(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)

Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing initially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.


ORIGEN

COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

BOOKS VI, X

[Translated by Allan Menzies, D.D.]


SIXTH BOOK

1. THE WORK IS TAKEN UP AFTER A VIOLENT INTERRUPTION, WHICH HAS DRIVEN THE
WRITER FROM ALEXANDRIA. HE ADDRESSES HIMSELF TO IT AGAIN, WITH THANKS FOR
HIS DELIVERANCE, AND PRAYER FOR GUIDANCE.

   When a house is being built which is to be made as strong as possible,
the building takes place in fine weather and in calm, so that nothing may
hinder the structure from acquiring the needed solidity. And thus it turns
out so strong and stable that it is able to withstand the rush of the
flood. and the dashing of the river, and all the agencies accompanying a
storm which are apt to find out what is rotten in a building and to show
what parts of it have been properly put together. And more particularly
should that house which is capable of sheltering the speculations of truth,
the house of reason, as it were, in promise or in letters, be built at a
time when God can add His free co-operation to the projector of so noble a
work, when the soul is quiet and in the enjoyment of that peace which
passes all understanding, when she is turned away from all disturbance and
not buffeted by any billows. This, it appears to me, was well understood by
the servants of the prophetic spirit and the ministers of the Gospel
message; they made themselves worthy to receive that peace which is in
secret from Him who ever gives it to them that are worthy and who said,(1)
"Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth
give I unto you." And look if some similar lesson is not taught under the
surface with regard to David and Solomon in the narrative about the temple.
David, who fought the wars of the Lord and stood firm against many enemies,
his own and those of Israel, desired to build a temple for God. But God,
through Nathan, prevents him from doing so, and Nathan says to him,(2)
"Thou shalt not build me an house, because thou art a man of blood." But
Solomon, on the other hand, saw God in a dream, and in a dream received
wisdom, for the reality of the vision was kept for him who said, "Behold a
greater than Solomon is here." The time was one of the profoundest peace,
so that it was possible for every man to rest under his own vine and his
own fig-tree, and Solomon's very name was significant of the peace which
was in his days, for Solomon means peaceful; and so he was at liberty to
build the famous temple of God. About the time of Ezra, also, when "truth
conquers wine and the hostile king: and women,"(1) the temple of God is
restored again. All this is said by way of apology to you, reverend
Ambrosius. It is at your sacred encouragement that I have made up my mind
to build up in writing: the tower of the Gospel; and I have therefore sate
down to count the cost,(2) if I have sufficient to finish it, lest I should
be mocked by the beholders, because I laid the foundation but was not able
to finish the work. The result of my counting, it is true, has been that I
do not possess what is required to finish it; yet I have put my trust in
God, who enriches us(3) with all wisdom and all knowledge. If we strive to
keep His spiritual laws we believe that He does enrich us; He will supply
what is necessary so that we shall get on with our building, and shall even
come to the parapet of the structure. That parapet it is which keeps from
falling those who go up on the house of the Word; for people only fall off
those houses which have no parapet, so that the buildings themselves are to
blame for their fall and for their death. We proceeded as far as the fifth
volume in spite of the obstacles presented by the storm in Alexandria, and
spoke what was given us to speak, for Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves
of the sea. We emerged from the storm, we were brought out of Egypt, that
God delivering us who led His people forth from there. Then, when the enemy
assailed us with all bitterness by his new writings, so directly hostile to
the Gospel, and stirred up against us all the winds of wickedness in Egypt,
I felt that reason called me rather to stand fist for the conflict, and to
save the higher part in me, lest evil counsels should succeed in directing
the storm so as to overwhelm my soul, rather to do this than to finish my
work at an unsuitable season, before my mind had recovered its calm.
Indeed, the ready writers who usually attended me brought my work to a
stand by failing to appear to take down my words. But now that the many
fiery darts directed against me have lost their edge, for God extinguished
them, and my soul has grown accustomed to the dispensation sent me for the
sake of the heavenly word, and has learned from necessity to disregard the
snares of my enemies, it is as if a great calm had settled on me, and I
defer no longer the continuation of this work. I pray that God will be with
me, and will speak as a teacher in the porch of my soul, so that the
building I have begun of the exposition of the Gospel of John may arrive at
completion. May God hear my prayer and grant that the body of the whole
work may now be brought together, and that no interruption may intervene
which might prevent me from following the sequence of Scripture. And be
assured that it is with great readiness that I now make this second
beginning and enter on my sixth volume, because what I wrote before at
Alexandria has not, I know not by what chance, been brought with me. I
feared I might neglect this work, if I were not engaged on it at once, and
therefore thought it better to make use of this present time and begin
without delay the part which remains. I am not certain if the part formerly
written will come to light, and would be very unwilling to waste time in
waiting to see if it does. Enough of preamble, let us now attend to our
text.

2. HOW THE PROPHETS AND HOLY MEN OF THE OLD TESTAMENT KNEW THE THINGS OF
CHRIST.

   "And this is the witness of John."(1) This is the second recorded
testimony of John the Baptist to Christ. The first begins with "This was He
of whom I said, He that cometh after me," and goes down to "The only-
begotten Son of God who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared
him." Heracleon supposes the words, "No one has seen God at any time,"
etc., to have been spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple. But in
this he is not sound. He himself allows the words, "Of his fulness we all
received, and grace for grace; for the law was given by Moses, but grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ," to have been spoken by the Baptist. And
does it not follow that the person who received of the fulness of Christ,
and a second grace in addition to that he had before, and who declared the
law to have been given by Moses, but grace and truth to have come through
Jesus Christ, is it not clear that this is the person who understood, from
what he received from the fulness of Christ, how "no one hath seen God at
any time," and how "the only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father"
had delivered the declaration about God to him and to all those who had
received of His fulness? He was not declaring here for the first time Him
that is in the bosom of the Father, as if there had never before been any
one fit to receive what he told His Apostles. Does he not teach us that he
was before Abraham, and that Abraham rejoiced and was glad to see his day?
The words "Of his fulness all we received," and "Grace for grace," show, as
we have already made clear, that the prophets also received their gift from
the fulness of Christ and received a second grace in place of that they had
before; for they also, led by the Spirit, advanced from the introduction
they had in types to the vision of truth. Hence not all the prophets, but
many of them,(1) desired to see the things, which the Apostles saw. For if
there was a difference among the prophets, those who were perfect and more
distinguished of them did not desire to see what the Apostles saw, but
actually beheld them, while those who rose less fully than these to the
height of the Word were filled with longing for the things which the
Apostles knew through Christ. The word "saw" we have not taken in a
physical sense, and the word "heard" we have taken to refer to a spiritual
communication; only he who has ears is prepared to hear the words of Jesus-
-a thing which does not happen too frequently. There is the further point,
that the saints before the bodily advent of Jesus had an advantage over
most believers in their insight into the mysteries of divinity, since the
Word of God was their teacher before He became flesh, for He was always
working, in imitation of His Father, of whom He says, "My father worketh
hitherto." On this point we may adduce the words He addresses to the
Sadducees, who do not believe the doctrine of the resurrection. "Have you
not read," He says,(1) "what is said by God at the Bush, I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is not the God of
the dead but of the living." If, then, God is not ashamed to be called the
God of these men, and if they are counted by Christ among the living, and
if all believers are sons of Abraham,(2) since all the Gentiles are blessed
with faithful Abraham, who is appointed by God to be a father of the
Gentiles, can we hesitate to admit that those living persons made
acquaintance with the learning of living men, and were taught by Christ who
was born before the daystar,(3) before He became flesh? And for this cause
they lived, because they had part in Him who said, "I am the life," and as
the heirs of so great promises received the vision, not only of angels, but
of God in Christ. For they saw, it may be, the image of the invisible
God,(4) since he who hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, and so they
are recorded to have known God, and to have heard God's words worthily,
and, therefore, to have seen God and heard Him. Now, I consider that those
who are fully and really sons of Abraham are sons of his actions,
spiritually understood, and of the knowledge which was made manifest to
him. What he knew and what he did appears again in those who are his sons,
as the Scripture teaches those who have ears to hear,(5) "If ye were the
children of Abraham, ye would do the works of Abraham." And if it is a true
proverb(6) which says, "A wise man will understand that which proceeds from
his own mouth, and on his lips he will bear prudence," then we must at once
repudiate some things which have been said about the prophets, as if they
were not wise men, and did not understand what proceeded from their own
mouths. We must believe what is good and true about the prophets, that they
were sages, that they did understand what proceeded from their mouths, and
that they bore prudence on their lips. It is clear indeed that Moses
understood in his mind the truth (real meaning) of the law, and the higher
interpretations of the stories recorded in his books. Joshua, too,
understood the meaning of the allotment of the land after the destruction
of the nine and twenty kings, and could see better than we can the
realities of which his achievements were the shadows. It is clear, too,
that Isaiah saw the mystery of Him who sat upon the throne, and of the two
seraphim, and of the veiling of their faces and their feet, and of their
wings, and of the altar and of the tongs. Ezekiel, too, understood the true
significance of the cherubim and of their goings, and of the firmament that
was above them, and of Him that sat on the throne, than all which what
could be loftier or more splendid? I need not enter into more particulars;
the point I aim at establishing is clear enough already, namely, that those
who were made perfect in earlier generations knew not less than the
Apostles did of what Christ revealed to them, since the same teacher was
with them as He who revealed to the Apostles the unspeakable mysteries of
godliness. I will add but a few points, and then leave it to the reader to
judge and to form what views he pleases on this subject. Paul says in his
Epistle to the Romans,(1) "Now, to him who is able to establish you
according to my Gospel, according to the revelation of the mystery which
hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but is now made manifest
by the prophetic Scriptures and the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ."
For if the mystery concealed of old is made manifest to the Apostles
through the prophetic writings, and if the prophets, being wise men,
understood what proceeded from their own mouths, then the prophets knew
what was made manifest to the Apostles. But to many it was not revealed, as
Paul says,(2) "In other generations it was not made known to the sons of
men as it hath now been revealed unto His holy Apostles and prophets by the
Spirit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs and members of the same body."
Here an objection may be raised by those who do not share the view we have
propounded; and it becomes of importance to define what is meant by the
word "revealed." It is capable of two meanings: firstly, that the thing in
question is understood, but secondly, if a prophecy is spoken of, that it
is accomplished. Now, the fact that the Gentiles were to be fellow-heirs
and members of the same body, and partakers of the promise, was known to
the prophets to this extent, that they knew the Gentiles were to fellow-
heirs and members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ.
When this should be, and why, and what Gentiles were spoken of, and how,
though strangers from the covenants. and aliens to the promises, they were
yet to be members of one body and sharers of the blessings; all this was
known to the prophets, being revealed to them. But the things prophesied
belong to the future, and are not revealed to those who know them, but do
not witness their fulfilment, as they are to those who have the event
before their eyes. And this was the position of the Apostles. Thus, I
conceive. they knew the events no more than the fathers and the prophets
did; and yet it is truly said of them that "what to other generations was
not revealed was now revealed to the Apostles and prophets, that the
Gentiles were fellow-heirs and members of the same body, and partakers in
the promise of Christ." For, in addition to knowing these mysteries, they
saw the power at work in the accomplished fact. The passage, "Many prophets
and righteous men desired to see the things ye see and did not see them;
and to hear the things ye hear and did not hear them," may be interpreted
in the same way. They also desired to see the mystery of the incarnation of
the Son of God, and of His coming down to carry out the design of His
suffering for the salvation of many, actually put in operation. This may be
illustrated from another quarter. Suppose one of the Apostles to have
understood the "unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to
utter,"(1) but not to witness the glorious bodily appearing of Jesus to the
faithful. which is promised, although He desired to see it and suppose
another had not only not(2) marked and seen what that Apostle marked and
saw, but had a much feebler grasp of the divine hope, and yet is present at
the second coming of our Saviour, which the Apostle, as in the parallel
above, had desired, but had not seen. We shall not err from the truth if we
say that both of these have seen what the Apostle, or indeed the Apostles,
desired to see, and yet that they are not on that account to be deemed
wiser or more blessed than the Apostles. In the same way, also, the
Apostles are not to be deemed wiser than the fathers, or than Moses and the
prophets, than those in fact who, for their virtue, were found worthy of
epiphanies and of divine manifestations and of revelations of mysteries.

3. "GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS CHRIST." THESE WORDS BELONG TO THE
BAPTIST, NOT THE EVANGELIST. WHAT THE BAPTIST TESTIFIES BY THEM.

   We have lingered rather long over these discussions, but there is a
reason for it. There are many who, under the pretence of glorifying the
advent of Christ, declare the Apostles to be wiser than the fathers or the
prophets; and of these teachers some have invented a greater God for the
later period, while some, not venturing so far, but moved, according to
their own account of the matter, by the difficulty connected with doctrine,
cancel the whole of the gift conferred by God on the fathers and the
prophets, through Christ, through whom all things were made. If all things
were made through Him, clearly so must the splendid revelations have been
which were made to the fathers and prophets, and became to them the symbols
of the sacred mysteries of religion. Now the true soldiers of Christ must
always be prepared to do battle for the truth, and must never, so far as
lies with them, allow false convictions to creep in. We must not,
therefore, neglect this matter. It may be said that John's earlier
testimony to Christ is to be found in the words. "He who cometh after me
exists before me, for He was before me," and that the words, "For of His
fulness we all received, and grace for grace," are in the mouth of John the
disciple. Now, we must show this exposition to be a forced one, and one
which does violence to the context; it is rather a strong proceeding to
suppose the speech of the Baptist to be so suddenly and, as it were,
inopportunely interrupted by that of the disciple, and it is quite apparent
to any one who can judge, in whatever small degree, of a context, that the
speech goes on continuously after the words, "This is He of whom I spoke,
He that cometh after me exists before me, for He was before me." The
Baptist brings a proof that Jesus existed before him because He was before
him, since He is the first-born of all creation; he says, "For of His
fulness all we received." That is the reason why he says, "He exists before
me, for He was before me." That is how I know that He is first and in
higher honour with the Father, since of His fulness both I and the prophets
before me received the more divine prophetic grace instead of the grace we
received at His hands before in respect of our election. That is why I say,
"He exists before me, for He was before me," because we know what we have
received from His fulness; namely, that the law was given through Moses,
not by Moses, while grace and truth not only were given but came into
existence(1) through Jesus Christ. For His God and Father both gave the law
through Moses, and made grace and truth through Jesus Christ, that grace
and truth which came to man. If we give a reasonable interpretation to the
words, "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," we shall not be alarmed
at the possible discrepancy with them of that other saying, "I am the way
and the truth and the life." If it is Jesus who says, "I am the truth,"
then how does the truth come through Jesus Christ, since no one comes into
existence through himself? We must recognize that this very truth, the
essential truth, which is prototypal, so to speak, of that truth which
exists in souls endowed with reason, that truth from which, as it were,
images are impressed on those who care for truth, was not made through
Jesus Christ, nor indeed through any one, but by God;--just as the Word was
not made through any one which was in the beginning with the Father;--and
as wisdom which God created the beginning of His ways was not made through
any one, so the truth also was not made through any one. That truth,
however, which is with men came through Jesus Christ, as the truth in Paul
and the Apostles came through Jesus Christ. And it is no wonder, since
truth is one, that many truths should flow from that one. The prophet David
certainly knew many truths, as he says,(2) "The Lord searcheth out truths,"
for the Father of truth searches out not the one truth but the many through
which those are saved who possess them. And as with the one truth and many
truths, so also with righteousness and righteousnesses. For the very
essential righteousness is Christ, "Who was made to us of God wisdom and
righteousness and sanctification and redemption." But from that
righteousness is formed the righteousness which is in each individual. so
that there are in the saved many righteousnesses, whence also it is
written,(3) "For the Lord is righteous, and He loved righteousnesses." This
is the reading in the exact copies, and in the other versions besides the
Septuagint, and in the Hebrew. Consider if the other things which Christ is
said to be in a unity admit of being multiplied in the same way and spoken
of in the plural. For example, Christ is our life as the Saviour Himself
says,(1) "I am the way and the truth and the life." The Apostle, too,
says,(2) "When Christ our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with
Him in glory." And in the Psalms again we find,(3) "Thy mercy is better
than life;" for it is on account of Christ who is life in every one that
there are many lives. This, perhaps, is also the key to the passage,(4) "If
ye seek a proof of the Christ that speaketh in me." For Christ is found in
every saint, and so from the one Christ there come to be many Christs,
imitators of Him and formed after Him who is the image of God; whence God
says through the prophet,(5) "Touch not my Christs." Thus we have explained
in passing the passage which we appeared to have omitted from our
exposition, viz.: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ;" and we have
also shown that the words belong to John the Baptist and form part of his
testimony to the Son of God.

4. JOHN DENIES THAT HE IS ELIJAH OR "THE" PROPHET. YET HE WAS "A PROPHET.

   Now let us consider John's second testimony. Jews from Jerusalem,(6)
kindred to John the Baptist, since he also belonged to a priestly race,
send priests and levites to ask John who he is. In saying, "I am not the
Christ," he made a confession of the truth. The words are not, as one might
suppose, a negation; for it is no negation to say, in the honour of Christ,
that one is not Christ. The priests and levites sent from Jerusalem, having
there heard in the first place that he is not the expected Messiah, put a
question about the second great personage whom they expected, namely,
Elijah, whether John were he, and he says he is not Elijah, and by his "I
am not" makes a second confession of the truth. And, as many prophets had
appeared in Israel, and one in particular was looked for according to the
prophecy of Moses, who said,(7) "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up
to you of your brethren, like unto me, him shall ye hear; and it shall come
to pass that every soul that shall not hear that prophet shall be destroyed
from among the people," they, therefore, ask a third question, not whether
he is a prophet, but whether he is the prophet. Now, they did not apply
this name to the Christ, but supposed the prophet to be a second figure
beside the Christ. But John, on the contrary, who knew that He whose
forerunner he was was both the Christ and the prophet thus foretold,
answered "No;" whereas, if they had asked if he was a prophet, he would
have answered "Yes;"(1) for he was not unconscious that he was a prophet.
In all these answers John's second testimony to Christ was not yet
completed; he had still to give his questioners the answer they were to
take back to those who sent them, and to declare himself in the terms of
the prophecy of Isaiah, which says, "The voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord."

5. THERE WERE TWO EMBASSIES TO JOHN THE BAPTIST; THE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS
OF THESE.

   Here the enquiry suggests itself whether the second testimony is
concluded, and whether there is a third, addressed to those who were sent
from the Pharisees. They wished to know why he baptized, if he was neither
the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet; and he said:(2) "I baptize with
water; but there standeth one among you whom you know not, He that cometh
after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose." Is this a
third testimony, or is this which they were to report to the Pharisees a
part of the second? As far as the words allow me to conjecture I should say
that the word to the emissaries of the Pharisees was a third testimony. It
is to be observed, however, that the first testimony asserts the divinity
of the Saviour, while the second disposes of the suspicion of those who
were in doubt whether John could be the Christ, and the third declares one
who was already present with men although they saw Him not, and whose
coming was no longer in the future. Before going on to the subsequent
testimonies in which he points out Christ and witnesses to Him, let us look
at the second and third, word for word, and let us, in the first place,
observe that there are two embassies to the Baptist, one "from Jerusalem"
from the Jews, who send priests and levites, to ask him, "Who art thou?"
the second sent by the Pharisees,(3) who were in doubt about the answer
which had been made to the priests and levites. Observe how what is said by
the first envoys is in keeping with the character of priests and levites,
and shows gentleness and a willingness to learn. "Who art thou?" they say,
and "What then? art thou Elijah?" and "Art thou that prophet?" and then,
"Who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayest
thou of thyself?" There is nothing harsh or arrogant in the enquiries of
these men; everything agrees well with the character of true and careful
servants of God; and they raise no difficulties about the replies made to
them. Those, on the contrary, who are sent from the Pharisees assail the
Baptist, as it were, with arrogant and unsympathetic words: "Why then
baptizest thou if thou be not the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?" This
mission is sent scarcely for the sake of information, as in the former case
of the priests and levites, but rather to debar the Baptist from baptizing,
as if it were thought that no one was entitled to baptize but Christ and
Elijah and the prophet. The student who desires to understand the Scripture
must always proceed in this careful way; he must ask with regard to each
speech, who is the speaker and on what occasion it was spoken. Thus only
can we discern how speech harmonizes with the character of the speaker, as
it does all through the sacred books.

