Commentary on the Gospel of John

Above, the Evangelist showed the dignity of the incarnate Word, and its evidence in many ways; here he consequently begins to treat of the effects and works by which the divinity of the incarnate Word was made manifest to the world, and first he narrates the things which Christ did in the world by living, for the manifestation of his divinity; secondly, how Christ showed his divinity by dying, and this from chapter 12 onward. Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows the divinity of Christ as to the dominion he had over nature; secondly as to the effects of grace, and this in chapter 3, where it says "there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus," and so on. Now Christ's dominion over nature is set before us through the fact that he changed nature: which change indeed was made by Christ as a sign, first to confirm the disciples; secondly to bring the crowds to believe, where it says "after this he went down to Capernaum." The change of nature to confirm the disciples was made at the wedding, in which he converted water into wine; and this is what he says: "a wedding was made in Cana of Galilee," where first the wedding is described; secondly those who were present at the wedding, where it says "and the mother of Jesus was there"; thirdly the miracle itself that was performed is described, where it says "and the wine failing," and so on.

Now he describes the wedding, first indeed as to the time; hence he says "and on the third day a wedding was made," namely after he had done the aforesaid things concerning the calling of the disciples. For after he had been made manifest by the testimony of John, he wished also to manifest himself. Secondly, as to the place; hence he says "in Cana of Galilee." For Galilee is a province, and Cana a certain small town within that province.

As to what pertains to the letter, it should be known that concerning the time of Christ's preaching there is a twofold opinion. For some say that from Christ's Baptism until his Passion there were two and a half years. And according to these, what is here read concerning the wedding took place in the same year in which Christ was baptized. But the judgment and custom of the Church is contrary to these: for on the feast of the Epiphany a commemoration is made of three miracles, namely the adoration of the Magi, which was in the first year of the Lord's nativity; and the Baptism of Christ, by which he was baptized on the same day, thirty years having elapsed; and the wedding, which took place on the same day, one year having elapsed. From which it follows that at least one year had passed from the Baptism to the wedding. In that year indeed nothing else is read that the Lord did except what is said in Matthew 4 concerning the fasting in the desert, and the temptation by the Devil, and those things which John here relates concerning the testimony of the Baptist and the conversion of the disciples. But from the wedding he began to preach publicly and to work miracles until the Passion, so that he preached publicly for two and a half years.

Mystically, by the wedding is understood the conjunction of Christ and the Church, because, as the Apostle says in Ephesians 5:32, "this is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church." And that marriage indeed was begun in the virginal womb, when God the Father united human nature to the Son in unity of person, so that the bridal chamber of this conjunction was the virginal womb; Psalm 18:6: "he has set his tabernacle in the sun." Of this wedding it is said in Matthew 22:2: "the kingdom of heaven is like a king who made a wedding for his son," namely then, when God the Father joined human nature to his Word in the virginal womb. But it was made public when the Church was joined to him through faith; Hosea 2:20: "I will espouse you to myself in faith," and so on. Of this wedding it is said in Apocalypse 19:9: "blessed are they who are called to the wedding supper of the Lamb." But it will be consummated when the bride, that is the Church, is brought into the bridal chamber of the bridegroom, namely into the heavenly glory.

Nor is it without mystery that the wedding took place on the third day. For the first day is the time of the law of nature; the second, the time of the written law; but the third day is the time of grace, in which the incarnate Lord celebrated the wedding; Hosea 6:3: "he will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up." The place also fits the mystery: for Cana is interpreted "zeal," while Galilee is interpreted "transmigration." In the zeal of transmigration, therefore, this wedding is celebrated, so as to declare that those are most worthy of union with Christ who, fervent with the zeal of pious devotion, transmigrate from the state of sin to the grace of the Church — Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "come over to me, all you who desire me," etc. — and from death to life, that is, from the state of mortality and misery to the state of immortality and glory; Apocalypse 21:5: "behold, I make all things new."

Consequently, when it says "and the mother of Jesus was there," the persons invited are described, where he treats of three, namely the mother, Jesus, and the disciples. Of the mother indeed, when it says "and the mother of Jesus was there." This indeed is put first, in order to show that Jesus was still unknown, and was not invited to the wedding as a distinguished person, but out of a certain familiarity, as one who was known, and one among others: for just as they invited the mother, so too the son. Or perhaps the mother was invited first because they were uncertain about Jesus, whether, if invited, he would come to the wedding, on account of the great religious devotion which they saw in him, and because they had not seen him mingle in feasts. And therefore I think that they first consulted the mother, whether Jesus should be invited. And therefore the Evangelist significantly said first that the mother was already present at the wedding, and that Jesus was afterward invited. And this is what follows: "Jesus was invited."

Now Christ willed to be present at the wedding, first indeed in order to give us an example of humility: for he did not have regard to his own dignity, but just as he deigned to take the form of a servant, so he did not disdain to come to the wedding of servants, as Chrysostom says. And so Augustine says: let man be ashamed to be proud, since God was made humble. For among the other humble things which the son of the Virgin did, he came to a wedding — he who, when he was with the Father, instituted weddings in Paradise. And of this example it is said, Matthew 11:29: "learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart." Secondly, in order to exclude the error of certain people who condemn weddings, because, as Bede says, if there were fault in an undefiled marriage-bed and in a wedding celebrated with due chastity, the Lord would by no means have wished to come to such things. Because therefore he came to the wedding, he suggests that the perfidy of those who disparage weddings is damnable. 1 Corinthians 7:36: "the woman does not sin if she marries." Concerning the disciples, he treats of them when he says "and his disciples."

Mystically, in the spiritual wedding, the mother of Jesus, namely the Blessed Virgin, is present as counselor of the wedding, because through her intercession the soul is joined to Christ through grace; Ecclesiasticus 24:25: "in me is all hope of life and of virtue." Christ, however, is present as the true bridegroom of the soul, as is said below in John 3:29: "he who has the bride is the bridegroom." The disciples, however, are present as groomsmen, as it were joining the Church to Christ, of which one it was said in 2 Corinthians 11:2: "I have espoused you to one man, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

And because in this material wedding something of the miracle pertains to the mother, something to Christ, and something to the disciples, therefore consequently, when he says "and the wine failing," etc., he shows what pertains to the mother, what to Christ, and what to the disciples. To the mother indeed pertains the procuring of the miracle; to Christ, the accomplishment of the miracle, and this where it says "now there were six stone waterpots there," etc.; to the disciples, the attestation of the miracle, where it says "this beginning of signs Jesus did." As to the first, then, the mother of Christ bore the role of mediatrix; and therefore she does two things: first she makes petition to her son; secondly she instructs the servants, where it says "and his mother says to the servants," etc.

Concerning the first, two things are set forth. First the mother's petition; secondly the son's response, where it says "Jesus said to her: what is it to me and to you, woman?" Now in the mother making her petition, note first indeed her piety and mercy. For it pertains to mercy that one should reckon another's lack as if it were one's own; for one is called merciful, as it were having a wretched heart over the wretchedness of another; 2 Corinthians 11:29: "who is weak, and I am not weak?" Because, then, the blessed Virgin was full of mercy, she wished to relieve the lack of others; and so it says "the wine failing, the mother of Jesus says to him." Secondly, note her reverence toward Christ: for out of the reverence which we have toward God, it suffices for us only to set forth our lacks to him, according to that saying of Psalm 37:10: "Lord, all my desire is before you." But how God may come to our aid is not for us to inquire; because, as is said in Romans 8:26, "for we know not what we should pray for as we ought." And therefore his mother simply set forth the lack of the others, saying "they have no wine." Thirdly, note the Virgin's solicitude and diligence: because she did not delay until the extreme necessity, but "the wine failing," that is, while it was in the process of failing, according to what is said in Psalm 9:10 concerning God: "a helper in due time, in tribulation."

