Fragments on John

… setting him forth as maker of all things, he predicates of him the name of the Word. For since, in general, all making depends on reason (λόγος), he could not show him to be the maker of all things otherwise than thus. For our craftsmen, being men, have art (and art is a productive habit joined with true reason); but the Son of God, being no other than the craftsman of wisdom and art, is fittingly named Word. For he is not some other essence, besides the Word, that makes things through it; rather he himself is the one who makes, being God the Word. Then, since this Word, being God by essence and being this very thing, Son of God, became man for the salvation of men, the Word was named “flesh.” And since some who have fallen from the right faith think that he exists only from the time when he came forth from the Virgin, having become man, he uses words most rightly against such people: “became” of the flesh, and “was” of his divinity. It would have been more proper to say “is” of God the Word; but since he was showing the existence of the Word in distinction from the incarnation, which took place at a certain time, the evangelist used “was” instead of “is.” But we must not take the proper meanings of the verbs in the case of eternal things; … for “was” signifies the past, just as “is” shows what exists now [and “will be” what is to exist]. But since the Word of God is eternal, being God, the verbs applied to him must be taken without connoting time, since what they signify is not under time. And one can hunt out the meaning from the very words of the theologian. For at the very beginning of his composition he writes: “In the beginning was the Word.” And Moses, explaining the making of the world, said: “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.” But John did not say, “In the beginning the Word came to be,” or “was made,” but … For if “all things came to be through him,” and the heaven and the earth were among all things, then in their coming into being he himself was their creator. Then, since he did not say that the Word was in the beginning of something, it must be taken generally, so that the meaning is this: in the beginning of the angels and in the beginning of the archangels was the Word, and, in short, in the beginning of the visible and invisible creatures was the Word, being the beginning and maker of them all. “For in Christ all things were created, things in the heavens and things on earth, visible and invisible, whether principalities or authorities or thrones or dominions; all things were created through him and for him; and he is before all things, and all things hold together in him; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.” For if all things hold together in him, and he is before them, being their beginning as the cause of their being, consequently we must say that he was in the coming into being of all things. For how should he not have been before them, and in the beginning of their existence, being their creator? Then, since he said that he was in the beginning, he had to show also how, and with whom, he was to make. Therefore he added to “In the beginning was …” … coming, when he was born of the Virgin, he had been sent by the Father … and “dwelt among us,” and had this very name, “God with us.” But when he made all things, since it was not as a man sent by the Father that he brought all things into being, (it is said that) “he was with God and was God.” And the Son of God is also called Wisdom, “created as the beginning of the ways of God,” according to the scripture of Proverbs. For the Wisdom of God, existing with him whose Wisdom she is, had no relation to anyone else; but by God's good pleasure he willed the creatures to exist. This Wisdom, then, willed to take up a creative relation to the things that were to be; and this is what is signified by her being “created as the beginning of the ways of God,” along which ways he goes, bringing into being, ordering, providing, benefiting, bestowing grace, in this Wisdom that was created. And they say that the Word is the beginning, not being other than she in essence, but in concept and relation; so that the same existence, which the scriptures now call by essence, is on the one hand made proper to God as Wisdom, and on the other inclines, so to speak, toward the things made, as the creative Word. And not here only is the Son of God called Word; one can cite texts not only from the New Testament but also from the Old: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm,” and “He sent his word and healed them”; and Luke says: “Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word handed down to us.”

“What has come into being in him,” clearly in the Word, “was life”; so that, just as God brought all things into existence, so too the things whose nature is to live might be made alive by participation in him. Therefore it is fittingly said too: “And the life was the light of men.” For we must not pay attention to those who from this phrase have thought the Word to be originate. For what has come to be … but has its being in others, as was said just now of the craftsmen among men, that their existing as men is one thing and their being craftsmen another. None of these, at any rate, do we [call reason, but] say [has reason]. But the maker of the universe is not such, being God the Word by essence … what has come to be is not itself life, which did not come upon it from outside; for in him came life. For originate beings could not have him, who is life by essence, as he is with the Father. For it is said to God: “With you is the fountain of life.” And this life is with the Father, not giving him life; for the Father does not live by participation in life, but, being living God, he begets life, as also, being wise, he begets wisdom, and being powerful, power. This life, wishing to benefit rational beings, took up a relation to them, they taking it to themselves for their living by way of participation; and this must be said not only of their common living, but also of living according to virtue, by which it comes about that one lives well. This, at any rate, is shown from the very wording; for it says: “And the life was the light of men.” And that it is so here can be confirmed from another text too. The Son and Word of God, being God the Word, is with God, as was just said, coming to be also toward men, as they are able to contain his presence. For it is said: “The word of the Lord came to Hosea,” and “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah,” and in general: “He called them gods to whom the word of God came.” As, then, he is Word with God, but comes to be toward originate beings, so, being life, he is with the Father, giving life to those whom he visits, a life-giving relation coming to be in him, harmoniously adapted to those who are given life. But since, besides giving life, it also produces knowledge of the truth, enlightening the mind of those who receive it, it is also named the light of men. And being the light of men, clearly it enlightens also the rational beings above them. For if it is the light of the lesser rational beings, much more of those exalted above them.

… and evil subsisting. Therefore, shining in such darkness, it is not overtaken by it. For this light being the wisdom and righteousness of God, wisdom dissolves the ignorance of the mind, and righteousness directs the steps of the soul; and this is its shining in the darkness, not prevented from sending out its own rays to the man who is being enlightened. Therefore it is not overtaken by the darkness, which is dissolved and vanishes at its presence. For it is not that the darkness, subsisting and active, fails to overtake it, but that it is dissolved and no longer exists. For example, Paul, when he did not know Christ, persecuted him, driven to this by the ignorance in him, which we said is darkness; but when the light persecuted by it shone out its own rays, the darkness was dissolved, and so it could not overtake the light it was persecuting. Likewise also the robber who repented on the cross, blinded by the darkness spoken of, persecuted the light; but the darkness in the robber was dissolved, and so in turn … the truth. And when falsehood and every deceit, that is, the darkness, persecutes the light, then it is dissolved and vanishes as it comes near to what it persecutes. For when the truth appears, falsehood and deceit are dissolved. And I will say the paradox: while it is far off, the darkness persecutes the light, but when it comes near … For as far as it stands off from the truth, it rules and works in the man, so as to drive the truth from the mind; but when it draws near to the truth, it is shown not to exist at all. Hence of necessity God permitted evil to exist, though he was able to prevent it, so that the greatness of virtue might be shown.

Not so much because of the common designation of “man” as because he is by nature “after the image” and made for likeness to God. And it must be noted that “came to be” does not always signify the birth that brings into existence … “sent from God”; so that what is said is this: “He came to be sent from God for witness.” And if these things said of John are right, how much more the things written or said of the Son of God …

“That all might believe.” As far as lay in him, clearly, even if not all believed. For neither, if not all received the illumination of the sun, would one say on that account that the sun does not rise for this purpose, that all may be enlightened. For the purpose of him who sent him was that all should believe.

“He was not that light,” that is, the one spoken of by the theologian; for some had supposed, because of the advantages he had, that he was himself the Christ. For this reason he says this, so as to remove such an error by the roots. For even if John was a light, yet not that light of which the saints say to God, “In your light we shall see light”; so that even if John was a light, according to what was said to the disciples, “You are the light of the world,” yet he was not that true light. And “true light” is said not in contrast to falsehood, but in distinction from an image. For truth and the true are contrasted sometimes with falsehood and deceit, and sometimes with image and imitation. One may take as image-light the sensible light, and especially the sun, and as true light the intelligible light, or rather that which enlightens the intelligible beings, the holy powers. This, I think, is what is said by the scripture: “Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.” … “coming into the world.” But since “coming into the world” is said ambiguously, being able to refer sometimes to the light and sometimes to the man, it must be interpreted both ways. And first we must take it thus: the light that enlightens every man came at the time of his sojourn, the man being in the world; as it is said, the light came into the world to enlighten man. Then: the true light enlightens every man who comes into the world … the sensible; for the typical and sensible light, even if not the consequence, is yet not false. The true light, then, always benefiting every rational being, enlightens every man.

Since not all turned away from him (for many of them received him, and especially the apostles), the evangelist adds: “But as many as received him had authority to become children of God.” For those who are being introduced to the faith, and perhaps those too who have made progress, have authority to become children of God; they will become this only then (not having yet received more than the authority), when they are perfected in virtue and faith and knowledge. And what the reason is for which they had the authority, he shows by writing that it was given to those who believed in his name, the name of the light, clearly. For since believing in the name of the light is not the same as believing in the light, authority, that is, aptitude for becoming children, is given to those who believe in his name. But if by progress they pass from believing in his name to believing in him, they would no longer be children of God in potency but in act. For those who assent to the light with a simpler and not very exact understanding believe in his name; but those who have come to him with scientific demonstration and articulated understanding believe in him and call upon him. Hence Jesus, after much progress of the disciples, says: “Since you believe in God, believe also in me,” instead of “It is time for you to pass from believing in my name, so that you may believe in me and in the Father.” Indeed, after explaining to them the greatest theology, he added to one of them: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?”

For those born of God were born of God by having believed that Jesus is the Christ and by doing righteousness. But they are not subject to the birth “of bloods,” that is, they do not have their origin from material things. Indeed, to Peter, who believed that Christ is the Son of the living God, it is said by the Savior … In another sense, he is a “son of bloods” who thinks himself god-fearing and a son of God through offering the sensible sacrifices according to the law. For these think to please God through slaughters and the shedding of blood. And to do this was blameless before, but for us no longer, because the blood of Jesus given for us suffices for justification. And those are subject to “the will of the flesh” and “the will of a man” who do everything so as to appear righteous to men. For these propose to please by the will of the flesh, circumcising the flesh and wishing to Judaize openly, while not caring for the heart and for being a Jew in secret. And those too have the birth from “the will of a man” who, on the pretext of human philosophy, abstain from vice and take up virtue. And above these is he who has been born of God by having believed in him after believing in his name.

The words “as of the only-begotten from the Father” lead us to understand that the Son is from the essence of the Father. For none of the creatures (has its being) from the Father, but has its being from God through the Word. For if other things too had their existence from the Father, the word “only-begotten” would be set down in vain, there being many who have their being from the Father. But this one is called only-begotten from the Father, “full of grace and truth,” … being no other than these things of which he is said to be full. For the Only-begotten himself says of himself, “I am the truth.” For what is filled by truth will be receptive of truth; but truth is not receptive of truth, being in act this very thing that it is said to be. The same might be said of grace too. And it is not strange to say such things of the Only-begotten, since such things are written of the Father too. He himself, at any rate, says of himself in the prophet: “I am full.” And it is likely that this expression was used also because of what is to be observed before the Savior's coming. The law given through Moses punished those who sinned, granting to no one the things done in transgression of it. Further, this law handed down the rites of mysteries through images and shadow-drawings, leading by the hand and preparing those led by them for the teaching of Christ; and so the law is also called a pedagogue to Christ. Since, then, the Savior came not to punish those who had sinned but to grant forgiveness of what had been so done, and to put an end to the teaching through images and to give knowledge of the truth, himself making it manifest, or rather being himself the truth, he was rightly seen full of grace and truth by those who beheld him. For if he had shown grace to some but not to others, he would not have been full of grace; just as, if he had ended one part of the shadow but not another, he would not have been full of truth. But in fact he has circumscribed every shadow and image, and grants forgiveness of all sins to those who flee to him through repentance. He is, then, full of truth and grace.

