John 2
Commentary from 41 fathers
And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
ἐκλήθη δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν γάμον.
Зва́нъ же бы́сть і҆и҃съ и҆ ᲂу҆чн҃цы̀ є҆гѡ̀ на бра́къ.
The third day was now come from Jesus’ baptism, and there was a marriage taking place in Cana of Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there when, on the failure of the wine, he made wine out of water.… Jesus being Maker of man and woman does not refuse to be called to a marriage; it was he who after forming Eve brought her to Adam. Therefore in the Gospel he says about this union, “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” Let the heretics therefore be put to shame who reject marriage, since Jesus was called to a marriage and his mother was there.
Fragment 28 on the Gospel of John
The Lord, in that He came to the marriage to which He was invited, wished, apart from the mystical signification, to assure us that marriage was His own institution. For there were to be those of whom the apostle spoke, "forbidding to marry," and asserting that marriage was an evil, and of the devil's institution: notwithstanding the same Lord declares in the Gospel, on being asked whether it be lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause, that it is not lawful save for the cause of fornication. In His answer, if you remember, He said, "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder." And they that are well instructed in the catholic faith know that God instituted marriage; and as the union of man and wife is from God, so divorce is from the devil. But in the case of fornication it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, because she first chose to be no longer wife in not preserving conjugal fidelity to her husband. Nor are those women who vow virginity to God, although they hold a higher place of honor and sanctity in the Church, without marriage. For they too, together with the whole Church, attain to a marriage, a marriage in which Christ is the Bridegroom. And for this cause, therefore, did the Lord, on being invited, come to the marriage, to confirm conjugal chastity, and to show forth the sacrament of marriage. For the bridegroom in that marriage, to whom it was said, "Thou hast kept the good wine until now," represented the person of the Lord. For the good wine-namely, the gospel-Christ has kept until now.
Tractates on John 9
As one who was renewing and refashioning the very nature of humanity for the better, Christ not only imparts his blessing to those already called into being but also prepares grace in advance for those soon to be born and sanctifies their entrance into existence. And yet, there is still another reason why Jesus was at this wedding. God had said to the woman. “in pain you shall bring forth children.” How else could we escape a condemned marriage unless this curse was annulled? This curse too the Savior removes because of his love for humankind. For he who is the delight and joy of all honored marriage with his presence so that he might expel the ancient sadness of childbearing.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.1
The Son of God went to the wedding so that marriage, which had been instituted by his own authority, might be sanctified by his blessed presence. He went to a wedding of the old order when he was about to take a new bride for himself through the conversion of the Gentiles, a bride who would forever remain a virgin. He went to a wedding even though he himself was not born of human wedlock. He went to the wedding not, certainly, to enjoy a banquet but rather to make himself known by miracles. He went to the wedding not to drink wine but to give it.
Sermon 23
They invite the Lord to the wedding not because they had seen His miracles, not as a great man, but simply as an acquaintance. Indicating this, the evangelist says: "the Mother of Jesus was there" and His brothers. Just as she and the brothers were invited, so too was the Lord. The Lord does not reject the invitation and comes, because He looked not to His own dignity, but to what is useful and beneficial for us. He who did not consider it beneath Himself to be among servants could even less consider it beneath Himself to go to a wedding.
Commentary on John
And this is what comes next: Jesus was invited. Christ decided to attend this wedding, first of all, to give us an example of humility. For he did not look to his own dignity, but "just as he condescended to accept the form of a servant, so he did not hesitate to come to the marriage of servants," as Chrysostom says. And as Augustine says: "Let man blush to be proud, for God became humble." For among his other acts of humility, the Son of the Virgin came to a marriage, which he had already instituted in paradise when he was with his Father. Of this example it is said: "Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart" (Mt 11:29).
He came, secondly, to reject the error of those who condemn marriage, for as Bede says: "If there were sin in a holy marriage bed and in a marriage carried out with due purity, the Lord would not have come to the marriage." But because he did come, he implies that the baseness of those who denounce marriage deserves to be condemned. "If she marries, it is not a sin" (1 Cor 7:36).
The disciples are mentioned when he says, and his disciples.
In its mystical meaning, the mother of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin, is present in spiritual marriages as the one who arranges the marriage, because it is through her intercession that one is joined to Christ through grace: "In me is every hope of life and of strength" (Sir 24:25). Christ is present as the true groom of the soul, as is said below (3:29): "It is the groom who has the bride." The disciples are the groomsmen uniting the Church to Christ, the one of whom it is said: "I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor 11:2).
Commentary on John
And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
καὶ ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου λέγει ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν· οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσι.
И҆ недоста́вшꙋ вїнꙋ̀, гл҃го́ла мт҃и і҆и҃сова къ немꙋ̀: вїна̀ не и҆́мꙋтъ.
That wine, which was produced by God in a vineyard, and which was first consumed, was good. None of those who drank of it found fault with it; and the Lord partook of it also. But that wine was better which the Word made from water, on the moment, and simply for the use of those who had been called to the marriage. For although the Lord had the power to supply wine to those feasting, independently of any created substance, and to fill with food those who were hungry, He did not adopt this course; but, taking the loaves which the earth had produced, and giving thanks, and on the other occasion making water wine, He satisfied those who were reclining at table, and gave drink to those who had been invited to the marriage; showing that the God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favour of drink: the Incomprehensible acting thus by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father.
Against Heresies Book 3
Here it is worth while to enquire whence it came into His mother's mind to imagine anything great of her Son; for He had as yet done no miracle, since the Evangelist saith, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee."
Now if any say that this is not a sufficient proof that it was the "beginning of His miracles," because there is added simply "in Cana of Galilee," as allowing it to have been the first done there, but not altogether and absolutely the first, for He probably might have done others elsewhere, we will make answer to him of that which we have said before. And of what kind? The words of John (the Baptist); "And I knew Him not; but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come, baptizing with water." Now if He had wrought miracles in early age, the Israelites would not have needed another to declare Him. For He who came among men, and by His miracles was so made known, not to those only in Judaea, but also to those in Syria and beyond, and who did this in three years only, or rather who did not need even these three years to manifest Himself (Matt. iv. 24), for immediately and from the first His fame went abroad everywhere; He, I say, who in a short time so shone forth by the multitude of His miracles, that His name was well known to all, was much less likely, if while a child He had from an early age wrought miracles, to escape notice so long. For what was done would have seemed stranger as done by a boy, and there would have been time for twice or thrice as many, and much more. But in fact He did nothing while He was a child, save only that one thing to which Luke has testified (Luke ii. 46), that at the age of twelve years He sat hearing the doctors, and was thought admirable for His questioning. Besides, it was in accordance with likelihood and reason that He did not begin His signs at once from an early age; for they would have deemed the thing a delusion. For if when He was of full age many suspected this, much more, if while quite young He had wrought miracles, would they have hurried Him sooner and before the proper time to the Cross, in the venom of their malice; and the very facts of the Dispensation would have been discredited.
Homily on the Gospel of John 21
"How then," asks some one, "came it into the mind of His mother to imagine anything great of Him?" He was now beginning to reveal Himself, and was plainly discovered by the witness of John, and by what He had said to His disciples. And before all this, the Conception itself and all its attending circumstances had inspired her with a very great opinion of the Child; "for," said Luke, "she heard all the sayings concerning the Child, and kept them in her heart." "Why then," says one, "did not she speak this before?" Because, as I said, it was now at last that He was beginning to manifest Himself. Before this time He lived as one of the many, and therefore His mother had not confidence to say any such thing to Him; but when she heard that John had come on His account, and that he had borne such witness to Him as he did, and that He had disciples, after that she took confidence, and called Him, and said, when they wanted wine, "They have no wine." For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, "Show thyself to the world" (c. xvii. 4), desiring to gain credit from His miracles.
Homily on the Gospel of John 21
Perhaps his mother, as mothers do, incited him to perform a miracle, wishing that the greatness of her son would be revealed—and thinking that the lack of wine offered the right occasion for the miracle.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.2, 3
Seasonably comes He at length, to the beginning of miracles, even if He seems to have been called to it without set purpose. For a marriage feast being held (it is clear that it was altogether holily), the mother of the Saviour is present, and Himself also being bidden comes together with His own disciples, to work miracles rather than to feast with them, and yet more to sanctify the very beginning of the birth of man: I mean so far as appertains to the flesh. For it was fitting that He, Who was renewing the very nature of man, and refashioning it all for the better, should not only impart His blessing to those already called into being, but also prepare before grace for those soon to be born, and make holy their entrance into being.
Receive also yet a third reason. It had been said to the woman by God, In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. How then was it not needful that we should thrust off this curse too, or how else could we escape a condemned marriage? This too the Saviour, being loving to man, removes. For He, the Delight and Joy of all, honoured marriage with His Presence, that He might expel the old shame of child-bearing. For if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; and old things are passed away, as Paul saith, they are become new. He cometh therefore with. His disciples to the marriage. For it was needful that the lovers of miracles should be present with the Wonderworker, to collect what was wrought as a kind of food to their faith. But when wine failed the feasters, His mother called the Lord being good according to His wonted Love for man, saying, They have no wine. For since it was in His Power to do whatsoever He would, she urges Him to the miracle.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
When Christ was present at the marriage feast, and the crowd of guests were faring sumptuously, The supply of wine failed them, and their joy was turned into distress; The bridegroom was upset; the cupbearers muttered unceasingly; There was this one sad display of penury, And there was no small clamor in the room. Recognizing it, the all-holy Mary Came at once and said to her son: “They have no wine, But I beg you, my son, show that you can do all things, Thou who has in wisdom created all things.”
We beg of you, holy Virgin, from what sort of miracles did you know How your son would be able to offer wine when He had not harvested the grapes And had never before worked wonders, as John, inspired of God wrote? Teach us, how, when you had never gazed upon And never made trial of His miracles,
How did you summon Him to this miracle? For the question now posed to us in this matter is not simple, As to how you said to your son: “Give them wine,” He who has in wisdom created all things.
Let us learn the word which the mother of the God of all said to us: “Listen,” she said, “my friends, instruct yourselves and know the mystery; I have seen my son working miracles even before this miracle. …
“For I know that I did not know a husband, And I bore a son—beyond natural law and reason, And I know that I remained a virgin as I had been. Do you, O man, ask for a miracle greater than this birth? Gabriel came to me saying how this one would be born, He who has in wisdom created all things.
“After my conception, I myself saw Elizabeth call me Mother of God before the actual birth; after the birth, Simeon praised me in song; Anna greeted me with joy; the Magi from Persia hastened to the manger, For a heavenly star proclaimed the birth in advance; Shepherds with angels heralded joy, And creation rejoiced with them. What would I be able to ask for greater than these miracles? Indeed from them I have faith that it is my son Who has in wisdom created all things.”
Kontakion on the Marriage at Cana 7.5-9
The wine was made to fail, to give our Lord the opportunity of making better; that so the glory of God in man might be brought out of its hiding place: And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto Him, They have no wine.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
She represents here the Synagogue, which challenges Christ to perform a miracle. It was customary with the Jews to ask for miracles.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The Mother urges Him to perform a miracle, because from the events of the conception and birth She had received a lofty understanding of His power. For She kept all these things in Her heart (Luke 2:19, 51) and from this concluded that Her Son possesses power above that of man. But the Mother of God did not have reason to ask Jesus to perform a miracle on the grounds that He had performed other miracles. For, being a child, He did not perform a single miracle; otherwise He would have been known to all. At the same time, the Mother also remembered the testimonies of John, in which he bore witness concerning Him, and She already saw that disciples were following Him, and from all of this She inferred the power of Her Son.
Commentary on John
At this physical marriage some role in the miracle belongs to the mother of Christ, some to Christ, and some to the disciples. When he says, When the wine ran out, he indicates the part of each. The role of Christ's mother was to superintend the miracle; the role of Christ to perform it; and the disciples were to bear witness to it. As to the first, Christ's mother assumed the role of a mediatrix. Hence she does two things. First, she intercedes with her Son. In the second place, she instructs the servants. As to the first, two things are mentioned. First, his mother's intercession; secondly, the answer of her Son.
In Mary's intercession, note first her kindness and mercy. For it is a quality of mercy to regard another's distress as one's own, because to be merciful is to have a heart distressed at the distress of another: "Who is weak, and I am not weak?" (2 Cor 11:29). And so because the Blessed Virgin was full of mercy, she desired to relieve the distress of others. So he says, When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him.
Note, secondly, her reverence for Christ: for because of the reverence we have for God it is sufficient for us merely to express our needs: "Lord, all my desires are known by you" (Ps 37:10). But it is not our business to wonder about the way in which God will help us, for as it is said: "We do not know what we should pray for as we ought" (Rom 8:26). And so his mother merely told him of their need, saying, They have no more wine.
Thirdly, note the Virgin's concern and care. For she did not wait until they were in extreme need, but When the wine ran out, that is, immediately. This is similar to what is said of God: "A helper in times of trouble" (Ps 9:10).
Chrysostom asks: Why did Mary never encourage Christ to perform any miracles before this time? For she had been told of his power by the angel, whose work had been confirmed by the many things she had seen happening in his regard, all of which she remembered, thinking them over in her heart (Lk 2:51). The reason is that before this time he lived like any other person. So, because the time was not appropriate, she put off asking him. But now, after John's witness to him and after the conversion of his disciples, she trustingly prompted Christ to perform miracles. In this she was true to the symbol of the synagogue, which is the mother of Christ: for it was customary for the Jews to require miracles: "The Jews require signs" (1 Cor 1:22).
She says to him, They have no more wine. Here we should note that before the incarnation of Christ three wines were running out: the wine of justice, of wisdom, and of charity or grace. Wine stings, and in this respect it is a symbol of justice. The Samaritan poured wine and oil into the wounds of the injured man, that is, he mingled the severity of justice with the sweetness of mercy. "You have made us drink the wine of sorrow" (Ps 59:5). But wine also delights the heart, "Wine cheers the heart of man" (Ps 103:15). And in this respect wine is a symbol of wisdom, the meditation of which is enjoyable in the highest degree: "Her companionship has no bitterness" (Wis 8:16). Further, wine intoxicates: "Drink, friends, and be intoxicated, my dearly beloved" (Sg 5:1). And in this respect wine is a symbol of charity: "I have drunk my wine with my milk" (Sg 5:1). It is also a symbol of charity because of charity's fervor: "Wine makes the virgins flourish" (Zec 9:17).
The wine of justice was indeed running out in the old law, in which justice was imperfect. But Christ brought it to perfection: "Unless your justice is greater than that of the scribes and of the Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:20). The wine of wisdom was also running out, for it was hidden and symbolic, because as it says in 1 Corinthians (10:11): "All these things happened to them in symbol." But Christ plainly brought wisdom to light: "He was teaching them as one having authority" (Mt 7:29). The wine of charity was also running out, because they had received a spirit of serving only in fear. But Christ converted the water of fear into the wine of charity when he gave "the spirit of adoption as sons, by which we cry: 'Abba, Father'" (Rom 8:15), and when "the charity of God was poured out into our hearts," as Romans (5:5) says.
Commentary on John
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου.
Гл҃а є҆́й і҆и҃съ: что̀ (є҆́сть) мнѣ̀ и҆ тебѣ̀, же́но; не ᲂу҆̀ прїи́де ча́съ мо́й.
With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come"—waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father.
Against Heresies Book 3.16.7
With [Jesus], nothing is incomplete or done at the wrong time, just as with the Father there is nothing haphazard. The Lord checked Mary’s untimely haste when she was urging him to perform the wonderful miracle of the wine and wanting him to partake of the cup, which would have so much emblematic significance later on. This is why he said, “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come”—waiting for the hour that was foreknown by the Father.
Against Heresies 3.16.7
When, therefore, he says, the entire Sonship shall have come, and shall be above the conterminous spirit, then the creature will become the object of mercy. For (the creature) groans until now, and is tormented, and waits for the manifestation of the sons of God, in order that all who are men of the Sonship may ascend from thence. When this takes place, God, he says, will bring upon the whole world enormous ignorance, that all things may continue according to nature, and that nothing may inordinately desire anything of the things that are contrary to nature. But (far from it); for all the souls of this quarter of creation, as many as possess the nature of remaining immortal in this (region) only, continue (in it), aware of nothing superior or better (than their present state). And there will not prevail any rumour or knowledge in regions below, concerning beings whose dwelling is placed above, lest subjacent souls should be wrung with torture from longing after impossibilities. (It would be) just as if a fish were to crave to feed on the mountains along with sheep. (For) a wish of this description would, he says, be their destruction. All things, therefore, that abide in (this) quarter are incorruptible, but corruptible if they are disposed to wander and cross over from the things that are according to nature. In this way the Archon of the Hebdomad will know nothing of superjacent entities. For enormous ignorance will lay hold on this one likewise, in order that sorrow, and grief, and groaning may depart from him; for he will not desire aught of impossible things, nor will he be visited with anguish. In like manner, however, the same ignorance will lay hold also on the Great Archon of the Ogdoad, and similarly on all the creatures that are subject unto him, in order that in no respect anything may desire aught of those things that are contrary to nature, and may not (thus) be overwhelmed with sorrow. And so there will be the restitution of all things which, in conformity with nature, have from the beginning a foundation in the seed of the universe, but will be restored at (their own) proper periods. And that each thing, says (Basilides), has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient (witness ) when He observes, "Mine hour is not yet come." And the Magi (afford similar testimony) when they gaze wistfully upon the (Saviour's) star. For (Jesus) Himself was, he says, mentally preconceived at the time of the generation of the stars, and of the complete return to their starting-point of the seasons in the vast conglomeration (of all germs). This is, according to these (Basilidians), he who has been conceived as the inner spiritual man in what is natural (now this is the Sonship which left there the soul, not (that it might be) mortal, but that it might abide here according to nature, just as the first Sonship left above in its proper locality the Holy Spirit, (that is, the spirit) which is conterminous),-(this, I say, is he who has been conceived as the inner spiritual man, and) has then been arrayed in his own peculiar soul.
Refutation of All Heresies Book 7
He chides his mother for having importunely reminded God, who has no need to be reminded of anything. It is as if he had said, “Do not regard me only as a man but also as God. Not yet has the time of my manifestation come. Not as yet is it known who I am.”
Fragments on John 57
The words are not used in this place only, but in others also; for the same Evangelist says, "They could not lay hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come" (c. viii. 20); and again, "No man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come" (c. vii. 30); and again, "The hour is come, glorify Thy Son." (c. xvii. 1.) What then do the words mean? I have brought together more instances, that I may give one explanation of all. And what is that explanation? Christ did not say, "Mine hour is not yet come," as being subject to the necessity of seasons, or the observance of an "hour"; how can He be so, who is Maker of seasons, and Creator of the times and the ages? To what else then did He allude? He desires to show this; that He works all things at their convenient season, not doing all at once; because a kind of confusion and disorder would have ensued, if, instead of working all at their proper seasons, He had mixed all together, His Birth, His Resurrection, and His coming to Judgment.
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
And His meaning is, that as yet He was not manifest to the many, nor had He even His whole company of disciples; Andrew followed Him, and next to him Philip, but no one else. And moreover, none of these, not even His mother nor His brethren, knew Him as they ought; for after His many miracles, the Evangelist says of His brethren, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him." (c. vii. 5.) And those at the wedding did not know Him either, for in their need they would certainly have come to and entreated Him. Therefore He saith, "Mine hour is not yet come"; that is, "I am not yet known to the company, nor are they even aware that the wine has failed; let them first be sensible of this. I ought not to have been told it from thee; thou art My mother, and renderest the miracle suspicious. They who wanted the wine should have come and besought Me, not that I need this, but that they might with an entire assent accept the miracle. For one who knows that he is in need, is very grateful when he obtains assistance; but one who has not a sense of his need, will never have a plain and clear sense of the benefit."
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
Why then after He had said, "Mine hour is not yet come," and given her a denial, did He what His mother desired? Chiefly it was, that they who opposed Him, and thought that He was subject to the "hour," might have sufficient proof that He was subject to no hour; for had He been so, how could He, before the proper "hour" was come, have done what He did? And in the next place, He did it to honor His mother, that He might not seem entirely to contradict and shame her that bare Him in the presence of so many; and also, that He might not be thought to want power, for she brought the servants to Him.
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently, saying, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come."
Homily on the Gospel of John 21
To prove that He greatly respected His mother, hear Luke relate how He was "subject to" His parents (Luke ii. 51), and our own Evangelist declare how He had forethought for her at the very season of the Crucifixion. For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, "Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?" (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion. For consider what a thing it was, that when all the people high and low were standing round Him, when the multitude was intent on hearing Him, and His doctrine had begun to be set forth, she should come into the midst and take Him away from the work of exhortation, and converse with Him apart, and not even endure to come within, but draw Him outside merely to herself. This is why He said, "Who is My mother and My brethren?" Not to insult her who had borne Him, (away with the thought!) but to procure her the greatest benefit, and not to let her think meanly of Him. For if He cared for others, and used every means to implant in them a becoming opinion of Himself, much more would He do so in the case of His mother. And since it was probable that if these words had been addressed to her by her Son, she would not readily have chosen even then to be convinced, but would in all cases have claimed the superiority as being His mother, therefore He replied as He did to them who spake to Him; otherwise He could not have led up her thoughts from His present lowliness to His future exaltation, had she expected that she should always be honored by Him as by a son, and not that He should come as her Master.
It was then from this motive that He said in this place, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" and also for another reason not less pressing. What was that? It was, that His miracles might not be suspected. The request ought to have come from those who needed, not from His mother. And why so? Because what is done at the request of one's friends, great though it be, often causes offense to the spectators; but when they make the request who have the need, the miracle is free from suspicion, the praise unmixed, the benefit great. So if some excellent physician should enter a house where there were many sick, and be spoken to by none of the patients or their relations, but be directed only by his own mother, he would be suspected and disliked by the sufferers, nor would any of the patients or their attendants deem him able to exhibit anything great or remarkable. And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.
These then were the words, not of one speaking rudely to his mother, but belonging to a wise dispensation, which brought her into a right frame of mind, and provided that the miracles should be attended with that honor which was meet.
Homily on the Gospel of John 21
It is because of an indubitable mystery that He appears not to acknowledge His mother, from whom as the Bridegroom He came forth, when He says to her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come." What is this? Did He come to the marriage for the purpose of teaching men to treat their mothers with contempt? Surely he to whose marriage He had come was taking a wife with the view of having children, and surely he wished to be honored by those children he would beget: had Jesus then come to the marriage in order to dishonor His mother, when marriages are celebrated and wives married with the view of having children, whom God commands to honor their parents? Beyond all doubt, brethren, there is some mystery lurking here.
Tractates on John 8
It is really a matter of such importance that some,-of whom the apostle, as we have mentioned before, has forewarned us to be on our guard, saying, "I fear, lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty, so also your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and chastity which is in Christ,"-taking away from the credibility of the gospel, and asserting that Jesus was not born of the Virgin Mary, used to endeavor to draw from this place an argument in support of their error, so far as to say, How could she be His mother, to whom He said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" Wherefore we must answer them, and show them why the Lord said this, lest in their insanity they appear to themselves to have discovered something contrary to wholesome belief, whereby the chastity of the virgin bride may be corrupted, that is, whereby the faith of the Church may be injured. For in very deed, brethren, their faith is corrupted who prefer a lie to the truth. For these men, who appear to honor Christ in such wise as to deny that He had flesh, do nothing short of proclaiming Him a liar. Now they who build up a lie in men, what do they but drive the truth out of them? They let in the devil, they drive Christ out; they let in an adulterer, shut out the bridegroom, being evidently paranymphs, or rather, the panderers of the serpent. For it is for this object they speak, that the serpent may possess, and Christ be shut out.
Tractates on John 8
How doth the serpent possess? When a lie possesses. When falsehood possesses, then the serpent possesses; when truth possesses, then Christ possesses. For Himself has said, "I am the truth;" but of that other He said, "He stood not in the truth, because the truth is not him." And Christ is the truth in such wise that thou shouldst receive the whole to be true in Him. The true Word, God equal with the Father, true soul, true flesh, true man, true God, true nativity, true passion, true death, true resurrection. If thou say that any of these is false, rottenness enters, the worms of falsehood are bred of the poison of the serpent, and nothing sound will remain.
Tractates on John 8
Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross." This, indeed, is the meaning of "Mine hour is not yet come." For then it was that He recognized, who, in truth, always did know. He knew His mother in predestination, even before He was born of her; even before, as God, He created her of whom, as man, He was to be created, He knew her as His mother: but at a certain hour in a mystery He did not recognize her; and at a certain hour which had not yet come, again in a mystery, He does recognize her. For then did He recognize her, when that to which she gave birth was a-dying. That by which Mary was made did not die, but that which was made of Mary; not the eternity of the divine nature, but the weakness of the flesh, was dying. He made that answer therefore, making a distinction in the faith of believers, between the who; and the how, He came.
Tractates on John 8
For while He was God and the Lord of heaven and earth, He came by a mother who was a woman. In that He was Lord of the world, Lord of heaven and earth, He was, of course, the Lord of Mary also; but in that wherein it is said, "Made of a woman, made under the law," He was Mary's son. The same both the Lord of Mary and the son of Mary; the same both the Creator of Mary and created from Mary. Marvel not that He was both son and Lord. For just as He is called the son of Mary, so likewise is He called the son of David; and son of David because son of Mary. Hear the apostle openly declaring, "Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Hear Him also declared the Lord of David; let David himself declare this: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand." And this passage Jesus Himself brought forward to the Jews, and refuted them from it. How then was He both David's son and David's Lord? David's son according to the flesh, David's Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary's son after the flesh, and Mary's Lord after His majesty.
Tractates on John 8
Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" But think not that I deny thee to be my mother: "Mine hour is not yet come;" for in that hour I will acknowledge thee, when the weakness of which thou art the mother comes to hang on the cross. Let us prove the truth of this. When the Lord suffered, the same evangelist tells us, who knew the mother of the Lord, and who has given us to know about her in this marriage feast,-the same, I say, tells us, "There was there near the cross the mother of Jesus; and Jesus saith to His mother, Woman, behold thy son! and to the disciple, Behold thy mother!" He commends His mother to the care of the disciple; commends His mother, as about to die before her, and to rise again before her death. The man commends her a human being to man's care. This humanity had Mary given birth to. That hour had now come, the hour of which He had then said, "Mine hour is not yet come."
Tractates on John 8
Now then, if it seem good, brethren, those men being repulsed, and ever wandering in their own blindness, unless in humility they be healed, let us inquire why our Lord answered His mother in such a manner. He was in an extraordinary manner begotten of the Father without a mother, born of a mother without a father; without a mother He was God, without a father He was man; without a mother before all time, without a father in the end of times. What He said was said in answer to His mother, for "the mother of Jesus was there," and "His mother said unto Him." All this the Gospel says. It is there we learn that "the mother of Jesus was there," just where we learn that He said unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." Let us believe the whole; and what we do not yet understand, let us search out. And first take care, lest perhaps, as the Manicaeans found occasion for their falsehood, because the Lord said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" the astrologers in like manner may find occasion for their deception, in that He said, "Mine hour is not yet come."
