering: "I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys" (Song 2:1); "A flower will rise up out of his root" [Is 11:1]. The words King of the Jews accord with the power, the dominion, which Christ earned by his suffering: "Therefore God has highly exalted him" (Phil 2:9); "He shall reign as King and be wise" (Jer 23:5); he will sit "upon the throne of David and over his kingdom" (Is 9:7).

2421 Through his cross Christ is not just the King of the Jews, but of all people ‑ for after we read, "I have set my king on Zion," there follows, "Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage" (Ps 6:8). Why then did the Evangelist write only King of the Jews? I answer that the Gentiles were grafted on to the abundant olive tree (Rom 11:17). And just like a graft comes to share in the abundance of the olive tree, and it is not the olive tree that acquires the bitterness of the graft, so those Gentiles who were converted to the faith were made spiritually Jews, not by a circumcision of the flesh, but of the spirit. And so in saying the King of the Jews, non‑Jewish converts are also included.

"And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross, and the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, The King of the Jews." For these three languages were conspicuous in that place beyond all others: the Hebrew on account of the Jews, who gloried in the law of God; the Greek, because of the wise men among the Gentiles; and the Latin, on account of the Romans, who at that very time were exercising sovereign power over many and almost all countries.

This title therefore. Here is set forth the publication of the title: whence he says: Many of the Jews read it, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city: therefore many were reading, because many were gathering together, and not only Jews but also others: Isaiah thirty-four: "Search diligently in the book of the words of the Lord and read: not one of them was lacking." And it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, so that all might be able to read the title, because he was to be king of all, as it is said in Revelation nineteen, that he "is King of kings and Lord of lords"; therefore in three languages, because Deuteronomy nineteen: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word stands."

We may remark that it was very providential, and the fruit of God's inexpressible purpose, that the title that was written embraced three inscriptions ---- one in Hebrew, another in Latin, and another in Greek. For it lay open to the view, proclaiming the Kingdom of our Saviour Christ in three languages, the most widely known of all, and bringing to the crucified One the first-fruits, as it were, of the prophecy that had been spoken concerning Him. For the wise Daniel said that there was given Him glory and a Kingdom, and all nations and languages shall serve Him; and, to like effect, the holy Paul teaches us, crying out that every knee shall bow; of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore the title proclaiming Jesus King was, as it were, the true firstfruits of the confession of tongues. And, in another sense, it accused the impiety of the Jews, and all but proclaimed expressly, to those who congregated to read it, that they had crucified their King and Lord, purblind wretches that they were, without thought of love toward Him, and sunk in crass insensibility.

It was providential and the fruit of God's inexpressible purpose that the title was written in three languages: one in Hebrew, another in Latin and another in Greek. For it lay in plain view, proclaiming the kingdom of our Savior Christ in the most widely known of all languages … fulfilling the prophecy that had been spoken concerning him. For the wise Daniel said that there was given him glory and a kingdom and that all nations and languages shall serve him. Similarly the holy Paul teaches us, crying out that "every knee shall bow; of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth. And every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Therefore the title proclaiming Jesus "king" was, as it were, the true firstfruits of the confession of tongues.

It is probable that many Gentiles as well as Jews bad come up to the feast. So the title was written in three languages, that all might read it: And it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Pilate declares that He was not a robber, but their King, and he declares this not in one, but in three languages. For it was natural to suppose that because of the feast, many Gentiles had also come along with the Jews. Earlier the Evangelist (John 12:20–21) also mentions certain Greeks who came to see Jesus. Therefore, so that all might know of the madness of the Jews, Pilate proclaimed this about Him in all languages. The inscription, made in three languages, hints at something higher as well, namely: it shows that the Lord is the King of practical, natural, and theological philosophy. The Roman letters serve as an image of practical philosophy, for the power of the Romans is the most courageous and active in military affairs; the Greek letters are an image of natural philosophy, for the Greeks occupied themselves with the study of nature; the Hebrew letters represent theological philosophy, for to the Hebrews was entrusted the knowledge of God. Thus, glory to Him Who through the Cross revealed Himself as possessing such a Kingdom, Who both conquered the world, and strengthened our activity, and grants the knowledge of nature, and through it leads into the innermost part of the veil, into the knowledge and contemplation of Himself, that is, theology.

The title written in three languages signifies that our Lord was King of the whole world; practical, natural, and spiritual1. The Latin denotes the practical, because the Roman empire was the most powerful, and best managed one; the Greek the physical, the Greeks being the best physical philosophers; and, lastly, the Hebrew the theological, because the Jews had been made the depositaries of religious knowledge.