… intensified. For he who announces the great doctrines brings them forth, as he ought, loudly according to their meaning. And “first” must be understood instead of “prior.” Yet what he says is this: Jesus, being before me and prior to me, (comes) after me … And his coming after John must be understood according to the time of birth; for John was conceived six months before Jesus was conceived. In this way Jesus, coming after him, has come to be before him, being shown to be God and his maker. It might also be said thus: everyone who learns will seem to follow his teacher, and in this way is said to walk after him. Since, then, the Savior too came to John, who was baptizing, to be baptized, he is said to come after the baptizer in respect of his being baptized by John; but in respect of his having sanctified (the waters) and being borne witness to by the Father, he has come to be before the baptizer, shown to be more honorable and superior to him. And it is well said too, “has come to be before me,” since his existence is prior to his having come to be. And notice this too, with what exactness it is said: it is not written, “he who is after me,” but “he who comes”; for if he were after him, he could not be before him; but it is not impossible for one who is first to come after. It might also be said otherwise: “Because,” he says, … giving the reason why he has come to be before him, being first, he added: “Because from his fullness we have all (received)” … the pre-eminence, and the one who fills is first of those who are filled? For if he himself perfects and fills with virtue and wisdom those who come to holiness, how is he not first and pre-eminent over them? And attend to the exactness of “from his fullness we have all received.” For those who in this life partake of holiness and knowledge of the truth (have) knowing in part and prophesying in part from his fullness, but they do not have his fullness. They might have it after this temporal life, in the ages to come, according to the apostle; in agreement with this are the words in the catholic epistle of John: “And it has not yet appeared (what) we shall be, when we shall see him as he is,” that is, as it is possible for originate beings to know God; for it is not possible to take in what God himself is as he is. For we shall have something more than the present condition, if no longer in part but stripped of all ignorance we approach the purest truth, seeing him as far as is possible. Because, then, John received from the fullness of Jesus, he says of him that “he has come to be before me,” of whose fullness I have had (a share). And the fact that not one but all the saints receive from the fullness of Jesus makes manifest the pre-eminence of the one who fills and perfects. For if all the saints were filled not from the whole fullness but from some part of it, those who receive from the fullness will be seen to fall far short of the one who supplied it to them.

Of the virtues we have one part from ourselves and from our own resources, which we acquire by choice, and the other from God; having believed, at any rate, in the Savior and in his Father as far as was possible from what is in our power. It remains for us to ask for what is from God, as the disciples of Jesus too say to him: “Increase our faith.” For the word “increase” signifies that they ask for a God-given faith in addition to what they had by choice. Indeed Paul too, writing, says that the gifts of the Spirit are given “according to the proportion of faith” that is in us from what is in our power: “To another,” he says, “is given faith, by the same Spirit.” And if faith is given to someone according to the proportion of the faith he has, it is clear that the God-sent faith comes to the one achieved by what is in our power. And what has been said of faith must be said also of the other virtues. Since, then, virtue is a grace making the one who has it graced, when it has been achieved by us through choice, then what is from God comes in addition; and this is what it means to be given “grace for grace” by God.

“The law was given through Moses,” but not by him, but by God. For the law is God's, according to what is written: “The law of the Lord is blameless, converting souls.” Yet, though the law is given through Moses, “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”: the grace, through forgiveness of sins, preventing the punishment from the law against sinners; and the truth surpassing the shadows and the types. And attend also to what will be said. Since the law and the prophets lasted until John, so that he became the end of the old scripture, after which came the Savior's coming, it is said quite fittingly: “He who comes after me has come to be before me.” For since the Savior's descent was proclaimed beforehand by the law and the prophets, when he came he is said to have come after. But even if he came after, yet, having fulfilled the law and the prophets by making manifest what was divine in them, he has come to be before, and has been shown to be the cause of all that divinely inspired scripture which lasted until John the Baptist.

Since seeing is twofold, sensible and intellectual, the one apprehends bodies and the other incorporeal things. Therefore we call the things that are subject to the mind and contemplated by it invisible, not because they are not seen, but because they are not of a nature to be seen. For none of the bodies is invisible, even if, being sometimes out of sight, it is not seen. For “invisible” does not mean “not being seen,” but “not being of a nature for this.” Therefore “not being seen” and “invisible” are not convertible. For not being seen follows upon the invisible, but the invisible does not follow upon not being seen; for many bodies, though visible, are not seen, either being covered or by not being where (the viewer) is. This distinction being right, what is said must be taken as of what is invisible. For not even the highest powers see God, not because of their weakness, but because of God's incorporeality. But … and freed from matter. For “Blessed,” he says, “are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”; and he calls the mind “heart.” Whoever has become pure in the way described, being perfected in virtue, approaches God as far as is attainable. These things being so, the mind (sees) God as … Therefore he did not say simply, “No one has seen God,” but with the addition of “ever,” which signifies something temporal, so that what is said is this: for as long a time as “ever” can be said, signifying a subject, (namely) while the mind is bound up with the material life. … from the concepts spoken of him in theology and from those we have … but by his intimacy with himself he has understanding of himself, being himself both the understanding and the thing understood. Therefore he alone knows …

Fittingly to his being only-begotten God and Son of the Father, the bosom of the Father has been named. For since all things concerning the divinity are beyond human (speech), the evangelist rightly wrote, from what we know, so as to signify his intimacy with the Father, “who is in the bosom of the Father.” For as it is written of all who are saved and receive the promises of God that they will come into the bosom of Abraham, meaning nothing else than that he is called father of the faithful, so too the Son of God is said to be in the bosom of the one who begot him. And as faithful men come into the bosom of faithful Abraham, so too the Son is in the bosom (of the Father). And the bosom of the Father must be understood as also the other things that are said of God in human fashion. And if it is said of the prophets or patriarchs or angels that they saw God, the divine scripture does not contradict itself. For no one sees God by applying his own understanding, as we are said to see visible things by the application of sight. But God is seen by those to whom he judges fit to be seen, revealing himself. For if anyone saw God, he would behold him, so to speak, such as and as great as he is. But since he does not see by himself, but God shows himself, he offers himself for contemplation as far as is possible for originate beings, as the Savior too says: “And I will manifest myself to him.” For he did not say, “He will see me,” but “I will manifest myself to him.” And this is …

The forerunner, according to the different aspects of the Savior, is: as of God, a prophet; as of the light, a lamp, giving light beforehand to those who are in the night of ignorance and accustoming the eye of the soul beforehand so as to be able to run also to the great light [as the morning star, the harbinger of the sun, signifying the arrival of the day that is to shine upon us]; as of the Word, a voice; for the voice must come before the word. … the Word, and the desert the soul that is ignorant of divine teaching. For how is it not a desert, deprived of the Word of God and of the voice that shows him? And the work of the voice is to make clear what is signified, so that they may be able to apprehend the Word that is shown without confusion. And what does the voice of one crying command the desert? “Make straight,” it says, “the way of the Lord.” And the desert signifies all who do not know him who comes after the voice. For as one who goes before a king commands those to whom the king is coming (to prepare) … to make straight the way of those who come to the teaching of the Word, [so John (goes before) the Word. For as the voice runs before the word, so John (runs before) Christ, who is the Word, as a voice].

… in what follows it is said: “On the next day he sees Jesus coming toward him” … “stands,” John bearing witness about the light. For he knew that he was also God the Word; and this Word is present to every rational being. And since some suppose that the thinking part, which some call the ruling part, is in the very middle of us, and there is the Word by whom we are rational, he being the image of God according to which man was made after the image of God, showing that the Word of God is the one who is to come to be baptized by him, he says: “Among you stands” one unknown to you. And he is unknown to you for this reason: because, when you ought to do what is fitting with him in your midst, you keep him quiet and, so to speak, inactive within yourselves, doing nothing (according to him) nor thinking rationally. Having said this about the essence of the Word, he next joins also what concerns his coming, saying: “He who comes after me,” after the law and the prophets; for I am the symbol and end of those. And he comes after me fulfilling all the things prophesied about him. For the one prophesied comes after and following the things proclaimed beforehand; “but among you he stands,” as already … “the thong of the sandal”: you will understand it thus. The Word of God, in what he dispenses toward men, does not work with naked divinity, but taking the form of a slave, so that his going in the working of the economy is covered. This, at any rate, is said of him in the Psalms too: “And he bowed the heavens and came down, and darkness was under his feet,” [something dark about his going, because of its being obscure]. The thong of his sandal, then, that is, of the darkness about his feet, is the account of its incomprehensibility, binding and holding together the sandal about his feet; so that to loose the thong is to make clear and to present in reason in what manner God took up a body, covering and hiding his power that goes forth to the economy. Since, then, it is possible for no man to show a demonstration of the manner of the union, rightly he who has more than a prophet, than whom no one is greater among those born of women, confesses that he is not able to loose the thong of his sandal.

And it is well said, “who takes away the sin,” not “who took away” or “who will take away.” For he is always at work taking away the sin of those who flee to him. We show from this, then, that he both took away and takes away and will take away, “taking away” being fitted to each time.

“And I did not know him.” I who teach, he says, did not say these things about Christ by nature, nor according to the common notion of men; for I did not know him; but I said them when the Holy Spirit and the Father had made manifest to me the testimonies about him. For I was sent to bear witness about the light, receiving the beginning of the knowledge of the one witnessed to at the time when I was sent. But one must also try to solve the question in another way. It is possible for him to know him in one respect and not to know him in another. Even if, then, he says of the Savior, “And I,” … it is shown by the expression that he did not know him before, but now knows this very one, God having made him manifest to him. And this is shown from what is said immediately after. For again John himself says that he beheld the Spirit coming down in the form of a dove upon the Lord. “And I did not know him,” he says, “but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me: He on whom you see the Spirit descending … this is my Son. And I have seen and have borne witness.” If, then, even before the descent of the Spirit (he knew him as) the lamb and the man and the prophet and the Christ and the light of God, … knowledge, and that he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, (a knowledge) which he had when the sign that was given was seen. These things being so, we must inquire how John says he beheld the Spirit; for it is not lawful to think that the Spirit, which has an intelligible existence, is seen sensibly. Together with the present passage, then, the question being made general, the things said in like manner in the prophecies will be examined. For many of the prophets, and in general of the holy men, are recorded to have beheld appearances and visions. For since elsewhere too seeing and beholding is divided in two ways, into sense and understanding, it is impossible that the holy men saw God sensibly, or in general the Trinity or the things under it that have an intelligible existence; it remains that they beheld them according to understanding, by means of some analogy. Indeed, since the Holy Spirit has no shape or form or any appearance at all, he receives the notion of a dove; and though the Holy Spirit does not move from place to place, he sees his descent taking place from heaven upon Jesus who was being baptized. And that the apprehension of none of these is sensible, what follows shows: “For he on whom you see,” he says, “(the Spirit) descending and remaining upon him.” For one can see the descent of something even with the senses, when a body has come down upon that on which it has come down; but sense is not able to apprehend things that remain, so as to confirm this vision. And by another proof too it must be said that the other evangelists say that the descent of the Spirit upon the Son was seen by John, who saw the heavens also opened or split. But it is not possible to see sensibly an opening or splitting of the heavens, since not even of the denser bodies, I mean water and air, and let us say ether too, if it is something besides the heavens. For the things that pass through them (pass) … the opening and passage coming about from elsewhere. For the things passing through open them, and they are united again after the passage of those that have passed through. At any rate, it is not possible to see divisions of water without a more solid body being thrown in. And if this is so, an opening of the heavens would not fall under sight; for neither is the Holy Spirit who came down from there a body. These things, then, were beheld by the Baptist intelligibly. And attention must be paid also to the Holy Spirit's having remained on Jesus alone. For if, having come down, he had remained on another too, it would not have been a sign showing the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. And this must be demonstrated thus: the Holy Spirit (comes) to undefiled and pure souls; “the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and will rise up and depart from foolish thoughts.” And David, having fallen into a sin, entreats God, saying: “Take not your Holy Spirit from me.” Since, then, Jesus alone did no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth (for of him alone it is said, “him who knew no sin”), rightly the Holy Spirit, having come down upon him, remained. But all these things, I mean the Spirit's coming down from heaven upon Jesus and remaining on him, are written for the sake of the economy, not as a historical narrative, but as intelligible contemplation, as has already been said. For the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Son; for neither is the Son in a place, nor again the Father, so that the Holy Spirit too should pass from the Father to the Son by moving from place to place. For in general the things concerning the divinity must be taken intelligibly, even if they are said in human fashion, such as standing and sitting and going up [and all that is written of the divinity similar to these].