Tractates on John 8
If it was in the sense of the astrologers He said this, we have committed a sacrilege in burning their books. But if we have acted rightly, as was done in the times of the apostles, it was not according to their notion that the Lord said, "Mine hour is not yet come." For, say those vain-talkers and deceived seducers, thou seest that Christ was under fate, as He says, "Mine hour is not yet come." To whom then must we make answer first-to the heretics or to the astrologers? For both come of the serpent, and desire to corrupt the Church's virginity of heart, which she holds in undefiled faith.
Tractates on John 8
Now then, brethren, we have answered the heretics. Let us now answer the astrologers. And how do they attempt to prove that Jesus was under fate? Because, say they, Himself said, "Mine hour is not yet come." Therefore we believe Him; and if He had said, "I have no hour," He would have excluded the astrologers: but behold, say they, He said, "Mine hour is not yet come." If then He had said, "I have no hour," the astrologers would have been shut out, and would have no ground for their slander; but now that He said, "Mine hour is not yet come," how can we contradict His own words? 'Tis wonderful that the astrologers, by believing Christ's words, endeavor to convince Christians that Christ lived under an hour of fate. Well, let them believe Christ when He saith, "I have power to lay down my life and to take it up again: no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself, and I take it again." Is this power then under fate? Let them show us a man who has it in his power when to die, how long to live: this they can never do. Let them, therefore, believe God when He says, "I have power to lay down my life, and to take it up again;" and let them inquire why it was said, "Mine hour is not yet come;" and let them not because of these words, be imposing fate on the Maker of heaven, the Creator and Ruler of the stars. For even if fate were from the stars, the Maker of the stars could not be subject to their destiny. Moreover, not only Christ had not what thou callest fate, but not even hast thou, or I, or he there, or any human being whatsoever.
Tractates on John 8
Why then did He say, "Mine hour is not yet come?" Rather because, having it in His power when to die, He did not yet see it fit to use that power. Just as we, brethren, say, for example, "Now is the appointed hour for us to go out to celebrate the sacraments." If we go out before it is necessary, do we not act perversely and absurdly? And because we act only at the proper time, do we therefore in this action regard fate when we so express ourselves? What means then, "Mine hour is not yet come?" When I know that it is the fitting time for me to suffer, when my suffering will be profitable, then I will willingly suffer. That hour is not yet: that thou mayest preserve both, this, "Mine hour is not yet come;" and that, "I have power to lay down my life, and power to take it again." He had come, then, having it in His power when to die. And surely it would not have been right were He to die before He had chosen disciples. Had he been a man who had not his hour in his own power, he might have died before he had chosen disciples; and if haply he had died when his disciples were now chosen and instructed, it would be something conferred on him, not his own doing. But, on the contrary, He who had come having in His power when to go, when to return, how far to advance, and for whom the regions of the grave were open, not only when dying but when rising again; He, I say, in order to show us His Church's hope of immortality, showed in the head what it behoved the members to expect.
Tractates on John 8
The hour then had not yet come, the fit time was not yet. Disciples had to be called, the kingdom of heaven to be proclaimed, the Lord's divinity to be shown forth in miracles, and His humanity in His very sympathy with mortal men. For He who hungered because He was man, fed so many thousands with five loaves because He was God; He who slept because He was man, commanded the winds and the waves because He was God. All these things had first to be set forth, that the evangelists might have whereof to write, that there might be what should be preached to the Church. But when He had done as much as He judged to be sufficient, then His hour came, not of necessity, but of will,-not of condition, but of power.
Tractates on John 8
And there, although the evangelist himself mentions His mother by that very name, He nevertheless addresses her thus: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" In this, however, it is to be understood that He does not repel her of whom He received the flesh, but means to convey the conception of His divinity with special fitness at this time, when He is about to change the water into wine; which divinity, likewise, had made that woman, and had not itself been made in her.
The Harmony of the Gospels, Book 4
Neither is there anything to compel us to a denial of the mother of the Lord, in the circumstance that this word was spoken by Him: “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” But He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him, the part of whose personal majesty He was preparing to show forth in the turning of water into wine. But as regards His being crucified, He was crucified in respect of his being man; and that was the hour which had not come as yet, at the time when this word was spoken, “What have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come;” that is, the hour at which I shall recognize thee. For at that period, when He was crucified as man, He recognized His human mother, and committed her most humanely to the care of the best beloved disciple.
A Treatise on Faith and the Creed
I ask you, O faithful Christians, Was the mother of Jesus there? Answer ye, She was. Whence know you? Answer, The Gospel says it. What answer made Jesus to His mother? Answer ye, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." And whence know you this? Answer, The Gospel says it. Let no man corrupt this your faith, if you desire to preserve a chaste virginity for the Bridegroom. But if it be asked of you, why He made this answer to His mother, let him declare who understands; but he who does not as yet understand, let him most firmly believe that Jesus made this answer, and made it moreover to His mother. By this piety he will learn to understand also why Jesus answered thus, if by praying he knock at the door of truth, and do not approach it with wrangling. Only this much, while he fancies himself to know, or is ashamed because he does not know, why Jesus answered thus, let him beware lest he be constrained to believe either that the evangelist lied when he said, "The mother of Jesus was there," or that Jesus Himself suffered for our sins by a counterfeit death and for our justification showed counterfeit scars; and that He spoke falsely in saying, "If ye continue in my word, ye are my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." For if He had a false mother, false flesh, false death, false wounds in His death, false scars in His resurrection, then it will not be the truth, but rather falsehood, that shall make free those that believe on Him.
Tractates on John 8
(Tr. viii. c. 5) Some who derogate from the Gospel, and say that Jesus was not born of the Virgin Mary, try to draw an argument for their error from this place; for, how, say they, could she be His mother to whom He said, What have I to do with thee? Now who is it who gives this account, and on whose authority do we believe it? The Evangelist John. But he himself says, The mother of Jesus was there. Why should He say it, unless both were true. But did He therefore come to the marriage to teach men to despise their mother?
(de Symbolo Serm. ii. c. 14. [5]) To mark a distinction between His Godhead and manhood, that according to His manhood He was inferior and subject, but according to His Godhead supreme, He saith, Woman, what have I to do with thee?
(Tr. viii. c. 9. et seq. sparsim) Or it was because our Lord as God had not a mother, though as man He had, and the miracle He was about to work was the act of His Divinity, not of human infirmity. When therefore His mother demanded a miracle, He, as though not acknowledging a human birth, when about to perform a divine work, said, Woman, what have I to do with thee? As if He said, Thou didst not beget that in Me, which works the miracle, My Divinity. (She is called woman, with reference to the female sex, not to any injury of her virginity.) But because thou broughtest forth My infirmity, I will acknowledge thee then, when that very infirmity shall hang on the cross. And therefore He adds, Mine hour is not yet come: as if to say, I will acknowledge thee when the infirmity, of which thou art the mother, shall hang from the cross. He commended His mother to the disciple, when about to die, and to rise again, before her death. But note; just as the Manicheans have found an occasion of error and pretext for their faithlessness in our Lord's word, What have I to do with thee? in the same way the astrologers support theirs from the words, Mine hour is not yet come. For, say they, if Christ had not been under the power of fate, He would never have said this. But let them believe what God says below, I have power to lay it (my life) down, and I have power to take it again: (John 10:18) and then let them ask, why He says, Mine hour is not yet come: nor let them on such a ground subject the Creator of heaven to fate; seeing that, even were there a fatality in the stars, the Maker of the stars could not be under the dominion of the stars. And not only had Christ nothing to do with fate, as ye call it; but neither hast thou, or any other man. Wherefore said He then, Mine hour is not yet come? Because He had the power to die when He pleased, but did not think it expedient yet to exert the power. He was to call the disciples, to proclaim the Kingdom of heaven, to do marvellous works, to approve His divinity by miracles, His humility by partaking of the sufferings of our mortal state. And when He had done all, then the hour was come, not of destiny, but of will, not of obligation, but of power.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Most excellently did the Saviour fashion for us this discourse also. For it behoved Him not to come hastily to action, nor to appear a Worker of miracles as though of His Own accord, but, being called, hardly to come thereto, and to grant the grace to the necessity rather than to the lookers on. But the issue of things longed for seems somehow to be even more grateful, when granted not off-hand to those who ask for it, but through a little delay put forth to most lovely hope. Besides, Christ hereby shows that the deepest honour is due to parents, admitting out of reverence to His Mother what He willed not as yet to do.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
The most blessed Mary said to him, “They have no wine.” Jesus answered as though he were displeased. “Woman,” he said, “is that my concern or yours?” It can hardly be doubted that these were words of displeasure. However, this I think was only because his mother mentioned to him so casually the lack of earthly wine, when he had come to offer the peoples of the whole world the new chalice of eternal salvation. By his reply, “My hour has not yet come,” he was foretelling the most glorious hour of his passion and the wine of our redemption, which would obtain life for all. Mary was asking for a temporal favor, but Christ was preparing joys that would be eternal. Nevertheless, the Lord in his goodness did not refuse this small grace while greater graces awaited.
Sermon 23
But Christ seeing His mother saying, “Grant me this request,” At once said to her: “What do you wish, woman, my hour has not come.” Certain men made use of this saying as a pretext for impiety; They said that Christ, submitted to necessity, They said that He was a slave to periods of time. …
“Now answer, my child,” said the all-holy mother of Christ, “Thou who dost control with measurement the periods of time, how, my son and Lord, dost Thou await a time? Thou who hast regulated the division of the seasons, how dost thou await a season? Thou who art the creator of the visible and the invisible, Thou who, as master, dost day and night regulate The ceaseless revolutions, as Thou dost will them— Thou who hast defined the years in beautifully ordered cycles— How, then, dost Thou await a time for the miracle which I ask of Thee Who hast in wisdom created all things?”
“I knew before you told me, revered Virgin, that the wine was just beginning to give out for them,” The Ineffable and Merciful straightway answered His holy mother. “I know all the concerns of your heart which you set in motion in this matter; For within yourself you reasoned as follows: ‘Necessity now summons my son to a miracle, And He puts it off under the pretext of “the time.” ’ Holy mother, learn now the meaning of the delay, For when you know it, I shall grant you this favor, I, who in wisdom have created all things.
Kontakion on the Marriage at Cana 7.10-12
“At the time when I brought forward Heavens and the Earth and all things from a state of nonexistence, I would have been quite able at that time to arrange in order at once all that I had produced; But I introduced a certain well-regulated order. Creation was accomplished in six days— Not that I did not have the power, But in order that the chorus of angels, seeing what I did, each deed in turn, Would deify me, singing a hymn: ‘Glory to Thee, Powerful One, Who hast in wisdom created all things.’ … “Mark what I say, holy one; for at this time I was willing first To announce to the Israelites and to teach them the hope of faith, In order that in the presence of miracles they might learn thoroughly who has sent me, And that they might know with certainty the glory of my Father, And his will, for He desires that in every way I be glorified along with Him by all. For what He who engendered me has done, these things I also do, Since I am consubstantial with Him and His Spirit, I, who have in wisdom created all things. “For if they had understood all these things at the time when they saw the awesome miracles, They would understand that I am God before time, even though I have become man. But now, contrary to order, before the teaching, you have asked for miracles; And it is for this reason that I delayed a short time in answer to you: If I was waiting for the time to perform miracles, It was for this reason alone. But, since it is necessary that parents be honored by their children, I shall pay observance to you, Mother, for I am able to do all things, I, who have in wisdom created all things.”
Kontakion on the Marriage at Cana 7.13-16
But He rebukes Her, and not without reason. "If," He says, "there is no wine, then those who do not have it should have come and asked for it themselves, not You, the Mother." For when one's own relatives ask for a miracle to be performed, the spectators are scandalized, but when those in need themselves ask, then the matter is free from suspicion. "My hour has not yet come," He said not because He is subject to dependence on time or observes certain hours (for how would this befit the Creator of times and ages?), but because He accomplishes all things at the fitting time. Since He was unseen and unknown to many, because not all were disciples, and even those present at the wedding did not know Him, for otherwise they themselves would have made the request about the wine — since all this was so, He said: "My hour has not yet come," that is, the fitting time has not yet arrived. But still the madness of Arius rises up, attempting to prove that the Lord is subject to hours and times. So learn, accursed one! If He were dependent on hours, then how did He ultimately perform the miracle? For if, as you say, He is dependent on hours and times, and His hour had not yet come, it would follow that He would not be able to perform the miracle. Yet He did perform the miracle; therefore, He is independent of hours. Notice, if you will, how He does not entirely nor in all things oppose His Mother, but rebuked Her a little and again fulfills Her request, rendering honor to Her and giving us a model of respect for parents.
Commentary on John
Then when he says, Jesus said to her, the answer of Christ is given. This answer has been the occasion for three heresies.
The Manicheans claim that Christ had only an imaginary body, not a real one. Valentinus maintained that Christ assumed a celestial body and that, as far as his body was concerned, Christ was not related to the Virgin at all. The source of this error was that he understood, Woman, what does that have to do with me and you? as if it meant: "I have received nothing from you." But this is contrary to the authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle says: "God sent his Son, made from a woman" (Gal 4:4). Now Christ could not be said to have been made from her, unless he had taken something from her. Further, Augustine argues against them: "How do you know that our Lord said, What does that have to do with me and you? You reply that it is because John says so. But he also says that the Virgin was the mother of Christ. So, if you believe the Evangelist when he states that Jesus said this to his mother, you should also believe him when he says, and the mother of Jesus was there."
Then there was Ebion who said that Christ was conceived from a man's seed, and Elvidius, who said that the Virgin did not remain a virgin after childbirth. They were deceived by the fact that he said, Woman, which seems to imply the loss of virginity. But this is false, for in Sacred Scripture the word "woman" sometimes refers merely to the female sex, as it does in "made from a woman" (Gal 4:4). This is obvious also by the fact that Adam, speaking to God about Eve, said: "The woman whom you gave me as a companion, gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it" (Gn 3:12); for Eve was still a virgin in Paradise, where Adam had not known her. Hence the fact that the mother of Christ is here called "woman" in this Gospel does not imply a loss of virginity, but refers to her sex.
The Priscillianists, however, erred by misunderstanding the words of Christ, My time has not yet come. They claimed that all things happen by fate, and that the actions of men, including those of Christ, are subject to predetermined times. And that is why, according to them, Christ said, My time has not yet come.
But this is false for any man. For since man has free choice, and this is because he has reason and will, both of which are spiritual, then obviously, as far as choice is concerned, man, so far from being subject to bodies, is really their master. For spiritual things are superior to material things, so much so that the Philosopher says that the wise man is master of the stars. Further, their heresy is even less true of Christ, who is the Lord and Creator of the stars. Thus when he says, My time has not yet come, he is referring to the time of his passion, which was fixed for him, not by necessity, according to divine providence. What is said in Sirach (33:7) is also contrary to their opinion: "Why is one day better than another?" And the answer is: "They have been differentiated by the knowledge of the Lord," i.e., they were differentiated from one another not by chance, but by God's providence.
Since we have eliminated the above opinions, let us look for the reason why our Lord answered, Woman, what does that have to do with me and you? For Augustine, Christ has two natures, the divine and the human. And although the same Christ exists in each, nevertheless things appropriate to him according to his human nature are distinct from what is appropriate to him according to his divine nature. Now to perform miracles is appropriate to him according to his divine nature, which he received from the Father; while to suffer is according to his human nature, which he received from his mother. So when his mother requests this miracle, he answers, Woman, what does that have to do with me and you? as if saying: I did not receive from you that in me which enables me to perform miracles, but that which enables me to suffer, i.e., that which makes it appropriate for me to suffer, i.e., I have received a human nature from you. And so I will recognize you when this weakness hangs on the cross. And so he continues with, My time has not yet come. As if to say: I will recognize you as my mother when the time of my passion arrives. And so it was that on the cross he entrusted his mother to the disciple.
Chrysostom explains this differently. He says that the Blessed Virgin, burning with zeal for the honor of her Son, wanted Christ to perform miracles at once, before it was opportune; but that Christ, being much wiser than his mother, restrained her. For he was unwilling to perform the miracle before the need for it was known; otherwise, it would have been less appreciated and less credible. And so he says, Woman, what does that have to do with me and you? As if to say: Why bother me? My time has not yet come, i.e., I am not yet known to those present. Nor do they know that the wine ran out; and they must first know this, because when they know their need they will have a greater appreciation of the benefit they will receive.
Commentary on John
But there is another quality running through all his teachings which seems to me neglected in most modern talk about them as teachings; and that is the persistent suggestion that he has not really come to teach. If there is one incident in the record which affects me personally as grandly and gloriously human, it is the incident of giving wine for the wedding-feast. That is really human in the sense in which a whole crowd of prigs, having the appearance of human beings, can hardly be described as human. It rises superior to all superior persons. It is as human as Herrick and as democratic as Dickens. But even in that story there is something else that has that note of things not fully explained; and in a way here very relevant. I mean the first hesitation, not on any ground touching the nature of the miracle, but on that of the propriety of working any miracles at all, at least at that stage; ‘My time is not yet come.’ What did that mean? At least it certainly meant a general plan or purpose in the mind, with which certain things did or did not fit in. And if we leave out that solitary strategic plan, we not only leave out the point of the story, but the story.
The Everlasting Man, Part 2 Ch. 3: The Strangest Story in the World (1925)
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
λέγει ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ τοῖς διακόνοις· ὅ,τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν, ποιήσατε.
Гл҃го́ла мт҃и є҆гѡ̀ слꙋга́мъ: є҆́же а҆́ще гл҃етъ ва́мъ, сотвори́те.
On the wedding day in Galilee water was made wine. Have we words to tell or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared, and was replaced by the full flavour of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation which was not a beginning, but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing thing perished and a new thing came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperilled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not rise or busy Himself; He does the work without an effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the drawer. They who poured expect water to be drawn; they who draw think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.
On the Trinity 3.5
Besides, even while saying to the Canaanitish woman, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to give it unto dogs" (Matt. xv. 26), He still gave the bread, as considering her perseverance; and though after his first reply, He said, "I am not sent save unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," yet even after saying this, He healed the woman's daughter. Hence we learn, that although we be unworthy, we often by perseverance make ourselves worthy to receive. And for this reason His mother remained by, and openly brought to Him the servants, that the request might be made by a greater number; and therefore she added, "Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it."
For she knew that His refusal proceeded not from want of power, but from humility, and that He might not seem without cause to hurry to the miracle; and therefore she brought the servants.
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
The woman having great influence to the performing of the miracle, prevailed, persuading the Lord, on account of what was fitting, as her Son. She begins the work by preparing the servants of the assembly to obey the things that should be enjoined.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
5–6(in loc.) As if she said, Though He appear to refuse, He will do it nevertheless. She knew His pity and mercifulness. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Hydriæ1 are vessels to hold water: hydor being the Greek for water.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
He would not dishonor his mother, since he orders us to honor our father and mother.
Homilies on the Gospels 1.14
The Mother says to the servants "whatever He says to you, do it" so that the request might be strengthened through their own approach and petition, so that it would be clear that the refusal was not from powerlessness, but with the aim of dispelling the opinion that He resorts to miracles out of self-glorification and vain ostentation.
Commentary on John
Now although his mother was refused, she did not lose hope in her Son's mercy. So she instructs the servants, Do whatever he tells you, in which, indeed, consists the perfection of all justice. For perfect justice consists in obeying Christ in all things: "We will do all that the Lord commanded us" (Ex 29:35). Do whatever he tells you, is fittingly said of God alone, for man can err now and then. Hence in matters that are against God, we are not held to obey men: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). We ought to obey God, who does not err and cannot be deceived, in all things.
Commentary on John
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἓξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς.
Бѣ́хꙋ же тꙋ̀ водоно́си ка́менни ше́сть, лежа́ще по ѡ҆чище́нїю і҆ꙋде́йскꙋ, вмѣстѧ́щїи по двѣма̀ и҆лѝ трїе́мъ мѣ́рамъ.
Why did our Lord change nature at the beginning of his signs, if it was not to show that the divinity that changed nature in the interior of the jars was the same that changed nature in the womb of the virgin? And at the conclusion of the signs, he opened the tomb to show that the insatiable nature of death would not keep hold of him; he confirmed and ratified these two uncertainties of his birth and of his death. As to their nature, these waters were turned into the [fruit of] the vine; their stone vessels were not changed within their own nature. They were a symbol of his body, which was wonderfully conceived in a woman, and in a marvelous way by [the intervention of] no man within the virgin. He thus made wine out of water to teach about the manner of his conception and birth. He called upon the six jars as witness to the one virgin who gave birth to him; for the jars conceived in a unique way that was not customary for them, and they brought forth wine, and then they did not continue to produce [it]. Thus did the virgin conceive and give birth to Immanuel, and then she ceased and did not continue [to give birth]. The offspring of the jars was from smallness to grandeur, and from vileness to excellence, for from water came good wine. In this case [the birth from the virgin], however, it was from grandeur to weakness and from glory to contempt. Yet in the case of these jars, they were for the purification of the Jews, and our Lord poured his instruction into them, to teach that he came in the way [found in] the Law and the Prophets, and he transformed everything by his teaching, just as wine [was made] from water.
Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 5.6-7
It is not without a reason that the Evangelist says, "After the manner of the purifying of the Jews," but in order that none of the unbelievers might suspect that lees having been left in the vessels, and water having been poured upon and mixed with them, a very weak wine had been made. Therefore he says, "after the manner of the purifying of the Jews," to show that those vessels were never receptacles for wine. For because Palestine is a country with but little water, and brooks and fountains were not everywhere to be found, they always used to fill waterpots with water, so that they might not have to hasten to the rivers if at any time they were filed, but might have the means of purification at hand.
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
But observe what Himself saith, "The things which were written in the law, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me." And we know that the law extends from the time of which we have record, that is, from the beginning of the world: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." Thence down to the time in which we are now living are six ages, this being the sixth, as you have often heard and know. The first age is reckoned from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; and, as Matthew the evangelist duly follows and distinguishes, the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from the carrying away into Babylon to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. Moreover, God made man after His own image on the sixth day, because in this sixth age is manifested the renewing of our mind through the gospel, after the image of Him who created us; and the water is turned into wine, that we may taste of Christ, now manifested in the law and the prophets. Hence "there were there six water-pots," which He bade be filled with water. Now the six water-pots signify the six ages, which were not without prophecy. And those six periods, divided and separated as it were by joints, would be as empty vessels unless they were filled by Christ. Why did I say, the periods which would run fruitlessly on, unless the Lord Jesus were preached in them? Prophecies are fulfilled, the water-pots are full; but that the water may be turned into wine, Christ must be understood in that whole prophecy.
Tractates on John 9
But what means this: "They contained two or three metretae apiece"? This phrase certainly conveys to us a mysterious meaning. For by "metretae" he means certain measures, as if he should say jars, flasks, or something of that sort. Metreta is the name of a measure, and takes its name from the word "measure." For metron is the Greek word for measure, whence the word "metretae" is derived. "They contained," then, "two or three metretae apiece." What are we to say, brethren? If He had simply said "three apiece," our mind would at once have run to the mystery of the Trinity. And, perhaps, we ought not at once to reject this application of the meaning, because He said, "two or three apiece;" for when the Father and Son are named, the Holy Spirit must necessarily be understood. For the Holy Spirit is not that of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For it is written, "If any man love the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him." And again, "Whoso hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of His." The same, then, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Therefore, the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Spirit also is understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. And when there is mention of the Father and Son, "two metretae," as it were, are mentioned; but since the Holy Spirit is understood in them, "three metretae." That is the reason why it is not said, "Some containing two metretae apiece, others three apiece;" but the same six water-pots contained "two or three metretae apiece." It is as if he had said, When I say two apiece, I would have the Spirit of the Father and of the Son to be understood together with them; and when I say three apiece, I declare the same Trinity more plainly.
Wherefore, whoso names the Father and the Son ought thereby to understand the mutual love of the Father and Son, which is the Holy Spirit. And perhaps the Scriptures on being examined (I do not say that I am able to show you this to-day, or as if another proof cannot be found),-nevertheless, the Scriptures, perhaps, on being searched, do show us that the Holy Spirit is charity. And do not count charity a thing cheap. How, indeed, can it be cheap, when all things that are said to be not cheap are called dear (chara)? Therefore, if what is not cheap is dear, what is dearer than dearness itself (charitas)? The apostle so commends charity to us that he says, "I show unto you a more excellent way. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I know all mysteries and all knowledge, and have prophecy and all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I distribute all my goods to the poor, and give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." How great, then, is charity, which, if wanting, in vain have we all things else; if present, rightly have we all things! Yet the Apostle Paul, setting forth the praise of charity with copiousness and fullness, has said less of it than did the Apostle John in brief, whose Gospel this is. For he has not hesitated to say, "God is love." It is also written, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given us." Who, then, can name the Father and the Son without thereby understanding the love of the Father and Son? Which when one begins to have, he will have the Holy Spirit; which if one has not, he will not have the Holy Spirit. And just as thy body, if it be without spirit, namely thy soul, is dead so likewise thy soul, if it be without the Holy Spirit, that is, without charity, will be reckoned dead. Therefore "The water-pots contained two Metretae apiece," because the Father and the Son are proclaimed in the prophecy of all the periods; but the Holy Spirit is there also, and therefore it is added, "or three apiece." "I and the Father," saith He, "are one." But far be it from us to suppose that where we are told, "I and the Father are one," the Holy Spirit is not there. Yet since he named the Father and the Son, let the water-pots contain "two metretae apiece;" but attend to this, "or three apiece." "Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." So, therefore, when it says "two apiece," the Trinity is not expressed but understood; but when it says, "or three," the Trinity is expressed also.
Tractates on John 9
But there is also another meaning that must not be passed over, and which I will declare: let every man choose which he likes best. We keep not back what is suggested to us. For it is the Lord's table, and the minister ought not to defraud the guests, especially when they hunger as you now do, so that your longing is manifest. Prophecy, which is dispensed from the ancient times, has for its object the salvation of all nations. True, Moses was sent to the people of Israel alone, and to that people alone was the law given by him; and the prophets, too, were of that people, and the very distribution of times was marked out according to the same people; whence also the water-pots are said to be "according to the purification of the Jews:" nevertheless, that the prophecy was proclaimed to all other nations also is manifest, forasmuch as Christ was concealed in him in whom all nations are blessed, as it was promised to Abraham by the Lord, saying, "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed." But this was not as yet understood, for as yet the water was not turned into wine. The prophecy therefore was dispensed to all nations.
