Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff john/english/John2.html @ 35:178aed5d2c3c
convert to XML
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:05:42 +0000 |
| parents | 25a799388159 |
| children |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/john/english/John2.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John2.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,889 +1,1507 @@ -<html> +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> +<meta name="generator" content= +"HTML Tidy for Cygwin (vers 25 March 2009), see www.w3.org" /> +<title></title> </head> -<body style=text-align:justify><blockquote> -<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 60pt">2</span></p> +<body style="text-align:justify"> +<blockquote> +<p style="text-align: center"><span style= +"font-size: 60pt">2</span></p> <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in">LECTURE I</p> -<BLOCKQUOTE><p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 -Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the feast. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of -Jesus said to him, “They have no more wine.” 4 Jesus then said to her, “Woman, what does that -have to do with me and you? My time has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do -whatever he tells you.” 6 Now there were six stone water jars near by for purifications according -to Jewish customs, each holding two or three metretes. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill those jars with -water.” And they filled them to the top. 8 Then Jesus said to them, “Now pour out a drink and -take it to the head waiter.” They did as he instructed them. 9 Now when the head waiter tasted -the water made wine, and not knowing where it came from (although the servants knew, since -they had drawn the water), he called the groom over 10 and said to him, “People usually serve -the choice wines first, and when the guests have had their fill, then they bring out inferior wine; -but you have saved the best wine until now.” 11 This beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana -of Galilee; and Jesus revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">335 Above, the Evangelist showed the dignity of the incarnate Word and gave various evidence -for it. Now he begins to relate the effects and actions by which the divinity of the incarnate Word -was made known to the world. First, he tells the things Christ did, while living in the world, that -show his divinity. Secondly, he tells how Christ showed his divinity while dying; and this from -chapter twelve on.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">As to the first he does two things. First, he shows the divinity of Christ in relation to the power -he had over nature. Secondly, in relation to the effects of grace; and this from chapter three on. -Christ’s power over nature is pointed out to us by the fact that he changed a nature. And this -change was accomplished by Christ as a sign: first, to his disciples, to strengthen them; secondly, -to the people, to lead them to believe (2:12). This transformation of a nature, in order to -strengthen the disciples, was accomplished at a marriage, when he turned water into wine. First, -the marriage is described. Secondly, those present. Thirdly, the miracle performed hy Christ.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">330 In describing the marriage, the time is first mentioned. Hence he says. On the <span style="font-weight: bold">third day -there was a wedding, </span>i.e., after the calling of the disciples mentioned earlier. For, after being -made known by the testimony of John, Christ also wanted to make himself known. Secondly, the -place is mentioned; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">at Cana in Galilee. </span>Galilee is a province, and Cana a small -village located in that province.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">337 As far as the literal meaning is concerned, we should note that there are two opinions about -the time of Christ’s preaching. Some say that there were two and a half years from Christ’s -baptism until his death. According to them, the events at this wedding took place in the same year -that Christ was baptized. However, both the teaching and practice of the Church are opposed to -this. For three miracles are commemorated on the feast of the Epiphany: the adoration of the -Magi, which took place in the first year of the Lord’s birth; secondly, the baptism of Christ, -which implies that he was baptized on the same day thirty years later; thirdly, this marriage, -which took place on the same day one year later. It follows from this that at least one year elapsed -between his baptism and this marriage. In that year the only things recorded to have been done -by the Lord are found in the sixth chapter of Matthew: the fasting in the desert, and the -temptation by the devil; and what John tells us in this Gospel of the testimony by the Baptist and -the conversion of the disciples. After this wedding, Christ began to preach publicly and to -perform miracles up to the time of his passion, so that he preached publicly for two and one half -years.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">338 In the mystical sense, marriage signifies the union of Christ with his Church, because as the -Apostle says: “This is a great mystery: I am speaking of Christ and his Church” (Eph 5:32). And -this marriage was begun In the womb of the Virgin, when God the Father united a human nature -to his Son in a unity of person. So, the chamber of this union was the womb of the Virgin: “He -established a chamber for the sun” (Ps 18:6). Of this marriage it is said: “The kingdom of heaven -is like a king who married his son” (Mt 22:2), that is, when God the Father joined a human nature -to his Word in the womb of the Virgin. It was made public when the Church was joined to him -by faith: “I will bind you to myself in faith” (Hos 2:20). We read of this marriage: “Blessed are -they who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rv 19:9). It will be consummated when -the bride, i.e., the Church, is led into the resting place of the groom, i.e., into the glory of heaven.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The fact that this marriage took place on the third day is not without it own mystery. For the first -day is the time of the law of nature; the second day is the time of the written law. but the third -day is the time of grace, when the incarnate Lord celebrated the marriage: “He will revive Lis -after two days: on the third day he will raise us up” (Hos 6:3).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The place too is appropriate. For “Cana” means “zeal and “Galilee” means “passage.” So this -marriage was celebrated in the zeal of a passage, to suggest that those persons are most worthy -of union with Christ who, burning with the zeal of a conscientious devotion, pass over from the -state of guilt to the grace of the Church. “Pass over to me, all who desire me” (Sir 24:26). And -they pass from death to life, i.e., from the state of mortality and misery to the state of immortality -and glory: “I make all things new” (Rv 21:5).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">339 Then the persons invited are described. Mention is made of three: the mother of Jesus, Jesus -himself, and the disciples.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">340 The mother of Jesus is mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the mother of Jesus was there</span>. She is -mentioned first to indicate that Jesus was still unknown and not invited to the wedding as a -famous person, but merely as one acquaintance among others; for as they invited the mother, so -also her son. Or, perhaps his mother is invited first because they were uncertain whether Jesus -would come to a wedding if invited, because of the unusual piety they noticed in him and because -they had not seen him at other social gatherings. So I think that they first asked his mother -whether Jesus should be invited. That is why the Evangelist expressly said first that his mother -was at the wedding, and that later Jesus was invited.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">341 And this is what comes next: <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus was invited. </span>Christ decided to attend this wedding, first -of all, to give us an example of humility. For he did not look to his own dignity, but “just as he -condescended to accept the form of a servant, so he did not hesitate to come to the marriage of -servants,” as Chrysostom says. And as Augustine says: “Let man blush to be proud, for God -became humble.” For among his other acts of humility, the Son of the Virgin came to a marriage, -which he had already instituted in paradise when he was with his Father. Of this example it is -said: “Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart” (Mt 11:29).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">He came, secondly, to reject the error of those who condemn marriage, for as Bede says: “If there -were sin in a holy marriage bed and in a marriage carried out with due purity, the Lord would not -have come to the marriage.” But because he did come, he implies that the baseness of those who -denounce marriage deserves to be condemned. “If she marries, it is not a sin” (1 Cor 7:36).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">342 The disciples are mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and his disciples.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">343 In its mystical meaning, the mother of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin, is present in spiritual -marriages as the one who arranges the marriage, because it is through her intercession that one -is joined to Christ through grace: “In me is every hope of life and of strength” (Sir 24:25). Christ -is present as the true groom of the soul, as is said below (3:29): “It is the groom who has the -bride.” The disciples are the groomsmen uniting the Church to Christ, the one of whom it is said: -“I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">344 At this physical marriage some role in the miracle belongs to the mother of Christ, some to -Christ, and some to the disciples. When he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When the wine ran out, </span>he indicates the part -of each. The role of Christ’s mother was to superintend the miracle; the role of Christ to perform -it; and the disciples were to bear witness to it. As to the first, Christ’s mother assumed the role -of a mediatrix. Hence she does two things. First, she intercedes with her Son. In the second place, -she instructs the servants. As to the first, two things are mentioned. First, his mother’s -intercession; secondly, the answer of her Son.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">345 In Mary’s intercession, note first her kindness and mercy. For it is a quality of mercy to -regard another’s distress as one’s own, because to be merciful is to have a heart distressed at the -distress of another: “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” (2 Cor 11:29). And so because the -Blessed Virgin was full of mercy, she desired to relieve the distress of others. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When -the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Note, secondly, her reverence for Christ: for because of the reverence we have for God it is -sufficient for us merely to express our needs: “Lord, all my desires are known by you” (Ps 37:10). -But it is not our business to wonder about the way in which God will help us, for as it is said: -“We do not know what we should pray for as we ought” (Rom 8:26). And so his mother merely -told him of their need, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">They have no more wine.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Thirdly, note the Virgin’s concern and care. For she did not wait until they were in extreme need, -but <span style="font-weight: bold">When the wine ran out, </span>that is, immediately. This is similar to what is said of God: “A -helper in times of trouble” (Ps 9:10).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">346 Chrysostom asks: Why did Mary never encourage Christ to perform any miracles before this -time? For she had been told of his power by the angel, whose work had been confirmed by the -many things she had seen happening in his regard, all of which she remembered, thinking them -over in her heart (Lk 2:5 1). The reason is that before this time he lived like any other person. So, -because the time was not appropriate, she put off asking him. But now, after John’s witness to -him and after the conversion of his disciples, she trustingly prompted Christ to perform miracles. -In this she was true to the symbol of the synagogue, which is the mother of’ Christ: for it was -customary for the Jews to require miracles: “The Jews require signs” (1 Cor 1:22).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">347 She says to him, <span style="font-weight: bold">They have no more wine. </span>Here we should note that before the incarnation -of Christ three wines were running out: the wine of justice, of wisdom, and of charity or grace. -Wine stings, and in this respect it is a symbol of justice. The Samaritan poured wine and oil into -the wounds of the injured man, that is, he mingled the severity of justice with the sweetness of -mercy. “You have made us drink the wine of sorrow” (Ps 59:5). But wine also delights the heart, -“Wine cheers the heart of man” (Ps 103:15). And in this respect wine is a symbol of wisdom, the -meditation of which is enjoyable in the highest degree: “Her companionship has no bitterness” -(Wis 8:16). Further, wine intoxicates: “Drink, friends, and be intoxicated, my dearly beloved” -(Sg 5:1). And in this respect wine is a symbol of charity: “I have drunk my wine with my milk” -(Sg 5:1). It is also a symbol of charity because of charity’s fervor: “Wine makes the virgins -flourish” (Zec 9:17).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The wine of justice was indeed running out in the old law, in which justice was imperfect. But -Christ brought it to perfection: “Unless your justice is greater than that of the scribes and of the -Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:20). The wine of wisdom was -also running out, for it was hidden and symbolic, because as it says in 1 Corinthians (10:11): “All -these things happened to them in symbol.” But Christ plainly brought wisdom to light: “He was -teaching them as one having authority” (Mt 7:29). The wine of charity was also running out, -because they had received a spirit of serving only in fear. But Christ converted the water of fear -into the wine of charity when he gave “the spirit of adoption as sons, by which we cry: ‘Abba, -Father’” (Rom 8:15), and when “the charity of God was poured out into our hearts,” as Romans -(5:5) says.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">348 Then when he says, Jesus said to her, the answer of Christ is given. This answer has been -the occasion for three heresies.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">349 The Manicheans claim that Christ had only an imaginary body, not a real one. Valentinus -maintained that Christ assumed a celestial body and that, as far as his body was concerned, Christ -was not related to the Virgin at all. The source of this error was that he understood, <span style="font-weight: bold">Woman, -what does that have to do with me and you? </span>as if it meant: “I have received nothing from -you.” But this is contrary to the authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle says: “God sent -his Son, made from a woman” (Gal 4:4). Now Christ could not be said to have been made from -her, unless he had taken something from her. Further, Augustine argues against them: “How do -you know that our Lord said, <span style="font-weight: bold">What does that have to do with me and you? </span>You reply that it -is because John says so. But he also says that the Virgin was the mother of Christ. So, if you -believe the Evangelist when he states that Jesus said this to his mother, you should also believe -him when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the mother of Jesus was there</span>.”<span style="font-weight: bold"></span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">350 Then there was Ebion who said that Christ was conceived from a man’s seed, and Elvidius, -who said that the Virgin did not remain a virgin after childbirth. They were deceived by the fact -that he said, Woman, which seems to imply the loss of virginity. But this is false, for in Sacred -Scripture the word “woman” sometimes refers merely to the female sex, as it does in “made from -a woman” (Gal 4:4). This is obvious also by the fact that Adam, speaking to God about Eve, said: -“The woman whom you gave me as a companion, gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it” (Gn -3:12); for Eve was still a virgin in Paradise, where Adam had not know her. Hence the fact that -the mother of Christ is here called “woman” in this Gospel does not imply a loss of virginity, but -refers to her sex.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">351 The Priscillianists, however, erred by misunderstanding the words of Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">My time has -not yet come. </span>They claimed that all things happen by fate, and that the actions of men, including -those of Christ, are subject to predetermined times. And that is why, according to them, Christ -said, <span style="font-weight: bold">My time has not yet come.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">But this is false for any man. For since man has free choice, and this is because he has reason and -will, both of which are spiritual, then obviously, as far as choice is concerned, man, so far from -being subject to bodies, is really their master. For spiritual things are superior to material things, -so much so that the Philosopher says that the wise man is master of the stars. Further, their heresy -is even less true of Christ, who is the Lord and Creator of the stars. Thus when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">My time -has not yet come, </span>he is referring to the time of his passion, which was fixed for him, not by -necessity, according to divine providence. What is said in Sirach (33:7) is also contrary to their -opinion: “Why is one day better than another?” And the answer is: “They have been -differentiated by the knowledge of the Lord,” i.e., they were differentiated from one another not -by chance, but by God’s providence.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">352 Since we have eliminated the above opinions, let us look for the reason why our Lord -answered, <span style="font-weight: bold">Woman, what does that have to do with me and you? </span>For Augustine, Christ has -two natures, the divine and the human. And although the same Christ exists in each, nevertheless -things appropriate to him according to his human nature are distinct from what is appropriate to -him according to his divine nature. Now to perform miracles is appropriate to him according to -his divine nature, which he received from the Father; while to suffer is according to his human -nature, which he received from his mother. So when his mother requests this miracle, he answers, -<span style="font-weight: bold">Woman, what does that have to do with me and you? </span>as if saying: I did not receive from you -that in me which enables me to perform miracles, but that which enables me to suffer, i.e., that -which makes it appropriate for me to suffer, i.e., I have received a human nature from you. And -so I will recognize you when this weakness hangs on the cross. And so he continues with, <span style="font-weight: bold">My -time has not yet come. </span>As if to say: I will recognize you as my mother when the time of my -passion arrives. And so it was that on the cross he entrusted his mother to the disciple.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">353 Chrysostom explains this differently. He says that the Blessed Virgin, burning with zeal for -the honor of her Son, wanted Christ to perform miracles at once, before it was opportune; but that -Christ, being much wiser than his mother, restrained her. For he was unwilling to perform the -miracle before the need for it was known; otherwise, it would have been less appreciated and less -credible. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Woman, what does that have to do with me and you? </span>As if to say: -Why bother me? <span style="font-weight: bold">My time has not yet come</span>, i.e., I am not yet known to those present. Nor do -they know that the wine ran out; and they must first know this, because when they know their -need they will have a greater appreciation of the benefit they will receive.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">354 Now although his mother was refused, she did not lose hope in her Son’s mercy. So she -instructs the servants, Do whatever he tells you, in which, indeed, consists the perfection of all -justice. For perfect justice consists in obeying Christ in all things: “We will do all that the Lord -commanded us” (Ex 29:35). Do whatever he tells you, is fittingly said of God alone, for man can -err now and then. Hence in matters that are against God, we are not held to obey men: “We ought -to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). We ought to obey God, who does not err and cannot -be deceived, in all things.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">355 Now Christ’s completion of the miracle is set forth. First, the vessels in which the miracle -was performed are described. Secondly, the matter of the miracle is stated (v 7). Thirdly, we have -how the miracle was made known and approved (v 8).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">356 The miracle was performed in six vessels; <span style="font-weight: bold">Now there were six stone water jars near by. -</span>Here we should note, that as mentioned in Mark (7:2), the Jews observed many bodily washings -and the cleansing of their cups and dishes. So, because they were in Palestine where there wis -a shortage of water, they had vessels in which they kept the purest water to be used for washing -themselves and their utensils. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">there were six stone water jars near by, </span>i.e., -vessels for holding water, <span style="font-weight: bold">for purifications according to Jewish customs, </span>i.e., to use for -<span style="font-weight: bold">purification, each holding two or three metretes </span>of liquid, that is, two or three measures; for -the Greek “metrete” is the same as the Latin “mensura.”</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">These jars were standing there, as Chrysostom says, in order to eliminate any suspicion about the -miracle: both on account of their cleanliness, lest anyone suspect that the water had acquired the -taste of wine from the dregs of wine previously stored in them, for these jars were standing there -<span style="font-weight: bold">for purifications according to Jewish customs, </span>and so had to be very pure; and also on account -of the capacity of the jars, so that it would be abundantly clear that the water in such jars could -be changed into wine only by divine power.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">357 In the mystical sense, the six water jars signify the six eras of the Old Testament during -which the hearts of men were prepared and made receptive of God’s Scriptures, and put forward -as an example for our lives.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The term <span style="font-weight: bold">metretes</span>, according to Augustine, refers to the Trinity of persons. And they are -described as <span style="font-weight: bold">two or three </span>because at times in Scripture three persons in the Trinity are distinctly -mentioned: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” -(Mt 28:19), and at other times only two, the Father and the Son, in whom the Holy Spirit, who -is the union of the two, is implied: “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father -will love him, and we will come to him” (below 14:23). Or they are described as two on account -of the two states of mankind from which the Church arose, that is, Jews and Gentiles. Or three -on account of the three sons of Noe, from whom the human race arose after the deluge.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">358 Then when he says that Jesus instructed them, <span style="font-weight: bold">Fill those jars with water, </span>he gives the -material of the miracle. Here we might ask why this miracle was performed with already existing -material, and not from nothing. There are three reasons for this. The first reason is literal, and is -given by Chrysostom: to make something from nothing is much greater and more marvelous than -to make something from material already existing; but it is not so evident and believable to many. -And so, wishing to make what he did more believable, Christ made wine from water, thus -condescending to man’s capacity.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Another reason was to refute wrong dogmas. For there are some (as the Marcionists and -Manicheans) who said that the founder of the world was someone other than God, and that all -visible things were established by such a one, that is, the devil. And so the Lord performed many -miracles using created and visible substances in order to show that these substances are good and -were created by God.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The third reason is mystical. Christ made the wine from water, and not from nothing, in order to -show that he was not laying down an entirely new doctrine and rejecting the old, but was -fulfilling the old: “I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it” (Mt 5:17). In other words, -what was prefigured and promised in the old law, was disclosed and revealed by Christ: “Then -he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” (Lk 24:45).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Finally, he had the servants fill the jars with water so that he might have witnesses to what he -did; so it is said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the servants knew, since they had drawn the water.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">359 Then, the miracle is made known. For as soon as the jars were filled, the water was turned -into wine. So the Lord reveals the miracle at once, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">Now pour out a drink and take it -to the head waiter. </span>First, we have the command of Christ selecting who is to test the wine; -secondly, the judgment of the head waiter who tasted it.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">360 <span style="font-weight: bold">Then Jesus said to them, </span>i.e., to the servants, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now pour out a drink, </span>that is, of wine, from -the jars, <span style="font-weight: bold">and take it to the head waiter </span>(<i>arch itriclin us</i>)<i>. </i>Here we should note that a <i>triclinium -</i>is a place where there are three rows of tables, and it is called a <i>trichinium </i>from its three rows -of dining couches: for <i>cline </i>in Greek means couch. For the ancients were accustomed to eat -reclining on couches, ais Maximus Valerius recounts. This is the reason why the Scriptures speak -of lying next to and lying down. Thus the <i>architriclinus </i>was (fie first and chief among those -dining. Or, according to Chrysostom, the <i>architriclinus </i>was the one in charge of the whole -banquet. And because he had been busy and had not tasted anything, the Lord wanted him, and -not the guests, to be the judge of what had been done, so some could not detract from the miracle -by saying the guests were drunk and, their senses dulled, could not tell wine from water. For -Augustine, the <i>architriclinus </i>was the chief guest, as was inentioned; and Christ wanted to have -the opinion of this person in high position so it would be more acceptable.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">361 In the mystical sense, those who pour out the water are preachers: “With joy you will draw -water from the springs of the Savior” (Is 12:3). And the <i>architriclinus is </i>someone skilled in the -law, as Nicodenius, Gamaliel or Paul. So, when the word of the Gospel, which was hidden under -the letter of the law, is entrusted to such persons, it is as though wine made from water is poured -out for the <i>architriclinus</i>, who, when he tastes it, gives his assent to the faith of Christ.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">362 Then the judgment of the one examining the wine is given. First, he inquires into the truth -of the fact; secondly, he gives his opinion.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now when the head waiter tasted the water made wine, and not knowing where -it came from, </span>because he did not know that the water had miraculously been made wine by -Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">although the servants knew, </span>the reason being, <span style="font-weight: bold">since they had drawn the water, he -called the groom over, </span>in order to learn the truth and give his opinion of the wine. Hence he -adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">People usually serve the choice wines first, and when the guests have had their fill, -then they bring out inferior wine.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Here we should consider, according to Chrysostom, that everything is most perfect in the -miracles of Christ. Thus, he restored most complete health to Peter’s mother-in-law, so that she -arose at once and waited on them, as we read in Mark (1:30) and Matthew (7:14). Again, he -restored the paralytic to health so perfectly that he also arose immediately, took up his mat, and -went home, as we read below (5:9). And this is also evident in this miracle, because Christ did -not make mediocre wine from the water, but the very best possible. And so the head waiter says, -<span style="font-weight: bold">People usually serve the choice wines first, and when the guests have had their fill, then -they bring out inferior wine, </span>because they drink less, and because good wine consumed in -quantity along with a quantity of food causes greater discomfort. It is as though he were saying: -Where did this very good wine come from which, contrary to custom, you saved until now?</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">363 This is appropriate to a mystery. For in the mystical sense, he serves good wine first who, -with an intent to deceive others, does not first mention the error he intends, but other things that -entice his hearers, so that he can disclose his evil plans after they have been intoxicated and -enticed to consent. We read of such wine: “It goes down pleasantly, but finally it will bite like -a serpent” (Prv 23:3 1). Again, he serves good wine first who begins to live in a saintly and -spiritual manner at the start of his conversion, but later sinks into a carnal life: “Are you so -foolish as, having begun in the Spirit, to end in the flesh?” (Gal 3:3).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Christ, however, does not serve the good wine first, for at the outset he proposes things that are -bitter and hard: “Narrow is the way that leads to life” (Mt 7:14). Yet the more progress a person -makes in his faith and teaching, the more pleasant it becomes and he becomes aware of a greater -sweetness: “I will lead You by the path of justice, and when you walk you will not be hindered” -(Prv 4:11). Likewise, all those who desire to live conscientiously in Christ stiffer bitterness and -troubles in this world: “You will weep and mourn” (below 16:20). But later they will experience -delights and joys. So he goes on: “but your sorrow will be turned into joy.” “I consider that the -sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, which will -be revealed in us,” as is said in Romans (8:18).</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">364 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee, </span>he gives -the disciples’ acknowledgment of the miracle. We can see from this the falsity of the <i>History of -the Infancy of the Savior, </i>which recounts many miracles worked by Christ as a boy. For if these -accounts were true, the Evangelist would not have said, <span style="font-weight: bold">This beginning of signs Jesus worked. -</span>We have already given the reason why Christ worked no miracles during his childhood, that is, -lest men regard them as illusions.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">It was for the reason given above, then, that Jesus performed this miracle of turning water into -wine at Cana of Galilee; and this was the first of the signs he did. <span style="font-weight: bold">And Jesus revealed his glory, -</span>i.e., the power by which he is glorious: “The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory” (Ps 23:10).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">365 <span style="font-weight: bold">And his disciples believed in him. </span>But how did they believe? For they already were his -disciples and had believed before this. I answer that sometimes a thing is described not according -to what it is at the time, but according to what it will be. For example, we say that the apostle -Paul was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia; not that an actual apostle was born there, but a future one -was. Similarly, it says here that <span style="font-weight: bold">his disciples believed in him, </span>i.e., those who would be his -disciples. Or, one might answer that previously they had believed in him as a good man, -preaching what was right and just; but now they believed in him as God.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 2</span></p> -<BLOCKQUOTE><p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">12 After this he went down to Capernaum together with his mother, his brethren and his -disciples; but they did not remain there many clays. 13 The Jewish Passover was near at hand, -and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, -sheep and doves, and moneychangers seated at tables. 15 And when he had made a kind of whip -from cords, he drove everyone, including sheep and oxen, out of the temple, swept away the gold -of the money changers, and knocked over their tables. 16 To those selling doves he said, “Get -Out of here! And stop making my Father’s house into a marketplace.” 17 His disciples then -remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house consumes me.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">366 Above, the Evangelist presented the sign Christ worked in order to confirm his disciples; and -this sign pertained to his power to change nature. Now he deals with the sign of his resurrection; -a sign pertaining to the same power, but proposed by Christ to convert the people.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The Evangelist does two things as to this miracle. First, he mentions its occasion. Secondly, the -prediction of the miracle (v 18). As to the first he does two things. First, he describes the place. -Secondly, he tells of the incident which was the occasion for proposing this miracle (v 14). Now -the place where this happened was Jerusalem. And so the Evangelist recounts step by step how -the Lord had come to Jerusalem. First, then, he shows how he went down to Capernaum. -Secondly, how he then went up to Jerusalem. As to the first he does three things. First, he -mentions the place to which he went down. Secondly, he describes his company. Thirdly, he +<blockquote> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">1 On the +third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of +Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the +feast. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, +“They have no more wine.” 4 Jesus then said to her, +“Woman, what does that have to do with me and you? My time +has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, +“Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now there were six stone +water jars near by for purifications according to Jewish customs, +each holding two or three metretes. 7 Jesus said to them, +“Fill those jars with water.” And they filled them to +the top. 8 Then Jesus said to them, “Now pour out a drink and +take it to the head waiter.” They did as he instructed them. +9 Now when the head waiter tasted the water made wine, and not +knowing where it came from (although the servants knew, since they +had drawn the water), he called the groom over 10 and said to him, +“People usually serve the choice wines first, and when the +guests have had their fill, then they bring out inferior wine; but +you have saved the best wine until now.” 11 This beginning of +signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee; and Jesus revealed his +glory, and his disciples believed in him.</p> +</blockquote> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">335 Above, +the Evangelist showed the dignity of the incarnate Word and gave +various evidence for it. Now he begins to relate the effects and +actions by which the divinity of the incarnate Word was made known +to the world. First, he tells the things Christ did, while living +in the world, that show his divinity. Secondly, he tells how Christ +showed his divinity while dying; and this from chapter twelve +on.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">As to the +first he does two things. First, he shows the divinity of Christ in +relation to the power he had over nature. Secondly, in relation to +the effects of grace; and this from chapter three on. +Christ’s power over nature is pointed out to us by the fact +that he changed a nature. And this change was accomplished by +Christ as a sign: first, to his disciples, to strengthen them; +secondly, to the people, to lead them to believe (2:12). This +transformation of a nature, in order to strengthen the disciples, +was accomplished at a marriage, when he turned water into wine. +First, the marriage is described. Secondly, those present. Thirdly, +the miracle performed hy Christ.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">330 In +describing the marriage, the time is first mentioned. Hence he +says. On the <span style="font-weight: bold">third day there was a +wedding,</span> i.e., after the calling of the disciples mentioned +earlier. For, after being made known by the testimony of John, +Christ also wanted to make himself known. Secondly, the place is +mentioned; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">at Cana +in Galilee.</span> Galilee is a province, and Cana a small village +located in that province.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">337 As far +as the literal meaning is concerned, we should note that there are +two opinions about the time of Christ’s preaching. Some say +that there were two and a half years from Christ’s baptism +until his death. According to them, the events at this wedding took +place in the same year that Christ was baptized. However, both the +teaching and practice of the Church are opposed to this. For three +miracles are commemorated on the feast of the Epiphany: the +adoration of the Magi, which took place in the first year of the +Lord’s birth; secondly, the baptism of Christ, which implies +that he was baptized on the same day thirty years later; thirdly, +this marriage, which took place on the same day one year later. It +follows from this that at least one year elapsed between his +baptism and this marriage. In that year the only things recorded to +have been done by the Lord are found in the sixth chapter of +Matthew: the fasting in the desert, and the temptation by the +devil; and what John tells us in this Gospel of the testimony by +the Baptist and the conversion of the disciples. After this +wedding, Christ began to preach publicly and to perform miracles up +to the time of his passion, so that he preached publicly for two +and one half years.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">338 In the +mystical sense, marriage signifies the union of Christ with his +Church, because as the Apostle says: “This is a great +mystery: I am speaking of Christ and his Church” (Eph 5:32). +And this marriage was begun In the womb of the Virgin, when God the +Father united a human nature to his Son in a unity of person. So, +the chamber of this union was the womb of the Virgin: “He +established a chamber for the sun” (Ps 18:6). Of this +marriage it is said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king +who married his son” (Mt 22:2), that is, when God the Father +joined a human nature to his Word in the womb of the Virgin. It was +made public when the Church was joined to him by faith: “I +will bind you to myself in faith” (Hos 2:20). We read of this +marriage: “Blessed are they who are called to the marriage +supper of the Lamb” (Rv 19:9). It will be consummated when +the bride, i.e., the Church, is led into the resting place of the +groom, i.e., into the glory of heaven.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The fact +that this marriage took place on the third day is not without it +own mystery. For the first day is the time of the law of nature; +the second day is the time of the written law. but the third day is +the time of grace, when the incarnate Lord celebrated the marriage: +“He will revive Lis after two days: on the third day he will +raise us up” (Hos 6:3).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The place +too is appropriate. For “Cana” means “zeal and +“Galilee” means “passage.” So this marriage +was celebrated in the zeal of a passage, to suggest that those +persons are most worthy of union with Christ who, burning with the +zeal of a conscientious devotion, pass over from the state of guilt +to the grace of the Church. “Pass over to me, all who desire +me” (Sir 24:26). And they pass from death to life, i.e., from +the state of mortality and misery to the state of immortality and +glory: “I make all things new” (Rv 21:5).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">339 Then the +persons invited are described. Mention is made of three: the mother +of Jesus, Jesus himself, and the disciples.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">340 The +mother of Jesus is mentioned when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the mother of Jesus was there</span>. She is +mentioned first to indicate that Jesus was still unknown and not +invited to the wedding as a famous person, but merely as one +acquaintance among others; for as they invited the mother, so also +her son. Or, perhaps his mother is invited first because they were +uncertain whether Jesus would come to a wedding if invited, because +of the unusual piety they noticed in him and because they had not +seen him at other social gatherings. So I think that they first +asked his mother whether Jesus should be invited. That is why the +Evangelist expressly said first that his mother was at the wedding, +and that later Jesus was invited.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">341 And this +is what comes next: <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus was +invited.</span> Christ decided to attend this wedding, first of +all, to give us an example of humility. For he did not look to his +own dignity, but “just as he condescended to accept the form +of a servant, so he did not hesitate to come to the marriage of +servants,” as Chrysostom says. And as Augustine says: +“Let man blush to be proud, for God became humble.” For +among his other acts of humility, the Son of the Virgin came to a +marriage, which he had already instituted in paradise when he was +with his Father. Of this example it is said: “Learn from me, +for I am gentle and humble of heart” (Mt 11:29).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">He came, +secondly, to reject the error of those who condemn marriage, for as +Bede says: “If there were sin in a holy marriage bed and in a +marriage carried out with due purity, the Lord would not have come +to the marriage.” But because he did come, he implies that +the baseness of those who denounce marriage deserves to be +condemned. “If she marries, it is not a sin” (1 Cor +7:36).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">342 The +disciples are mentioned when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and his disciples.