But Chrysostom asks: why did she not urge Christ to miracles earlier? For she had been instructed concerning his power by the Angel, and confirmed by the many things which she had seen happen around him, all of which she kept, pondering them in her heart, as is said in Luke 2:51. The reason for this is that beforehand he associated as one among others; hence, because she had not seen the opportune time, she deferred doing this. But now, after John's testimony and after the conversion of the disciples, she confidently urges Christ to work miracles, bearing in this the figure of the synagogue, which is the mother of Christ: for it is characteristic of the Jews to demand miracles; 1 Corinthians 1:22: "the Jews seek signs." She says to him, therefore, "they have no wine."

Here it should be known that before the Incarnation of Christ, a threefold wine was lacking, namely that of justice, of wisdom, and of charity, or grace. For wine bites sharply, and as to this, justice is called wine. Luke 10:34: the Samaritan applied wine and oil to the wounds of the wounded man, that is, the severity of justice together with the sweetness of mercy; Psalm 59:5: "you have given us to drink the wine of remorse." Wine also gladdens the heart, according to that saying of Psalm 103:15: "wine gladdens the heart of man," and as to this, wisdom is called wine, meditation on which especially gladdens; Wisdom 8:16: "her company has no bitterness." Likewise wine intoxicates, Song of Songs 5:1: "drink, friends, and be inebriated, dearest ones," and according to this, charity is called wine, Song of Songs 5:1: "I have drunk my wine with my milk." And charity is also called wine by reason of fervor; Zechariah 9:17: "wine budding forth virgins."

And indeed the wine of justice was lacking in the old law, in which justice was imperfect. But Christ perfected it; Matthew 5:20: "unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." The wine of wisdom was also lacking, which was hidden and figurative, because, as is said in 1 Corinthians 10:11, "all these things happened to them in figure." But Christ made it manifest; Matthew 7:29: "for he was teaching them as one having power." But the wine of charity was also lacking there, because they had received only the spirit of servitude, in fear. But Christ converted the water of fear into the wine of charity, when he gave the spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry "Abba, Father," as is said in Romans 8:15, and when "the charity of God was poured out in our hearts," as is said in Romans 5:5.

Consequently, when it says "Jesus said to her," etc., the response of Christ is set forth: from which response indeed an occasion for a threefold heresy has been taken. For the Manichaeans say that Christ did not have a true body, but a phantasmal one. Valentinus asserts that Christ brought a heavenly body, saying that, as to the body, Christ pertains in nothing to the Virgin. And he takes the support for this error from the fact that Jesus says to her: "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: I have received nothing from you. But this is against the authority of sacred Scripture: for the Apostle says, Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman" — for he could not be said to have been made of her unless he had taken something from her. Moreover, Augustine argues against them, saying: how do you know that the Lord said "what is it to me and to you"? You answer, because John the Evangelist relates this. But this same Evangelist also says of the Virgin that she was his mother. If, then, you believe the Evangelist in this, that he relates that Jesus said to his mother, "what is it to me and to you, woman?", you should also believe him in this, that he says, "and the mother of Jesus was there."

Ebion, however, saying that Christ was conceived of male seed, and Helvidius, who says that the Virgin did not remain a virgin after childbirth, took the support for their error from the fact that it says "woman," which seems to imply loss of virginity. But this is false, because "woman" in sacred Scripture sometimes signifies only the female sex, according to that saying of Galatians 4:4: "made of a woman," etc. And this is also clear from the fact that Adam, speaking to God about Eve, said: "the woman whom you gave me as a companion gave me of the tree, and I ate," Genesis 3:12. For it is certain that Eve was then still a virgin, since she was still in Paradise, where he had not known her. Hence what is here called "woman" does not imply loss of virginity, but determines sex.

The Priscillianists also took an occasion for their error from the fact that he said "my hour has not yet come," saying that all things happen by fate, and that the deeds of men are subject to fixed hours, and even those of Christ; hence for this reason he said "my hour has not yet come." But this is false concerning any man whatsoever. For since man has free choice, and free choice belongs to him from the fact that he has reason and will, which are indeed immaterial: it is manifest that man, as to choice, is subject to no body, but rather rules over it. For immaterial things are nobler than material things, and therefore the Philosopher says that the wise man rules over the stars. Moreover, this has much less place in Christ, who is the lord and founder of the stars. Hence, by what he said, "my hour has not yet come," is understood the hour of the Passion, determined for him, not by necessity, but according to divine providence. Against them also is what is said in Ecclesiasticus 33:7: "why does one day surpass another day?" He answers: "they are distinguished by the knowledge of the Lord," that is, they are distinguished from one another by divine providence, not by chance.

These, then, having been excluded, let us investigate the cause of this response of the Lord: "what is it to me and to you, woman?" And indeed, according to Augustine, in him there are two natures, namely the divine and the human; and although the same Christ exists in both natures, nevertheless the things which belong to him according to human nature are distinct from those which belong to him according to the divine. Now to work miracles belongs to him according to the divine nature, which he received from the Father; but to suffer belongs to him according to the human nature, which he received from his mother. And therefore, to his mother demanding a miracle, he responded saying "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: that which works miracles in me, I did not receive from you, but that by which I suffer — that is, according to what belongs to me to suffer, namely the human nature, I received from you; and therefore I will acknowledge you then, when that very weakness will hang upon the cross. And therefore he adds "my hour has not yet come," as if to say: when the hour of the Passion comes, then I will recognize you as mother. Hence also, hanging on the cross, he commended his mother to the disciple.

According to Chrysostom, however, it is expounded otherwise. For it is said that the Blessed Virgin, fervent with zeal for the honor of her son, wished that Christ work miracles at once, before it was opportune; and therefore Christ, without doubt wiser than his mother, restrained her. For he did not wish to work the miracle before the lack was known, because thereby it would have been less known and less credible, and therefore he says "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: why do you trouble me? "My hour has not yet come," that is, I am not yet known to those who are present. But neither do they yet perceive the lack of wine; let them first perceive this, because when they have recognized the necessity, they will reckon the greater the benefit which they receive. Although, however, the mother was rebuffed, nevertheless she does not distrust her son's mercy; therefore consequently she instructs the servants, saying "whatever he shall say to you, do" — in which indeed consists the whole perfection of justice. For it is perfect justice to obey Christ in all things; Exodus 29:35: "all that the Lord has commanded us we will do." Now this saying, "whatever he shall say to you, do," cannot fittingly be said of anyone but God alone, for man can sometimes err. Hence in such things as are against God, we are not bound to obey men; Acts 5:29: "we must obey God rather than men." But God, who does not err nor can be deceived, we ought to obey in all things.

Consequently, when it says "now there were six stone waterpots there," the consummation of the miracle by Christ is set forth. Concerning this, first the vessels in which the miracle was performed are described; secondly the matter of the miracle is designated, where it says "Jesus said to them: fill the waterpots with water"; thirdly the demonstration and approval of the miracle is intimated, where it says "Jesus said to them: draw out now." Now the vessels in which the miracle was performed are set down as six; and this is what it says: "now there were six stone waterpots there." Here it should be known that, as is said in Mark 7:2ff, the Jews observed many bodily washings, and washings of cups and vessels; hence, because they were in Palestine, where there is a lack of water, they had vessels in which very pure water was kept, with which they might frequently wash themselves and their vessels. And therefore it says that there were six stone waterpots there, that is, vessels for keeping water — from "hydor," which means water — "set there according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews," that is, for the use of purification, "each containing two or three measures" — for "metron" in Greek is called "measure" in Latin.

