Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff john/english/John2.html @ 31:25a799388159
originals from http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | 178aed5d2c3c |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John2.html Tue Nov 24 20:16:17 2009 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,889 @@ +<html> +<head> +</head> +<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 +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; +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 +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> +</body> + +</html>