It is worth inquiring how here Andrew, on the second day after the baptism of Jesus, at once finds his own brother Peter, while elsewhere, according to Matthew, Jesus, many days after the baptism, finds Peter and Andrew his brother. It is likely, then, that Andrew first brought Peter to Jesus and he was benefited a little by the teacher; then, after his brother had been benefited, he withdrew to attend to his own affairs; and Jesus, after the first call, called them to follow him continually, having authority to fish for men, through the teaching he gave them. “Come,” he says, “and see”: perhaps by “come” summoning them to the practical (life), and by “see” indicating that the contemplation that follows the achievement of good actions will surely come to those who wish, coming about as they persevere in them.

And he said that he would be called Peter, named from the rock, which is Christ; so that, as one is wise from wisdom and holy from holiness, so too Peter is from the rock. And this is shown from what the Savior said to the one so named: “You are,” he says, “Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”

… being said ambiguously, it shows sometimes that Andrew was the one who went out, … having gone out into Galilee and found Philip. To this Philip, found by Andrew, Jesus says: “Follow me.” And to follow Jesus is to follow the Word … in wisdom, righteousness, acting and thinking rightly. And Bethsaida is translated into the Greek tongue as “House of hunters,” … (of) men. Concerning such hunters, as sent by God, a prophecy in Jeremiah is spoken in the person of God, running thus: “And behold, I send to you many hunters, who will hunt you.”

He does not mean to say this, that the prophets wrote thus: “Joseph's son, the one from Nazareth”; but we have found this one to be that one.

Can so great a good come out of Nazareth? Or he says confidently: the one who has been found really is from Nazareth and is truly good. To him Philip says: “Come and see” the Jesus who has been found, wishing rather to convince him by sight than by hearsay about the one who has been found.

And what was said by Nathanael to Jesus he rendered thus: “You are the Son of God; you are king of Israel, the race that sees clearly.” For to see the heart and know who has deceit in himself and who has not belongs to a Son of God, and not to one of the many sons, but to the Only-begotten, who is king …

(He says:) “You saw me then when I was under the fig tree, before I was called by Philip.” Hearing this, Jesus says: “Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” After the clarification according to the letter, the allegorical meaning must be stated. Philip, from following Jesus, who is the Word of God and the Wisdom of God, has become a hunter of the souls given by God to those who are able to benefit them. For Nathanael is interpreted “gift of the Lord.” To this disciple given to him, the things concerning the divinity of the Son of God are not at once imparted, but the things concerning his incarnation, saying: The one whom all we Hebrews read in common as coming in the writings of Moses and the prophets we have found, Jesus, born of the Virgin without the casting of a man's seed, who is called the son of Joseph, who was betrothed to Mary, having his origin locally from Nazareth; for Nazareth is the city of the Virgin. Having received these things from Philip, who has now become his teacher, the disciple Nathanael says to the one who taught him: “If what has been found is from Nazareth, is it good?” To him Philip at once, calling him to the very sight of the thing, (says) “Come …” … not to have, but to be a beholder of the truth, hastening after the hearing of words to contemplation. Jesus, seeing Nathanael coming not only by walking but also by progress toward contemplation, bears witness about him as one so eager for the understanding of the truth, and says to those with him: Do you see this one who is coming? Not only sensibly and according to the flesh is he an Israelite, but also according to the spirit and understanding. For he has a mind that sees God; for he is truly an Israelite and not falsely named, since, being pure of all deceit, he is a friend of the truth.

When the third day had already come since Jesus was baptized, a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee, and the mother (of Jesus) was there … Jesus, being the maker of the man and the woman, does not refuse to be invited to a wedding, being himself the one who, after forming Eve, brought her to Adam. Therefore in the gospel too he says concerning the union: “What God has joined together, let man not separate.” Let them be ashamed … and his mother being there. And the Manichaeans too must be refuted, who say that Mary was not the mother of Jesus, since the evangelist bears witness that Jesus had a mother.

One can observe the exactness of the evangelist from this narrative too. For since he knew that the willfully malicious and crafty among the Jews were ready to speak ill of the mighty works of Jesus, … someone pleading for the text will say in respect of this passage too (that he records him) giving orders to the servants of the banquet about drawing the water (since the slanderers would have said, if the disciples of Jesus had drawn the water, that they filled the jars with wine while pretending to have filled them with water; in this sequence lies also “They filled the jars up to the brim”), and so as to leave no pretext for sophistry, [lest, the jars not having been filled with water, wine poured in should have seemed to make people think that the whole had come from water].

“They believed” is said instead of “they were confirmed.” For he speaks of faith for the most part rather in the sense of confirmation. To these, then, he manifested his glory the more. For to change an essence belongs to the creator and not to a creature. For water becoming wine is a change not simply of quality but of essence.

“And after this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brothers and his disciples.” [It is asked by many concerning the brothers of Jesus how he had them, since Mary remained a virgin until death.] … having brothers from Joseph. By law, then, they were called his brothers, being sons of Joseph by a wife who had died before; and since … by agreement Mary was called his wife. [For this is what the law of Moses teaches, bringing the punishment of adultery against one who lies with a betrothed virgin; for it adds: “Because he humbled his neighbor's wife, he shall die.” If, then, the law (calls) the virgin pledged to Joseph his wife,] those from Joseph (are his brothers), even if he himself is not from him.

[Of the three public feasts handed down to the Hebrews by the great hierophant Moses, one was that called Pascha, surpassing the other two as showing forth the salvation from Egypt and the passage to the holy land. To this festival, at any rate, the whole nation of the Jews hastened from all the cities and villages to Jerusalem; for in this city alone was the Pascha handed down by the law to be sacrificed. And the three feasts were named after God, who legislated them. But since the Jews no longer (kept) the feasts according to (the law), the evangelist speaks not of the Pascha of God but of the Jews. For they no longer came to Jerusalem for the sake of worship but for luxury. For these things were brought into it from all the surrounding places for feasting, and were sold in the house of God; for the evangelist said that oxen and sheep and doves were sold there as in a market. But since it happened that those coming to the feast did not bring so much silver, some money-changers devised to set up tables there and to change money, that is, to lend, taking gold from those who needed silver, for those who had come to drink and live luxuriously rather than to keep the feast. When, then, the whole nation of the Jews was there and given over to drunkenness, Jesus, entering the house of God, drove them all out from there, having only a whip of cords. And (no one else) would have done this. For he drove out of the house not only the rest of the crowd but also those who were selling the things for the feasting. And let no one think this less than the other miracles. For it was not possible without divine working for one man to drive out so great a crowd, especially when they were enraged and murderous against him. And indeed the Jews themselves, astounded at what he had dared, say to him in what follows: “What sign do you show us, that you do these things?”, saying: How great are you in power, and what piety are you able to perform, that you do such things, daring alone to drive out a whole populous nation!]

… but have knowledge neither firm nor perfect, about whom it was said earlier too, but able to fall away most easily. Hence he did not entrust himself to them, because he knew these things not superficially but from the depth of the mind. For to know people from their actions and words is possible even for a mere man. But Jesus, not being a mere man but God become man, knows all things, grasping the hidden part of the mind. [For of God alone it is said, “he who knows hidden things and knows all things before they come to be.” And since Jesus, being God, knows what is hidden in the heart, he has no need to receive testimony from man, knowing what is in man. For it is not said that he knows man simply, but what is in man. And since he knew that they would not abide in the faith they had in his name, he did not entrust himself to them. For they had believed from signs, but not from understanding about God. Therefore they could quickly fall away, deceived by themselves or by others who would argue sophistically that the signs had not really or not rightly taken place. But the one who believes in him, having his conception (of him) from God, is not easily deceived.]

Among the many who had believed in the name of Jesus we must place Nicodemus too, who was one of the Pharisees and a ruler of the Jews. Indeed, (that he held) Jesus to be a teacher (his) words show, when he said: “You have come from God as a teacher”; and, as adding the truth of his knowledge about the teacher, he says next: “For no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” Hence the evangelist consistently recorded that his approach took place at night, since he came at such a time as he would escape the notice of the many Pharisees, of whom he was one. Or rather, which is indisputable, he came by night for this reason: because, being ignorant of the God to whom he was coming, he had not yet been enlightened. For the sun of righteousness, the maker of the intelligible day, had not yet risen for him; a day which Abraham too, having received a longing for it, had been prepared to see, and having seen it rejoiced. And the Pharisees are men who follow the leading order and sect in Judaism, professing a strenuous life and exactness in the law and the prophets. Therefore for the most part they are bold and arrogant. Hence too they got this name; for “Phares” among the Hebrews means “the one separated.” Since, then, these too separate themselves from the whole nation of the Jews, as excelling in prudence and life, they wish to be named from “Phares.”

… “he who comes from above is above all,” and sometimes “again,” as in “to which you wish to be slaves again (ἄνωθεν),” that is, again. And the birth from above, which the Savior teaches, comes about from taking up virtue and keeping his commandments. For he says to the disciples: “(Love your enemies …) so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven.” Yet, even if Nicodemus answered mistakenly what was said, still what he said has something true, even if he himself did not understand it. For truly no one who remains in being a man, so as to grow old in the human condition, can receive the birth according to the Spirit and from above. For as no one remaining unrighteous and faithless can be born according to righteousness and faith, so no one remaining in human things and growing old in them is able to receive the renewing birth. Hence the teacher of the truth writes to those eager to come to the divine birth to put off the old man with his deeds, so that, this being cast off, they may put on “the new man, created according to God in righteousness,” to whom it will follow, as one born from above, to walk in newness of life. Urging his disciples on to this birth, Jesus said: “Unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Note the exactness of this too. Children do not retaliate against those who have wronged them, are not grieved at the loss of pleasant things, do not cling firmly to what is agreeable. He wishes, then, that we be such by disposition as children are by age. For they are such not by reason; but those who, by Jesus' command, are to become like them hasten by reason and the best habit to be found so disposed. Even if, then, Nicodemus spoke the words in ignorance, still something true lying in his words was unknown to him.

Interpreting the manner of how it is possible to be born from above, the Savior says: Since what lies before us is to enter the kingdom of God, and it is impossible to attain this without having been born of water and Spirit, being born from above follows upon being born of water and Spirit. And he is born of the Spirit who has been made according to it, becoming holy and spiritual from it. Then, since the one who enters the kingdom of God is born not of the Spirit alone but also of water, it follows that we should hunt out something about the water too from Scripture. And see whether (water and Spirit differ) only in concept and not in reality: “He who believes in me, as the scripture said, rivers of living water will flow from his belly. And this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive.” For if it is said of the Spirit as living water going out like rivers from the believer, the water will differ from the Spirit in concept only. As, then, one is born of the Savior wise from wisdom, so too of the Spirit holy and spiritual; and being cleansed by the water and watered for bearing fruit, one is born of water and Spirit. But someone else will say that “water” here means the teaching that cleanses the soul, which also itself contributes to being born from above. Of this cleansing, which comes about from divine instruction, the psalmist said to God: “You will wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.” [And Jeremiah says to the multitude of Israel: “Wash your heart from wickedness, Jerusalem, that you may be saved; how long will the thoughts of your toils remain in you?”, calling “the thoughts of her toils” those done in wickedness, for which she will be punished unless she washes herself by the instruction of the Scriptures.] Then, since not the soul alone is called to salvation but also the body itself, which it uses as an instrument for its activities, rightly this too must be sanctified through what is called in the divine teaching “the washing of regeneration,” which is also named divine baptism, no longer mere water; for it is sanctified by a certain mystical invocation. And see of what kind (is the order handed down by the Savior) … to his disciples in the mystagogy. For he says: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe,” and so on. For if one must first be made a disciple, receiving the doctrines of the truth, then keep what he commanded them concerning the moral virtues, and so be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, how can the water that is received together with these still be mere water, having shared, as far as it can, in the power of the holy Trinity, and joined with moral and intellectual virtue? And consider its greatness by attending to the purpose for which it is received. For if it is for the sake of entering the kingdom of God, and this surpasses by its pre-eminence, how is the cause of entering it not great? And the kingdom of God must be said to be the condition of those who live in order according to his laws. And this will have its abode also in its proper place (I mean the one in the heavens). But since here it is called the kingdom of God, and in Matthew the kingdom of heaven, we must say that Matthew named it from those who are ruled, or from the places in which they are, but John and Luke from God who rules; as when we too, saying “kingdom of the Romans,” signify it through those who are ruled, showing it either from the place or when we announce it as of the land or the inhabited world.