6. MESSIANIC DISCUSSION WITH JOHN THE BAPTIST.

   Then the Jews sent priests and levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who
art thou And he confessed and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the
Christ.(1) What legates should have been sent from the Jews to John, and
where should they have been sent from? Should they not have been men held
to stand by the election of God above their fellows, and should they not
have come from that place which was chosen out of the whole of the earth,
though it is all called good, from Jerusalem where was the temple of God?
With such honour, then, do they enquire of John. In the case of Christ
nothing of this sort is reported to have been done by the Jews; but what
the Jews do to John, John does to Christ, sending his own disciples to ask
him,(2) "Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" John
confesses to those sent to him, and denies not, and he afterwards declares,
"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness; "but Christ, as having a
greater testimony than John the Baptist, makes His answer by words and
deeds, saying. "Go and tell John those things which ye do hear and see; the
blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and
the deaf hear, and the poor have the Gospel preached to them." On this
passage I shall, if God permit, enlarge in its proper place. Here, however,
it might be asked reasonably enough why John gives such an answer to the
question put to him. The priests and levites do not ask him, "Art thou the
Christ?" but "Who art thou?" and the Baptist's reply to this question
should have been, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." The
proper reply to the question, "Art thou the Christ?" is, "I am not the
Christ;" and to the question, "Who art thou?"--"The voice of one crying in
the wilderness." To this we may say that he probably discerned in the
question of the priests and levites a cautious reverence, which led them to
hint the idea in their minds that he who was baptizing might be the Christ,
but withheld them from openly saying so, which might have been
presumptuous. He quite naturally, therefore, proceeds in the first place to
remove any false impressions they might have taken up about him, and
declares publicly the true state of the matter, "I am not the Christ."
Their second question, and also their third, show that they had conceived
some such surmise about him. They supposed that he might be that second in
honour to whom their hopes pointed, namely, Elijah, who held with them the
next position after Christ; and so when John had answered, "I am not the
Christ," they asked, "What then? Art thou Elijah?" And he said, "I am not."
They wish to know, in the third place, if he is the prophet, and on his
answer," No," they have no longer any name to give the personage whose
advent they expected, and they say, "Who art thou, then, that we may give
an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" Their meaning
is: "You are not, you say, any of those personages whose advent Israel
hopes and expects, and who you are, to baptize as you do, we do not know;
tell us, therefore, so that we may report to those who sent us to get light
ripen this point." We add, as it has some bearing on the context, that the
people were moved by the thought that the period of Christ's advent was
near. It was in a manner imminent in the years from the birth of Jesus and
a little before, down to the publication of the preaching. Hence it was, in
all likelihood, that as the scribes and lawyers had deduced the time from
Holy Scripture and were expecting the Coming One, the idea was taken up by
Theudas, who came forward as the Messiah and brought together a
considerable multitude, and after him by the famous Judas of Galilee in the
days of the taxing.(1) Thus the coming of the Messiah was more warmly
expected and discussed, and it was natural enough for the Jews to send
priests and levites from Jerusalem to John, to ask him, "Who art thou?" and
learn if he professed to be the Christ.

7. OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN, AND OF HIS ALLEGED IDENTITY WITH ELIJAH. OF THE
DOCTRINE OF TRANSCORPORATION.

   "And(2) they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? and he said, I am
not." No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of
John,(3) "If ye will receive it, this is Elijah which is to come." How,
then, does John come to say to those who ask him, "Art thou Elijah?"--"I am
not." And how can it be true at the same time that John is Elijah who is to
come, according to the words of Malachi,(4) "And behold I send unto you
Elijah the Tishbite, before the great and notable day of the Lord come, who
shall restore the heart of the father to the SOD, and the heart of a man to
his neighbour, lest I come, and utterly smite the earth." The words of the
angel of the Lord, too, who appeared to Zacharias, as he stood at the right
hand of the altar of incense, are somewhat to the same effect as the
prophecy of Malachi: "And(5) thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and
thou shalt call his name John." And a little further on:(6) "And he shall
go before His face in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of
the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just,
to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him." As for the first
point, one might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will
be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their
doctrine of transcorporation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body
and did not quite remember its former lives. These thinkers will also point
out that some of the Jews assented to this doctrine when they spoke about
the Saviour as if He was one of the old prophets, and had risen not from
the tomb but from His birth. His mother Mary was well known, and Joseph the
carpenter was supposed to be His father, add it could readily be supposed
that He was one of the old prophets risen from the dead. The same person
will adduce the text in Genesis.(1) "I will destroy the whole
resurrection," and will thereby reduce those who give themselves to finding
in Scripture solutions of false probabilities to a great difficulty in
respect of this doctrine. Another, however, a churchman, who repudiates the
doctrine of transcorporation as a false one, and does not admit that the
soul of John ever was Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the
angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at
John's birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah. "He shall go before him,"
it is said, "in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the
fathers to the children." Now it can be shown from thousands of texts that
the spirit is a different thing from the soul, and that what is called the
power is a different thing from both the soul and the spirit. On these
points I cannot now enlarge; this work must not be unduly expanded. To
establish the fact that power is different from spirit. it will be enough
to cite the text,(2) "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power
of the Highest shall overshadow thee." As for the spirits of the prophets,
these are given to them by God, and are spoken of as being in a manner
their property (slaves), as "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets."(3) and "The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha."(4) Thus, it is
said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, "in the spirit and
power of Elijah," turned the hearts of the fathers to the children, and
that it was on account of this spirit that he was called "Elijah who was to
come." And to reinforce this view it may be argued that if the God of the
universe identified Himself with His saints to such an extent as to be
called the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, much
more might the Holy Spirit so identify Himself with the prophets as to be
called their spirit, so that when the spirit is spoken of it might be the
spirit of Elijah or the spirit of Isaiah. Our churchman, to go on with his
views, may further say that those who supposed Jesus to be one of the
prophets risen from the dead were probably misled, partly by the doctrine
above mentioned, and partly by supposing Him to be one of the prophets, and
that as for this misconception that He was one of the prophets, these
persons probably fell into their error from not knowing about Jesus'
supposed father and actual mother, and considering that He had risen from
the tombs. As for the text in Genesis about the resurrection, the churchman
will rejoin with a text to an opposite effect, "God hath raised up for me
another seed in place of Abel whom Cain slew;"(1) showing that the
resurrection occurs in Genesis. As for the first difficulty which was
raised, our churchman will meet the view of the believers in
transcorporation by saying that John is no doubt, in a certain sense, as he
has already shown, Elijah who is to come; and that the reason why he met
the enquiry of the priests and levites with "I am not," was that he divined
the object they had in view in making it. For the enquiry laid before John
by the priests and levites was not intended to bring out whether the same
spirit was in both, but whether John was that very Elijah who was taken up,
and who now appeared according to the expectation of the Jews without being
born (for the emissaries, perhaps, did not know about John's birth); and to
such all enquiry he naturally answered, "I am not;" for he who was called
John was not Elijah who was taken up, and had not changed his body for his
present appearance. Our first scholar, whose view of transcorporation we
have seen based upon our passage, may go on with a close examination of the
text, and urge against his antagonist, that if John was the son of such a
man as the priest Zacharias, and if he was born when his parents were both
aged, contrary to all human expectation, then it is not likely that so many
Jews at Jerusalem would be so ignorant about him, or that the priests and
levites whom they sent would not be acquainted with the facts of his birth.
Does not Luke declare(2) that "fear came upon all those who lived round
about,"--clearly round about Zacharias and Elisabeth--and that "all these
things were noised abroad throughout the whole hill country of Judaea"? And
if John's birth from Zacharias was a matter of common knowledge, and the
Jews of Jerusalem yet sent priests and levites to ask, "Art thou Elijah?"
then it is clear that in saying this they assumed the doctrine of
transcorporation to be true, and that it was a current doctrine of their
country, and not foreign to their secret teaching. John therefore says, I
am not Elijah, because he does not know about his own former life. These
thinkers, accordingly, entertain an opinion which is by no means to be
despised. Our churchman, however, may return to the charge, and ask if it
is worthy of a prophet, who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, who is
predicted by Isaiah, and whose birth was foretold before it took place by
so great an angel, one who has received of the fulness of Christ, who
shares in such a grace, who knows truth to have come through Jesus Christ,
and has taught such deep things about God and about the only-begotten, who
is in the bosom of the Father, is it worthy of such a one to lie, or even
to hesitate, out of ignorance of what he was. For with respect to what was
obscure, he ought to have refrained from confessing, and to have neither
affirmed nor denied the proposition put before him. If the doctrine in
question really was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to
pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our
churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists ask experts
of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews, if they do really entertain such a
belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based
on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless. Our churchman, however,
is still free to have recourse to the solution given before, and to insist
that attention be paid to the meaning with which the question was put. For
if, as I showed, the senders knew John to be the child of Zacharias and
Elisabeth, and if the messengers still more, being men of priestly race,
could not possibly be ignorant of the remarkable manner in which their
kinsman Zacharias had received his son, then what could be the meaning of
their question, "Art thou Elijah?" Had they not read that Elijah had been
taken up into heaven, and did they not expect him to appear? Then, as they
expect Elijah to come at the consummation before Christ, and Christ to
follow him, perhaps their question was meant less in a literal than in a
tropical sense: Are you he who announces beforehand the word which is to
come before Christ, at the consummation? To this he very properly answers,
"I am not." The adversary, however, tries to show that the priests could
not be ignorant that the birth of John had taken place in so remarkable a
manner, because "all these things had been much spoken of in the hill
country of Judaea;" and the churchman has to meet this. He does so by
showing that a similar mistake was widely current about the Saviour
Himself; for "some said that He was John the Baptist, others Elijah, others
Jeremiah or one of the prophets."(1) So the disciples told the Lord when He
was in the parts of Caesarea Philippi, and questioned them on that subject.
And Herod, too, said,(1) "John whom I beheaded, he is risen from the dead;"
so that he appears not to have known what was said about Christ, as
reported in the Gospel,(2) "Is not this the son of the carpenter, is not
His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, and
Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" Thus in the case of the
Saviour, while many knew of His birth from Mary, others were under a
mistake about Him; and so in the case of John, there is no wonder if, while
some knew of his birth from Zacharias, others were in doubt whether the
expected Elijah had appeared in him or not. There was not more room for
doubt about John, whether he was Elijah, than about the Saviour, whether He
was John. Of the two, the question of the outward form of Elijah could be
disposed of from the words of Scripture, though not from actual
observation, for we read,(3) "He was a hairy man, and girt with a leather
girdle about his loins." John's outward appearance, on the contrary, was
well known, and was not like that of Jesus; and yet there were those who
surmised that John had risen from the dead, and taken the name of Jesus. As
for the change of name, a thing which reminds us of mysteries, I do not
know how the Hebrews came to tell about Phinehas, son of Eleazar, who
admittedly prolonged his life to the time of many of the judges, as we read
in the Book of Judges,(4) to tell about him what I now mention. They say
that he was Elijah, because he had been promised immortality (in
Numbers(5)), on account of the covenant of peace granted to him because he
was jealous with a divine jealousy, and in a passion of anger pierced the
Midianitish woman and the Israelite, and stayed the wrath of God as it is
called, as it is written, "Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron,
hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was
jealous with my jealousy among them." No wonder, then, if those who
conceived Phinehas and Elijah to be the same person, whether they judged
soundly in this or not. for that is not now the question, considered John
and Jesus also to be the same. This, then, they doubted, and desired to
know if John and Elijah were the same. At another time than this, the point
would certainly call for a careful enquiry, and the argument would have to
be well weighed as to the essence of the soul, as to the principle of her
composition, and as to her entering into this body of earth. We should also
have to enquire into the distributions of the life of each soul, and as to
her departure from this life, and whether it is possible for her to enter
into a second life in a body or not, and whether that takes place at the
same period, and after the same arrangement in each case, or not; and
whether she enters the same body, or a different one, and if the same,
whether the subject remains the same while the qualities are changed, or if
both subject and qualities remain the same, and if the soul will always
make use of the same body or will change it. Along with these questions, it
would also be necessary to ask what transcorporation is, and how it differs
from incorporation, and if he who holds transcorporation must necessarily
hold the world to be eternal. The views of these scholars must also be
taken into account, who consider that, according to the Scriptures, the
soul is sown along with the body, and the consequences of such a view must
also be looked at. In fact the subject of the soul is a wide one, and hard
to be unravelled, and it has to be picked out of scattered expressions of
Scripture. It requires, therefore, separate treatment. The brief
consideration we have been led to give to the problem in connection with
Elijah and John may now suffice; we go on to what follows in the Gospel.

8. JOHN IS A PROPHET, BUT NOT THE PROPHET.

   "Art thou that prophet? And he answered No."(1) If the law and the
prophets were until John,(2) what can we say that John was but a prophet?
His father Zacharias, indeed, says, filled with the Holy Ghost and
prophesying,(3) "And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the
Highest, for thou shalt go before the Lord to prepare His ways." (One might
indeed get past this passage by laying stress on the word called: he is to
be called, he is not said to be, a prophet.) And still more weighty is it
that the Saviour said to those who considered John to be a prophet,(4) "But
what went ye out to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a
prophet." The words, Yea, I say unto you, manifestly affirm that John is a
prophet, and that is nowhere denied afterwards. If, then, he is said by the
Saviour to be not only a prophet but "more than a prophet," how is it that
when the priests and levites come and ask him, "Art thou the Prophet?" he
answers No! On this we must remark that it is not the same thing to say,
"Art thou the Prophet?" and "Art thou a prophet?" The distinction between
the two expressions has already been observed, when we asked what was the
difference between the God and God, and between the Logos and Logos.(1) Now
it is written in Deuteronomy,(2) "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise
up unto you, like me; Him shall ye hear, and it shall be that every soul
that will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among His people,"
There was, therefore, an expectation of one particular prophet having a
resemblance to Moses in mediating between God and the people and receiving
a new covenant from God to give to those who accepted his teaching; and in
the case of each of the prophets, the people of Israel recognized that he
was not the person of whom Moses spoke. As, then, they doubted about John,
whether he were not the Christ,(3) so they doubted whether he could not be
the prophet. And there is no wonder that those who doubted about John
whether he were the Christ, did not understand that the Christ and the
prophet are the same person; their doubt as to John necessarily implied
that they were not clear on this point. Now the difference between "the
prophet" and "a prophet" has escaped the observation of most students; this
is the case with Heracleon, who says, in these very words: "As, then, John
confessed that he was not the Christ, and not even a prophet, nor Elijah."
If he interpreted the words before us in such a way, he ought to have
examined the various passages to see whether in saying that he is not a
prophet nor Elijah he is or is not saying what is true. He devotes no
attention, however, to these passages, and in his remaining commentaries he
passes over such points without any enquiry. In the sequel, too, his
remarks, of which we shall have to speak directly, are very scanty, and do
not testify to careful study.

9. JOHN I. 22.

   "They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer
to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" This speech of the
emissaries amounts to the following: We had a surmise what you were and
came to learn if it was so, but now we know that you are not that. It
remains for us, therefore. to hear your account of yourself, so that we may
report your answer to those who sent us.

10. OF THE VOICE JOHN THE BAPTISTS IS.

   "He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight
the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet." As He who is peculiarly
the Son of God, being no other than the Logos, yet makes use of Logos
(reason)--for He was the Logos in the beginning, and was with God, the
Logos of God--so John, the servant of that Logos, being, if we take the
Scripture to mean what it says, no other than a voice, yet uses his voice
to point to the Logos. He, then, understanding in this way the prophecy
about himself spoken by Isaiah the prophet, says he is a voice, not crying
in the wilderness, but "of one crying in the wilderness," of Him, namely,
who stood and cried,(1) "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and
drink." He it was. too, who said,(2) "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make
His paths straight. Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and
hill shall be brought low; and all the crooked shall be made straight." For
as we read in Exodus that God said to Moses,(3) "Behold I have given thee
for a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet;" so we
are to understand--the cases are at least analogous if not altogether
similar--it is with the Word in the beginning, who is God, and with John.
For John's voice points to that word and demonstrates it. It is therefore a
very appropriate punishment that falls on Zacharias on his saying to the
angel,(4) "Whereby shall I know this? For I am an old man and my wife well
stricken in years." For his want of faith with regard to the birth of the
voice, he is himself deprived of his voice, as the angel Gabriel says to
him, "Behold, thou shall be silent and not able to speak until the day that
these things shall come to pass, because thou hast not believed my words,
which shall be fulfilled in their season." And afterwards when he had
"asked for a writing tablet and written, His name is John; and they all
marvelled," he recovered his voice; for "his mouth was opened immediately
and his tongue, and he spake, blessing God." We discussed above how it is
to be understood that the Logos is the Son of God, and went over the ideas
connected with that; and a similar sequence of ideas is to be observed at
this point. John came for a witness; he was a man sent from God to bear
witness of the light, that all men through him might believe; he was that
voice, then, we are to understand, which alone was fitted worthily to
announce the Logos. We shall understand this aright if we call to mind what
was adduced in our exposition of the texts: "That all might believe through
Him," and "This is he of whom it is written, Behold I send My messenger
before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee."(1) There is
fitness, too, in his being said to be the voice, not of one saying in the
wilderness, but of one crying in the wilderness. He who cries, "Prepare ye
the way of the Lord," also says it; but he might say it without crying it.
But he cries and shouts it, that even those may hear who are at a distance
from the speaker, and that even the deaf may understand the greatness of
the tidings, since it is announced in a great voice; and he thus brings
help, both to those who have departed from God and to those who have lost
the acuteness of their hearing. This, too, was the reason why "Jesus stood
and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink."
Hence, too,(2) "John beareth witness of Him, and cried, saying," "Hence
also God commands Isaiah to cry, with the voice of one saying, Cry. And I
said, What shall I cry?" The physical voice we use in prayer need not be
great nor startling; even should we not lift up any great cry or shout, God
will yet hear us. He says to Moses,(3) "Why criest thou unto Me?" when
Moses had not cried audibly at all. It is not recorded in Exodus that he
did so; but Moses had cried mightily to God in prayer with that voice which
is heard by God alone. Hence David also says,(4) "With my voice I cried
unto the Lord, and He heard me." And one who cries in the desert has need
of a voice, that the soul which is deprived of God and deserted of truth--
and what more dreadful desert is there than a soul deserted of God and of
all virtue, since it still goes crookedly and needs instruction--may be
exhorted to make straight the way of the Lord. And that way is made
straight by the man who, far from copying the serpent's crooked journey:
while he who is of the contrary disposition perverts his way. Hence the
rebuke directed to a man of this kind and to all who resemble him, "Why
pervert ye the right ways of the Lord?"(5)

11. OF THE WAY OF THE LORD, HOW IT IS NARROW, AND HOW JESUS IS THE WAY.

   Now the way of the Lord is made straight in two fashions. First, in the
way of contemplation, when thought is made clear in truth without any
mixture of falsehood; and then in the way of conduct, after the sound
contemplation of what ought to be done, when action is produced which
harmonizes with sound theory of conduct. And that we may the more clearly
understand the text, "Make straight the way of the Lord," it will be well
to compare with it what is said in the Proverbs,(1) "Depart not, either to
the right hand or to the left." For he who deviates in either direction has
given up keeping his path straight, and is no longer worthy of regard,
since he has gone apart from the straightness of the journey, for "the
Lord(2) is righteous, and loves righteousness, and His face beholds
straightness." Hence he who is the object of regard, and receives the
benefit that comes from this oversight, says,(3) "The light of Thy
countenance was shown upon us, O Lord." Let us stand, then, as Jeremiah(4)
exhorts, upon the ways, and let us see and ask after the ancient ways of
the Lord, and let us see which is the good way, and walk in it. Thus did
the Apostles stand and ask for the ancient ways of the Lord; they asked the
Patriarchs and the Prophets, enquiring into their writings, and when they
came to understand these writings they saw the good way, namely, Jesus
Christ, who said, "I am the way." and they walked in it. For it is a good
way that leads the good man to the good father, the man who, from the good
treasure of his heart, brings forth good things, and who is a good and
faithful servant. This way is narrow, indeed, for the many cannot bear to
walk in it and are lovers of their flesh; but it is also hard-pressed(5) by
those who use violence(6) to walk in it, for it is not called afflicting,
but afflicted.(5) For that way which is a living way, and feels the
qualities of those who tread it, is pressed and afflicted, when he travels
on it who has not taken off his shoes from off his feet.(7) nor truly
realized that the place on which he stands. or indeed treads, is holy
ground. And it will lead to Him who is the life, and who says, "I am the
life." For the Saviour, in whom all virtues are combined, has many aspects.
To him who, though by no means near the end, is yet advancing, He is the
way; to him who has put off all that is dead He is the life. He who travels
on this way is told to take nothing with him on it, since it provides bread
and all that is necessary for life, enemies are powerless on it, and he
needs no staff, and since it is holy, he needs no shoes.