But how do we show that all nations belong to the "two or three metretae apiece"? It was a matter of reckoning, in some measure, that he should say the same water-pots contained "two apiece," which he had said contained "three apiece;" evidently in order to intimate to us a mystery therein. How are there "two metretae apiece"? Circumcision and uncircumcision. Scripture mentions these two classes of people, and leaves out no kind of men, when it says, "Circumcision and uncircumcision;" in these two appellations thou hast all nations: they are the two metretae apiece. In these two walls, meeting from different quarters, "Christ became the corner-stone, in order to make peace in Himself." Let us show also the "three metretae apiece" in the case of these same all nations. Noah had three sons, through whom the human race was restored. Hence the Lord says, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." What is this woman, but the flesh of the Lord? What is the leaven, but the gospel? What the three measures, but all nations, on account of the three sons of Noah? Therefore the "six water-pots containing two or three metretae apiece" are six periods of time, containing the prophecy relating to all nations, whether as represented in two sorts of men, namely, Jews and Greeks, as the apostle often mentions them; or in three sorts, on account of the three sons of Noah. For the prophecy was represented as reaching unto all nations. And because of that reaching it is called a measure, even as the apostle says, "We have received a measure for reaching unto you." For in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, he says, "A measure for reaching unto you."
Tractates on John 9
(Tr. ix. 5. et sq.) Now if He ordered the water to be poured out, and then introduced the wine from the hidden recesses of creation, He would seem to have rejected the Old Testament. But converting, as He did, the water into wine, He showed us that the Old Testament was from Himself, for it was by His order that the waterpots were filled. But those Scriptures have no meaning, if Christ be not understood there. Now we know from what time the law dates, viz. from the foundation of the world. From that time to this are six ages; the first, reekoning from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from that time to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. The six waterpots then denote these six ages of prophecy. The prophecies are fulfilled; the waterpots are full. But what is the meaning of their holding two or three firkins apiece? Had He said three only, our minds would have run immediately to the mystery of the Trinity. Nor perhaps can we reject it, even though it is said, two or three: for the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Ghost may be understood by consequence; inasmuch as it is the love between the Father and the Son, which is the Holy Ghost. (c. 17.). Nor should we pass over another interpretation, which makes the two firkins alluded to the two races of men, the Jews and the Greeks; and the three to the three sons of Noah.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Vessels to hold water were there, after the manner of the purifying of Jews. Among other traditions of the Pharisees, they observed frequent washings.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The stone water jars were used for the purification of the Jews. For the Jews washed themselves almost every day and only then partook of food. Whether they touched a leper, a dead body, or had contact with a woman, they washed themselves as being already unclean. And since Palestine was waterless and it was not possible to find many springs, they always filled the water jars with water, so as not to run to the rivers in case of defilement. He said "according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews" not without purpose, but so that none of the unbelievers would think that some sediment of wine remained in the vessels, and then, when water was poured in and mixed, a very weak wine was produced — he shows that they were never receptacles for wine.
Commentary on John
Now Christ's completion of the miracle is set forth. First, the vessels in which the miracle was performed are described. Secondly, the matter of the miracle is stated (v 7). Thirdly, we have how the miracle was made known and approved (v 8).
The miracle was performed in six vessels; Now there were six stone water jars near by. Here we should note, that as mentioned in Mark (7:2), the Jews observed many bodily washings and the cleansing of their cups and dishes. So, because they were in Palestine where there was a shortage of water, they had vessels in which they kept the purest water to be used for washing themselves and their utensils. Hence he says, there were six stone water jars near by, i.e., vessels for holding water, for purifications according to Jewish customs, i.e., to use for purification, each holding two or three metretes of liquid, that is, two or three measures; for the Greek "metrete" is the same as the Latin "mensura."
These jars were standing there, as Chrysostom says, in order to eliminate any suspicion about the miracle: both on account of their cleanliness, lest anyone suspect that the water had acquired the taste of wine from the dregs of wine previously stored in them, for these jars were standing there for purifications according to Jewish customs, and so had to be very pure; and also on account of the capacity of the jars, so that it would be abundantly clear that the water in such jars could be changed into wine only by divine power.
In the mystical sense, the six water jars signify the six eras of the Old Testament during which the hearts of men were prepared and made receptive of God's Scriptures, and put forward as an example for our lives.
The term metretes, according to Augustine, refers to the Trinity of persons. And they are described as two or three because at times in Scripture three persons in the Trinity are distinctly mentioned: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19), and at other times only two, the Father and the Son, in whom the Holy Spirit, who is the union of the two, is implied: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him" (below 14:23). Or they are described as two on account of the two states of mankind from which the Church arose, that is, Jews and Gentiles. Or three on account of the three sons of Noe, from whom the human race arose after the deluge.
Commentary on John
Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγέμισαν αὐτὰς ἕως ἄνω.
Гл҃а и҆̀мъ і҆и҃съ: напо́лните водоно́сы воды̀. И҆ напо́лниша и҆̀хъ до верха̀.
They heard of the wine that, without previous culture, was ministered;
Oration on the Psalms
Let Cana thank you for gladdening her banquet! The bridegroom’s crown exalted you for exalting it, And the bride’s crown belonged to your victory. In her mirror allegories are expounded and traced, For you portrayed your church in the bride, And in her guests, yours are traced, And in her magnificence she portrays your advent. Let the feast thank him, for in multiplying his wine Six miracles were beheld there: The six wine jugs set aside for water Into which they invited the King to pour his wine.
Hymns on Virginity 33.1-2
7–8(Hom. xxii. 2) But why did He not work the miracle before they had filled the waterpots, which would have been much more wonderful; inasmuch as it is one thing to change the quality of some existing substance, another to make it that substance out of nothing? The latter miracle would be the more wonderful, but the former would be the more easy of belief. And this principle often acts as a check, to moderate the greatness of our Lord's miracles: He wishes to make them more credible, therefore He makes them less marvellous; a refutation this of the perverse doctrine of some, that He was a different Being from the Maker of the world. For we see He performs most of His miracles upon subject-matter already existing, whereas were He contrary to the Creator of the world, He would not use a material thus alien, to demonstrate His own power. He did not draw out the water Himself which He made wine, but ordered the servants to do so. This was for the sake of having witnesses of the miracle; And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
"And why was it, that He did not the miracle before they filled them, which would have been more marvelous by far? for it is one thing to change given matter to a different quality, and another to create matter out of nothing." The latter would indeed have been more wonderful, but would not have seemed so credible to the many. And therefore He often purposely lessens the greatness of His miracles, that it may be the more readily received.
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
"But why," says one, "did not He Himself produce the water which He afterwards showed to be wine, instead of bidding the servants bring it?" For the very same reason; and also, that He might have those who drew it out to witness that what had been effected was no delusion since if any had been inclined to be shameless, those who ministered might have said to them, "We drew the water, we filled the vessels." And besides what we have mentioned, He thus overthrows those doctrines which spring up against the Church. For since there are some who say that the Creator of the world is another, and that the things which are seen are not His works, but those of a certain other opposing god, to curb these men's madness He doth most of His miracles on matter found at hand. Because, had the creator of these been opposed to Him, He would not have used what was another's to set forth His own power. But now to show that it is He who transmutes water in the vine plants, and who converts the rain by its passage through the root into wine, He effected that in a moment at the wedding which in the plant is long in doing.
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
(Tr. ix. c. 7) A firkin is a certain measure; as urn, amphora, and the like. Metron is the Greek for measure: whence metretae. Two or three, is not to be taken to mean some holding two, others three, but the same vessels holding two or three. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The ministers accomplish what is commanded, and by unspeakable might was the water changed into wine. For what is hard to Him Who can do all things? He that calleth into being things which are not, how will He weary, trans-ordering into what He will things already made? They marvel at the thing, as strange; for such are Christ's works to look upon. But the governor of the feast charges the bridegroom with expending what was better on the latter end of the feast, not unfitly, as appears to me, according to the narration of the story.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
Addressing the expectant servants, he said, “Fill the jars with water.” The servants promptly obeyed, and suddenly in a marvelous way the water began to acquire potency, take on color, emit fragrance and gain flavor—all at once it changed its nature completely! Now this transformation of the water from its own substance into another testified to the powerful presence of the Creator. Only he who had made it out of nothing could change water into something whose use was quite different. Dearly beloved, have no doubt that he who changed water into wine is the same as he who from the beginning has thickened it into snow and hardened it into ice. It is he who changed it into blood for the Egyptians and bade it flow from the dry rock for the thirsty Hebrews—the rock that, newly transformed into a spring, was like a mother’s breast refreshing with its gentle flow a countless multitude of people.
Sermon 23
But could He not have produced wine from nothing, without filling the vessels with water? Of course He could; but the greatness of miracles often diminishes their acceptability. There could also have been the purpose of having the servants who carried the water into the vessels serve as witnesses of the miracle. Furthermore, so that we might learn that it is He who transforms the wine and the moisture of the grape, which is nothing but water.
Commentary on John
Then when he says that Jesus instructed them, Fill those jars with water, he gives the material of the miracle. Here we might ask why this miracle was performed with already existing material, and not from nothing. There are three reasons for this. The first reason is literal, and is given by Chrysostom: to make something from nothing is much greater and more marvelous than to make something from material already existing; but it is not so evident and believable to many. And so, wishing to make what he did more believable, Christ made wine from water, thus condescending to man's capacity.
Another reason was to refute wrong dogmas. For there are some (as the Marcionists and Manicheans) who said that the founder of the world was someone other than God, and that all visible things were established by such a one, that is, the devil. And so the Lord performed many miracles using created and visible substances in order to show that these substances are good and were created by God.
The third reason is mystical. Christ made the wine from water, and not from nothing, in order to show that he was not laying down an entirely new doctrine and rejecting the old, but was fulfilling the old: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it" (Mt 5:17). In other words, what was prefigured and promised in the old law, was disclosed and revealed by Christ: "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures" (Lk 24:45).
Finally, he had the servants fill the jars with water so that he might have witnesses to what he did; so it is said, the servants knew, since they had drawn the water.
Commentary on John
And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἀντλήσατε νῦν καὶ φέρετε τῷ ἀρχιτρικλίνῳ. καὶ ἤνεγκαν.
И҆ гл҃а и҆̀мъ: почерпи́те нн҃ѣ и҆ принеси́те а҆рхїтрїклі́нови. И҆ принесо́ша.
According to the will of the one who gave the command, the water was changed into wine, slaking the thirst of those who drank but also providing wine more abundantly for the couple’s future.
Commentary on John 1.2.6-7
He commands the servants to bring the drink for tasting to the master of the feast not without purpose, but so that no one would think that it was a gathering of drunkards, that their taste had been corrupted, and that in a state of drunkenness they mistook water for wine. So that such a suspicion would have no place, He entrusts the tasting to the sober one — the master of the feast. For those who were entrusted with serving at such occasions strictly abstained, so that under their direction everything would proceed in an orderly and decorous manner. But let us pray that this may be accomplished in us as well, that now there may take place, as it were, a marriage, that is, a union of God with our soul, while we are still in Cana of Galilee, that is, in the land of this low and perverted world, in every respect distorted and distorting. But this marriage does not take place without the presence of Christ and His Mother and the disciples. For how shall he be united with God who does not believe in Christ, born of Mary and speaking through the apostles? Let us see, then, what miracle the Lord performs at such a wedding and at such a union of God with the soul. He transforms water into wine, filling our six stone water jars. By "water" you may understand our wateriness, laxity, and feebleness in life and opinions; by five of the "water jars," the five senses, through which we err in deeds; by the sixth water jar, the intellect, by which we waver in opinions. Thus our Lord Jesus Christ, the evangelical Word, healing our falls — whether in the active life, the intellectual, or the contemplative — transforms what is fluid and unsteady in us into "wine," that is, into a life and teaching that is astringent and gladdening, and in this way our six water jars are filled with this beautiful drink: the senses, so that they do not err in action; the intellect, so that we do not err in opinions. Take note that there stood stone waterpots according to the custom of the purification of the Jews. The word "Judah" means "confession." He who confesses is purified in the five senses, by which he formerly sinned. The eye saw evil; the same eye during confession weeps and thus serves for purification. The ear heard lewd songs; the same ear again inclines to the words of the mouth of God. So it is with the other senses as well. The mind errs in its opinions; it again purifies the former evil by inclining toward right-mindedness. The waterpots are "stone" either because our composition is from earth, or because the intended vessels for such wine must be firm and indestructible. The mind of Paul was a stone waterpot both at the time when he was persecuting, for he was zealous for the traditions of his fathers beyond all his contemporaries (Gal. 1:14); and at the time when he was preaching, for he had such power in words that the Lycaonians, as the chief speaker, took him for Hermes (Acts 14:12).
Commentary on John
Then, the miracle is made known. For as soon as the jars were filled, the water was turned into wine. So the Lord reveals the miracle at once, saying: Now pour out a drink and take it to the head waiter. First, we have the command of Christ selecting who is to test the wine; secondly, the judgment of the head waiter who tasted it.
Then Jesus said to them, i.e., to the servants, Now pour out a drink, that is, of wine, from the jars, and take it to the head waiter (architriclinus). Here we should note that a triclinium is a place where there are three rows of tables, and it is called a triclinium from its three rows of dining couches: for cline in Greek means couch. For the ancients were accustomed to eat reclining on couches, as Maximus Valerius recounts. This is the reason why the Scriptures speak of lying next to and lying down. Thus the architriclinus was the first and chief among those dining. Or, according to Chrysostom, the architriclinus was the one in charge of the whole banquet. And because he had been busy and had not tasted anything, the Lord wanted him, and not the guests, to be the judge of what had been done, so some could not detract from the miracle by saying the guests were drunk and, their senses dulled, could not tell wine from water. For Augustine, the architriclinus was the chief guest, as was mentioned; and Christ wanted to have the opinion of this person in high position so it would be more acceptable.
In the mystical sense, those who pour out the water are preachers: "With joy you will draw water from the springs of the Savior" (Is 12:3). And the architriclinus is someone skilled in the law, as Nicodemus, Gamaliel or Paul. So, when the word of the Gospel, which was hidden under the letter of the law, is entrusted to such persons, it is as though wine made from water is poured out for the architriclinus, who, when he tastes it, gives his assent to the faith of Christ.
Commentary on John
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον—καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν· οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ—φωνεῖ τὸν νυμφίον ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος
Ꙗ҆́коже вкꙋсѝ а҆рхїтрїклі́нъ вїна̀ бы́вшагѡ ѿ воды̀, и҆ не вѣ́дѧше, ѿкꙋ́дꙋ є҆́сть: слꙋги̑ же вѣ́дѧхꙋ поче́рпшїи во́дꙋ: пригласѝ жениха̀ а҆рхїтрїклі́нъ
On the wedding day in Galilee, water was made wine. Do we have appropriate words or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared and was replaced by the full flavor of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation that was not a beginning but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing entity perished, and a new entity came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperiled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not get up or busy himself. He does the work without any effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the one who draws it out. Those who poured expect water to be drawn; those who draw out think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.
On the Trinity 3.5
(iii. de Trin. c. 5) Water is poured into the waterpots; wine is drawn out into the chalices; the senses of the drawer out agree not with the knowledge of the pourer in. The pourer in thinks that water is drawn out; the drawer out thinks that wine was poured in. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants who drew the water knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom. It was not a mixture, but a creation: the simple nature of water vanished, and the flavour of wine was produced; not that a weak dilution was obtained, by means of some strong infusion, but that which was, was annihilated; and that which was not, came to be.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
He who did not want to change stones changed water at Cana.
Hymns on Virginity 14.11
9–10Thus when he was about to heal the nobleman's son, the Evangelist has shown that it had already become more clearly known; for it was chiefly because the nobleman had become acquainted with the miracle that he called upon Him, as John incidentally shows when he says, "Jesus came into Cana of Galilee, where He made the water wine." (c. iv. 46.) And not wine simply, but the best wine.
For such are the miraculous works of Christ, they are far more perfect and better than the operations of nature. This is seen also in other instances; when He restored any infirm member of the body, He made it better than the sound.
That it was wine then, and the best of wine, that had been made, not the servants only, but the bridegroom and the ruler of the feast would testify; and that it was made by Christ, those who drew the water; so that although the miracle were not then revealed, yet it could not in the end be passed in silence, so many and constraining testimonies had He provided for the future. That He had made the water wine, He had the servants for witnesses; that the wine was good that had been made, the ruler of the feast and the bridegroom.
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
Here again some mock, saying, "this was an assembly of drunken men, the sense of the judges was spoilt, and not able to taste what was made, or to decide on what was done, so that they did not know whether what was made was water or wine: for that they were drunk," it is alleged, "the ruler himself has shown by what he said." Now this is most ridiculous, yet even this suspicion the Evangelist has removed. For he does not say that the guests gave their opinion on the matter, but "the ruler of the feast," who was sober, and had not as yet tasted anything. For of course you are aware, that those who are entrusted with the management of such banquets are the most sober, as having this one business, to dispose all things in order and regularity; and therefore the Lord called such a man's sober senses to testify to what was done. For He did not say, "Pour forth to them that sit at meat," but, "Bear unto the governor of the feast."
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
"And when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom." "And why did he not call the servants? for so the miracle would have been revealed." Because Jesus had not Himself revealed what had been done, but desired that the power of His miracles should be known gently, little by little. And suppose that it had then been mentioned, the servants who related it would never have been believed, but would have been thought mad to bear such testimony to one who at that time seemed to the many a mere man; and although they knew the certainty of the thing by experience, (for they were not likely to disbelieve their own hands,) yet they were not sufficient to convince others. And so He did not reveal it to all, but to him who was best able to understand what was done, reserving the clearer knowledge of it for a future time; since after the manifestation of other miracles this also would be credible.
Homily on the Gospel of John 22
(Tr. ix. c. 5) But see the mysteries which lie hid in that miracle of our Lord. It was necessary that all things should be fulfilled in Christ which were written of Him: those Scriptures were the water. He made the water wine when He opened unto them the meaning of these things, and expounded the Scriptures; for thus that came to have a taste which before had none, and that inebriated, which did not inebriate before.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The Triclinium is a circle of three couches, cline signifying couch: the ancients used to recline upon couches. And the Architriclinus is the one at the head of the Triclinium, i. e. the chief of the guests. Some say that among the Jews, He was a priest, and attended the marriage in order to instruct in the duties of the married state.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The servants are the doctors of the New Testament, who interpret the holy Scripture to others spiritually; the ruler of the feast is some lawyer, as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, or Saul. When to the former then is committed the word of the Gospel, hid under the letter of the law, it is the water made wine, being set before the ruler of the feast. And the three rows of guests at table in the house of the marriage are properly mentioned; the Church consisting of three orders of believers, the married, the continent, and the doctors.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The master of the feast asks not the servants, but the bridegroom. Why? Of course, by divine arrangement. If he had asked the servants, they would certainly have revealed the miracle; but no one would have believed them, for it was the beginning of signs, and no one yet had a great opinion of Christ, so that no one would have believed even if the servants had told of the miracle. However, when after this He performed other miracles as well, the present one too was bound to become credible, and the servants, telling everyone about it, could little by little gain trust. For this reason the Lord arranged it so that not the servants were asked, but the bridegroom.
Commentary on John
Then the judgment of the one examining the wine is given. First, he inquires into the truth of the fact; secondly, he gives his opinion.
He says, Now when the head waiter tasted the water made wine, and not knowing where it came from, because he did not know that the water had miraculously been made wine by Christ, although the servants knew, the reason being, since they had drawn the water, he called the groom over, in order to learn the truth and give his opinion of the wine.
Commentary on John
There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal – is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see...
God creates the vine and teaches it to draw up water by its roots and, with the aid of the sun, to turn water into a juice which will ferment and take on certain qualities. Thus every year, from Noah’s time till ours, God turns water into wine. That, men fail to see. Either like the Pagans they refer the process to some finite spirit, Bacchus or Dionysus: or else, like the moderns, they attribute real and ultimate causality to the chemical and other material phenomena which are all that our senses can discover in it. But when Christ at Cana makes water into wine, the mask is off. The miracle has only half its effect if it only convinces us that Christ is God: it will have its full effect if whenever we see a vineyard or drink a glass of wine we remember that here works He who sat at a wedding party in Cana.
Miracles, from God in the Dock
Where, then, do we draw the line between explaining and "explaining away"? I do not think there is much difficulty. All that concerns the unincarnate activities of God—His operation on that plane of being where sense cannot enter—must be taken along with imagery which we know to be, in the literal sense, untrue. But there can be no defense for applying the same treatment to the miracles of the Incarnate God. They are recorded as events on this earth which affected human senses. They are the sort of thing we can describe literally. If Christ turned water into wine, and we had been present, we could have seen, smelled, and tasted. The story that He did so is not of the same order as His "sitting at the right hand of the Father." It is either fact, or legend, or lie. You must take it or leave it.
Horrid Red Things, from God in the Dock
Dr Pittenger contrasts my view with that which makes miracles a sign of God's action and presence in creation. Yet in chapter 15 I say that the miracle at Cana manifests "the God of Israel who has through all these centuries given us wine" and that in the miraculous feedings God "does close and small... what He has always been doing in the seas, the lakes and the little brooks". Surely this is just what Dr Pittenger wanted me to say, and what Athanasius says (De Incarnatione xiv. 8, edited by F. L. Cross, 1939)?
Rejoinder to Dr Pittenger, from God in the Dock
Of the natural conversion of water into wine, what I said was: "God creates the vine and teaches it to draw up water by its roots and, with the aid of the sun, to turn that water into a juice which will ferment and take on certain qualities." For completeness I should, no doubt, have added "with the aid of the soil", and perhaps other things; but this would not, from my point of view, have materially altered what I was saying. My answer to Mr May's question — where the other raw materials came from — would be the same, whether the list of raw materials be reduced to the mere vegetable and sunlight I mentioned, or extended to bring in all that the skilled botanist might add. I think they came from the same source at Cana whence they come in Nature... What I was doing was to combat that particular argument for its falsity which rests on the idea that, if it occurred, such an event would be arbitrary and meaningless.
Miracles (letter), from God in the Dock
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησι, καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσι, τότε τὸν ἐλάσσω· σὺ τετήρηκας τὸν καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι.
и҆ глаго́ла є҆мꙋ̀: всѧ́къ человѣ́къ пре́жде до́брое вїно̀ полага́етъ, и҆ є҆гда̀ ᲂу҆пїю́тсѧ, тогда̀ хꙋ́ждшее: ты́ (же) соблю́лъ є҆сѝ до́брое вїно̀ досе́лѣ.
For the bridegroom in that marriage, to whom it was said, "Thou hast kept the good wine until now," represented the person of the Lord. For the good wine-namely, the gospel-Christ has kept until now.
Tractates on John 9
Christ has kept the good wine until now, i. e. He has deferred the Gospel till this, the sixth age.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The Lord did not simply make wine out of water, but excellent wine. For the miracles of Christ are such that they far surpass what is accomplished by nature. That the water was turned into wine is attested by the servants who drew the water; that it was excellent, by the master of the feast. All of this was proclaimed in the course of time, and those who heard of it were bound to be convinced very firmly. By "wine" you can understand the evangelical teaching, and by "water" everything that preceded the Gospel, which was very watery and did not have the perfection of evangelical teaching. I will give an example: the Lord gave man various laws — one in Paradise (Gen. 2:16–17), another at the time of Noah (Gen. 9), a third at the time of Abraham concerning circumcision (Gen. 17), a fourth through Moses (Ex. 19; Ex. 20), and a fifth through the prophets. All these laws, in comparison with the exactness and power of the Gospel, are watery, if one understands them simply and literally. But if one delves into their spirit and comprehends what is hidden in them, he will find the water turned into wine. For he who discerns spiritually what is spoken simply and understood by many literally will undoubtedly find in this water a fine wine, drunk afterward and kept back by the Bridegroom Christ, since the Gospel indeed appeared in the last times.
Commentary on John
Hence he adds: People usually serve the choice wines first, and when the guests have had their fill, then they bring out inferior wine.
Here we should consider, according to Chrysostom, that everything is most perfect in the miracles of Christ. Thus, he restored most complete health to Peter's mother-in-law, so that she arose at once and waited on them, as we read in Mark (1:30) and Matthew (7:14). Again, he restored the paralytic to health so perfectly that he also arose immediately, took up his mat, and went home, as we read below (5:9). And this is also evident in this miracle, because Christ did not make mediocre wine from the water, but the very best possible. And so the head waiter says, People usually serve the choice wines first, and when the guests have had their fill, then they bring out inferior wine, because they drink less, and because good wine consumed in quantity along with a quantity of food causes greater discomfort. It is as though he were saying: Where did this very good wine come from which, contrary to custom, you saved until now?
This is appropriate to a mystery. For in the mystical sense, he serves good wine first who, with an intent to deceive others, does not first mention the error he intends, but other things that entice his hearers, so that he can disclose his evil plans after they have been intoxicated and enticed to consent. We read of such wine: "It goes down pleasantly, but finally it will bite like a serpent" (Prv 23:31). Again, he serves good wine first who begins to live in a saintly and spiritual manner at the start of his conversion, but later sinks into a carnal life: "Are you so foolish as, having begun in the Spirit, to end in the flesh?" (Gal 3:3).
Christ, however, does not serve the good wine first, for at the outset he proposes things that are bitter and hard: "Narrow is the way that leads to life" (Mt 7:14). Yet the more progress a person makes in his faith and teaching, the more pleasant it becomes and he becomes aware of a greater sweetness: "I will lead you by the path of justice, and when you walk you will not be hindered" (Prv 4:11). Likewise, all those who desire to live conscientiously in Christ suffer bitterness and troubles in this world: "You will weep and mourn" (below 16:20). But later they will experience delights and joys. So he goes on: "but your sorrow will be turned into joy." "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, which will be revealed in us," as is said in Romans (8:18).
Commentary on John
Dionysus and his church was grounded on a serious joie-de-vivre like that of Walt Whitman. Dionysus made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. Jesus Christ also made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. But Omar makes it, not a sacrament, but a medicine. He feasts because life is not joyful; he revels because he is not glad.