These words show a meaning such as this. The Holy Spirit visits only the earnest, being far from the base. [But “far” and “near” must not be understood locally,] but as it is possible to understand them of incorporeal things. [For such expressions, often written also of God the Father, do not signify local distances.] Since, then, the Spirit, being estranged from the base, fills those who have faith and virtue, it is rightly said: “The Spirit blows where it wills.” And this also signifies that the Spirit is an essence. For it is not, as some think, an activity of God, having in their view no distinct property of existence. [And the apostle too, having enumerated the gifts of the Spirit, at once added: “All these are worked by one and the same Spirit, dividing to each individually as he wills.” And if he wills and works and divides, he is an active essence, and not an activity. And the saying in the Acts too, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” is not far from willing and wishing. Besides this, words of his are recorded in the divine scriptures, especially in the Acts of the Apostles: “For while they were fasting and ministering to the Lord, the Holy Spirit said: Set apart for me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them.” (And Agabus) says: “Thus says the Holy Spirit: The man whose belt this is they will so bind,” and so on.] Yet, even if the Spirit blows where it wills, Nicodemus, not having it in himself, because he had not believed in Jesus as he ought, hearing only its voice, does not know where it goes and whence it comes. And he hears only its voice who reads the scriptures of the Spirit without understanding them; … everyone who attends to the reading and searches the scriptures, in understanding them, knows whence the way of the Spirit comes and where it ends, which it travels through the instruction of the divine oracles. For one who knows the cause … for what end the teaching of the Spirit has been given to men, having contemplated it, knows where it goes and comes to rest.

It is worth inquiring how the Savior said that he had spoken earthly things, having taught about the kingdom of God and the birth from above, and about the Holy Spirit [and being born of him]. For none of these is earthly, but each is heavenly. To this it might be said that Jesus did not say, “If I have told you the things of earth,” but “earthly things,” calling earthly the things that can exist and be understood by men still living on earth. For they are not earthly by their own nature, but, being heavenly, they have been given to men by the gift of God. [And that the things (given) to those on earth (are from above, James shows, saying): “Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.” And this he said having learned it from the Savior, who said: “The Father will give from heaven good things to those who ask him.”] Then, since of the things supplied by God some can be brought within reach of those who know in part, and others (belong) to those who have attained perfection in the age to come, when that which is in part will be done away when the perfect has come, it is said most fittingly: “How, if I tell you heavenly things, will you believe?” For he who does not believe the partial will not believe the perfect either.

The (making of the) serpent was commanded by God, so that those led by Moses might know that, as they were being killed by the venomous creatures for having disbelieved God, who had promised them the land, so they would be saved by gazing at the serpent that was lifted up, because of God who commanded this to be done. For it was not the nature of the object made, but the one who commanded them to make it, who provided them the cause of salvation. And the intelligible serpents too subjected men to death through sins, injecting into them the venom of their own wickedness. And when there had been much death against souls (and this is the death that follows sin), God, being entreated, was pleased that his own Son should be lifted up, so that all who look to him through faith might be freed from the harm of the intelligible serpents and have eternal life. And eternal life is not the common life which belongs also to the other animals, but that which comes about from faith and the rest of virtue.

From the present text too one can refute those who say that the name “Son” applies only to the one from Mary, and not to God the Word. [For see, the Son of God is the one who was sent into the world. But what was sent into the world was not what was taken from the Virgin (for this was constituted here, born of her), but the one who is God the Word in truth and the true light. For concerning him those make supplication to God who say: “Send out your light and your truth,” and again it is written: “God sent out his word and healed them.”]

… Jesus having come now to judge the world, adducing what follows next: “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world.” And in this very Gospel Jesus says: “For judgment I have come into the world.” The difficulty raised must be solved. Even if Jesus, having come, does both, judging the world and saving it, yet the one is for the sake of the other. For he has come into the world for judgment in order to save it (for he does not save in order to judge). And just as a physician comes to a sick man in order to heal him; for this is the end of the physician's visit, even if other things happen, such as cutting or burning; for the cutting and the burning are not for their own sake, but for healing. Next after these: “He who believes in him is not judged.” For he who through faith has attained perfect salvation is not subject to judgment. But he who has not believed, being self-condemned, has already been judged.

“And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light.” For if the light had not come into the world, those who did not do good things could have pleaded ignorance of them [as those who practice vices would have a kind of defense, saying that they did not know them to be evil]. But since the light has come into the world, every misguided defense being banished, there will be a judgment examining the actions and the mind of each; so that those who loved the light will be accepted and attain the kingdom of God, having themselves become light from their love for it through good works and a true mind, so as to hate the darkness (and this is vice and impiety), while those who turned away from virtue and from God, its giver, will experience eternal punishments; since, being eager to have evil works, they hated the light, which convicts their base works by making them manifest. “For everyone who does evil hates the light,” not wishing to come to it at all, “lest his works be convicted” as evil, wishing to hide them so as not to be condemned by others. But even if this man hates the light, still the worker of the truth comes to the light, wishing the works that he does to be made manifest, that they are done in God. [He said well “he who does (πράσσων) evil” and “he who does (ποιῶν) the truth,” saying neither “he who did” nor “he who has done.” For it is possible both for one who has done evil to depart from vice and to look toward the good, and for one who professes to rejoice in the truth to incline sometimes to the worse. Therefore he said “does” in the present. For neither can one disposed toward vice rejoice in the good, and the lover of the truth surely …] the light must be taken not locally but actively, everyone who acts according to virtue coming to it. For the base man, working vice, refuses to be with the light; for good and evil, light and darkness, cannot exist together. [And the same in these matters: since some of the heretics think that some are by nature in darkness and love it, attend to what has been said, that each of them is in darkness by choice and loves it. “For men,” it says, “loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil.” For it is not because of the darkness that they have evil works; but because they have evil works they love the darkness. And again, it is not by not coming to the light that they do evil; but by doing evil they do not come to the light. [It is in our power to do evil or to love the light and do the truth.]]

[Since it is written, “Men loved the darkness rather than the light,” we must inquire whether, loving both, they loved the darkness more and the light less; which also seems to have a place in the case of men neither very base nor perfect in virtue. But I think that this is not what is shown, that loving both they love the darkness more, or the light more; but the meaning is this: men, being free, in that they have a free choice, and owing to accept the light and flee the darkness, have done the reverse, those who have evil works, so as to love the darkness and not the light at all. And we must not understand comparatively that they loved the darkness more than the light; for they did not love it at all, having hated it. And that this understanding is right is shown from the passage itself. For he says that they loved the darkness rather than the light for this reason, since doing base things they hate the light; and if they hate it, they do not love the darkness comparatively. To this you will also refer what is written by the apostle about evil men, that they would be “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” For in this phrase too it is shown that, loving pleasure only and not God, they are called lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. And in the Psalms too it is written of a base man: “You loved evil more than goodness.” For it is not that, loving both, he loved evil more.]

We must understand with good sense “all are coming to him” as “many,” and “A man can receive nothing of himself unless it has been given from heaven,” that is: A man cannot have a divine gift unless it has been given to him from heaven. And the gifts from God are given to those prepared by faith and virtue to receive them. Learn, then, that even if I, having received from the Son of God, have the baptizing with water for repentance, I fall far short of the one who gave it to me. And that I say these things not now but before, I have you as witnesses of what I said to those who asked whether I am the Christ. For you were present when I said that I am the forerunner of the Christ, and not the Christ himself. And let no one stumble at “A man can receive nothing” as though it were not rightly said.

The rational essence, of which the soul of man too is a part, is of itself productive of none of the goods, even if it is receptive of them. It is of a nature, then, to bring forth from another, in the manner of a woman, the practical and intellectual virtues that it can bear. Therefore I shall call it a bride, not of any chance one, but only of the sower of goods. And he is no other than Jesus, of whom you have said that he baptizes, who has been borne witness to by me, to whom you say all are coming. If, then, you too wish to bring forth goods, go to him. For you are part of the bride, being … of the essence of rational beings. Yet, even if he is the bridegroom, I am his friend, being a servant of his will, and I have as my aim to present to him those whom I instruct. Even if, then, you have become my disciples, … and I exhort you, having the time to be joined to the perfect teacher, to go over to him; as I myself also pray to be his hearer; for I rejoice hearing his voice. Therefore it is our joy too when those who formerly attended me take up so great an intellectual habit as to contain (the teaching) taught by him to the worthy … being king and almighty. And if he is above all, clearly he is above me too; hence he must increase, and I must decrease. [In this sense must be taken also what was written by Paul to the Corinthians, which has this construction: “I betrothed you to one husband, to present a pure virgin to Christ,” calling the whole church the bride, being a pure virgin because of the rightness of doctrines and morals. And writing to another church, the same apostle, having mentioned Adam and the woman, adds: “This mystery is great; but I speak with reference to Christ and the church,” so that, as those became parents of all men, so Christ and the church are begetters of all good works, thoughts and words.] Of the bridegroom, then, as interpreted, John is the friend, standing by him with firm assent, through having steadfast faith in him; and standing so, he rejoices with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. Hence he adds next: “This, then, my joy is fulfilled,” all going away to Jesus. For I have come to bear witness to him, so that all may believe in him through me; hence he must increase, and I decrease. And this must be attended to. For the Savior does not increase by taking anything to himself, nor does John decrease by losing anything; for each remains the same. But what is said is understood thus. The morning star, rising before the sun in order to accustom the eyes to look at a greater light, has a fixed size. It appears greater than the sun at the first glance of sight; but as the sun gradually appears, the morning star decreases, not losing anything of its own size, but by comparison with the sunlight that has appeared. So too John is great in fullness of holiness. Jesus came after him, as said before; he was baptized; he was borne witness to by him. After the economy of these things, the divinity of Jesus having been shown, the one is shown to be the servant, the other the master.

… that he is above all. But those who have a material mind bear the image of the earthy man, who also speak from the earth. Therefore, if they ever profess teaching, they have the wisdom of which James writes, earthly, unspiritual, demonic. Of such Isaiah too writes, as being from the earth and speaking from it … [of God the Word, who comes from above, being above all and speaking what he has seen and heard. But the prophets too, having the Word that comes from above to them, speak heavenly and divine things, which they saw with the mind and heard with the ears of the inner man. For each of them will say … Solomon speaks more plainly about this, saying: “My words have been spoken by God.” Therefore it is written: “In many parts and in many ways God spoke of old to the fathers in the prophets; in the last of the days he has spoken to us,” who live at the time of his coming, “in a Son.”] Indeed, what he had seen and heard he spoke to men by way of teaching. And these things fit the economy; for it is not consistent to take them of the divinity.