12. HERACLEON'S VIEW OF THE VOICE, AND OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.

   The words, however, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,"
etc., may be taken as equivalent to "I am He of whom the 'voice in the
wilderness' is written." Then John would be the person crying, and his
voice would be that crying in the wilderness, "Make straight the way of the
Lord." Heracleon, discussing John and the prophets, says, somewhat
slanderously, that "the Word is the Saviour; the voice, that in the
wilderness which John interpreted; the sound is the whole prophetic order."
To this we may reply by reminding him of the text,(1) "If the trumpet give
an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle," and that
which says that though a man have knowledge of mysteries, or have prophecy
but wants love, he is a sounding or a tinkling cymbal.(2) If the prophetic
voice be nothing but sound, how does our Lord come to refer us to it as
where He says,(3) "Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have
eternal life, and these are they which bear witness," and(4) "If ye
believed Moses, ye would believe Me," and(5) "Well did Isaiah prophesy
concerning you, saying, This people honours me with their lips"? I do not
know if any one can reasonably admit that the Saviour thus spoke in praise
of an uncertain sound, or that there is any preparation to be had from the
Scriptures to which we are referred as from the voice of a trumpet, for our
war against opposing powers, should their sound give an uncertain voice. If
the prophets had not love, and if that is why they were sounding brass or a
tinkling cymbal, then how does the Lord send us to their sound, as these
writers will have it, as if we could get help from that? He asserts,
indeed, that a voice, when well fitted to speech, becomes speech, as if one
should say that a woman is turned into a man; and the assertion is not
supported by argument. And, as if he were in a position to put forth a
dogma on the subject and to get on in this way, he declares that sound can
be changed in a similar way into voice, and the voice, which is changed
into speech, he says, is in the position of a disciple, while sound passing
into voice is in that of a slave. If he had taken any kind of trouble to
establish these points we should have had to devote some attention to
refuting them; but as it is, the bare denial is sufficient refutation.
There was a point some way back which we deferred taking up, that, namely,
of the motive of John's speeches. We may now take it up. The Saviour,
according to Heracleon, calls him both a prophet and Elijah, but he himself
denies that he is either of these. When the Saviour, Heracleon says, calls
him a prophet and Elijah, He is speaking not of John himself, but of his
surroundings; but when He calls him greater than the prophets and than
those who are born of women, then He is describing the character of John
himself. When John, on the other hand, is asked about himself, his answers
relate to himself, not to his surroundings. This we have examined as
carefully as possible, comparing each of the terms in question with the
statements of Heracleon, lest he should not have expressed himself quite
accurately. For how it comes that the statements that he is Elijah and that
he is a prophet apply to those about him, but the statement that he is the
voice of one crying in the wilderness, to himself, no attempt whatever is
made to show Heracleon only gives an illustration, namely, this: His
surroundings were, so to speak, his clothes, and other than himself, and
when he was asked about his clothes, if he; were his clothes, he could not
answer "Yes." Now that his being Elijah, who was to come, was his clothes,
is scarcely consistent, so far as I can see, with Heracleon's views; it
might consist, perhaps, with the exposition we ourselves gave of the words,
"In the spirit and power of Elijah;" it might, in a sense, be said that
this spirit of Elijah is equivalent to the soul of John. He then goes on to
try to determine why those who were sent by the Jews to question John were
priests and levites, and he answers by no means badly, that it was
incumbent on such persons, being devoted to the service of God, to busy
themselves and to make enquiries about such matters. When he goes on,
however, to say that it was "because John was of the levitical tribe, this
is less well considered. We raised the question ourselves above, and saw
that if the Jews who were sent knew John's birth, it was not open to them
to ask if he was Elijah. Then, again, in dealing with the question, "Art
thou the prophet?" Heracleon does not regard the addition of the article as
having any special force, and says, "They asked him if he were a prophet,
wishing to know this more general fact." Again, not Heracleon alone, but,
so far as I am informed, all those who diverge from our views, as if they
had not been able to deal with a trifling ambiguity and to draw the proper
distinction, suppose John to be greater than Elijah and than all the
prophets. The words are, "Of those born of women there is none greater than
John;" but this admits of two mean-lugs, that John is greater than they
all, or again, that some of them are equal to him. For though many of the
prophets were equal to him, still it might be true ill respect of the grace
bestowed on him, that none of them was greater than he. He regards it as
confirming the view that John was greater, that "he is predicted by
Isaiah;" for no other of all those who uttered prophecies was held worthy
by God of this distinction. This, however, is a venturesome statement anti
implies some disrespect of what is called the Old Testament, and total
disregard of the fact that Elijah himself was the subject of prophecy. For
Elijah is prophesied by Malachi, who says,(1) "Behold, I send unto you
Elijah, the Tishbite, who shall restore the heart of the father to the
son." Josiah, too, as we read in third Kings,(2) was predicted by name by
the prophet who came out of Judah; for he said, Jeroboam also being present
at the altar, "Thus saith the Lord, Behold a son is born to David, his name
is Josiah." There are some also who say that Samson was predicted by Jacob,
when he said,(3) "Dan shall judge his own people, he is as one tribe in
Israel," for Samson who judged Israel was of the tribe of Dan. So much by
way of evidence of the rashness of the statement that John alone was the
subject of prophecy, made by Heracleon in his attempted explanation of the
words, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness."

13. JOHN I. 24, 25. OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN, THAT OF ELIJAH, AND THAT OF
CHRIST.

   And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and
said unto him,(4) "Why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor
Elijah, nor the prophet?" Those who sent from Jerusalem the priests and
levites who asked John these questions, having learned who John was not,
and who he was, preserve a decent silence, as if tacitly assenting and
indicating that they accepted what was said, and saw that baptism was
suited to a voice crying in the wilderness for the preparing of the way of
the Lord. But the Pharisees being, as their name indicates, a divided and
seditious set of people, show that they do not agree with the Jews of the
metropolis and with the ministers of the service of God, the priests and
levites. They send envoys who deal in rebukes, and so far as their power
extends debar him from baptizing; their envoys ask, Why baptizest thou,
then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? And if we
were to stitch together into one statement what is written in the various
Gospels, we should say that at this time they spoke as is here reported,
but that at a later time, when they wished to received baptism, they heard
the address of John:(1) "Generations of vipers, who hath warned you to flee
from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance."
This is what the Baptist says in Matthew, when he sees many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, without, it is clear, having
the fruits of repentance, and pharisaically boasting in themselves that
they had Abraham for their father. For this they are rebuked by John, who
has the zeal of Elijah according to the communication of the Holy Spirit.
For that is a rebuking word, "Think not to say within yourselves, We have
Abraham for our father," and that is the word of a teacher, when he speaks
of those who for their stony hearts are called unbelieving stones, and says
that by the power of God these stones may be changed into children of
Abraham; for they were present to the eyes of the prophet and did not
shrink from his divine glance. Hence his words: "I say unto you that God is
able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." And since they came
to his baptism without having done fruits meet for repentance, he says to
them most appropriately, "Already is the axe laid to the root of the tree;
every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into
the fire." This is as much as to say to them: Since you have come to
baptism without having done fruits meet for repentance, you are a tree that
does not bring forth good fruit and which has to be cut down by the most
sharp and piercing axe of the Word which is living and powerful and sharper
than every two-edged sword. The estimation in which the Pharisees held
themselves is also set forth by Luke in the passage:(1) "Two men went up to
the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a publican. And the
Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself: God, I thank Thee that I am
not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican." The result of this speech is that the publican goes down to his
house justified rather than the Pharisee, and the lesson is drawn, that
every one who exalts himself is abased. They came, then, in the character
in which the Saviour's reproving words described them, as hypocrites to
John's baptism, nor does it escape the Baptist's observation that they have
the poison of vipers under their tongue and the poison of asps, for "the
poison of asps is under their tongue,"(1) The figure of serpents rightly
indicates their temper, and it is plainly revealed in their better
question: "Why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah,
nor the prophet?" To these I would fain reply, if it be the case that the
Christ and Elijah and the prophet baptize, but that the voice crying in the
wilderness has no authority to do so, "Most harshly, my friends, do you
question the messenger sent before the face of Christ to prepare His way
before Him. The mysteries which belong to this point are all hidden to you;
for Jesus being, whether you will or not, the Christ, did not Himself
baptize but His disciples, He who was Himself the prophet. And how have you
come to believe that Elijah who is to come will baptize?" He did not
baptize the logs upon the altar in the times of Ahab,(2) though they needed
such a bath to be burned up, what time the Lord appeared in fire. No, he
commands the priests to do this for him, and that not only once; for he
says, "Do it a second time," upon which they did it a second time, and "Do
it a third time," and they did it a third time. If, then, he did not at
that time himself baptize but left the work to others, how was he to
baptize at the time spoken of by Malachi? Christ, then, does not baptize
with water, but His disciples. He reserves for Himself to baptize with the
Holy Spirit and with fire. Now Heracleon accepts the speech of the
Pharisees as distinctly implying that the office of baptizing belonged to
the Christ and Elijah and to every prophet, for he uses these words, "Whose
office alone it is to baptize." He is refuted by what we have just said,
and especially by the consideration that he takes the word "prophet" in a
general sense;(3) for he cannot show that any of the prophets baptized. He
adds, not incorrectly, that the Pharisees put the question from malice, and
not from a desire to learn.

14 COMPARISON OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS RESPECTING JOHN THE
BAPTIST, THE PROPHECIES REGARDING HIM, HIS ADDRESSES TO THE MULTITUDE AND
TO THE PHARISEES, ETC.

   We deem it necessary to compare with the expression of the passage we
are considering the similar expressions found elsewhere in the Gospels.
This we shall continue to do point by point to the end of this work, so
that terms which appear to disagree may be shown to be in harmony, and that
the peculiar meanings present in each may be explained. This we shall do in
the present passage. The words, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make straight the way of the Lord," are placed by John, who was a disciple,
in the mouth of the Baptist. In Mark, on the other hand, the same words are
recorded at the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in accordance with
the Scripture of Isaiah, as thus: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send My messenger
before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one
crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths
straight." Now the words, "Make straight the way of the Lord," added by
John, are not found in the prophet.  Perhaps John was seeking to compress
the "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God,"
and so wrote, "Make straight the way of the Lord;" while Mark combined two
prophecies spoken by two different prophets in different places, and made
one prophecy out of them, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I
send My messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way. The voice of
one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His
paths straight." The words, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness,"
are written immediately after the narrative of Hezekiah's recovery from his
sickness,(1) while the words, "Behold I send My messenger before thy face,"
are written by Malachi.(2) What John does here, abbreviating the text he
quotes, we find done by Mark also at another point. For while the words of
the prophet are, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths
of our God," Mark writes, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths
straight." And John practises a similar abbreviation in the text, "Behold I
send My messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee,"
when he does not add the words "before thee," as in the original. Coming
now to the statement, "They were sent from the Pharisees and they asked
Him,"(1) we have been led by our examination of the passage to prefix the
enquiry of the Pharisees--which Matthew does not mention--to the occurrence
recorded in Matthew, when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
coming to his baptism, and said to them, "Ye generations of vipers," etc.
For the natural sequence is that they should first enquire and then come.
And we have to observe how, when Matthew reports that there went out to
John Jerusalem and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, to be
baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their sins, it was not these people
who heard from the Baptist any word of rebuke or refutation, but only those
many Pharisees and Sadducees whom he saw coming. They it was who were
greeted with the address, "Ye offspring of vipers," etc.(2) Mark, again,
does not record any words of reproof as having been used by John to those
who came to him, being all the country of Judaea and all of them of
Jerusalem, who were baptized by him in the Jordan and confessed their sins.
This is because Mark does not mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as having
come to John. A further circumstance which we must mention is that both
Matthew and Mark state that, in the one case, all Jerusalem and all Judaea,
and the whole region round about Jordan, in the other, the whole land of
Judaea and all they of Jerusalem, were baptized, confessing their sins; but
when Matthew introduces the Pharisees and Sadducees as coming to the
baptism, he does not say that they confessed their sins, and this might
very likely and very naturally be the reason why they were addressed as
"offspring of vipers." Do not suppose, reader, that there is anything
improper in our adducing m our discussion of the question of those who were
sent from the Pharisees and put questions to John, the parallel passages
from the other Gospels too. For if we have indicated the proper connection
between the enquiry of the Pharisees, recorded by the disciple John, and
their baptism which is found in Matthew, we could scarcely avoid inquiring
into the passages in question, nor recording the observations made on them.
Luke, like Mark, remembers the passage, "The voice of one crying in the
wilderness," but lie for his part treats it as follows:(1) "The word of God
came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into
all the region round about Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance unto
remission of sins; as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the
prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make His paths straight." Luke, however, added the continuation
of the prophecy: "Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill
shall be brought low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough
ways smooth, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God." He writes, like
Mark, "Make His ways straight;" curtailing, as we saw before, the text,
"Make straight the ways of our God." In the phrase, "And all the crooked
shall become straight," he leaves out the "all," and the word "straight" he
converts from a plural into a singular. Instead of the phrase, moreover,
"The rough laud into a plain," he gives, "The rough ways into smooth ways,"
and he leaves out "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed," and gives
what follows, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." These
observations are of use as showing how the evangelists are accustomed to
abbreviate the sayings of the prophets. It has also to be observed that the
speech, "Offspring of vipers," etc., is said by Matthew to have been spoken
to the Pharisees and Sadducees when coming to baptism, they being a
different set of people from those who confessed their sins, and to whom no
words of this kind were spoken. With Luke, on the contrary, these words
were addressed to the multitudes who came out to be baptized by John, and
there were not two divisions of those who were baptized, as we found in
Matthew. But Matthew, as the careful observer will see, does not speak of
the multitudes in the way of praise, and he probably means the Baptist's
address, Offspring of vipers, etc., to be understood as addressed to them
also. Another point is, that to the Pharisees and Sadducees he says, "Bring
forth a fruit," in the singular, "worthy of repentance," but to the
multitudes he uses the plural, "Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance."
Perhaps the Pharisees are required to yield the special fruit of
repentance, which is no other than the Son and faith in Him, while the
multitudes, who have not even a beginning of good things, are asked for all
the fruits of repentance, and so the plural is used to them. Further, it is
said to the Pharisees, "Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham
for our father." For the multitudes now have a beginning, appearing as they
do to be introduced into the divine Word, and to approach the truth; and
thus they begin to say within themselves, "We have Abraham for our father."
The Pharisees, on the contrary, are not beginning to this, but have long
held it to be so. But both classes see John point to the stones aforesaid
and declare that even from these children can be raised up to Abraham,
rising up out of unconsciousness and deadness. And observe how it is said
to the Pharisees,(1) according to the word of the prophet,(2) "Ye have
eaten false fruit," and they have false fruit,--" Every tree which bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire," while to the
multitudes which do not bear fruit at all,(3) "Every tree which bringeth
not forth fruit is hewn down." For that which has no fruit at all has not
good fruit, and, therefore, it is worthy to be hewn down. But that which
bears fruit has by no means good fruit, whence it also calls for the axe to
lay it low. But, if we look more closely into this about the fruit, we
shall find that it is impossible that that which has just begun to be
cultivated, even should it not prove fruitless, should bear the first good
fruits. The husbandman is content that the tree just coming into
cultivation should bear him at first such fruits as it may; afterwards,
when he has pruned and trained it according to his art, he will receive,
not the fruits it chanced to bear at first, but good fruits. The law itself
favours this interpretation, for it says(4) that the planter is to wait for
three years, having the trees pruned and not eating the fruit of them.
"Three years." it says, "the fruit shall be unpurified to you, and shall
not be eaten, but in the fourth year all the fruit shall be holy, for
giving praise unto the Lord." This explains how the word "good" is omitted
from the address to the multitudes, "Every tree, therefore, which bears not
fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." The tree which goes on bearing
such fruit as it did at first, is a tree which does not bear good fruit,
and is, therefore, cut down, and cast into the fire, since, when the three
years have passed and the fourth comes round, it does not bear good fruit,
for praise unto the Lord. In thus adducing the passages from the other
Gospels I may appear to be digressing, but I cannot think it useless, or
without bearing on our present subject. For the Pharisees send to John,
after the priests and levites who came from Jerusalem, men who came to ask
him who he was, and enquire, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the
Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? After making this enquiry they
straightway come for baptism, as Matthew records, and then they hear words
suited to their quackery and hypocrisy. But the words addressed to them
were very similar to those spoken to the multitudes, and hence the
necessity to look carefully at both speeches, and to compare them together.
It was while we were so engaged that various points arose in the sequence
of the matter, which we had to consider. To what has been said we must add
the following. We find mention made in John of two orders of persons
sending: the one, that of the Jews from Jerusalem sending priests and
levites; the other, that of the Pharisees who want to know why he baptizes.
And we found that, after the enquiry, the Pharisees present themselves for
baptism. May it not be that the Jews, who had sent the earlier mission from
Jerusalem, received John's words before those who sent the second mission,
namely, the Pharisees, and hence arrived before them? For Jerusalem and all
Judaea, and, in consequence, the whole region round about Jordan, were
being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins; or, as
Mark says. "There went out to him the whole land of Judaea, and all they of
Jerusalem, and were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their
sins." Now, neither does Matthew introduce the Pharisees and Sadducees, to
whom the words, "Offspring of vipers," etc., are addressed; nor does Luke
introduce the multitudes who meet with the same rebuke, as confessing their
sins. And the question may be raised how, if the whole city of Jerusalem,
and the whole of Judaea, and the whole region round about Jordan, were
baptized of John in Jordan, the Saviour could say,(1) "John the Baptist
came neither eating nor drinking, and ye say he hath a devil;" and how
could He say to those who asked Him,(1) "By what authority doest thou these
things? I also will ask you one word, which if ye tell me, I also will tell
you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was
it? from heaven or of men? And they reason, and say, If we shall say, From
heaven, He will say, Why did ye not believe him?" The solution of the
difficulty is this. The Pharisees, addressed by John, as we saw before,
with his "Offspring of vipers," etc., came to the baptism, without
believing in him, probably because they feared the multitudes, and, with
their accustomed hypocrisy towards them, deemed it right to undergo the
washing, so as not to appear hostile to those who did so. Their belief was,
then, that he derived his baptism from men, and not from heaven, but, on
account of the multitude, lest they should be stoned, they are afraid to
say what they think. Thus there is no contradiction between the Saviour's
speech to the Pharisees and the narratives in the Gospels about the
multitudes who frequented' John's baptism. It was part of the effrontery of
the Pharisees that they declared John to have a devil, as, also, that they
declared Jesus to have performed His wonderful works by Beelzebub, the
prince of the devils.

15.  HOW THE BAPTIST ANSWERS THE QUESTION OF THE PHARISEES AND EXALTS THE
NATURE OF CHRIST. OF THE SHOE-LATCHET WHICH HE IS UNABLE TO UNTIE.

   John(2) answered them, saying, "I baptize with water, but in the midst
of you standeth one whom ye know not, even He who cometh after me, the
latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose." Heracleon considers that
John's answers to those sent by the Pharisees refer not to what they asked,
but to what he wished, not observing that he accuses the prophet of a want
of manners, by making him, when asked about one thing, answer about
another; for this is a fault to be guarded against in conversation. We
assert, on the contrary, that the reply accurately takes up the question.
It is asked," Why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ?" And
what other answer could be given to this than to show that his baptism was
in its nature a bodily thing? I, he says, "baptize with water;" this is his
answer to, "Why baptizest thou." And to the second part of their question,
"If thou art not the Christ," he answers by exalting the superior nature of
Christ, that He has such virtue as to be invisible in His deity, though
present to every man and extending over the whole universe. This is what is
indicated in the words, "There standeth one among you." The Pharisees,
moreover, though expecting the advent of Christ, saw nothing in Him of such
a nature as John speaks of; they believed Him to be simply a perfect and
holy man. John, therefore, rebukes their ignorance of His superiority, and
adds to the words, "There standeth one among you," the clause, "whom ye
know not." And, lest any one should suppose the invisible One who extends
to every man, or, indeed, to the whole world, to be a different person from
Him who became man, and appeared upon the earth and con versed with men, he
adds to the words, "There standeth one among you whom you know not," the
further words, "Who cometh after me," that is, He who is to be manifested
after me. By whose surpassing excellence he well understood that his own
nature was far surpassed, though some doubted whether he might be the
Christ; and, therefore, desiring to show how far he is from attaining to
the greatness of the Christ, that no one should think of him beyond what he
sees or hears of him, he goes on: "The latchet of whose shoe I am not
worthy to unloose." By which lie conveys, as in a riddle, that he is not
fit to solve and to explain the argument about Christ's assuming a human
body, an argument tied up and hidden (like a shoe-tie) to those who do not
understand it,--so as to say anything worthy of such an advent, compressed,
as it was, into so short a space.