2422 Next we see that the title was read, Many of the Jews read this title. The fact that it was read signifies that more are saved by faith, by reading about the passion of Christ, than were saved by actually seeing it: "These are written that you may believe" (20:31). Secondly, the Evangelist mentions how easy this was to read: first, because Jesus was crucified near the city, the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, where many people passed; and secondly, because it was written in a number of languages, and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek, so that no one would fail to know it, and because these three languages were the most widely known. Hebrew was known because it was used in the worship of the one true God; Greek was known because it was used in the writings of the wise; and Latin was known due to the power of Rome. As Augustine says, these three tongues assumed a certain dignity by being associated with the cross of Christ. Further, the Hebrew tongue signified that by the cross of Christ those who were devout and religious were to be converted and ruled; and so were the wise, indicated by the Greek language; and so were those enjoying power, signified by the Latin language. Or, the use of Hebrew signified that Christ was to rule over theological teaching, because the knowledge of divine matters was entrusted to the Jews. The Greek signified that Christ was to rule over the knowledge of nature, for the Greeks were engaged in speculation about nature. Latin signified that Christ will rule over practical philosophy, because moral speculation was especially flourishing among the Romans. And so, all thought is brought into captivity and obedience to Christ, as we see in 2 Corinthians (10:5).

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.

The Samaritan woman at the well found the Lord thirsting, and by him thirsting, she was filled. She first found him thirsting in order that he might drink from her faith. And when he was on the cross, he said, "I thirst," although they did not give him that for which he was thirsting. For he was thirsting for them.

He then adds: "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and fixed it upon hyssop, and put it to His mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished: and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost." Who has the power of so adjusting what he does, as this Man had of arranging all that He suffered? But this Man was the Mediator between God and men; the Man of whom we read in prophecy, He is man also, and who shall acknowledge Him? for the men who did such things acknowledged not this Man as God. For He who was manifest as man, was hid as God: He who was manifest suffered all these things, and He Himself also, who was hid, arranged them all. He saw, therefore, that all was accomplished that required to be done before He received the vinegar, and gave up the ghost; and that this also might be accomplished which the scripture had foretold, "And in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," He said, "I thirst:" as if it were, One thing still you have failed to do, give me what you are. For the Jews were themselves the vinegar, degenerated as they were from the wine of the patriarchs and prophets; and filled like a full vessel with the wickedness of this world, with hearts like a sponge, deceitful in the formation of its cavernous and tortuous recesses. But the hyssop, whereon they placed the sponge filled with vinegar, being a lowly herb, and purging the heart, we fitly take for the humility of Christ Himself; which they thus enclosed, and imagined they had completely ensnared. Hence we have it said in the psalm, "Thou shalt purge me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed." For it is by Christ's humility that we are cleansed; because, had He not humbled Himself, and became obedient unto the death of the cross, His blood certainly would not have been shed for the remission of sins, or, in other words, for our cleansing.

(Tr. cxix.) He who appeared man, suffered all these things; He who was God, ordered them: After this Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished; i. e. knowing the prophecy in the Psalms, And when I was thirsty, they gave me vinegar to drink, (Ps. 68) said, I thirst:As if to say, ye have not done all (minus): give me yourselves: for the Jews were themselves vinegar, having degenerated from the wine of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. Now there was a vessel full of vinegar: they had drunk from the wickedness of the world, as from a full vessel, and their heart was deceitful, as it were, a spunge full of caves and crooked hiding places: And they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

The hyssop around which they put the spunge full of vinegar, being a mean herb, taken to purge the breast, represents the humility of Christ, which they hemmed in and thought they had circumvented. (ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες) For we are made clean by Christ's humility. Nor let it perplex you that they were able to reach His mouth when He was such a height above the ground: for we read in the other Evangelists, what John omits to mention, that the spunge was put upon a reed.

Afterward, Jesus knowing, etc. Above he treated of the passion; here he treats of the consummation of the passion. The consummation, therefore, of Christ's passion with respect to the testimony of Scripture is attended to in this, that around him all things should come to pass which had been foretold through the Prophets.

The intention of consummating, therefore, is indicated in what he says: Afterward, Jesus knowing that all things were now consummated, supply: which are written concerning the Son of man; but not fully, therefore he says now; that the Scripture might be fulfilled, that is, willing to perfectly fulfill the Scripture, which says in the Psalm: "In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink"; he says: I thirst. And this was a sign of the weakness assumed and of the truth of his nature, against those heretics who said that he had not truly suffered. And indeed he said this not so much on account of need as for the fulfilling of Scripture.

It is asked concerning what he says, that, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, he asked for drink. The order seems reversed, because the Lord does not exist for the sake of the Law, but the Law and the Scripture for the sake of the Lord; whence: Christ is the end of the Law. It must be said that the "that" here is not causal but consecutive; so the sense is not that the Lord did this in order that Scripture might be fulfilled, but that this followed upon the Lord's action, namely the fulfillment of Scripture, which had foretold this.

When the iniquity of the Jews had fully wrought the impious crime against Christ, and when there was nothing left wanting to the perfect satisfaction of their savage cruelty, the flesh, at the last extremity, felt a natural craving, for it was parched by the various acts of outrage, and felt thirst. For pain is very apt to provoke thirst, spending the natural moisture of the body in excessive inward heat, and burning the inward parts with the pangs of inflammation. It would have been easy for the Word, the Almighty God, to have released His Flesh from this torment; but, just as He willingly underwent His other sufferings, so He bore this also of His own Will. Then He sought to drink; but so pitiless and far removed from the love of God were they, that, instead of liquid to quench His thirst, they gave Him something to aggravate it, and, in rendering the very service of love, committed a further act of impiety. For, in acceding at all to His request, were they not assuming the appearance of affection? But it was impossible that the inspired Scripture should ever lie, which put into the mouth of the Saviour these words concerning them: They gave Me gall to eat, and when I was athirst, they gave Me vinegar to drink.