“And no one receives his testimony,” although many have received his testimony, [as John himself again adds, saying: “He who received his testimony has set his seal that God is true.”] But how can it be true, when some receive his testimony, that “no one receives his testimony”? The difficulty must be solved thus. Jesus, having come from above and speaking what he heard and saw, speaks a most lofty and very great testimony about the Father and himself; and no one receives this testimony as he himself speaks it, because the hearers, who have a beginning of receiving, fall far short of the greatness of the testimony. Nevertheless, even if no one is able to receive his testimony in that way, still it is possible to receive it as far as those who are just coming to faith can receive it. Hence “he who received his testimony” does not conflict with no one having received it, since it is not received in the other way … those who also, from having received the testimony of Jesus, set their seal with firm assent that God is true, having learned that the one sent by him speaks the words of God; since he is not from the earth, nor does he speak from it. [For God does not give the Spirit by measure.]

For even if wise men who had God spoke the words of God, still they had the Spirit in part, as God says: “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” But the Savior, sent to speak the words of God, does not give the Spirit in part. For he does not, having received it himself, provide it to others; but, sent from above and being above all, he gives it, being its source. But we shall also interpret “no one receives his testimony” otherwise. For since one who searches the Scriptures finds that they bear witness about Christ, none of the Jews who read the Scriptures without examination received the testimony [about him]; only (he received it), and everyone who can say, “(We have found him) of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets,” … the testimony, and sets his seal that God is true, who promised the gospel beforehand through the prophets. And it is said also in another … and of this scripture, that the one sent (does) not (give) by measure, so as to provide sparingly and in part and to a few, but abundantly and richly to all who are found worthy to receive.

Since the heretics who twist their mind through everything, dividing the divinity, and therefore saying that the Old Testament is of one God and the New of another, [saying the Old Testament is of one God, whom they call world-maker, and the New of another, whom they call Father of Christ,] say that John said of himself and of the other prophets “He who is from the earth speaks from the earth,” but of Christ and his apostles “He whom God has sent speaks his words,” they must be refuted as teaching this falsely, or rather impiously. [For the Baptist himself says of himself: “He who sent me (to baptize with water said to me): He on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” If, then, the one who sent him to baptize is the Father, whose Son Christ is, how does he speak from the earth when he says what he heard from the Father of Christ? At the same time the evangelist too writes about him: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness” … (if the prophets) spoke from the earth, how do they bear witness about Christ? As the Savior said about their Scriptures: “These are they that bear witness about me.”]

For how should not God, who hates all evil, love (the Son), concerning whom it is written: “I am God, who loves righteousness and hates robberies from injustice”? And God hates the forms of evil in which the sinner rejoices. He loves, then, the Son as the provider of virtue; he loves the Son, being loved by the Son, the word “love” again being heard in a more human way, yet not so understood. For if God loves righteousness, he does not love it as the righteous man does. … he longs for the Son, who is Word and truth and wisdom and sanctification. But the saying can also represent the intimacy of the Father with the Son. For it is a natural law for those who beget to love those they beget. And as among men there is a natural disposition toward children, but it comes about in another way toward those otherwise loved, so too God loves the world as God, but the Son as Father. Therefore it is not said “God,” but “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.” And this must be taken faithfully and prudently. For if all things came to be through him, all things are under his hand according to the account of creation and providence; but these things went away through sin, so as to be outside the hand that sheltered them. For their salvation, then, the Father gives them into the hand of the Son, not granting an addition to the Son, but improvement to them. For he gives them as to a teacher and physician, so that, having made them free of ignorance and disease, that is, of vice, he may have them sheltered and ruled by him, now having them under his active and provident hand. And what follows shows the truth of this understanding: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life.” For if he who believes in the Son has eternal life, having been given into his hand, he is given for his own salvation and improvement, but not so that the Son should have something more. And when is the giving of all things into the hand of the Son fulfilled, if not when every knee shall bow to him, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth?

In many places of the Scriptures the punishments against the base are called God's wrath, as in what was said by Moses about the Egyptians: “You sent out your wrath, and it consumed them like stubble.” [And Paul writes about the Jews: “But wrath has come upon them to the end,” calling wrath the God-sent punishments that came upon them. And to him who despises his kindness and long-suffering he says: “But according to your hardness and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath.”] For we must not think that what is called his wrath is a passion of God. For how can there be passion in the impassible? But since God, being unchangeable, does not suffer, what is called his wrath must be interpreted according to what has been said.

Since he truly had a body made up of the same things as all human bodies, his body too was necessarily subject to the common sufferings, I mean not only wounds and the like, but also the weariness that comes from very intense [and continuous] movement. For at the midday hour, when the sun scorches, having completed a long journey, he took on more weariness, the moisture of his body being consumed by the blaze of the heat; for it was the sixth hour of the day. Wishing to rest from this weariness, he sat by the spring that was in the aforesaid field of Joseph, at the same time providing for the benefit of the woman who was about to come to draw water from the spring.

Perhaps someone might seek the reason why Jews do not associate with Samaritans; which one can find in the third and fourth books of Kingdoms, and also in the second of Chronicles … they did not dare to touch even the flesh of foreigners, thinking that they were defiled by this. And perhaps someone will say, objecting to “His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food”: If in the desert he fed five thousand and four thousand together with a multitude of women and a great number of children, once from five and once from seven loaves, what great thing was it to provide food for the disciples without their going into the city to buy it, Jesus supplying it by his own power? To this it must be said that Jesus, having become man, if he had done everything as God in truth, … his divinity was overshadowed. Hence, if ever there was need of a miracle, he fed many from a little, not so much for the sake of satisfying them as of making manifest his divine power. But when it was not very urgent to provide abundance of food from nothing, the disciples went off to buy bread. For if, Jesus doing these things to show his humanity and to make manifest his divinity, [many stumbled at the gospel, some supposing that he was a man in appearance, others (that he was a mere) man,] how much more, if nothing had been done and written with exactness about the manifestation of his divinity and humanity, would those have been deceived who do not read the history about these things exactly and prudently?

The Samaritan woman made the greatest effort to exalt the opinions of the Samaritans above the customs and doctrines of the Jews and to set them higher. Therefore, when the Savior promised to give living water, she retorted, “Are you greater than our father Jacob?” But the Savior, who knows how to dispense all things wisely, knowing that to exalt the things of the Jews and to say “greater” would at once strike the woman's mind, which as yet imagined nothing higher than sensible things, stores this up in silence, and by other words, no less able to establish it but smoothing her hearing, makes her mind more apt. For he does not himself bring in the comparison and the difference in glory, but leaves the woman to reckon, from what will be said, the surpassing extent of his superiority. “For whoever drinks of this water,” he says, “will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst.” And see the wisdom and power of the words. That “he will thirst again” he said as needing no proof from elsewhere, for he had the woman as a witness of her own accord; but “he will never thirst” he brought in, raising her by the greatness of the promise. By both he leads her to the consideration of a more divine conception, all but saying: If you hold Jacob in greater honor and as a marvelous achievement, because he provided you with water from which whoever drinks returns again to the same thirst, what must you reckon him to be who is able to provide water that does not soothe a bodily thirst for a short time, but can become in the one who drinks a spring of ever-flowing water, and supply streams of salvation, which water those who draw from them and secure eternal life? For as water cures thirst and cleanses the defilement on the outside of the body, so too the intellectual and heavenly streams of Jesus' teaching, and the more divine conception of him, heal the thirst that comes from unbelief and cleanse the soul of the filth with which the defilement of sins and the gloomy reasoning of impious opinions had soiled it.

The well of Jacob must be said, for allegory, to be the writing of Moses, from which Jacob together with his sons drank spiritually, his flocks too drinking from it, [which were Jacob's flocks,] the flocks being taken, for allegory, as those who have steadiness and gentleness without reason; and these must also be said properly to be the herds and sheep of Jacob.

If, then, the law given through Moses is the water, how did Jesus say that whoever drinks of it will thirst again? It must be said that the law was given to men, not for living by it always, but until a certain time, so that the drinking of the well interpreted (allegorically) lasts until the showing of a greater water. For the precepts of the law were laid down until the time of reformation. Therefore whoever drinks of the water of the law will thirst again, having a desire for the drink of the gospel. [To this you will refer what is said in Isaiah: “Drink this first, act quickly.” For if it were not possible to drink something after that, it would not have been said, “Drink this first.”] And since the gospel succeeds the law, whoever drinks the teaching of the law will thirst again, so as to (drink) also that of the gospel; … from it will not thirst for ever. [“For heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away,” said Jesus.] For he says that whoever drinks this water acquires in himself a spring, not of ordinary water, but of water leaping up to eternal life. Which water, leaping up to life, lifts up and raises to life the one who has it, as a spring in himself.

When the woman said that she wished to receive water from Jesus so as to stop her thirst, (not knowing that one who drinks has) it as a spring in herself, she showed that she wished it. For by this phrase she confessed that the drawing of the former water is great toil, [speaking truly about it;] for the keeping of the law according to the letter has great toil. And the Savior rightly (says) to her: Since you still … dedicated yourself to the law, living with it as with a husband, go and call it, so as to compare what is written in it with what is said and done by me. For so you will be able to find that one who drinks of the former water will look for another, because he will thirst again. And when she denied having a husband, the Savior, gently convicting her Samaritan opinion, says: “You say well that you have no husband.” For you have not assented wholly to the whole Old Testament, which is the law, of which it is written: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.” Not having this husband, you have had five, having assented only to sensible things … the God Word expected after the law and the prophets. For the “five” … five husbands, having assented only to the sensible things of Scripture; nor is the one you have the sixth your husband. These (five books) the Samaritans accept. And who is the sixth, whom she has besides the five husbands, who is not even her husband? It must be said: the word about his being a prophet. For she had already assented to this, compelled by what was said, but not by true assent. Therefore fittingly … you have come to him. And since the five husbands were said to be sensible things, after which she assented, not exactly, to some intellectual word from the teaching of Jesus, it is said most aptly …

[When you hear that salvation is from the Jews, understand what is said of the one who says these things. For he himself was the (salvation) of the nations …]

… he accepted from those who offered it, although he was able to nourish and not be nourished. And it is (a work) of the greatest activity to nourish Christ, which he did not grudge to those who wished; therefore he also appointed the like to his disciples. And they, being learned in the law and lovers of the word, considering that it was then time for food, conjectured whether, as food was given to Daniel in Babylon at God's command by an angel, and (to Elijah) by ravens, so food had been brought to Jesus. Nevertheless, even if the disciples supposed it to be about sensible food, he himself makes plain about what kind of food he had spoken to them. And they said it was his time for food from this: it being the sixth hour of the day, Jesus, sitting at the spring, conversed with the Samaritan woman while the disciples had gone off to buy food, so that one might conjecture that it was then evening of the day. And this is the time of food for those who pursue, as their chief aim, not food, but the benefit of those who come to them.

He calls Judea his homeland, which for this reason he also left. For the evangelist, giving the reason for his coming to Galilee, writes that “a prophet has no honor in his own homeland.” [This testimony is found also in the other gospels. For the Savior says: “A prophet is not without honor except in his own homeland and among his kinsmen and in his house.” Indeed all those before his coming were dishonored in Jerusalem and Judea. For this was their land and homeland; as the Savior says generally:] “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her!”