Heretics, Ch. 7: Omar and the Sacred Vine (1905)
Again and again, before our time, men have grown content with a diluted doctrine. And again and again there has followed on that dilution, coming as out of the darkness in a crimson cataract, the strength of the red original wine. And we only say once more to-day as has been said many times by our fathers: ‘Long years and centuries ago our fathers or the founders of our people drank, as they dreamed, of the blood of God. Long years and centuries have passed since the strength of that giant vintage has been anything but a legend of the age of giants. Centuries ago already is the dark time of the second fermentation, when the wine of Catholicism turned into the vinegar of Calvinism. Long since that bitter drink has been itself diluted; rinsed out and washed away by the waters of oblivion and the wave of the world. Never did we think to taste again even that bitter tang of sincerity and the spirit, still less the richer and the sweeter strength of the purple vineyards in our dreams of the age of gold. Day by day and year by year we have lowered our hopes and lessened our convictions; we have grown more and more used to seeing those vats and vineyards overwhelmed in the water-floods and the last savour and suggestion of that special element fading like a stain of purple upon a sea of grey. We have grown used to dilution, to dissolution, to a watering down that went on for ever. But Thou hast kept the good wine until now.’
The Everlasting Man, The Five Deaths of the Faith (1925)
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Ταύτην ἐποίησε τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανᾷ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσε τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
Сѐ сотворѝ нача́токъ зна́менїємъ і҆и҃съ въ ка́нѣ галїле́йстѣй и҆ ꙗ҆вѝ сла́вꙋ свою̀: и҆ вѣ́роваша въ него̀ ᲂу҆чн҃цы̀ є҆гѡ̀.
[Jesus] once changed water into wine by a word of command at Cana of Galilee. Should we not believe him when he changes wine into blood? It was when he had been invited to an ordinary bodily marriage that he performed the wonderful miracle at Cana. Should we not be much more ready to acknowledge that to “the sons of the bridal chamber” he has granted the enjoyment of his body and blood?
Mystagogical Lectures 4.2
(Hom. xx) Should any say that there is not sufficient proof of this being the beginning of miracles, because it is added, in Cana of Galilee, as if some had been preferred elsewhere: we answer, as we did before, that John says below, That He might be made manifest to Israel, therefore have I come baptizing. (c. 1) (Hom. xxi. 2). Now if He had performed miracles in the earlier part of His life, the Jews would not have wanted another person to point Him out. If our Lord in a short time became so distinguished for the number of His miracles, that His Name was known to every one, would He not have been much more so, had He worked miracles from His earliest years? for the things themselves would have been the more extraordinary, being performed by a Child, and in so long a time must have become notorious. It was fit and proper however that He should not begin to work miracles at so early an age: for men would have thought the Incarnation a phantasy, and in the extremity of envy would have delivered Him to be crucified before the appointed time.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
"This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee." I told you the other day, that there are some who say that this is not the beginning. "For what," says one, "if 'Cana of Galilee' be added? This shows that this was 'the beginning' He made 'in Cana.'" But on these points I would not venture to assert anything exactly. I before have shown that He began His miracles after His Baptism, and wrought no miracle before it; but whether of the miracles done after His Baptism, this or some other was the first, it seems to me unnecessary to assert positively.
"And manifested forth His glory."
"How?" asks one, "and in what way? For only the servants, the ruler of the feast, and the bridegroom, not the greater number of those present, gave heed to what was done." How then did he "manifest forth His glory"? He manifested it at least for His own part, and if all present hear not of the miracle at the time, they would hear of it afterwards, for unto the present time it is celebrated, and has not been unnoticed. That all did not know it on the same day is clear from what follows, for after having said that He "manifested forth His glory," the Evangelist adds,
"And His disciples believed on Him."
His disciples, who even before this regarded Him with wonder. Seest thou that it was especially necessary to work the miracles at times when men were present of honest minds, and who would carefully give heed to what was done? for these would more readily believe, and attend more exactly to the circumstances. "And how could He have become known without miracles?" Because His doctrine and prophetic powers were sufficient to cause wonder in the souls of His hearers, so that they took heed to what He did with a right disposition, their minds being already well affected towards Him.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
(Tr. ix) This miracle of our Lord's, turning the water into wine, is no miracle to those who know that God worked it. For the Same that day made wine in the waterpots, Who every year makes wine in the vine: only the latter is no longer wonderful, because it happens uniformly. And therefore it is that God keeps some extraordinary acts in store for certain occasions, to rouse men out of their lethargy, and make them worship Him. Thus it follows, He manifested forth His glory.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(de Cons. Evang. l. ii c. xvii. [38.]) If now for the first time they believed on Him, they were not His disciples when they came to the marriage. This however is a form of speech, such as saying that the Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia; not meaning by this that he was an Apostle then. In the same way when we hear of Christ's disciples being invited to the marriage, we should understand not disciples already, but who were to be disciples.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Many most excellent things were accomplished at once through the one first miracle. For honourable marriage was sanctified, the curse on women put away (for no more in sorrow shall they bring forth children, now Christ has blessed the very beginning of our birth), and the glory of our Saviour shone forth as the sun's rays, and more than this, the disciples are confirmed in faith by the miracle.
The historical account then will stop here, but I think we ought to consider the other view of what has been said, and to say what is therein signified. The Word of God came down then from Heaven, as He Himself saith, in order that having as a Bridegroom, made human nature His own, He might persuade it to bring forth the spiritual offspring of Wisdom. And hence reasonably is the human nature called the bride, the Saviour the Bridegroom; since holy Scripture carries up language from human things to a meaning that is above us. The marriage is consummated on the third day, that is, in the last times of the present world: for the number three gives us beginning, middle, end. For thus is the whole of time measured. And in harmony with this do we see that which is said by one of the prophets, He hath smitten, and He will bind us up. After two days will He revive us, in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His Sight. Then shall we know if we follow on to know the Lord; His going forth is prepared as the morning. For He smote us for the transgression of Adam, saying, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. That which was smitten by corruption and death He bound up on the third day: that is, not in the first, or in the middle, but in the last ages, when for us made Man, He rendered all our nature whole, raising it from the dead in Himself. Wherefore He is also called the Firstfruits of them that slept. Therefore in saying it was the third day, whereon the marriage was being consummated, he signifies the last time. He mentions the place too; for he says it was in Cana of Galilee. Let him that loves learning again note well: for not in Jerusalem is the gathering, but without Judaea is the feast celebrated, as it were in the country of the Gentiles. For it is Galilee of the gentiles, as the prophet saith. It is I suppose altogether plain, that the synagogue of the Jews rejected the Bridegroom from Heaven, and that the church of the Gentiles received Him, and that very gladly. The Saviour comes to the marriage not of His own accord; for He was being bidden by many voices of the Saints. But wine failed the feasters; for the law perfected nothing, the Mosaic writing sufficed not for perfect enjoyment, but neither did the measure of implanted sobriety reach forth so as to be able to save us. It was therefore true to say of us too, They have no wine. But the Bounteous God doth not overlook our nature worn out with want of good things. He set forth wine better than the first, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. And the law hath no perfection in good things, but the Divine instructions of Gospel teaching bring in fullest blessing. The ruler of the feast marvels at the wine: for every one, I suppose, of those ordained to the Divine Priesthood, and entrusted with the house of our Saviour Christ, is astonished at His doctrine which is above the Law. But Christ commandeth it to be given to him first, because, according to the voice of Paul, The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. And let the hearer again consider what I say.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
It was not what they saw happening that the disciples believed but what could not be seen by bodily eyes. They did not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of the Virgin—that was something they knew. Rather, they believed that he was the only Son of the Most High, as this miracle proved. And so let us too believe wholeheartedly that he whom we confess to be the Son of man is also the Son of God. Let us believe not only that he shared our nature but also that he was consubstantial with the Father; for as a man he was present at the wedding, and as God he changed the water into wine. If such is our faith, the Lord will give us also to drink of the sobering wine of his grace.
Sermon 23
When Christ, as a sign of His power, clearly changed the water into wine All the crowd rejoiced, for they considered the taste marvelous. Now we all partake at the banquet in the church For Christ’s blood is changed into wine And we drink it with holy joy, Praising the great bridegroom, For he is the true bridegroom, the Son of Mary, The Word before all time who took the form of a servant, He who has in wisdom created all things.
Kontakion on the Marriage at Cana 7.20
By this sign he made manifest that he was the King of glory, and so the church’s bridegroom. He came to the marriage as a common human being, but as Lord of heaven and earth he could convert the elements as he wished. How beautifully appropriate it is that when he began the signs that he would show to mortals while he was still mortal he turned water into wine. [But] when he had become immortal through his resurrection, he began the signs that he would show only to those who were pursuing the goal of immortal life.… Therefore, let us love with our whole mind, dearly beloved, the marriage of Christ and the church, which was prefigured then in one city and is now celebrated over the whole earth.
Homilies on the Gospels 1.14
He was the King of glory, and changed the elements because He was their Lord.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
That the Lord began to work miracles after His baptism, we have spoken of this before. But it seems that the first miracle He performed was precisely the transformation of water into wine. For it is said: "This 'beginning' of miracles did He." But someone will say: "If this miracle is the beginning of miracles, it is not the beginning of all miracles, but only of those performed in Cana of Galilee; since He performed various miracles in Cana, this one was the beginning of those." Although we have much to confirm that the present miracle is the beginning of all miracles as well, because the words "and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him" show that before this He had not performed any other miracle by which He would have manifested His glory; nevertheless, let us not argue whether this was the first miracle or another. How then did He manifest His glory? For few were present at this event, and it was not performed before the people? But if not then, afterwards all were to hear of this miracle, as it is proclaimed even to this day, and did not remain unknown. The words "His disciples believed in Him" understand thus: that they acquired a greater and stronger faith in Him. They believed before, of course, but they did not believe so firmly.
Commentary on John
Then when he says, This beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee, he gives the disciples' acknowledgment of the miracle. We can see from this the falsity of the History of the Infancy of the Savior, which recounts many miracles worked by Christ as a boy. For if these accounts were true, the Evangelist would not have said, This beginning of signs Jesus worked. We have already given the reason why Christ worked no miracles during his childhood, that is, lest men regard them as illusions.
It was for the reason given above, then, that Jesus performed this miracle of turning water into wine at Cana of Galilee; and this was the first of the signs he did. And Jesus revealed his glory, i.e., the power by which he is glorious: "The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory" (Ps 23:10).
And his disciples believed in him. But how did they believe? For they already were his disciples and had believed before this. I answer that sometimes a thing is described not according to what it is at the time, but according to what it will be. For example, we say that the apostle Paul was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia; not that an actual apostle was born there, but a future one was. Similarly, it says here that his disciples believed in him, i.e., those who would be his disciples. Or, one might answer that previously they had believed in him as a good man, preaching what was right and just; but now they believed in him as God.
Commentary on John
After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
μετὰ τοῦτο κατέβη εἰς Καπερναοὺμ αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκεῖ ἔμειναν οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας.
[Заⷱ҇ 7] По се́мъ сни́де въ капернаꙋ́мъ са́мъ и҆ мт҃и є҆гѡ̀, и҆ бра́тїѧ є҆гѡ̀ и҆ ᲂу҆чн҃цы̀ є҆гѡ̀: и҆ тꙋ̀ не мнѡ́ги дни̑ пребы́ша.
The other three authors of the Gospels say that after the Lord’s struggle with the devil, he withdrew into Galilee. Matthew and Luke, however, say that he was in Nazareth first after these events and that he left there and went to settle in Capernaum. Matthew and Mark also mention a reason for his withdrawal from there: he had heard that John had been delivered up. …We must let the reader know, then, that the truth of these accounts lies in the spiritual meanings, because if the discrepancy is not solved, many will dismiss the Gospels as not credible, or not written by a divine spirit or not successfully recorded. The composition of these Gospels, in fact, is said to have involved both. Let those who accept the four Gospels and who think the apparent discrepancy is not to be solved through the anagogical sense tell us when the Lord came to Capernaum in relation to the difficulty we mentioned earlier concerning the forty days of temptation that can have no place at all in John. For if it occurred six days after the time when he was baptized, since his ministry at the marriage in Cana of Galilee took place on the sixth day, it is clear that he has not been tempted, nor was he in Nazareth, nor had John yet been delivered up.… The four Evangelists … made full use of many things done and said in accordance with the prodigious and unexpected power of Jesus. In some places they have interwoven in Scripture something made clear to them in a purely intellectual manner, with language as though it were something perceptible to the senses. But I do not condemn the fact that they have also made some minor changes in what happened so far as history is concerned, with a view to the usefulness of the mystical object. Consequently, they have related what happened in this place as though it happened in another, or what happened at this time as though at another time, and they have composed what is reported in this manner with a certain degree of adaptation. For their intention was to speak the truth spiritually and materially at the same time where that was possible but, where it was not possible in both ways, to prefer the spiritual to the material.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.3-4, 10, 18-20
We must ask, however, why his brothers are not invited to the wedding (nor were they present, for they are not mentioned), but they go down to Capernaum with him and his mother and the disciples.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.39
12–13(Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. iii. c. 24) When copies of the three Gospels had come to the Evangelist John, he is reported, while he confirmed their fidelity and correctness, to have at the same time noticed some omissions, especially at the opening of our Lord's ministry. Certain it is that the first three Gospels seem only to contain the events of the year in which John the Baptist was imprisoned, and put to death. And therefore John, it is said, was asked to write down those acts of our Saviour's before the apprehension of the Baptist, which the former Evangelists had passed over. Any one then, by attending, will find that the Gospels do not disagree, but that John is relating the events of a different date, from that which the others refer to.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
12–13"After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples; and they continued there not many days."
Wherefore comes He with "His mother to Capernaum"? for He hath done no miracle there, and the inhabitants of that city were not of those who were rightminded towards Him, but of the utterly corrupt. And this Christ declared when He said, "And thou, Capernaum, which are exalted to heaven, shall be thrust down to hell." Wherefore then goes He? I think it was, because He intended a little after to go up to Jerusalem, that He then went to Capernaum, to avoid leading about everywhere with Him, His mother and His brethren. And so, having departed and tarried a little while to honor His mother, He again commences His miracles after restoring to her home her who had borne Him. Therefore the Evangelist says, After "not many days,"
"He went up to Jerusalem."
He received baptism then a few days before the passover. But on going up to Jerusalem, what did He, a deed full of high authority; for He cast out of the Temple those dealers and money changers, and those who sold doves, and oxen, and sheep, and who passed their time there for this purpose.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
"He went down," as the evangelist says, "to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples; and they continued there not many days." Behold He has a mother, and brethren, and disciples: whence He has a mother, thence brethren. For our Scripture is wont to call them brethren, not only that are sprung from the same man and woman, or from the same mother, or from the same father, though by different mothers; or, in truth, that are of the same degree as cousins by the father's or mother's side: not these alone is our Scripture wont to call brethren. The Scripture must be understood as it speaks. It has its own language; one who does not know this language is perplexed and says, Whence had the Lord brethren? For surely Mary did not give birth a second time? Far from it! With her begins the dignity of virgins. She could be a mother, but a woman known of man she could not be. She is spoken of as mulier [which usually signifies a wife], but only in reference to her sex, not as implying loss of virgin purity: and this follows from the language of Scripture itself. For Eve, too, immediately she was formed from the side of her husband, and as yet not known of her husband, is, as you know, called mulier: "And he made her a woman [mulier]." Then, whence the brethren? The kinsmen of Mary, of whatever degree, are the brethren of the Lord. How do we prove this? From Scripture itself. Lot is called "Abraham's brother;" he was his brother's son. Read, and thou wilt find that Abraham was Lot's uncle on the father's side, and yet they are called brethren. Why, but because they were kinsmen? Laban the Syrian was Jacob's uncle by the mother's side, for he was the brother of Rebecca, Isaac's wife and Jacob's mother. Read the Scripture, and thou wilt find that uncle and sister's son are called brothers. When thou hast known this rule, thou wilt find that all the blood relations of Mary are the brethren of Christ.
Tractates on John 10
But rather were those disciples brethren; for even those kinsmen would not be brethren were they not disciples: and to no advantage brethren, if they did not recognize their brother as their master. For in a certain place, when He was informed that His mother and His brethren were standing without, at the time He was speaking to His disciples, He said: "Who is my mother? or who are my brethren? And stretching out His hand over His disciples, He said, These are my brethren;" and, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, the same is my mother, and brother, and sister." Therefore also Mary, because she did the will of the Father. What the Lord magnified in her was, that she did the will of the Father, not that flesh gave birth to flesh. Give good heed, beloved. Moreover, when the Lord was regarded with admiration by the multitude, while doing signs and wonders, and showing forth what lay concealed under the flesh, certain admiring souls said: "Happy is the womb that bare Thee: and He said, Yea, rather, happy are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." That is to say, even my mother, whom ye have called happy, is happy in that she keeps the word of God: not because in her the Word was made flesh and dwelt in us; but because she keeps that same word of God by which she was made, and which in her was made flesh. Let not men rejoice in temporal offspring, but let them exult if in spirit they are joined to God.
Tractates on John 10
(Tr. x. in Joan. 1, 2) The Lord our God is He, high, that He might create us; low, that He might create us anew; walking among men, suffering what was human, hiding what was divine. So He hath a mother, hath brethren, hath disciples: whence He hath a mother, thence hath He brethren. Scripture frequently gives the name of brethren, not to those only who are born of the same womb, or the same father, but to those of the same generation, cousins by the father's or mother's side. Those who are unacquainted with this way of speaking, ask, Whence hath our Lord brothers? did Mary bring forth again? That could not be: with her commenced the dignity of the virgin state. Abraham was uncle of Lot, and Jacob was nephew to Laban the Syrian. Yet Abraham and Lot are called brethren; and likewise Jacob and Laban.
(de Cons. Ev. c. ii. c. xvii. [39.]) And His disciples; it is uncertain whether Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, were of their number or not at this time. For Matthew first relates that our Lord came and dwelt at Capernaum, and afterwards that He called those disciples from their boats, as they were fishing. Is Matthew perhaps supplying what he had omitted? For without any mention that it was at a subsequent time, he says, Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee saw two brethren. (Matt. 4:18) Or is it better to suppose that these were other disciples? For the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, call not the twelve only, but all who believing in God were prepared for the kingdom of heaven by our Lord's teaching, disciplesa. (id. cap. 18). How is it too that our Lord's journey to Galilee is placed here before John the Baptist's imprisonmentb, when Matthew says, Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee: and Mark the same? Luke too, though he says nothing of John's imprisonment, yet places Christ's visit to Galilee after His temptation and baptismc, as the two former do. We should understand then that the three Evangelists are not opposed to John, but pass over our Lord's first coming into Galilee after his baptism; at which time it was that He converted the water into wine.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
It tends to disturb some people that in the opening portion of this Gospel reading it is said that when our Lord went down to Capernaum, not only his mother and his disciples followed him, but also his brothers. There have been heretics who supposed that Joseph, the husband of the blessed Virgin Mary, begot of another wife those whom the Scriptures call the Lord’s brothers. Others, with greater lack of faith, have supposed that he begot these of Mary herself after our Lord’s birth. But we, dearly beloved brothers, without any hesitation or questioning must be aware and confess that not only the blessed Mother of God, but also Joseph, the most blessed witness and guardian of her chastity, always remained wholly aloof from the conjugal act; and further, that those who after the customary manner of the Scriptures are called our Savior’s brothers or sisters were not their children but their relatives. Abraham spoke to Lot in the following way, “I beseech you, let there be no wrangling between you and me, and your shepherds and mine; for we are brothers.” Laban [said] to Jacob, “Because you are my brother, why should you have to serve me for nothing?” It is a fact that Lot was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother, and Jacob the son of Rebekah, Laban’s sister; but on account of their kinship they were called brothers. Because of this most common practice in the holy Scriptures, we should, as I have said, understand that the relatives of Mary and Joseph are called our Lord’s brothers.
Homilies on the Gospels 2.1
He did not stay many days there, on account of the Passover, which was approaching: And the Jews' passover was at hand.
But He continued there only a few days, because he lived with men in this world only a short time.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Our Lord's brethren are the relations of Mary and Joseph, not the sons of Mary and Joseph. For not only the blessed Virgin, but Joseph also, the witness of her chastity, abstained from all conjugal intercourse.
Or Capernaum, we may interpret "a most beautiful village," and so it signifies the world, to which the Word of the Father came down.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The Lord comes to Capernaum for no other purpose than to leave His Mother there, so as not to lead Her with Him everywhere. Since they had gone to Cana for the wedding, and the wedding had passed, He returns His Mother to Capernaum, to Her home. That the Lord comes to Capernaum for this very reason is revealed by the fact that He stayed there only a few days and did not perform miracles there, because the inhabitants of that city had no faith in Him, which is why the Lord in another place pronounces woe upon it (Matt. 11:23).
Commentary on John
Above, the Evangelist presented the sign Christ worked in order to confirm his disciples; and this sign pertained to his power to change nature. Now he deals with the sign of his resurrection; a sign pertaining to the same power, but proposed by Christ to convert the people.
The Evangelist does two things as to this miracle. First, he mentions its occasion. Secondly, the prediction of the miracle (v 18). As to the first he does two things. First, he describes the place. Secondly, he tells of the incident which was the occasion for proposing this miracle (v 14). Now the place where this happened was Jerusalem. And so the Evangelist recounts step by step how the Lord had come to Jerusalem. First, then, he shows how he went down to Capernaum. Secondly, how he then went up to Jerusalem. As to the first he does three things. First, he mentions the place to which he went down. Secondly, he describes his company. Thirdly, he mentions the length of his stay.
The place to which Christ went down was Capernaum; and so he says, After this, i.e., the miracle of the wine, he went down to Capernaum. Now as far as the historical truth is concerned, this seems to conflict with Matthew's account that the Lord went down to Capernaum after John had been thrown into prison (Mt 4:12), while the entire series of events the Evangelist refers to here took place before John's imprisonment.
I answer that in order to settle this question we should bear in mind what is learned from the Ecclesiastical History, that is, that the other Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, began their account of the public life of Christ from the time that John was thrown into prison. Thus Matthew (4:12), after describing the baptism, fast and temptation of Christ, began at once to weave his story after John's imprisonment, saying: "When Jesus heard that John had been arrested." And Mark (1:14) says the same: "After John had been arrested, Jesus came into Galilee." John, who outlived the other three Evangelists, approved the accuracy and truth of their accounts when they came to his notice. Yet he saw that certain things had been left unsaid, namely, things which the Lord had done in the very first days of his preaching before John's imprisonment. And so, at the request of the faithful, John, after he began his own Gospel in a loftier manner, recorded events that took place during the first year in which Christ was baptized before John's imprisonment, as is plain from the order of the events in his Gospel. According to this, then, the Evangelists are not in disagreement. Rather, the Lord went down to Capernaum twice: once before John's imprisonment (which is the one dealt with here), and once after his imprisonment, which is dealt with in Matthew (4:13) and Luke (4:31).
Now "Capernaum" means "very pretty village," and signifies this world, which has its beauty from the order and disposition of divine wisdom: "The beauty of the land is mine" (Ps 49:2). So the Lord went down to Capernaum, i.e., this world, with his mother and brethren and disciples. For in heaven the Lord has a Father without a mother; and on earth a mother without a father. Thus, he significantly mentions only his mother. In heaven he does not have brothers either, but is "the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" (above 1:18). But on earth he is "the Firstborn of many brothers" (Rom 8:29). And on earth he has disciples, to whom he can teach the mysteries of the divinity, which were not known to men before: "In these days he has spoken to us in his Son" as we read in Hebrews (1:1).
Or, "Capernaum" means "the field of consolation"; and this signifies every man who bears good fruit: "The odor of my son is like the odor of a fruitful field" (Gn 27:27). Such a person is called a field of consolation because the Lord is consoled and rejoices in his achievement: "God will rejoice over you" (Is 62:5), and because the angels rejoice over his good: "There is joy in the angels of God over one repentant sinner" (Lk 15:10).
His companions were, first of all, his mother. So he says, with his mother, for because she had come to the wedding and had brought about the miracle, the Lord accompanied her back to the village of Nazareth. Nazareth was a village in Galilee, whose chief town was Capernaum.
Secondly, his companions were his brethren; and so he says, his brethren. We must avoid two errors here. First, that of Elvidius, who said that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ; and he called these the brothers of the Lord. This is heretical, because our faith maintains that just as the mother of Christ was a virgin before giving birth, so in giving birth and after giving birth, she remained a virgin. We must also avoid the error of those who say that Joseph fathered sons with another wife, and that these are called the brothers of the Lord; for the Church does not admit this.
Jerome refutes this opinion: for on the cross the Lord entrusted his virgin mother to the care of his virgin disciple. Therefore, since Joseph was the special guardian of the Virgin, and of the Savior too, in his childhood, one may believe that he was a virgin. Consequently, it is a reasonable interpretation to say that the brothers of the Lord were those related to his virgin mother in some degree of consanguinity, or even to Joseph, who was the reputed father. And this conforms to the custom of Scripture which generally refers to relatives as brothers. Thus we read: "Let us not quarrel, for we are brothers" (Gn 13:8), as Abram said to Lot, who was his nephew. And note that he distinguishes between relatives and disciples, because not all of Christ's relatives were his disciples; hence we read: "Even his brethren did not believe in him" (below 7:5).
Thirdly, his disciples were his companions; hence he says, and his disciples. But who were his disciples? For it seems, according to Matthew, that the first ones to be converted to Christ were Peter and Andrew, John and James; but they were called after John's imprisonment, as is clear from Matthew (4:18). Thus it does not seem that they went down to Capernaum with Christ, as it says here, since this was before John's imprisonment.
There are two answers to this. One is from Augustine, in his De Consensu Evangelistarum, namely, that Matthew does not follow the historical order, but in summarizing what he omitted, relates events that occurred before John's imprisonment as though they happened after. So, without any suggestion of a time lapse he says, "As Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers" (Mt 4:18), without adding "after this" or "at that time." The other answer, also by Augustine, is that in the Gospel not only the twelve whom the Lord chose and named apostles are called disciples of the Lord (Lk 6:13), but also all who believed in him and were instructed for the kingdom of heaven by his teaching. Therefore, it is possible that although those twelve did not yet follow him, others who adhered to him are called disciples here. But the first answer is better.
His stay there was short; hence he says, but they did not remain there many days. The reason for this was that the citizens of Capernaum were not eager to accept the teachings of Christ, being very corrupt, so that in Matthew (11:23) the Lord rebukes them for not doing penance in spite of the miracles done there and of Christ's teaching: "And you Capernaum, will you be lifted up to heaven? You will go down to hell. For if the mighty works that were done in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have stood until this day." But although they were evil, he went there to accompany his mother, and to stay there for a few days for her consolation and honor.
As for its mystical sense, this signifies that some cannot remain long with the many words spoken by Christ; a few of these words are enough for them, to enlighten them, because of the weakness of their understanding. Hence as Origen said, Christ reveals few things to such persons, according to "I have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now" (Jn 16:12).
Commentary on John
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Καὶ ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
И҆ бли́з̾ бѣ̀ па́сха і҆ꙋде́йска, и҆ взы́де во і҆ерⷭ҇ли́мъ і҆и҃съ
But those who act contrary to these things-the avaricious, the liars, the hypocrites, those who make merchandise of the truth-the Lord cast out of His Father's court, not willing that the holy house of God should be the house of unrighteous traffic either in words or in material things.