"After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished." That is, "that nothing was wanting to the Dispensation." For He was everywhere desirous to show, that this Death was of a new kind, if indeed the whole lay in the power of the Person dying, and death came not on the Body before He willed it; and He willed it after He had fulfilled all things. Therefore also He said, "I have power to lay down My life; and I have power to take it again." (c. x. 18.) Knowing therefore that all things were fulfilled, He saith, "I thirst." Here again fulfilling a prophecy. But consider, I pray, the accursed nature of the bystanders. Though we have ten thousand enemies, and have suffered intolerable things at their hands, yet when we see them perishing, we relent; but they did not even so make peace with Him, nor were tamed by what they saw, but rather became more savage, and increased their irony; and having brought to Him vinegar on a sponge, as men bring it to the condemned, thus they gave Him to drink; since it is on this account that the hyssop is added.

If, on the one hand it was as God that Jesus suffered thirst and when he had tasted would not drink, surely he must be subject to passion also as God. For thirst and taste are passions. But if it was not as God but altogether as man that he was thirsty, similarly as man he must be endowed with will.

"Knowing," he says, "that all things were now accomplished," that is, that nothing remained unfulfilled in the plan of God's economy. So free was His death. For the end did not come upon His body before He Himself willed it, and He willed it after He had fulfilled all things. For this reason He also said: "I have power to lay down My life" (Jn. 10:18). "He says: I thirst," and in this case again fulfills prophecy.

2444 After dealing with the crucifixion and the events that accompanied it, the Evangelist now describes the death of Christ, which we should reverence. First, he shows that it was at the appropriate time; secondly its manner, he bowed his head; and thirdly, the piercing of the dead body (v 31).

He shows that the time was fitting because all was now finished, accomplished. First, he mentions that Christ knew that all things had been accomplished; secondly, we see Christ doing what remained to be done (v 30).

2445 In regard to the first he says, After this, after the things that had just been mentioned, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, that is, all that the law and the prophets had foretold about him had now been accomplished: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "I have seen the end of every consummation" [Ps 119:96].

2446 But because another thing foretold in scripture had to be done, the Evangelist adds that Jesus said (to fulfill the scripture), I thirst. First, we see the words spoken by Christ; then, how his desire could be satisfied; and finally, he is given the vinegar.

2447 The Evangelist says that Jesus said this to fulfill the scripture. This indicates the sequence of events, and does not state the cause why Jesus spoke, for he did not speak in order to fulfill the scripture of the Old Testament. Rather, things were written in the Old Testament because they would be fulfilled by Christ. If we say that Christ acted because the scriptures foretold it, it would follow that the New Testament existed for the sake of the Old Testament and for its fulfillment, although the opposite is true. Therefore, it was because these things would be accomplished by Christ that they were predicted.

By saying, I thirst, he showed that his death was real, and not just imaginary. It also indicated his intense desire for the salvation of the human race: "God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4); "For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost" (Lk 19:10). Indeed, we express our intense desires in terms of thirst: "My soul thirsts for God" (Ps 42:3).

After that the Lord Jesus had accomplished all that He foreknew required accomplishment before His death, and had, when it pleased Himself, given up the ghost, what followed thereafter, as related by the evangelist, let us now consider. "The Jews therefore," he says, "because it was the preparation (parasceve), that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath-day (for that Sabbath-day was an high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." Not that their legs might be taken away, but the persons themselves whose legs were broken for the purpose of effecting their death, and permitting them to be detached from the tree, lest their continuing to hang on the crosses should defile the great festal day by the horrible spectacle of their day-long torments.

(Tr. cxx) Not in order to take away the legs, but to cause death, that they might be taken down from the cross, and the feast clay not be defiled by the sight of such horrid torments.

Parasceve is interpreted as preparation.… They called it this as the day when it was necessary that they prepare for the sabbath according to the command they had received concerning the manna, "On the sixth day you shall gather double, etc." … Therefore, because it was on the sixth day that human beings were made and the whole creation of the world completed, but on the seventh day it was required that he rested from his work and this is the sabbath, that is, rest—so it is only right to call that the day on which our Lord was crucified the sixth day fulfilling the reparation of humanity back to what it was at the beginning. [And we read], "And when he received the strong drink, he said 'It is finished,' " that is, the work of the sixth day is perfect as I have totally accomplished the restoration of the world. But on the sabbath he rests in the sepulcher awaiting the event of the resurrection, which will occur on the eight day.

Parasceue, i. e. preparation: the sixth day was so called because the children of Israel prepared twice the number of loaves on that day. For that sabbath day was an high day, i. e. on account of the feast of the passover. Besought Pilate that their legs might be broken.