“Now there is,” it says, “in Jerusalem,” and so on. He did not judge it necessary to go about and heal the sick of whatever kind, so as not to incur a reputation for self-love; but having healed one, he made himself manifest to all through him. For this reason he goes to the sheep pool, which had five porticoes; for besides the four around it, it had another in the middle. And it was called the sheep pool because the sheep brought for the feasts were gathered there, and because, when the sheep were sacrificed, their entrails were washed in that water. Hence, at any rate, a great multitude of those held by various illnesses had gathered at the place in hope of healing, as though the water itself could surely do something, in which the entrails of those brought and sacrificed to God were thrown. And God, cooperating with this opinion of theirs, at certain unknown times caused a movement of the water to occur, which they, believing it to be accomplished by some divine working, received healing by going down, many not being healed at the same time, but the first to go down enjoying the grace, so that the readiness of the healing should not lessen the wonder. And being more watchful and waiting with great disposition for the movement of the water, they were taught by this to keep the fitting reasoning even after the healing. There being, then, many sick, he did not heal them all, but showing his own power he chose one who was held by the heaviest suffering and by the length of time had no hope of recovery. For there was among them a paralytic held by the suffering for thirty-eight years. Going to him, he did not at once say, “Take up your bed and walk,” but he begins his words to him from a certain sequence; which he did in the case of the Samaritan woman too.

I think that this was said to show that the spittle of Christ had a quality of healing power. And even if the blind man did not himself ask for recovery of sight, yet he will be found praiseworthy in offering himself to Jesus as he anointed his eyes with clay, and in doing without hesitation what was commanded, though Jesus had not even said that he would see again. Perhaps the Lord's spittle was a symbol of the word, as the last among words, greater than which human nature cannot contain. But since such a word does not come to men bare of matter and bodily examples, for this reason Jesus spits on the ground and makes clay. See, then, whether you can say, explaining the whole of Scripture and the manner of its proclamation, that it is composed, as regards the divine meanings, from the spittle of Christ, and as regards the proclamation as in histories and human affairs, from the (earth) on the ground; so that the whole letter of the law and the prophets and the other Scriptures is from such clay, with which the eyes of those who do not see must be anointed; and after this one must go to Siloam, which is “sent” by God; by which is signified the swimming, as it were, in the inquiries and perplexities about the truth … (we wash off) with the water of the pool of the Sent One the clay anointed on our eyes, so that after this we may be able to see. And you will understand the clay as the beginning of the elements of the oracles of God, according to which we are nourished like infants with milk; but when the things of the infant have been done away and we partake of solid food, we cast off the clay, so as to return to Jesus seeing. And all these things revolve around the Son of God; for according to different aspects he himself is also the Sent One. And take the human things as before Siloam, but refer the water sent and Siloam to his more divine things. And in Isaiah you will understand the divine and steadfast word to be signified by these things, and Rezin and the son of Remaliah to be the words of the nations and of the heterodox. Otherwise, how did the people want kings instead of the water of Siloam, and how is the water of the river strong and abundant the king of the Assyrians and all his power, unless he too is some opposing power, flooding by the multitude of its persuasive arguments Judea, which does not want the water of Siloam, and prevailing over it? And not healing him while present, but commanding him to go away and wash, and granting healing when he had washed, was the act of one dispensing (things) so that the miracle that took place should escape no one's notice. For as he commanded the paralytic to take up his bed on a day on which it was not lawful to do this, so that each one, accusing him of the lawlessness, might learn the greatness of the miracle that had taken place, so too he commanded this man, being far from the pool, to go away and wash.

The beggar begs because of lack of necessities and inability to procure them more decently. Such you might find those of the Greeks and barbarians who profess the truth, as it were begging for benefit, through lack of a fitting supply for the reasoning faculty of the truth's rich contemplations, free from circumstances. But forbidding such seeking, the word says somewhere: “Child, do not live a beggar's life; it is better to die than to beg.” And the steward of unrighteousness in the gospels is ashamed to beg, and therefore to the one who owed a hundred cors of wheat he said, “Take your bill and make it eighty,” preferring, rather than begging with shame, to take from the one who owed to his master; and for this he was praised. Jesus, then, freed the man blind from birth not only from his blindness but also from begging. For together with sight he granted him also a vision of how he was to procure the things necessary for the salvation of the soul. Here, then, blindness is the cause of begging, but in the Acts lameness; and the one freed from them will beg no longer.

… (Some said that one who does not keep) what they thought to be the sabbath is not from God; but the priests in the temple who profane the sabbath were from God; so it was not evident that one who does not keep their sabbath is not from God. So the word was not spoken by all the Pharisees of that time, but some of the Pharisees said this, as the evangelist says. And attend also to “such signs,” which is not set down in vain. For since there are differences of signs, so that, as the apostle says, both the one in the law and the lawless one, whom the Lord will destroy with the breath of his mouth, (does signs) “in all power and signs and lying wonders,” and God (does signs) through the prophets, “such” is said as surpassing, in that the things done through Christ were both true and great on earth. And if someone (objects) to “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” as not soundly said, … reading the deeds of Samson, will say that the things done by Samson, such as those concerning women, were not sins but signified dispensations; for “He did evil before the Lord” is not added.

The manner of speaking of the evangelist must be observed: he says both that the eyes of the blind man were opened and that he saw: opened, through “It was a sabbath on the day when he made the clay and opened his eyes”; and saw, through “And he washed and came back seeing.” We shall set out the difference between these expressions from Tobit, about whom (it is said), since his eyes had become white films, … but that he looked up. And through the whole passage about the blind man you will observe both, some saying this and others that, and a division arising. And you will observe in Isaiah too, prophesying about Christ's coming, that he comes to open the eyes of the blind. Next one can see also how the one who answered answers the first and how the second. To the first, more exactly, as to neighbors who had seen him before, that he was a beggar; but to the Pharisees he did not even (tell) the things about Siloam … And perhaps the man who was healed, seeing that the inquiry of the first was of love of learning, but that of the second of malice, answers each accordingly.

Besides having lied, they sinned in another way too, throwing their own son into evident harm. And I think this too has a reason: that Christ, opening the eyes of a blind man, opened those not of a child but of one of age, so that he might see as a man. And such were the other blind men who recovered their sight. And it is true that, being of age, he can speak for himself, and especially when Jesus makes him see. For he does not need another to plead for him.

… is equivalent to: “Why, you people, do you then wish to hear now?” For you wish in vain to hear, if you do not believe me when I speak the truth, I who invite all who learn what happened to me to become his disciples, as he taught more divinely than all human teaching.

“In this is a marvel” carries a noteworthy suggestion. For it is a marvel if where Jesus is from is known by ordinary people; for they do not see his root and source, the Father.

So great a doctrine, if it were true, that the sinner is not heard by God, would not have been passed over in silence, but would have been spoken by someone worthy of belief, for example by the servant (Moses) or by one of the prophets. And how, if God did not hear a sinner, were sinners taught to say, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we also forgive our debtors”? Whom, then, does God hear? Those who incline to repentance, even if they have not yet ceased to be sinners. If God did not hear sinners, our Savior would not have eaten and drunk with tax collectors and sinners. But if those who because of being ill needed physicians were not heard, [he would not have healed them.] Therefore, as the prayer of those who have sinned, but do not still altogether disbelieve, is effective, it is said: “If you mark iniquities, Lord, Lord, who shall stand?” But perhaps he speaks not about anything at all in the sinner's prayer, but about such great works as yours were. For when sinners ask God for such works, he does not hear.

“Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and finding him he said to him: Do you believe in the Son of Man?” … (since he had shown) boldness for the Savior, for this reason Jesus found him. If the finding of what is sought belongs to the one who seeks, clearly “finding him” is not to be heard simply. For he ought to be found especially then, when he was cast out by those who did not accept the testimony about Jesus. For having come outside of them he was fitted for … Jesus (heard) that they had cast him out, since, having heard such a thing, he finds, worthy of his hearing, the one he had heard about. And having found him, he asked the one who was found: Do you believe in the Son of Man who found you? And perhaps the beginner believes in the Son of Man, but the other, so as to say of him: “Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him” no longer according to the flesh only, but also as Son of God. But how does he ask, who knows all things? And see whether you will say to this, adducing “The Lord knew those who are his,” and being known according to “But now, having known God, or rather having been known by him …” But after the introduction there must be progress, so that one may be seen and known by God. For this reason the Savior, asking him, says: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” And since he could not yet (believe, he says): “Lord, (who is he,) that I may believe in him?” He was, then, on the border, so to speak, of unbelief and faith. For this reason the Savior says to him: “You have both seen him, and he who speaks with you is he.”

For such a tradition and opinion prevailed among the Jews; hence the disciples too asked Jesus: “Did this man sin, or his parents?” But the Lord declared, saying: “Neither this man nor his parents,” about which it has been spoken earlier.

It must be heard not casually that “you have seen” refers to past time, and “he who speaks with you” to the present: that the one who was seen is the same as the one now speaking with him; adducing: “Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father.” For many who saw him did not know him. He, then, has properly seen him who is enlightened in the eyes of the soul by God himself. Benefited, then, by both, by seeing and by the word, the once blind man not only said, “I believe, Lord,” but also worshiped him. [b] And no less, observing the drama of the stoning, since he (that is, Origen) tries to interpret this too tropologically, he falsifies the gospel text, saying: “We did not at all find, when we searched, in what goes before, that the Jews took up stones to stone him.” Then after a little he says: “For if they took up again, they took up before.”

“If they took up again, they took up before.” If, then, it does not escape us that this is written, it is necessary to seek the cause of the addition of “again.” And I think that he who speaks ill of someone throws a stone at the one who is spoken ill of. And they had spoken ill of him above, when “a division arose among the Jews because of his words.” Again, then, taking up the weight of slanderous words, like stones thrown at him, they rushed to stone him with abuse. For this reason Wisdom says: “He who throws a stone on high throws it on his own head.” For he is said to throw a stone on high who speaks injustice on high. And you will find in the divine Scripture a mixture of the seemingly historical with the exercising (sense), and especially in John. For observe in the conversation with the Samaritan woman how “Jesus sat at the spring” is a report as about a bodily spring and a sensible body; but it is no longer possible to hear (what follows) of bodily drink, when “Jesus answered and said to her: If you knew the gift of God and who it is who says to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked …” … “(Many good) works I have shown you (from the Father); for which of them do you stone me?” If someone, going back, should gather from the beginning of the gospel the works of Jesus, referring them to spiritual workings, he above all will see Jesus: for example, one of the good works was the sign at Cana, when the former wine ran short, because “the law and the prophets (were) until John,” (and) we (have come to) abound in good wine, we with whom Jesus reclines. And this is the beginning of his signs, in the calling of … “(This beginning of) signs Jesus did.” And next to this, his restoring the house of his Father, which had become a house of trade, so that it became again the house of his Father. And why must I tell all the good works that he has done from his Father?

So that he might not make his divinity too manifest, staying longer with those eager to seize him and not being seized, and so falsify the pattern of the human order. And consider whether there can be some reason why it is written not simply “He went away to the Jordan,” but beyond it and on the other side of it. Just as those who received the land as inheritance through Moses, being inferior to those who received it through Jesus (Joshua), received their lot on the other side of the Jordan; where they built an altar, a symbol of the altar of sacrifice in the holy land, but did not offer sacrifice or burnt offerings on it. But now we hear more figuratively “He went away beyond the Jordan to the place where John was baptizing at first.” And indeed Jesus son of Nun brings the people across from beyond the Jordan with miraculous powers. And Elijah too, about to be taken up as into heaven by a chariot of fire and horses of fire, crosses from beyond the Jordan, dividing the stream of the river with his mantle.