The Instructor Book 3
This account of the multitude of sellers who were cast out of the temple is given by all the Evangelists, but John introduces it in a remarkably different order. After recording the testimony borne by John the Baptist to Jesus and mentioning that he went into Galilee at the time when he turned the water into wine, and after he has also noticed the sojourn of a few days in Capernaum, John proceeds to tell us that he went up to Jerusalem at the season of the Jews’ Passover, and when he had made a scourge of small cords, drove out of the temple those who were selling in it. This makes it evident that this act was performed by the Lord not on a single occasion but twice over; but that only the first instance is put on record by John, and the last by the other three.
Harmony of the Gospels 2.67.129
What follows upon this? "And the Jews' passover was at hand; and He went up to Jerusalem." The narrator relates another matter, as it came to his recollection. "And He found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when He had made, as it were, a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple; the oxen likewise, and the sheep; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; and make not my Father's house a house of merchandise." What have we heard, brethren? See, that temple was still a figure, and yet the Lord cast out of it all that sought their own, all who had come to market. And what did they sell there? Things which people needed in the sacrifices of that time. For you know, beloved, that sacrifices were given to that people, in consideration of the carnal mind and stony heart yet in them, to keep them from falling away to idols: and they offered there for sacrifices oxen, sheep, and doves: you know this, for you have read it. It was not a great sin, then, if they sold in the temple that which was bought for the purpose of offering in the temple: and yet He cast them out thence. If, while they were selling what was lawful and not against justice (for it is not unlawful to sell what it is honorable to buy), He nevertheless drove those men out, and suffered not the house of prayer to be made a house of merchandise; how, if He found drunkards there, what would the Lord do? If the house of God ought not to be made a house of trading, ought it to be made a house of drinking?
Tractates on John 10
And He went up to Jerusalem. The Gospels mention two journeys of our Lord to Jerusalem, one in the first year of His preaching, before John was sent to prison, which is the journey now spoken of; the other in the year of His Passion. Our Lord has set us here an example of careful obedience to the Divine commands. For if the Son of God fulfilled the injunctions of His own law, by keeping the festivals, like the rest, with what holy zeal should we servants prepare for and celebrate them?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The words "the Passover was near" show by the evangelist that Jesus was baptized not long before the Passover.
Commentary on John
Then when he says, The Jewish Passover was near at hand, he mentions the place to which he went up. And concerning this he does two things. First, the occasion is given. Secondly, the going up.
Now the occasion for his going up was the Jewish Passover. For in Exodus (13:17) it is commanded that every male be presented to the Lord three times a year; and one of these times was the Jewish Passover. So, since the Lord came to teach everyone by his example of humility and perfection, he wished to observe the law as long as it was in force. For he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17). And so, because the Passover of the Jews was at hand, he went up to Jerusalem. So we, after his example, should carefully observe the divine precepts. For if the Son of God fulfilled the decrees of a law he himself had given, and celebrated the great feasts, with what zeal for good works ought we both to prepare for them and observe them?
It should be noted that in John's Gospel mention is made of the Passover in three passages: here, and in (6:4), when he worked the miracle of the loaves, where it is said: "Now the Jewish Passover was near at hand," and again in (13:1), where it says: "Before the feast day of the Passover." So, according to this Gospel, we understand that after the miracle of the wine Christ preached for two years plus the interval between his baptism and this Passover. For what he did here occurred near the Passover, as it says here, and then a year later, near the time of another Passover, he performed the miracle of the loaves, and in the same year John was beheaded. Thus John was beheaded near the time of the Passover, because we read in Matthew (14:13) that immediately after John was beheaded Christ withdrew to the desert, where he worked the miracle of the loaves; and this miracle took place near Passover time, as stated below (6:4). Nevertheless, the feast of this beheading of John is celebrated on the day his head was found. It was later, during another Passover, that Christ suffered.
So, according to the opinion of those who say that the miracle worked at the wedding and the events being discussed here occurred in the same year in which Christ was baptized, there was an interval of two and one half years between Christ's baptism and his passion. So, according to them, the Evangelist says, The Jewish Passover was near at hand, in order to show that Christ had been baptized just a few days before.
But the Church holds the opposite. For we believe that Christ worked the miracle of the wine on the first anniversary of the day of his baptism; then a year later, near Passover time, John was beheaded; and then there was another year between the Passover near which John was beheaded and the Passover during which Christ suffered. So between the baptism of Christ and the miracle of the wine there had to be another Passover which the Evangelist does not mention. And so, according to what the Church holds, Christ preached for three and one half years.
He says, the Jewish Passover, not as though the people of other nations celebrated a Passover, but for two reasons. One, because when people celebrate a feast in a holy and pure way, it is said that they celebrate it for the Lord; but when they celebrate it in neither of those ways, they do not celebrate it for the Lord, but for themselves: "My soul hates your new moons and your feasts" (Is 1:14). It is as though he said: Those who celebrate for themselves and not for me, do not please me: "When you fasted, did you fast for me?" (Zec 7:5), as if to say: You did not do it for me, but for yourselves. And so because these Jews were corrupt and celebrated their Passover in an unbecoming manner, the Evangelist does not say, "the Passover of the Lord," but the Jewish Passover was at hand.
Or, he says this to differentiate it from our Passover. For the Passover of the Jews was symbolic, being celebrated by the immolation of a lamb which was a symbol. But our Passover is true, in which we recall the true passing of the Immaculate Lamb: "Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed" (1 Cor 5:7).
The journey was to Jerusalem, and so he says, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Note here that according to the historical order, Jesus went up to Jerusalem near the time of the Passover and expelled the merchants from the temple on two occasions. The first, before John's imprisonment, is the one the Evangelist mentions here; the other is mentioned by Matthew (21:13) as occurring when the Passover and the hour of his passion were at hand. For the Lord frequently repeated works that were similar. For example, the two cases of giving sight to the blind: one in Matthew (9:28) and another in Mark (10:46). In like manner he twice cast merchants from the temple.
In the mystical sense, Jesus went up to Jerusalem, which is translated as the "vision of peace," and signifies eternal happiness. It is to here that Jesus ascended, and he took his own with him. There is no lack of mystery in the fact that he went down to Capernaum and later went up to Jerusalem. For if he did not first go down, he would not have been suited to go up, because, as it is said: "He who descended is the same as he who ascended" (Eph 4:10). Further, no mention is made of the disciples in the ascent to Jerusalem because the ascent of the disciples comes from the ascent of Christ: "No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who lives in heaven" (below 3:13).
Commentary on John
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστεράς, καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους.
и҆ ѡ҆брѣ́те въ це́ркви продаю́щаѧ ѻ҆́вцы и҆ волы̀ и҆ гѡ́лꙋби, и҆ пѣ́нѧжники сѣдѧ́щыѧ.
14–15[Heracleon says] that those found in the temple selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting, represent those who give nothing away free but suppose the entrance of foreigners into the temple to be a matter of merchandise and profit. They furnish the sacrifices for the service of God for the sake of their own profit and greed.… The whip, in turn, was made from cords by Jesus, who did not receive it from another.… The whip is an image of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit who blows away the wicked.… The whip, the cord, the linen, and all such things are an image of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit.… The whip was tied to a piece of wood. The wood is a type of the cross … that the gamblers, the merchants and all evil have been nailed upon and destroyed by this wood.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.212-214
He found in the temple, which is also said to be the house of the Savior's Father, that is, in the church or in the proclamation of the sound message of the church, some who were making his Father's house a house of merchandise.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.133
(tom. x. in Joan. c. 16) Jerusalem, as our Saviour Himself saith, is the city of the great King, into which none of those who remain on earth ascend, or enter. Only the soul which has a certain natural loftiness, and clear insight into things invisible, is the inhabitant of that city. Jesus alone goes up thither. But His disciples seem to have been present afterwards. The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up. But it is as though in every one of the disciples who went up, it was Jesus who went up.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
14–15Having a symbolic purpose in mind, Jesus obscured his intent with allusions instead of stating plainly what he was doing. He thought that his hearers could not understand yet what he said. The disciples themselves did not understand either, as the Evangelist observes. They believed that by driving away the sellers of cattle and sheep, he abolished the market, but in truth what he meant was that the sacrifices of animals would be abolished.
Commentary on John 1.2.13-18, 19
14–16(de Cons. Ev. l. ii. c. 67) It is evident that this was done on two several occasions; the first mentioned by John, the last by the other three.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Tr. x. c. 4) Such sacrifices were prescribed to the people, in condescension to their carnal minds; to prevent them from turning aside to idols. They sacrificed sheep, and oxen, and doves.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Tr. x. c. 7) By the oxen may be understood the Apostles and Prophets, who have dispensed to us the holy Scriptures. Those who by these very Scriptures deceive the people, from whom they seek honour, sell the oxen; and they sell the sheep too, i. e. the people themselves; and to whom do they sell them, but to the devil? For that which is cut off from the one Church, (1 Pet. 5:8) who taketh away, except the roaring lion, who goeth about every where, and seeketh whom he may devour?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
14–16These men, however, deceive the people by the very Scriptures, that they may receive honors and praises at their hand, and that men may not turn to the truth. But in that they deceive, by the very Scriptures, the people of whom they seek honors, they do in fact sell oxen: they sell sheep too; that is, the common people themselves. And to whom do they sell them, but to the devil? For if the Church be Christ's sole and only one, who is it that carries off whatever is cut away from it, but that lion that roars and goes about, "seeking whom he may devour"? Woe to them that are cut off from the Church! As for her, she will remain entire. "For the Lord knoweth them that are His." These, however, so far as they can, sell oxen and sheep, they sell doves too: let them guard against the scourge of their own sins. But when they suffer some such things for these their iniquities, let them acknowledge that the Lord has made a scourge of small cords, and is admonishing them to change themselves and be no longer traffickers: for if they will not change, they shall at the end hear it said, "Bind ye these men's hands and feet, and cast them forth into outer darkness."
Tractates on John 10
Well, who sell oxen? They who have dispensed to us the Holy Scriptures are understood to mean the oxen. The apostles were oxen, the prophets were oxen. Whence the apostle says: "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it for our sakes? Yea, for our sakes He saith it: that he who ploweth should plow in hope; and he that thresheth, in hope of partaking." Those oxen, then, have left to us the narration of the Scriptures. For it was not of their own that they dispensed, because they sought the glory of the Lord. Now, what have ye heard in that psalm? "And let them say continually, The Lord be magnified, they that wish the peace of His servant." God's servant, God's people, God's Church. Let them who wish the peace of that Church magnify the Lord, not the servant: "and let them say continually, The Lord be magnified." Who, let say? "Them who wish the peace of His servant." The voice of that people, of that servant, is clearly that voice which you have heard in lamentations in the psalm, and were moved at hearing, because you are of that people. What was sung by one, re-echoed from the hearts of all. Happy they who recognized themselves in those voices as in a mirror. Who, then, are they that wish the peace of His servant, the peace of His people, the peace of the one whom He calls His "only one," and whom He wishes to be delivered from the lion: "Deliver mine only one from the power of the dog"? They who say always, "The Lord be magnified." Those oxen, then, magnified the Lord, not themselves. See this ox magnifying his Lord, because "the ox knoweth his owner;" observe that ox in fear lest men desert the ox's owner and rely on the ox: how he dreads them that are willing to put their confidence in him: "Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" Of what I gave, I was not the giver: freely ye have received; the dove came down from heaven. "I have planted," saith he, "Apollos watered; but God gave the increase: neither he that planteth is anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." "And let them say always, The Lord be magnified, they that wish the peace of His servant."
Tractates on John 10
The Jews are again hereby too convicted of despising the laws given them, and making of no account the Mosaic writings, looking only to their own love of gain. For whereas the law commanded that they who were about to enter into the Divine temple should purify themselves in many ways; those who had the power of forbidding it hindered not the bankers or money-changers, and others besides, whose employment was gain, usury and increase, in their lusts (for the whole aim of merchants is comprised in these things): they hindered them not from defiling the holy court, from entering into it as it were with unwashen feet, yea rather they themselves altogether used to enjoin it, that God might say truly of them, Many pastors have destroyed My vineyard, they have: trodden My portion under foot, they have made My pleasant portion a desolate wilderness, they have made it desolate. For of a truth the Lord's vineyard was destroyed, being taught to trample on the Divine worship itself, and through the sordid love of gain of those set over it left bare to all ignorance.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
Our Lord on coming to Jerusalem, immediately entered the temple to pray; giving us an example that, wheresoever we go, our first visit should be to the house of God to pray. And He found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting. (Mat. 21)
Those however, who came from a distance, being unable to bring with them the animals required for sacrifice, brought the money instead. For their convenience the Scribes and Pharisees ordered animals to be sold in the temple, in order that, when the people had bought and offered them afterwards, they might sell them again, and thus make great profits. And changers of money sitting; changers of money sat at the table to supply change to buyers and sellers.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Having come to Jerusalem, He performs a deed revealing complete authority, namely: He drives out of the temple those who sold sheep and oxen. Although Matthew (Matt. 21:12–13) narrates this, know that He did this not just once. What Matthew recounts He performs close to His Passion, while the present account — in John — He performs at the beginning of the signs.
Commentary on John
Then when he says, In the temple precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, sheep and doves, the Evangelist sets down what moved Christ to propose the sign of the resurrection. He does three things with this. First, he exposes the faulty behavior of the Jews. Secondly, he discloses Christ's remedy (v 15). Thirdly, he gives the announcement of the prophecy (v 22).
With respect to the first, we should note that the devil plots against the things of God and strives to destroy them. Now among the means by which he destroys holy things, the chief is avarice; hence it is said: "The shepherds have no understanding. All have turned aside to their own way; everyone after his own gain, from the first one to the last" (Is 56:11). And the devil has done this from the earliest times. For the priests of the Old Testament, who had been established to care for divine matters, gave free rein to avarice. God commanded, in the law, that animals should be sacrificed to the Lord on certain feasts. And in order to fulfill this command, those who lived nearby brought the animals with them. But those who came a long distance were unable to bring animals from their own homes. And so because offerings of this kind resulted in profit for the priests, and so animals to offer would not be lacking to those who came from a distance, the priests themselves saw to it that animals were sold in the temple. And so they had them shown for sale in the temple, i.e., in the atrium of the temple. And this is what he says: In the temple precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, sheep and doves.
Mention is first made of two land animals, which according to the law could be offered to the Lord: the ox and the sheep. The third land animal offered, the goat, is implied when he says "sheep"; similarly, the turtle-dove is included when he says "doves."
It sometimes happened that some came to the temple not only without animals, but also without money to buy them. And so the priests found another avenue for their avarice; they set up moneychangers who would lend money to those who came without it. And although they would not accept a usurious gain, because this was forbidden in the law, nevertheless in place of this they accepted certain "collibia," i.e., trifles and small gifts. So this also was turned to the profit of the priests. And this is what he says, moneychangers seated at tables, i.e., in the temple, ready to lend money.
This can be understood mystically in three ways. First of all, the merchants signify those who sell or buy the things of the Church: for the oxen, sheep and doves signify the spiritual goods of the Church and the things connected with them. These goods have been consecrated and authenticated by the teachings of the apostles and doctors, signified by the oxen: "When there is an abundant harvest the strength of the ox is evident" (Prv 14:4); and by the blood of the martyrs, who are signified by the sheep: so it is said for them: "We are regarded as sheep for the slaughter" (Rom 8:36); and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, signified by the doves, for as stated above, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. Therefore, those who presume to sell the spiritual goods of the Church and the goods connected with them are selling the teachings of the apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, it happens that certain prelates or heads of churches sell these oxen, sheep and doves, not overtly by simony, but covertly by negligence; that is, when they are so eager for and occupied with temporal gain that they neglect the spiritual welfare of their subjects. And this is the way they sell the oxen, sheep and doves, i.e., the three classes of people subject to them. First of all, they sell the preachers and laborers, who are signified by the oxen: "Happy are you who sow beside all the streams, letting the ox and the donkey range free" (Is 32:20); because prelates ought to arrange the oxen, i.e., teachers and wise men, with the donkeys, i.e., the simple and uneducated. They also sell those in the active life, and those occupied with ministering, signified by the sheep: "My sheep hear my voice" (below 10:27); and as is said in 2 Samuel (24:17): "But these, who are the sheep, what have they done?" They also sell the contemplatives, signified by the doves: "Who will give me wings like a dove, and I will fly?" (Ps 54:7).
Thirdly, by the temple of God we can understand the spiritual soul, as it says: "The temple of God is holy, and that is what you are" (1 Cor 3:17). Thus a man sells oxen, sheep and doves in the temple when he harbors bestial movements in his soul, for which he sells himself to the devil. For oxen, which are used for cultivating the earth, signify earthly desires; sheep, which are stupid animals, signify man's obstinacy; and the doves signify man's instability. It is God who drives these things out of men's hearts.
Commentary on John
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεε τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέστρεψε,
И҆ сотвори́въ би́чь ѿ ве́рвїй, всѧ̑ и҆згна̀ и҆з̾ це́ркве, ѻ҆́вцы и҆ волы̀: и҆ торжникѡ́мъ разсы́па пѣ̑нѧзи и҆ дски̑ ѡ҆прове́рже:
(tom. x. in Joan. c. 16) Should it appear something out of the order of things, that the Son of God should make a scourge of small cords, to drive them out of the temple? We have one answer in which some take refuge, viz. the divine power of Jesus, Who, when He pleased, could extinguish the wrath of His enemies however innumerable, and quiet the tumult of their minds: The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought. (Ps. 32, 33:10) This act indeed exhibits no less power, than His more positive miracles; nay rather, more than the miracle by which water was converted into wine: in that there the subject-matter was inanimate, here, the minds of so many thousands of men are overcome.
(tom. x. in Joan. c. 17) John says here that He drove out the sellers from the temple; Matthew, the sellers and buyers. The number of buyers was much greater than of the sellers: and therefore to drive them out was beyond the power of the carpenter's Son, as He was supposed to be, had He not by His divine power put all things under Him, as it is said.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
15–16They do not in this contradict each other, but show that he did this a second time, and that both these expressions were not used on the same occasion, but that He acted thus once at the beginning of His ministry, and again when He had come to the very time of His Passion. Therefore, (on the latter occasion,) employing more strong expressions, He spoke of it as (being made) "a den of thieves," but here at the commencement of His miracles He does not so, but uses a more gentle rebuke; from which it is probable that this took place a second time.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
"And wherefore," says one, "did Christ do this same, and use such severity against these men, a thing which He is nowhere else seen to do, even when insulted and reviled, and called by them 'Samaritan' and 'demoniac'? for He was not even satisfied with words only, but took a scourge, and so cast them out." Yes, but it was when others were receiving benefit, that the Jews accused and raged against Him; when it was probable that they would have been made savage by His rebukes, they showed no such disposition towards Him, for they neither accused nor reviled Him.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
Since he was about to heal on the Sabbath day, and to do many such things which were thought by them transgressions of the Law, in order that He might not seem to do this as though He had come to be some rival God and opponent of His Father, He takes occasion hence to correct any such suspicion of theirs. For One who had exhibited so much zeal for the House was not likely to oppose Him who was Lord of the House, and who was worshiped in it. No doubt even the former years during which He lived according to the Law, were sufficient to show His reverence for the Legislator, and that He came not to give contrary laws; yet since it was likely that those years were forgotten through lapse of time, as not having been known to all because He was brought up in a poor and mean dwelling, He afterwards does this in the presence of all, (for many were present because the feast was nigh at hand,) and at great risk. For he did not merely "cast them out," but also "overturned the tables," and "poured out the money," giving them by this to understand, that He who threw Himself into danger for the good order of the House could never despise his Master. Had He acted as He did from hypocrisy, He should only have advised them; but to place Himself in danger was very daring. For it was no light thing to offer Himself to the anger of so many market-folk, to excite against Himself a most brutal mob of petty dealers by His reproaches and His blows, this was not the action of a pretender, but of one choosing to suffer everything for the order of the House.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
Yet we say, brethren (for He did not spare those men: He who was to be scourged by them first scourged them), that He gave us a certain sign, in that He made a scourge of small cords, and with it lashed the unruly, who were making merchandise of God's temple. For indeed every man twists for himself a rope by his sins: "Woe to them who draw sins as a long rope?" Who makes a long rope? He who adds sin to sin. How are sins added to sins? When the sins which have been committed are covered over by other sins. One has committed a theft: that he may not be found out to have committed it, he seeks the astrologer. It were enough to have committed theft: why wilt thou add sin to sin? Behold two sins committed. When thou art forbidden to go to the astrologer, thou revilest the bishop: behold three sins. When thou hearest it said of thee, Cast him forth from the Church; thou sayest, I will betake me to the party of Donatus: behold thou addest a fourth sin. The rope is growing; be thou afraid of the rope. It is good for thee to be corrected here, when thou art scourged with it; that it may not be said of thee at the last, "Bind ye his hands and feet, and cast him forth into outer darkness." For, "With the cords of his own sins is every one bound." The former of these is the saying of the Lord, the latter that of another Scripture; but yet both are the sayings of the Lord. With their own sins are men bound and cast into outer darkness.
Tractates on John 10
(Tr. x. c. 5) He who was to be scourged by them, was first of all the scourger; And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Tr. x. c. 5) Our Lord intended a meaning to be seen in His making a scourge of small cords, and then scourging those who were carrying on the merchandize in the temple. Every one by his sins twists for himself a cord, in that he goes on adding sin to sin. So then when men suffer for their iniquities, let them be sure that it is the Lord making a scourge of small cords, and admonishing them to change their lives: which if they fail to do, they will hear at the last, Bind. him hand and foot. (Mat. 23)
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Reasonably is the Saviour indignant at the folly of the Jews. For it befitted to make the Divine Temple not an house of merchandise, but an house of prayer: for so it is written. But He shows His emotion not by mere words, but with stripes and a scourge thrusts He them forth of the sacred precincts, justly devising for them the punishment befitting slaves; for they would not receive the Son Who through faith maketh free. See I pray well represented as in a picture that which was said through Paul, If any man dishonour the Temple of God, him shall God dishonour.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
Why do you not recall before the eyes of your mind that our Redeemer, entering the temple, overturned the seats of those selling doves and poured out the money of the money-changers? For who are those in the temple of God today who sell doves, if not those who in the Church receive payment for the imposition of hands? Through which imposition, namely, the Holy Spirit is given from heaven. Therefore the dove is sold, because the imposition of hands, through which the Holy Spirit is received, is offered for a price. But our Redeemer overturned the seats of those selling doves, because he destroys the priesthood of such merchants.
Whence also entering into the temple, he made as it were a whip from cords by himself, and casting out the wicked merchants from the house of God, he overturned the seats of those selling doves, because he strikes the faults of subjects through pastors, but he strikes the vices of pastors through himself. Behold, now what is done secretly can be denied to people. That Judge will certainly come, from whom no one can hide himself by keeping silent, whom no one can deceive by denying.
Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 17
15–16But our Lord disapproving of any worldly business in His house, especially one of so questionable a kind, drove out all engaged in it.
The Evangelist sets before us both natures of Christ: the human in that His mother accompanied Him to Capernaum; the divine, in that He said, Make not My Father's house an house of merchandize.
(in loc.) They then are the sellers of doves, who, after receiving the free grace of the Holy Spirit, do not dispense it freely, as they are commanded, but at a price: who confer the laying on of hands, by which the Holy Spirit is received, if not for money, at least for the sake of getting favour with the people, who bestow Holy Orders not according to merit, but favour.
(in loc.) Or, the sheep are works of purity and piety, and they sell the sheep, who do works of piety to gain the praise of men. They exchange money in the temple, who, in the Church, openly devote themselves to secular business. And besides those who seek for money, or praise, or honour from Holy Orders, those too make the Lord's house a house of merchandize, who do not employ the rank, or spiritual grace, which they have received in the Church at the Lord's hands, with singleness of mind, but with an eye to human recompense.
(in loco.) With a scourge then made of small cords, He cast them out of the temple; for from the part and lot of the saints are cast out all, who, thrown externally among the Saints, do good works hypocritically, or bad openly. The sheep and the oxen too He cast out, to show that the life and the doctrine of such were alike reprobate. And He overthrew the change heaps of the money-changers and their tables, as a sign that, at the final condemnation of the wicked, He will take away the form even of those things which they loved. The sale of doves He ordered to be removed out of the temple, because the grace of the Spirit, being freely received, should be freely given.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Nor did He cast out only those who bought and sold, but their goods also: The sheep, and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables, i. e. of the money changers, which were coffers of pence.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Why does He drive such people out of the temple altogether? Not without reason: He will heal on the Sabbath and, as it were, violate the law concerning it; therefore, so that they would not then consider Him an opponent of God, He forestalls such a thought by the present occasion. For he who showed such zeal for the temple would not reject God, the Lord of the temple. And He drove them out not simply, but striking with a whip made of cords, and overturned the tables, and scattered the coin or money of the money-changers, and undertook a very dangerous deed. And he who subjects himself to danger for the house of God would permit a departure from the law of God not as an opponent of God, but undoubtedly as the Son, having equal authority with God the Father, who gave the law concerning the Sabbath.
Commentary on John
The Lord's remedy is at once set forth. Here the Lord's remedy consisted in action and in words, in order to instruct those who have charge of the Church that they must correct their subjects in deed and in word. And he does two things with respect to this. First, he gives the remedy Christ applied by his action. Secondly, the remedy he applied by word (v 16).
As to the first he does three things. First, he drives the men out. Secondly, the oxen and sheep. Thirdly, he sweeps away the money.
He drives the men out with a whip; and this is what he says, when he had made a kind of whip from cords. This is something that could be done only by divine power. For as Origen says, the divine power of Jesus was as able, when he willed, to quench the swelling anger of men as to still the storms of minds: "The Lord brings to nought the thoughts of men" (Ps 32:10). He makes the whip from cords because, as Augustine says, it is from our own sins that he forms the matter with which he punishes us: for a series of sins, in which sins are added to sins, is called a cord: "He is bound fast by the cords of his own sins" (Prv 5:22); "Woe to you who haul wickedness with cords" (Is 5:18). Then, just as he drove the merchants from the temple, so he swept away the gold of the moneychangers and knocked over their tables.
And mark well that if he expelled from the temple things that seemed somehow licit, in the sense that they were ordained to the worship of God, how much more if he comes upon unlawful things? The reason he cast them out was because in this matter the priests did not intend God's glory, but their own profit. Hence it is said: "It is for yourselves that you placed guardians of my service in my sanctuary" (Ez 44:8).