And, as Chrysostom says, these vessels are mentioned in order to remove any suspicion regarding the miracle: both on account of their purity, lest anyone should suspect that the water had taken on the taste of wine from the dregs of wine previously stored in them (for those vessels were "according to purification," and therefore had to be most pure); and also on account of the quantity of the vessels, so that it might be evidently clear that the water of so many vessels could not have been changed into wine except by divine power.

Mystically, by the six waterpots are signified the six ages of the Old Testament, in which the hearts of men, prepared to receive the Scriptures of God, were set forth as an example for living, as the Gloss says. Now this word "measures," according to Augustine, refers to the Trinity of persons. And they are said to be "two or three" because sometimes in sacred Scripture the three persons are set down distinctly, according to that saying of the last chapter of Matthew, 19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"; but sometimes only two are named, namely the Father and the Son, in whom the person of the Holy Spirit is understood, who is the bond of both, according to that saying below in John 14:23: "if anyone keeps my word, my Father will love him, and we will come to him." Or "two" on account of the two conditions of men, namely Jews and Gentiles, from whom the Church was propagated. Or "three" on account of the three sons of Noah, from whom the human race was propagated after the flood.

Consequently, when it says "Jesus said to them: fill the waterpots with water," the matter of the miracle is treated. But concerning this a question arises: why was this miracle made not out of nothing, but out of pre-existing matter? For which a threefold reason is assigned. One is according to Chrysostom, and literal: because to make something out of nothing is greater and more wondrous than to make something out of underlying matter; but it is not so evident and credible to many. And therefore, wishing that what was being done should be more credible, he made wine out of water, condescending to the capacity of men.

Another reason is to confute perverse dogmas. For there are some (such as the Marcionites and the Manichaeans) who said that the founder of the world was other than God, and that all visible things were created by that one, that is, by the Devil. And therefore the Lord worked many miracles even out of created and visible substances, in order to show that these substances themselves are good, and created by God.

The third reason is mystical. For he did not wish to make wine out of nothing, but made wine out of water, in order to show that he was not establishing an entirely new doctrine and rejecting the old, but fulfilling it; as is said in Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it" — in that what the old law prefigured and promised, Christ exhibited and disclosed; Luke, last chapter, 45: "he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." Now he willed the waterpots to be filled with water through the servants, so that he might have them as witnesses of what was being done; hence below it is said: "but the servants knew," etc.

Consequently, when it says "and Jesus said to them," etc., the publication of the miracle is set forth. For as soon as the waterpots were filled, the water was converted into wine; and therefore the Lord immediately publishes the miracle, saying "draw out now, and carry to the chief steward," where first is set down Christ's command choosing the examiner; secondly, the judgment of the chief steward tasting it, where it says "but when the chief steward had tasted," etc. He said to them, therefore, that is, to the servants, "draw out now," namely the wine from the waterpots, "and carry it to the chief steward." Here it should be known that a "triclinium" is a place where there are three rows of tables, and it is called "triclinium" from a threefold row of couches, for "cline" in Greek signifies a couch. For the ancients were accustomed to eat reclining on couches, as Valerius Maximus relates. And therefore in the Scriptures they speak of "reclining" and "lying back." The "chief steward," therefore, is said to be the first and chief among the guests. Or otherwise, according to Chrysostom, the chief steward was the one who was the arranger and dispenser of the whole banquet. Because he, being attentive to his duties, had not yet tasted anything, the Lord willed that he himself should judge concerning what had been done, and not the guests, lest anyone might be able to disparage the miracle, saying that they were drunk, and that their senses had been corrupted through eating, so that they could not discern whether it was wine or water. But, according to Augustine, the chief steward was the greatest among those reclining, as has been said; and therefore, in order that his judgment might be more acceptable, he willed to have the judgment of the presiding officer concerning what had been done.

Mystically, those who draw the water are the preachers; Isaiah 12:3: "you shall draw waters with joy from the fountains of the Savior." The chief steward, however, is some man learned in the law, such as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and Paul. When, therefore, the word of the Gospel is entrusted to such men — which lay hidden in the letter of the law — it is as though wine made from water is offered to the chief steward to drink, who, tasting this, approves the faith of Christ.

Consequently, when it says "but when the chief steward had tasted," the judgment of the examiner is set forth, where first he inquires into the truth of the deed; secondly he pronounces his verdict, saying "every man sets forth the good wine first." It says, then, that when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, "he did not know where it was from" — because he did not know that the water had been made wine by a miracle through Christ — "but the servants knew," the reason for which is that they had drawn the water; the chief steward calls the bridegroom, in order to inquire into the truth and to pronounce his verdict concerning the wine; hence he adds, "every man sets forth the good wine first," etc.

Here, according to Chrysostom, this should be considered regarding the miracles of Christ: that all of them were most perfect; hence he also restored to Peter's mother-in-law the most perfect health, so that she, rising at once, ministered, as is said in Mark 1:30 and Matthew 9:6. He likewise restored the paralytic to health so perfectly that, rising at once, and taking up his bed, he went to his own house, as is said below in John 5:9. This also appears in this miracle: because he did not make just any wine out of water, but the best that could be. And therefore the chief steward says, "every man sets forth the good wine first, and when they have become drunk, then that which is worse" — because they drink less, and because good wine taken in quantity, together with a quantity of food, weighs more heavily; as if to say: whence is such wine, which you have kept until now? — acting, that is, against custom.

This, however, fits the mystery. For someone is said, mystically, to set forth the good wine first, who, intending to deceive others, does not propose first the error which he intends, but those things which allure his hearers, so that after they have become intoxicated and enticed to consent to his intention, he may then reveal his perfidy; and of this wine it is said in Proverbs 23:31: "it enters smoothly, and in the end it will bite like a serpent." But someone is also said to set forth the good wine first, who, beginning from the start of his conversion to live holily and spiritually, at length degenerates into a carnal life; Galatians 3:3: "are you so foolish, that whereas you began in the spirit, you are now made perfect by the flesh?"

Christ, however, does not set forth the good wine first: because from the beginning he sets forth things bitter and hard; Matthew 7:14: "narrow is the way that leads to life." But the more a man advances in his faith and doctrine, the more he is sweetened, and the greater sweetness he perceives; Proverbs 4:11: "I will lead you by the paths of equity, which when you shall have entered, your steps shall not be straitened." Likewise, in this world, all who wish to live piously in Christ suffer bitternesses and tribulations; below, John 16:20: "amen, amen, I say to you, that you shall weep and lament," etc. But in the future they shall receive delights and joys; hence it also follows: "your sorrow shall be turned into joy." Romans 8:18: "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us."

Consequently, when it says "this beginning of signs Jesus did," the attestation of the miracle made through the disciples is set forth. From this it is held that the story about the infancy of the Savior is false, in which many miracles are recounted as done by Christ while still a boy; for if this were true, the Evangelist would certainly not say "this beginning of signs Jesus did." And the reason why he did not work miracles in his boyhood has been assigned above: namely, lest men should reckon them as phantasms. Therefore, for this reason, Jesus performed this miracle, namely making wine from water, in Cana of Galilee, which is the beginning of the signs which Jesus did afterward. "And he manifested his glory," that is, the power by which he is glorious; Psalm 23:10: "the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory." "And his disciples believed in him." But how did they believe? For they were already disciples, and had believed before. But it should be said that something is sometimes said to be, not according to what it now is, but according to what it will be; just as it is said that the apostle Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia — not that the apostle was born there, but that the future apostle was born there. So it is said here, "and his disciples believed in him," namely those who were his disciples. Or it should be said that before, they believed him to be a good man, preaching just and right things; but now they believed in him as in God, and so on.