16. COMPARISON OF JOHN'S TESTIMONY TO JESUS IN THE DIFFERENT GOSPELS.

   It may not be out of place, as we are examining the text, "I baptize
with water," to compare the parallel utterances of the evangelists with
this of John. Matthew reports that the Baptist, when he saw many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, after the words of rebuke
which we have already studied, went on:(1) "I indeed baptize you with water
unto repentance; but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose
shoes I am not worthy to bear; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,
and with fire." This agrees with the words in John, in which the Baptist
declares himself to those sent by the Pharisees, on the subject of his
baptizing with water. Mark, again, says,(1) "John preached, saying, There
cometh after me He that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am
not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I baptized you with water, but He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." And Luke says(2) that, as the
people were in expectation, and all were reasoning in their hearts
concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ, John answered them all,
saying. "I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh one mightier
than I, whose shoe-latchet I am not worthy to unloose; He shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."

17. OF THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN TO JESUS IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL,

   These, then, are the parallel passages of the four; let us try to see
as clearly as we can what is the purport of each and wherein they differ
from each other. And we will begin with Matthew, who is reported by
tradition to have published his Gospel before the others, to the Hebrews,
those, namely, of the circumcision who believed. I, he says, baptize you
with water unto repentance, purifying you, as it were, and turning you away
from evil courses and calling you to repentance; for I am come to make
ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him, and by my baptism of
repentance to prepare the ground for Him who is to come after me, and who
will thus benefit you much more effectively and powerfully than my strength
could. For His baptism is not that of the body only; He fills the penitent
with the Holy Ghost, and His diviner fire does away with everything
material and consumes everything that is earthy, not only from him who
admits it to his life, but even from him who hears of it from those who
have it. So much stronger than I is He who is coming after me, that I am
not able to bear even the outskirts of the powers round Him which are
furthest from Him (they are not open and exposed, so that any one could see
them), nor even to bear those who support them. I know not of which I
should speak. Should I speak of my own great weakness, which is not able to
bear even these things about Christ which in comparison with the greater
things in Him are least, or should I speak of His transcendent Deity,
greater than all the world? If I who have received such grace, as to be
thought worthy of prophecy predicting my arrival in this human life, in the
words," The voice of one crying in the wilderness," and "Behold I send my
messenger before thy face;" if I whose birth Gabriel who stands before God
announced to my father so advanced in years, so much against his
expectation, I at whose name Zacharias recovered his voice and was enabled
to use it to prophesy, I to whom my Lord bears witness that among them that
are born of women there is noble greater than I, I am not able so much as
to bear His shoes l And if not His shoes, what can be said about His
garments? Who is so great as to be able to guard His coat? Who can suppose
that He can understand the meaning contained in His tunic which is without
seam from the top because it is woven throughout? It is to be observed that
while the four represent John as declaring himself to have come to baptize
with water. Matthew alone adds the words "to repentance," teaching that the
benefit of baptism is connected with the intention of the baptized person;
to him who repents it is salutary, but to him who comes to it without
repentance it will turn to greater condemnation. And here we must note that
as the wonderful works done by the Saviour in the cures He wrought, which
are symbolical of those who at any time are set free by the word of God
from ally sickness or disease, though they were done to the body and
brought a bodily relief, yet also called those who were benefited by them
to an exercise of faith, so the washing with water which is symbolic of the
soul cleansing herself from every stain of wickedness, is no less in itself
to him who yields himself to the divine power of the invocation of the
Adorable Trinity, the beginning and source of divine girls; for "there are
diversities of gifts." This view receives confirmation from the narrative
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, which shows the Spirit to have
descended so manifestly on those who receive baptism, after the water had
prepared the way for him in those who properly approached the rite. Simon
Magus, astonished at what he saw, desired to receive from Peter this gift,
but though it was a good thing he desired, he thought to attain it by the
mammon of unrighteousness. We next remark in passing that the baptism of
John was inferior to the baptism of Jesus which was given through His
disciples. Those persons in the Acts(1) who were baptized to John's baptism
and who had not heard if there was any Holy Ghost are baptized over again
by the Apostle, Regeneration did not take place with John, but with Jesus
through His disciples it does so, and what is called the layer of
regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit; for the Spirit now
comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water
and does not come to all after the water. So hr, then, our examination of
the statements in the Gospel according to Matthew.

18.OF THE TESTIMONY IN MARK. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE SAVIOUR'S SHOES AND BY
UNTYING HIS SHOE-LATCHETS.

   Now let us consider what is stated by Mark. Mark's account of John's
preaching agrees with the other. The words are, "There cometh after me He
that is mightier than I," which amounts to the same thing as "He that
cometh after me is mightier than I." There is a difference, however, in
what follows, "The latchets of His shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and
untie." For it is one thing to bear a person's shoes,--they must, it is
evident, have been untied already from the feet of the wearer,--and it is
another thing to stoop down and untie the latchet of his shoes. And it
follows, since believers cannot think that either of the Evangelists made
any mistake or misrepresentation, that the Baptist must have made these two
utterances at different times and have meant them to express different
things. It is not the case, as some suppose. that the reports refer to the
same incident and turned out differently because of a looseness of memory
as to some of the facts or words. Now it is a great thing to bear the shoes
of Jesus, a great thing to stoop down to the bodily features of His
mission, to that which took place in some lower region, so as to
contemplate His image in the lower sphere, and to untie each difficulty
connected with the mystery of His incarnation, such being as it were His
shoe-latchets. For the fetter of obscurity is one as the key of knowledge
also is one; not even He who is greatest among those born of women is
sufficient of Himself to loose such things or to open them, for He who tied
and locked at first, He also grants to whom He will to loose His shoe-
latchet and to unlock what He has shut. If the passage about the shoes has
a mystic meaning we ought not to scorn to consider it. Now I consider that
the inhumanisation when the Son of God assumes flesh and bones is one of
His shoes, and that the other is the descent to Hades, whatever that Hades
be, and the journey with the Spirit to the prison. As to the descent into
Hades, we read in the sixteenth Psalm, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in
Hades," and as for the journey in prison with the Spirit we read in Peter
in his Catholic Epistle,(1) "Put to death," he says, "in the flesh, but
quickened in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached unto the
spirits in prison, which at one time were disobedient, when the long-
suffering of God once waited in the days of Noah while the ark was a
preparing." He, then, who is able worthily to set forth the meaning of
these two journeys is able to untie the latchet of the shoes of Jesus; he,
bending down in his mind and going with Jesus as He goes down into Hades,
and descending from heaven and the mysteries of Christ's deity to the
advent He of necessity made with us when He took on man (as His shoes). Now
He who put on man also put on the dead, for(2) "for this end Jesus both
died and revived, that He might be Lord both of dead and living." This is
why He put on both living and dead, that is, the inhabitants of the earth
and those of Hades, that He might be the Lord of both dead and living. Who,
then, is able to stoop down and untie the latchet of such shoes, and having
untied them not to let them drop, but by the second faculty he has received
to take them up and bear them, by bearing the meaning of them in his
memory?

19. LUKE AND JOHN SUGGEST THAT ONE MAY LOOSE THE SHOE-LATCHETS OF THE LOGOS
WITHOUT STOOPING DOWN.

   We must not, however, omit to ask how it comes that Luke and John give
the speech without the phrase "to stoop down." He, perhaps, who stoops down
may be held to unloose in the sense which we have stated. On the other
hand, it may be that one who fixes his eyes on the height of the exaltation
of the Logos, may find the loosing of those shoes which when one is seeking
them seem to be bound, so that He also looses those shoes which are
separable from the Logos, and beholds the Logos divested of inferior
things, as He is, the Son of God.

20. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT BEING "SUFFICIENT" AND NOT BEING "WORTHY."

   John records that the Baptist said he was not worthy, Mark that he was
not sufficient, and these two are not the same. One who was not worthy
might yet be sufficient, and one who was worthy might not be sufficient.
For even if it be the case that gifts are bestowed to profit withal and not
merely according to the proportion of faith, yet it would seem to be the
part of a God who loves men and who sees before what harm must come from
the rise of self-opinion or conceit, not to bestow sufficiency even on the
worthy. But it belongs to the goodness of God by conferring bounties to
conquer the object of His bounty, taking in advance him who is destined to
be worthy, and adorning him even before he becomes worthy with sufficiency,
so that after his sufficiency he may come to be worthy; he is not first to
be worthy and then to anticipate the giver and take His gifts before the
time and so arrive at being sufficient. Now with the three the Baptist says
he is not sufficient, while in John he says he is not worthy. But it may be
that he who formerly declared that he was not sufficient became sufficient
afterwards, even though perhaps he was not worthy, or again that while he
was saying he was not worthy, and was in fact not worthy, he arrived at
being worthy, unless one should say that human nature can never come to
perform worthily this loosing or this bearing, axed that John, therefore,
says truly that he never became sufficient to loose the latchets of the
Saviour's shoes, nor worthy of it either. However much we take into our
minds there are still left things not yet understood; for, as we read in
the wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach,(1) "When a man hath done, then he
beginneth, and when he leaveth off, then he shall he doubtful."

21.THE FOURTH GOSPEL SPEAKS OF ONLY ONE SHOE, THE OTHERS OF BOTH. THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS.

   As to the shoes, too, which are spoken of in the three Gospels, we have
a question to consider; we must compare them with the single shoe named by
the disciple John. "I am not worthy," we read there, "to untie the latchet
of His shoe." Perhaps he was conquered by the grace of God, and received
the gift of doing that which of himself he would not have been worthy to
do, of untying, namely, the latchet of one of the shoes, namely, after he
had seen the Saviour's sojourn among men, of which he bears witness. But he
did not know the things which were to follow, namely, whether Jesus was to
come to that place also, to which he was to go after being beheaded in
prison, or whether he was to look for another; and hence he alludes
enigmatically to that doubt which was afterwards cleared up to us, and
says, "I am not worthy to untie His shoe-latchet." If any one considers
this to be a superfluous speculation, he can combine in one the speech
about the shoes and that about the shoe, as if John said, I am by no means
worthy to loose His shoestring, not even at the beginning, the string of
one of His shoes. Or the following may be a way to combine what is said in
the Four. If John understands about Jesus sojourn here, but is in doubt
about the future, then he says with perfect truth that he is not worthy to
loose the latchet of His shoes; for though he loosed that of one shoe, he
did not loose both. And on the other hand, what he says about the latehet
of the shoe is quite true also; since as we saw he is still in doubt
whether Jesus is He that was to come, or whether another is to be looked
for, in that other region.

22. HOW THE WORD STANDS IN THE MIDST OF MEN WITHOUT BEING KNOWN OF THEM,

   As for the saying, "There standeth one among you whom you know not," we
are led by it to consider the Son of God, the Word, by whom all things were
made, since He exists in substance throughout the underlying nature of
things, being the same as wisdom. For He permeated, from the beginning, all
creation, so that what is made at any time should be made through Him, and
that it might be always true of anything soever, that "All things were made
by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made;" and this
saying also, "By wisdom didst thou make them all." Now, if He permeates all
creation, then He is also in those questioners who ask, "Why baptizest
thou, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" In the
midst of them stands the Word, who is the same and steadfast, being
everywhere established by the Father. Or the words, "There standeth among
you," may he understood to say, In the midst of you men, because you are
reasonable beings, stands He who is proved by Scripture to be the sovereign
principle in the midst of every body, and so to be present in your heart.
Those, therefore, who have the Word in the midst of them, but who do not
consider His nature, nor from what spring and principle He came, nor how He
gave them the nature they have,(1) these, while having Him in the midst of
them, know Him not. But John knew Him: for the words, "Whom you know not,"
used in reproach to the Pharisees, show that he well knew the Word whom
they did not know. And the Baptist, therefore, knowing Him, saw Him coming
after himself, who was now in the midst of them, that is to say, dwelling
after him and the teaching he gave in his baptism, in those who, according
to reason (or the Word), submitted to that purifying rite. The word
"after," however, has not the same meaning here as it has when Jesus
commands us to come "after" Him; for in this case we are bidden to go after
Him, so that, treading in His steps, we may come to the Father; but in the
other case, the meaning is that after the teachings of John(since "He came
in order that all men through Him might believe"), the Word dwells with
those who have prepared themselves, purified as they are by the lesser
words for the perfect Word. Firstly, then, stands the Father, being without
any turning or change; and then stands also His Word, always carrying on
His work of salvation, and even when He is in the midst of men, not
comprehended, and not even seen. He stands, also, teaching, and inviting
all to drink from His abundant spring, for(1) "Jesus stood and cried,
saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink."

23. HERACLEON'S VIEW OF THIS UTTERANCE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, AND
INTERPRETATION OF THE SHOE OF JESUS.

   But Heracleon declares the words, "There standeth one among you," to be
equivalent to "He is already here, and He is in the world and in men, and
He is already manifest to you all." By this He does away with the meaning
which is also present in the words, that the Word had permeated the whole
world. For we must say to him, When is He not present, and when is He not
in the world? Does not this Gospel say, "He was in the world, and the world
was made by Him, and the world knew Him not." And this is why those to whom
the Logos is He "whom you know not," do not know Him: they have never gone
out of the world, but the world does not know Him. But at what time did He
cease to be among men? Was He not in Isaiah, when He said,(2) "The Spirit
of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me," and(3) "I became
manifest to those who sought me not." Let them say, too, if He was not in
David when he said, not from himself,(4) "But I was established by Him a
king in Zion His holy hill," and the other words spoken in the Psalms in
the person of Christ. And why should I go over the details of this
proof,truly they are hard to be numbered, when I can show quite clearly
that He was always in men? And that is enough to show Heracleon's
interpretation of "There standeth in the midst of you," to be unsound, when
he says it is equivalent to "He is already here, and He is in the world and
in men." We are disposed to agree with him when he says that the words,
"Who cometh after me," show John to be the forerunner of Christ, for he is
in fact a kind of servant running before his master. The words, however,
"Whose shoe-latchet I am not worthy to unloose," receive much too simple an
interpretation when it is said that "in these words the Baptist confesses
that he is not worthy even of the least honourable ministration to Christ."
After this interpretation he adds, not without sense, "I am not worthy that
for my sake He should come down from His greatness and should take flesh as
His footgear, concerning which I am not able to give any explanation or
description, nor to unloose the arrangement of it." In understanding the
world by his shoe, Heracleon shows some largeness of mind, but immediately
after he verges on impiety in declaring that all this is to be understood
of that person whom John here has in his mind. For he considers that it is
the demiurge of the world who confesses by these words that he is a lesser
person than the Christ; and this is the height of impiety. For the Father
who sent Him, He who is the God of the living  as Jesus Himself testifies,
of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, and He who is greater than heaven and
earth for the reason that He is the Maker of them, He also alone is good
and is greater than He who was sent by Him. And even if, as we said,
Heracleon's idea was a lofty one, that the whole world was the shoe of
Jesus, yet I think we ought not to agree with him. For how can it be
harmonized with such a view, that "Heaven is My throne and the earth My
footstool," a testimony which Jesus accepts as said of the Father?(1)
"Swear not by heaven," He says, "for it is God's throne, nor by the earth,
for it is the footstool of His feet." How, if he takes the whole world to
be the shoe of Jesus, can he also accept the text,(2) "Do not I fill heaven
and earth?" saith the Lord. It is also worth while to enquire, whether as
the Word and wisdom permeated the whole world, and as the Father was in the
Son, the words are to be understood as above or in this way, that He who
first of all was girded about with the whole creation, in addition to the
Son's being in Him, granted to the Saviour, as being second after Him and
being God the Word, to pervade the whole creation. To those who have it in
them to take note of the uninterrupted movement of the great heaven, how it
carries with it from East to West so great a multitude of stars, to them
most of all it will seem needful to enquire what that force is, how great
and of what nature, which is present in the whole world. For to pronounce
that force to be other than the Father and the Son, that perhaps might be
inconsistent with piety.

24.THE NAME OF THE PLACE WHERE JOHN BAPTIZED IS NOT BETHANY, AS IN MOST
COPIES, BUT BETHABARA. PROOF OF THIS. SIMILARLY "GERGESA" SHOULD BE READ
FOR "GERASA," IN THE STORY OF THE SWINE.    ATTENTION IS TO BE PAID TO THE
PROPER NAMES IN SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE OFTEN WRITTEN INACCURATELY, AND ARE OF
IMPORTANCE FOR INTERPRETATION.

   "These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was
baptizing."(1) We are aware of the reading which is found in almost all the
copies, "These things were done in Bethany." This appears, moreover, to
have been the reading at an earlier time; and in Heracleon we read
"Bethany." We are convinced, however, that we should not read "Bethany,"
but "Bethabara." We have visited the places to enquire as to the footsteps
of Jesus and His disciples, and of the prophets. Now, Bethany, as the same
evangelist tells us,(2) was the town of Lazarus, and of Martha and Mary; it
is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, anti the river Jordan is about a hundred
and eighty stadia distant from it. Nor is there any other place of the same
name in the neighbourhood of the Jordan, but they say that Bethabara is
pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have
baptized there. The etymology of the name, too, corresponds with the
baptism of him who made ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him; for
it yields the meaning "House of preparation," while Bethany means "House of
obedience." Where else was it fitting that he should baptize, who was sent
as a messenger before the face of the Christ, to prepare His way before
Him, but at the House of preparation? And what more fitting home for Mary,
who chose the good part,(1) which was not taken away from her, and for
Martha, who was cumbered for the reception of Jesus, and for their brother,
who is called the friend of the Saviour, than Bethany, the House of
obedience? Thus we see that he who aims at a complete understanding of the
Holy Scriptures must not neglect the careful examination of the proper
names in it. In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often
incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority. The
transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the
demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country
of the Gerasenes.(2) Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it
neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement
so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed
themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few
copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes;" and, on this
reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the
neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no
lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the
name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake
now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting
on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by
the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is "dwelling of the casters-out,"
and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of
the citizens of those places, who "besought Him to depart out of their
coasts." The same inaccuracy with regard to proper names is also to be
observed in many passages of the law and the prophets, as we have been at
pains to learn from the Hebrews, comparing our own copies with theirs which
have the confirmation of the versions, never subjected to corruption, of
Aquila and Theodotion and Symmachus. We add a few instances to encourage
students to pay more attention to such points. One of the sons of Levi,(3)
the first, is called Geson in most copies, instead of Gerson. His name is
the same as that of the first-born of Moses;(4) it was given appropriately
in each case, both children being born, because of the sojourn in Egypt, in
a strange land. The second son of Juda,(1) again, has with us the name
Annan, but with the Hebrews Onan, "their labour." Once more, in the
departures of the children of Israel in Numbers,(2) we find, "They departed
from Sochoth and pitched in Buthan;" but the Hebrew, instead of Buthan,
reads Aiman. And why should I add more points like these, when any one who
desires it can examine into the proper names and find out for himself how
they stand? The place-names of Scripture are specially to be suspected
where many of them occur in a catalogue, as in the account of the partition
of the country in Joshua, and in the first Book of Chronicles from the
beginning down to, say, the passage about Dan,(3) and similarly in Ezra.
Names are not to be neglected, since indications may be gathered from them
which help in the interpretation of the passages where they occur. We
cannot, however, leave our proper subject to examine in this place into the
philosophy of names.