Further, our Lord showed zeal for the things of the law so that he might by this answer the chief priests and the priests who were later to bring a charge against him on this very point. Again, by casting things of this kind out of the temple he let it be understood that the time was coming in which the sacrifices of the law were due to cease, and the true worship of God transferred to the Gentiles: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you" (Mt 21:43). Also, this shows us the condemnation of those who sell spiritual things: "May your money perish together with you" (Acts 8:20).
Commentary on John
And with that thought came a larger one, and the colossal figure of her Master had also crossed the theatre of my thoughts. The same modern difficulty which darkened the subject-matter of Anatole France also darkened that of Ernest Renan. Renan also divided his hero's pity from his hero's pugnacity. Renan even represented the righteous anger at Jerusalem as a mere nervous breakdown after the idyllic expectations of Galilee. As if there were any inconsistency between having a love for humanity and having a hatred for inhumanity! Altruists, with thin, weak voices, denounce Christ as an egoist. Egoists (with even thinner and weaker voices) denounce Him as an altruist. In our present atmosphere such cavils are comprehensible enough. The love of a hero is more terrible than the hatred of a tyrant. The hatred of a hero is more generous than the love of a philanthropist. There is a huge and heroic sanity of which moderns can only collect the fragments. There is a giant of whom we see only the lopped arms and legs walking about. They have torn the soul of Christ into silly strips, labelled egoism and altruism, and they are equally puzzled by His insane magnificence and His insane meekness. They have parted His garments among them, and for His vesture they have cast lots; though the coat was without seam woven from the top throughout.
Orthodoxy, Ch. 3: The Suicide of Thought (1908)
Instead of looking at books and pictures about the New Testament I looked at the New Testament. There I found an account, not in the least of a person with his hair parted in the middle or his hands clasped in appeal, but of an extraordinary being with lips of thunder and acts of lurid decision, flinging down tables, casting out devils, passing with the wild secrecy of the wind from mountain isolation to a sort of dreadful demagogy; a being who often acted like an angry god--and always like a god. Christ had even a literary style of his own, not to be found, I think, elsewhere; it consists of an almost furious use of the a fortiori. His "how much more" is piled one upon another like castle upon castle in the clouds. The diction used about Christ has been, and perhaps wisely, sweet and submissive. But the diction used by Christ is quite curiously gigantesque; it is full of camels leaping through needles and mountains hurled into the sea. Morally it is equally terrific; he called himself a sword of slaughter, and told men to buy swords if they sold their coats for them. That he used other even wilder words on the side of non-resistance greatly increases the mystery; but it also, if anything, rather increases the violence. We cannot even explain it by calling such a being insane; for insanity is usually along one consistent channel. The maniac is generally a monomaniac. Here we must remember the difficult definition of Christianity already given; Christianity is a superhuman paradox whereby two opposite passions may blaze beside each other. The one explanation of the Gospel language that does explain it, is that it is the survey of one who from some supernatural height beholds some more startling synthesis.
Orthodoxy, Ch. 9: Authority and the Adventurer (1908)
The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.
Orthodoxy, Ch. 9: Authority and the Adventurer (1908)
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
καὶ τοῖς τὰς περιστερὰς πωλοῦσιν εἶπεν· ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν· μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου.
и҆ продаю́щымъ гѡ́лꙋби речѐ: возми́те сїѧ̑ ѿсю́дꙋ и҆ не твори́те до́мꙋ ѻ҆ц҃а̀ моегѡ̀ до́мꙋ кꙋ́пленагѡ {кꙋ́пли}.
He says that this handiwork is “the temple of God,” thus declaring, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to himself, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” He was speaking, however, it is said, of the temple of his body. And not only does he [the apostle] acknowledge our bodies to be a temple, but even to be the temple of Christ.
Against Heresies 5.6.2
By asserting all this, He determined the distinction which is between the two Persons: that is, the Son then on earth, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; and the Father in heaven, who had revealed to Peter the discovery which he had made, that Christ was the Son of God. When He entered the temple, He called it "His Father's house," speaking as the Son.
Against Praxeas
Now Christ is especially jealous for the house of God in each of us, not wishing it to be a house of merchandise or that the house of prayer become a den of thieves, since he is the son of a jealous God.… [These words] set forth the fact that God wishes nothing alien to his will to be mingled with the soul of anyone, but especially with the soul of those who wish to receive [the teachings of the] most divine faith.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.221
(tom. x. in Joan. c. 16) It is possible even for the dweller in Jerusalem to incur guilt, and even the most richly endowed may stray. And unless these repent speedily, they lose the capacity wherewith they were endued. He finds them in the temple, i. e. in sacred places, or in the office of enunciating the Church's truths, some who make His Father's house an house of merchandize; i. e. who expose to sale the oxen whom they ought to reserve for the plough, lest by turning back they should become unfit for the kingdom of God: also who prefer the unrighteous mammon to the sheep, from which they have the material of ornament; also who for miserable gain abandon the watchful care of them who are called metaphorically doves, without all gall or bitterness. Our Saviour finding these in the holy house, maketh a scourge of small cords, and driveth them out, together with the sheep and oxen exposed for sale, scatters the heaps of money, as unbeseeming in the house of God, and overthrows the tables set up in the minds of the covetous, forbidding them to sell doves in the house of God any longer. I think too that He meant the above, as a mystical intimation that whatsoever was to be performed with regard to that sacred oblation by the priests, was not to be performed after the manner of material oblations, and that the law was not to be observed as the carnal Jews wished. For our Lord, by driving away the sheep and oxen, and ordering away the doves, which were the most common offerings among the Jews, and by overthrowing the tables of material coins, which in a figure only, not in truth, bore the Divine stamp, (i. e. what according to the letter of the law seemed good,) and when with His own hand He scourged the people, He as much as declared that the dispensation was to be broken up and destroyed, and the kingdom translated to the believing from among the Gentiles.
(tom. x. in Joan. c. 16) By the temple we may understand too the soul wherein the Word of God dwelleth; in which, before the teaching of Christ, earthly and bestial affections had prevailed. The ox being the tiller of the soil, is the symbol of earthly affections: the sheep, being the most irrational of all animals, of dull ones; the dove is the type of light and volatile thoughts; and money, of earthly good things; which money Christ cast out by the Word of His doctrine, that His Father's house might be no longer a market.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
This cry rent the veil, and opened the tombs, and made the house desolate. And He did this, not as offering insult to the temple (for how should He, who saith, "Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise,") but declaring them to be unworthy even of His abiding there; like as also when He delivered it over to the Babylonians. But not for this only were these things done, but what took place was a prophecy of the coming desolation, and of the change into the greater and higher state; and a sign of His might.
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 88
Another Evangelist writes, that as He cast them out, He said, Make not my Father's house "a den of thieves," but this one, "(Make not My Father's house) an house of merchandise."
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
And therefore not by His actions only, but by His words, He shows his agreement with the Father; for He saith not "the Holy House," but "My Father's House." See, He even calls Him, "Father," and they are not wroth; they thought He spoke in a general way: but when He went on and spoke more plainly, so as to set before them the idea of His Equality, then they become angry.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
Our Lord’s driving out of the temple people who were seeking their own ends, who came to the temple to buy and sell, is symbolic. For if that temple was a symbol it obviously follows that the body of Christ, the true temple of which the other was an image, has within it some who are buyers and sellers, or in other words, people who are seeking their own interests and not those of Jesus Christ.But the temple was not destroyed by the people who wanted to turn the house of God into a den of thieves, and neither will those who live evil lives in the Catholic church and do all they can to convert God’s house into a robber’s den succeed in destroying the temple. The time will come when they will be driven out by a whip made of their own sins. This temple of God, this body of Christ, this assembly of believers, has but one voice and sings the psalms as though it were but one person. If we wish, it is our voice; if we wish, we may listen to the singer with our ears and ourselves sing in our hearts. But if we choose not to do so it will mean that we are like buyers and sellers, preoccupied with our own interests.
Explanation of Psalm 130.2-3
However, to seek the mystery of the deed in the figure, who are they that sell oxen? Who are they that sell sheep and doves? They are they who seek their own in the Church, not the things which are Christ's. They account all a matter of sale, while they will not be redeemed: they have no wish to be bought, and yet they wish to sell. Yes; good indeed is it for them that they may be redeemed by the blood of Christ, that they may come to the peace of Christ. Now, what does it profit to acquire in this world any temporal and transitory thing whatsoever, be it money, or pleasure of the palate, or honor that consists in the praise of men? Are they not all wind and smoke? Do they not all pass by and flee away? Are they not all as a river rushing headlong into the sea? And woe to him who shall fall into it, for he shall be swept into the sea. Therefore ought we to curb all our affections from such desires. My brethren, they that seek such things are they that sell. For that Simon too, wished to buy the Holy Ghost, just because he meant to sell the Holy Ghost; and he thought the apostles to be just such traders as they whom the Lord cast out of the temple with a scourge. For such an one he was himself, and desired to buy what he might sell: he was of those who sell doves. Now it was in a dove that the Holy Ghost appeared. Who, then, are they, brethren, that sell doves, but they who say, "We give the Holy Ghost"? But why do they say this, and at what price do they sell? At the price of honor to themselves. They receive as the price, temporal seats of honor, that they may be seen to be sellers of doves. Let them beware of the scourge of small cords. The dove is not for sale: it is given freely; for grace, or favor, it is called.
Tractates on John 10
(Tr. x. in Joan. c. 4) So that temple was still a figure only, and our Lord cast out of it all who came to it as a market. And what did they sell? Things that were necessary for the sacrifice of that time. What if He had found men drunken? If the house of God ought not to be a house of merchandize, ought it to be a house of drunkenness?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Tr. x. c. 6) Or, those who sell in the Church, are those who seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ. They who will not be bought, think they may sell earthly things. Thus Simon wished to buy the Spirit, that he might sell Him: for he was one of those who sell doves. (The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.) The dove however is not sold, but is given of free grace; for it is called grace.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Take these things hence; make not My Father's House an house of merchandise.
He commands as Lord, He leads by the hand to what is fitting, as teacher; and along with the punishment He sets before them the declaration of their offences, through shame thereof not suffering him that is censured to be angry. But it must be noted that He again calls God His own Father specially, as being Himself and that Alone by Nature of Him, and truly Begotten. For if it be not so, but the Word be really Son with us, as one of us, to wit by adoption, and the mere Will of the Father: why does He alone seize to Himself the boast common to and set before all, saying, Make not My Father's House, and not rather, our Father's House. For this I suppose would have been more meet to say, if He had known that Himself too was one of those who are not sons by Nature. But since the Word knows that He is not in the number of those who are sons by grace, but of the Essence of God the Father, He puts Himself apart from the rest, calling God His Father. For it befits those who are called to sonship and have the honour from without, when they pray to cry, Our Father Which art in Heaven: but the Only Begotten being Alone One of One, with reason calls God His Own Father.
But if we must, applying ourselves to this passage, harmonize it more spiritually with that above, the lection must be considered differently.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep,
See again the whole scheme of the Dispensation to usward drawn out by two things. For with the Cananites, I mean those of Galilee, Christ both feasts and tarries, and them that bade Him, and hereby honoured Him, He made partakers of His Table; He both aids them by miracles and fills up that which was lacking to their joy (and what good thing does He not freely give?): teaching as in a type that He will both receive the inhabitants of Galilee, that is the Gentiles, called as it were to them through the faith that is in them, and will bring them into the Heavenly Bridal-chamber, that is unto the church of the first-born, and will make them sit down with the saints (for the holy disciples sat down with the feasters): and will make them partake of the Divine and spiritual feast, as Himself saith, Many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven, nought lacking unto their joy. For everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. But the disobedient Jews He shall cast forth of the holy places, and set them without the holy inclosure of the saints; yea, even when they bring sacrifices He will not receive them: but rather will subject them to chastisement and the scourge, holden with the cords of their own sins. For hear Him saying, Take these things hence; that thou mayest understand again those things which long ago by the mouth of the Prophet Isaiah He saith, I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks and of he goats, neither come ye to appear before Me, for who hath required this at your hand? tread not My courts any more. If ye bring an offering of fine flour, vain is the oblation, incense is an abomination unto Me; your new moons and sabbaths and great day I cannot endure, your fasting and rest and feasts My soul hateth: ye are become satiety unto Me, I will no longer endure your sins. This He most excellently signifies in type, devising for them the scourge of cords. For scourges are a token of punishment.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
Therefore here He said with restraint: "Do not make My Father's house a house of trade." For the miracles were only just beginning, and He did not yet have that boldness which the miracles would give. But there, that is in Matthew, He says: "Do not make it a den of robbers." He openly called them robbers, as people profiting by unjust means. For whoever prices a thing of little worth dearly and seizes the opportunity to extract gain from the poor and widows (as those who buy up necessities and then resell them typically do), what else does he do but rob, extracting gain from the misfortune of his neighbors? Therefore He did not say "the house of God," but "the house of My Father," showing that He, as the Son, has authority over all that belongs to the Father. The money changers are those who sell small coins or nummi. Like those merchants of old, many of the chief priests also sin when they sell "oxen" in the church, not giving honor to those who excel in the teaching word, but giving it to those who wish to do evil; when they sell "sheep" — the simple and common people; "doves" — spiritual gifts; and when they elevate to the highest rank those who give more. Such persons the Lord "drives out" of the sanctuary, finding them by His judgment unworthy of the chief priesthood. Likewise, if someone sells large and small coin, that is, opinion and word, and being a teacher but not foreseeing the benefit, does not proclaim the evangelical word, the Lord "overturns" his "table" as well, that is, the rank of teacher, and the teaching which he out of malice withholds, not giving it to all; meanwhile the Lord Jesus removes such a one from authority and seats another, a worthy one, at the teaching table.
Commentary on John
Then when he says, To those selling doves he said, he records the treatment which the Lord applied by word. Here it should be noted that those who engage in simony should, of course, first be expelled from the Church. But because as long as they are alive, they can change themselves by free will and by the help of God return to the state of grace, they should not be given up as hopeless. If, however, they are not converted, then they are not merely to be expelled, but handed over to those to whom it is said: "Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness" (Mt 22:13). And so the Lord, attending to this, first warns them, and then gives the reason for his warning, saying, stop making my Father's house into a marketplace.
He warns those selling the doves by reproaching them, for they signify those who sell the gifts of the Holy Spirit, i.e., those who engage in simony.
He gives his reason for this when he says, stop making my Father's house into a marketplace. "Take away your evil from my sight" (Is 1:16). Note that Matthew (21:13) says: "Do not make my house a den of thieves," while here he says, a marketplace. Now the Lord does this because, as a good physician, he begins first with the gentler things; later on, he would propose harsher things. Now the action recorded here was the first of the two; hence in the beginning he does not call them thieves but merchants. But because they did not stop such business out of obstinacy, the Lord, when driving them out the second time (as mentioned in Mark 11:15), rebukes them more severely, calling robbery what he had first called business.
He says, my Father's house, to exclude the error of Manichaeus, who said that while the God of the New Testament was the Father of Christ, the God of the Old Testament was not. But if this were true, then since the temple was the house of the Old Testament, Christ would not have referred to the temple as my Father's house.
Why were the Jews not disturbed here when he called God his Father, for as is said below (5:18), this is why they persecuted him? I answer that God is the Father of certain men through adoption; for example, he is the Father of the just in this way. This was not a new idea for the Jews: "You will call me Father, and you will not cease to walk after me" (Jer 3:19). However, by nature he is the Father of Christ alone: "The Lord said to me: 'You are my Son'" (Ps 2:7), i.e., the true and natural Son. It is this that was unheard of among the Jews. And so the Jews persecuted him because he called himself the true Son of God: "the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his own Father, making himself equal to God" (below 5:18). But when he called God his Father on this occasion, they said it was by adoption.
That the house of God shall not be made a marketplace is taken from Zechariah (14:21): "On that day there will no longer be any merchants in the house of the Lord of hosts"; and from the Psalm (70:16), where one version has the reading: "Because I was not part of the marketplace, I will enter into the strength of the Lord."
Commentary on John
And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
ἐμνήσθησαν δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι γεγραμμένον ἐστίν, ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί με.
Помѧнꙋ́ша же ᲂу҆чн҃цы̀ є҆гѡ̀, ꙗ҆́кѡ пи́сано є҆́сть: жа́лость до́мꙋ твоегѡ̀ снѣ́сть мѧ̀ {ре́вность до́мꙋ твоегѡ̀ снѣде́ мѧ}.
"They," His disciples, it says, "Remembered that it is written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."
But the Jews did not remember the Prophecy, and said, "What sign showest Thou unto us?" both grieving that their shameful traffic was cut off, and expecting by these means to stop Him, and also desiring to challenge Him to a miracle, and to find fault with what He was doing.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
"Then the disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up:" because by this zeal of God's house, the Lord cast these men out of the temple. Brethren, let every Christian among the members of Christ be eaten up with zeal of God's house. Who is eaten up with zeal of God's house? He who exerts himself to have all that he may happen to see wrong there corrected, desires it to be mended, does not rest idle: who if he cannot mend it, endures it, laments it. The grain is not shaken out on the threshing-floor that it may enter the barn when the chaff shall have been separated. If thou art a grain, be not shaken out from the floor before the putting into the granary; lest thou be picked up by the birds before thou be gathered into the granary. For the birds of heaven, the powers of the air, are waiting to snatch up something off the threshing-floor, and they can snatch up only what has been shaken out of it. Therefore, let the zeal of God's house eat thee up: let the zeal of God's house eat up every Christian, zeal of that house of God of which he is a member. For thy own house is not more important than that wherein thou hast everlasting rest. Thou goest into thine own house for temporal rest, thou enterest God's house for everlasting rest. If, then, thou busiest thyself to see that nothing wrong be done in thine own house, is it fit that thou suffer, so far as thou canst help, if thou shouldst chance to see aught wrong in the house of God, where salvation is set before thee, and rest without end? For example, seest thou a brother rushing to the theatre? Stop him, warn him, make him sorry, if the zeal of God's house doth eat thee up. Seest thou others running and desiring to get drunk, and that, too, in holy places, which is not decent to be done in any place? Stop those whom thou canst, restrain whom thou canst, frighten whom thou canst, allure gently whom thou canst: do not, however, rest silent. Is it a friend? Let him be admonished gently. Is it a wife? Let her be bridled with the utmost rigor. Is it a maid-servant? Let her be curbed even with blows. Do whatever thou canst for the part thou bearest; and so thou fulfillest, "The zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up." But if thou wilt be cold, languid, having regard only to thyself, and as if thyself were enough to thee, and saying in thy heart, What have I to do with looking after other men's sins? Enough for me is the care of my own soul: this let me keep undefiled for God;-come, does there not recur to thy mind the case of that servant who hid his talent and would not lay it out? Was he accused because he lost it, and not because he kept it without profit? So hear ye then, my brethren, that ye may not rest idle. I am about to give you counsel: may He who is within give it; for though it be through me, it is He that gives it. You know what to do, each one of you, in his own house, with his friend, his tenant, his client, with greater, with less: as God grants an entrance, as He opens a door for His word, do not cease to win for Christ; because you were won by Christ.
Tractates on John 10
(Tr. x. c. 9) He then is eaten up with zeal for God's house, who desires to correct all that he sees wrong there; and, if he cannot correct, endures and mourns. In thine house thou busiest thyself to prevent matters going wrong; in the house of God, where salvation is offered, oughtest thou to be indifferent? Hast thou a friend? admonish him gently; a wife? coerce her severely; a maid-servant? even compel her with stripes. Do what thou art able, according to thy station.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The disciples in a short time get perfection of knowledge, and comparing what is written with the events, already show great progress for the better.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
(in loc.) His disciples seeing this most fervent zeal in Him, remembered that it was from zeal for His Father's house that our Saviour drove the ungodly from the temple.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Zeal, taken in a good sense, is a certain fervour of the Spirit, by which the mind, all human fears forgotten, is stirred up to the defence of the truth.
To take the passage mystically, God enters His Church spiritually every day, and marks each one's behaviour there. Let us be careful then, when we are in God's Church, that we indulge not in stories, or jokes, or hatreds, or lusts, lest on a sudden He come and scourge us, and drive us out of His Church.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for Your house consumes me" (Ps. 69:9). They had been growing in goodness for only a short time, yet they were already recalling passages from the Scriptures, and finding testimonies in them, they were being more and more confirmed in their knowledge of Christ.
Commentary on John
Then when he says, His disciples then remembered, he sets down a prophecy which was written in Psalm 69 (v 9): "Zeal for your house consumes me." Here we should remark that zeal, properly speaking, signifies an intensity of love, whereby the one who loves intensely does not tolerate anything which is repugnant to his love. So it is that men who love their wives intensely and cannot endure their being in the company of other men, as this conflicts with their own love, are called "zelotypes." Thus, properly speaking, one is said to have zeal for God who cannot patiently endure anything contrary to the honor of God, whom he loves above all else: "I have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts" (1 Kgs 19:10). Now we should love the house of the Lord, according to the Psalm (25:8): "O Lord, I have loved the beauty of your house." Indeed, we should love it so much that our zeal consumes us, so that if we notice anything amiss being done, we should try to eliminate it, no matter how dear to us are those who are doing it; nor should we fear any evils that we might have to endure as a result. So the Gloss says: "Good zeal is a fervor of spirit, by which, scorning the fear of death, one is on fire for the defense of the truth. He is consumed by it who takes steps to correct any perversity he sees; and if he cannot, he tolerates it with sadness."
Commentary on John
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ· τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις ἡμῖν ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς;
Ѿвѣща́ша же і҆ꙋде́є и҆ рѣ́ша є҆мꙋ̀: ко́е зна́менїе ꙗ҆влѧ́еши на́мъ, ꙗ҆́кѡ сїѧ̑ твори́ши;
18–19And what say they? "What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?" Alas for their utter madness! Was there need of a sign before they could cease their evil doings, and free the house of God from such dishonor? and was it not the greatest sign of His Excellence that He had gotten such zeal for that House? In fact, the well-disposed were distinguished by this very thing.
At one time then He said, that the Temple was made by them "a den of thieves," showing that what they sold was gotten by theft, and rapine, and covetousness, and that they were rich through other men's calamities; at another, "a house of merchandise," pointing to their shameless traffickings. "But wherefore did He this?" Since he was about to heal on the Sabbath day, and to do many such things which were thought by them transgressions of the Law in order that He might not seem to do this as though He had come to be some rival God and opponent of His Father, He takes occasion hence to correct any such suspicion of theirs.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
18–19Wherefore He will not give them a sign; and before, when they came and asked Him, He made them the same answer, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." Only then the answer was clear, now it is more ambiguous. This He doth on account of their extreme insensibility; for He who prevented them without their asking, and gave them signs, would never when they asked have turned away from them, had He not seen that their minds were wicked and false, and their intention treacherous. Think how full of wickedness the question itself was at the outset. When they ought to have applauded Him for His earnestness and zeal, when they ought to have been astonished that He cared so greatly for the House, they reproach Him, saying, that it was lawful to traffic, and unlawful for any to stop their traffic, except he should show them a sign. What saith Christ?
"Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Many such sayings He utters which were not intelligible to His immediate hearers, but which were to be so to those that should come after. And wherefore doth He this? In order that when the accomplishment of His prediction should have come to pass, He might be seen to have foreknown from the beginning what was to follow; which indeed was the case with this prophecy.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
18–21"The Jews said unto Him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" And the Lord answered, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and dost thou say, In three days I will rear it up?" Flesh they were, fleshly things they minded; but He was speaking spiritually. But who could understand of what temple He spoke? But yet we have not far to seek; He has discovered it to us through the evangelist, he has told us of what temple He said it. "But He spake," saith the evangelist, "of the temple of His body." And it is manifest that, being slain, the Lord did rise again after three days. This is known to us all now: and if from the Jews it is concealed, it is because they stand without; yet to us it is open, because we know in whom we believe.
Tractates on John 10
The multitude of the Jews are startled at the unwonted authority, and they who are over the temple are extremely vexed, deprived of their not easily counted gains. And they cannot convict Him of not having spoken most rightly in commanding them not to exhibit the Divine Temple as a house of merchandise. But they devise delays to the flight of the merchants, excusing themselves that they ought not to submit to Him off-hand, nor without investigation to receive as Son of God Him Who was witnessed to by no sign.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
18–21For inasmuch as they sought a sign from our Lord of His right to eject the customary merchandize from the temple, He replied, that that temple signified the temple of His Body, in which was no spot of sin; as if He said, As by My power I purify your inanimate temple from your merchandize and wickedness; so the temple of My Body, of which that is the figure, destroyed by your hands, on the third day I will raise again.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
When the Jews saw that the Lord was doing this with great authority and saying "do not make My Father's house a marketplace," they said: "Convince us by some miracle that You are the Son of God and that You were sent by Him. For how is it evident that the Lord of this house is Your Father?"
Commentary on John
The Jews seeing Jesus thus acting with power, and having heard Him say, Make not My Father's house an house of merchandize, ask of Him a sign; Then answered the Jews and said unto Him, What sign shewest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Having set forth the occasion for showing the sign, the Evangelist then states the sign which would be given. First, he gives the sign. Secondly, he mentions the fruit of the signs Christ performed (v 23). As to the first he does three things. First, the request for the sign is given. Secondly, the sign itself (v 19). Thirdly, the way the sign was understood (v 20).
The Jews ask for a sign; and this is what he says: What sign can you show us authorizing you to do these things?
Here we should note that when Jesus drove the merchants out of the temple, two things could be considered in Christ: his rectitude and zeal, which pertain to virtue; and his power or authority. It was not appropriate to require a sign from Christ concerning the virtue and zeal with which he did the above action, since everyone may lawfully act according to virtue. But he could be required to give a sign concerning his authority for driving them out of the temple, since it is not lawful for anyone to do this unless he has the authority.
And so the Jews, not questioning his zeal and virtue, ask for a sign of his authority; and so they say, What sign can you show us authorizing you to do these things? i.e., Why do you drive us out with such power and authority, for this does not seem to be your office? They say the same thing in Matthew (21:23): "By what authority are you doing these things?"
The reason they ask for a sign is that it was the usual thing for Jews to require a sign, seeing that they were called to the law by signs: "There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, with all his signs and wonders," as is said in Deuteronomy (34:10), and "The Jews require signs," as we find in 1 Corinthians (1:22). Hence David complains for the Jews saying: "We have not seen our signs" (Ps 73:9). However, they asked him for a sign not in order to believe, but in the hope that he would not be able to provide the sign, and then they could obstruct and restrain him. And so, because they asked in an evil manner, he did not give them an evident sign, but a sign clothed in a symbol, a sign concerning the resurrection.
Commentary on John
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν.
Ѿвѣща̀ і҆и҃съ и҆ речѐ и҆̀мъ: разоритѐ це́рковь сїю̀, и҆ тре́ми де́ньми воздви́гнꙋ ю҆̀.