Above, the Evangelist set forth the sign which Christ performed pertaining to the power that changes nature, for the confirmation of the disciples; here he consequently treats of the sign of the resurrection pertaining to the same power, which Christ put forth for the conversion of the crowds. Concerning this miracle, then, the Evangelist does two things. First, he sets forth the occasion for proposing the miracle; second, the foretelling of the miracle itself, where it says, "The Jews therefore answered," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he describes the place; second he narrates the deed which was the occasion for proposing the miracle, where it says, "and he found in the temple those selling sheep and oxen." Now the place in which this occurred is Jerusalem; and therefore the Evangelist shows step by step in what order the Lord came to Jerusalem. First, then, he shows how he went down to Capernaum; second, how he went up to Jerusalem, where it says, "and the Passover of the Jews was near." Concerning the first he does three things. First he assigns the place to which he went down; second, he describes the company which he had; third, he indicates the length of his stay.

The place indeed to which he went down is Capernaum; and therefore he says "after this" — namely, the miracle of the wine — "he went down to Capernaum." It seems, as far as the history is concerned, that this statement is contradicted by what is said in Matthew 4:12ff., namely that the Lord went down to Capernaum after the imprisonment of John. But what the Evangelist relates here all took place before the imprisonment of John. I respond that it must be said, for the understanding of this question, that, as is had from ecclesiastical history, the remaining Evangelists — namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke — began their evangelical narration from the time when John was shut up in prison. Hence immediately in Matthew 4:12, after the Baptism, the fasting, and his temptation, he began to weave his narrative before the imprisonment of John, saying: "when Jesus had heard that John had been delivered up," etc.; and Mark likewise, for he says: "but after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee," etc. But John the Evangelist, who outlived the others, when the account of the three Evangelists had come to his knowledge, approved the faith and truth of what they said; nevertheless, because he saw that certain things were lacking — namely those things which the Lord had done in the first time of his preaching, before the imprisonment of John — therefore, at the prayers of the faithful, beginning his Gospel from a higher point, he wrote down those earlier deeds of the Lord that had been passed over, before the delivering-up of John, namely from the first year in which he was baptized, as appears in the sequence of his Gospel. According to this, then, the Evangelists do not disagree; rather, the Lord went down to Capernaum twice — once before the imprisonment of John, which is treated here, and once after his imprisonment, which is treated in Matthew 4:13 and Luke 4:31.

Now Capernaum is interpreted "most beautiful estate," and signifies this world, which has its beauty from the order and disposition of divine wisdom; Psalm 49:11: "the beauty of the field is with me." The Lord, therefore, went down into Capernaum, that is, into this world, with his mother, and brothers, and disciples. For in heaven the Lord has a Father without a mother, on earth a mother without a father; and therefore he pointedly names only the mother. In heaven, too, he has no brothers, but is himself the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, as above, John 1:18. But on earth he is "the firstborn among many brethren," as is said in Romans 8:29. On earth he has disciples whom he might teach the mysteries of the divinity, which had before been unknown to men, because, as is said in Hebrews 1:2, "in these last days he has spoken to us in his Son," etc. Or Capernaum is interpreted "field of consolation," by which is signified every man who bears good fruit; Genesis 27:27: "behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a plentiful field." And such a man is called a field of consolation, because the Lord is consoled and rejoices over his progress; Isaiah 62:5: "the Lord will rejoice over you," etc., because the Angels rejoice over his good; Luke 15:10: "there is joy among the Angels of God over one sinner doing penance."

He himself says, "and his mother." His company was, first, that of his mother; hence he says "and his mother," for since she had come to the wedding and had been the procurer of the miracle, the Lord was bringing her back toward Nazareth, which was a village in Galilee, in which region Capernaum was the chief town. Second, it was that of his brothers; hence he says "and his brothers," etc. Here two errors are to be guarded against: namely, that of Helvidius, who says that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ, and calls these the brothers of the Lord, which is heretical, because our faith holds that the mother of Christ, just as she was a virgin before birth, so too in birth, and after birth remained a virgin. Likewise the error of certain ones who say that Joseph begot sons from another wife, and that these are called the brothers of the Lord — which the Church does not hold. And therefore Jerome disproves them, for the Lord, hanging on the cross, committed his virgin mother to the keeping of the virgin disciple. Since, then, Joseph was the special guardian of the Virgin and also of the Savior in his childhood, it is credible that he was a virgin. And therefore, understanding rightly, we say that the brothers of the Lord are the blood-relations of the Virgin mother, in whatever degree, or even of Joseph, who was thought to be his father; and this indeed according to the custom of Scripture, which commonly calls blood-relations brothers. Hence Genesis 13:8: "let there be no quarrel, I beg, between me and you, for we are brothers," says Abraham to Lot, although he was actually his nephew. And note that he names the brothers and the disciples separately, because not all the blood-relations of Christ were his disciples. Hence below, John 7:5, it is said: "his brethren did not yet believe in him"

Third, his companions were his disciples; hence he says "and his disciples." But from this a question arises, as to who his disciples were. For it seems, according to Matthew, that the first who were converted to Christ were Peter and Andrew, John and James; but these were called by Christ after the imprisonment of John, as is clear from Matthew 4:18ff. It does not seem, therefore, that they went down with Christ to Capernaum, as is had here, since this occurred before John's imprisonment. But to this there is a twofold response. One, according to Augustine, in On the Agreement of the Evangelists, is that Matthew does not preserve the order of history, but, recapitulating what he had passed over, narrates after John's imprisonment things which had happened before. Hence, without any indication of temporal sequence, he said: "Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee saw two brothers," etc., not adding "after this" or "in those days." The other, according to the same author, is that in the Gospel not only those twelve whom the Lord chose and named apostles, as is had in Luke 6:13, are called the disciples of the Lord, but also all who, believing in him, were being instructed by his teaching toward the kingdom of heaven. It could be, then, that although those twelve had not yet followed him, nevertheless some others who had attached themselves to him are here named his disciples. But the first response is better.

He made, however, a short stay there; hence he says "and they remained there not many days." The reason for this is that the citizens of Capernaum did not show themselves devoted to receiving the teaching of Christ, because they were very corrupt; hence also in Matthew 11:23 the Lord rebukes them, because they did not do penance either for the miracles worked among them or for the teaching of Christ, saying: "and you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted unto heaven? You shall go down even unto hell; because if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, perhaps it would have remained even to this day." And yet, although they were evil, he went down there in order to bring his mother, for whose consolation and honor he stayed there for some time. Mystically, however, it is signified by this that some cannot dwell long on the many sermons of Christ, but a few of the many suffice for their illumination, on account of the weakness of their understanding. Hence with such people Christ dwells on a few teachings, as Origen said; according to that below, John 16:12: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

Consequently, when he says "and the Passover of the Jews was near," he makes clear the place to which he went up. And concerning this he does two things. First he indicates the occasion of the ascent; second he sets down the ascent itself, where it says "and Jesus went up." Now the occasion of the ascent was the Passover of the Jews. Exodus 23:17 commands that three times a year every male should present himself before the Lord, and among those set times one was the Passover of the Jews. Since, then, the Lord came to teach all an example of humility and perfection, he willed to observe the law as long as it retained its force; for he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, as he himself says in Matthew 5:17. Hence, since the Passover of the Jews was imminent, he went up to Jerusalem. We, therefore, ought, after his example, to keep the divine precepts diligently. For if the Son of God himself fulfilled the decrees of the law given by himself, celebrating the solemnities, with how much zeal for good works ought we both to anticipate and to celebrate them?

