For Jesus himself gave testimony that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.

“Why then does the Evangelist say immediately, For Jesus Himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. For He would seem to have testified more to the truth, had He remained in Samaria, and not gone into Galilee. Not so: He stayed two days in Samaria, and the Samaritans believed on Him: He stayed the same time in Galilee, and the Galileans did not believe on Him, and therefore He said, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.”

“Having set forth the conversion of the Gentiles by the way of teaching, here is set forth their conversion by the way of a miracle: hence the Evangelist introduces a certain miracle performed by Christ, concerning which, first, the place is set down; second, the miracle is described, at the words "and there was a certain ruler," etc.; third, the effect of the miracle is set down, at the words "the father therefore knew," etc. Concerning the first, he does two things. First, he designates the general place of the miracle, namely the homeland; second, the specific place, at "he came therefore again into Cana of Galilee." Concerning the first, he does two things. First, he designates the general place of the miracle; second, he suggests how Christ was received there, at "when therefore he had come into Galilee." Concerning the first, he does two things. First, he designates the general place; second, he assigns the reason, at "for Jesus himself gave testimony," etc. He says therefore first: I say that Jesus remained among the Samaritans for two days, and after two days he departed from there, that is, from Samaria, and went away into Galilee, where he had been brought up: by which it is signified that at the end of the age, when the Gentiles have been confirmed in faith and truth, he will return to the Jews to be converted, according to that word of Romans 11:25: "until the full number of the Gentiles should enter in, and so all Israel would be saved." And he assigns the reason, saying: "for Jesus himself gave testimony, that a prophet has no honor in his own country." Here a doubt arises: one indeed concerning the meaning of the text; the other concerning its continuity. Concerning the meaning of the text, indeed, there is doubt, because what is said here does not seem to be true, namely that a prophet has no honor in his own country: for some prophets are read to have been honored in their own land. But, according to Chrysostom, it is answered to this, that the Lord here speaks according to what happens in the majority of cases. Hence although it may have an instance in some single case, it ought not for this reason be reckoned false, for in natural matters and in moral matters, a rule that is verified in the majority of cases is true; and if in some particular case it is otherwise, it is not reckoned false. But this saying of the Lord was true of the majority of the prophets, because in the Old Testament scarcely any of the prophets is found who did not suffer persecution from his own tribesmen, according to that word of Acts 7:52: "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?" And Matthew 23:37: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets, and stone those who are sent to you." This word of the Lord is also verified not only in the prophets among the Jews, but also, as Origen says, in many cases among the Gentiles, because they were held in contempt by their own citizens, and brought to death: for habitual association with men, and excessive familiarity, diminishes reverence, and gives rise to contempt. And therefore those whom we have more familiarly, we are accustomed to revere less, and those whom we cannot have familiarly, we esteem more. The contrary of this happens with God: for the more one becomes familiar with God through love and contemplation, the more, esteeming him more excellent, one reveres him, and esteems oneself the lesser: Job 42:5: "With the hearing of the ear I have heard you, but now my eye sees you: therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes." And the reason for this is that, since man is of a weak and fragile nature, when he associates for a long time with another, he comes to know certain weaknesses in him, and from this his reverence toward him is diminished. But since God is immensely perfect, the more a man advances in knowledge of him, the more he admires the excellence of his perfection, and from this reveres him the more. But was Christ a prophet? It seems not, because prophecy implies enigmatic knowledge. Numbers 12:6: "If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision." But Christ did not have enigmatic knowledge. But that he was a prophet is clear from what is said in Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord will raise up a prophet from among your brethren and of your nation like me; him you shall hear": which is expounded of Christ. I answer that it must be said that a prophet has a twofold office: namely, of vision, 1 Kings 9:9: "He who is now called a prophet, was formerly called a seer"; likewise of annunciation, and as to this Christ was a prophet, because he announced the truth about God; below, John 18:37: "For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I might give testimony to the truth." But as to the first, it must be known that Christ was at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor. A wayfarer indeed, as to the passibility of human nature, and all things pertaining to it; but a comprehensor as to the union of the divinity, according to which he enjoyed God most perfectly. But in the vision of prophecy there are two things: namely, the intellectual light of the mind; and as to this he did not have the character of prophecy, because he did not have a deficient light, but that of a comprehensor. Likewise there is there an imaginative vision; and as to this he had a likeness with the prophets, inasmuch as he was a wayfarer, and could form various things in his imagination. Concerning the continuity there is doubt: for the Evangelist does not seem rightly to connect what he says—"but after two days Jesus went away into Galilee"—with what is said: "for he himself gave testimony," etc. For it seems that he did not go into Galilee, because Jesus himself gave testimony that a prophet has no honor in his own country. For if he was without honor there, it seems there would be reason that he should not go there. To this, in one way Augustine responds, saying that the Evangelist said this in answering a question that might be raised: why did he go there, when he had stayed a long time in Galilee, and the Galileans had not been converted to him; while the Samaritans were converted in two days? As if he were to say: although they had not been converted, nevertheless he went there because he himself gave testimony that a prophet has no honor in his own country. In another way Chrysostom answers thus: after two days he departed from there, and went away—not into Capernaum, which was his own country on account of his continual dwelling there, while Bethlehem was so on account of his origin, and Nazareth on account of his upbringing. He did not therefore go into Capernaum; hence in Matthew 11:23 he reproaches them with this, saying: "And you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted even to heaven? You shall descend even to hell." But he went into Cana of Galilee. And here he assigns the reason, that they were ill-disposed toward him. And this is what he says: "for Jesus himself gave testimony, that a prophet has no honor in his own country." But did Christ seek glory from men? It seems not, because below, John 8:50, he says: "I do not seek my own glory." I answer that it must be said that God alone is he who seeks his own glory without fault. But man ought not to seek his own glory from men, but the glory of God. But Christ sought, insofar as he was God, fittingly his own glory, and insofar as he was man, the glory of God in himself. Consequently, when he says "when therefore he had come into Galilee," etc., he shows that Christ was received honorably by the Galileans more than before, when he says: "when therefore Jesus had come into Galilee, the Galileans received him honorably." And the reason for this is, because they had seen all the things he had done at Jerusalem on the feast day: for they too had come to the feast day, according to what was commanded in the Law. But against this is the fact that above we do not read that Christ performed any miracle at Jerusalem. I answer that it must be said, according to Origen, that the Jews reckoned it the greatest miracle that Christ, with such authority, expelled the buyers and sellers from the temple. Or it must be said that perhaps he performed there many miracles which were not written down, according to that word below, John 21:25: "Many other signs indeed Jesus did (...) which are not written in this book." Mystically, however, by this an example is given to us, that if we wish to receive Christ Jesus within us, we must go up to Jerusalem on the feast day; that is, to seize the quiet of the mind, and to see the particular things which Jesus accomplishes there. Isaiah 33:20: "Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnity"; Psalm 142:5: "I meditated on all your works." Note, however, that according as men were lower in the order of dignity, they were better with respect to God. But the Jews were more dignified than the Galileans; below, chapter 7:52: "Search the Scriptures, for a prophet does not arise from Galilee." But the Galileans were more dignified than the Samaritans; above, in the same Gospel: "The Jews do not associate with Samaritans." But conversely the Samaritans were better than the Galileans, because more of them believed in Christ in two days and without a miracle, than of the Galileans in many days, and even with the miracle of the wine: for none believed in him except his disciples. But the Jews were worse than the Galileans themselves; for none of them had believed, except perhaps Nicodemus. Consequently he says: "he came therefore again into Cana of Galilee": which, according to Chrysostom, is set down as a conclusion of what has gone before; as if he were to say: because he was not honored in Capernaum, therefore he was unwilling to go there, where he was dishonored. But he was bound to go into Cana of Galilee: for the first time he had been invited to a wedding, but now he comes again, not invited. He makes mention, however, of the twofold coming to Cana, in order to show their hardness: for in the first miracle, namely that of the wine, only his disciples believed in him; but in the second, only the ruler, and his whole household. But the Samaritans believed at the word alone. Mystically, however, by the twofold coming to Cana, a twofold effect of the Word of God upon the mind is signified. For first it gladdens: because, as is said in Matthew 13:20, "they receive the word with joy." And this is signified in the miracle of the wine, which "gladdens the heart of man," as is said in Psalm 103. Second, it heals; Wisdom 16:12: "Neither herb nor poultice healed them, but your word, O Lord, which heals all things." And this is signified in the healing of the sick man. Likewise by this a twofold coming of the Son of God is signified. Namely, the first, which was of gentleness, unto gladdening; Isaiah 12:6: "Exult and praise, O dwelling of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel." Hence also the angel said to the shepherds, Luke 2:10: "I announce to you great joy, because today a savior is born to you." And this is signified by the wine. His second coming into the world will be one of majesty, when he will come to take away our infirmities and penalties, and to conform us to the body of his glory; and this is signified in the healing of the sick man.”