“They sought again to seize him, and he went out from their hand.” According to the anagogical sense, there are some who wish to hunt down the word of Christianity so as to overturn and destroy it … (for) wisdom will not enter a soul that devises evil; and the power in the word, when tested, convicts the foolish; for this reason it goes out, when the word of truth seems to those who hold it to be in their hand, and it comes to be outside their hand, since they cannot hold it fast. Therefore, even when they seem to overturn it, they do not overturn the truth; for they themselves do not understand. And having gone out from their hand, he comes to the river Jordan, which is interpreted “descent,” where the heavens, being opened, bear witness to the Word that “This is the Son of God, in whom the Father is well pleased.” And even if someone happens to be beyond the river, yet, having drawn near to it, he will find Jesus baptizing with the better baptism than John's. For John baptized first with the sensible baptism, but Jesus with the intelligible, since he baptized in the Holy Spirit and fire, rather the fire seen in the bush that does not burn up. And attend to what is said, and having seen both meanings of the expression, judge which of them must be accepted: first, John was baptizing beyond the Jordan; and second, in Aenon near Salim. Jesus, then, went away beyond the Jordan where first … John baptized the first baptism beyond the Jordan, and Jesus the Christ baptized the second where John, giving the first baptism, baptized. And the second seems to me to have more reason than the first. And someone might say about the first as follows: (Jordan) is interpreted “descent,” and the second (took place) in Aenon near Salim … Those, then, who receive the second washing are already more clear-sighted, and having acquired … from much testing and toil … (the first is given) to one descending, and the second to one ascending.

We find the name of Lazarus twice in the gospels: first, of the one called Lazarus, when he died and went away into the bosom of Abraham; and second, according to the present passage. Is it, then, a sameness of names, there being two Lazaruses, or is that one this one? For one who wishes to say that both evangelists speak of one man will say that in the three days between (for Lazarus rose on the fourth), having been carried by the angels into the bosom of Abraham, he rested there; and because of what the rich man said, “I beg you, then, father, to send him to my father's house, so that they too may not come into this place of torment,” … under the prophets; and our Savior and Lord raised him, perhaps, according to what is kept silent, to report what he had seen and the things dispensed concerning souls. But these things are nonsense. For the one with the rich man was destitute and cast out at the gate, but this one had Mary and Martha as sisters, well-to-do and renowned among the Jews, so that they even received Jesus. And hear what the evangelist John himself says: “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment.” She who had ointment and was loved by Jesus would not have failed to pity her brother, longing to be fed with the crumbs from (the rich man's table). And he was from Bethany, which is interpreted “House of obedience.” Perhaps everyone from Bethany, made familiar with obedience, is a friend of Jesus. But since human nature is changeable, even a friend of Jesus might sometimes fall sick; and he might fall sick when Jesus is not present with him, and not …

That Mary is the same as the woman in Luke who anointed the Lord with ointment is clear. But he kept silent about her name … so that (no one) might be turned aside from such a testimony of Jesus about Mary, (and) so as not to despair of himself because of former (sins), but to come and sit at the feet of Jesus and be his disciple. For this woman too, he says, “was a sinner in the city, who, learning that he was reclining in the house of the Pharisee, brought an alabaster jar of ointment, and standing behind at his feet, weeping, began to wet his feet with her tears.” And someone might say that Mary is a symbol (of the contemplative life, and Martha of the active), and their brother rising from the dead (a symbol) of those who for some sins have gone down to Hades, according to “Let the sinners be turned back …”; … he will say was said to Martha: “Martha, Martha, you are troubled and distracted about many things, but few things are needed.” For for salvation there is need not of the many commandments according to the letter of the law, but of few, on which hang the whole law and the prophets, those legislated concerning love.

As in a symbol, let it signify the death according to the history; but for the anagogical sense, let it present the death that those sometimes sleep who have not had the eyes of the soul enlightened by God. But not all who are not enlightened fall asleep unto death, but it is among the things that can happen; and for this reason the psalmist says: “Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep unto death.” And attend carefully to “lest.” He told the disciples, then, plainly (for at first he had spoken in figures, “Lazarus has fallen asleep”): “And I rejoice for your sake that I was not there.” For if he had been there, Lazarus would not have died; for it is impossible for anyone to die when Jesus is present. And so that the dead man may rise from the dead, Jesus must come to the dead man. For your sake, he says, I rejoice, as you believe from learning that he died when I was not with him, and so that you may be confirmed in the faith. He alone, then, wakes Lazarus, but it is for the disciples, his face too being bound with a cloth, to loose him who was bound with the bonds of the dead and to let him go, according to Jesus' command. And Thomas says: “Let us go, that we may die with him.” Thomas, having read the prophecies about the Savior, and having likely heard also that there remained for the Son of God the economy concerning souls, which he was to perform by going down to their place, so as to preach to the spirits in prison, going to those who were once disobedient, when he heard “I am going to wake him,” thought that Lazarus would not otherwise be awakened and rise from the dead except by Jesus' going down to the place of souls. … and the Savior having said, “No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself,” and the like; then, as his true disciple, having decided to follow him wherever he might go, he wished, by the grace of Jesus, to lay down the body together with him, and the other disciples too. Perhaps he also knew this, that it would not otherwise be possible to live with Jesus without dying with him, as Paul too thinks. But those who do not wish him to have spoken for this reason will say that he said it suspecting the envy of the Jews that would come from Lazarus's rising, and the danger that would follow. “When Jesus came, then, he found that he had been four days.” The number four, being material and bodily, is evil-working, since the elemental bodies are four; hence those enslaved and afflicted suffer for four hundred years, according to what is said: “They will afflict them and humble them four hundred years.” And perhaps for this reason, for the cleansing of the sins that follow from the nature of the body, Moses fasts forty days, and likewise Elijah, and the Savior for our sins. And now Jesus, having come, found Lazarus already four days in the tomb, which is the dwelling of the dead; for to sinners the graves are houses. Hence the demoniacs too flee to the tombs as to their own place; and while they are inside, no one is able to go by that way; but when they come out, putting off their nakedness, they are adorned with clothing and are in their right mind, and sit at the feet of Jesus. But Jesus is laid in a new tomb and wrapped in a clean linen cloth, and does not reach the four days of being among the dead. Therefore he was “free among the dead,” and … an image that we must be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit.

Bethany is interpreted “House of obedience,” and Jerusalem “Vision of peace”; (between them are) fifteen (stades), steps. And the number fifteen is divided into the seven of the sabbath and the eight of circumcision, to which alone the Preacher urges us to give a portion: “Give a portion,” he says, “to seven and also to eight.” And if Mary is a symbol of the contemplative life, and Martha of the (active), fittingly Mary and Martha mourn Lazarus, and mourning they need consolation about their brother, which the words of the Jews, (spoken) before the fullness of time, wish to offer them, but despair of being able to stop the dead man's sister from weeping over the dead. And Martha now seems to be more earnest than Mary, since Martha ran to Jesus while Mary remained at home, sitting. But there are some, like the centurion, who are not fit to receive Jesus, and others who are worthy, like the ruler of the synagogue: hence Martha, as the lesser, ran to Jesus, but Mary waits at home to receive him, as capable of containing his visit. And she would not have gone out of her house, if she had not heard her sister saying: “The teacher is here and is calling you.” And rising, she rose not simply but quickly, and falling at the feet of Jesus she said what she said, though Martha had not fallen down.

The Savior, not being ignorant whether Martha believes what is said or not, inquires, saying, “Do you believe this?”, but so that we, or those then present, might learn her disposition from her answer. But someone else will say that he does not even inquire, but declares, “You believe this.” Then Martha, completing the Savior's declaration, says: “Yes, Lord,” as if to say: I believe not only this which you say; but that you are the Christ I not only now believe, but have believed, and that you are the Son of God who comes into the world, and who comes to dwell in all who believe in you.

One might ask why she says “If you had been here,” examining the matter according to the anagogical sense: is there anywhere where Jesus is not? As where two or three are gathered in his name, he is there in their midst, and he stands in the midst of others who do not know him, so he was present to Mary and Martha. For they had not progressed so far as to know him present.

And “Where have you laid him?”: do not wonder if it is said as by one who does not know. For Scripture says that not only the Savior but also the Father does not know, in a certain sense, according to “If anyone among you is spiritual, let him acknowledge what I write to you, that it is of God; but if anyone does not know, he is not known.” He asks, “Where have you laid him?”, as he commands the disciples to leave the dead. And Jesus weeps if any of his friends comes to be in a tomb.

While he was far from the tomb he groaned in the spirit; but when he comes near to the dead man, he no longer groans in the spirit, but holds the groaning within himself. Therefore it is said: “Groaning in himself he comes to the tomb.” And again he rebukes the suffering, so that … not in some built tomb, but in a hewn one. And perhaps for this reason, woe to those who build graves or tombs; for one must build houses, and a temple, and whatever is useful to the living. Then he says: “Take away the stone.” Since the cave was a tomb, he did not himself touch the stone, but committed it to others fit for the work to take it away. But the stone lying on the mouth of the well in Genesis and hindering the sheep from drinking, from which the marked ones and the portion of Jacob were to come, Jacob himself had to take hold of, and coming up to the stone, roll it away. And Jacob himself had to come up to the well, but Jesus had to stand outside the cave.

It is not that, if someone prophesies, he is a prophet; but if someone is a prophet, he prophesies. For Balaam, being a soothsayer, prophesies. For it is not that, if someone has done something medical, he is already a physician, or, having done something of building, already a builder. And some wish that Caiaphas spoke not from the Holy Spirit, because David says, having sinned, (that it does not) dwell in a body subject to sin, but by the working of evil spirits. For they say that the demons are sometimes able to foretell, as in the case of Paul, the spirit of divination, and in the case of the Savior, “Ah, what have we to do with you, Son of God?” … [If someone is (a prophet), he surely prophesies; but not, if someone prophesies, is he surely a prophet. He, at any rate, who is righteous pursues the righteous thing; but not, if someone pursues the righteous thing, is he righteous, if “Righteously you shall pursue the righteous thing” is not said in vain. For those too who do the good so as to be glorified by men (do) something righteous …] And we learn that men do not say everything of themselves, but some things also being moved either by a better power or by a worse. Yet, as some of the heterodox misunderstand the sense of Scripture, so the Pharisees take what was said by Caiaphas according to their own sense.

And the word wishes to turn us from rushing too irrationally and hotly into dangers, even if they are for the truth, but (wishes us), when we are overtaken, to stand, and when (danger) is coming, to withdraw, because of the uncertainty of the outcome. And for the anagogical sense it must be said that [Jesus of old walked openly among the Jews through the prophets, but now no longer. For the word of God is not among them, but he went away from them into the desert, of which it is said that] many are the children of the desolate rather than of her who has a husband; … near Ephraim, which is interpreted “fruit-bearing,” being the brother of Manasseh the elder, who is “from forgetfulness”; for after the people “from forgetfulness” has been born the fruit-bearing from the nations. And there he remained with the disciples; for he is present to the fruit-bearing. And at the birth of Ephraim the one who begot him, our Lord, the measurer of grain, who humbled himself, might say: (“God has made me fruitful in the land) of my humiliation.”

He who follows him serves him by following him. And he who serves him is his servant; and for this reason, where the Word is, there he is too. And the promise must not be understood bodily and locally. But if, as in bodily places, there is some place of ether among the purest and the more transparent in fineness of light, one would not err (in saying) that those in the body who are distinguished, receiving in the resurrection, according to their worth, a body of surpassing and distinguished glory, come to be in those regions, as most fitted for the leisure of the contemplations of God the Word. And in concept it is one thing for the servant to be where God the Word is, but in reality it is the same as his being honored by the Father …

All the powers of Satan, together with their leader, (were drawn up) against (him) … the Savior's soul was troubled in human fashion, not fearing death, even if this is human, but (fearing) not to be defeated. For Christ allowed it sometimes to suffer what is proper to it; and since he was to become the cause of eternal salvation to those who obey him, for this reason one might think him overpowered by the trouble; but (it was) for an instant: for this is what “now” signifies, that it ceased as soon as it began, and was, so to speak, a point of time. And see whether he himself also prays that a contest may take place against the evil powers warring against him, so that the whole power of the evil one may be defeated.