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">343 In its +mystical meaning, the mother of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin, is +present in spiritual marriages as the one who arranges the +marriage, because it is through her intercession that one is joined +to Christ through grace: “In me is every hope of life and of +strength” (Sir 24:25). Christ is present as the true groom of +the soul, as is said below (3:29): “It is the groom who has +the bride.” The disciples are the groomsmen uniting the +Church to Christ, the one of whom it is said: “I betrothed +you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to +Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">344 At this +physical marriage some role in the miracle belongs to the mother of +Christ, some to Christ, and some to the disciples. When he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">When the wine ran out,</span> he +indicates the part of each. The role of Christ’s mother was +to superintend the miracle; the role of Christ to perform it; and +the disciples were to bear witness to it. As to the first, +Christ’s mother assumed the role of a mediatrix. Hence she +does two things. First, she intercedes with her Son. In the second +place, she instructs the servants. As to the first, two things are +mentioned. First, his mother’s intercession; secondly, the +answer of her Son.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">345 In +Mary’s intercession, note first her kindness and mercy. For +it is a quality of mercy to regard another’s distress as +one’s own, because to be merciful is to have a heart +distressed at the distress of another: “Who is weak, and I am +not weak?” (2 Cor 11:29). And so because the Blessed Virgin +was full of mercy, she desired to relieve the distress of others. +So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When the wine ran out, +the mother of Jesus said to him.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Note, +secondly, her reverence for Christ: for because of the reverence we +have for God it is sufficient for us merely to express our needs: +“Lord, all my desires are known by you” (Ps 37:10). But +it is not our business to wonder about the way in which God will +help us, for as it is said: “We do not know what we should +pray for as we ought” (Rom 8:26). And so his mother merely +told him of their need, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">They have no more wine.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Thirdly, +note the Virgin’s concern and care. For she did not wait +until they were in extreme need, but <span style= +"font-weight: bold">When the wine ran out,</span> that is, +immediately. This is similar to what is said of God: “A +helper in times of trouble” (Ps 9:10).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">346 +Chrysostom asks: Why did Mary never encourage Christ to perform any +miracles before this time? For she had been told of his power by +the angel, whose work had been confirmed by the many things she had +seen happening in his regard, all of which she remembered, thinking +them over in her heart (Lk 2:5 1). The reason is that before this +time he lived like any other person. So, because the time was not +appropriate, she put off asking him. But now, after John’s +witness to him and after the conversion of his disciples, she +trustingly prompted Christ to perform miracles. In this she was +true to the symbol of the synagogue, which is the mother of’ +Christ: for it was customary for the Jews to require miracles: +“The Jews require signs” (1 Cor 1:22).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">347 She says +to him, <span style="font-weight: bold">They have no more +wine.</span> Here we should note that before the incarnation of +Christ three wines were running out: the wine of justice, of +wisdom, and of charity or grace. Wine stings, and in this respect +it is a symbol of justice. The Samaritan poured wine and oil into +the wounds of the injured man, that is, he mingled the severity of +justice with the sweetness of mercy. “You have made us drink +the wine of sorrow” (Ps 59:5). But wine also delights the +heart, “Wine cheers the heart of man” (Ps 103:15). And +in this respect wine is a symbol of wisdom, the meditation of which +is enjoyable in the highest degree: “Her companionship has no +bitterness” (Wis 8:16). Further, wine intoxicates: +“Drink, friends, and be intoxicated, my dearly beloved” +(Sg 5:1). And in this respect wine is a symbol of charity: “I +have drunk my wine with my milk” (Sg 5:1). It is also a +symbol of charity because of charity’s fervor: “Wine +makes the virgins flourish” (Zec 9:17).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The wine of +justice was indeed running out in the old law, in which justice was +imperfect. But Christ brought it to perfection: “Unless your +justice is greater than that of the scribes and of the Pharisees, +you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:20). The +wine of wisdom was also running out, for it was hidden and +symbolic, because as it says in 1 Corinthians (10:11): “All +these things happened to them in symbol.” But Christ plainly +brought wisdom to light: “He was teaching them as one having +authority” (Mt 7:29). The wine of charity was also running +out, because they had received a spirit of serving only in fear. +But Christ converted the water of fear into the wine of charity +when he gave “the spirit of adoption as sons, by which we +cry: ‘Abba, Father’” (Rom 8:15), and when +“the charity of God was poured out into our hearts,” as +Romans (5:5) says.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">348 Then +when he says, Jesus said to her, the answer of Christ is given. +This answer has been the occasion for three heresies.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">349 The +Manicheans claim that Christ had only an imaginary body, not a real +one. Valentinus maintained that Christ assumed a celestial body and +that, as far as his body was concerned, Christ was not related to +the Virgin at all. The source of this error was that he understood, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Woman, what does that have to do +with me and you?</span> as if it meant: “I have received +nothing from you.” But this is contrary to the authority of +Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle says: “God sent his Son, +made from a woman” (Gal 4:4). Now Christ could not be said to +have been made from her, unless he had taken something from her. +Further, Augustine argues against them: “How do you know that +our Lord said, <span style="font-weight: bold">What does that have +to do with me and you?</span> You reply that it is because John +says so. But he also says that the Virgin was the mother of Christ. +So, if you believe the Evangelist when he states that Jesus said +this to his mother, you should also believe him when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and the mother of Jesus was +there</span>.”</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">350 Then +there was Ebion who said that Christ was conceived from a +man’s seed, and Elvidius, who said that the Virgin did not +remain a virgin after childbirth. They were deceived by the fact +that he said, Woman, which seems to imply the loss of virginity. +But this is false, for in Sacred Scripture the word +“woman” sometimes refers merely to the female sex, as +it does in “made from a woman” (Gal 4:4). This is +obvious also by the fact that Adam, speaking to God about Eve, +said: “The woman whom you gave me as a companion, gave me +fruit from the tree, and I ate it” (Gn 3:12); for Eve was +still a virgin in Paradise, where Adam had not know her. Hence the +fact that the mother of Christ is here called “woman” +in this Gospel does not imply a loss of virginity, but refers to +her sex.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">351 The +Priscillianists, however, erred by misunderstanding the words of +Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">My time has not yet +come.</span> They claimed that all things happen by fate, and that +the actions of men, including those of Christ, are subject to +predetermined times. And that is why, according to them, Christ +said, <span style="font-weight: bold">My time has not yet +come.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">But this is +false for any man. For since man has free choice, and this is +because he has reason and will, both of which are spiritual, then +obviously, as far as choice is concerned, man, so far from being +subject to bodies, is really their master. For spiritual things are +superior to material things, so much so that the Philosopher says +that the wise man is master of the stars. Further, their heresy is +even less true of Christ, who is the Lord and Creator of the stars. +Thus when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">My time has not +yet come,</span> he is referring to the time of his passion, which +was fixed for him, not by necessity, according to divine +providence. What is said in Sirach (33:7) is also contrary to their +opinion: “Why is one day better than another?” And the +answer is: “They have been differentiated by the knowledge of +the Lord,” i.e., they were differentiated from one another +not by chance, but by God’s providence.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">352 Since we +have eliminated the above opinions, let us look for the reason why +our Lord answered, <span style="font-weight: bold">Woman, what does +that have to do with me and you?</span> For Augustine, Christ has +two natures, the divine and the human. And although the same Christ +exists in each, nevertheless things appropriate to him according to +his human nature are distinct from what is appropriate to him +according to his divine nature. Now to perform miracles is +appropriate to him according to his divine nature, which he +received from the Father; while to suffer is according to his human +nature, which he received from his mother. So when his mother +requests this miracle, he answers, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Woman, what does that have to do with me and +you?</span> as if saying: I did not receive from you that in me +which enables me to perform miracles, but that which enables me to +suffer, i.e., that which makes it appropriate for me to suffer, +i.e., I have received a human nature from you. And so I will +recognize you when this weakness hangs on the cross. And so he +continues with, <span style="font-weight: bold">My time has not yet +come.</span> As if to say: I will recognize you as my mother when +the time of my passion arrives. And so it was that on the cross he +entrusted his mother to the disciple.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">353 +Chrysostom explains this differently. He says that the Blessed +Virgin, burning with zeal for the honor of her Son, wanted Christ +to perform miracles at once, before it was opportune; but that +Christ, being much wiser than his mother, restrained her. For he +was unwilling to perform the miracle before the need for it was +known; otherwise, it would have been less appreciated and less +credible. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Woman, +what does that have to do with me and you?</span> As if to say: Why +bother me? <span style="font-weight: bold">My time has not yet +come</span>, i.e., I am not yet known to those present. Nor do they +know that the wine ran out; and they must first know this, because +when they know their need they will have a greater appreciation of +the benefit they will receive.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">354 Now +although his mother was refused, she did not lose hope in her +Son’s mercy. So she instructs the servants, Do whatever he +tells you, in which, indeed, consists the perfection of all +justice. For perfect justice consists in obeying Christ in all +things: “We will do all that the Lord commanded us” (Ex +29:35). Do whatever he tells you, is fittingly said of God alone, +for man can err now and then. Hence in matters that are against +God, we are not held to obey men: “We ought to obey God +rather than men” (Acts 5:29). We ought to obey God, who does +not err and cannot be deceived, in all things.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">355 Now +Christ’s completion of the miracle is set forth. First, the +vessels in which the miracle was performed are described. Secondly, +the matter of the miracle is stated (v 7). Thirdly, we have how the +miracle was made known and approved (v 8).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">356 The +miracle was performed in six vessels; <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Now there were six stone water jars near +by.</span> Here we should note, that as mentioned in Mark (7:2), +the Jews observed many bodily washings and the cleansing of their +cups and dishes. So, because they were in Palestine where there wis +a shortage of water, they had vessels in which they kept the purest +water to be used for washing themselves and their utensils. Hence +he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">there were six stone water +jars near by,</span> i.e., vessels for holding water, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">for purifications according to Jewish +customs,</span> i.e., to use for <span style= +"font-weight: bold">purification, each holding two or three +metretes</span> of liquid, that is, two or three measures; for the +Greek “metrete” is the same as the Latin +“mensura.”</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">These jars +were standing there, as Chrysostom says, in order to eliminate any +suspicion about the miracle: both on account of their cleanliness, +lest anyone suspect that the water had acquired the taste of wine +from the dregs of wine previously stored in them, for these jars +were standing there <span style="font-weight: bold">for +purifications according to Jewish customs,</span> and so had to be +very pure; and also on account of the capacity of the jars, so that +it would be abundantly clear that the water in such jars could be +changed into wine only by divine power.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">357 In the +mystical sense, the six water jars signify the six eras of the Old +Testament during which the hearts of men were prepared and made +receptive of God’s Scriptures, and put forward as an example +for our lives.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The term +<span style="font-weight: bold">metretes</span>, according to +Augustine, refers to the Trinity of persons. And they are described +as <span style="font-weight: bold">two or three</span> because at +times in Scripture three persons in the Trinity are distinctly +mentioned: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of +the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19), and at other +times only two, the Father and the Son, in whom the Holy Spirit, +who is the union of the two, is implied: “If anyone loves me, +he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come +to him” (below 14:23). Or they are described as two on +account of the two states of mankind from which the Church arose, +that is, Jews and Gentiles. Or three on account of the three sons +of Noe, from whom the human race arose after the deluge.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">358 Then +when he says that Jesus instructed them, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Fill those jars with water,</span> he gives the +material of the miracle. Here we might ask why this miracle was +performed with already existing material, and not from nothing. +There are three reasons for this. The first reason is literal, and +is given by Chrysostom: to make something from nothing is much +greater and more marvelous than to make something from material +already existing; but it is not so evident and believable to many. +And so, wishing to make what he did more believable, Christ made +wine from water, thus condescending to man’s capacity.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Another +reason was to refute wrong dogmas. For there are some (as the +Marcionists and Manicheans) who said that the founder of the world +was someone other than God, and that all visible things were +established by such a one, that is, the devil. And so the Lord +performed many miracles using created and visible substances in +order to show that these substances are good and were created by +God.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The third +reason is mystical. Christ made the wine from water, and not from +nothing, in order to show that he was not laying down an entirely +new doctrine and rejecting the old, but was fulfilling the old: +“I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it” +(Mt 5:17). In other words, what was prefigured and promised in the +old law, was disclosed and revealed by Christ: “Then he +opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” +(Lk 24:45).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Finally, he +had the servants fill the jars with water so that he might have +witnesses to what he did; so it is said, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the servants knew, since they had drawn the +water.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">359 Then, +the miracle is made known. For as soon as the jars were filled, the +water was turned into wine. So the Lord reveals the miracle at +once, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">Now pour out a drink +and take it to the head waiter.</span> First, we have the command +of Christ selecting who is to test the wine; secondly, the judgment +of the head waiter who tasted it.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">360 +<span style="font-weight: bold">Then Jesus said to them,</span> +i.e., to the servants, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now pour out +a drink,</span> that is, of wine, from the jars, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and take it to the head waiter</span> (<i>arch +itriclin us</i>)<i>.</i> Here we should note that a +<i>triclinium</i> is a place where there are three rows of tables, +and it is called a <i>trichinium</i> from its three rows of dining +couches: for <i>cline</i> in Greek means couch. For the ancients +were accustomed to eat reclining on couches, ais Maximus Valerius +recounts. This is the reason why the Scriptures speak of lying next +to and lying down. Thus the <i>architriclinus</i> was (fie first +and chief among those dining. Or, according to Chrysostom, the +<i>architriclinus</i> was the one in charge of the whole banquet. +And because he had been busy and had not tasted anything, the Lord +wanted him, and not the guests, to be the judge of what had been +done, so some could not detract from the miracle by saying the +guests were drunk and, their senses dulled, could not tell wine +from water. For Augustine, the <i>architriclinus</i> was the chief +guest, as was inentioned; and Christ wanted to have the opinion of +this person in high position so it would be more acceptable.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">361 In the +mystical sense, those who pour out the water are preachers: +“With joy you will draw water from the springs of the +Savior” (Is 12:3). And the <i>architriclinus is</i> someone +skilled in the law, as Nicodenius, Gamaliel or Paul. So, when the +word of the Gospel, which was hidden under the letter of the law, +is entrusted to such persons, it is as though wine made from water +is poured out for the <i>architriclinus</i>, who, when he tastes +it, gives his assent to the faith of Christ.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">362 Then the +judgment of the one examining the wine is given. First, he inquires +into the truth of the fact; secondly, he gives his opinion.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">He says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Now when the head waiter tasted the +water made wine, and not knowing where it came from,</span> because +he did not know that the water had miraculously been made wine by +Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">although the servants +knew,</span> the reason being, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">since they had drawn the water, he called the +groom over,</span> in order to learn the truth and give his opinion +of the wine. Hence he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">People +usually serve the choice wines first, and when the guests have had +their fill, then they bring out inferior wine.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Here we +should consider, according to Chrysostom, that everything is most +perfect in the miracles of Christ. Thus, he restored most complete +health to Peter’s mother-in-law, so that she arose at once +and waited on them, as we read in Mark (1:30) and Matthew (7:14). +Again, he restored the paralytic to health so perfectly that he +also arose immediately, took up his mat, and went home, as we read +below (5:9). And this is also evident in this miracle, because +Christ did not make mediocre wine from the water, but the very best +possible. And so the head waiter says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">People usually serve the choice wines first, +and when the guests have had their fill, then they bring out +inferior wine,</span> because they drink less, and because good +wine consumed in quantity along with a quantity of food causes +greater discomfort. It is as though he were saying: Where did this +very good wine come from which, contrary to custom, you saved until +now?</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">363 This is +appropriate to a mystery. For in the mystical sense, he serves good +wine first who, with an intent to deceive others, does not first +mention the error he intends, but other things that entice his +hearers, so that he can disclose his evil plans after they have +been intoxicated and enticed to consent. We read of such wine: +“It goes down pleasantly, but finally it will bite like a +serpent” (Prv 23:3 1). Again, he serves good wine first who +begins to live in a saintly and spiritual manner at the start of +his conversion, but later sinks into a carnal life: “Are you +so foolish as, having begun in the Spirit, to end in the +flesh?” (Gal 3:3).