It should be noted that in the Gospel of John mention of the Passover is made in three places: namely here, and below in John 6:4, where he worked the miracle of the loaves, where it is said: "now the Passover, the festival day of the Jews, was near"; and below in chapter 13:1, where it is said: "before the festival day of the Passover." Hence, according to this Gospel, we have it that after the miracle of the wine Christ preached for two years, plus however much time there was from the days of his Baptism up to that Passover; for what he did here was near the Passover, as is said here, and afterward, a year having passed, near another Passover he worked the miracle of the loaves, and then John was beheaded. Hence John was beheaded around Passover, because, as is said in Matthew 14:13, immediately after the beheading of John, Christ withdrew into the desert, and there worked the miracle of the loaves; which miracle indeed was worked near Passover, as is said below in chapter 6. Nevertheless, the feast of this beheading is celebrated on the day on which his head was found. Afterward, at another Passover, Christ suffered. According to the opinion, then, of those who say that the miracle worked at the wedding, and the things spoken of here, took place in the same year in which Christ was baptized, from the Baptism of Christ to his Passion there were two and a half years; and therefore, according to them, the Evangelist says "the Passover of the Jews was near," in order to show that he had been baptized only a few days before. But the Church holds the contrary. For we believe that on the same day on which the Lord was baptized, a year having passed, the miracle of the wine took place; and afterward, a year having passed, near Passover, John was beheaded; and that from that Passover around which John was beheaded, there was one year up to the Passover in which Christ suffered. Hence it is necessary that there be another Passover intervening between the Baptism of Christ and the miracle of the wine, of which no Evangelist makes mention; and thus, according to what the Church holds, Christ preached for three and a half years.

But he says "of the Jews," not because men of another nation celebrated a Passover, but for a twofold reason. One, because when some celebrate a feast holily and purely, that feast is said to be celebrated to the Lord; but when they celebrate it neither purely nor holily, they solemnize it not to the Lord but to themselves; Isaiah 1:14: "my soul hates your new moons and your feast days"; as if he were saying: because you celebrate them for yourselves and not for me, they do not please me; Zechariah 7:5: "when you fasted, did you fast a fast to me?" As if he were saying, no, but to yourselves. Since, then, these Jews were depraved, and were celebrating their Passover improperly, therefore the Evangelist does not say, "the Passover of the Lord was near," but "of the Jews." Or he says this to distinguish it from our Passover; for the Passover of the Jews was figurative, being celebrated by the immolation of a figurative lamb; but our Passover is true, in which we commemorate the true passion of the spotless lamb; 1 Corinthians 5:7: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed."

The ascent was to Jerusalem; and therefore he says "and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Here note, according to the order of history, that Jesus went up to Jerusalem twice around the feast of the Passover, and cast out from the temple those buying and selling. Once indeed before the imprisonment of John, which the Evangelist here records; the other time, with the Passover approaching, and at the time of the Passion, which Matthew narrates. For the Lord frequently performed similar deeds, as is clear from the double giving of sight to the blind: one in Matthew 9:28, and another in Mark 10:46ff. And likewise he twice cast the buyers and sellers out of the temple. Mystically, however, he goes up to Jerusalem, which is interpreted "vision of peace," and signifies eternal beatitude, into which he ascended and led his own across. But it is not without mystery that he went down into Capernaum, and afterward went up to Jerusalem. For unless he had first descended, it would not have been fitting for him to ascend; because, as is said in Ephesians 4:10, "he who descended is the same who also ascended." He makes no mention, however, of the disciples in the ascent to Jerusalem, because the ascent of the disciples comes from the ascent of Christ; below, John 3:13: "no one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

Consequently, when he says "and he found in the temple those selling sheep and oxen," etc., the Evangelist narrates the deed that moved Christ to propose the sign of the resurrection. And concerning this he does two things. First he makes clear the vice of the Jews; second he indicates Christ's remedy, where it says "and when he had made, as it were, a scourge," etc.; third he adds the prophetic oracle, where it says "and his disciples indeed remembered," etc. Concerning the first, it should be known that the Devil lies in wait for the things that are God's, and strives to corrupt them. Now among the other things by which he corrupts holy things, the chief is the vice of avarice; hence it is said in Isaiah 56:11: "his shepherds knew no understanding; they have all turned aside into their own way, everyone to his own gain, from the first even to the last." This indeed the Devil has done from ancient times. For the priests of the Old Testament, who had been instituted to devote themselves to divine things, were zealous for gain. Now it was commanded by God in the law that at certain solemnities they should sacrifice some animals to the Lord; and to fulfill this precept, those coming to the temple from nearby brought animals with them, but those who came from far away were not able to bring animals from their homes. Since, then, offerings of this kind redounded to the profit of the priests, in order that animals might not be lacking for those coming from afar to offer them, the priests themselves arranged that animals should be sold in the temple; and therefore they had them displayed for sale in the temple, that is, in the courtyard of the temple. And this is what it says: "and the Lord found in the temple those selling sheep, and oxen, and doves," etc. Here he first makes mention of two land animals which, according to the law, could be offered to the Lord, namely the ox and the sheep. But the third land animal which was offered, namely the goat, is reckoned along with the sheep; likewise also the turtledove is reckoned along with the dove. And because it sometimes happened that some came to the temple who brought with them neither animals nor money, and so were not able to buy, the priests therefore devised another art of avarice, namely, that they would set up in the temple money-changers and exchangers, who would lend money to the aforesaid who did not have it. And although they did not receive usury from this, because this was forbidden in the law, yet in its place they received certain "collybia," that is, small and cheap little gifts. And these very things redounded to the profit of the priests; and this is what it says: "and the money-changers sitting," namely in the temple, ready to lend money.

But this indeed can be understood mystically in three ways. First, for by those selling and buying are signified those who sell or buy ecclesiastical things; for spiritual ecclesiastical goods, and what is attached to them, are signified by the sheep, and the oxen, and the doves. These are indeed consecrated and confirmed from the teachings of the apostles and doctors, who are signified by the oxen; Proverbs 14:4: "where there are many crops, there the strength of the ox is manifest." Likewise from the blood of the martyrs, who are signified by the sheep. Hence in their person it is said in Psalm 43:22, and Romans 8:36: "we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Likewise, from the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are signified by the doves; because, as is said above, John 1:32, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. All these things, then — namely the teaching of the apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit — are sold by whoever presumes to sell spiritual ecclesiastical goods and what is attached to them.

Second, it happens that certain prelates, or those set over the Churches, although not manifestly through simony, nevertheless secretly through negligence sell oxen, and sheep, and doves — namely, when they gape so much after temporal gains, and are occupied in them, and neglect the spiritual salvation of their subjects; for by this they sell sheep, and oxen, and doves, that is, three kinds of men subject to them. Namely preachers and workers, who are signified by the oxen; Isaiah 32:20: "blessed are you who sow upon all waters, sending in the foot of the ox and the ass." For prelates ought to arrange oxen, that is, teachers and wise men, together with asses, that is, the untrained and simple. They also sell the active, and those devoted to ministries, who are signified by the sheep, below, John 10:27: "my sheep hear my voice," etc.; 2 Kings 24:17: "these that are sheep, what have they done?" They also sell contemplatives, who are signified by the doves; Psalm 54:7: "who will give me wings like a dove, and I will fly?"

Third, by the temple of God can be understood the spiritual soul, as is said in 1 Corinthians 3:17: "the temple of God is holy, which you are." A man, then, sells sheep, and oxen, and doves in the temple when he retains in his soul beastly movements, for which a man sells himself to the Devil. For by the oxen, which serve agriculture, are signified earthly desires; by the sheep, which is a foolish animal, is signified man's stupidity; and by the doves, man's instability — which things indeed God drives out of the hearts of men.