His suffering on the cross was the judgment of this world, according to … “whether the things on earth or the things in heaven,” with the triumph on the wood over the principalities and powers which he stripped off, (when) he sat in the heavenly places, restoring all things to the end that fits and befits each. Since, then, the economy on the cross was what holds together the judgment concerning each of the beings, for this reason, when the time of his suffering drew near, he said: “Now is the judgment of this world.”

Since the suffering of our Savior took place for the cleansing of those foreknown, by whom the world was to be judged, for this reason it is said, “Now is the judgment of this world,” as if he said: The time has come for showing forth those who will judge the world. Or, since at the time of the saving passion the tyrant was to be overthrown, it is said, “Now the ruler of this world will be cast out,” or perhaps into the outer darkness. … They convict him of ignorance about the prophets and show their inexact knowledge of what is written. For that the Christ remains for ever they have taken from such sayings; but the mystery of death, coming in between, and the brief separation of the soul from the body, they did not understand nor examine … of the comings of Christ, the crowd of the Jews hoped for the more glorious one, which is to be at the consummation of the age, but the one before it they did not understand at all. Therefore their house is left (desolate).

Since, as to everyone who has it will be given and he will have abundance, so from him who does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him, if someone, having received the mina, binds it in a napkin, he will hear: “The light is among you yet a little while.” For as long as it has not yet been said, “Take the mina from him,” since “he who is unjust in a little is unjust also in much.” And one might also explain the passage thus: as the kingdom of God was among the Jews, so the light too was among them; and as, because they did not render the fruits due to the kingdom of God, they heard, “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruits,” so, since, while the light was among them, they did not walk so that darkness should not overtake them, for this reason after the little time the light that was among them was taken from them and given to the nation that produces the fruits of the light, which has become like the stars of heaven and is called the light of the world, having received this from him who said, “I am the light of the world.”

For that divine Scripture knows us to be free, blaming those who sin as blameworthy through themselves, and praising those who keep the divine commandment as praiseworthy through their own cause, [hear what it says in Deuteronomy: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways and to love him and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord and his ordinances, which I command you today, that it may be well with you?” And in (Micah: “What does the Lord seek) from you but to do justice and love mercy, and be ready to walk with the Lord your God?”] As far, then, as lies in these things, it is possible for each of us to become righteous or unrighteous. You will understand, then, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts” as referring to the evil one, [as was said before, as having blinded the eyes of some and maimed their heart, so that they may not see with their eyes, and may not understand with their heart, and turn, and the Lord heal them. For it is not written, in the same way as he said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart,”] so also “that they may not turn and he heal them.” The one who blinds the eyes and hardens the heart is one, and the one who heals those who turn is another, [and the broken-hearted and the blind. And the apostle too says this in the second to the Corinthians: “And if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled among those in whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glory of the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine on them.”] And it is not surprising if, submitting themselves through their sins to the evil one, they are blinded in their eyes by him and hardened in their heart according to his will, he doing everything so that they may not see with their eyes and understand with their heart and turn. And to “For this reason they could not believe” such things must be said: that, as in the case of the man blind from birth, whom our Savior later healed, if someone said, He cannot (see, because he is blind, he did not mean that it was impossible) for him ever to see; for it was possible, Jesus by opening the eyes [of the blind granting sight to the blind], for those who until then could not see to see afterward; so for those who once could not believe [because their eyes had been blinded by the evil one] it was not impossible to believe, coming to Jesus [and saying, “Son of David, have mercy on us,” and asking to see again. And concerning the text in the gospel not being said in the very words in the prophet, it is not surprising, since those who ministered the oracles of the New Testament did this in many places, as we have observed elsewhere too. Yet the words of Isaiah are equivalent to those set down in the gospel.]

And this too must be noticed in the present passage, that two things are said about the Savior: the first, which also comes first, for believing in him is first; and second, what also comes second in order; for this is what is beyond believing, which is to behold the Word, and in beholding the Word to behold the Father. And believing extends to the multitude of those who come to godliness, but beholding the Word and perceiving the Father in him no longer extends to all who believe, but only to the pure in heart. And so I understand “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” For not he who directs the power of sight in the bodily eyes to the body of Jesus has seen his Father and God. And I think that he needed time and joint exercise to see Jesus so, and, seeing the Son, to behold the Father too. Therefore, when Philip said, “Show us the Father, and it suffices us,” Jesus said: “Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me? He who has seen me has seen the Father.” And attend whether, having looked into the difference between believing and beholding, you can understand also the reason why “And he who beholds me beholds him who sent me” is not said in the same way as “He who believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me”; nor is “He who believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me” said like “He who beholds me beholds him who sent me.” For one believing in the Son believes not in the Son but in the Father of all, God. But one beholding the Word and the Wisdom and the Truth beholds not this alone but also the Father. And I think that, to show that the mystery signified is great, first in believing in the Son and second in beholding him, before “He who believes in me” and “he who beholds me” it is said, “But Jesus cried out and said”; for great was the mystical voice about these things. And that it is possible to believe in contemplation and not to behold it, the evangelist will make clear, saying: “Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him: If you remain in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” For attend carefully that to those who had believed, as to those who had not yet recognized the truth but only believed it, he says: “If you remain in my word, you will know the truth.”

… my Savior; but they would not gaze at it, nor walk in the shining radiance of his teachings. Therefore, consistently, the darkness overtook them, exacting the penalty of the wickedness that had held them before. And this might rightly be called being blinded and hardened. And as knowing where he is going follows for one who has wished to walk in the light, so for one who has not wished to walk in the light it follows to be walking in darkness and wretchedly to complete the road of the blind and the hardened. And it was said before also how the lightning of the Master's and saving teaching branded the Jews as blind and hardened, and made more manifest and plain the harm and blindness that had been in the eyes of their souls before. For as the sensible sun, sending its bright rays upon them, convicts those whose eyes are sick, so too the intelligible sun, the light that never sets and knows no evening, having come to dwell in the world, and having flashed out the radiance of his divinity through miracles worthy of God and beyond reason, convicted the more the darkness and blindness that had held the eyes of the souls of the unfeeling Jews.

After this you will inquire, because “what to say and what to speak” is said together, whether “to say” and “to speak” differ, or whether it is the same thing said in parallel. You will set out, then, the words in which “he said” is written, and examine together with them those about which “he spoke” is said. … and you yourself will attend to (the saying) “I speak.” And see whether you can say that in “to say” the commanding (sense) from authority is signified, and in “he spoke” the teaching sense. “And I know that his commandment is eternal life.” About which one might inquire why it is not said that the commandment of God procures eternal life, but that it is itself, in its reality, eternal life, as also knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. Each of them, then, is eternal life. If, however, the commandment of God is eternal life, and the commandment of God is in the righteous man, who lives blessedly through it, life is to be chosen.

It seems to be contrary to what was said before. For above he says that there is no need to prepare, but here: “If I go, I will prepare a place for you.” What he says, then, is this: as regards the abundance of the goods that the Father made ready according to foreknowledge, so that those who live well and with all exactness may dwell continually in the goods prepared, there is no need for them to be made ready for you by me, but for you to show the fitting disposition. Yet I become for you the preparer and provider of these things. For what is (the meaning of) “I come again and will take you to myself”? For when, he says, I have provided you with the occasion of the ascent into heaven and of the enjoyment of like things, so that the one who became the cause of these things for you may be seen, I myself will come again (and he means his second coming from heaven), and taking you I will go up into heaven, where I myself am, so that I may have you with me enjoying the same things as I. “For if we endure,” Paul says, “we shall also reign with him.”

Thomas seems to have had something exact and well examined, which is shown also from what he said; which I think he said not disbelieving those who said they had beheld the Lord, but taking care lest it be an apparition, and remembering “Many will come in my name, saying, I am he.” And I think the other apostles too experienced this, but Thomas pre-eminently. [And that the other apostles too thought something of the kind on seeing Jesus is clear from its being written that “they thought it was an apparition,” and he answered and said to them: “Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh as you see that I have.”] And concerning how it is said to him, “Do not be unbelieving but believing,” … and on the name of Thomas such things might be said: that of those who were to be counted worthy by the Savior of a greater vision concerning his transfiguration on the mountain, and of Moses and Elijah seen in glory, he changed the names; but the names of the others he did not change, since they were sufficient of themselves to present the character of each. About the other apostles, then, it is not now proposed to speak, but about Thomas, who is interpreted “Twin,” (he is so called) for this reason, that he was a twin in the word, recording divine things in two ways, and an imitator of Christ, who spoke to those outside in parables, but privately explained all things to his own disciples … (so) to achieve this twofold preparation in the word, which perhaps Thomas especially had from that time on. And someone might say that the interpretation of his name alone is recorded for this reason, that the evangelist wished the Greeks who read the gospel to attend to the peculiarity of the interpretation, the name alone being interpreted pre-eminently, so as to find the reason why his name is also set out in Greek.

He used fitting words: “became” of the (flesh) … is set down, but (of his) cooperation with the Father, and that none of the beings is excepted from being made through him.

For the life-giving power in him is sufficient not only to give life but also to fill the souls of men with knowledge … (Paul, not as one) persecuting, but, illumined by the light of life, knew the one he was persecuting; and the robber suffering on the cross, being enlightened, knew the life. For the Savior says: “No one can come to me …”

For the purpose of the one who sent him was that all should believe; but if not all believed, and did not receive the illumination of the sun, … For the prophets before John became witnesses of the light so that the Hebrews might believe through them; but John, coming after them, bears witness to the Savior's coming so that not the Hebrews only might believe, but also all those from the nations, as David too (says): “All the nations shall serve him.”

And “has come to be” must be taken instead of “will come to be”; for this is the custom of Scripture, as we have said; and “did not overtake” instead of “will not overtake.”

All who were present saw, but not all believed. But some say that not all beheld the Spirit, but John and those more kindly disposed. For even if they saw with the eyes of sense, yet it was not on that account manifest to all. And since the prophets and Moses beheld many other things, and at the transfiguration not all the disciples enjoyed (the sight) of the mountain, nor did all share in the sight at the resurrection, much more the Jews at the baptism.

It is not possible to see sensibly, but with a mind that contemplates, the angels coming to minister to Jesus, ascending … The word (Amen) is Hebrew, meaning “So be it.” For “Amen” is the same as “truly” and “so be it.” For many Psalms that have at the end “So be it, so be it” have “Amen, Amen” in the Hebrew. It is likely, then, that the Savior, praying, says “So be it, so be it” that you be found faithful so as to “see heaven opened,” and the rest of the promise. And “Amen” is equivalent also to “truly” … (in Matthew, “Amen I say to you, there are some) of those standing here,” but in Luke, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death”; in “Truly I say to you” … this to come to be.

The whip of cords made by Jesus was the sins of the transgressors, by which, scourged by Jesus, they were driven out. For Scripture often called sins a cord: “The cords of sinners have entwined me,” and “their hands weave injustice”; and in Proverbs, “Each is bound fast by the chains of his own sins,” that is, punished. And they were scourged by Jesus and driven from the temple with the cord woven by themselves. For it was not (fitting) for the just judge to weave and bring the punishment against the ungodly from anywhere else than from what they themselves had sinned and transgressed.

As the day is divided into twelve hours, so too the twelve patriarchs and the choir of the apostles are equal in number to the hours of the day, having as their sun Christ our God, who is also the intelligible day, from whom come the words and the illumination of their knowledge.

“And again they sought to kill him,” as has often been said. But now they confirmed their decision, and they treat the thing as already done. And again, in human fashion, he saves himself, and does this continually. And he gave the reason: that his hour had not yet come; and now he stays in the desert, in a city called Ephraim; and he remained with his disciples, awaiting the fitting time and sparing them from destruction.

… many other things; and (they are one) according to agreement, when it says, “The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul”; and according to likeness, as when it says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body,” according to likeness of nature; and as, having Adam as the beginning and head of our birth according to nature, we are all said to have one body, so too, inscribing Christ as head …