25. JORDAN MEANS "THEIR GOING DOWN." SPIRITUAL MEANINGS AND APPLICATION OF
THIS.

   Let us look at the words of the Gospel now before us. "Jordan" means
"their going down." The name "Jared" is etymologically akin to it, if I may
say so; it also yields the meaning "going down;" for Jared was born to
Maleleel, as it is written in the Book of Enoch--if any one cares to accept
that book as sacred--in the days when the sons of God came down to the
daughters of men.  Under this descent some have supposed that there is an
enigmatical reference to the descent of souls into bodies, taking the
phrase "daughters of men" as a tropical expression for this earthly
tabernacle. Should this be so, what river will "their going down" be, to
which one must come to be purified, a river going down, not with its own
descent, but "theirs," that, namely, of men, what but our Saviour who
separates those who received their lots from Moses from those who obtained
their own portions through Jesus (Joshua)? His current, flowing in the
descending stream, makes glad, as we find in the Psalms,(4) the city of
God, not the visible Jerusalem--for it has no river beside it--but the
blameless Church of God, built on the foundation of the Apostles and
Prophets, Christ Jesus our Lord being the chief corner-stone. Under the
Jordan, accordingly, we have to understand the Word of God who became flesh
and tabernacled among us, Jesus who gives us as our inheritance the
humanity which He assumed, for that is the head corner-stone, which being
taken up into the deity of the Son of God, is washed by being so assumed,
and then receives into itself the pure and guileless dove of the Spirit,
bound to it and no longer able to fly away from it. For "Upon whomsoever,"
we read, "thou shall see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, the
same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit." Hence, he who receives the
Spirit abiding on Jesus Himself is able to baptize those who come to him in
that abiding Spirit. But John baptizes beyond Jordan, in the regions
verging on the outside of Judaea, in Bethabara, being the forerunner of Him
who came to call not the righteous but sinners, and who taught that the
whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For it is for
forgiveness of sins that this washing is given.

26.THE STORY OF ISRAEL CROSSING JORDAN UNDER JOSHUA IS TYPICAL OF CHRISTIAN
THINGS, AND IS WRITTEN FOR OUR INSTRUCTION.

   Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various
aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the
Jordan; because John says, "I baptize with water, but He that cometh after
me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit." To this
we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk
is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of
man, and to others blood, since it is said,(1) "Except ye drink My blood,
ye have no life in you," and as in His character as food He is variously
conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is
baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some,
also, of blood. It is of His last baptism, as some hold, that He speaks in
the words,(2) "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I
straitened till it be accomplished?" And it agrees with this that the
disciple John speaks in his Epistle(3) of the Spirit, and the water, and
the blood, as being one. And again He declares Himself to be the way and
the door, but clearly He is not the door to those to whom He is the way,
and He is no longer the way to those to whom He is the door. All those,
then, who are being initiated in the beginning of the oracles of God, and
come to the voice of him who cries in the wilderness, "Make straight the
way of the Lord," the voice which sounds beyond Jordan at the house of
preparation, let them prepare themselves so that they may be in a state to
receive the spiritual word, brought home to them by the enlightenment of
the Spirit. As we are now, as our subject requires, bringing together all
that relates to the Jordan, let us look at the "river." God, by Moses,
carried the people through the Red Sea, making the water a wall for them on
the right hand and on the left, and by Joshua He carried them through
Jordan. Now, Paul deals with this Scripture, and his warfare is not
according to the flesh of it, for he knew that the law is spiritual in a
spiritual sense. And he shows us that he understood what is said about the
passage of the Red Sea; for he says in his first Epistle to the
Corinthians,(1) "I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, how that our
fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were
all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the
same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of
the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ." In the
spirit of this passage let us also pray that we may receive from God to
understand the spiritual meaning of Joshua's passage through Jordan. Of it,
also, Paul would have said, "I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that
all our fathers went through Jordan, and were all baptized into Jesus in
the spirit and in the river." And Joshua, who succeeded Moses, was a type
of Jesus Christ, who succeeds the dispensation through the law, and
replaces it by the preaching of the Gospel. And even if those Paul speaks
of were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, there is something harsh and
salt in their baptism. They are still in fear of their enemies, and crying
to the Lord and to Moses, saying,(2) "Because there were no graves in
Egypt, hast thou brought us forth to slay us in the wilderness? Why hast
thou dealt thus with us, to bring us forth out of Egypt?" But the baptism
to Joshua, which takes place in quite sweet and drinkable water, is in many
ways superior to that earlier one, religion having by this time grown
clearer and assuming a becoming order. For the ark of the covenant of the
Lord our God is carried in procession by the priests and levites, the
people following the ministers of God, it, also, accepting the law of
holiness. For Joshua says to the people,(1) "Sanctify yourselves against
tomorrow; the Lord will do wonders among you." And he commands the priests
to go before the people with the ark of the covenant, wherein is plainly
showed forth the mystery of the Father's economy about the Son, which is
highly exalted by Him who gave the Son this office; "That at the name of
Jesus(2) every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and
things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This is pointed out by
what we find in the book called Joshua,(3) "In that day I will begin to
exalt thee before the children of Israel." And we hear our Lord Jesus
saying to the children of Israel,(4) "Come hither and hear the words of the
Lord your God. Hereby ye shall know that the living God is in (among) you;"
for when we are baptized to Jesus, we know that the living God is in us.
And, in the former case, they kept the passover in Egypt, and then began
their journey, but with Joshua, after crossing Jordan on the tenth day of
the first month they pitched their camp in Galgala; for a sheep had to be
procured before invitations could be issued to the banquet after Joshua's
baptism. Then the children of Israel, since the children of those who came
out of Egypt had not received circumcision, were circumcised by Joshua with
a very sharp stone; the Lord declares that He takes away the reproach of
Egypt on the day of Joshua's baptism, when Joshua purified the children of
Israel. For it is written:(5) "And the Lord said to Joshua, the son of Nun,
This day have I taken away the reproach of Egypt from off you." Then the
children of Israel kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month,
with much greater gladness than in Egypt, for they ate unleavened bread of
the corn of the holy land, and fresh food better than manna. For when they
received the land of promise God did not entertain them with scantier food,
nor when such a one as Joshua was their leader do they get inferior bread.
This will be plain to him who thinks of the true holy land and of the
Jerusalem above. Hence it is written in this same Gospel:(1) Your fathers
did eat bread in the wilderness, and are dead; he that eateth of this bread
shall live for ever. For the manna, though it was given by God, yet was
bread of travel, bread supplied to those still under discipline, well
fitted for those who were under tutors and governors. And the new bread
Joshua managed to get from corn they cut in the country, in the land of
promise, others having laboured and his disciples reaping,--that was bread
more full of life, distributed as it was to those who, for their
perfection, were able to receive the inheritance of their fathers. Hence,
he who is still under discipline to that bread may receive death as far as
it is concerned, but he who has attained to the bread that follows that,
eating it, shall live for ever. All this has been added, not, I conceive,
without appropriateness, to our study of the baptism at the Jordan,
administered by John at Bethabara.

27. OF ELIJAH AND ELISHA  CROSSING THE JORDAN.

   Another point which we must not fail to notice is that when Elijah was
about to be taken up in a whirlwind, as if to heaven,(2) he took his mantle
and wrapped it together and smote the water, which was divided hither and
thither, and they went over both of them, that is, he and Elisha. His
baptism in the Jordan made him fitter to be taken up, for, as we showed
before, Paul gives the name of baptism to such a remarkable passage through
the water. And through this same Jordan Elisha receives, through Elijah,
the gift he desired, saying, "Let a double portion of thy spirit be upon
me." What enabled him to receive this gift of the spirit of Elijah was,
perhaps, that he had passed through Jordan twice, once with Elijah, and the
second time, when, after receiving the mantle of Elijah, he smote the water
and said, "Where is the God of Elijah, even He? And he smote the waters,
and they were divided hither and thither."

28. NAAMAN THE SYRIAN AND THE JORDAN. NO OTHER STREAM HAS THE SAME HEALING
POWER.

   Should any one object to the expression "He smote the water," on
account of the conclusion we arrived at above with respect to the Jordan,
that it is a type of the Word who descended for us our descending, we
rejoin that with the Apostle the rock is plainly said to be Christ, and
that it is smitten twice with the rod, so that the people may drink of the
spiritual rock which follows them. The "smiting" in this new difficulty is
that of those who are fond of suggesting something that contradicts the
conclusion even before they have learned what the question is which is in
hand. From such God sets us free, since, on the one hand, He gives us to
drink when we are thirsty, and on the other He prepares for us, in the
immense and trackless deep, a road to pass over, namely, by the dividing of
His Word, since it is by the reason which distinguishes (divides) that most
things are made plain to us. But that we may receive the right
interpretation about this Jordan, so good to drink, so full of grace, it
may be of use to compare the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian from his
leprosy, and what is said of the rivers of religion of the enemies of
Israel. It is recorded of Naaman(1) that he came with horse and chariot,
and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger
to him, saying, "Go, wash seven times in the Jordan, and thy flesh shall
come again unto thee, and thou shalt be cleansed." Then Naaman is angry; he
does not see that our Jordan is the cleanser of those who are impure from
leprosy, from that impurity, and their restorer to health; it is the Jordan
that does this, and not the prophet; the office of the prophet is to direct
to the healing agency. Naaman then says, not understanding the great
mystery of the Jordan, "Behold, I said that he will certainly come out to
me, and will call upon the name of the Lord his God, and lay his hand upon
the place, and restore the leper." For to put his hand on the leprosy(2)
and cleanse it is a work belonging to our Lord Jesus only; for when the
leper appealed to Him with faith, saying, "If Thou wilt Thou canst make me
clean," He not only said, "I will, be thou clean," but in addition to the
word He touched him, and he was cleansed from his leprosy. Naaman, then, is
still in error, and does not see how far inferior other rivers are to the
Jordan for the cure of the suffering; he extols the rivers of Damascus,
Arbana, and Pharpha, saying, "Are not Arbana and Pharpha, rivers of
Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Shall I not wash in them
and be clean?" For as none is good(3) but one, God the Father, so among
rivers none is good but the Jordan, nor able to cleanse from his leprosy
him who with faith washes his soul in Jesus. And this, I suppose, is the
reason why the Israelites are recorded to have wept when they sat by the
rivers of Babylon and remembered Zion; those who are carried captive, on
account of their wickedness, when they taste other waters after sacred
Jordan, are led to remember with longing their own river of salvation.
Therefore it is said of the rivers of Babylon, "There we sat down," clearly
because they were unable to stand, "and wept." And Jeremiah rebukes those
who wish to drink the waters of Egypt, and desert the water which comes
down from heaven, and is named from its so coming down--namely, the Jordan.
He says,(1) "What hast thou to do with the way of Egypt, to drink the water
of Geon, and to drink the water of the river," or, as it is in the Hebrew,
"to drink the water of Sion." Of which water we have now to speak.

29. THE RIVER OF EGYPT AND ITS DRAGON, CONTRASTED WITH THE JORDAN.

   But that the Spirit in the inspired Scriptures is not speaking mainly
of rivers to be seen with the eyes, may be gathered from Ezekiel's
prophecies against Pharaoh, king of Egypt:(2) "Behold I am against thee,
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon, seated in the midst of rivers,
who sayest, Mine are the rivers, and I made them. And I will put traps in
thy jaws, and I will make the fishes of the river to stick to thy fins, and
I will bring thee up from the midst of thy river, and all the fish of the
river, and I will cast thee down quickly and all the fish of the river;
thou shalt fall upon the face of thy land, and thou shalt not be gathered
together, and thou shalt not be adorned." For what real bodily dragon has
ever been reported as having been seen in the material river of Egypt? But
consider if the river of Egypt be not the dwelling of the dragon who is our
enemy, who was not even able to kill the child Moses. But as the dragon is
in the river of Egypt, so is God in the river which makes glad the city of
God; for the Father is in the Son. Hence those who come to wash themselves
in Him put away the reproach of Egypt, and become more fit to be restored.
They are cleansed from that foulest leprosy, receive a double portion of
spiritual gifts, and are made ready to receive the Holy Spirit, since the
spiritual dove does not light on any other stream. Thus we have considered
in a way more worthy of the sacred subject the Jordan and the purification
that is in it, and Jesus being washed in it, and the house of preparation.
Let us, then, draw from the river as much help as we require.

30. OF WHAT JOHN LEARNED FROM JESUS WHEN MARY VISITED ELISABETH IN THE HILL
COUNTRY.

   "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him."(1) The mother of Jesus
had formerly, as soon as she conceived, stayed with the mother of John,
also at that time with child, and the Former then communicated to the
Formed with some exactness His own image, and caused him to be conformed to
His glory. And from this outward similarity it came that with those who did
not distinguish between the image itself and that which was according to
the image, John was thought to be Christ(2) and Jesus was supposed(3) to be
John risen from the dead. So now Jesus, after the testimonies of John to
Him which we have examined, is Himself seen by the Baptist coming to him.
It is to be noticed that on the former occasion, when the voice of Mary's
salutation came to the ears of Elisabeth, the babe John leaped in the womb
of his mother, who then received the Holy Spirit, as it were, from the
ground. For it came to pass, we read,(4) "when Elisabeth heard the
salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled
with the Holy Spirit, and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry and
said," etc. On this occasion, similarly, John sees Jesus coming to him and
says, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." For
with regard to matters of great moment one is first instructed by hearing
and afterwards one sees them with one s own eyes. That John was helped to
the shape he was to wear by the Lord who, still in the process of formation
and in His mother's womb, approached Elisabeth, will be clear to any one
who has grasped our proof that John is a voice but that Jesus is the Word,
for when Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit at the salutation of
Mary there was a great voice in her, as the words themselves bear; for they
say, "And she spake out with a loud voice." Elisabeth, it is plain, did
this, "and she spake." For the voice of Mary's salutation coming to the
ears of Elisabeth filled John with itself; hence John leaps, and his mother
becomes, as it were, the mouth of her son and a prophetess, crying out with
a loud voice and saying, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb." Now we see clearly how it was with Mary's hasty journey
to the hill country, and her entrance into the house of Zacharias, and the
greeting with which she salutes Elisabeth; it was that she might
communicate some of the power she derived from Him she had conceived, to
John, yet in his mother's womb, and that John too might communicate to his
mother some of the prophetic grace which had come to him, that all these
things were done. And most rightly was it in the hill country that these
transactions took place, since no great thing can be entertained by those
who are low and may be thence called valleys. Here, then, after the
testimonies of John,--the first, when he cried and spoke about His deity;
the second, addressed to the priests and levites who were sent by the Jews
from Jerusalem; and the third, in answer to the sharper questions of those
from the Pharisees,--Jesus is seen by the witness-bearer coming to him
while he is still advancing and growing better. This advance and
improvement is symbolically indicated in the phrase, "On the morrow." For
Jesus came in the consequent illumination, as it were, and on the day after
what had preceded, not only known as standing in the midst even of those
who knew Him not, but now plainly seen advancing to him who had formerly
made such declarations about Him. On the first day the testimonies take
place, and on the second Jesus comes to John. On the third John, standing
with two of his disciples and looking upon Jesus as He walked, said,
"Behold the Lamb of God," thus urging those who were there to follow the
Son of God. On the fourth day, too, He was minded to go forth into Galilee,
and He who came forth to seek that which Was lost finds Philip and says to
him, "Follow Me." And on that day, after the fourth, which is the sixth
from the beginning of those we have enumerated, the marriage takes place in
Cana of Galilee, which we shall have to consider when we get to the
passage. Note this, too, that Mary being the greater comes to Elisabeth,
who is the less, and the Son of God comes to the Baptist; which should
encourage us to render help without delay to those who are in a lower
position, and to cultivate for ourselves a moderate station.

31. OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN JOHN AND JESUS AT THE BAPTISM, RECORDED BY
MATTHEW ONLY.

   John the disciple does not tell us where the Saviour comes from to John
the Baptist, but we learn this from Matthew, who writes:(1) "Then cometh
Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, to be baptized of him." And Mark adds
the place in Galilee; he says,(2) "And it came to pass in those days, that
Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in Jordan."
Luke does not mention the place Jesus came from, but on the other hand he
tells us what we do not learn from the others, that immediately after the
baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit
descended on Him in bodily form like a dove. Again, it is Matthew alone who
tells us of John's preventing the Lord, saying to the Saviour, "I have need
to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" None of the others added
this after Matthew, so that they might not be saying just the same as he.
And what the Lord rejoined, "Suffer it now, for thus it becometh us to
fulfil all righteousness," this also Matthew alone recorded.

32. JOHN CALLS JESUS A "LAMB." WHY DOES HE NAME THIS ANIMAL SPECIALLY? OF
THE TYPOLOGY OF THE SACRIFICES, GENERALLY.

   "And he sayeth, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world."(3) There were five animals which were brought to the altar,
three that walk and two that fly; and it seems to be worth asking why John
calls the Saviour a lamb and not any of these other creatures, and why,
when each of the animals that walk is offered of three kinds he used for
the sheep-kind the term "lamb." The five animals are as follows: the
bullock, the sheep, the goat, the turtle-dove, the pigeon. And of the
walking animals these are the three kinds--bullock, ox, calf; ram, sheep,
lamb; he-goat, goat, kid. Of the flying animals, of pigeons we only hear of
two young ones; of turtle doves only of a pair. He, then, who would
accurately understand the spiritual rationale of the sacrifices must
enquire of what heavenly things these were the pattern and the shadow, and
also for what end the sacrifice of each victim is prescribed, and he must
specially collect the points connected with the lamb. Now that the
principle of the sacrifice must be apprehended with reference to certain
heavenly mysteries, appears from the words of the Apostle, who somewhere(1)
says, "Who serve a pattern and shadow of heavenly things," and again, "It
was necessary that the patterns of the things in the heavens should be
purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better
sacrifices than these." Now to find out all the particulars of these and to
state in its relation to them that sacrifice of the spiritual law which
took place in Jesus Christ(a truth greater than human nature can
comprehend)--to do this belongs to no other than the perfect man,(2) who,
by reason of use, has his senses exercised to discern good and evil, and
who is able to say, from a truth-loving disposition,(3) "We speak wisdom
among them that are perfect." Of these things truly and things like these,
we can say,(4) "Which none of the rulers of this world knew."

33. A LAMB WAS OFFERED AT THE MORNING AND EVENING SACRIFICE. SIGNIFICANCE
OF THIS.

   Now we find the lamb offered in the continual (daily) sacrifice. Thus
it is written,(4) "This is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two
lambs of the first year day by day continually, for a continual sacrifice.
The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning, and the other lamb thou shalt
offer at even, and a tenth part of fine flour mingled with beaten oil, the
fourth part of a hin; and for a drink-offering the fourth part of a bin of
wine to the first lamb. And the other lamb thou shalt offer in the evening,
according to the first sacrifice and according to its drink-offering. Thou
shalt offer a sweet savour, an offering to the Lord, a continual burnt
offering throughout your generations at the door of tent of witness before
the Lord, where I will make myself known to thee, to speak unto thee. And I
will appoint thee for the children of Israel, and I will be sanctified in
my glory, and with sanctification I will sanctify the tent of witness." But
what other continual sacrifice can there be to the man of reason in the
world of mind, but the Word growing to maturity, the Word who is
symbolically called a lamb and who is offered as soon as the soul receives
illumination. This would be the continual sacrifice of the morning, and it
is offered again when the sojourn of the mind with divine things comes to
an end. For it cannot maintain for ever its intercourse with higher things,
seeing that the soul is appointed to be yoked together with the body which
is of earth and heavy.

34. THE MORNING AND EVENING SACRIFICES OF THE SAINT IN HIS LIFE OF THOUGHT.

   But if any one asks what the saint is to do in the time between morning
and evening, let him follow what takes place in the cultus and infer from
it the principle he asks for. In that case the priests begin their
offerings with the continual sacrifice, and before they come to the
continuous one of the evening they offer the other sacrifices which the law
prescribes, as, for example, that for transgression, or that for
involuntary offences, or that connected with a prayer for salvation, or
that of jealousy, or that of the Sabbath, or of the new moon, and so on,
which it would take too long to mention. So we, beginning our oblation with
the discourse of that type which is Christ, can go on to discourse about
many other most useful things. And drawing to a close still in the things
of Christ, we come. as it were, to evening and night, when we arrive at the
bodily features of His manifestation.

35. JESUS IS A LAMB IN RESPECT OF HIS HUMAN NATURE.

   If we enquire further into the sinificance of Jesus being pointed out
by John, when he says, "This is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin
of the world," we may take our stand at the dispensation of the bodily
advent of the Son of God in human life, and in that case we shall conceive
the lamb to be no other than the man. For the man "was led like a sheep to
the slaughter, and as a lamb, dumb before his shearers,"(1) saying, "I was
as like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter."(2) Hence, too, in the
Apocalypse(3) a lamb is seen, standing as if slain. This slain lamb has
been made, according to certain hidden reasons, a purification of the whole
world, for which, according to the Father's love to man, He submitted to
death, purchasing us back by His own blood from him who had got us into his
power, sold under sin. And He who led this lamb to the slaughter was God in
man, the great High-Priest, as he shows by the words:(4) "No one taketh My
life away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it
down, and I have power to take it again."