The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation. Here is set forth the consummation in the effect of the Passion, which indeed was in the opening of the side of Christ, from which flowed "blood and water," whence the Sacraments have their efficacy, as the Gloss says. And four things are noted here, namely: the petition for the removal of the crucified, the breaking of the legs of the thieves, the opening of the side of Christ, and the confirmation of the testimony.

The petition for the removal of the crucified was made by the Jews: and the reason is given, because on the following day was the great day of the Sabbath: on account of which he says: The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day immediately before the Sabbath: that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, on account of the solemnity, namely: for that day of the Sabbath was a great day, because it fell within the solemnity of unleavened bread: they asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and they might be taken away. Augustine: "Therefore their legs were broken, so that they might die and be taken down from the wood, lest hanging on their crosses they should defile the great feast day with the horror of their prolonged torment." Deuteronomy 21: "When a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and having been condemned to death is hanged on a gibbet, his body shall not remain on the wood, but shall be buried on the same day."

It is not with the motive of testifying to the reverence for holy days felt by men inured to shed blood with brutal ferocity, and found guilty of so monstrous an iniquity, that the blessed Evangelist says this; but rather from the wish to show that, in their gross stupidity, they committed that folly of which Christ spoke. For they strained out the gnat while they swallowed the camel; for they are found to reckon as of no account at all the most outrageous and awful of all crimes against God, while they exercised the greatest diligence with reference to the most paltry and insignificant matters, showing their folly in either case. The proof of this is not far to seek. For, behold, in the very act of putting Christ to death, they put great store on the respect due to the Sabbath; and, while they insulted the Lawgiver by outrages which surpass description, they parade their reverence of the Law; and, as that Sabbath was a high day, they affect to pay honour to it----the very men who destroyed the Lord of the high day; and they ask a favour, which well suited their cruel spirit. For they besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, wishing to embitter, by this last intolerable outrage, the pangs of approaching death, to those who were already in agony.

The Jews strained out the gnat while they swallowed the camel. They completely discounted the most outrageous and awful of all crimes against God, while they exercised the greatest diligence with reference to the most paltry and insignificant matters, showing their folly in either case.

But the Jews, on the other hand, who swallowed the camel and strained at the gnat, having wrought so atrocious a deed, are very precise concerning the day. "Because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross - they besought Pilate that their legs might be broken." Seest thou how strong a thing is truth? By means of the very things which are the objects of their zeal, prophecy is fulfilled, for by occasion of those things, this plain prediction, unconnected with them, receives its accomplishment. For the soldiers when they came, brake the legs of the others, but not those of Christ. Yet these to gratify the Jews pierced His side with a spear, and now insulted the dead body. O abominable and accursed purpose! Yet, beloved, be not thou confounded, be not thou desponding; for the things which these men did from a wicked will, fought on the side of the truth. Since there was a prophecy, saying, (from this circumstance, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced." (Zech. xii. 10.) And not this only, but the deed then dared was a demonstration of the faith, to those who should afterwards disbelieve; as to Thomas, and those like him. With this too an ineffable mystery was accomplished. For "there came forth water and blood." Not without a purpose, or by chance, did those founts come forth, but because by means of these two together the Church consisteth. And the initiated know it, being by water indeed regenerate, and nourished by the Blood and the Flesh. Hence the Mysteries take their beginning; that when thou approachest to that awful cup, thou mayest so approach, as drinking from the very side.

What do they [i.e., the Jews] take it to mean when it says, "For six consecutive days you shall gather. On the sixth day, however, you shall gather double"? It appears that that day that is placed before the sabbath is called the sixth day, which we call the Day of Preparation.

He tells us himself clearly enough what he means by "elements," even the rudiments of the law: "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" -the sabbaths, I suppose, and "the preparations," and the fasts, and the "high days.

He tells us himself clearly enough what he means by "elements," even the rudiments of the law: "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" -the sabbaths, I suppose, and "the preparations," and the fasts, and the "high days." For the cessation of even these, no less than of circumcision, was appointed by the Creator's decrees, who had said by Isaiah, "Your new moons, and your sabbaths, and your high days I cannot bear; your fasting, and feasts, and ceremonies my soul hateth; " also by Amos, "I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies; " and again by Hosea, "I will cause to cease all her mirth, and her feast-days, and her sabbaths, and her new moons, and all her solemn assemblies.

But those who swallow a camel and strain out a gnat (Matt. 23:24), having committed so great a crime, show particular concern about the day. "For," he says, "so that the bodies would not remain on the cross, they asked Pilate," that is, they asked that they be taken down. So, they did not want to appear as avengers and murderers on the day of the feast. Otherwise: the law also commanded that the sun should not go down on a man's anger (Eph. 4:26). See how through the schemes of the Jews the prophecies are fulfilled. Here two prophecies are fulfilled at once, as the evangelist says further.

Our Lord gave up His ghost to God the Father, showing that the souls of the saints do not remain in the tomb, but go into the hand of the Father of all; while sinners are reserved for the place of punishment, i. e. hell.

For it was commanded in the Law that the sun should not set on the punishment of any one; or they were unwilling to appear tormentors and homicides on a feast day.