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Christ, +however, does not serve the good wine first, for at the outset he +proposes things that are bitter and hard: “Narrow is the way +that leads to life” (Mt 7:14). Yet the more progress a person +makes in his faith and teaching, the more pleasant it becomes and +he becomes aware of a greater sweetness: “I will lead You by +the path of justice, and when you walk you will not be +hindered” (Prv 4:11). Likewise, all those who desire to live +conscientiously in Christ stiffer bitterness and troubles in this +world: “You will weep and mourn” (below 16:20). But +later they will experience delights and joys. So he goes on: +“but your sorrow will be turned into joy.” “I +consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to +be compared with the glory to come, which will be revealed in +us,” as is said in Romans (8:18).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">364 Then +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This beginning of +signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee,</span> he gives the +disciples’ acknowledgment of the miracle. We can see from +this the falsity of the <i>History of the Infancy of the +Savior,</i> which recounts many miracles worked by Christ as a boy. +For if these accounts were true, the Evangelist would not have +said, <span style="font-weight: bold">This beginning of signs Jesus +worked.</span> We have already given the reason why Christ worked +no miracles during his childhood, that is, lest men regard them as +illusions.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">It was for +the reason given above, then, that Jesus performed this miracle of +turning water into wine at Cana of Galilee; and this was the first +of the signs he did. <span style="font-weight: bold">And Jesus +revealed his glory,</span> i.e., the power by which he is glorious: +“The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory” (Ps +23:10).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">365 +<span style="font-weight: bold">And his disciples believed in +him.</span> But how did they believe? For they already were his +disciples and had believed before this. I answer that sometimes a +thing is described not according to what it is at the time, but +according to what it will be. For example, we say that the apostle +Paul was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia; not that an actual apostle was +born there, but a future one was. Similarly, it says here that +<span style="font-weight: bold">his disciples believed in +him,</span> i.e., those who would be his disciples. Or, one might +answer that previously they had believed in him as a good man, +preaching what was right and just; but now they believed in him as +God.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">LECTURE 2</span></p> +<blockquote> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">12 After +this he went down to Capernaum together with his mother, his +brethren and his disciples; but they did not remain there many +clays. 13 The Jewish Passover was near at hand, and Jesus went up +to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple precincts he came upon merchants +selling oxen, sheep and doves, and moneychangers seated at tables. +15 And when he had made a kind of whip from cords, he drove +everyone, including sheep and oxen, out of the temple, swept away +the gold of the money changers, and knocked over their tables. 16 +To those selling doves he said, “Get Out of here! And stop +making my Father’s house into a marketplace.” 17 His +disciples then remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your +house consumes me.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">366 Above, +the Evangelist presented the sign Christ worked in order to confirm +his disciples; and this sign pertained to his power to change +nature. Now he deals with the sign of his resurrection; a sign +pertaining to the same power, but proposed by Christ to convert the +people.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The +Evangelist does two things as to this miracle. First, he mentions +its occasion. Secondly, the prediction of the miracle (v 18). As to +the first he does two things. First, he describes the place. +Secondly, he tells of the incident which was the occasion for +proposing this miracle (v 14). Now the place where this happened +was Jerusalem. And so the Evangelist recounts step by step how the +Lord had come to Jerusalem. First, then, he shows how he went down +to Capernaum. Secondly, how he then went up to Jerusalem. As to the +first he does three things. First, he mentions the place to which +he went down. Secondly, he describes his company. Thirdly, he mentions the length of his stay.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">367 The place to which Christ went down was Capernaum; and so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">After this, </span>i.e., the -miracle of the wine, <span style="font-weight: bold">he went down to Capernaum. </span>Now as far as the historical truth is -concerned, this seems to conflict with Matthew’s account that the Lord went down to Capernaum -after John had been thrown into prison (Mt 4:12), while the entire series of events the Evangelist -refers to here took place before John’s imprisonment.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">I answer that in order to settle this question we should bear in mind what is learned from the -<i>Ecclesiastical History, </i>that is, that the other Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, began their -account of the public life of Christ from the time that John was thrown into prison. Thus -Matthew (4:12), after describing the baptism, fast and temptation of Christ, began at once to -weave his story after John’s imprisonment, saying: “When Jesus heard that John had been -arrested.” And Mark (1:14) says the same: “After John had been arrested, Jesus came into -Galilee.” John, who outlived the other three Evangelists, approved the accuracy and truth of their -accounts when they came to his notice. Yet he saw that certain things had been left unsaid, -namely, things which the Lord had done in the very first days of his preaching before John’s -imprisonment. And so, at the request of the faithful, John, after he began his own Gospel in a -loftier manner, recorded events that took place during the first year in which Christ was baptized -before John’s imprisonment, as is plain from the order of the events in his Gospel. According to -this, then, the Evangelists are not in disagreement. Rather, the Lord went down to Capernaum -twice: once before John’s imprisonment (which is the one dealt with here), and once after his -imprisonment, which is dealt with in Matthew (4:13) and Luke (4:31 ).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">368 Now “Capernaum” means “very pretty village,” and signifies this world, which has its beauty -from the order and disposition of divine wisdom: “The beauty of the land is mine” (Ps 49:2). So -the Lord went down to Capernaum, i.e., this world, with his mother and brethren and disciples. -For in heaven the Lord has a Father without a mother; and on earth a mother without a father. -Thus, he significantly mentions only his mother. In heaven he does not have brothers either, but -is “the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” (above 1:18). But on earth he is -“the Firstborn of many brothers” (Rom 8:29). And on earth he has disciples, to whom he can -teach the mysteries of the divinity, which were not known to men before: “In these days he has -spoken to us in his Son” as we read in Hebrews (1:1).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Or, “Capernaum” means “the field of consolation”; and this signifies every man who bears good -fruit: “The odor of my son is like the odor of a fruitful field” (Gn 27:27). Such a person is called -a field of consolation because the Lord is consoled and rejoices in his achievement: “God will -rejoice over you” (Is 62:5), and because the angels rejoice over his good: “There is joy in the -angels of God over one repentant sinner” (Lk 15:10).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">369 His companions were, first of all, his mother. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">with his mother, </span>for because she -had come to the wedding and had brought about the miracle, the Lord accompanied her back to -the village of Nazareth. Nazareth was a village in Galilee, whose chief town was Capernaum.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">370 Secondly, his companions were his brethren; and so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">his brethren </span>(<i>fratres, </i>brothers, -brethren). We must avoid two errors here. First, that of Elvidius, who said that the Blessed Virgin -had other sons after Christ; and he called these the brothers of the Lord. This is heretical, because -our faith maintains that just as the mother of Christ was a virgin before giving birth, so in giving -birth and after giving birth, she remained a virgin. We must also avoid the error of those who say -that Joseph fathered sons with another wife, and that these are called the brothers of the Lord; +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">367 The +place to which Christ went down was Capernaum; and so he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">After this,</span> i.e., the +miracle of the wine, <span style="font-weight: bold">he went down +to Capernaum.</span> Now as far as the historical truth is +concerned, this seems to conflict with Matthew’s account that +the Lord went down to Capernaum after John had been thrown into +prison (Mt 4:12), while the entire series of events the Evangelist +refers to here took place before John’s imprisonment.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">I answer +that in order to settle this question we should bear in mind what +is learned from the <i>Ecclesiastical History,</i> that is, that +the other Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, began their account +of the public life of Christ from the time that John was thrown +into prison. Thus Matthew (4:12), after describing the baptism, +fast and temptation of Christ, began at once to weave his story +after John’s imprisonment, saying: “When Jesus heard +that John had been arrested.” And Mark (1:14) says the same: +“After John had been arrested, Jesus came into +Galilee.” John, who outlived the other three Evangelists, +approved the accuracy and truth of their accounts when they came to +his notice. Yet he saw that certain things had been left unsaid, +namely, things which the Lord had done in the very first days of +his preaching before John’s imprisonment. And so, at the +request of the faithful, John, after he began his own Gospel in a +loftier manner, recorded events that took place during the first +year in which Christ was baptized before John’s imprisonment, +as is plain from the order of the events in his Gospel. According +to this, then, the Evangelists are not in disagreement. Rather, the +Lord went down to Capernaum twice: once before John’s +imprisonment (which is the one dealt with here), and once after his +imprisonment, which is dealt with in Matthew (4:13) and Luke (4:31 +).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">368 Now +“Capernaum” means “very pretty village,” +and signifies this world, which has its beauty from the order and +disposition of divine wisdom: “The beauty of the land is +mine” (Ps 49:2). So the Lord went down to Capernaum, i.e., +this world, with his mother and brethren and disciples. For in +heaven the Lord has a Father without a mother; and on earth a +mother without a father. Thus, he significantly mentions only his +mother. In heaven he does not have brothers either, but is +“the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the +Father” (above 1:18). But on earth he is “the Firstborn +of many brothers” (Rom 8:29). And on earth he has disciples, +to whom he can teach the mysteries of the divinity, which were not +known to men before: “In these days he has spoken to us in +his Son” as we read in Hebrews (1:1).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Or, +“Capernaum” means “the field of +consolation”; and this signifies every man who bears good +fruit: “The odor of my son is like the odor of a fruitful +field” (Gn 27:27). Such a person is called a field of +consolation because the Lord is consoled and rejoices in his +achievement: “God will rejoice over you” (Is 62:5), and +because the angels rejoice over his good: “There is joy in +the angels of God over one repentant sinner” (Lk 15:10).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">369 His +companions were, first of all, his mother. So he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">with his mother,</span> for because she had +come to the wedding and had brought about the miracle, the Lord +accompanied her back to the village of Nazareth. Nazareth was a +village in Galilee, whose chief town was Capernaum.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">370 +Secondly, his companions were his brethren; and so he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">his brethren</span> +(<i>fratres,</i> brothers, brethren). We must avoid two errors +here. First, that of Elvidius, who said that the Blessed Virgin had +other sons after Christ; and he called these the brothers of the +Lord. This is heretical, because our faith maintains that just as +the mother of Christ was a virgin before giving birth, so in giving +birth and after giving birth, she remained a virgin. We must also +avoid the error of those who say that Joseph fathered sons with +another wife, and that these are called the brothers of the Lord; for the Church does not admit this.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Jerome refutes this opinion: for on the cross the Lord entrusted his virgin mother to the care of -his virgin disciple. Therefore, since Joseph was the special guardian of the Virgin, and of the -Savior too, in his childhood, one may believe that he was a virgin. Consequently, it is a -reasonable interpretation to say that the brothers of the Lord were those related to his virgin -mother in some degree of consanguinity, or even to Joseph, who was the reputed father. And this -conforms to the custom of Scripture which generally refers to relatives as brothers. Thus we read: -“Let us not quarrel, for we are brothers” (Gn 13:8), as Abram said to Lot, who was his nephew. -And note that he distinguishes between relatives and disciples, because not all of Christ’s -relatives were his disciples; hence we read: “Even his brethren did not believe in him” (below -7:5) .</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">371 Thirdly, his disciples were his companions; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and his disciples. </span>But who were -his disciples? For it seems, according to Matthew, that the first ones to be converted to Christ -were Peter and Andrew, John and James; but they were called after John’s imprisonment, as is -clear from Matthew (4:18). Thus it does not seem that they went down to Capernaum with Christ, -as it says here, since this was before John’s imprisonment.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">There are two answers to this. One is from Augustine, in his <i>De Consensu Evangelistarum, -</i>namely, that Matthew does not follow the historical order, but in summarizing what he omitted, -relates events that occurred before John’s imprisonment as though they happened after. So, -without any suggestion of a time lapse he says, “As Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he -saw two brothers” (Mt 4:18), without adding “after this” or “at that time.” The other answer, also -by Augustine, is that in the Gospel not only the twelve whom the Lord chose and named apostles -are called disciples of the Lord (Lk 6:13), but also all who believed in him and were instructed -for the kingdom of heaven by his teaching. Therefore, it is possible that although those twelve -did not yet follow him, others who adhered to him are called disciples here. But the first answer -is better.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">372 His stay there was short; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">but they did not remain there many days. </span>The -reason for this was that the citizens of Capernaum were not eager to accept the teachings of -Christ, being very corrupt, so that in Matthew (11:23) the Lord rebukes them for not doing -penance in spite of the miracles done there and of Christ’s teaching: “And you Capernaum, will -you be lifted up to heaven? You will go down to hell. For if the mighty works that were done in -you had been performed in Sodom, it would have stood until this day.” But although they were -evil, he went there to accompany his mother, and to stay there for a few days for her consolation -and honor.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">373 As for its mystical sense, this signifies that some cannot remain long with the many words -spoken by Christ; a few of these words are enough for them, to enlighten them, because of the -weakness of their understanding. Hence as Origen said, Christ reveals few things to such persons, -according to “I have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now” (Jn 16:12).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">374 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Jewish Passover was near at hand,</span> he mentions the place to -which he went tip. And concerning this he does two things. First, the occasion is given. Secondly, -the going up.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">375 Now the occasion for his going up was the Jewish Passover. For in Exodus (13:17) it is -commanded that every male be presented to the Lord three times a year; and one of these times -was the Jewish Passover. So, since the Lord came to teach everyone by his example of humility -and perfection, he wished to observe the law as long as it was in force. For he did not come to -destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17). And so, because the Passover of the Jews was at hand, -he went up to Jerusalem. So we, after his example, should carefully observe the divine precepts. -For if the Son of God fulfilled the decrees of a law he himself had given, and celebrated the great -feasts, with what zeal for good works ought we both to prepare for them and observe them?</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">376 It should be noted that in John’s Gospel mention is made of the Passover in three passages: -here, and in (6:4), when he worked the miracle of the loaves, where it is said: “Now the Jewish -Passover was near at hand” , and again in (13:1), where it says: “Before the feast day of the -Passover.” So, according to this Gospel, we understand that after the miracle of the wine Christ -preached for two years plus the interval between his baptism and this Passover. For what he did -here occurred near the Passover, as it says here, and then a year later, near the time of another -Passover, he performed the miracle of the loaves, and in the same year John was beheaded. Thus -John was beheaded near the time of the Passover, because we read in Matthew (14:13) that -immediately after John was beheaded Christ withdrew to the desert, where he worked the miracle -of the loaves; and this miracle took place near Passover time, as stated below (6:4). Nevertheless, -the feast of this beheading of John is celebrated on the day his head was found. It was later, -during another Passover, that Christ suffered.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">So, according to the opinion of those who say that the miracle worked at the wedding and the -events being discussed here occurred in the same year in which Christ was baptized, there was -an interval of two and one half years between Christ’s baptism and his passion. So, according to -them, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Jewish Passover was near at hand, </span>in order to show that Christ -had been baptized just a few days before.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">But the Church holds the opposite. For we believe that Christ worked the miracle of the wine on -the first anniversary of the day of his baptism; then a year later, near Passover time, John was -beheaded; and then there was another year between the Passover near which John was beheaded -and the Passover during which Christ suffered. So between the baptism of Christ and the miracle -of the wine there had to be another Passover which the Evangelist does not mention. And so, -according to what the Church holds, Christ preached for three and one half years.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">377 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Jewish Passover, </span>not as though the people of other nations celebrated a -Passover, but for two reasons. One, because when people celebrate a feast in a holy and pure -way, it is said that they celebrate it for the Lord; but when they celebrate it in neither of those -ways, they do not celebrate it for the Lord, but for themselves: “My soul hates your new moons -and your feasts” (Is 1:14). It is as though he said: Those who celebrate for themselves and not for -me, do not please me: “When you fasted, did you fast for me?” (Zec 7:5), as if to say: You did -not do it for me, but for yourselves. And so because these Jews were corrupt and celebrated their -Passover in an unbecoming manner, the Evangelist does not say, “the Passover of the Lord,” but -the Jewish Passover was at hand.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Or, he says this to differentiate it from our Passover. For the Passover of the Jews Was symbolic, -being celebrated by the immolation of a lamb which was a symbol. But our Passover is true, in -which we recall the true passing [passion] of the Immaculate Lamb: “Christ, our Passover, has -been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">378 The journey was to Jerusalem, and so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. </span>Note here -that according to the historical order, Jesus went up to Jerusalem near the time of the Passover -and expelled the merchants from the temple on two occasions. The first, before John’s -imprisonment, is the one the Evangelist mentions here; the other is mentioned by Matthew -(21:13) as occurring when the Passover and the hour of his passion were at hand. For the Lord -frequently repeated works that were similar. For example, the two cases of giving sight to the -blind: one in Matthew (9:28) and another in Mark (10:46). In like manner he twice cast -merchants from the temple.