And therefore the Lord's remedy is immediately set down, when it says: "and when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he cast them all out of the temple"; wherein the Lord applied a remedy both of deed and of word, in order to teach those who have care of the Church that they ought to correct their subjects both by deed and by word. And therefore concerning this he does two things. First is set down the remedy which he applied by deed; second, the remedy which he applied by word, where it says "and to those who sold doves he said," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he cast out the men; second, the sheep and oxen; third, he poured out the money.

He cast out the men with a scourge, and this is what it says: "and when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords" — which indeed could not have been done except by divine power; for Origen also says that the divine power of Jesus was able, when he willed, to stifle the kindled wrath of men, just as it could calm the storms of minds; Psalm 32:10: "the Lord scatters the thoughts of men." Now he makes the scourge out of little cords, because, as Augustine says, he takes the material from our own sins, whereby he might punish us; for the very prolongation of sins, according as sins are added to sins, are called little cords; Proverbs 5:22: "he is bound fast with the cords of his own sins"; Isaiah 5:18: "woe to you who draw iniquity with cords," etc. Just as, then, he cast the traders out of the temple, so he poured out the money of the money-changers, and overturned their tables. Note that if he cast out of the temple these things, which seemed in some way licit, as though ordered to the worship of God, how much more would he have done so had he found anything unlawful? He cast them out, however, because the priests in this did not intend the honor of God, but their own profit. Hence it is said in Ezekiel 44:8: "you have set the keepers of my charge for yourselves in my sanctuary." Now the Lord showed zeal for the things of the law, in order that by this very act he might refute the high priests and priests, who were going to bring against him a false charge concerning the law. Also, by casting such people out of the temple, he gave to understand that the time was approaching in which the sacrifices of the law should cease, and the true worship of God be transferred to the Gentiles; Matthew 21:43: "the kingdom shall be taken away from you," etc. Likewise also that he might show the damnation of those who sell spiritual things; Acts 8:20: "may your money perish with you."

Consequently, when he says "and to those who sold doves he said," etc., he sets down the remedy that he applied by word. Here it should be noted that simoniacs are, first indeed, to be driven out of the Church. But because, so long as they live, they can, by free will, convert themselves, and, aided by God, return to the state of grace, they are not to be despaired of. But if they do not convert, then indeed they are not driven out, but bound by those to whom it is said, Matthew 22:13: "bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the outer darkness." And therefore the Lord, attending to this, first indeed admonishes; second he adduces the reason for the admonition, where it says "and do not make," etc. He admonishes indeed the sellers of doves by rebuking them, because by them are signified those who sell the gifts of the Holy Spirit, namely simoniacs. He adduces the reason for this when he says: "and do not make my Father's house a house of trading." Isaiah 1:16: "take away the evil of your thoughts from my eyes."

Note, however, that in Matthew 21:13 he says: "do not make my house a den of thieves," but here he says: "a house of trading" — which the Lord did for this reason: that, like a good physician, beginning first from milder things, he might afterward propose harsher ones. For what is said to have been done here was done first; hence at the very beginning he calls them not thieves, but traders. But because, on account of their hardness, they still did not cease from such trading, therefore the Lord, expelling them another time — of which it is treated in Mark 9:15ff. — rebukes them more harshly, calling by the name of robbery what he had first called trading.

He says, however, "my Father's house," in order to exclude the error of Mani, who said that the God of the Old Testament was not the Father of Christ, but the God of the New. But if this were true, since the temple was the house of the Old Testament, Christ certainly would not have called the temple the house of his Father. But why were the Jews not troubled at his calling God his Father here, as it is said below, John 5:18, that on account of this they persecuted him? To this it must be said that God is the father of some by adoption, namely of the just, and this was not new among the Jews; Jeremiah 3:19: "you shall call me father, and shall not cease to walk after me." But by nature it belongs to Christ alone, Psalm 2:7: "the Lord has said to me: you are my son" — namely, true and natural son — and this was unheard of among them. And therefore, because Christ said he was the true Son of God, the Jews persecuted him; below, John 5:18: "for this the Jews persecuted Christ, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making himself equal to God." But when here he calls God Father, they said of him that it was by adoption. That the house of God ought not to become a house of trading is had in Zechariah, last chapter, 21: "there shall be no more a merchant in the house of the Lord of hosts in that day." And in Psalm 70:16, according to another reading: "because I have not known trading, I will enter into the powers of the Lord."

Consequently, when he says "and his disciples indeed remembered," etc., he sets down the prophetic oracle, which indeed is written in Psalm 68:10: "the zeal of your house has eaten me up." Here it should be known that zeal properly denotes a certain intensity of love, whereby one loving intensely tolerates nothing that is opposed to his love. And hence it is that men loving their wives intensely, and not tolerating in them the company of others, as being contrary to their love, are called jealous. He, therefore, properly has zeal for God who can patiently tolerate nothing against the honor of God, whom he loves above all; 3 Kings 19:10: "with zeal I have been zealous for the Lord of hosts," etc. We, however, ought to love the house of the Lord, according to that saying, Psalm 25:8: "Lord, I have loved the beauty of your house." And we ought to love it to such an extent that zeal for it consumes us: so that if we see anything contrary being done, we should strive to remove it — however dear to us those may be who do it — nor should we fear on this account to suffer any evils. Hence it is said in the Gloss: good zeal is a fervor of the soul, whereby someone, having cast aside the fear of death, is kindled for the defense of the truth. By it, one is consumed who is eager to correct whatever evils he sees; and if he cannot, he bears with them, and groans.