2454 Now we see the piercing of Christ's body: the act itself; and then the certainty of what the Evangelist tells us (v 35). With respect to the first he does two things: first, we see the intervention and intention of the Jews; secondly, this is partially accomplished; thirdly, how this was accomplished with regard to Christ.

2455 With respect to the first he says, Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day) the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. In Deuteronomy (21:22) we see that it is a precept of the law that the bodies of the dead who had been hanged for crimes were not to be left hanging until the morning, lest the land be defiled, and to blot out the disgrace of those who were hanged, for this kind of death was regarded as most disgraceful: "a hanged man is accursed by God" (Deut 21:23). Although the Jews did not now have the authority to inflict this punishment, they still tried to do what they could. And so because it was the Preparation day they asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away, so that Christ's body and those of the others would not remain on the cross on the sabbath, which was a very solemn day, and particularly this sabbath during the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. They were careful to keep the law in small matters, but they ignored it in important things: "You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (Mt 23:24).

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

The soldiers therefore came. Here is noted the breaking of the legs of the thieves. The soldiers therefore came, at the petition of the Jews, and of the first indeed, namely the one to whom they first came, they broke the legs, because he was still alive; and of the other, who was crucified with him, supply: they broke the legs, and so they expired: so that they might thus be distinguished from the Lamb, whose bones were to be preserved whole, because he alone was whole from sin. They could say that word of Psalm 6: "Heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled."

In pursuance of the request of the Jews, men afflicted with a madness akin to their cruelty----I mean the soldiers of Pilate----break the legs of the two robbers, as they were still numbered among the living, intensifying the bitter pang of their last agony, and finally despatching them by the most grievous act of violence. But when they found Jesus with His Head bowed down, and saw that He had already given up the ghost, they thought it lost labour to break His Legs; but, as they still had a faint suspicion that He might not be actually dead, they with a spear pierced His Side, which sent forth Blood, mingled with Water; God presenting us thereby with a type, as it were, and foreshadowing of the mystery of the Eucharist, and Holy Baptism. For Holy Baptism is of Christ, and Christ's institution; and the power of the mystery of the Eucharist grew up for us out of His Holy Flesh.

They ask for the legs to be broken for what reason? So that, even if they remain alive, they would be incapable of action (for they were robbers).

2456 He says how this was done in part, So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first thief, to whom they had come first, and of the other who had been crucified with him, with Jesus. This shows their cruelty: "You eat the flesh of my people" (Mic 3:3).

But when they had come to Jesus. Here is noted the opening of Christ's side. And first he says why they did not break his legs, namely because he was dead: and this is what he says: When they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs: because they did this in order to hasten death.

Whence, too, it was that there flowed out of the wound in the Lord's side water and blood, the materials of either baptism. I ought, then, by the first baptism too to (have the fight of) setting another free if I can by the second: and we must necessarily force upon the mind (of our opponents this conclusion): Whatever authority, whatever reason, restores ecclesiastical peace to the adulterer and fornicator, the same will be bound to come to the aid of the murderer and idolater in their repentance,-at all events, of the apostate, and of course of him whom, in the battle of his confession, after hard struggling with torments, savagery has overthrown.

2457 Why does the Evangelist add, but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs? Surely Jesus was crucified between the two others? We should say that one soldier went to one of the criminals and another soldier went to the other one to break their legs, and when they were done with this they both came to Jesus. We are told why they pierced his side, because when the soldiers saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

At the Lamb's high feast we sing Praise to our victorious King, Who has washed us in the tide Flowing from his pierced side. Praise we him whose love divine Gives the guests his blood for wine, Gives his body for the feast, Love the victim, love the priest. Where the Paschal blood is poured, Death's dark angel sheathes his sword; Israel's hosts triumphant go Through the wave that drowns the foe. Christ, the Lamb whose blood was shed, Paschal victim, Paschal bread; With sincerity and love Eat we manna from above. Mighty victim from the sky, Powers of hell beneath you lie; Death is conquered in the fight; You have brought us life and light. Alleluia!

A suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His side, or anything else, but "opened;" that thereby, in a sense, the gate of life might be thrown open, from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the layer of baptism and water for drinking. This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, whereby the animals might enter which were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured. Because of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, and was called Life, and the mother of all living. Truly it pointed to a great good, prior to the great evil of the transgression (in the guise of one thus lying asleep). This second Adam bowed His head and fell asleep on the cross, that a spouse might be formed for Him from that which flowed from the sleeper's side. O death, whereby the dead are raised anew to life! What can be purer than such blood? What more health-giving than such a wound?

(Tr. cxx.) The Evangelist has expressed himself cautiously; not struck, or wounded, but opened His side: (ἔνυξε, aperuit V.) whereby was opened the gate of life, from whence the sacraments of the Church flowed, without which we cannot enter into that life which is the true life: And forthwith came thereout blood and water. That blood was shed for the remission of sins, that water tempers the cup of salvation. This it was which was prefigured when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, by which the animals that were not to perish by the deluge entered; which animals prefigured the Church. To shadow forth this, the woman was made out of the side of the sleeping man; for this second Adam bowed His head, and slept on the cross, that out of that which came therefrom, there might be formed a wife for Him. O death, by which the dead are quickened, what can be purer than that blood, what more salutary than that wound!