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">379 In the mystical sense, Jesus went up to Jerusalem, which is translated as the “vision of -peace,” and signifies eternal happiness. It is to here that Jesus ascended, and he took his own with -him. There is no lack of mystery in the fact that he went down to Capernaum and later went up -to Jerusalem. For if he did not first go down, he would not have been suited to go up, because, -as it is said: “He who descended is the same as he who ascended” (Eph 4:10). Further, no -mention is made of the disciples in the ascent to Jerusalem because the ascent of the disciples -comes from the ascent of Christ: “No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down -from heaven, the Son of Man, who lives in heaven” (below 3:13).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">380 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the temple precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, sheep -and doves, </span>the Evangelist sets down what moved Christ to propose the sign of the resurrection. -He does three things with this. First, he exposes the faulty behavior of the Jews. Secondly, he -discloses Christ’s remedy (v 15). Thirdly, he gives the announcement of the prophecy (v 22).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">381 With respect to the first, we should note that the devil plots against the things of God and -strives to destroy them. Now among the means by which he destroys holy things, the chief is -avarice; hence it is said: “The shepherds have no understanding. All have turned aside to their -own way; everyone after his own gain, from the first one to the last” (Is 56:11). And the devil has -done this from the earliest times. For the priests of the Old Testament, who had been established -to care for divine matters, gave free rein to avarice. God commanded, in the law, that animals -should be sacrificed to the Lord on certain feasts. And in order to fulfill this command, those who -lived nearby brought the animals with them. But those who came a long distance were unable to -bring animals from their own homes. And so because offerings of this kind resulted in profit for -the priests, and so animals to offer would not be lacking to those who came from a distance, the -priests themselves saw to it that animals were sold in the temple. And so they had them shown -for sale in the temple, i.e., in the atrium of the temple. And this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">In the temple -precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, sheep and doves.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Mention is first made of two land animals, which according to the law could be offered to the -Lord: the ox and the sheep. The third land animal offered, the goat, is implied when he says -“sheep”, similarly, the turtle-dove is included when he says “doves.”</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">382 It sometimes happened that some came to the temple not only without animals, but also -without money to buy them. And so the priests found another avenue for their avarice; they set -up moneychangers who would lend money to those who came without it. And although they -would not accept a usurious gain, because this was forbidden in the law, nevertheless in place -of this they accepted certain “<i>collibia</i>”, i.e., trifles and small gifts. So this also was turned to the -profit of the priests. And this is what he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">moneychangers seated at tables, </span>i.e., in the -temple, ready to lend money.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">383 This can be understood mystically in three ways. First of all, the merchants signify those who -sell or buy the things of the Church: for the oxen, sheep and doves signify the spiritual goods of -the Church and the things connected with them. These goods have been consecrated and -authenticated by the teachings of the apostles and doctors, signified by the oxen: “When there -is an abundant harvest the strength of the ox is evident” (Prv 14:4); and by the blood of the -martyrs, who are signified by the sheep: so it is said for them: “We are regarded as sheep for the -slatighter” (Rom 8:36): and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, signified by the doves, for as stated -above, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. Therefore, those who presume to sell the -spiritual goods of the Church and the goods connected with them are selling the teachings of the -apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Secondly, it happens that certain prelates or heads of churches sell these oxen, sheep and doves, -not overtly by simony, but covertly by negligence; that is, when they are so eager for and -occupied with temporal gain that they neglect the spiritual welfare of their subjects. And this is -the way they sell the oxen, sheep and doves, i.e., the three classes of people subject to them. First -of all, they sell the preachers and laborers, who are signified by the oxen: “Happy are you who -sow beside all the streams, letting the ox and the donkey range free” (Is 32:20);.because prelates -ought to arrange the oxen, i.e., teachers and wise men, with the donkeys, i.e., the simple and -uneducated. They also sell those in the active life, and those occupied with ministering, signified -by the sheep: “My sheep hear my voice” (below 10:27); and as is said in 2 Samuel (24:17): “But -these, who are the sheep, what have they done?” They also sell the contemplatives, signified by -the doves: “Who will give me wings like a dove, and I will fly?” (Ps 54:7).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Thirdly, by the temple of God we can understand the spiritual soul, as it says: “The temple of -God is holy, and that is what you are” (1 Cor 3:17). Thus a man sells oxen, sheep and doves in -the temple when he harbors bestial movements in his soul, for which he sells himself to the devil. -For oxen, which are used for cultivating the earth, signify earthly desires; sheep, which are stupid -animals, signify man’s obstinacy; and the doves signify man’s instability. It is God who drives -these things out of men’s hearts.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">384 The Lord’s remedy is at once set forth (v 15). Here the Lord’s remedy consisted in action and -in words, in order to instruct those who have charge of the Church that they must correct their -subjects in deed and in word. And he does two things with respect to this. First, he gives the -remedy Christ applied by his action. Secondly, the remedy he applied by word (v 16).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">385 As to the first he does three things. First, he drives the men out. Secondly, the oxen and -sheep. Thirdly, he sweeps away the money.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">He drives the men out with a whip; and this is what he <span style="font-weight: bold">says, when he had made a kind of whip -from cords. </span>This is something that could be done only by divine power. For as Origen says, the -divine power of Jesus was as able, when he willed, to quench the swelling anger of men as to still -the stornis of minds: “The Lord brings to nought the thoughts of men” (Ps 32:10). He makes the -whip from cords because, as Augustine says, it is from our own sins that he forms the matter with -which he punishes us: for a series of sins, in which sins are added to sins, is called a cord: “He -is bound fast by the cords of his own sins” (Prv 5:22); “Woe to you who haul wickedness with -cords” (Is 5:18). Then, just as he drove the merchants from the temple, so he swept away the gold -of the moneychangers and knocked over their tables.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">386 And mark well that if he expelled from the temple things that seemed somehow licit, in the -sense that they were ordained to the worship of God, how much more if he comes upon unlawful -things? The reason he cast them out was because in this matter the priests did not intend God’s -glory, but their own profit. Hence it is said: “It is for yourselves that you placed guardians of my -service in my sancturay” (Ez 44:8)</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Further, our Lord showed zeal for the things of the law so that he might by this answer the chief -priests and the priests who were later to bring a charge against him on this very point. Again, by -casting things of this kind out of the temple he let it be understood that the time was coming in -which the sacrifices of the law were due to cease, and the true worship of God transferred to the -Gentiles: “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you” (Mt 21:43). Also, this shows us -the condemnation of those who sell spiritual things: “May your money perish together with you” -(Acts 8:20).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">387 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">To those selling doves he said, </span>he records the treatment which the Lord -applied by word. Here it should be noted that those who engage in simony should, of course, first -be expelled from the Church. But because as long as they are alive, they can change themselves -by free will and by the help of God return to the state of grace, they should not be given up as -hopeless. If, however, they are not converted, then they are not merely to be expelled, but handed -over to those to whom it is said: “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness” (Mt -22:13). And so the Lord, attending to this, first warns them, and then gives the reason for his -warning, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">stop making my Father’s house into a marketplace.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">388 He warns those selling the doves by reproaching them, for they signify those who sell the -gifts of the Holy Spirit, i.e., those who engage in simony.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">389 He gives his reason for this when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">stop making my Father’s house into a -marketplace. </span>“Take away your evil from my sight” (Is 1:10). Note that Matthew (2 1:13) says: -“Do not make my house a den of thieves,” while here he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">a marketplace. </span>Now the Lord -does this because, as a good physician, he begins first with the gentler things; later on, he would -propose harsher things. Now the action recorded here was the first of the two; hence in the -beginning he does not call them thieves but merchants. But because they did not stop such -business out of obstinacy, the Lord, when driving them out the second time (as mentioned in -Mark 11:15), rebukes them more severely, calling robbery what he had first called business.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">my Father’s house, </span>to exclude the error of Manicheus, who said that while the God of -the New Testament was the Father of Christ, the God of the Old Testament was not. But if this -were true, then since the temple was the house of the Old Testament, Christ would not have -referred to the temple as <span style="font-weight: bold">my Father’s house.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">390 Why were the Jews not disturbed here when he called God his Father, for as is said below -(5:18), this is why they persecuted him? I answer that God is the Father of certain men through -adoption; for example, he is the Father of the just in this way. This was not a new idea for the -Jews: “You will call me Father, and you will not cease to walk after me” (Jer 3:19). However, -by nature he is the Father of Christ alone: “The Lord said to me: ‘You are my Son’ “ (Ps 2:7), i.e., -the true and natural Son. It is this that was unheard of among the Jews. And so the Jews -persecuted him because he called himself the true Son of God: “the Jews tried all the harder to -kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his own Father, making -himself equal to God” (below 5:18). But when he called God his Father on this occasion, they -said it was by adoption.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">391 That the house of God shall not be made a marketplace is taken from-Zechariah (14:21): “On -that day there will no longer be any merchants in the house of the Lord of hosts”; and from the -Psalm (70:16), where one version has the reading: “Because I was not part of the marketplace, -I will enter into the strength of the Lord.”</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">392 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">His disciples then remembered, </span>he sets down a prophecy which was -written in Psalm 69 (v 9): “Zeal for your house consumes me.” Here we should remark that zeal, -properly speaking, signifies an intensity of love, whereby the one who loves intensely does not -tolerate anything which is repugnant to his love. So it is that men who love their wives intensely -and cannot endure their being in the company of other men, as this conflicts with their own love, -are called “zelotypes.” Thus, properly speaking, one is said to have zeal for God who cannot -patiently endure anything contrary to the honor of God, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoin</span> he loves above all else: “I have -been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts” (1 Kgs 19:10). Now we should love the house of -the Lord, according to the Psalm (25:8): “O Lord, I have loved the beauty of your house.” Indeed, -we should love it so much that our zeal consumes us, so that if we notice anything amiss being -done, we should try to eliminate it, no matter how dear to us are those who are doing it; nor -should we fear any evils that we might have to endure as a result. So the Gloss says: “Good zeal -is a fervor of spirit, by which, scorning the fear of death, one is on fire for the defense of the -truth. He is consumed by it who takes steps to correct any perversity he sees; and if he cannot, -he tolerates it with sadness.”</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p> -<BLOCKQUOTE><p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">18 At this the Jews responded and said, “What sign can you show us authorizing you to do these -things?” 19 Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.” 20 The -Jews then retorted, “This temple took forty-six years to build, and you are going to raise it up -again in three days!” 21 He was speaking, however, of the temple of his body. 22 When, -therefore, he had risen from the dead, his disciples recalled that he had said this; they then -believed the Scriptures and the statement Jesus had made. 23 While he was in Jerusalem during -the Passover feast, many people, seeing the signs he was working, believed in his name. 24 But -Jesus did not trust himself to them, for he knew all men, 25 and he did not need anyone to give -him testimony about men. He was well aware of what was in man’s heart.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">393 Having set forth the occasion for showing the sign, the Evangelist then states the sign which -would be given. First, he gives the sign. Secondly, he mentions the fruit of the signs Christ -performed (v 23). As to the first he does three things. First, the request for the sign is given. -Secondly, the sign itself (v 19). Thirdly, the way the sign was understood (v 20).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">394 The Jews ask for a sign; and this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">What sign can you show us authorizing -you to do these things?</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">395 Here we should note that when Jesus drove the merchants Out of the temple, two things -could be considered in Christ: his rectitude and zeal, which pertain to virtue; and his power or -authority. <span style="font-weight: bold">It was not appropriate to </span>require a sign from Christ concerning the virtue and zeal -with which he did the above action, since everyone may lawfully act according to virtue. But he -could be required to give a sign concerning his authority for driving them out of the temple, since -it is not lawful for anyone to do this unless he has the authority.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">And so the Jews, not questioning his zeal and virtue, ask for a sign of his authority; and so they -say, <span style="font-weight: bold">What sign can you show us authorizing you to do these things? </span>i.e., Why do you drive -us out with such power and authority, for this does not seem to be your office? They say the same -thing in Matthew (21:23): “By what authority are you doing these things?”</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">396 The reason they ask for a sign is that it was the usual thing for Jews to require a sign, seeing -that they were called to the law by signs: “There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like -Moses, whom, the Lord knew face to face, with all his signs and wonders,” as is said in -Deuteronomy (34:10), and “The Jews require signs,” as we find in 1 Corinthians (1:22). Hence -David complains for the Jews saying: “We have not seen our signs” (Ps 73:9). However, they -asked him for a sign not in order to believe, but in the hope that he would not be able to provide -the sign, and then they could obstruct and restrain him. And so, because they asked in an evil -manner, he did not give them an evident sign, but a sign clothed in a symbol, a sign concerning +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Jerome +refutes this opinion: for on the cross the Lord entrusted his +virgin mother to the care of his virgin disciple. Therefore, since +Joseph was the special guardian of the Virgin, and of the Savior +too, in his childhood, one may believe that he was a virgin. +Consequently, it is a reasonable interpretation to say that the +brothers of the Lord were those related to his virgin mother in +some degree of consanguinity, or even to Joseph, who was the +reputed father. And this conforms to the custom of Scripture which +generally refers to relatives as brothers. Thus we read: “Let +us not quarrel, for we are brothers” (Gn 13:8), as Abram said +to Lot, who was his nephew. And note that he distinguishes between +relatives and disciples, because not all of Christ’s +relatives were his disciples; hence we read: “Even his +brethren did not believe in him” (below 7:5) .</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">371 Thirdly, +his disciples were his companions; hence he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and his disciples.</span> But who were his +disciples? For it seems, according to Matthew, that the first ones +to be converted to Christ were Peter and Andrew, John and James; +but they were called after John’s imprisonment, as is clear +from Matthew (4:18). Thus it does not seem that they went down to +Capernaum with Christ, as it says here, since this was before +John’s imprisonment.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">There are +two answers to this. One is from Augustine, in his <i>De Consensu +Evangelistarum,</i> namely, that Matthew does not follow the +historical order, but in summarizing what he omitted, relates +events that occurred before John’s imprisonment as though +they happened after. So, without any suggestion of a time lapse he +says, “As Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two +brothers” (Mt 4:18), without adding “after this” +or “at that time.” The other answer, also by Augustine, +is that in the Gospel not only the twelve whom the Lord chose and +named apostles are called disciples of the Lord (Lk 6:13), but also +all who believed in him and were instructed for the kingdom of +heaven by his teaching. Therefore, it is possible that although +those twelve did not yet follow him, others who adhered to him are +called disciples here. But the first answer is better.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">372 His stay +there was short; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">but +they did not remain there many days.</span> The reason for this was +that the citizens of Capernaum were not eager to accept the +teachings of Christ, being very corrupt, so that in Matthew (11:23) +the Lord rebukes them for not doing penance in spite of the +miracles done there and of Christ’s teaching: “And you +Capernaum, will you be lifted up to heaven? You will go down to +hell. For if the mighty works that were done in you had been +performed in Sodom, it would have stood until this day.” But +although they were evil, he went there to accompany his mother, and +to stay there for a few days for her consolation and honor.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">373 As for +its mystical sense, this signifies that some cannot remain long +with the many words spoken by Christ; a few of these words are +enough for them, to enlighten them, because of the weakness of +their understanding. Hence as Origen said, Christ reveals few +things to such persons, according to “I have many things to +tell you, but you cannot bear them now” (Jn 16:12).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">374 Then +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Jewish Passover +was near at hand,</span> he mentions the place to which he went +tip. And concerning this he does two things. First, the occasion is +given. Secondly, the going up.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">375 Now the +occasion for his going up was the Jewish Passover. For in Exodus +(13:17) it is commanded that every male be presented to the Lord +three times a year; and one of these times was the Jewish Passover. +So, since the Lord came to teach everyone by his example of +humility and perfection, he wished to observe the law as long as it +was in force. For he did not come to destroy the law, but to +fulfill it (Mt 5:17). And so, because the Passover of the Jews was +at hand, he went up to Jerusalem. So we, after his example, should +carefully observe the divine precepts. For if the Son of God +fulfilled the decrees of a law he himself had given, and celebrated +the great feasts, with what zeal for good works ought we both to +prepare for them and observe them?