36. OF THE DEATH OF THE MARTYRS CONSIDERED AS A SACRIFICE, AND IN WHAT WAY
IT OPERATES TO THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS.

   Akin to this sacrifice are the others of which the sacrifices of the
law are symbols, and another kind of sacrifice also appears to me to be of
the same nature; namely, the shedding of the blood of the noble martyrs,
whom the disciple John saw, for this is not without significance, standing
beside the heavenly altar. "Who is wise,(1) and he shall understand these
things, prudent, and he shall know them?" It is a matter of higher
speculation to consider even slightly the rationale of those sacrifices
which cleanse those for whom they are offered. Jephthah's sacrifice of his
daughter should receive attention; it was by vowing it that he conquered
the children of Ammon, and the victim approved his vow, for when her father
said,(2) "I have opened my mouth unto the Lord against thee," she answered,
"If thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord against me, do that which thou
hast vowed." The story suggests that the being must be a very cruel one to
whom such sacrifices are offered for the salvation of men; and we require
some breadth of mind and some ability to solve the difficulties raised
against Providence, to be able to account for such things and to see that
they are mysteries and exceed our human nature. Then we shall say,(3)
"Great are the judgments of God, and hard to be described; for this cause
untutored souls have gone astray." Among the Gentiles, too, it is recorded
that many a one, when pestilential disease broke out in his country,
offered himself a victim for the public good. That this was the case the
faithful Clement assumes,(4) on the faith of the narratives, to whom Paul
bears witness when he says,(5) "With Clement also, and the others, my
fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life." If there is
anything in these narratives that appears incongruous to one who is minded
to carp at mysteries revealed to few, the same difficulty attaches to the
office that was laid on the martyrs, for it was God's will that we should
rather endure all the dreadful reproaches connected with confessing Him as
God, than escape for a short time from such sufferings (which men count
evil) by allowing ourselves by our words to conform to the will of the
enemies of the truth. We are, therefore, led to believe that the powers of
evil do suffer defeat by the death of the holy martyrs; as if their
patience, their confession, even unto death, and their zeal for piety
blunted the edge of the onset of evil powers against the sufferer, and
their might being thus dulled and exhausted, many others of those whom they
had conquered raised their heads and were set free from the weight with
which the evil powers formerly oppressed and injured them. And even the
martyrs themselves are no longer involved in suffering, even though those
agents which formerly wrought ill to others are not exhausted; for he who
has offered such a sacrifice overcomes the power which opposed him, as I
may show by an illustration which is suited to this subject. He who
destroys a poisonous animal, or lulls it to sleep with charms, or by any
means deprives it of its venom, he does good to many who would otherwise
have suffered from that animal had it not been destroyed, or charmed, or
emptied of its venom. Moreover, if one of those who were formerly bitten
should come to know of this, and should be cured of his malady and look
upon the death of that which injured him, or tread on it, or touch it when
dead, or taste a part of it, then he, who was formerly a sufferer, would
owe cure and benefit to the destroyer of the poisonous animal. In some such
way must we suppose the death of the most holy martyrs to operate, many
receiving benefit from it by an influence we cannot describe.

37.OF THE EFFECTS OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, OF HIS TRIUMPH AFTER IT, AND OF
THE REMOVAL BY HIS DEATH OF THE SINS OF MEN.

   We have lingered over this subject of the martyrs and over the record
of those who died on account of pestilence, because this lets us see the
excellence of Him who was led as a sheep to the slaughter and was dumb as a
lamb before the shearer. For if there is any point in these stories of the
Greeks, and if what we have said of the martyrs is well rounded,--the
Apostles, too, were for the same reason the filth of the world and the
offscouring of all things,(1)--what and how great things must be said of
the Lamb of God, who was sacrificed for this very reason, that He might
take away the sin not of a few but of the whole world, for the sake of
which also He suffered? If any one sin, we read,(2) "We have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for
our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world," since
He is the Saviour of all men,(1) especially of them that believe, who(2)
blotted out the written bond that was against us by His own blood, and took
it out of the way, so that not even a trace, not even of our blotted-out
sins, might still be found, and nailed it to His cross; who having put off
from Himself the principalities and powers, made a show of them openly,
triumphing over them by His cross. And we are taught to rejoice when we
suffer afflictions in the world, knowing the ground of our rejoicing to be
this, that the world has been conquered and has manifestly been subjected
to its conqueror. Hence all the nations, released from their former rulers,
serve Him, because He(3) saved the poor from his tyrant by His own passion,
and the needy who had no helper. This Saviour, then, having humbled the
calumniator by humbling Himself, abides with the visible sun before His
illustrious church, tropically called the moon, from generation to
generation. And having by His passion destroyed His enemies, He who is
strong in battle and a mighty Lord(4) required after His mighty deeds a
purification which could only be given Him by His Father alone; and this is
why He forbids Mary to touch Him, saying,(5) "Touch Me not, for I am not
yet ascended to My Father; bat go and tell My disciples, I go to My Father
and your Father, to My God and your God." And when He comes, loaded with
victory and with trophies, with His body which has risen from the dead,--
for what other meaning can we see in the words, "I am not yet ascended to
My Father," and "I go unto My Father,"--then there are certain powers which
say, Who is this that cometh from Edom, red garments from Bosor; this that
is beautiful?(6) Then those who escort Him say to those that are upon the
heavenly gates,(7) "Lift up your gates, ye rulers, and be ye lifted up, ye
everlasting doors, and the king of glory shall come in." But they ask
again, seeing as it were His right hand red with blood and His whole person
covered with the marks of His valour, "Why are Thy garments red, and Thy
clothes like the treading of the full winefat when it is trodden?" And to
this He answers, "I have crushed them." For this cause He had need to wash
"His robe in wine, and His garment in the blood of the grape."(8) For when
He had taken up our infirmities and carried our diseases, and had borne the
sin of the whole world, and had conferred blessings on so many, then,
perhaps, He received that baptism which is greater than any that could ever
be conceived among men, and of which I think He speaks when He says,(1) "I
have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be
accomplished?" I enquire here with boldness and I challenge the ideas put
forward by most writers. They say that the greatest baptism, beyond which
no greater can be conceived, is His passion. But if this be so, why should
He say to Mary after it, "Touch Me not"? He should rather have offered
Himself to her touch, when by His passion He had received His perfect
baptism. But if it was the case, as we said before, that after all His
deeds of valour done against His enemies, He had need to wash "His robe in
wine, His gar-merit in the blood of the grape," then He was on His way up
to the husbandman of the true vine, the Father, so that having washed there
and after having gone up on high, He might lead captivity captive and come
down bearing manifold gifts--the tongues, as of fire, which were divided to
the Apostles, and the holy angels which are to be present with them in each
action and to deliver them. For before these economies they were not yet
cleansed and angels could not dwell with them, for they too perhaps do not
desire to be with those who have not prepared themselves nor been cleansed
by Jesus. For it was of Jesus' benignity alone that He ate and drank with
publicans and sinners, and suffered the penitent woman who was a sinner to
wash His feet with her tears, and went down even to death for the ungodly,
counting it not robbery to be equal with God, and emptied Himself, assuming
the form of a servant. And in accomplishing all this He fulfils rather the
will of the Father who gave Him up for sinners than His own. For the Father
is good, but the Saviour is the image of His goodness; and doing good to
the world in all things, since God was in Christ reconciling the world to
Himself, which formerly for its wickedness was all enemy to Him, He
accomplishes His good deeds in order and succession, and does not all at
once take all His enemies for His footstool. For the Father says to Him, to
the Lord of us all,(2) "Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy enemies
the footstool of Thy feet." And this goes on till the last enemy, Death, is
overcome by Him. And if we consider what is meant by this subjection to
Christ and find an explanation of this mainly from the saying,(1) "When all
things shall have been put under Him, then shall the Son Himself be
subjected to Him who put all things under Him," then we shall see how the
conception agrees with the goodness of the God of all, since it is that of
the Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world. Not all men's sin,
however, is taken away by the Lamb of God, not the sin of those who do not
grieve and suffer affliction till it be taken away. For thorns are not only
fixed but deeply rooted in the hand of every one who is intoxicated by
wickedness and has parted with sobriety, as it is said in the Proverbs,(2)
"Thorns grow in the hand of the drunkard," and what pain they must cause
him who has admitted such growth in the substance of his soul, it is hard
even to tell. Who has allowed wickedness to establish itself so deeply in
his soul as to be a ground full of thorns, he must be cut down by the quick
and powerful word of God, which is sharper than a two-edged sword, and
which is more caustic than any fire. To such a soul that fire must be sent
which finds out thorns, and by its divine virtue stands where they are and
does not also burn up the threshing-floors or standing corn. But of the
Lamb which takes away the sin of the world and begins to do so by His own
death there are several ways, some of which are capable of being clearly
understood by most, but others are concealed from most, and are known to
those only who are worthy of divine wisdom. Why should we count up all the
ways by which we come to believe among men? That is a thing which every one
living in the body is able to see for himself. And in the ways in which we
believe in these also, sin is taken away; by afflictions and evil spirits
and dangerous diseases and grievous sicknesses. And who knows what follows
after this? So much as we have said was not unnecessary--we could not
neglect the thought which is so clearly connected with that of the words,
"Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," and had
therefore to attend somewhat closely to this part of our subject. This has
brought us to see that God convicts some by His wrath and chastens them by
His anger, since His love to men is so great that He will not leave any
without conviction and chastening; so that we should do what in us lies to
be spared such conviction and such chastening by the sorest trials.

38. THE WORLD, OF WHICH THE SIN IS TAKEN AWAY, IS SAID TO BE THE CHURCH.
REASONS FOR NOT AGREEING WITH THIS OPINION.

   The reader will do well to consider what was said above and illustrated
from various quarters on the question what is meant in Scripture by the
word "world"; and I think it proper to repeat this. I am aware that a
certain scholar understands by the world the Church alone, since the Church
is the adornment of the world,(1) and is said to be the light of the world.
"You," he says,(2) "are the light of the world." Now, the adornment of the
world is the Church, Christ being her adornment, who is the first light of
the world. We must consider if Christ is said to be the light of the same
world as His disciples. When Christ is the light of the world, perhaps it
is meant that He is the light of the Church, but when His disciples are the
light of the world, perhaps they are the light of others who call on the
Lord, others in addition to the Church, as Paul says on this point in the
beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he writes, "To the
Church of God, with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Should any one consider that the Church is called the light of the world,
meaning thereby of the rest of the race of men, including unbelievers, this
may be true if the assertion is taken prophetically and theologically; but
if it is to be taken of  the present, we remind him that the light of a
thing illuminates that thing, and would ask him to show how the remainder
of the race is illuminated by the Church's presence in the world. If those
who hold the view in question cannot show this, then let them consider if
our interpretation is not a sound one, that the light is the Church, and
the world those others who call on the Name. The words which follow the
above in Matthew will point out to the careful enquirer the proper
interpretation. "You," it is said, "are the salt of the earth," the rest of
mankind being conceived as the earth, and believers are their salt; it is
because they believe that the earth is preserved. For the end will come if
the salt loses its savour, and ceases to salt and preserve the earth, since
it is clear that if iniquity is multiplied and love waxes cold upon the
earth,(1) as the Saviour Himself uttered an expression of doubt as to those
who would witness His coming, saying,(2) "When the Son of man cometh, shall
He find faith upon the earth?" then the end of the age will come.
Supposing, then, the Church to be called the world, since the Saviour's
light shines on it--we have to ask in connection with the text, "Behold the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," whether the world
here is to be taken intellectually of the Church, and the taking away of
sin is limited to the Church. In that case what are we to make of the
saying of the same disciple with regard to the Saviour, as the propitiation
for sin? "If any man sin," we read, "we have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins, and
not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world?" Paul's dictum
appears to me to be to the same effect, when he says,(3) "Who is the
Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful." Again, Heracleon, dealing
with our passage, declares, without any proof or any citation of witnesses
to that effect, that the words, "Lamb of God," are spoken by John as a
prophet, but the words, "who taketh away the sin of the world," by John as
more than a prophet. The former expression he considers to be used of His
body, but the latter of Him who was in that body, because the lamb is an
imperfect member of the genus sheep; the same being true of the body as
compared with the dweller in it. Had he meant to attribute perfection to
the body he would have spoken of a ram as about to be sacrificed. After the
careful discussions given above, I do not think it necessary to enter into
repetitions on this passage, or to controvert Heracleon's careless
utterances. One point only may be noted, that as the world was scarcely
able to contain Him who had emptied Himself, it required a lamb and not a
ram, that its sin might be taken away.

TENTH BOOK

1. JESUS COMES TO CAPERNAUM. STATEMENTS OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS REGARDING
THIS.

"After this(1) He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His
brothers and His disciples; and there they abode not many days. And the
passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and He
found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the
changers of money sitting, and He made a sort of scourge of cords, and cast
them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen, and He poured out
the small money of the changers and overthrew their tables, and to those
that sold the doves He said, Take these things hence; make not My Father's
house a house of merchandize. Then His disciples remembered that it was
written, that the zeal of thy house shall eat me up. The Jews therefore
answered and said unto Him, What sign showest Thou unto us, that Thou doest
such things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore answered, Forty-six years
was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But
He spoke of the temple of His body. When therefore He rose from the dead,
His disciples remembered that He said this, and they believed the Scripture
and the word which Jesus said. Now when He was at Jerusalem at the passover
at the feast, many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He did.
But Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to them, for that He knew all men,
and because He had no need that any should bear witness concerning man. For
He Himself knew what was in man."

   The numbers which are recorded in the book of that name(2) obtained a
place in Scripture in accordance with some principle which determines their
proportion to each thing. We ought therefore to enquire whether the book of
Moses which is called Numbers teaches us, should we be able to trace it
out, in some special way, the principle with regard to this matter. This
remark I make to you at the outset of my tenth book, for in many passages
of Scripture I have observed the number ten to have a peculiar privilege,
and you may consider carefully whether the hope is justified that this
volume will bring you from God some special benefit. That this may prove to
be the case, we will seek to yield ourselves as fully as we can to God, who
loves to bestow His choicest gifts. The book begins at the words: "After
this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His
disciples, and there they abode not many days." The other three Evangelists
say that the Lord, after His conflict with the devil, departed into
Galilee. Matthew and Luke represent that he was first at Nazara,(1) and
then left them and came and dwelt in Capernaum. Matthew and Mark also state
a certain reason why He departed thither, namely, that He had heard that
John was cast into prison. The words are as follows: Matthew says,(2) "Then
the devil leaveth Him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto Him. But
when He heard that John was delivered up, He departed into Galilee, and
leaving Nazareth He came and dwelt at Capernaum on the seashore in the
borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The land of Zebulun and the land of
Naphtali;" and after the quotation from Isaiah: "From that time Jesus began
to preach and to say, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Mark has the following:(3) "And He was in the desert forty days and forty
nights tempted by Satan, and He was with the wild beasts; and the angels
ministered unto Him. But after John was delivered up Jesus came into
Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, that the time is fulfilled and the
kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe in the Gospel." Then
after the narrative about Andrew and Peter and James and John, Mark writes:
"And He entered into Capernaum, and straightway on the Sabbath He was
teaching in the synagogue." Luke has,(4) "And having finished the
temptation the devil departed from Him for a season. And Jesus returned in
the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a fame went out concerning Him
into all the region round about, and He taught in their synagogues being
glorified of all. And He came to Nazara, where He had been brought up, and
He entered as His custom was into the synagogue on the Sabbath day." Then
Luke(1) gives what He said at Nazara, and how those in the synagogue were
enraged at Him and cast Him out of the city and brought Him to the brow of
the hill on which their cities were built, to cast Him down headlong, and
how going through the midst of them the Lord went His way; and with this he
connects the statement, "And He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee,
and He was teaching them on the Sabbath day."

2. THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN JOHN AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AT THIS PART OF
THE NARRATIVE, LITERALLY READ, THE NARRATIVES CANNOT BE HARMONIZED: THEY
MUST BE INTERPRETED SPIRITUALLY.

   The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind.
If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our
trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as
records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to
these works. Those who accept the four Gospels, and who do not consider
that their apparent discrepancy is to be solved anagogically (by mystical
interpretation), will have to clear up the difficulty, raised above, about
the forty days of the temptation, a period for which no room can be found
in any way in John's narrative; and they will also have to tell us when it
was that the Lord came to Capernaum. If it was after the six days of the
period of His baptism, the sixth being that of the marriage at Cans of
Galilee, then it is clear that the temptation never took place, and that He
never was at Nazara, and that John was not yet delivered up. Now, after
Capernaum, where He abode not many days, the passover of the Jews was at
hand, and He went up to Jerusalem, where He cast the sheep and oxen out of
the temple, and poured out the small change of the bankers. In Jerusalem,
too, it appears that Nicodemus, the ruler and Pharisee, first came to Him
by night, and heard what we may read in the Gospel. "After these things,(2)
Jesus came, and His disciples, into the land of Judaea, and there He
tarried with them and baptized, at the same time at which John also was
baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there were many waters there, and
they came and were baptized; for John was not yet cast into prison." On
this occasion, too, there was a questioning on the part of John's disciples
with the Jews about purification, and they came to John, saying of the
Saviour. "Behold, He baptizeth, and all come to Him." They had heard words
from the Baptist, the exact tenor of which it is better to take from
Scripture itself. Now, if we ask when Christ was first in Capernaum, our
respondents, if they follow the words of Matthew, and of the other two,
will say, After the temptation, when, "leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt
in Capernaum by the sea." But how can they show both the statements to be
true, that of Matthew and Mark, that it was because He heard that John was
delivered up that He departed into Galilee, and that of John,(1) found
there, after a number of other transactions, subsequent to His stay at
Capernaum, after His going to Jerusalem, and His journey from there to
Judaea, that John was not yet cast into prison, but was baptizing in Aenon
near Salim? There are many other points on which the careful student of the
Gospels will find that their narratives do not agree; and these we shall
place before the reader, according to our power, as they occur. The
student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either
renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to
conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will
choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four,
and will consider that their truth is not to be sought for in the outward
and material letter.

3. WHAT WE ARE TO THINK OF THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT GOSPELS.

   We must, however, try to obtain some notion of the intention of the
Evangelists in such matters, and we direct ourselves to this. Suppose there
are several men who, by the spirit, see God, and know His words addressed
to His saints, and His presence which He vouchsafes to them, appearing to
them at chosen times for their advancement. There are several such men, and
they are in different places, and the benefits they receive from above vary
in shape and character. And let these men report, each of them separately,
what he sees in spirit about God and His words, and His appearances to His
saints, so that one of them speaks of God's appearances and words and acts
to one righteous man in such a place, and another about other oracles and
great works of the Lord, and a third of something else than what the former
two have dealt with. And let there be a fourth, doing with regard to some
particular matter something of the same kind as these three. And let the
four agree with each other about something the Spirit has suggested to them
all, and let them also make brief reports of other matters besides that
one; then their narratives will fall out something on this wise: God
appeared to such a one at such a time and in such a place, and did to him
thus and thus; as if He had appeared to him in such a form, and had led him
by the hand to such a place, and then done to him thus and thus. The second
will report that God appeared at the very time of the foresaid occurrences,
in a certain town, to a person who is named, a second person, and in a
place far removed from that of the former account, and he will report a
different set of words spoken at the same time to this second person. And
let the same be supposed to be the case with the third and with the fourth.
And let them, as we said, agree, these witnesses who report true things
about God, and about His benefits conferred on certain men, let them agree
with each other in some of the narratives they report. He, then, who takes
the writings of these men for history, or for a representation of real
things by a historical image, and  who supposes God to be within certain
limits in space, and  to be unable to present to several persons in
different places several visions of Himself at the same time, or to be
making several speeches at the same moment, he will deem it impossible that
our four writers are all speaking truth. To him it is impossible that God,
who is in certain limits in space, could at the same set time be saying one
thing to one man and another to another, and that He should be doing a
thing and the opposite thing as well, and, to put it bluntly, that He
should be both sitting and standing, should one of the writers represent
Him as standing at the time, and  making a certain speech in such a place
to such a man, while a second writer speaks of Him as sitting.

4. SCRIPTURE CONTAINS MANY CONTRADICTIONS, AND MANY STATEMENTS WHICH ARE
NOT LITERALLY TRUE, BUT MUST BE READ SPIRITUALLY AND MYSTICALLY.