Was not the Church formed from the side of Christ, when Christ fell asleep on the cross? And from His side flowed forth blood and water, that is, the Sacraments, through which the Church is reborn. From the rib of Adam, Eve was formed, who was joined to him in marriage. Just as man was formed from virgin earth, so Christ from the glorious Virgin. And just as from the side of the sleeping Adam woman was formed, so the Church from Christ hanging on the cross. And just as from Adam and Eve, Abel and his successors were formed, so from Christ and the Church the whole Christian people. And just as Eve is the mother of Abel and of all of us, so the Christian people has the Virgin as mother.

But one of the soldiers opened his side with a lance. Augustine: "Concerning this he does not say wounded, but opened, so that there a door might in a certain way be thrown open, whence the Sacraments of the Church flowed forth." And therefore it is added: And immediately there came out blood and water. Augustine: "This blood was poured out for the remission of sins; this water tempers the saving cup; it provides both a washing and a drink"; Apocalypse 1: "He washed us from our sins in his blood"; and Ephesians 5: "Christ loved the Church, cleansing her by the washing" etc.

It is asked: why was his side opened or wounded after death and not before? And it must be understood that nothing was done to him except what God permitted for a fitting reason. The reason for this is given both allegorically and literally: allegorically, because just as Eve was formed from the side of the sleeping Adam, so the Church was formed from the side of Christ sleeping on the cross. Whence Augustine says: "For this reason the second Adam slept on the cross, so that from there his bride might be formed, from what flowed out of his side." The literal reason is that the Lord Christ, although He showed His humanity, nevertheless wished at the same time to show the truth of His Divinity. Hence He showed this before the Passion in His arrest, this in the Passion in the darkness, and this after death He showed in the flowing forth of water and blood. Hence Ambrose says: "Although the nature of Christ's body was mortal, yet its grace was unlike ours. For after death the blood in our bodies congeals, but from that incorrupt body the life of all flowed forth; water and blood came forth: the former to wash clean, the latter to redeem. We drink our ransom, so that by drinking we may be redeemed."

The sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, after they had been trained from wandering to [find] their rest. The sacred vine represented the great cluster of the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as his blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of his flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption. And there is the spiritual blood, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus is to become a partaker of the Lord's immortality with the Spirit as the enervating principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with humankind. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes the faith; while the other, the Spirit, brings us to immortality. And the mixture of both, of the water and of the Word, is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace. And they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the Father's will has mystically compounded the divine mixture, man, by the Spirit and the Word. For in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it. And the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, is joined to the Word.

The beginning of signs under Moses was blood and water. And the last of all Jesus' signs was the same. First, Moses changed the river into blood. And Jesus at the last gave forth from his side water with blood.… In the Gospels, the power of saving baptism happens in two ways: one is granted through water to the illuminated, a second is granted to holy martyrs in persecutions through their own blood. Since this is so, blood and water came out of that saving Side to confirm the grace of the confession made for Christ, whether in baptism or martyrdom.

"There came forth blood and water," which is his church, and it is built on him, just as [in the case of] Adam, whose wife was taken from his side. Adam's rib is his wife, and the blood of our Lord is his church. From Adam's rib there was death, but from our Lord's rib, life. The olive tree [symbolizes] the mystery of Christ, from which spring forth milk, water and oil; milk for the children, water for the youths and oil for the sick. The olive tree gave water and blood through its death, [just as] the Messiah gave these through his death.

But above all, it is true of the most tremendous issue; of that tragedy which has created the divine comedy of our creed. Nothing short of the extreme and strong and startling doctrine of the divinity of Christ will give that particular effect that can truly stir the popular sense like a trumpet; the idea of the king himself serving in the ranks like a common soldier. By making that figure merely human we make that story much less human. We take away the point of the story which actually pierces humanity; the point of the story which was quite literally the point of a spear.

The body of the Lord presented both these to the world, the sacred blood and the holy water.

And His body, though dead after the manner of man, possesses in it great power of life. For streams which flow not from dead bodies flowed forth from Him, viz., blood and water; in order that we might know what power for life is held by the virtue that dwelt in His body, so as that it appears not to be dead like others, and is able to shed forth for us the springs of life.

And not a bone of the Holy Lamb is broken, this figure showing us that suffering toucheth not His strength. For the bones are the strength of the body.

Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? And why did He acknowledge Himself to be the Son of man, if He had not gone through that birth which belongs to a human being? How, too, could He forgive us those sins for which we are answerable to our Maker and God? And how, again, supposing that He was not flesh, but was a man merely in appearance, could He have been crucified, and could blood and water have issued from His pierced side? What body, moreover, was it that those who buried Him consigned to the tomb? And what was that which rose again from the dead?