And again, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And: "When He was lifted up from the earth, He drew all things unto Himself."
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Whence also he says, that this handiwork is "the temple of God," thus declaring: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man, therefore, will defile the temple of God, him will God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are." Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. He spake this, however," it is said, "of the temple of His body." And not only does he (the apostle) acknowledge our bodies to be a temple, but even the temple of Christ, saying thus to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?" He speaks these things, not in reference to some other spiritual man; for a being of such a nature could have nothing to do with an harlot: but he declares "our body," that is, the flesh which continues in sanctity and purity, to be "the members of Christ;" but that when it becomes one with an harlot, it becomes the members of an harlot. And for this reason he said, "If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy." How then is it not the utmost blasphemy to allege, that the temple of God, in which the Spirit of the Father dwells, and the members of Christ, do not partake of salvation, but are reduced to perdition? Also, that our bodies are raised not from their own substance, but by the power of God, he says to the Corinthians, "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. But God hath both raised up the Lord, and shall raise us up by His own power."
Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter VI
As to the word resurrectio, whenever I hear of its impending over a human being, I am forced to inquire what part of him has been destined to fall, since nothing can be expected to rise again, unless it has first been prostrated. It is only the man who is ignorant of the fact that the flesh falls by death, that can fail to discover that it stands erect by means of life. Nature pronounces God's sentence: "Dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return." Even the man who has not heard the sentence, sees the fact. No death but is the ruin of our limbs. This destiny of the body the Lord also described, when, clothed as He was in its very substance, He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." For He showed to what belongs (the incidents of) being destroyed, thrown down, and kept down-even to that to which it also appertains to be lifted and raised up again; although He was at the same time bearing about with Him "a soul that was trembling even unto death," but which did not fall through death, because even the Scripture informs us that "He spoke of His body." So that it is the flesh which falls by death; and accordingly it derives its name, cadaver, from cadendo. The soul, however, has no trace of a fall in its designation, as indeed there is no mortality in its condition. Nay it is the soul which communicates its ruin to the body when it is breathed out of it, just as it is also destined to raise it up again from the earth when it shall re-enter it. That cannot fall which by its entrance raises; nor can that droop which by its departure causes ruin.
On the Resurrection of the Flesh
"The Lord for the body:" yes; for "the Word was made flesh." "Moreover, God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us through His own power;" on account, to wit, of the union of our body with Him. And accordingly, "Know ye not your bodies (to be) members of Christ?" because Christ, too, is God's temple. "Overturn this temple, and I will in three days' space resuscitate it." "Taking away the members of Christ, shall I make (them) members of an harlot? Know ye not, that whoever is agglutinated to an harlot is made one body? (for the two shall be (made) into one flesh): but whoever is agglutinated to the Lord is one spirit? Flee fornication." If revocable by pardon, in what sense am I to flee it, to turn adulterer anew? I shall gain nothing if I do flee it: I shall be "one body," to which by communion I shall be agglutinated. "Every sin which a human being may have committed is extraneous to the body; but whoever fornicateth, sinneth against his own body." And, for fear you should fly to that statement for a licence to fornication, on the ground that you will be sinning against a thing which is yours, not the Lord's, he takes you away from yourself, and awards you, according to his previous disposition, to Christ: "And ye are not your own;" immediately opposing (thereto), "for bought ye are with a price"—the blood, to wit, of the Lord: "glorify and extol the Lord in your body."
On Modesty
Now, as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of His royalty and glory, in the same way have the Scriptures also aforetime spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb; so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad, and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem. And his seductive arts we shall exhibit in what follows. But for the present let us turn to the question in hand.
Dogmatical and Historical Fragments
It is likely, moreover, that what has been recorded in the Gospels according to Matthew and Mark in the name of the false witness who accuses our Lord Jesus Christ at the end of the Gospel contains a reference to the saying, "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days." For he … was speaking about the temple of his body, but they, supposing that the things said here were said about the temple built from stones, accused him.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.251-52
Both, however (I mean the temple and Jesus' body), according to one interpretation, appear to me to be a type of the church, in that the church, being called a "temple," is built of living stones, becoming a spiritual house "for a holy priesthood," built "on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone." And through the saying, "Now you are the body of Christ and members in part," [we know] that even if the harmony of the stones of the temple appear to be destroyed, [or,] as it is written in Psalm 21, all the bones of Christ appear to be scattered in persecutions and afflictions by the plots of those who wage war against the unity of the temple by persecutions—we know that the temple will be raised up and the body will arise on the third day after the day of evil that threatens it and the day of consummation that follows. For the third day will dawn in the new heaven and the new earth, when these bones, the whole house of Israel, shall be raised up on the great day of the Lord, once death has been conquered. Consequently, the resurrection of Christ too, which followed from his passion on the cross, contains the mystery of the resurrection of the whole body of Christ.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.228-29
That Christ should be the house and temple of God, and that the old temple should cease, and the new one should begin. In the second book of Kings: "And the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying, Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Thou shall not build me an house to dwell in; but it shall be, when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall come from thy bowels, and I will make ready his kingdom. He shall build me an house in my name, and I will raise up his throne for ever; and I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son: and his house shall obtain confidence, and his kingdom for evermore in my sight." Also in the Gospel the Lord says: "There shall not be left in the temple one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." And "After three days another shall be raised up without hands."
Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.
"And the temple of God was opened which is in heaven." The temple opened is a manifestation of our Lord. For the temple of God is the Son, as He Himself says: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And when the Jews said, "Forty and six years was this temple in building," the evangelist says, "He spake of the temple of His body."
"And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord's testament." The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein.
Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John
Thus Judas, induced by a bribe, delivered up to the Jews the Son of God. But they took and brought Him before Pontius Pilate, who at that time was administering the province of Syria as governor, and demanded that He should be crucified, though they laid nothing else to His charge except that He said that He was the Son of God, the King of the Jews; also His own saying, "Destroy this temple, which was forty-six years in building, and in three days I will raise it up again without hands,"—signifying that His passion would shortly take place, and that He, having been put to death by the Jews, would rise again on the third day. For He Himself was the true temple of God.
The Divine Institutes Book 4 (Chapter XVIII)
[Christ] meant that his passion would be brief and that when he was put to death … he would raise himself up on the third day. For he himself was the true temple of God.… For when there was no justice on the earth, [God] sent a teacher, a living law, as it were, to establish his name and a new temple, to sow the seeds of true and loving worship throughout the whole earth by his words and example.
Divine Institutes 4.18, 25
By the power to take his soul again and to raise the temple up, he declares himself God and the resurrection his own work: yet he refers all to the authority of his Father’s command. This is not contrary to the meaning of the apostle, when he proclaims Christ, the “power of God and the wisdom of God,” thus referring all the magnificence of his work to the glory of the Father. For whatever Christ does, the power and the wisdom of God does.… Christ was raised from the dead by the working of God, for he himself worked the works of God the Father with a nature indistinguishable from God’s. And our faith in the resurrection rests on the God who raised Christ from the dead.
On the Trinity 9.12
It was not the Father who divested himself of the flesh; for not the Father, but, as we read, the Word was made flesh. You see, then, that the Arians, in dividing the Father from the Son, run into danger of saying that the Father endured passion. We, however, can easily show that the words treat of the Son's action, for the Son himself indeed raised his own body again, as he himself said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And he himself quickens us together with his body: "For as the Father raises the dead and quickens them, so also the Son quickens whom he will." … He, therefore, who has achieved the work of our resurrection, is plainly pointed out to be truly God.
Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.2.13-14
And with reference to the body, which by circumscription He consecrated as a hallowed place for Himself upon earth, He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again. The Jews therefore said, In forty-six years was this temple built, and will you raise it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body." [John 2:19-21]
Fragments (Clement of Alexandria)
But why doth He both there, and here, and everywhere, give this for a sign, at one time saying, "When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then ye shall know that I Am"; at another, "There shall no sign be given you but the sign of the prophet Jonas"; and again in this place, "In three days I will raise it up"? Because what especially showed that He was not a mere man, was His being able to set up a trophy of victory over death, and so quickly to abolish His long enduring tyranny, and conclude that difficult war. Wherefore He saith, "Then ye shall know." "Then." When? When after My Resurrection I shall draw (all) the world to Me, then ye shall know that I did these things as God, and Very Son of God, avenging the insult offered to My Father.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
Of Adam then is Christ's flesh: of Adam the temple which the Jews destroyed, and the Lord raised up in three days. For He raised His own flesh: see, that He was thus God equal with the Father. My brethren, the apostle says, "Who raised Him from the dead." Of whom says he this? Of the Father. "He became," saith he, "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore also God raised Him from the dead, and gave Him a name which is above every name." He who was raised and exalted is the Lord. Who raised Him? The Father, to whom He said in the psalms, "Raise me up and I will requite them." Hence, the Father raised Him up. Did He not raise Himself? And doeth the Father anything without the Word? What doeth the Father without His only One? For, hear that He also was God. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Did He say, Destroy the temple, which in three days the Father will raise up? But as when the Father raiseth, the Son also raiseth; so when the Son raiseth, the Father also raiseth: because the Son has said, "I and the Father are one."
Tractates on John 10
To them who of good purpose ask for good things, God very readily granteth them: but to them who come to Him, tempting Him, not only does He deny their ambition in respect of what they ask, but also charges them with wickedness. Thus the Pharisees demanding a sign in other parts of the Gospels the Saviour convicted saying, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. What therefore He said to those, this to these too with slight change: for these (as did those) ask, tempting Him. Nor to those who were in such a state of mind would even this sign have been given, but that it was altogether needful for the salvation of us all.
But we must know that they made this the excuse of their accusation against Him, saying falsely before Pontius Pilate, what they had not heard. For, say they, This Man saith, I am able to destroy the Temple of God. Wherefore of them too did Christ speak in the prophets, False witnesses did rise up: they laid to My charge things that I knew not: and again, For false witnesses are risen up against Me, and such as breathe out cruelty. But He does not urge them to bloodshed saying, Destroy this Temple, but since He knew that they would straightway do it, He indicates expressively what is about to happen.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
He answers them in a parable, saying "Destroy this temple," without a doubt speaking of His own body, because in it dwelt the fullness of the Godhead of the Only-Begotten. By the word "destroy" He does not encourage them to murder (far be such a thought!), but, knowing their intention to do this, He hints at what will happen without delay. Let the Arians also hear how the Lord and destroyer of death says "I will raise it up." He did not say "the Father will raise it up," but "I" will raise it up, employing His own power and not needing another's from without.
Commentary on John
He does not however provoke them to commit murder, by saying, Destroy; but only shows that their intentions were not hidden from Him. Let the Arians observe how our Lord, as the destroyer of death, says, I will raise it up; that is to say, by My own power.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Hence he says, Jesus replied, and he gives the sign for which they asked. He gives them the sign of his future resurrection because this shows most strikingly the power of his divinity. For it is not within the power of mere man to raise himself from the dead. Christ alone, who was free among the dead, did this by the power of his divinity. He shows them a similar sign in Matthew (12:39): "An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign. And a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet." And although he gave a hidden and symbolic sign on both occasions, the first was stated more clearly, and the second more obscurely.
We should note that before the incarnation, God gave a sign of the incarnation to come: "The Lord himself will give you a sign. A virgin will conceive, and give birth to a son" (Is 7:14). And in like manner, before the resurrection he gave a sign of the resurrection to come. And he did this because it is especially by these two events that the power of the divinity in Christ is evidenced. For nothing more marvelous could be done than that God become man and that Christ's humanity should become a partaker of divine immortality after his resurrection: "Christ, rising from the dead, will not die again... his life is life with God" (Rom 6:9), i.e., in a likeness to God.
We should note the words Christ used in giving this sign. For Christ calls his body a temple, because a temple is something in which God dwells, according to "The Lord is in his holy temple" (Ps 10:5). And so a holy soul, in which God dwells, is also called a temple of God: "The temple of God is holy, and that is what you are" (1 Cor 3:17). Therefore, because the divinity dwells in the body of Christ, the body of Christ is the temple of God, not only according to the soul but also according to the body: "In him all the fulness of the divinity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). God dwells in us by grace, i.e., according to an act of the intellect and will, neither of which is an act of the body, but of the soul alone. But he dwells in Christ according to a union in the person; and this union includes not only the soul, but the body as well. And so the very body of Christ is God's temple.
But Nestorius, using this text in support of his error, claims that the Word of God was joined to human nature only by an indwelling, from which it follows that the person of God is distinct from that of man in Christ. Therefore it is important to insist that God's indwelling in Christ refers to the nature, since in Christ human nature is distinct from the divine, and not to the person, which in the case of Christ is the same for both God and man, that is, the person of the Word, as was said above.
Therefore, granting this, the Lord does two things with respect to this sign. First, he foretells his future death. Secondly, his resurrection.
Christ foretells his own death when he says, Destroy this temple. For Christ died and was killed by others: "And they will kill him" (Mt 17:22), yet with him willing it: because as is said: "He was offered because it was his own will" (Is 53:7). And so he says, Destroy this temple, i.e., my body. He does not say, "it will be destroyed," lest you suppose he killed himself. He says, Destroy, which is not a command but a prediction and a permission. A prediction, so that the sense is, Destroy this temple, i.e., you will destroy. And a permission, so that the sense is, Destroy this temple, i.e., do with my body what you will, I submit it to you. As he said to Judas: "What you are going to do, do quickly" (below 13:27), not as commanding him, but as abandoning himself to his decision.
He says Destroy, because the death of Christ is the dissolution of his body, but in a way different from that of other men. For the bodies of other men are destroyed by death even to the point of the body's returning to dust and ashes. But such a dissolution did not take place in Christ, for as it is said: "You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption" (Ps 15:10). Nevertheless, death did bring a dissolution to Christ, because his soul was separated from his body as a form from matter, and because his blood was separated from his body, and because his body was pierced with nails and a lance.
He foretells his resurrection when he says, and in three days I will raise it up again, that is, his body; i.e., I will raise it from the dead. He does not say, "I will be raised up," or "The Father will raise it up," but I will raise it up, to show that he would rise from the dead by his own power. Yet we do not deny that the Father raised him from the dead, because as it is said: "Who raised Jesus from the dead" (Rom 8:11); and "O Lord, have pity on me, and raise me up" (Ps 40:10). And so God the Father raised Christ from the dead, and Christ arose by his own power: "I have slept and have taken my rest, and I have risen, because the Lord has taken me" (Ps 3:6). There is no contradiction in this, because the power of both is the same; hence "whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise" (below 5:19). For if the Father raised him up, so too did the Son: "Although he was crucified through weakness, he lives through the power of God" (2 Cor 13:4).
He says, and in three days, and not "after three days," because he did not remain in the tomb for three complete days; but, as Augustine says, he is employing synecdoche, in which a part is taken for the whole.
Origen, however, assigns a mystical reason for this expression, and says: The true body of Christ is the temple of God, and this body symbolizes the mystical body, i.e., the Church: "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27). And as the divinity dwells in the body of Christ through the grace of union, so too he dwells in the Church through the grace of adoption. Although that body may seem to be destroyed mystically by the adversities of persecutions with which it is afflicted, nevertheless it is raised up in "three days," namely, in the "day" of the law of nature, the "day" of the written law, and the "day" of the law of grace; because in those days a part of that body was destroyed, while another still lived. And so he says, in three days, because the spiritual resurrection of this body is accomplished in three days. But after those three days we will be perfectly risen, not only as to the first resurrection, but also as to the second: "Happy are they who share in the first resurrection" (Rv 20:6).
Commentary on John
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
εἶπον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· τεσσαράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν ᾠκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος, καὶ σὺ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερεῖς αὐτόν;
Рѣ́ша же і҆ꙋде́є: четы́редесѧть и҆ шестїю̀ лѣ́тъ создана̀ бы́сть це́рковь сїѧ̀, и҆ ты́ ли тре́ми де́ньми воздви́гнеши ю҆̀;
But at the time when this was spoken, the Jews were perplexed as to what it might mean, and cast about to discover, saying,
"Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?"
"Forty and six years," they said, referring to the latter building, for the former was finished in twenty years' time.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
But perhaps this is demanded of us, whether the fact that the temple was forty and six years in building may not have in it some mystery. There are, indeed, many things that may be said of this matter; but what may briefly be said, and easily understood, that we say meanwhile. Brethren, we have said yesterday, if I mistake not, that Adam was one man, and is yet the whole human race. For thus we said, if you remember. He was broken, as it were, in pieces; and, being scattered, is now being gathered together, and, as it were, conjoined into one by a spiritual fellowship and concord. And "the poor that groan," as one man, is that same Adam, but in Christ he is being renewed: because an Adam is come without sin, to destroy the sin of Adam in His own flesh, and that Adam might renew to himself the image of God. Of Adam then is Christ's flesh: of Adam the temple which the Jews destroyed, and the Lord raised up in three days.
Tractates on John 10
Now, what does the number Forty-six mean? Meanwhile, how Adam extends over the whole globe, you have already heard explained yesterday, by the four Greek letters of four Greek words. For if thou write the four words, one under the other, that is, the names of the four quarters of the world, of east, west, north, and south, which is the whole globe,-whence the Lord says that He will gather His elect from the four winds when He shall come to judgment;-if, I say, you take these four Greek words, anatole, which is east; dysis, which is west; arctos, which is north; mesembria, which is south; Anatole, Dysis, Arctos, Mesembria,-the first letters of the words make Adam. How, then, do we find there, too, the number forty-six? Because Christ's flesh was of Adam. The Greeks compute numbers by letters. What we make the letter A, they in their tongue put Alpha, and Alpha is called one. And where in numbers they write Beta, which is their b, it is called in numbers two. Where they write Gamma, it is called in their numbers three. Where they write Delta, it is called in their numbers four; and so by means of all the letters they have numbers. The letter we call M, and they call My, signifies forty; for they say My, tessarakonta. Now look at the number which these letters make, and you will find in it that the temple was built in forty-six years. For the word Adam has Alpha, which is one: it has Delta, which is four; there are five for thee: it has Alpha, again, which is one; there are six for thee: it has also My, which is forty; there hast thou forty-six. These things, my brethren, were said by our elders before us, and that number forty-six was found by them in letters. And because our Lord Jesus Christ took of Adam a body, not of Adam derived sin; took of him a corporeal temple, not iniquity which must be driven from the temple: and that the Jews crucified that very flesh which He derived from Adam (for Mary was of Adam, and the Lord's flesh was of Mary); and that, further, He was in three days to raise that same flesh which they were about to slay on the cross: they destroyed the temple which was forty-six years in building, and that temple He raised up in three days.
Tractates on John 10
(Tr. x. in Joan c. 11.) The Father also raised Him up again; to Whom He says, Raise Thou me up, and I shall reward them. (Ps. 41:10) But what did the Father do without the Word? As then the Father raised Him up, so did the Son also: even as He saith below, I and My Father are one. John 10:30.
(iv. de Trin. c. 9. [v.]) Or it may be that this number fits in with the perfection of the Lord's Body. For six times forty-six are two hundred and seventy-six days, which make up nine months and six days, the time that our Lord's Body was forming in the womb; as we know by authoritative traditions handed down from our fathers, and preserved by the Church. He was, according to general belief, conceived on the eighth of the Kalends of April, (March 24) the day on which He suffered, and born on the eighth of the Kalends of January. (Dec. 25) The intervening time contains two hundred and seventy-six days, i. e. six multiplied by forty-six.
(b. lxxxiii. Quæst. 2. 5. f.) The process of human conception is said to be this. The first six days produce a substance like milk, which in the following nine is converted into blood; in twelve more is consolidated, in eighteen more is formed into a perfect set of limbs, the growth and enlargement of which fills up the rest of the time till the birth. For six, and nine, and twelve, and eighteen, added together are forty-five, and with the addition of one (which stands for the summing up, all these numbers being collected into one) forty-six. This multiplied by the number six, which stands at the head of this calculation, makes two hundred and seventy-six, i. e. nine months and six days. It is no unmeaning information then that the temple was forty and six years building; for the temple prefigured His Body, and as many years as the temple was in building, so many days was the Lord's Body in forming.
(in Joan. Tr. x. c. 12) Or thus, if you take the four Greek words, anatole, the east; dysis, the west; arctos, the north; and mesembria, the south; the first letters of these words make Adam. And our Lord says that He will gather together His saints from the four winds, when He comes to judgment. Now these letters of the word Adam, make up, according to Greek figuring, the number of the years during which the temple was building. For in Adam we have alpha, one; delta, four; alpha again, one; and mi, forty; making up together forty-six. The temple then signifies the body derived from Adam; which body our Lord did not take in its sinful state, but renewed it, in that after the Jews had destroyed it, He raised it again the third day. The Jews however, being carnal, understood carnally; He spoke spiritually. He tells us, by the Evangelist, what temple He means; But He spake of the temple of His Body.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
They mock at the sign, not understanding the depth of the Mystery, but seize on the disease of their own ignorance, as a reasonable excuse for not obeying Him, and considering the difficulty of the thing, they gave heed rather as to one speaking at random, than to one who was promising ought possible to be fulfilled, that that may be shown to be true that was written of them, Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not, and ever bow Thou down their backs: in order that in a manner ever stooping downwards and inclining to the things alone of the earth, they may receive no sight of the lofty doctrines of piety towards Christ, not as though God Who is loving to man grudged them those things, but rather with even justice was punishing them that committed intolerable transgressions.
For see how foolishly they insult Him, not sparing their own souls. For our Lord Jesus Christ calls God His Father, saying, Make not My Father's House an House of merchandise. Therefore when they ought now to deem of Him as Son and God, as shining forth from God the Father, they believe Him to be yet bare man and one of us. Therefore they object the time that has been spent in the building of the Temple, saying, Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt Thou rear it up in three days? O drunken with all folly, rightly, I deem, one might say to you, if a wise soul had been implanted in you, if ye believe that your Temple is the House of God, how ought ye not to have held Him to be God by Nature, Who dares fearlessly tell you, Make not My Father's House an House of merchandise? How then, tell me, should He have need of a long time for the building of one house? or how should He be powerless for anything whatever, who in days only seven in number, fashioned this whole universe with ineffable Power, and has His Power in only willing? For these things the people skilled in the sacred writings ought to have considered.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
Note, that they allude here not to the first temple under Solomon, which was finished in seven years, but to the one rebuilt under Zorobabel. (Ezra 4:5) This was forty-six years building, in consequence of the hindrance raised by the enemies of the work.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The Jews, thinking that He was speaking of the lifeless temple, laugh at Him. "How," they say, "do You say that You will raise it up in three days, when it took forty-six years to build?" One must know that when the temple was first built under Solomon, everything was completed without difficulty in twenty years. But afterwards, when the Jews after the captivity received permission to build the temple, they began to rebuild it in the reign of Cyrus; then, having met with hindrance from envious persons, they continued the construction until the reign of Artaxerxes; and under him, enjoying complete security, they were barely able to finish this work. When it is said that the Jews during the construction held a spear in one hand and a building tool in the other, they were in such great fear from the neighboring Idumeans, and not from the Persians, for from them, that is from the Persians, as I said, they enjoyed complete safety. Concerning this construction, which took place after the captivity, they say that it lasted forty-six years, since the Jews were being hindered, and therefore they extended it from the reign of Cyrus to Artaxerxes.
Commentary on John
The Jews, supposing that He spoke of the material temple, scoffed: Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will Thou rear it up in three days?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Then when he says, The Jews then retorted, we have the interpretation of the sign he gave. First, the false interpretation of the Jews. Secondly, its true understanding by the apostles (v 21).
The interpretation of the Jews was false, because they believed that Christ was saying this of the material temple in which he then was; consequently, they answer according to this interpretation and say: This temple took forty-six years to build, i.e., this material temple in which we are standing, and you are going to raise it up again in three days!
There is a literal objection against this. For the temple in Jerusalem was built by Solomon, and it is recorded in 2 Chronicles (6:1) that it was completed by Solomon in seven years. How then can it be said that this temple took forty-six years to build? I answer that according to some this is not to be understood of the very first temple, which was completed by Solomon in seven years: for that temple built by Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. But it is to be understood of the temple rebuilt under Zerubbabel, after they returned from captivity, as recorded in the book of Ezra (5:2). However, this rebuilding was so hindered and delayed by the frequent attacks of their enemies on all sides, that the temple was not finished until forty-six years had passed.
Or it could be said, according to Origen, that they were speaking of Solomon's temple: and it did take forty-six years to build if the time be reckoned from the day when David first spoke of building a temple and discussed it with Nathan the prophet, as we find in 2 Samuel (7:2), until its final completion under Solomon. For from that first day onward David began preparing the material and the things necessary for building the temple. Accordingly, if the time in question is carefully calculated, it will come to forty-six years.
But although the Jews referred their interpretation to the material temple, nevertheless, according to Augustine, it can be referred to the temple of Christ's body. As he says in The Book of Eighty-three Questions, the conception and formation of the human body is completed in forty-five days in the following manner. During the first six days, the conception of a human body has a likeness to milk; during the next nine days it is converted into blood; then in the next twelve days, it is hardened into flesh; then the remaining eighteen days, it is formed into a perfect outlining of all the members. But if we add six, nine, twelve and eighteen, we get forty-five; and if we add "one" for the sacrament of unity, we get forty-six.
However a question arises about this: because this process of formation does not seem to have taken place in Christ, who was formed and animated at the very instant of conception. But one may answer that although in the formation of Christ's body there was something unique, in that Christ's body was perfect at that instant as to the outlining of its members, it was not perfect as to the quantity due the body; and so he remained in the Virgin's womb until he attained the due quantity.
However, let us take the above numbers and select six, which was the first, and forty-six, which was the last, and let us multiply one by the other. The result is two hundred seventy-six. Now if we assemble these days into months, allotting thirty days to a month, we get nine months and six days. Thus it was correct to say that it took forty-six years to build the temple, which signifies the body of Christ; the suggestion being that there were as many years in building the temple as there were days in perfecting the body of Christ. For from March twenty-five, which Christ was conceived, and (as is believed) when he suffered, to December twenty-five, there are this number of days, namely, two hundred seventy-six, a number that is the result of multiplying forty-six by six.
Augustine has another mystical interpretation of this number. For he says that if one adds the letters in the name "Adam," using for each the number it represented for the Greeks, the result is forty-six. For in Greek, A represents the number one, since it is the first letter of the alphabet. And according to this order, D is four. Adding to the sum of these another one for the second A and forty for the letter M, we have forty-six. This signifies that the body of Christ was derived from the body of Adam.
Again, according to the Greeks, the name "Adam" is composed of the first letters of the names of the four directions of the world: namely, Anathole, which is the east; Disis, which is the west; Arctos, which is the north; and Mensembria, the south. This signifies that Christ derived his flesh from Adam in order to gather his elect from the four parts of the world: "He will gather his elect from the four winds" (Mt 24:31).