   In the case I have supposed where the historians desire to teach us by
an image what they have seen in their mind, their meaning would be found,
if the four were wise, to exhibit no disagreement; and we must understand
that with the four Evangelists it is not otherwise. They made full use for
their purpose of things done by Jesus in the exercise of His wonderful and
extraordinary power; they use in the same way His sayings, and in some
places they tack on to their writing, with language apparently implying
things of sense, things made manifest to them in a purely intellectual way.
I do not condemn them if they even sometimes dealt freely with things which
to the eye of history happened differently, and changed them so as to
subserve the mystical aims they had in view; so as to speak of a thing
which happened in a certain place, as if it had happened in another, or of
what took place at a certain time, as if it had taken place at another
time, and to introduce into what was spoken in a certain way some changes
of their own. They proposed to speak the truth where it was possible both
materially and spiritually, and where this was not possible it was their
intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was
often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood. As, for
example, we might judge of the story of Jacob and Esau.(1) Jacob says to
Isaac, "I am Esau thy firstborn son," and spiritually he spoke the truth,
for he already partook of the rights of the first-born, which were
perishing in his brother, and clothing himself with the goatskins he
assumed the outward semblance of Esau, and was Esau all but the voice
praising God, so that Esau might afterward find a place to receive a
blessing. For if Jacob had not been blessed as Esau, neither would Esau
perhaps have been able to receive a blessing of his own. And Jesus too is
many things, according to the conceptions of Him, of which it is quite
likely that the Evangelists took up different notions; while yet they were
in agreement with each other in the different things they wrote. Statements
which are verbally contrary to each other, are made about our Lord, namely,
that He was descended from David and that He was not descended from David.
The statement is true, "He was descended from David," as the Apostle
says,(2) "born of the seed of David according to the flesh," if we apply
this to the bodily part of Him; but the self-same statement is untrue if we
understand His being born of the seed of David of His diviner power; for He
was declared to be the Son of God with power. And for this reason too,
perhaps, the sacred prophecies speak of Him now as a servant, and now as a
Son. They call Him a servant on account of the form of a servant which he
wore, and because He was of the seed of David, but they call Him the Son of
God according to His character as first-born. Thus it is true to call Him
man and to call Him not man; man, because He was capable of death; not man,
on account of His being diviner than man. Marcion, I suppose, took sound
words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary, and declared
that as to His divine nature He was not born of Mary, and hence made bold
to delete from the Gospel the passages which have this effect. And a like
fate seems to have overtaken those who make away with His humanity and
receive His deity alone; and also those opposites of these who cancel His
deity and confess Him as a man to be a holy man, and the most righteous of
all men. And those who hold the doctrine of Dokesis, not remembering that
He humbled Himself even unto death(1) and became obedient even to the
cross, but only imagining in Him the absence of suffering, the superiority
to all such accidents, they do what they can to deprive us of the man who
is more just than all men, and are left with a figure which cannot save
them, for as by one man came death, so also by one man is the justification
of life. We could not have received such benefit as we have from the Logos
had He not assumed the man, had He remained such as He was from the
beginning with God the Father, and had He Dot taken up man, the first man
of all, the man more precious than all others, purer than all others and
capable of receiving Him. But after that man we also shall be able to
receive Him, to receive Him so great and of such nature as He was, if we
prepare a place in proportion to Him in our soul. So much I have said of
the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels, and of my desire to have them
treated in the way of spiritual interpretation.

5. PAUL ALSO MAKES CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOUT HIMSELF, AND ACTS IN
OPPOSITE WAYS AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

   On the same passage one may also make use of such an example as that of
Paul, who at one place(2) says that he is carnal, sold under sin, and thus
was not able to judge anything, while in another place he is the spiritual
man who is able to judge all things and himself to be judged by no man. Of
the carnal one are the words, "Not what I would that do I practise, but
what I hate that do I." And he too who was caught up to the third heaven
and heard unspeakable words(1) is a different Paul from him who says. Of
such an one I will glory, but of myself I will not glory. If he becomes(2)
to the Jews as a Jew that he may gain the Jews, and to those under the law
as under the law that he may gain those under the law, and to them that are
without law as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to
Christ, that he may gain those without law, and if to the weak he becomes
weak that he may gain the weak, it is clear that these statements must be
examined each by itself, that he becomes a Jew, and that sometimes he is
under the law and at another time without law, and that sometimes he is
weak. Where, for example, he says something by way of permission(3) and not
by commandment, there we may recognize that he is weak; for who, he
says,(4) is weak, and I am not weak? When he shaves his head and makes an
offering,(5) or when he circumcises Timothy,(6) he is a Jew; but when he
says to the Athenians,(7) "I found an altar with the inscription, To the
unknown God. That, then, which ye worship not knowing it, that declare I
unto you," and, "As also some of your own poets have said, For we also are
His offspring," then he becomes to those without the law as without the
law, adjuring the least religious of men to espouse religion, and turning
to his own purpose the saying of the poet, "From Love do we begin; his race
are we."(8) And instances might perhaps be found where, to men not Jews and
yet under the law, he is under the law.

6. DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CALL OF PETER, AND OF THE IMPRISONMENT OF THE
BAPTIST. THE MEANING OF "CAPERNAUM."

   These examples may be serviceable to illustrate statements not only
about the Saviour, but about the disciples too, for here also there is some
discrepancy of statement. For there is a difference in thought perhaps
between Simon who is found by his own brother Andrew, and who is addressed
"Thou shalt be called Cephas,"(9) and him who is seen by Jesus when walking
by the sea of Galilee,(10) along with his brother, and addressed conjointly
with that brother, "Come after Me, and I will make you fishers of men."
There was some fitness in the fact that the writer who goes more to the
root of the matter and tells of the Word becoming flesh, and hence does not
record the human generation of the Word who was in the beginning with God,
should not tell us of Simon's being found at the seashore and called away
from there, but of his being found by his brother who had been staying with
Jesus at the tenth hour, and of his receiving the name Cephas in connection
with his being thus found out. If he was seen by Jesus when walking by the
sea of Galilee, it would scarcely be on a later occasion that he was
addressed, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church." With
John again the Pharisees know Jesus to be baptizing with His disciples,(1)
adding this to His other great activities; but the Jesus of the three does
not baptize at all. John the Baptist, too, with the Evangelist of the same
name, goes on a long time without being cast into prison. With Matthew, on
the contrary, he is put in prison almost at the time of the temptation of
Jesus, and this is the occasion of Jesus retiring to Galilee, to avoid
being put in prison. But in John there is nothing at alI about John's being
put in prison. Who is so wise and so able as to learn all the things that
are recorded about Jesus in the four Evangelists, and both to understand
each incident by itself, and have a connected view of all His sojournings
and words and  acts at each place? As for the passage presently before us,
it gives in the order of events that on the sixth day the Saviour, after
the business of the marriage at Cana of Galilee, went down with His mother
and His brothers and  His disciples to Capernaum, which means" field of
consolation." For after the feasting and the wine it was fitting that the
Saviour should come to the field of consolation with His mother and His
disciples, to console those whom He was training for disciples and the soul
which had conceived Him by the Holy Ghost, with the fruits which were to
stand in that full field.

7. WHY HIS BROTHERS ARE NOT CALLED TO THE WEDDING; AND WHY HE ABIDES AT
CAPERNAUM NOT MANY DAYS.

   But we must ask why His brothers are not called to the wedding: they
were not there, for it is not said they were; but they go down to Capernaum
with Him and His mother and His disciples. We must also examine why on this
occasion they do not "go in to" Capernaum, nor "go up to," but "go down to"
it. Consider if we must not understand by His brothers here the powers
which went down along with Him, not called to the wedding according to the
explanations given above, since it is in lower and humbler places than
those who are called disciples of Christ, and in another way, that these
brothers receive assistance. For if His mother is called, then there are
some bearing fruit, and even to these the Lord goes down with the servants
and disciples of the Word, to help such persons, His mother also being with
Him. Those indeed who are called Capernaum appear not to be able to allow
Jesus and those who went down with Him to make a longer stay with them:
hence they remain with them not many days. For the lower field of
consolation does not admit the illumination of many doctrines, but is only
capable of a few. To get a clear view of the difference between those who
receive Jesus for longer and for shorter time, we may compare with this,
"They abode there not many days," the words recorded in Matthew as spoken
by Christ when risen from the dead to His disciples who were being sent out
to teach all nations,(1) "Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of
the world." To those who are to know all that human nature can know while
it still is here, is said with emphasis, "I am with you;" add as the rise
of each new day upon the field of contemplation brings more days before the
eyes of the blessed, therefore He says, "All the days till the end of the
world." As for those in Capernaum, on the contrary, to whom they go down as
to the more needy, not only Jesus, but also His mother and His brothers and
His disciples "abode there not many days."

8. HOW CHRIST ABIDES WITH BELIEVERS TO THE END OF THE AGE, AND WHETHER HE
ABIDES WITH THEM AFTER THAT CONSUMMATION.

   Some may very likely and not unreasonably ask, whether, when all the
days of this age are over, there will no longer be any one to say, "Lo, I
am with you," with those, namely, who received Him till the fulfilment of
the age, for the "until" seems to indicate a certain limit of time. To this
we must say that the phrase, "I am with you," is not the same as "I am in
you." We might say more properly that the Saviour was not in His disciples
but with them, so long as they had not arrived in their minds at the
consummation of the age. But when they see to be at hand, as far as their
effort is concerned, the consummation of the world which is crucified to
them, then Jesus will be no longer with them, but in them, and they will
say, "It is no longer I that live but Christ that lives in me,"(1) and "If
ye seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me."(2) In saying this we are
keeping for our part also to the ordinary interpretation which makes the
"always" the time down to the consummation of the age, and are not asking
more than is attainable to human nature as it is here. That interpretation
may be adhered to and justice yet be done to the "I." He who is with His
disciples who are sent out to teach all the nations, until the
consummation, may be He who emptied Himself and took the form of a servant,
and yet afterwards may be another in point of state; afterwards He may be
such as He was before He emptied Himself, until all His enemies are made by
His Father the footstool of His feet; and after this, when the Son has
delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, it may be the Father who
says to them, "Behold, I am with you." But whether it is "all the days" up
to that time, or simply "all the days," or not "all days" but "every day,"
any one may consider that likes. Our plan does not allow us at present to
digress so far.

9. HERACLEON SAYS THAT JESUS IS NOT STATED TO HAVE DONE ANYTHING AT
CAPERNAUM.BUT IN THE OTHER GOSPELS HE DOES MANY THINGS THERE.

   But Heracleon, dealing with the words, "After this He went down to
Capernaum," declares that they indicate the introduction of another
transaction, and that the word "went down" is not without significance.
"Capernaum," he says, "means these farthest-out parts of the world, these
districts of matter, into which He descended, and because the place was not
suitable, he says, He is not reported either to have done anything or said
anything in it." Now if the Lord had not been reported in the other Gospels
either as having done or said anything at Capernaum, we might perhaps have
hesitated whether this view ought or ought not to be received. But that is
far from being the case. Matthew says our Lord left Nazareth and came and
dwelt at Capernaum on the seaside, and that from that time He began to
preach, saying, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And
Mark, starting in his narrative(1) from the temptation by the devil,
relates that after John was cast into prison, Jesus came into Galilee,
proclaiming the Gospel of God, and after the call of the four fishermen to
the Apostleship, "they enter into Capernaum; and straightway on the Sabbath
day He taught in the synagogue, and they were astonished at His doctrine."
And Mark records an action of Jesus also which took place at Capernaum, for
he goes on to say, "In their synagogue there was a man with an unclean
spirit, and he cried out, saying, Ah! what have we to do with Thee, Thou
Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to destroy us? We know Thee who Thou art,
the Son of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace and come out
of him; and the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice,
came out of him. And they were all amazed." And at Capernaum Simon's
mother-in-law is cured of her fever. And Mark adds that when evening was
come all those were cured who were sick and who were possessed with demons.
Luke's report is very like Mark's about Capernaum.(2) He says, "And He came
to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath
day, and they were astonished at His teachings, for His word was with
power. And in the synagogue there was a man having a spirit of an unclean
demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, Ah! what have we to do with
Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? Hast Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who
Thou art, the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy
peace and come out of him. Then the demon having thrown him down in the
midst, went out of him, doing him no harm." And then Luke reports how the
Lord rose up from the synagogue and went into the house of Simon, and
rebuked the fever in his mother-in-law, and cured her of her disease; and
after this cure, "when the sun was setting," he says, "all, as many as had
persons sick with divers diseases, brought them to Him, and He laid his
hands on each one of them and cured them. And demons also went out from
many, crying and saying, Thou art the Son of God, and He rebuked them and
suffered them not to speak because they knew that He was the Christ." We
have presented all these statements as to the Saviour's sayings and doings
at Capernaum in order to refute Heracleon's interpretation of our passage,
"Hence He is not said to have done or to have spoken anything there." He
must either give two meanings to Capernaum, and show us his reasons for
them, or if he cannot do this he must give up saying that the Saviour
visited any place to no purpose. We, for our part, should we come to
passages where even a comparison of the other Gospels fails to show that
Jesus' visit to this place or that was not accompanied by any results, will
seek with the divine assistance to make it clear that His coming was not in
vain.

10. SIGNIFICANCE OF CAPERNAUM.

   Matthew for his part adds,(1) that when the Lord had entered into
Capernaum the centurion came to him, saying, "My boy is lying in my house
sick of the palsy, grievously tormented," and after telling the Lord some
more about him, received the reply, "Go, and as thou hast believed, so be
it unto thee." And Matthew then gives us the story of Peter's mother-in-
law, in close agreement with the other two. I conceive it to be a
creditable piece of work and becoming to one who is anxious to hear about
Christ, to collect from the four Gospels all that is related about
Capernaum, and the discourses spoken, and the works done there, and how
many visits the Lord paid to the place, and how, at one time, He is said to
have gone down to it, and at another to have entered into it, and where He
came from when He did so. If we compare all these points together, we shall
not go astray in the meaning we ascribe to Capernaum. On the one hand, the
sick are healed, and other works of power are done there, and on the other,
the preaching, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, begins
there, and this appears to be a sign, as we showed when entering on this
subject, of some more needy place of consolation, made so perhaps by Jesus,
who comforted men by what He taught and by what He did there, in that place
of consolation. For we know that the names of places agree in their meaning
with the things connected with Jesus; as Gergesa, where the citizens of
these parts besought Him to depart out of their coasts, means, "The
dwelling of the casters-out." And this, also, we have noticed about
Capernaum, that not only did the preaching, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand," begin there, but that according to the three
Evangelists Jesus performed there His first miracles. None of the three,
however, added to the first wonders which he records as done in Capernaum,
that note attached by John the disciple to the first work of Jesus, "This
beginning of His signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee." For that which was
done in Capernaum was not the beginning of the signs, since the leading
sign of the Son of God was good cheer, and in the light of human experience
it is also the most representative of Him. For the Word of God does not
show forth His own beauty so much in healing the sick, as in His tendering
the temperate draught to make glad those who are in good health and are
able to join in the banquet.

11. WHY THE PASSOVER IS SAID TO BE THAT OF THE "JEWS." ITS INSTITUTION: AND
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "FEASTS OF THE LORD" AND FEASTS NOT SO SPOKEN OF.

   "And the passover of the Jews was at hand."(1) Inquiring into the
accuracy of the most wise John (on this passage), I put myself the
question, What is indicated by the addition "of the Jews"? Of what other
nation was the passover a festival? Would it not have been enough to say,
"And the passover was at hand"? It may, however, be the case that the human
passover is one thing when kept by men not as Scripture intended, and that
the divine passover is another thing, the true passover, observed in spirit
and truth by those who worship God in spirit and in truth; and then the
distinction indicated in the text may be that between the divine passover
and that said to be of the Jews. We should attend to the passover law and
observe what the Lord says of it when it is first mentioned in
Scripture.(2) "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of
Egypt, saying, This month is to you the beginning of months, it is the
first for you among the months of the year. Speak thou to all the
congregation of the children of Israel, saying, On the tenth of this mouth
shall every man take a sheep, according to the houses of your families;"
then after some directions in which the word passover does not occur again,
he adds,(3) "Thus shall ye eat it, your loins girt and your shoes on your
feet, and your staves in your hands, and ye shall eat it with haste. It is
the passover of the Lord." He does not say, "It is your passover." And a
little further on He names the festival again in the same way,(4) "And it
shall come to pass, when your sons say to you, What is this service? And ye
shall say to them, It is the sacrifice, the passover of the Lord, how He
guarded the houses of the children of Israel." And again, a little further
on,(1) "And the Lord spake to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the law of
the passover. No alien shall eat of it." And again in a little,(2) "But if
a proselyte come to you, and keep the passover of the Lord, every male of
him shall be circumcised." Observe that in the law we never find it said,
"Your passover;" but in all the passages quoted the phrase occurs once
without any adjunct, while we have three times "The passover of the Lord."
To make sure that there is such a distinction between the passover of the
Lord and the passover of the Jews, we may consider the way in which Isaiah
speaks of the matter:(3) "Your new moons and your Sabbaths and your great
day I cannot bear; your fast and your holiday and your new moons and your
feasts my soul hateth." The Lord does not call them His own, these
observances of sinners (they are hated of His soul, if such there be);
neither the new moons, nor the Sabbaths, nor the great day, nor the fast,
nor the festivals. And in the legislation about the Sabbath in Exodus, we
read,(4) "And Moses said unto them, This is the word which the Lord spake,
The Sabbath is a holy rest unto the Lord." And a little further on, "And
Moses said, Eat ye; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord." And in
Numbers,(5) before the sacrifices which are offered at each festival, as if
all the festivals came under the law of the continuous and daily sacrifice,
we find it written, "And the Lord spake unto Moses, Announce to the
children of Israel, and thus shall thou say unto them, My gifts, My
offerings, My fruits for a smell of sweet savour, ye shall observe to offer
unto Me at My festivals. And thou shall say unto them, These are the
offerings which ye shall offer unto the Lord." The festival set forth in
Scripture He calls His own, not those of the people receiving the law, He
speaks of His gifts, His offerings. A similar way of speaking is that in
Exodus with regard to the people; it is said by God to be His own people,
when it does not sin; but in the section about the calf He abjures it and
calls it the people of Moses.(6) On the one hand, "Thou shalt say to
Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Let My people go, that they may serve Me in
the wilderness. But if thou wilt not let My people go, behold, I will send
against thee and against thy servants, and against thy people and against
thy houses, the dog-fly; and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of
the dog-fly, and on the land on which they are, against it will I send
them. And I will glorify on that day the land of Gesem, on which My people
are; on it there shall be no dog-fly, that thou mayest know that I am the
Lord, the Lord of all the earth. And I will make a distinction between My
people and thy people." To Moses, on the other hand, He says,(1) "Go,
descend quickly, for thy people hath transgressed, which thou leddest out
of the land of Egypt." As, then, the people when it does not sin is the
people of God, but when it sins is no longer spoken of as His, thus, also,
the feasts when they are hated by the Lord's soul are said to be feasts of
sinners, but when the law is given regarding them, they are called feasts
of the Lord. Now of these feasts passover is one, which in the passage
before us is said to be that not of the Lord, but of the Jews. In another
passage, too,(2) we find it said, "These are the feasts of the Lord, which
ye shall call chosen, holy." From the mouth of the Lord Himself, then, we
see that there is no gainsaying our statement on this point. Some one, no
doubt, will ask about the words of the Apostle, where he writes to the
Corinthians:(3) "For our Passover also was sacrified for us, namely,
Christ;" he does not say, "The Passover of the Lord was sacrificed, even
Christ." To this we must say, either that the Apostle simply calls the
passover our passover because it was sacrificed for us, or that every
sacrifice which is really the Lord's, and the passover is one of these,
awaits its consummation not in this age nor upon earth, but in the coming
age and in heaven when the kingdom of heaven appears. As for those feasts,
one of the twelve prophets says,(4) "What will ye do in the days of
assembly, and in the days of the feast of the Lord?" But Paul says in the
Epistle to the Hebrews:(5) "But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and to the
city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to ten thousands of
angels, the assembly and church of the firstborn, who are written in
heaven." And in the Epistle to the Colossians:(6) "Let no one judge you in
meat and in drink, or in respect of a feast-day or a new moon, or a
sabbath-day; which are a shadow of the things to come."