Having laid down the occasion for exhibiting the sign, here the Evangelist consequently makes manifest the sign to be exhibited: and first he sets down the sign which is exhibited; second he sets down the fruit of the signs done, which follows, there, "Now when he was at Jerusalem," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First is set down the demand for a sign; second, the exhibition of the sign, there, "Jesus answered, and said to them: Destroy this temple," etc.; third, the understanding, or conception, of the sign exhibited, there, "The Jews therefore said: Forty and six years was this temple in building," etc. Now a sign is demanded by the Jews; and this is what he says: "The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou show unto us, seeing thou dost these things?" Here it must be known that in the casting out of the merchants from the temple by Jesus, two things could be considered in Christ: rectitude and zeal, which pertain to virtue; and power, or authority. But concerning the virtue and zeal of Christ, by which he had done the aforesaid things, it was not fitting that a sign be sought from Christ, since it is lawful for anyone to act according to virtue. But concerning his authority, by which he expelled them from the temple, a sign could be sought from him, since this was not lawful for just anyone to do, but only for one having authority. Passing over, therefore, the zeal and virtue of Jesus, the Jews seek a sign concerning his authority; and therefore they say, "What sign dost thou show us, seeing thou dost these things?" That is: why, with such power and authority, do you expel us? This does not seem to be your office. They say something similar, Matthew 21:23: "By what power dost thou do these things?" etc. Now they seek a sign because it was familiar to the Jews to seek a sign, inasmuch as they were called to the law through such things; Deuteronomy, last chapter, 10: "There arose not a prophet again in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders." And, 1 Corinthians 1:22, "the Jews seek signs." Therefore David, in the person of the Jews, complains, saying, Psalm 73:9: "we have not seen our signs." But they were seeking a sign, not that they might believe, but as though despairing that he would be able to show a sign, and thus that they might repress and impede him. Since, therefore, they sought wickedly, he did not give them an open sign, but a hidden one in figure, namely the sign of the resurrection. Whence he says, "Jesus answered, and said to them," etc., in which is set down the exhibition of the sign demanded. Now he gives them the sign of the future resurrection for this reason, that in this above all the power of his divinity is shown. For it is not of a mere man to raise himself up from the dead; but Christ alone, who was free among the dead, did this by the power of his divinity. He also shows them a similar sign. Matthew 12:39: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; but a sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet." And although in both places he gave a hidden and figural sign, yet that one was more manifest, but this one more obscure. Now it must be noted that before the incarnation God gave a sign of the future incarnation, Isaiah 7:14: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," etc.; likewise also before the resurrection he gave a sign of the future resurrection, because by these two things above all the power of the divinity is commended in Christ. For nothing more wonderful could come to pass than that God was made man, and that the humanity in Christ, after his resurrection, was made a partaker of divine immortality; Romans 6:9: "Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more... for in that he liveth, he liveth unto God," that is, in the likeness of God. But the words of the sign given must be attended to. For Christ calls his body a temple; the reason for which is that that is called a temple in which God dwells, according to Psalm 10:5: "the Lord is in his holy temple." And hence it is that a holy soul, which God inhabits, is called the temple of God; 1 Corinthians 3:17: "the temple of God is holy, which you are." Since, therefore, the divinity dwells in the body of Christ, the body of Christ is therefore the temple of God, not only according to the soul, but also according to the body; Colossians 2:9: "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the divinity corporeally." And indeed in us God dwells according to grace, namely according to the act of intellect and will, which is not an act of the body, but of the soul alone; but in Christ he dwells according to union in person, which union indeed includes not only the soul itself, but also the body; and therefore the body itself of Christ is the temple of God. From this, however, Nestorius, taking occasion for his error, says that the Word of God was united to human nature only according to indwelling; from which it follows that there is one person of God, and another of the man, in Christ. And therefore it must be said that the indwelling of God in Christ refers to nature, because the divine nature is one thing and the human nature another in Christ, but not to the person, which is the same in Christ of God and of man, namely the person of the Word, as was said above.

This, then, being supposed, concerning this sign the Lord does two things. First indeed he foretells his future death; second, his resurrection. He foretells his death indeed when he says, "Destroy this temple." For Christ died, and was killed by others, Matthew 17:22: "and they shall kill him," yet with him willing it, because, as it is said in Isaiah 53:7, "he was offered because he himself willed it." And therefore he says, "Destroy this temple," that is, my body. And he does not say "it will be destroyed," lest you understand that he killed himself; but he says "destroy," which is not the word of one commanding, but of one foretelling and permitting. Of one foretelling indeed, so that the sense is, "Destroy this temple," that is, "you will destroy it"; but of one permitting, so that the sense is, "Destroy this temple," that is, "do with my body what you will, I set it before you," as he says to Judas, below, John 13:27: "That which thou dost, do quickly" — not indeed commanding him, but leaving him to his own choice. Now he says "destroy" because the death of Christ is the dissolution of his body, yet otherwise than that of other men. For the bodies of other men are dissolved through death even to the incineration and reduction to dust of the flesh; which kind of dissolution, however, did not occur in Christ, because, as it is said in Psalm 15:10, "thou wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption." Yet there was there a dissolution through death, because the soul was separated from the body, as form from matter, and because the blood was separated from the body, and because his body was pierced with nails and a lance. Now he foretells the resurrection when he says, "and in three days I will raise it up," namely the body, that is, "I will raise it up from the dead." Now he does not say "it will be raised," nor "the Father will raise it," but "I will raise it up," so as to show that he rises from the dead by his own power. Nor, however, do we deny that the Father raised him from the dead, because, as it is said in Romans 8:11, "who raised up Jesus from the dead." And in Psalm 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up." Thus, therefore, God the Father raised Christ from the dead, and Christ rose by his own power; Psalm 3:6: "I have slept, and taken my rest, and I have risen up, because the Lord hath sustained me." Nor is there in this any contrariety, because the power of both is the same; whence, "whatsoever things the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner": below, John 5:19. For if the Father raised him up, the Son also did; 2 Corinthians 13:4: "for although he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God." Now he says "and in three days," and not "after three days," because he did not remain three full days in the tomb; but, as Augustine says, it is a synecdochical expression, in which the part is put for the whole. Origen, however, assigns a mystical reason for this expression, saying: the true body of Christ is the temple of God, and this body figures the mystical body, that is, the Church; 1 Corinthians 12:27: "you are the body of Christ, and members of member." And just as in the body of Christ the divinity dwells through the grace of union, so too in the Church through the grace of adoption. And although this body seems to be mystically dissolved by the adversities of the tribulations by which it is afflicted, yet it is raised up in three days, namely in the day of the law of nature, and in the day of the written law, and in the day of the law of grace; because, even if in these days, as regards some, the body is dissolved, yet as regards others it lives. And therefore he says "in three days," because this spiritual resurrection is accomplished in three days. But after three days we shall be perfectly raised up, not only as regards the first resurrection, but also as regards the second; Apocalypse 20:6: "Blessed is he that hath part in the second resurrection."

Consequently, when he says, "The Jews therefore said," etc., is set down the understanding of the sign exhibited; and first indeed is set down the false understanding, conceived by the Jews; second, the true understanding, conceived by the apostles, there, "But he spoke of the temple of his body." Now the false understanding of the Jews was that they believed Christ was speaking of the material temple, in which he then was; and therefore, according to this understanding, they respond concerning the material temple, and say, "Forty and six years was this temple in building" — namely the material one, in which we are — "and wilt thou raise it up in three days?" But against this there is a literal objection. For the temple in Jerusalem was built by Solomon, and, as is had in 3 Kings 6:1ff., it was completed by Solomon in seven years; what, then, is this, that he here says, "forty and six years was this temple in building"? I respond. It must be said, according to some, that this is not to be understood of the first building of the temple, which was completed by Solomon in seven years; for the temple which Solomon had built was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but it is to be understood of the rebuilding done under Zerubbabel, after they had returned from the captivity, as is read in the Book of Ezra, which indeed, with many enemies attacking from every side, was so hindered and delayed that the temple could not be completed until the forty-sixth year. Or it must be said, according to Origen, that it is understood of the temple of Solomon, which indeed is said to have been built in the space of forty-six years, in such a way that the time is counted from the day on which David made mention of the building of the temple, consulting the prophet Nathan about this, as is had in 2 Kings 7:2ff., up to the perfect completion by Solomon; for from that day David began to prepare the material and the necessities for the building of the temple. And if the said span of time is diligently considered, it rises to the number of forty-six years. Now although the Jews referred their intention to the material temple, yet, according to Augustine, it can be referred to the temple of the body of Christ; because, as he himself says in the Book of Eighty-Three Questions, the conception and formation of the human body is completed in forty-five days, in this manner. For in the first six days the conception of the human body has, as it were, the likeness of milk; then in the following nine days it is converted into blood; then in the twelve days after that it is solidified into flesh; but in the remaining eighteen days it is formed up to the perfect features of all its members. Therefore, with this number — six, nine, twelve, and eighteen — joined into one, there arises the number forty-five, to which, one being added on account of the sacrament of unity, there are forty-six. But from this a question arises: because this process of formation does not seem to have a place in the body of Christ, since in the very instant of conception it was formed and animated. But it must be said that, although in the formation of the body of Christ there is something singular — because in that very instant the body of Christ was perfect as to all the features of its members, though not as to the due quantity of the body — and therefore it remained in the womb of the Virgin for as long as was needed until it reached the due quantity. Let us then take the aforesaid numbers, namely six, which was the first, and forty-six, which was the last, and multiply the one by the other; from these there arise two hundred seventy-six. Dividing, then, this number of days into months, giving each month thirty days, there are nine months and six days. Rightly, therefore, is the temple said to have been built in forty-six years, which signified the body of Christ, so as to suggest that there were as many years in the building of the temple as there were days in the perfection of the body of Christ; for from the eighth of the Kalends of April, on which Christ was conceived, and (as is believed) suffered, up to the eighth of the Kalends of January, there are that many days, namely two hundred seventy-six, which number arises from six multiplied by forty-six. From this number also Augustine (as appears through the Gloss) understands another thing mystically. For he says that from the letters of the name Adam, multiplied according to the number which, in the manner of the Greeks, these letters signify, there arises the number forty-six. For "A" in Greek, according to number, signifies one, since it is the first letter in the alphabet; but "D," according to order, signifies four. Adding, then, the one which "A" signifies, and the forty which "M" signifies, we have forty-six. In which it is signified that the body of Christ was assumed from the body of Adam. Likewise, according to the Greeks, from the first letters taken from the names of the four parts of the world, this name Adam is composed: namely, "anatole," which is east; "dysis," which is west; "arctos," which is north; "mesembria," which is south — in which it is signified that Christ assumed flesh from Adam, so that he might gather together his elect from the four parts of the world; Matthew 24:31: "he shall gather together his elect from the four winds."