</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">376 It +should be noted that in John’s Gospel mention is made of the +Passover in three passages: here, and in (6:4), when he worked the +miracle of the loaves, where it is said: “Now the Jewish +Passover was near at hand” , and again in (13:1), where it +says: “Before the feast day of the Passover.” So, +according to this Gospel, we understand that after the miracle of +the wine Christ preached for two years plus the interval between +his baptism and this Passover. For what he did here occurred near +the Passover, as it says here, and then a year later, near the time +of another Passover, he performed the miracle of the loaves, and in +the same year John was beheaded. Thus John was beheaded near the +time of the Passover, because we read in Matthew (14:13) that +immediately after John was beheaded Christ withdrew to the desert, +where he worked the miracle of the loaves; and this miracle took +place near Passover time, as stated below (6:4). Nevertheless, the +feast of this beheading of John is celebrated on the day his head +was found. It was later, during another Passover, that Christ +suffered.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">So, +according to the opinion of those who say that the miracle worked +at the wedding and the events being discussed here occurred in the +same year in which Christ was baptized, there was an interval of +two and one half years between Christ’s baptism and his +passion. So, according to them, the Evangelist says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">The Jewish Passover was near at hand,</span> in +order to show that Christ had been baptized just a few days +before.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">But the +Church holds the opposite. For we believe that Christ worked the +miracle of the wine on the first anniversary of the day of his +baptism; then a year later, near Passover time, John was beheaded; +and then there was another year between the Passover near which +John was beheaded and the Passover during which Christ suffered. So +between the baptism of Christ and the miracle of the wine there had +to be another Passover which the Evangelist does not mention. And +so, according to what the Church holds, Christ preached for three +and one half years.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">377 He says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the Jewish Passover,</span> not as +though the people of other nations celebrated a Passover, but for +two reasons. One, because when people celebrate a feast in a holy +and pure way, it is said that they celebrate it for the Lord; but +when they celebrate it in neither of those ways, they do not +celebrate it for the Lord, but for themselves: “My soul hates +your new moons and your feasts” (Is 1:14). It is as though he +said: Those who celebrate for themselves and not for me, do not +please me: “When you fasted, did you fast for me?” (Zec +7:5), as if to say: You did not do it for me, but for yourselves. +And so because these Jews were corrupt and celebrated their +Passover in an unbecoming manner, the Evangelist does not say, +“the Passover of the Lord,” but the Jewish Passover was +at hand.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Or, he says +this to differentiate it from our Passover. For the Passover of the +Jews Was symbolic, being celebrated by the immolation of a lamb +which was a symbol. But our Passover is true, in which we recall +the true passing [passion] of the Immaculate Lamb: “Christ, +our Passover, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">378 The +journey was to Jerusalem, and so he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.</span> Note +here that according to the historical order, Jesus went up to +Jerusalem near the time of the Passover and expelled the merchants +from the temple on two occasions. The first, before John’s +imprisonment, is the one the Evangelist mentions here; the other is +mentioned by Matthew (21:13) as occurring when the Passover and the +hour of his passion were at hand. For the Lord frequently repeated +works that were similar. For example, the two cases of giving sight +to the blind: one in Matthew (9:28) and another in Mark (10:46). In +like manner he twice cast merchants from the temple.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">379 In the +mystical sense, Jesus went up to Jerusalem, which is translated as +the “vision of peace,” and signifies eternal happiness. +It is to here that Jesus ascended, and he took his own with him. +There is no lack of mystery in the fact that he went down to +Capernaum and later went up to Jerusalem. For if he did not first +go down, he would not have been suited to go up, because, as it is +said: “He who descended is the same as he who ascended” +(Eph 4:10). Further, no mention is made of the disciples in the +ascent to Jerusalem because the ascent of the disciples comes from +the ascent of Christ: “No one has gone up to heaven except +the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who lives in +heaven” (below 3:13).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">380 Then +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the temple +precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, sheep and +doves,</span> the Evangelist sets down what moved Christ to propose +the sign of the resurrection. He does three things with this. +First, he exposes the faulty behavior of the Jews. Secondly, he +discloses Christ’s remedy (v 15). Thirdly, he gives the +announcement of the prophecy (v 22).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">381 With +respect to the first, we should note that the devil plots against +the things of God and strives to destroy them. Now among the means +by which he destroys holy things, the chief is avarice; hence it is +said: “The shepherds have no understanding. All have turned +aside to their own way; everyone after his own gain, from the first +one to the last” (Is 56:11). And the devil has done this from +the earliest times. For the priests of the Old Testament, who had +been established to care for divine matters, gave free rein to +avarice. God commanded, in the law, that animals should be +sacrificed to the Lord on certain feasts. And in order to fulfill +this command, those who lived nearby brought the animals with them. +But those who came a long distance were unable to bring animals +from their own homes. And so because offerings of this kind +resulted in profit for the priests, and so animals to offer would +not be lacking to those who came from a distance, the priests +themselves saw to it that animals were sold in the temple. And so +they had them shown for sale in the temple, i.e., in the atrium of +the temple. And this is what he says: <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the temple precincts he came upon merchants +selling oxen, sheep and doves.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Mention is +first made of two land animals, which according to the law could be +offered to the Lord: the ox and the sheep. The third land animal +offered, the goat, is implied when he says “sheep”, +similarly, the turtle-dove is included when he says +“doves.”</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">382 It +sometimes happened that some came to the temple not only without +animals, but also without money to buy them. And so the priests +found another avenue for their avarice; they set up moneychangers +who would lend money to those who came without it. And although +they would not accept a usurious gain, because this was forbidden +in the law, nevertheless in place of this they accepted certain +“<i>collibia</i>”, i.e., trifles and small gifts. So +this also was turned to the profit of the priests. And this is what +he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">moneychangers seated at +tables,</span> i.e., in the temple, ready to lend money.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">383 This can +be understood mystically in three ways. First of all, the merchants +signify those who sell or buy the things of the Church: for the +oxen, sheep and doves signify the spiritual goods of the Church and +the things connected with them. These goods have been consecrated +and authenticated by the teachings of the apostles and doctors, +signified by the oxen: “When there is an abundant harvest the +strength of the ox is evident” (Prv 14:4); and by the blood +of the martyrs, who are signified by the sheep: so it is said for +them: “We are regarded as sheep for the slatighter” +(Rom 8:36): and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, signified by the +doves, for as stated above, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of +a dove. Therefore, those who presume to sell the spiritual goods of +the Church and the goods connected with them are selling the +teachings of the apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the gifts +of the Holy Spirit.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Secondly, it +happens that certain prelates or heads of churches sell these oxen, +sheep and doves, not overtly by simony, but covertly by negligence; +that is, when they are so eager for and occupied with temporal gain +that they neglect the spiritual welfare of their subjects. And this +is the way they sell the oxen, sheep and doves, i.e., the three +classes of people subject to them. First of all, they sell the +preachers and laborers, who are signified by the oxen: “Happy +are you who sow beside all the streams, letting the ox and the +donkey range free” (Is 32:20);.because prelates ought to +arrange the oxen, i.e., teachers and wise men, with the donkeys, +i.e., the simple and uneducated. They also sell those in the active +life, and those occupied with ministering, signified by the sheep: +“My sheep hear my voice” (below 10:27); and as is said +in 2 Samuel (24:17): “But these, who are the sheep, what have +they done?” They also sell the contemplatives, signified by +the doves: “Who will give me wings like a dove, and I will +fly?” (Ps 54:7).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Thirdly, by +the temple of God we can understand the spiritual soul, as it says: +“The temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” +(1 Cor 3:17). Thus a man sells oxen, sheep and doves in the temple +when he harbors bestial movements in his soul, for which he sells +himself to the devil. For oxen, which are used for cultivating the +earth, signify earthly desires; sheep, which are stupid animals, +signify man’s obstinacy; and the doves signify man’s +instability. It is God who drives these things out of men’s +hearts.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">384 The +Lord’s remedy is at once set forth (v 15). Here the +Lord’s remedy consisted in action and in words, in order to +instruct those who have charge of the Church that they must correct +their subjects in deed and in word. And he does two things with +respect to this. First, he gives the remedy Christ applied by his +action. Secondly, the remedy he applied by word (v 16).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">385 As to +the first he does three things. First, he drives the men out. +Secondly, the oxen and sheep. Thirdly, he sweeps away the +money.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">He drives +the men out with a whip; and this is what he <span style= +"font-weight: bold">says, when he had made a kind of whip from +cords.</span> This is something that could be done only by divine +power. For as Origen says, the divine power of Jesus was as able, +when he willed, to quench the swelling anger of men as to still the +stornis of minds: “The Lord brings to nought the thoughts of +men” (Ps 32:10). He makes the whip from cords because, as +Augustine says, it is from our own sins that he forms the matter +with which he punishes us: for a series of sins, in which sins are +added to sins, is called a cord: “He is bound fast by the +cords of his own sins” (Prv 5:22); “Woe to you who haul +wickedness with cords” (Is 5:18). Then, just as he drove the +merchants from the temple, so he swept away the gold of the +moneychangers and knocked over their tables.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">386 And mark +well that if he expelled from the temple things that seemed somehow +licit, in the sense that they were ordained to the worship of God, +how much more if he comes upon unlawful things? The reason he cast +them out was because in this matter the priests did not intend +God’s glory, but their own profit. Hence it is said: +“It is for yourselves that you placed guardians of my service +in my sancturay” (Ez 44:8)</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Further, our +Lord showed zeal for the things of the law so that he might by this +answer the chief priests and the priests who were later to bring a +charge against him on this very point. Again, by casting things of +this kind out of the temple he let it be understood that the time +was coming in which the sacrifices of the law were due to cease, +and the true worship of God transferred to the Gentiles: “The +kingdom of God will be taken away from you” (Mt 21:43). Also, +this shows us the condemnation of those who sell spiritual things: +“May your money perish together with you” (Acts +8:20).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">387 Then +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">To those selling +doves he said,</span> he records the treatment which the Lord +applied by word. Here it should be noted that those who engage in +simony should, of course, first be expelled from the Church. But +because as long as they are alive, they can change themselves by +free will and by the help of God return to the state of grace, they +should not be given up as hopeless. If, however, they are not +converted, then they are not merely to be expelled, but handed over +to those to whom it is said: “Bind him hand and foot, and +cast him into outer darkness” (Mt 22:13). And so the Lord, +attending to this, first warns them, and then gives the reason for +his warning, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">stop making my +Father’s house into a marketplace.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">388 He warns +those selling the doves by reproaching them, for they signify those +who sell the gifts of the Holy Spirit, i.e., those who engage in +simony.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">389 He gives +his reason for this when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">stop making my Father’s house into a +marketplace.</span> “Take away your evil from my sight” +(Is 1:10). Note that Matthew (2 1:13) says: “Do not make my +house a den of thieves,” while here he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">a marketplace.</span> Now the Lord does this +because, as a good physician, he begins first with the gentler +things; later on, he would propose harsher things. Now the action +recorded here was the first of the two; hence in the beginning he +does not call them thieves but merchants. But because they did not +stop such business out of obstinacy, the Lord, when driving them +out the second time (as mentioned in Mark 11:15), rebukes them more +severely, calling robbery what he had first called business.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">He says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">my Father’s house,</span> to +exclude the error of Manicheus, who said that while the God of the +New Testament was the Father of Christ, the God of the Old +Testament was not. But if this were true, then since the temple was +the house of the Old Testament, Christ would not have referred to +the temple as <span style="font-weight: bold">my Father’s +house.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">390 Why were +the Jews not disturbed here when he called God his Father, for as +is said below (5:18), this is why they persecuted him? I answer +that God is the Father of certain men through adoption; for +example, he is the Father of the just in this way. This was not a +new idea for the Jews: “You will call me Father, and you will +not cease to walk after me” (Jer 3:19). However, by nature he +is the Father of Christ alone: “The Lord said to me: +‘You are my Son’ “ (Ps 2:7), i.e., the true and +natural Son. It is this that was unheard of among the Jews. And so +the Jews persecuted him because he called himself the true Son of +God: “the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, because he +not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his own +Father, making himself equal to God” (below 5:18). But when +he called God his Father on this occasion, they said it was by +adoption.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">391 That the +house of God shall not be made a marketplace is taken +from-Zechariah (14:21): “On that day there will no longer be +any merchants in the house of the Lord of hosts”; and from +the Psalm (70:16), where one version has the reading: +“Because I was not part of the marketplace, I will enter into +the strength of the Lord.”</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">392 Then +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">His disciples then +remembered,</span> he sets down a prophecy which was written in +Psalm 69 (v 9): “Zeal for your house consumes me.” Here +we should remark that zeal, properly speaking, signifies an +intensity of love, whereby the one who loves intensely does not +tolerate anything which is repugnant to his love. So it is that men +who love their wives intensely and cannot endure their being in the +company of other men, as this conflicts with their own love, are +called “zelotypes.” Thus, properly speaking, one is +said to have zeal for God who cannot patiently endure anything +contrary to the honor of God, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">whoin</span> he loves above all else: “I +have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts” (1 Kgs +19:10). Now we should love the house of the Lord, according to the +Psalm (25:8): “O Lord, I have loved the beauty of your +house.” Indeed, we should love it so much that our zeal +consumes us, so that if we notice anything amiss being done, we +should try to eliminate it, no matter how dear to us are those who +are doing it; nor should we fear any evils that we might have to +endure as a result. So the Gloss says: “Good zeal is a fervor +of spirit, by which, scorning the fear of death, one is on fire for +the defense of the truth. He is consumed by it who takes steps to +correct any perversity he sees; and if he cannot, he tolerates it +with sadness.”</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p> +<blockquote> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">18 At this +the Jews responded and said, “What sign can you show us +authorizing you to do these things?” 19 Jesus replied, +“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up +again.” 20 The Jews then retorted, “This temple took +forty-six years to build, and you are going to raise it up again in +three days!” 21 He was speaking, however, of the temple of +his body. 22 When, therefore, he had risen from the dead, his +disciples recalled that he had said this; they then believed the +Scriptures and the statement Jesus had made. 23 While he was in +Jerusalem during the Passover feast, many people, seeing the signs +he was working, believed in his name. 24 But Jesus did not trust +himself to them, for he knew all men, 25 and he did not need anyone +to give him testimony about men. He was well aware of what was in +man’s heart.</p> +</blockquote> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">393 Having +set forth the occasion for showing the sign, the Evangelist then +states the sign which would be given. First, he gives the sign. +Secondly, he mentions the fruit of the signs Christ performed (v +23). As to the first he does three things. First, the request for +the sign is given. Secondly, the sign itself (v 19). Thirdly, the +way the sign was understood (v 20).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">394 The Jews +ask for a sign; and this is what he says: <span style= +"font-weight: bold">What sign can you show us authorizing you to do +these things?</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">395 Here we +should note that when Jesus drove the merchants Out of the temple, +two things could be considered in Christ: his rectitude and zeal, +which pertain to virtue; and his power or authority. <span style= +"font-weight: bold">It was not appropriate to</span> require a sign +from Christ concerning the virtue and zeal with which he did the +above action, since everyone may lawfully act according to virtue. +But he could be required to give a sign concerning his authority +for driving them out of the temple, since it is not lawful for +anyone to do this unless he has the authority.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">And so the +Jews, not questioning his zeal and virtue, ask for a sign of his +authority; and so they say, <span style="font-weight: bold">What +sign can you show us authorizing you to do these things?</span> +i.e., Why do you drive us out with such power and authority, for +this does not seem to be your office? They say the same thing in +Matthew (21:23): “By what authority are you doing these +things?”</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">396 The +reason they ask for a sign is that it was the usual thing for Jews +to require a sign, seeing that they were called to the law by +signs: “There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like +Moses, whom, the Lord knew face to face, with all his signs and +wonders,” as is said in Deuteronomy (34:10), and “The +Jews require signs,” as we find in 1 Corinthians (1:22). +Hence David complains for the Jews saying: “We have not seen +our signs” (Ps 73:9). However, they asked him for a sign not +in order to believe, but in the hope that he would not be able to +provide the sign, and then they could obstruct and restrain him. +And so, because they asked in an evil manner, he did not give them +an evident sign, but a sign clothed in a symbol, a sign concerning the resurrection.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">397 Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus replied, </span>and he gives the sign for which they asked. He gives them the -sign of his future resurrection because this shows most strikingly the power of his divinity. For -it is not within the power of mere man to raise himself from the dead. Christ alone, who was free -among the dead, did this by the power of his divinity. tie shows them a similar sign in Matthew -(12:30): “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign. And a sign will not be given it, -except the sign of Jonah the prophet.” And although he gave a hidden and symbolic sign on both -occasions, the first was stated more clearly, and the second more obscurely.