Commentary on John
But he spake of the temple of his body.
ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγε περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.
Ѻ҆́нъ же гл҃аше ѡ҆ це́ркви тѣ́ла своегѡ̀.
For He showed to what belongs (the incidents of) being destroyed, thrown down, and kept down-even to that to which it also appertains to be lifted and raised up again; although He was at the same time bearing about with Him "a soul that was trembling even unto death," but which did not fall through death, because even the Scripture informs us that "He spoke of His body." So that it is the flesh which falls by death; and accordingly it derives its name, cadaver, from cadendo.
On the Resurrection of the Flesh
[Christ] meant that his passion would be brief and that when he was put to death … he would raise himself up on the third day. For he himself was the true temple of God.… For when there was no justice on the earth, [God] sent a teacher, a living law, as it were, to establish his name and a new temple, to sow the seeds of true and loving worship throughout the whole earth by his words and example.
Divine Institutes 4.18, 25
Wherefore then did He not resolve the difficulty and say, "I speak not of that Temple, but of My flesh"? Why does the Evangelist, writing the Gospel at a later period, interpret the saying, and Jesus keep silence at the time? Why did He so keep silence? Because they would not have received His word; for if not even the disciples were able to understand the saying, much less were the multitudes. "When," saith the Evangelist, "He was risen from the dead, then they remembered, and believed the Scripture and His word." There were two things that hindered them for the time, one the fact of the Resurrection, the other, the greater question whether He was God that dwelt within; of both which things He spake darkly when He said, "Destroy this Temple, and I will rear it up in three days." And this St. Paul declares to be no small proof of His Godhead, when he writes, "Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the Resurrection from the dead."
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
Acceptable to the wise man is the word of wisdom, and the knowledge of discipline abideth more easily with men of understanding, and as in wax not too hard, the impression of seals is well made, so in the more tender hearts of men the Divine Word is readily infixed: wherefore the hard of heart is also called wicked. The disciples then, being of a good disposition, become wise, and ruminate the words of divine Scripture, nourishing themselves to more accurate knowledge, and thence coming firmly to belief. Since the Body of Christ is called a temple also, how is not the Only-Begotten Word Which indwelleth therein, God by Nature, since he that is not God cannot be said to dwell in aTemple? Or let one come forward and say, what saint's body was ever called a temple; but I do not suppose any one can show this. I say then, what we shall find to be true, if we accurately search the Divine Scripture, that to none of the Saints was such honour attached. And indeed the blessed Baptist, albeit he attained unto the height of all virtue, and suffered none to exceed him in piety, was through the madness of Herod beheaded, and yet is no such thing attributed to him. On the contrary, the Evangelist devised a grosser word for his remains, saying this too, as appears to me by an oeconomy, in order that the dignity may be reserved to Christ Alone. For he writes thus; And the blood-shedder to wit, Herod, sent and beheaded John in the prison, and his disciples came and took up his carcase. If the body of John be called a carcase, whose temple will it be? In another sense indeed, we are called temples of God, by reason of the Holy Ghost indwelling in us. For we are called the temples of God, and not of ourselves.
But haply some one will say: How then, tell me, doth the Saviour Himself call His own Body a carcase, For wheresoever He saith the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. To this we say, that Christ saith this not of His Own Body, but in manner and guise of a parable He signifieth that concourse of the Saints to Him, that shall be at that time when He appeareth again to us, with the holy angels, in the glory of His Father. For like as, saith He, flocks of carnivorous birds rush down with a sharp whizzing to fallen carcases, so shall ye too be gathered together to Me. Which indeed Paul too doth make known to us, saying, For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible; And again in another place, and we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. That therefore which is taken by way of similitude for an image will no wise damage the force of the truth.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
With perfect justice he banished the wicked from the temple, since the temple represented the temple of his body, in which there was no stain of any kind of sin.
Homilies on the Gospels 2.1
Apollinaris attempts to find here a defense for his heresy. Wishing to confirm that the Lord's flesh was without a soul, he says: "The flesh is called a temple, and a temple is soulless; therefore, it too is soulless." Thunder-struck and dizzy fool! You would perhaps make the Lord's flesh into wood and stones as well, since the temple is made of them?! When you hear the Lord's words: "My soul is now troubled" (John 12:27) and "I have power to lay down My soul" (John 10:18), how do you understand them? If you say that this is spoken not of a rational and intellectual soul, then where will you place the words "Father! into Your hands I commit My spirit" (Luke 23:46)? Will you understand even this as referring to an irrational soul? And this: "You will not leave my soul in Hades" (Ps. 16:10), how does it seem to you? But perish you along with those who share your opinions.
Commentary on John
From this Apollinarius draws an heretical inference: and attempts to show that Christ's flesh was inanimate, because the temple was inanimate. In this way you will prove the flesh of Christ to be wood and stone, because the temple is composed of these materials. Now if you refuse to allow what is said, Now is My soul troubled; (John 12:27) and, I have power to lay it (My life) down, (ib. 10:18) to be said of the rational soul, still how will you interpret, Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend My spirit? (Luke 23:46) you cannot understand this of an irrational soul: or again, the passage, Thou shall not leave My soul in hell. (Ps. 16:11)
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Then, the true interpretation of this sign as understood by the apostles is given. First, the way they understood it is given. Secondly, the time when they understood it (v 22).
He says therefore: The Jews said this out of ignorance. But Christ did not understand it in their way; in fact, he meant the temple of his body, and this is what he says: He was speaking, however, of the temple of his body. We have already explained why the body of Christ could be called a temple.
Apollinaris misunderstood this and said that the body of Christ was inanimate matter because the temple was inanimate. He was mistaken in this, for when it is said that the body of Christ is a temple, one is speaking metaphorically. And in this way of speaking a likeness does not exist in all respects, but only in some respect, namely, as to indwelling, which is referred to the nature, as was explained. Further, this is evident from the authority of Sacred Scripture, when Christ himself said: "I have the power to lay down my life," as we read below (10:18).
Commentary on John
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
ὅτε οὖν ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τοῦτο ἔλεγε, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ᾧ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
Є҆гда̀ ᲂу҆̀бо воста̀ ѿ ме́ртвыхъ, помѧнꙋ́ша ᲂу҆чн҃цы̀ є҆гѡ̀, ꙗ҆́кѡ сѐ гл҃аше, и҆ вѣ́роваша писа́нїю и҆ словесѝ, є҆́же речѐ і҆и҃съ.
"When He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
The question still remains, "How was it that the disciples did not know that He must rise from the dead?" It was, because they had not been vouchsafed the gift of the Spirit; and therefore, though they constantly heard His discourses concerning the Resurrection, they understood them not, but reasoned with themselves what this might be. For very strange and paradoxical was the assertion that one could raise himself, and would raise himself in such wise. And so Peter was rebuked, when, knowing nothing about the Resurrection, he said, "Be it far from Thee." And Christ did not reveal it clearly to them before the event, that they might not be offended at the very outset, being led to distrust His words on account of the great improbability of the thing, and because they did not yet clearly know Him, who He was. For no one could help believing what was proclaimed aloud by facts, while some would probably disbelieve what was told to them in words. Therefore He at first allowed the meaning of His words to be concealed; but when by their experience He had verified His sayings, He after that gave them understanding of His words, and such gifts of the Spirit that they received them all at once. "He," saith Jesus, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." For they who in a single night cast off all respect for Him, and fled from and denied that they even knew Him, would scarcely have remembered what He had done and said during the whole time, unless they had enjoyed much grace of the Spirit.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
"But," says one, "if they were to hear from the Spirit, why needed they to accompany Christ when they would not retain His words?" Because the Spirit taught them not, but called to their mind what Christ had said before; and it contributes not a little to the glory of Christ, that they were referred to the remembrance of the words He had spoken to them. At the first then it was of the gift of God that the grace of the Spirit lighted upon them so largely and abundantly; but after that, it was of their own virtue that they retained the Gift. For they displayed a shining life, and much wisdom, and great labors, and despised this present life, and thought nothing of earthly things, but were above them all; and like a sort of light-winged eagle, soaring high by their works, reached to heaven itself, and by these possessed the unspeakable grace of the Spirit.
Homily on the Gospel of John 23
Even though it is said that the Father raises Christ, the meaning of this expression is not dubious. The unity that is between them both in all operations causes both Father and Son to be attributed with equal rights.
Commentary on John 1.2.21
For before the resurrection they did not understand the Scriptures, because they had not yet received the Holy Ghost, Who was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39) But on the day of the resurrection our Lord appeared and opened their meaning to His disciples; that they might understand what was said of Him in the Law and the Prophets. And then they believed the prediction of the Prophets that Christ would rise the third day, and the word which Jesus had spoken to them: Destroy this temple, &c.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
And it is not surprising that the Jews did not understand the words of Jesus, nor did the disciples. For them there were two greatest difficulties: one — that the matter of the resurrection is very hard to comprehend, all the more so since it was entirely unknown to them; the other — that He who lives in the body is God. However, after the resurrection the disciples understood and believed the Scripture. Which Scripture? Both every Scripture that foretells the resurrection, and, as the clearest, this one: "You will not leave my soul in Hades" (Ps. 16:10), and this one: "The Lord desires to cleanse him of his wound and to show him light" (Isa. 53:11). For these passages of Scripture very clearly foretell the resurrection.
Commentary on John
The time when the apostles acquired this true understanding is then shown by the Evangelist when he says, When, therefore, he had risen from the dead, his disciples recalled that he had said this. Prior to the resurrection it was difficult to understand this. First, because this statement asserted that the true divinity was in the body of Christ; otherwise it could not be called a temple. And to understand this at that time was above human ability. Secondly, because in this statement mention is made of the passion and resurrection, when he says, I will raise it up again; and this is something none of the disciples had heard mentioned before. Consequently, when Christ spoke of his resurrection and passion to the apostles, Peter was scandalized when he heard it, saying, "God forbid, Lord" (Mt 16:22). But after the resurrection, when they now clearly understood that Christ was God, through what he had shown in regard to his passion and resurrection, and when they had learned of the mystery of his resurrection, his disciples recalled that he had said this of his body, and they then believed the Scriptures, i.e., the prophets: "He will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up" (Hos 6:3), and "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jon 2:1). So it is that on the very day of the resurrection he opened their understanding so that they might understand the Scriptures and the statement Jesus had made, namely, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.
In the anagogical sense, according to Origen, we understand by this that in the final resurrection of nature we will be disciples of Christ, when in the great resurrection the entire body of Jesus, that is, his Church, will be made certain of the things we now hold through faith in a dark manner. Then we shall receive the fulfillment of faith, seeing in actual fact what we now observe through a mirror.
Commentary on John
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
Ὡς δὲ ἦν ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, θεωροῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει.
Є҆гда́ же бѣ̀ въ і҆ерⷭ҇ли́мѣхъ въ пра́здникъ па́схи, мно́зи вѣ́роваша во и҆́мѧ є҆гѡ̀, ви́дѧще зна́мєнїѧ є҆гѡ̀, ꙗ҆̀же творѧ́ше.
But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the passover. First of all, after He had made the water wine at Cana of Galilee, He went up to the festival day of the passover, on which occasion it is written, "For many believed in Him, when they saw the signs which He did," as John the disciple of the Lord records. Then, again, withdrawing Himself [from Judaea], He is found in Samaria; on which occasion, too, He conversed with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance, cured the son of the centurion by a word, saying, "Go thy way, thy son liveth." Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover in Jerusalem; on which occasion He cured the paralytic man, who had lain beside the pool thirty-eight years, bidding him rise, take up his couch, and depart. Again, withdrawing from thence to the other side of the sea of Tiberias, He there seeing a great crowd had followed Him, fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread, and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above. Then, when He had raised Lazarus from the dead, and plots were formed against Him by the Pharisees, He withdrew to a city called Ephraim; and from that place, as it is written "He came to Bethany six days before the passover," and going up from Bethany to Jerusalem, He there ate the passover, and suffered on the day following. Now, that these three occasions of the passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge.
Against Heresies Book 2
(t. x. c. 27) But (in the mystical interpretation) we shall attain to the full measure of faith, at the great resurrection of the whole body of Jesus, i. e. His Church; inasmuch as the faith which is from sight, is very different from that which seeth as through a glass darkly.
(tom. x. c. 30) But how was it that many believed on Him from seeing His miracles? for he seems to have performed no supernatural works at Jerusalem, except we suppose Scripture to have passed them over. May not however the act of His making a scourge of small cords, and driving all out of the temple, be reckoned a miracle?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
23–25Of the men of that time some clung to their error, others laid hold on the truth, while of these last, some having retained it for a little while again fell off from it. Alluding to these, Christ compared them to seeds not deeply sown, but having their roots upon the surface of the earth; and He said that they should quickly perish. And these the Evangelist has here pointed out to us, saying, "When He was in Jerusalem, at the Passover, in the feast, many believed on Him, when they saw the miracles which He did." "But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them."
For they were the more perfect among His disciples, who came to Him not only because of His miracles, but through His teaching also. The grosser sort the miracles attracted, but the better reasoners His prophecies and doctrines; and so they who were taken by His teaching were more steadfast than those attracted by His miracles. And Christ also called them "blessed," saying, "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." But that these here mentioned were not real disciples, the following passage shows, for it saith, "Jesus did not commit Himself unto them." Wherefore? "Because He knew all things," "And needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man."
The meaning is of this kind. "He who dwells in men's hearts, and enters into their thoughts, took no heed of outward words; and knowing well that their warmth was but for a season, He placed not confidence in them as in perfect disciples, nor committed all His doctrines to them as though they had already become firm believers." Now, to know what is in the heart of men belongs to God alone, "who hath fashioned hearts one by one"; for, saith Solomon, "Thou, even Thou only, knowest the hearts"; He therefore needed not witnesses to learn the thoughts of His own creatures, and so He felt no confidence in them because of their mere, temporary belief.
Homily on the Gospel of John 24
23–24Behold, you have heard that when our Lord Jesus Christ "was in Jerusalem at the Passover, on the feast day, many believed in His name, seeing the signs which He did." "Many believed in His name;" and what follows? "But Jesus did not trust Himself to them." Now what does this mean, "They believed," or trusted, "in His name"; and yet "Jesus did not trust Himself to them"? Was it, perhaps, that they had not believed on Him, but were feigning to have believed, and that therefore Jesus did not trust Himself to them? But the evangelist would not have said, "Many believed in His name," if he were not giving a true testimony to them. A great thing, then, it is, and a wonderful thing: men believe on Christ, and Christ trusts not Himself to men.
Tractates on John 11
23–24Why, then, is it that they believed in His name, and yet Jesus did not trust Himself to them? Let us see what follows. "And there was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus by name, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Him by night, and said unto Him, Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these signs which Thou doest, except God be with him." This Nicodemus, then, was of those who had believed in His name, as they saw the signs and prodigies which He did. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Therefore to them who have been born again does Jesus trust Himself. Behold, those men had believed on Him, and yet Jesus trusted not Himself to them. Such are all catechumens: already they believe in the name of Christ, but Jesus does not trust Himself to them. Give good heed, my beloved, and understand. If we say to a catechumen, Dost thou believe on Christ, he answers, I believe, and signs himself; already he bears the cross of Christ on his forehead, and is not ashamed of the cross of his Lord. Behold, he has believed in His name. Let us ask him, Dost thou eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink the blood of the Son of man? He knows not what we say, because Jesus has not trusted Himself to him.
Tractates on John 11
23–24(Tr. xi. c. 2. 3) What meaneth this, Many believed in His Name—but Jesus did not commit Himself unto them? Was it that they did not believe in Him, but only pretended that they did? In that case the Evangelist would not have said, Many believed in His Name. Wonderful this, and strange, that men should trust Christ, and Christ trusts not Himself to men; especially considering that He was the Son of God, and suffered voluntarily, or else need not have suffered at all. Yet such are all catechumens. If we say to a catechumen, Believest thou in Christ? he answers, I do believe, and crosses himself. If we ask him, Dost thou eat the flesh of the Son of man? he knows not what we sayk, for Jesus has not committed Himself to him.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Christ ceaseth not from saving and helping. For some He leads to Himself by wise words, the rest startling by God-befitting Power too, He taketh in His net to the faith, by the things which they see Him work persuaded to confess, that the Artificer of these so great wonders is of a truth God.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
(in loc.) The Evangelist has related above what our Lord did on his way to Jerusalem; now He relates how others were affected towards Him at Jerusalem; Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in His Name, when they saw the miracles which He did.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
When Jesus was at the feast, some apparently believed in His name; but their faith was unsteady. For, attending to Christ for a time not as God, but as a God-bearing man, they again fell away even from this most insignificant faith. And that they were such is evident from what follows below.
Commentary on John
Then he sets forth the fruit which resulted from the signs, namely, the conversion of certain believers. Concerning this he does three things. First, he mentions those who believed on account of the miracles. Secondly, he shows the attitude of Christ to them (v 24). Thirdly, he gives the reason for this (v 25).
The fruit which developed from the signs of Jesus was abundant, because many believed and were converted to him; and this is what he says, While he was in Jerusalem during the Passover feast, many people, seeing the signs he was working, believed in his name, i.e., in him.
Note that they believed in two ways: some on account of the miracles they saw, and some on account of the revelation and prophecy of hidden things. Now those who believe on account of doctrine are more commendable, because they are more spiritual than those who believe on account of signs, which are grosser and on the level of sense. Those who were converted are shown to be more on the level of sense by the fact that they did not believe on account of the doctrine, as the disciples did, but seeing the signs he was working: "Prophecies are for those who believe" (1 Cor 14:22).
One might ask which signs worked by Jesus they saw, for we do not read of any sign worked by him in Jerusalem at that time. According to Origen, there are two answers to this. First, Jesus did work many miracles there at that time, which are not recorded here; for the Evangelist purposely omitted many of Christ's miracles, since he worked so many that they could not easily be recorded: "Jesus did many other signs, and if every one was written, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that would be written" (below 21:25). And the Evangelist expressly shows this when he says, seeing the signs he was working, without mentioning them, because it was not the intention of the Evangelist to record all the signs of Jesus, but as many as were needed to instruct the Church of the faithful. The second answer is that among the miracles the greatest could be the sign in which Jesus by himself drove from the temple a crowd of men with a whip of small cords.
Commentary on John
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν ἑαυτὸν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας,
Са́мъ же і҆и҃съ не вдаѧ́ше себѐ въ вѣ́рꙋ и҆́хъ, занѐ са́мъ вѣ́дѧше всѧ̑,
(tom. x. c. 28) Or, it was those who believed in His Name, not on Him, to whom Jesus would not commit Himself. They believe on Him, who follow the narrow way which leadeth unto life; they believe in His Name, who only believe the miracles.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Not firmly established is the judgment of new believers, nor is the mind firmly built upon fresh miracles. And how should they whose course of instruction was yet so to say green, be already rooted in piety? Therefore Christ doth not yet commit Himself to the novices, showing that a great thing and most worthy of love is affinity with God, and that it doth not just lie before those who desire to have it, but is achieved by zeal for good, and diligence and time.
Let the stewards of the Mysteries of the Saviour hence learn, not suddenly to admit a man within the sacred veils, nor to permit to approach the Divine Tables, neophites untimely baptized and not in right time believing on Christ the Lord of all. For that He may be an Ensample to us in this also, and may teach us whom fittingly to initiate, He receives indeed the believers, but is seen not yet to have confidence in them, in that He does not commit Himself to them: that hence it may be manifest, that it befits novices to spend no small time under instruction; for scarce even so will they become faithful men.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
Christ does not yet commit himself to such novices, showing that affinity with God is a great thing and most worthy of love. It does not just lie there before those who want to have it but is achieved by an intense desire for good, along with diligence and time. Let the stewards of the mysteries of the Savior learn then not to suddenly admit just anyone within the sacred veils or to permit them to approach the divine tables who are neophytes who might be untimely baptized and importunely believing on Christ the Lord of all. As an example to us in this also in teaching us whom rightly to initiate, he indeed receives the believers but is seen not yet to have confidence in them in that he does not commit himself to them, making clear that it is only right that novices spend no small time under instruction, for rarely even then will they become faithful.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.1
24–25An admonition to us not to be confident of ourselves, but ever anxious and mistrustful; knowing that what escapes our own knowledge, cannot escape the eternal Judge.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
"He Himself," it says, "Jesus did not entrust Himself to them" and did not transmit the full teaching, as to those who did not truly believe, penetrating into their hearts (Ps. 93:11; Jer. 17:10) and knowing what was in them concerning Him. For it was not hidden from Him what the thought was in each person who apparently believed.
Commentary on John
The attitude of Jesus to those who believed in him is shown when he says, But Jesus did not trust himself to them, i.e., those who had believed in him. What is this, men entrust themselves to God, and Jesus himself does not entrust himself to them? Could they kill him against his will? Some will say that he did not trust himself to them because he knew that their belief was not genuine. But if this were true, the Evangelist would surely not have said that many believed in his name, and yet he did not trust himself to them. According to Chrysostom, the reason is that they did believe in him, but imperfectly, because they were not yet able to attain to the profound mysteries of Christ, and so Jesus did not trust himself to them, i.e., he did not yet reveal his secret mysteries to them; for there were many things he would not reveal even to the apostles: "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (below 16:12), and "I could not speak to you as spiritual persons, but as sensual" (1 Cor 3:1). And so it is significant that in order to show that they believed imperfectly, the Evangelist does not say that they believed "in him," because they did not yet believe in his divinity, but he says, in his name, i.e., they believed what was said about him, nominally, i.e., that he was just, or something of that sort.
Or, according to Augustine, these people represent the catechumens in the Church, who, although they believe in the name of Christ, Jesus does not trust himself to them, because the Church does not give them the body of Christ. For just as no priest except one ordained in the priesthood can consecrate that body, so no one but a baptized person may receive it.
The reason Jesus did not trust himself to them arises from his perfect knowledge; hence he says, for he knew all men. For although one must ordinarily presume good of everyone, yet after the truth about certain people is known, one should act according to their condition. Now because nothing in man was unknown to Christ and since he knew that they believed imperfectly, he did not trust himself to them.
Commentary on John
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
καὶ ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα τις μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκε τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ.
и҆ ꙗ҆́кѡ не тре́боваше, да кто̀ свидѣ́тельствꙋетъ ѡ҆ человѣ́цѣхъ: са́мъ бо вѣ́дѧше, что̀ бѣ̀ въ человѣ́цѣ.
For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, He did not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech. For "He needed not that any should testify to Him of man, for He Himself knew what was in man." For He called all men that mourn; and granting forgiveness to those who had been led into captivity by their sins, He loosed them from their chains.
Against Heresies Book 3
Was He one of us, I say, who by one act of intervention at once healed a hundred or more afflicted with various infirmities and diseases; at whose word only the raging and maddened seas were still, the whirlwinds and tempests were lulled; who walked over the deepest pools with unwet foot; who trod the ridges of the deep, the very waves being astonished, and nature coming under bondage; who with five loaves satisfied five thousand of His followers: and who, lest it might appear to the unbelieving and hard of heart to be an illusion, filled twelve capacious baskets with the fragments that remained? Was He one of us, who ordered the breath that had departed to return to the body, persons buried to come forth from the tomb, and after three days to be loosed from the swathings of the undertaker? Was He one of us, who saw clearly in the hearts of the silent what each was pondering, what each had in his secret thoughts?
Against the Heathen Book 1
If they believed, why did he not entrust himself to them? Clearly the words “many believed in him” are not said about a firm and true faith, such as the faith of those who, after believing once that his words were true, considered him as a doctor of truth, without doubting the things said by him. That kind of faith is typical of the true believers. But here, John refers to people who were astonished by the events that happened and praised him as a great and admirable man. In fact, not all of them approved his words by showing their respect for him to others. Such respect, too, is typical of true believers. So, he added, “But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them.” In these words there is a particular doctrine of the true faith. Indeed, the virtue of the knowledge of Christ is revealed through which he was not cheated by the outward appearance of those coming to him. Rather by recognizing precisely each of them for who they were, he knew already who were the true disciples and who were in doubt and coming to him under false pretenses.
Commentary on John 2.2.24-25
"Because He knew all men, and needed not that any should bear witness of man: for Himself knew what was in man." The artificer knew what was in His own work better than the work knew what was in itself. The Creator of man knew what was in man, which the created man himself knew not. Do we not prove this of Peter, that he knew not what was in himself, when he said, "With Thee, even to death"? Hear that the Lord knew what was in man: "Thou with me even to death? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." The man, then, knew not what was in himself; but the Creator of the man knew what was in the man.
Tractates on John 11
(Tr. xi. c. 2) The Maker knew better what was in His own work, than the work knew what was in itself. Peter knew not what was in himself when he said, I will go with Thee unto death; (Luke 22:33. ver. 61) but our Lord's answer showed that He knew what was in man; Before the cock crow, thou shalt thrice deny Me.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
truly God doth the Psalmist ascribe it, saying, He fashioneth their hearts alike, He considereth all |166 their works. But if while God Alone understandeth what is in us, Christ understandeth them: how shall He not be God by Nature, Who knoweth the secrets, and knoweth the deep and secret things, as it is written? For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Though no man knoweth, God will not be ignorant, for neither is He reckoned in the number of all, of whom "No man" may rightly be predicated, but as being external to all, and all things under His Feet, He will know. And Paul too will testify, saying, For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart: neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened unto the Eyes of Him. For as having planted the ear, He hears all things, and as having formed the eye, He observeth. And indeed He is introduced saying in Job, Who is this that hideth counsel from Me, holding words in his heart, and thinketh to conceal them from Me? In order then that we might acknowledge that the Son is by Nature God, needs does the Evangelist say that He needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2
The universal knowledge of Christ is then described: for he knew not only those who were on close terms with him, but strangers too. And therefore he says, for he knew all men; and this by the power of his divinity: "The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun" (Sir 23:28). Now a man, although he may know other people, cannot have a sure knowledge of them, because he sees only what appears; consequently, he must rely on the testimony of others. But Christ knows with the greatest certainty, because he beholds the heart; and so he did not need anyone to give him testimony about men. In fact, he is the one who gives testimony: "Look, my witness is in heaven" (Jb 16:20).
His knowledge was perfect, because it extended not only to what was exterior, but even to the interior; thus he says, He was well aware of what was in man's heart, i.e., the secrets of the heart: "Hell and destruction are open to the Lord: how much more the hearts of the children of men" (Prv 15:11).
Commentary on John
AND the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
Καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο ἐν Κανᾷ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκεῖ·
[Заⷱ҇ 6] И҆ въ тре́тїй де́нь бра́къ бы́сть въ ка́нѣ галїле́йстей: и҆ бѣ̀ мт҃и і҆и҃сова тꙋ̀.