Christ came and opened up baptism by his cross, so that it should be a mother of life for the world in place of Eve, water and blood for the fashioning of spiritual infants flowed forth from it, and baptism became the mother of life. No previous baptism [i.e., of Moses or of John] ever gave the Holy Spirit. Only the baptism that was opened by the Son of God on the cross did so. It gives birth to children spiritually with the "water and the blood," and, instead of a soul, the Holy Spirit is breathed into them.

Pilate sought to gratify the whole people who had said, "Crucify, crucify him." He also feared a riot among the people and so did not give orders (according to the usual practice of the Romans with those who are crucified) for Jesus to be stabbed under his armpits. This is sometimes done by those who condemn people guilty of greater crimes, because greater suffering is endured by those who are not stabbed after crucifixion who end up living in very great torment sometimes even the whole night and still the whole day after. Jesus therefore, since he had not been stabbed and was expected to hang a long time on the cross and endure greater torments, prayed to the Father and was heard. Immediately on crying to the Father, he was taken. Or, as one who had the power to lay down his life, he laid it down when he wanted to.

Celsus asks whether the blood in the body of the crucified Jesus was the same as that which flows in the bodies of the immortal gods. He asks in jest, but we shall show that it was no mythic or Homeric blood that flowed from the body of Jesus.… With other dead bodies the blood congeals and pure water does not flow. But in the case of Jesus' dead body, the miraculous feature was that both blood and water flowed forth from his side.

If there is anyone who, when he reads Moses, murmurs against him, and the Law which has been written according to the letter is displeasing to him because it seems incoherent in many things, Moses shows him the rock which is Christ and leads him to it that he may drink from it and quench his thirst. But this rock will not give water unless it has been struck, but when it has been struck it brings forth streams. For after Christ had been struck and crucified, he brought forth the streams of the New Testament. This is why it was said of him, "I will the strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered." He had to be struck, therefore, for unless he had been struck and unless "water and blood had gone out from his side," we all would suffer "thirst for the word of God." This, therefore, is what the Apostle also understood when he said, "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual rock which followed, but the rock was Christ."

Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes; witness Pilate's hands: when He is wounded, forth from His side bursts water; witness the soldier's lance!

For He had come "by means of water and blood," just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood.

When the soldiers pierced the Savior's side with the lance, what flowed out of it according to the Gospel writers? Blood and water. He called the Savior's blood, therefore, the blood of a grape. For if the Lord was called a vine, and if the fruit of the vine is called wine, and if springs of blood and water poured from the Lord's side and ran over the rest of his body to the ground, then the patriarch's prophecy was reasonable and appropriate: "He will wash his robe in wine and his garment in blood of the grape." For just as we call the sacramental fruit of the vine the Lord's blood after the consecration, so he called the blood of the true vine blood of the grape.

Although they did not break the legs of Jesus, nevertheless, to please the Jews they pierced Him, and blood and water flowed out. And this is wondrous. They thought to mock even the dead body, but the mockery turns into a miracle for them. It is also worthy of wonder that blood flows from a dead body. However, someone among the skeptics will say that probably there was still some vital force remaining in the body. But when water also flowed out, the miracle is indisputable. This did not happen without reason, but because life in the Church begins and continues through these two things: by water we are born, and by the Blood and Body we are nourished. Therefore, when you approach the cup of communion of the Blood of Christ, dispose yourself as though you were drinking from the very side. Note, if you will, how through the pierced rib the wound of the rib, that is, of Eve, is healed. There Adam, having fallen asleep, lost a rib; and here the Lord, having fallen asleep, gives His rib to the soldier. The soldier's spear is a figure of the sword that turned every way and drove us out of paradise (Gen. 3:24). And since everything that revolves does not stop in its movement until it strikes against something, the Lord, showing that He will stop that sword, presents His rib to the soldier's sword, so that it would be clear to us that just as the soldier's spear, having struck against the rib, came to a stop, so too the flaming sword will come to a stop and will no longer terrify with its turning or bar the entrance into paradise. Let the Arians be put to shame, who in the sacrament of communion do not add water to the wine. For they, it seems, do not believe that water also flowed from the side, which is more wondrous, but believe that only blood flowed out, and thereby they diminish the greatness of the miracle. For the blood shows that the Crucified One is a man, while the water shows that He is above man, namely, God.

To please the Jews, they pierce Christ, thus insulting even His lifeless body. But the insult issues in a miracle: for a miracle it is that blood should flow from a dead body.

Shame then upon them who mix not water with the wine in the holy mysteries: they seem as if they believed not that the water flowed from the side. Had blood flowed only, a man might have said that there was some life left in the body, and that that was why the blood flowed. But the water flowing is an irresistible miracle, and therefore the Evangelist adds, And he that saw it bare record.

2458 To make sure that Jesus was dead one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear. It deserves notice that he does not say "wounded" but "pierced," that is "opened," because in his side the door of eternal life is opened to us: "After this I looked, and lo, in heaven, an open door!" (Rev 4:1). This is the door in the side of the ark through which those animals entered who were not to perish in the flood (Gen 7).