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">398 We should note that before the incarnation, God gave a sign of the incarnation to come: “The -Lord himself will give you a sign. A virgin will conceive, and give birth to a son” (Is 7:14). And -in like manner, before the resurrection he gave a sign of the resurrection to come. And he did this -because it is especially by these two events that the power of the divinity in Christ is evidenced. -For nothing more marvelous could be done than that God become man and that Christ’s -humanity should become a partaker of divine immortality after his resurrection: “Christ, rising -froni the dead, will not die again ... his life is life with God” (Roin 6:9), i.e., in a likeness to God.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">399 We should note the words Christ used in giving this sign. For Christ calls his body a temple, -because a temple is something in which God dwells, according to “The Lord is in his holy -temple” (Ps 10:5). And so a holy soul, in which God dwells, is also called a temple of God: “The -temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (1 Cor 3:17). Therefore, because the divinity -dwells in the body of Christ, the body of Christ is the temple of God, not only according to the -soul but also according to the body: “In him all the fulness of the divinity dwells bodily” (Col -2:9). God dwells in us by grace, i.e., according to an act of the intellect and will, neither of which -is an act of the body, but of the soul alone. But he dwells in Christ according to a union in the -person; and this union includes not only the soul, but the body as well. And so the very body of -Christ is God’s temple.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">400 But Nestorius, using this text in support of his error, claims that the Word of God was joined -to human nature only by an indwelling, from which it follows that the person of God is distinct -from that of man in Christ. Therefore it is important to insist that God’s indwelling in Christ -refers to the nature, since in Christ human nature is distinct from the divine, and not to the -persom, which in the case of Christ is the same for both God and man, that is, the person of the -Word, as was said above.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">401 Therefore, granting this, the Lord does two things with respect to this sign. First, he foretells -his future death. Secondly, his resurrection.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">402 Christ foretells his own death when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Destroy this temple. </span>For Christ died and was -killed by others: “And they will kill him” (Mt 17:22), yet with him willing it: because as is said: -“He was offered because it was his own will” (Is 53:7). And so he says, Destroy this temple, i.e., -my body. He does not say, “it will be destroyed,” lest you suppose he killed himself. He says, -Destroy, which is not a command but a prediction and a permission. A prediction, so that the -sense is, <span style="font-weight: bold">Destroy this temple, </span>i.e., you will destroy. And a permission, so that the sense is, -<span style="font-weight: bold">Destroy this temple, </span>i.e., do with my body what you will, I submit it to you. As he said to Judas: -“What you are going to do, do quickly” (below 13:27), not as commanding him, but as -abandoning himself to his decision.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">He says Destroy, </span>because the death of Christ is the dissolution of his body, but in a way different -from that of other men. For the bodies of other men are destroyed by death even to the point of -the body’s returning to dust and ashes. But Such a dissolution did not take place in Christ, for is -it is said: “You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption” (Ps 15:10). Nevertheless, death -did bring a dissolution to Christ, because his soul was separated from his body as a form from -matter, and because his blood was separated from his body, and because his body was pierced -with nails and a lance.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">403 He foretells his resurrection when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and in three days I will raise it up again, </span>that -is, his body; i.e., I will raise it from the dead. He does not say, “I will be raised up,” or “The -Father will raise it up,” but <span style="font-weight: bold">I will raise it up, </span>to show that he would rise from the dead by his -own power. Yet we do not deny that the Father raised him from the dead, because as it is said: -“Who raised Jesus from the dead” (Rom 8:11); and “O Lord, have pity on me, and raise me up” -(Ps 40:10). And so God the Father raised Christ from the dead, and Christ arose by his own -power: “I have slept and have taken my rest, and I have risen, because the Lord has taken me” -(Ps 3:6). There is no contradiction in this, because the power of both is the same; hence -“whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (below 5:19). For if the Father raised him up, -so too did the Son: “Although he was crucified through weakness, he lives through the power of -God” (2 Cor 13:4).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">404 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and in three days, </span>and not “after three days,” because he did not remain in the -tomb for three complete days; but, as Augustine says, he is employing synecdoche, in which a -part is taken for the whole.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Origen, however, assigns a mystical reason for this expression, and says: The true body of Christ -is the temple of God, and this body symbolizes the mystical body, i.e., the Church: “You are the -body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:27). And as the divinity dwells in the body of Christ through the grace -of union, so too he dwells in the Church through the grace of adoption. Although that body may -seem to be destroyed mystically by the adversities of persecutions with which it is afflicted, -nevertheless it is raised up in “three days,” namely, in the “day” of the law of nature, the “day” -of the written law, and the “day” of the law of grace; because in those days a part of that body -was destroyed, while another still lived. And so he says, in three days, because the spiritual -resurrection of this body is accomplished in three days. But after those three days we will be -perfectly risen, not only as to the first resurrection, but also as to the second: “Happy are they -who share in the second [sic] resurrection” (Rv 20:6).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">405 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Jews then retorted, </span>we have the interpretation of the sign he gave. -First, the false interpretation of the Jews. Secondly, its true understanding by the apostles (v 21).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">406 The interpretation of the Jews was false, because they believed that Christ was saying this -of the material temple in which he then was; consequently, they answer according to this -interpretation and say: <span style="font-weight: bold">This temple took forty-six years to build, </span>i.e., this material temple in -which we are standing, <span style="font-weight: bold">and you are going to raise it up again in three days!</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">407 There is a literal objection against this. For the temple in Jerusalem was built by Solomon, -and it is recorded in 2 Chronicles (6:1) that it was completed by Solomon in seven years. How -then can it be said that this temple took forty-six years to build? I answer that according to some -this is not to be understood of the very first temple, which was completed by Solomon in seven -years: for that temple built by Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. But it is to be -understood of the temple rebuilt under Zerubbabel, after they returned from captivity, as recorded -in the book of Ezra (5:2). However, this rebuilding was so hindered and delayed by the frequent -attacks of their enemies on all sides, that the temple was not finished until forty-six years had -passed.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">408 Or it could be said, according to Origen, that they were speaking of Solomon’s temple: and -it did take forty-six years to build if the time be reckoned from the day when David first spoke -of building a temple and discussed it with Nathan the prophet, as we find in 2 Samuel (7:2), until -its final completion under Solomon. For from that first day onward David began preparing the -material and the things necessary for building the temple. Accordingly, if the time in question -is carefully calculated, it will come to forty-six years.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">409 But although the Jews referred their interpretation to the material temple, nevertheless, -according to Augustine, it can be referred to the temple of Christ’s body. As he says in <i>The Book -of Eighty-tnree Questions, </i>the conception and formation of the human body is completed in -forty-five days in the following manner. During the first six days, the conception of a human -body has a likeness to milk; during the next nine days it is converted into blood; then in the next -twelve days, it is hardened into flesh; then the remaining eighteen days, it is formed into a perfect -outlining of all the members. But if we add six, nine, twelve and eighteen, we get forty-five; and -if we add “one” for the sacrament of unity, we get forty-six.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">410 However a question arises about this: because this process of formation does not seem to -have taken place in Christ, who was formed and animated at the very instant of conception. But -one may answer that although in the formation of Christ’s body there was something unique, in -that Christ’s body was perfect at that instant as to the outlining of its members, it was not perfect -as to the quantity due the body; and so he remained in the Virgin’s womb until he attained the -due quantity.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">However, let us take the above numbers and select six, which was the first, and forty-six, which -was the last, and let us multiply one by the other. The result is two hundred seventy-six. Now if -we assemble these days into months, allotting thirty days to a month, we get nine months and six -days. Thus it was correct to say that it took forty-six years to build the temple, which signifies -the body of Christ; the suggestion being that there were as many years in building the temple as -there were days in perfecting the body of Christ. For from March twenty-five, when Christ was -conceived, and (as is believed) when he suffered, to December twenty-five, there are this number -of days, namely, two hundred seventy-six, a number that is the result of multiplying forty-six by -six.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">411 Augustine (as is plain from the Gloss) has another mystical interpretation of this number. For -he says that if one adds the letters in the name “Adam,” using for each the number it represented -for the Greeks, the result is forty-six. For in Greek, A represents the number one, since it is the -first letter of the alphabet. And according to this order, D is four. Adding to the sum of these -another one for the second A and forty for the letter M, we have forty-six. This signifies that the -body of Christ was derived from the body of Adam.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Again, according to the Greeks, the name “Adam” is composed of the first letters of the names -of the four directions of the world: namely, Anathole, which is the east; Disis, which is the west; -Arctos, which is the north; and Mensembria, the south. This signifies that Christ derived his flesh -from Adam in order to gather his elect from the four parts of the world: “He will gather his elect -from the four winds” (Mt 24:31).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">412 Then, the true interpretation of this sign as understood by the apostles is given (v 2 1). First, -the way they understood it is given. Secondly, the time when they understood it (v 22).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">413 He says therefore: The Jews said this out of ignorance. But Christ did not understand it in -their way; in fact, he meant the temple of his body, and this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was speaking, -how</span>ever, of <span style="font-weight: bold">the temple of his body. </span>We have already explained why the body of Christ could -be called a temple.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Apollinaris misunderstood this and said that the body of Christ was inanimate matter because the -temple was inanimate. He was mistaken in this for when it is said that the body of Christ is a -temple, one is speaking metaphorically. And in this way of speaking a likeness does not exist in -all respects, but only in some respect, namely, as to indwelling, which is referred to the nature, -as was explained. Further, this is evident from the authority of Sacred Scriptuire. when Christ -himself said: “I have the power to lay down my life,” as we read below (10:18).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">414 The time when the apostles acquired this true understanding is then shown by the Evangelist -when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When, therefore, he had risen from the dead, his disciples recalled that he had -said this. </span>Prior to the resurrection it was difficult to understand this. First, because this statement -asserted that the true divinity was in the body of Christ; otherwise it could not be called a temple. -And to understand this at that time was above human ability. Secondly, because in this statement -mention is made of the passion and resurrection, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I will raise it up again; </span>and this -is something none of the disciples had heard mentioned before. Consequently, when Christ spoke -of his resurrection and passion to the apostles, Peter was scandalized when he heard it, saying, -“God forbid, Lord” (Mt 16:22). But after the resurrection, when they now clearly understood that -Christ was God, through what he had shown in regard to his passion and resurrection, and when -they had learned of the mystery of his resurrection, <span style="font-weight: bold">his disciples recalled that he had said this -</span>of his body, and <span style="font-weight: bold">they then believed the Scriptures, </span>i.e., the prophets: “He will revive us after -two days; on the third day he will raise us up” (Hos 6:3), and “Jonah was in the belly of the fish -three days and three nights” (Jon 2:1). So it is that on the very day of the resurrection he opened -their understanding so that they might understand the Scriptures <span style="font-weight: bold">and the statement Jesus had -made, </span>namely, <span style="font-weight: bold">Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.</span></p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">415 In the anagogical sense, according to Origen, we understand by this that in the final -resurrection of nature we will be disciples of Christ, when in the great resurrection the entire -body of Jesus, that is, his Church, will be made certain of the things we now hold through faith -in a dark manner. Then we shall receive the fulfillment of faith, seeing in actual fact what we -now observe through a mirror.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">416 Then (v 23) he sets forth the fruit which resulted from the signs, namely, the conversion of -certain believers. Concerning this he does three things. First, he mentions those who believed on -account of the miracles. Secondly, he shows the attitude of Christ to them (v 24). Thirdly, he -gives the reason for this (v 25).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">417 The fruit which developed from the signs of Jesus was abundant, because many believed and -were converted to him; and this is what he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">While he was in Jerusalem during the -Passover feast, many people, seeing the signs he was working, believed in his name, </span>i.e., in -him.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">418 Note that they believed in two ways: sorne on account of the iniracles they saw, and sonic -oil account of the revelation and prophecy of’ hidden things. Now those who believe oil account -of doctrine are more commendable, because they are more spiritual than those who believe on -account of signs, which are grosser and on the level of sense. Those who were converted are -shown to be more on the level of sense by the fact that they did not believe on account of the -doctrine, as the disciples did, but <span style="font-weight: bold">seeing the signs he was working: </span>“Prophecies are for those -who believe” (1 Cor 14:22).</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">419 One might ask which signs worked by Jesus they saw, for we do not read of any sign worked -by him in Jerusalem at that time. According to Origen, there are two answers to this. First, Jesus -did work many miracles there at that time, which are not recorded here; for the Evangelist -purposely omitted many of Christ’s miracles, since he worked so many that they could not easily -be recorded: “Jesus did many other signs, and if every one was written, the world itself, I think, -would not be able to contain the books that would be written” (below 21:25). And the Evangelist -expressly shows this when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">seeing the signs he was working, </span>without mentioning them, -because it was not the intention of the Evangelist to record all the signs of Jesus, but as many as -were needed to instruct the Church of the faithful. The second answer is that among the miracles -the greatest could be the sign in which Jesus by himself drove from the temple a crowd of men -with a whip of small cords.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">420 The attitude of Jesus to those who believed in him is shown when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But Jesus did -not trust himself to them, </span>i.e., those who had believed in him. What is this, men entrust -themselves to God, and Jesus himself does not entrust himself to them? Could they kill him -against his will? Some will say that he did not trust himself to them because he knew that their -belief was not genuine. But if this were true, the Evangelist would surely not have said that many -believed in his name, and yet he did not trust himself to them. According to Chrysostom, the -reason is that they did believe in him, but imperfectly, because they were not yet able to attain -to the profound mysteries of Christ, and so <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus did not trust himself to them, </span>i.e., he did not -yet reveal his secret mysteries to them; for there were many things he would not reveal even to -the apostles: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” (below -16:12), and “I could not speak to you as spiritual persons, but as sensual” (1 Cor 3:1). And so it -is significant that in order to show that they believed imperfectly, the Evangelist does not say that -they believed “in him,” because they did not yet believe in his divinity, but he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">in his name, -</span>i.e., they believed what was said about him, nominally, i.e., that he was just, or something of that -sort.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Or, according to Augustine, these people represent the catechumens in the Church, who, although -they believe in the name of Christ, Jesus does not trust himself to them, because the Church does -not give them the body of Christ. For just as no priest except one ordained in the priesthood can -consecrate that body, so no one but a baptized person may receive it.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">421 The reason Jesus did not trust himself to them arises from his perfect knowledge; hence he -says, <span style="font-weight: bold">for he knew all men. </span>For although one must ordinarily presume good of everyone, yet after -the truth about certain people is known, one should act according to their condition. Now because -nothing in man was unknown to Christ and since he knew that they believed imperfectly, he did -not trust himself to them.</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">422 The universal knowledge of Christ is then described: for he knew not only those who were -on close terms with him, but strangers too. And therefore he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">for he knew all men; </span>and this -by the power of his divinity: “The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun” (Sir 23:28). Now -a man, although he may know other people, cannot have a sure knowledge of them, because he -sees only what appears; consequently, he must rely on the testimony of others. But Christ knows -with the greatest certainty, because he beholds the heart; and so <span style="font-weight: bold">he did not need anyone to give -testimony about men. </span>In fact, he is the one who gives testimony: “Look, my witness is in -heaven” (Jb 16:20)</p> -<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">His knowledge was perfect, because it extended not only to what was exterior, but even to the -interior; thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was well aware of what was in man’s heart, </span>i.e., the secrets of the -heart: “Hell and destruction are open to the Lord: how much more the hearts of the children of -men” (Prv 15:11).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">397 Hence he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus replied,</span> and he +gives the sign for which they asked. He gives them the sign of his +future resurrection because this shows most strikingly the power of +his divinity. For it is not within the power of mere man to raise +himself from the dead. Christ alone, who was free among the dead, +did this by the power of his divinity. tie shows them a similar +sign in Matthew (12:30): “An evil and adulterous generation +asks for a sign. And a sign will not be given it, except the sign +of Jonah the prophet.” And although he gave a hidden and +symbolic sign on both occasions, the first was stated more clearly, +and the second more obscurely.