Consequently, when he says, "But he spoke of the temple of his body," is set down the true understanding of the sign, conceived by the disciples; and first is set down their own understanding; second, whence the apostles conceived this, there, "When therefore he was risen," etc. He says, therefore: the Jews said this in ignorance, but Christ did not so understand it; rather he understood it of the temple of his body; and this is what he says, "But he spoke of the temple of his body." Now for what reason the body of Christ is called a temple has been said above. And from this Apollinaris, taking occasion for his error, said that the flesh of Christ was inanimate matter, because a temple is an inanimate thing. But in this he is deceived, because when it is said that the body of Christ is a temple, it is a metaphorical expression, in which expression indeed the likeness is not attended to as regards all things, but as regards something, namely as regards the indwelling, which indeed refers to the nature, as was said above. Moreover, this appears manifestly through the authority of Sacred Scripture, when Christ himself says: "I have power to lay down my life." Whence, however, the apostles conceived this true understanding, the Evangelist shows consequently, when he adds, "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered," etc. For before the resurrection this was difficult to understand: first, because through this it was shown that in the body of Christ there was true divinity — otherwise it could not have been called a temple — and to understand this at that time exceeded human capacity. Second, because in this he makes mention of the passion and resurrection, when he says "I will raise it up," which none of the disciples had yet heard. Whence, when Christ expressed his resurrection and passion to the apostles, Peter, hearing this, was scandalized, saying: "Be it far from thee, Lord" (Matthew 16:22). But after the resurrection, when they now fully knew Christ to be God, through the things which he had shown concerning the passion and resurrection, and when they had learned the sacrament of his resurrection, then "his disciples remembered that he said this of his body, and they believed the Scripture," namely of the prophets; Hosea 6:3: "He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up"; Jonah 2:1: "Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights." And hence it is that on the very day of the resurrection he opened to them their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. "And the word that Jesus had said" — namely this: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Analogically, however, through this it is given us to understand, according to Origen, that in the last resurrection of nature we shall be disciples of Christ, when, in the great resurrection, the whole body of Jesus, that is, his Church, will be made certain of those things which now we know through faith in an enigma; and then we shall receive the completion of faith, seeing through vision what now we behold through a mirror.

Consequently, when he says, "Now when he was at Jerusalem," he sets down the fruit that followed from the signs, namely the conversion of some who believed; and concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth those who believed, on account of the miracles; second he shows how Christ conducted himself toward them, there, "But Jesus did not trust himself to them"; third he assigns the reason for this, there, "because he himself knew all men." Now the fruit which came from the signs of Jesus is great, because many believed, and were converted to him; and this is what he says: "Now when he was at Jerusalem, at the Passover, on the festival day, many believed in his name" — that is, in him — "seeing the signs which he did." Now note that some believed in two ways: for some indeed believed on account of miracles seen, but some on account of the revelation of hidden things and prophecy. But those who believe on account of teaching are more praiseworthy, because they are more spiritual, than those who believe on account of signs, who are grosser and more given to the senses. Now these who were converted are shown to be of the sensible sort, in that they believed, not on account of teaching, as the disciples did, but "seeing the signs which he did," they "believed in his name." 1 Corinthians 14:22: "prophecies are given to believers," etc. But here it is asked what signs they saw done by Jesus, since we read of none that he did at that time in Jerusalem. To this a twofold answer can be given, according to Origen. In one way, that many signs were done by Jesus there at that time which are not contained here; for the Evangelists knowingly passed over many of the miracles of Christ, since he did so many that they could not easily be written; below, last chapter, 25: "Many other signs also did Jesus, which, if they should be written every one, I think that the world itself would not be able to contain the books that should be written." And the Evangelist shows this pointedly when he says, "seeing the signs which he did," which have already been passed over, because it was not the intention of the Evangelists to write down all the signs of Jesus, but as many as were necessary for the instruction of the Church of the faithful. In another way, because among the miracles the greatest sign can be reckoned to be this, that with a scourge made of cords, Jesus alone cast out a multitude of men from the temple. Now how he conducted himself toward those who believed, he shows, saying, "But Jesus did not trust himself to them," namely to those who had believed in him. But what is this, that men believe in God, and Jesus himself did not trust himself to them? Could they perhaps have killed him, had he been unwilling? But someone will say that he did not trust himself to them because he knew that they believed falsely. But if this were true, the Evangelist surely would not say that many had believed in his name, and yet that he did not trust himself to them. And the reason is, according to Chrysostom, that these believed in him, but imperfectly, because they could not yet attain to the perfect mysteries of Christ, and therefore "he did not trust himself to them," that is, he did not yet reveal to them his secret mysteries; for even to the apostles themselves he did not reveal many things; below, John 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now"; 1 Corinthians 3:1: "I could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal." And therefore the Evangelist pointedly, so as to show that they believed imperfectly, does not say that they believed in him, because they did not yet believe in his divinity; but he says "in his name" — that which was said of him merely by name, namely that he was just, or something of this sort. Or, according to Augustine, these bear in the Church the type of catechumens, who, although they believe in the name of Christ, yet Jesus does not trust himself to them, because the Church does not give them the body of Christ; for that body, just as no priest can confect it except one consecrated a priest, so no one ought to receive it except one baptized. Now the reason why he did not trust himself to them is shown from the perfect knowledge of Christ; whence he says, "because he himself knew all men." Now although a man in ignorance ought to presume good of anyone, yet after the truth becomes known concerning certain persons, a man ought to conduct himself toward them according to their condition. And because nothing of the things that are in man was hidden from Christ, since he knew that they believed imperfectly, he did not trust himself to them. Now the knowledge of Christ is described as universal, because he knew not only those close to him, but also other strangers, and therefore he says, "because he himself knew all men," and this through the power of his divinity; Ecclesiasticus 23:28: "the eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun." For man, even though he may know others, yet cannot have certain knowledge of them, because he sees only what appears outwardly, and therefore he has need of the testimony of others. Christ, however, knows most certainly, because he beholds the heart; and therefore "he needed not that any should give testimony of man"; rather he himself is a witness, Job 16:20: "behold, my witness is in heaven." His knowledge is perfect, because it extends not only to exterior things, but also to interior things; and therefore he says, "for he himself knew what was in man," that is, the hidden things of the heart. Proverbs 15:11: "Hell and destruction are before the Lord."