“For Jesus himself testified,.... Mat 13:57; that a prophet hath no honour in his own country: all the Oriental versions read, "in his own city"; that is, Nazareth: for these words must not be understood as a reason why Christ left Judea, and went into Galilee, because he had no honour in Judea, in which was Bethlehem, the place of his nativity; but are a reason why, when he came into Galilee, he did not go to Nazareth, his own city, where he was educated, and had been brought up, and had lived the greatest part of his life, because they treated him with great disrespect and contempt; See Gill on Mat 13:57.”

“For Jesus himself gave testimony, &c. The connexion and reason given here by the word for , is obscure, when it is said, Jesus went into Galilee and gave testimony that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. One would think this should not be a reason for his going into Galilee, but rather why he should not go thither. St. Cyril,[1] and also St. Chrysostom distinguish different parts of Galilee; and say that when Jesus went into Galilee, the meaning is, that he would not at that time go to Nazareth, where he was bred, nor to Capharnaum, where he had lived for a time, but went to Cana, and those other parts of Galilee; and that the word for only gives the reason of this, that he would not go to Nazareth or Capharnaum, because no prophet is honoured in his own country. And for the same reason he again said to the ruler: (ver. 48) Unless you see signs and wonders you believe not: whereas the Samaritans, from whom he was now coming, readily believed without such miracles. (Witham)”

“For Jesus testified, &c.--This verse had occasioned much discussion. For it seems strange, if "His own country" here means Nazareth, which was in Galilee, that it should be said He came to Galilee because in one of its towns He expected no good reception. But all will be simple and natural if we fill up the statement thus: "He went into the region of Galilee, but not, as might have been expected, to that part of it called 'His own country,' Nazareth (see Mar 6:4; Luk 4:24), for He acted on the maxim which He oft repeated, that 'a prophet,'" &c.”