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">398 We +should note that before the incarnation, God gave a sign of the +incarnation to come: “The Lord himself will give you a sign. +A virgin will conceive, and give birth to a son” (Is 7:14). +And in like manner, before the resurrection he gave a sign of the +resurrection to come. And he did this because it is especially by +these two events that the power of the divinity in Christ is +evidenced. For nothing more marvelous could be done than that God +become man and that Christ’s humanity should become a +partaker of divine immortality after his resurrection: +“Christ, rising froni the dead, will not die again ... his +life is life with God” (Roin 6:9), i.e., in a likeness to +God.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">399 We +should note the words Christ used in giving this sign. For Christ +calls his body a temple, because a temple is something in which God +dwells, according to “The Lord is in his holy temple” +(Ps 10:5). And so a holy soul, in which God dwells, is also called +a temple of God: “The temple of God is holy, and that is what +you are” (1 Cor 3:17). Therefore, because the divinity dwells +in the body of Christ, the body of Christ is the temple of God, not +only according to the soul but also according to the body: +“In him all the fulness of the divinity dwells bodily” +(Col 2:9). God dwells in us by grace, i.e., according to an act of +the intellect and will, neither of which is an act of the body, but +of the soul alone. But he dwells in Christ according to a union in +the person; and this union includes not only the soul, but the body +as well. And so the very body of Christ is God’s temple.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">400 But +Nestorius, using this text in support of his error, claims that the +Word of God was joined to human nature only by an indwelling, from +which it follows that the person of God is distinct from that of +man in Christ. Therefore it is important to insist that God’s +indwelling in Christ refers to the nature, since in Christ human +nature is distinct from the divine, and not to the persom, which in +the case of Christ is the same for both God and man, that is, the +person of the Word, as was said above.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">401 +Therefore, granting this, the Lord does two things with respect to +this sign. First, he foretells his future death. Secondly, his +resurrection.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">402 Christ +foretells his own death when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Destroy this temple.</span> For Christ died and +was killed by others: “And they will kill him” (Mt +17:22), yet with him willing it: because as is said: “He was +offered because it was his own will” (Is 53:7). And so he +says, Destroy this temple, i.e., my body. He does not say, +“it will be destroyed,” lest you suppose he killed +himself. He says, Destroy, which is not a command but a prediction +and a permission. A prediction, so that the sense is, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Destroy this temple,</span> i.e., you will +destroy. And a permission, so that the sense is, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Destroy this temple,</span> i.e., do with my +body what you will, I submit it to you. As he said to Judas: +“What you are going to do, do quickly” (below 13:27), +not as commanding him, but as abandoning himself to his +decision.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">He says Destroy,</span> because the death of +Christ is the dissolution of his body, but in a way different from +that of other men. For the bodies of other men are destroyed by +death even to the point of the body’s returning to dust and +ashes. But Such a dissolution did not take place in Christ, for is +it is said: “You will not allow your Holy One to see +corruption” (Ps 15:10). Nevertheless, death did bring a +dissolution to Christ, because his soul was separated from his body +as a form from matter, and because his blood was separated from his +body, and because his body was pierced with nails and a lance.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">403 He +foretells his resurrection when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and in three days I will raise it up +again,</span> that is, his body; i.e., I will raise it from the +dead. He does not say, “I will be raised up,” or +“The Father will raise it up,” but <span style= +"font-weight: bold">I will raise it up,</span> to show that he +would rise from the dead by his own power. Yet we do not deny that +the Father raised him from the dead, because as it is said: +“Who raised Jesus from the dead” (Rom 8:11); and +“O Lord, have pity on me, and raise me up” (Ps 40:10). +And so God the Father raised Christ from the dead, and Christ arose +by his own power: “I have slept and have taken my rest, and I +have risen, because the Lord has taken me” (Ps 3:6). There is +no contradiction in this, because the power of both is the same; +hence “whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” +(below 5:19). For if the Father raised him up, so too did the Son: +“Although he was crucified through weakness, he lives through +the power of God” (2 Cor 13:4).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">404 He says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and in three days,</span> and not +“after three days,” because he did not remain in the +tomb for three complete days; but, as Augustine says, he is +employing synecdoche, in which a part is taken for the whole.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Origen, +however, assigns a mystical reason for this expression, and says: +The true body of Christ is the temple of God, and this body +symbolizes the mystical body, i.e., the Church: “You are the +body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:27). And as the divinity dwells in +the body of Christ through the grace of union, so too he dwells in +the Church through the grace of adoption. Although that body may +seem to be destroyed mystically by the adversities of persecutions +with which it is afflicted, nevertheless it is raised up in +“three days,” namely, in the “day” of the +law of nature, the “day” of the written law, and the +“day” of the law of grace; because in those days a part +of that body was destroyed, while another still lived. And so he +says, in three days, because the spiritual resurrection of this +body is accomplished in three days. But after those three days we +will be perfectly risen, not only as to the first resurrection, but +also as to the second: “Happy are they who share in the +second [sic] resurrection” (Rv 20:6).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">405 Then +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Jews then +retorted,</span> we have the interpretation of the sign he gave. +First, the false interpretation of the Jews. Secondly, its true +understanding by the apostles (v 21).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">406 The +interpretation of the Jews was false, because they believed that +Christ was saying this of the material temple in which he then was; +consequently, they answer according to this interpretation and say: +<span style="font-weight: bold">This temple took forty-six years to +build,</span> i.e., this material temple in which we are standing, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and you are going to raise it up +again in three days!</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">407 There is +a literal objection against this. For the temple in Jerusalem was +built by Solomon, and it is recorded in 2 Chronicles (6:1) that it +was completed by Solomon in seven years. How then can it be said +that this temple took forty-six years to build? I answer that +according to some this is not to be understood of the very first +temple, which was completed by Solomon in seven years: for that +temple built by Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. But it is +to be understood of the temple rebuilt under Zerubbabel, after they +returned from captivity, as recorded in the book of Ezra (5:2). +However, this rebuilding was so hindered and delayed by the +frequent attacks of their enemies on all sides, that the temple was +not finished until forty-six years had passed.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">408 Or it +could be said, according to Origen, that they were speaking of +Solomon’s temple: and it did take forty-six years to build if +the time be reckoned from the day when David first spoke of +building a temple and discussed it with Nathan the prophet, as we +find in 2 Samuel (7:2), until its final completion under Solomon. +For from that first day onward David began preparing the material +and the things necessary for building the temple. Accordingly, if +the time in question is carefully calculated, it will come to +forty-six years.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">409 But +although the Jews referred their interpretation to the material +temple, nevertheless, according to Augustine, it can be referred to +the temple of Christ’s body. As he says in <i>The Book of +Eighty-tnree Questions,</i> the conception and formation of the +human body is completed in forty-five days in the following manner. +During the first six days, the conception of a human body has a +likeness to milk; during the next nine days it is converted into +blood; then in the next twelve days, it is hardened into flesh; +then the remaining eighteen days, it is formed into a perfect +outlining of all the members. But if we add six, nine, twelve and +eighteen, we get forty-five; and if we add “one” for +the sacrament of unity, we get forty-six.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">410 However +a question arises about this: because this process of formation +does not seem to have taken place in Christ, who was formed and +animated at the very instant of conception. But one may answer that +although in the formation of Christ’s body there was +something unique, in that Christ’s body was perfect at that +instant as to the outlining of its members, it was not perfect as +to the quantity due the body; and so he remained in the +Virgin’s womb until he attained the due quantity.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">However, let +us take the above numbers and select six, which was the first, and +forty-six, which was the last, and let us multiply one by the +other. The result is two hundred seventy-six. Now if we assemble +these days into months, allotting thirty days to a month, we get +nine months and six days. Thus it was correct to say that it took +forty-six years to build the temple, which signifies the body of +Christ; the suggestion being that there were as many years in +building the temple as there were days in perfecting the body of +Christ. For from March twenty-five, when Christ was conceived, and +(as is believed) when he suffered, to December twenty-five, there +are this number of days, namely, two hundred seventy-six, a number +that is the result of multiplying forty-six by six.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">411 +Augustine (as is plain from the Gloss) has another mystical +interpretation of this number. For he says that if one adds the +letters in the name “Adam,” using for each the number +it represented for the Greeks, the result is forty-six. For in +Greek, A represents the number one, since it is the first letter of +the alphabet. And according to this order, D is four. Adding to the +sum of these another one for the second A and forty for the letter +M, we have forty-six. This signifies that the body of Christ was +derived from the body of Adam.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Again, +according to the Greeks, the name “Adam” is composed of +the first letters of the names of the four directions of the world: +namely, Anathole, which is the east; Disis, which is the west; +Arctos, which is the north; and Mensembria, the south. This +signifies that Christ derived his flesh from Adam in order to +gather his elect from the four parts of the world: “He will +gather his elect from the four winds” (Mt 24:31).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">412 Then, +the true interpretation of this sign as understood by the apostles +is given (v 2 1). First, the way they understood it is given. +Secondly, the time when they understood it (v 22).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">413 He says +therefore: The Jews said this out of ignorance. But Christ did not +understand it in their way; in fact, he meant the temple of his +body, and this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">He +was speaking, how</span>ever, of <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the temple of his body.</span> We have already +explained why the body of Christ could be called a temple.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Apollinaris +misunderstood this and said that the body of Christ was inanimate +matter because the temple was inanimate. He was mistaken in this +for when it is said that the body of Christ is a temple, one is +speaking metaphorically. And in this way of speaking a likeness +does not exist in all respects, but only in some respect, namely, +as to indwelling, which is referred to the nature, as was +explained. Further, this is evident from the authority of Sacred +Scriptuire. when Christ himself said: “I have the power to +lay down my life,” as we read below (10:18).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">414 The time +when the apostles acquired this true understanding is then shown by +the Evangelist when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When, +therefore, he had risen from the dead, his disciples recalled that +he had said this.</span> Prior to the resurrection it was difficult +to understand this. First, because this statement asserted that the +true divinity was in the body of Christ; otherwise it could not be +called a temple. And to understand this at that time was above +human ability. Secondly, because in this statement mention is made +of the passion and resurrection, when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">I will raise it up again;</span> and this is +something none of the disciples had heard mentioned before. +Consequently, when Christ spoke of his resurrection and passion to +the apostles, Peter was scandalized when he heard it, saying, +“God forbid, Lord” (Mt 16:22). But after the +resurrection, when they now clearly understood that Christ was God, +through what he had shown in regard to his passion and +resurrection, and when they had learned of the mystery of his +resurrection, <span style="font-weight: bold">his disciples +recalled that he had said this</span> of his body, and <span style= +"font-weight: bold">they then believed the Scriptures,</span> i.e., +the prophets: “He will revive us after two days; on the third +day he will raise us up” (Hos 6:3), and “Jonah was in +the belly of the fish three days and three nights” (Jon 2:1). +So it is that on the very day of the resurrection he opened their +understanding so that they might understand the Scriptures +<span style="font-weight: bold">and the statement Jesus had +made,</span> namely, <span style="font-weight: bold">Destroy this +temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">415 In the +anagogical sense, according to Origen, we understand by this that +in the final resurrection of nature we will be disciples of Christ, +when in the great resurrection the entire body of Jesus, that is, +his Church, will be made certain of the things we now hold through +faith in a dark manner. Then we shall receive the fulfillment of +faith, seeing in actual fact what we now observe through a +mirror.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">416 Then (v +23) he sets forth the fruit which resulted from the signs, namely, +the conversion of certain believers. Concerning this he does three +things. First, he mentions those who believed on account of the +miracles. Secondly, he shows the attitude of Christ to them (v 24). +Thirdly, he gives the reason for this (v 25).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">417 The +fruit which developed from the signs of Jesus was abundant, because +many believed and were converted to him; and this is what he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">While he was in Jerusalem during +the Passover feast, many people, seeing the signs he was working, +believed in his name,</span> i.e., in him.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">418 Note +that they believed in two ways: sorne on account of the iniracles +they saw, and sonic oil account of the revelation and prophecy +of’ hidden things. Now those who believe oil account of +doctrine are more commendable, because they are more spiritual than +those who believe on account of signs, which are grosser and on the +level of sense. Those who were converted are shown to be more on +the level of sense by the fact that they did not believe on account +of the doctrine, as the disciples did, but <span style= +"font-weight: bold">seeing the signs he was working:</span> +“Prophecies are for those who believe” (1 Cor +14:22).</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">419 One +might ask which signs worked by Jesus they saw, for we do not read +of any sign worked by him in Jerusalem at that time. According to +Origen, there are two answers to this. First, Jesus did work many +miracles there at that time, which are not recorded here; for the +Evangelist purposely omitted many of Christ’s miracles, since +he worked so many that they could not easily be recorded: +“Jesus did many other signs, and if every one was written, +the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books +that would be written” (below 21:25). And the Evangelist +expressly shows this when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">seeing the signs he was working,</span> without +mentioning them, because it was not the intention of the Evangelist +to record all the signs of Jesus, but as many as were needed to +instruct the Church of the faithful. The second answer is that +among the miracles the greatest could be the sign in which Jesus by +himself drove from the temple a crowd of men with a whip of small +cords.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">420 The +attitude of Jesus to those who believed in him is shown when he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But Jesus did not trust +himself to them,</span> i.e., those who had believed in him. What +is this, men entrust themselves to God, and Jesus himself does not +entrust himself to them? Could they kill him against his will? Some +will say that he did not trust himself to them because he knew that +their belief was not genuine. But if this were true, the Evangelist +would surely not have said that many believed in his name, and yet +he did not trust himself to them. According to Chrysostom, the +reason is that they did believe in him, but imperfectly, because +they were not yet able to attain to the profound mysteries of +Christ, and so <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus did not trust +himself to them,</span> i.e., he did not yet reveal his secret +mysteries to them; for there were many things he would not reveal +even to the apostles: “I still have many things to say to +you, but you cannot bear them now” (below 16:12), and +“I could not speak to you as spiritual persons, but as +sensual” (1 Cor 3:1). And so it is significant that in order +to show that they believed imperfectly, the Evangelist does not say +that they believed “in him,” because they did not yet +believe in his divinity, but he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">in his name,</span> i.e., they believed what +was said about him, nominally, i.e., that he was just, or something +of that sort.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Or, +according to Augustine, these people represent the catechumens in +the Church, who, although they believe in the name of Christ, Jesus +does not trust himself to them, because the Church does not give +them the body of Christ. For just as no priest except one ordained +in the priesthood can consecrate that body, so no one but a +baptized person may receive it.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">421 The +reason Jesus did not trust himself to them arises from his perfect +knowledge; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">for he +knew all men.</span> For although one must ordinarily presume good +of everyone, yet after the truth about certain people is known, one +should act according to their condition. Now because nothing in man +was unknown to Christ and since he knew that they believed +imperfectly, he did not trust himself to them.</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">422 The +universal knowledge of Christ is then described: for he knew not +only those who were on close terms with him, but strangers too. And +therefore he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">for he knew all +men;</span> and this by the power of his divinity: “The eyes +of the Lord are far brighter than the sun” (Sir 23:28). Now a +man, although he may know other people, cannot have a sure +knowledge of them, because he sees only what appears; consequently, +he must rely on the testimony of others. But Christ knows with the +greatest certainty, because he beholds the heart; and so +<span style="font-weight: bold">he did not need anyone to give +testimony about men.</span> In fact, he is the one who gives +testimony: “Look, my witness is in heaven” (Jb +16:20)</p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">His +knowledge was perfect, because it extended not only to what was +exterior, but even to the interior; thus he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">He was well aware of what was in man’s +heart,</span> i.e., the secrets of the heart: “Hell and +destruction are open to the Lord: how much more the hearts of the +children of men” (Prv 15:11).</p> +</blockquote> </body> - </html>