This door is the cause of our salvation; and so, at once there came out blood and water. This is a remarkable miracle, that blood should flow from the body of a dead person where blood congeals. And if someone says that this was because the body was still warm, the flow of the water cannot be explained without a miracle, since this was pure water. This outpouring of blood and water happened so that Christ might show that he was truly human. For human beings have a twofold composition: one from the elements and the other from the humors. One of these elements is water, and blood is the main humor.

Another reason why this happened was to show that by the passion of Christ we acquire a complete cleansing from our sins and stains. We are cleansed from our sins by his blood, which is the price of our redemption: "You know that your were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things, such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18). And we are cleansed from our stains by the water, which is the bath of our rebirth: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses" (Ez 36:25); "On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness" (Zech 13:1). And so it is these two things which are especially associated with two sacraments: water with the sacrament of baptism, and blood with the Eucharist.

Or, both blood and water are associated with the Eucharist because in this sacrament water is mixed with wine, although water is not of the substance of the sacrament.

This event was also prefigured: for just as from the side of Christ, sleeping on the cross, there flowed blood and water, which makes the Church holy, so from the side of the sleeping Adam there was formed the woman, who prefigured the Church.

It is written that when the side of Jesus was pierced, "he poured out blood and water." This has a mystical meaning. For Jesus himself had said, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

"And he that saw it," he says, "bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also might believe." He said not, That ye also might know, but "that ye might believe;" for he knoweth who hath seen, that he who hath not seen might believe his testimony. And believing belongs more to the nature of faith than seeing. For what else is meant by believing than giving to faith a suitable reception?

(Tr. cxx) He that saw it knoweth; let him that saw not believe his testimony.

The third certainty derives from an intellectual vision combined with bodily vision. This occurred in the minds of the apostles. What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have handled, the Word of Life. And we announce to you nothing else than what we have seen. And elsewhere it is written: He who saw it has borne witness.

And he who saw etc. Here is indicated the fourth point, namely the confirmation of testimony. And he confirms this by his own testimony and by the testimony of Scripture: by his own, because he himself saw and was present: whence he says: And he who saw bore witness. And he approves the testimony, because it is true, whence: and his testimony is true: and because it is certain, whence: and he knows that he speaks the truth. And therefore he says: That you also may believe: because faith is more readily given to one who saw than to one who learned by report: Proverbs 12: "He who speaks what he knows is a judge of justice; but he who lies is a fraudulent witness"; and 1 John 1: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the Word of life" etc.

"And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true." That is, "I heard it not from others, but was myself present and saw it, and the testimony is true." As may be supposed. For he relates an insult done; he relates not anything great and admirable, that thou shouldest suspect his narrative; but securing the mouths of heretics, and loudly proclaiming beforehand the Mysteries that should be, and beholding the treasure laid up in them, he is very exact concerning what took place. And that prophecy also is fulfilled, "A bone of Him shall not be broken." (Ex. xii. 46; Num. ix. 12.) For even if this was said with reference to the lamb of the Jews, still it was for the sake of the reality that the type preceded, and in Him the prophecy was more fully accomplished. On this account the Evangelist brought forward the Prophet. For since by continually producing himself as witness he would have seemed unworthy of credit, he brings Moses to help him, and saith, that neither did this come to pass without a purpose, but was written before of old. And this is the meaning of the words, "A bone of Him shall not be broken." Again he confirms the Prophet's words by his own witness. "These things," saith he, "I have told you, that ye might learn that great is the connection of the type with the reality." Seest thou what pains he takes to make that believed which seemed to be matter of reproach, and bringing shame? For that the soldier should insult even the dead body, was far worse than being crucified. "But still, even these things," he saith, "I have told, and told with much earnestness, 'that ye might believe.' Let none then be unbelieving, nor through shame injure our cause. For the things which appear to be most shameful, are the very venerable records of our good things."

The Evangelist alludes to himself, because he always talks about himself without mentioning his name. From this it is clear that John was present at these events. It seems also that he wants to suggest the emission of blood and water did not occur so that everybody might see it but that it remained invisible to many. Indeed, he points out this by saying, "He who saw this has testified," and he means that he only saw and testified to this event. But he was worthy to be believed about this, even though he said that he only saw and testified. Therefore he also recalled the words of Scripture. Indeed, those events happened just like they had been written. So the death of our Lord happened in this manner.

"Not from others," he says, "did I hear, but I myself was there and saw, and my testimony is true." He rightly remarks this. He is narrating about the mockery, and not about something great and honorable, so that you might suspect this account. "For this reason," he says, "I describe this in detail and do not conceal what is apparently dishonorable, so that you may believe that all this is undoubtedly true, and not composed in anyone's favor." For whoever speaks in someone's favor presents what is more glorious.

2459 Now the Evangelist shows that these events are certainly true: first, from the testimony of the Apostle himself; secondly, from a prophecy in the scriptures (v 36).

2460 He does three things about the first: he mentions the credentials of the witness, he who saw it has borne witness, and this is John himself: "That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you" (1 Jn 1:3). Secondly, he affirms that this testimony is true, his testimony is true: "I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying" (Rom 9:1); "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (8:32). Thirdly, he asks us to believe, and he knows that he tells the truth that you also may believe: "These are written that you may believe" (20:31).