12. OF THE HEAVENLY FESTIVALS, OF WHICH THOSE ON EARTH ARE TYPICAL.

   Now in what manner, in those heavenly things of which the shadow was
present to the Jews on earth, those will celebrate festivals who have first
been trained by tutors and governors under the true law, until the fulness
of the thee should come, namely, above, when we shall be able to receive
into ourselves the perfect measure of the Son of God, this it is the work
of that wisdom to make plain which has been hidden in a mystery; and it
also may show to our thought how the laws about meats are symbols of those
things which will there nourish and strengthen our soul. But it is vain to
think that one desiring to work out in his fancy the great sea of such
ideas, even if he wished to show how local worship is still a pattern and
shadow of heavenly things, and that the sacrifices and the sheep are full
of meaning, that he should advance further than the Apostle, who seeks
indeed to lift our minds above earthly views of the law, but who does not
show us to any extent how these things are to be. Even if we look at the
festivals, of which passover is one, from the point of view of the age to
come, we have still to ask how it is that our passover is now sacrificed,
namely, Christ, and not only so, but is to be sacrificed hereafter.

13. SPIRITUAL MEANING OF THE PASSOVER.

   A few points may be added in connection with the doctrines now under
consideration, though it would require a special discussion in many volumes
to treat of all the mystical statements about the law, and specially of
those connected with the festivals, and more particularly still with the
passover. The passover of the Jews consists of a sheep which is sacrificed,
each taking a sheep according to his father's house; and the passover is
accompanied by the slaughter of thousands of rams and goats, in proportion
to the number of the houses of the people. But our Passover is sacrificed
for us, namely, Christ. Another feature of the Jewish festival is
unleavened bread; all leaven is made to disappear out of their houses; but
"we keep the feast(1) not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of
malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth." Whether there be any passover and any feast of leaven beyond the
two we have mentioned, is a point we must examine more carefully, since
these serve for a pattern and a shadow of the heavenly ones we spoke of,
and not only such things as food and drink and new moons and sabbaths, but
the festivals also, are a shadow of the things to come. In the first place,
when the Apostle says, "Our passover is sacrificed, Christ," one may feel
with regard to this such doubts as these. If the sheep with the Jews is a
type of the sacrifice of Christ, then one should have been offered and not
a multitude, as Christ is one; or if many sheep were offered it is to
follow out the type, as if many Christs were sacrificed. But not to dwell
on this, we may ask how the sheep, which was the victim, contains an image
of Christ, when the sheep was sacrificed by men who were observing the law,
but Christ was put to death by transgressors of the law, and what
application can be found in Christ of the direction,(1) "They shall eat the
flesh this night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread on bitter herbs
shall they eat," and "Eat not of it raw, nor sodden with water, but roast
with fire; the head with the feet and the entrails; ye shall not set any of
it apart till the morning, and a bone thereof ye shall not break. But that
which is left thereof till the morning ye shall burn." The sentence, "A
bone of it ye shall not break," John appears to have made use of in his
Gospel, as applying to the transactions connected with Christ, and
connecting with them the occasion spoken of in the law when those eating
the sheep are bidden not to break a bone of it. He writes as follows:(2)
"The soldiers therefore came and brake the legs of the first, and of the
other who was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that
He was already dead, they brake not His legs, but one of the soldiers with
a spear pierced His side, and straightway there came out blood and water.
And he that hath seen hath borne witness and his witness is true, and he
knoweth that he sayeth truth that ye also may believe. And these things
took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "A bone of Him ye shall
not break." There are a myriad other points besides this in the Apostle's
language which would call for inquiry, both about the passover and the
unleavened bread, but they would have to be dealt with, as we said above,
in a special work of great length. At present we can only give an epitome
of them as they bear on the text presently before us, and aim at a short
solution of the principal problem. We call to mind the words, "This is the
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," for it is said of the
passover,(1) "Ye shall take it of the lambs or of the goats." The
Evangelist here agrees with Paul, and both are involved in the difficulties
we spoke of above. But on the other hand we have to say that if the Word
became flesh, and the Lord says,(2) "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. He that eateth My flesh
and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the
last day. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He that
eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him,"--then
the flesh thus spoken of is that of the Lamb that takes away the sin of the
world; and this is the blood, some of which was to be put on the two side
posts of the door, and on the lintels in the houses, in which we eat the
passover. Of the flesh of this Lamb it is necessary that we should eat in
the thee of the world, which is night, and the flesh is to be roast with
fire, and eaten with unleavened bread; for the Word of God is not flesh and
flesh only. He says, in fact, Himself,(3) "I am the bread of life," and
"This is the bread of life which came down from heaven, that a man should
eat of it, and not die. I am the bread of life that came down from heaven;
if a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." We must not overlook,
however, that by a loose use of words, any food is called bread, as we read
in Moses in Deuteronomy,(4) "Forty days He ate no bread and drank no
water," instead of, He took no food, either wet or dry. I am led to this
observation by John's saying, "And the bread which I will give is My flesh,
for the life of the world." Again, we eat the flesh of the Lamb, with
bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, when we repent of our sins and grieve
with the sorrow which is according to God, a repentance which operates for
our salvation, and is not to be repented of; or when, on account of our
trials, we turn to the speculations which are found to be those of truth,
and are nourished by them. We are not, however, to eat the flesh of the
Lamb raw, as those do who are slaves of the letter, like irrational
animals, and those who are enraged at men truly reasonable, because they
desire to understand spiritual things; truly, they share the nature of
savage beasts. But we must strive to convert the rawness of Scripture into
well-cooked food, not letting what is written grow flabby and wet and thin,
as those do who have itching ears,(1) and turn away their ears from the
truth; their methods tend to a loose and flabby conduct of life. But let us
be of a fervent spirit and keep hold of the fiery words given to us of God,
such as Jeremiah received from Him who spoke to him,(2) "Behold, I have
made My words in thy mouth like fire," and let us see that the flesh of the
Lamb be well cooked, so that those who partake of it may say, as Christ
speaks in us, "Our heart burned by the way, as He opened to us the
Scriptures."(3) Further, if it is our duty to enquire into such a point as
the roasting of the flesh of the Lamb with fire, we must not forget the
parallel of what Jeremiah suffered on account of the words of God, as he
says:(4) "And it was as a glowing fire, burning in my bones, and I am
without any strength, and I cannot bear it." But, in this eating, we must
begin at the head, that is to say, at the principal and the most essential
doctrines about heavenly things, and we must end at the feet, the last
branches of learning which enquire as to the final nature in things, or
about more material things, or about things under the earth, or about
wicked spirits and unclean demons. For it may be that the account of these
things is not obvious, like themselves, but is laid away among the
mysteries of Scripture, so that it may be called, tropically, the feet of
the Lamb. Nor must we fail to deal with the entrails, which are within and
hidden from us; we must approach the whole of Scripture as one body, we
must not lacerate nor break through the strong and well-knit connections
which exist in the harmony of its whole composition, as those do who
lacerate, so far as they can, the unity of the Spirit that is in all the
Scriptures. But this aforesaid prophecy of the Lamb is to be our
nourishment only during the night of this dark life of ours; what comes
after this life is, as it were, the dawn of day, and why should we leave
over till then the food which can only be useful to us now? But when the
night is passed, and the day which succeeds it is at hand, then we shall
have bread to eat which has nothing to do with the leavened bread of the
older and lower state of things, but is unleavened, and that will serve our
turn until that which comes after the unleavened bread is given us, the
manna, which is food for angels rather than men. Every one of us, then, may
sacrifice his lamb in every house of our fathers; and while one breaks the
law, not sacrificing the lamb at all, another may keep the commandment
entirely, offering his sacrifice, and cooking it aright, and not breaking a
bone of it. This, then, in brief, is the interpretation of the Passover
sacrificed for us, which is Christ, in accordance with the view taken of it
by the Apostles, and with the Lamb in the Gospel. For we ought not to
suppose that historical things are types of historical things, and material
things of material, but that material things are typical of spiritual
things, and historical things of intellectual. It is not necessary that our
discourse should now ascend to that third passover which is to be
celebrated with myriads of angels in the most perfect and most blessed
exodus; we have already spoken of these things to a greater extent than the
passage demands.

14.IN THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS THE PASSOVER IS SPOKEN OF ONLY AT THE CLOSE
OF THE MINISTRY; IN JOHN AT THE BEGINNING. REMARKS ON THIS. HERACLEON ON
THE PASSOVER.

   We must not, however, fail to enquire into the statement that the
passover of the Jews was at hand, when the Lord was at Capernaum with His
mother and His brothers and His disciples. In the Gospel according to
Matthew,(1) after being left by the devil, and after the angels came and
ministered to Him, when He heard that John was delivered up He withdrew
into Galilee, and leaving Nazara He came and dwelt in Capernaum. Then He
began to preach, and chose the four fishermen for His Apostles, and taught
in the synagogues of the whole of Galilee and healed those who were brought
to Him. Then He goes up into the mountain and speaks the beatitudes and
what follows them; and after finishing that instruction He comes down from
the mountain and enters Capernaum a second thee.(2) Then He embarked in a
ship and crossed over to the other side to the country of the Gergesenes.
On their beseeching Him to depart out of their coasts He embarked(3) in a
ship and crossed over and came to His own city. Then He wrought certain
cures and went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their
synagogues; after this most of the events of the Gospels take place, before
Matthew indicates the approach of the thee of passover.(4) With the other
Evangelists also, after the stay at Capernaum it is long till we come to
any mention of the passover; which may confirm in their opinion those who
take the view about Capernaum which was set forth above. That stay, in the
neighbourhood of the passover of the Jews, is set in a brighter light by
that nearness, both because it was better in itself, and still more because
at the passover of the Jews there are found in the temple those who sell
oxen and sheep and doves. This adds emphasis to the statement that the
passover was not that of the Lord but that of the Jews; the Father's house
was made, in the eyes of those who did not hallow it, a house of
merchandise, and the passover of the Lord became for those who took a low
and material view of it a Jewish passover. A fitter occasion than the
present will occur for enquiring as to the thee of the passover, which took
place about the spring equinox, and for any other enquiry which may arise
in connection with it. As for Heracleon, he says, "This is the great
festival; for it was a type of the passion of the Saviour; not only was the
lamb put to death, the eating of it afforded relaxation, the killing it
pointed to what of the passion of the Saviour was in this world, and the
eating it to the rest at the marriage." We have given his words, that it
may be seen with what a want of caution and how loosely he proceeds, and
with what an absence of constructive skill even on such a theme as this;
and how little regard in consequence is to be paid to him.

15. DISCREPANCY OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES CONNECTED WITH THE CLEANSING OF
THE  TEMPLE.

"And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.(1) And He found in the temple those that
sold oxen and sheep and doves and the changers of money sitting; and He
made a scourge of cords, and cast out of the temple the sheep and the oxen,
and poured out the small coin of the changers, and overturned their tables,
and to those who sold the doves He said, Take these things hence; make not
My Father's house a house of merchandise. Then His disciples remembered
that it was written, The zeal of thy house shall eat me up." It is to be
noted that John makes this transaction of Jesus with those He found selling
oxen and sheep and doves in the temple His second work; while the other
Evangelists narrate a similar incident almost at the end and in connection
with the story of the passion. Matthew has it thus:(2) "At Jesus' entry
into Jerusalem the whole city was stirred, saying, Who is this? And the
multitudes said, This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee. And
Jesus went into the temple and cast out all them that sold and bought in
the temple, and He overturned the tables of the money-changers and the
seats of them that sold doves. And He says to them, It is written, My house
shall be called a house of prayer, hut you make it a den of robbers." Mark
has the following: "And they came to Jerusalem. And having entered into the
temple He began to cast out those that sold and bought in the temple, and
the tables of the money-changers He overthrew and the seats of them that
sold doves. And He suffered not that any should carry a vessel through the
temple; and He taught and said unto them, Is it not written that My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have made it
a den of robbers." And Luke:(1) "And when he came near, He beheld the city
and wept over it, saying that, if thou hadst known in this day, even thou,
the things that belong to peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes. For
the days shall come upon thee, when they shall surround thee and shut thee
in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground and thy children, and
they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another, because thou knewest
not the thee of thy visitation. And He entered into the temple and began to
cast out those that sold, saying to them, It is written, My house shall be
a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of robbers." It is further to
be observed that what is recorded by the three as having taken place in
connection with the Lord's going up to Jerusalem; when He did these things
in the temple, is narrated in a very similar manner by John as taking place
long after this, after another visit to Jerusalem different from this one.
We must consider the statements, and in the first place that of Matthew,
where we read:(2) "When He drew nigh to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage
over against the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying
unto them, Go ye into the village over against you, and straightway ye
shall fine an ass tied and a colt with her; loose them and bring them to
Me. And if any man say unto you, What are you doing? you shall say, The
Lord hath need of them, and straightway he will send them. But this was
done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy king cometh, meek and seated
upon an ass and upon the colt of an ass. And the disciples went and did as
Jesus commanded them; they brought the ass and the foal, and they placed on
them their garments, and He sat thereon. And the most part of the multitude
spread their garments on the road, but the multitudes that went before Him,
and they that followed, cried, Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is He
that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest." After this
comes, "And when He had entered into Jerusalem the whole city was stirred,"
which we cited above. Then we have Mark's account:(1) "And when they drew
nigh unto Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, He
sends two of His disciples and says to them, Go ye into the village over
against you. And straightway as ye enter into it ye shall find a colt tied,
on which no man hath ever sat, loose it and bring it. And if any one say to
you, Why do ye this? say, Because the Lord hath need of him, and
straightway he will send him back hither. And they went and found the colt
tied at the door outside on the road, and they loose him. And some of them
that stood there said to them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said
to them as Jesus told them, and they let them go. And they brought the colt
to Jesus, and cast on it their garments. But others cut down branches from
the field and spread them in the way. And they that went before and they
that followed cried, Hosanna, blessed is He that cometh in the name of the
Lord; blessed be the kingdom that cometh, of our father David! Hosanna in
the highest! And He went into Jerusalem to the temple, and looked round
about on all things, and as it was already evening, He went out to Bethany
with the twelve. And on the morrow when they were come forth from Bethany
He was hungry." Then, after the affair of the withered fig tree, "They came
to Jerusalem. And He went into the temple and began to cast out them that
sold." Luke narrates as follows:(2) "And it came to pass, when He drew near
to Bethphage and Bethany at the mount that is called the Mount of Olives,
He sent two of his disciples, saying, Go ye into the village over against
you, in which when ye enter, ye shall find a colt tied, on which no man
ever hath sate; loose him and bring him. And if any man asks you, Why do ye
loose him? Ye shall say thus, The Lord hath need of him. And the disciples
went and found as He said to them. And when they were loosing the colt its
owners said to them, Why loose ye the colt? and they said, Because the Lord
hath need of him. And they brought him to Jesus, and they threw their
garments on the colt, and set Jesus thereon. And as He went, they strewed
their garments in the way. And when He was drawing near, being now at the
descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began
to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which
they had seen, saying, Blessed is the King in the name of the Lord; peace
in heaven and glory in the highest. And some of the Pharisees from the
multitude said unto Him, Master, rebuke Thy disciples. And He answered and
said, I say unto you, If these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry
out. And when He drew near He beheld the city and wept over it," and so on,
as we cited above. John, on the contrary, after giving an account nearly
identical with this, as far as, "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and He
found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep," gives a second
account of an ascent of the Lord to Jerusalem, and then goes on to tell of
the supper in Bethany six days before the passover, at which Martha served
and Lazarus was at table. "On the morrow,(1) a great multitude that had
come to the feast, having heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took
branches of palm trees and went forth to meet Him; and they cried, Hosanna,
blessed be the King of Israel in the name of the Lord. And Jesus, having
found a young ass, sat thereon, as it is written, Fear not, daughter of
Zion; behold thy King cometh, sitting on the foal of an ass." I have
written out long sections from the Gospels, but I have thought it necessary
to do so, in order to exhibit the discrepancy at this part of our Gospel.
Three of the Gospels place these incidents, which we supposed to be the
same as those narrated by John, in connection with one visit of the Lord to
Jerusalem. While John, on the other hand, places them in connection with
two visits which are widely separated from each other and between which
were various journeys of the Lord to other places. I conceive it to be
impossible for those who admit nothing more than the history in their
interpretation to show that these discrepant statements are in harmony with
each other. If any one considers that we have not given a sound exposition,
let him write a reasoned rejoinder to this declaration of ours.

16.THE STORY OF THE PURGING OF THE TEMPLE SPIRITUALIZED. TAKEN LITERALLY,
IT PRESENTS SOME VERY DIFFICULT AND UNLIKELY FEATURES.

   We shall, however, expound according to the strength that is given to
us the reasons which move us to recognize here a harmony; and in doing so
we entreat Him who gives to every one that asks and strives acutely to
enquire, and we knock that by the keys of higher knowledge the hidden
things of Scripture may be opened to us. And first, let us fix our
attention on the words of John, beginning, "And Jesus went up to
Jerusalem."(1) Now Jerusalem, as the Lord Himself teaches in the Gospel
according to Matthew,(2) "is the city of the great King." It does not lie
in a depression, or in a low situation, but is built on a high mountain,
and there are mountains round about it,(3) and the participation of it is
to the same place,(4) and thither the tribes of the Lord went up, a
testimony for Israel. But that city also is called Jerusalem, to which none
of those upon the earth ascends, nor goes in; but every soul that possesses
by nature some elevation and some acuteness to perceive the things of the
mind is a citizen of that city. And it is possible even for a dweller in
Jerusalem to be in sin (for it is possible for even the acutest minds to
sin), should they not turn round quickly after their sin, when they have
lost their power of mind and are on the point not only of dwelling in one
of those strange cities of Judaea, but even of being inscribed as its
citizens. Jesus goes up to Jerusalem, after bringing help to those in Cans
of Galilee, and then going down to Capernaum, that He may do in Jerusalem
the things which are written. He found in the temple, certainly, which is
said to be the house of the Father of the Saviour, that is, in the church
or in the preaching of the ecclesiastical and sound word, some who were
making His Father's house a house of merchandise. And at all times Jesus
finds some of this sort in the temple. For in that which is called the
church, which is the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the
truth,(5) when are there not some money-changers sitting who need the
strokes of the scourge Jesus made of small cords, and dealers in small coin
who require to have their money poured out and their tables overturned?
When are there not those who are inclined to merchandise, but need to be
held to the plough and the oxen, that having put their hand to it and not
turning round to the things behind them, they may be fit for the kingdom of
God? When are there not those who prefer the mammon of unrighteousness to
the sheep which give them the material for their true adornment? And there
are always many who look down on what is sincere and pure and unmixed with
any bitterness or gall, and who, for the sake of miserable gain, betray the
care of those tropically called doves. When, therefore, the Saviour finds
in the temple, the house of His Father, those who are selling oxen and
sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting, He drives them out,
using the scourge of small cords which He has made, along with the sheep
and oxen of their trade, and pours out their stock of coin, as not
deserving to be kept together, so little is it worth. He also overturns the
tables in the souls of such as love money, saying even to those who sell
doves, "Take these things hence," that they may no longer traffic in the
house of God. But I believe that in these words He indicated also a deeper
truth, and that we may regard these occurrences as a symbol of the fact
that the service of that temple was not any longer to be carried on by the
priests in the way of material sacrifices, and that the thee was coming
when the law could no longer be observed, however much the Jews according
to the flesh desired it. For when Jesus casts out the oxen and sheep, and
orders the doves to be taken away, it was because oxen and sheep and doves
were not much longer to be sacrificed there in accordance with Jewish
practices. And possibly the coins which bore the stamp of material things
and not of God were poured out by way of type; because the law which
appears so venerable, with its letter that kills, was, now that Jesus had
come and had used His scourge to the people, to be dissolved and poured
out, the sacred office (episcopate) being transferred to those from the
Gentiles who believed, and the kingdom of God being taken away from the
Jews(1) and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. But it may
also be the case that the natural temple is the soul skilled in reason,
which, because of its inborn reason, is higher than the body; to which
Jesus ascends from Capernaum, the lower-lying place of less dignity, and in
which, before Jesus' discipline is applied to it, are found tendencies
which are earthly and senseless and dangerous, and things which have the
name but not the reality of beauty, and which are driven away by Jesus with
His word plaited out of doctrines of demonstration and of rebuke, to the
end that His Father's house may no longer be a house of merchandize but may
receive, for its own salvation and that of others, that service of God
which is performed in accordance with heavenly and spiritual laws. The ox
is symbolic of earthly things, for he is a husbandman. The sheep, of
senseless and brutal things, because it is more servile than most of the
creatures without reason. Of empty and unstable thoughts, the dove. Of
things that are thought good but are not, the small change. If any one
objects to this interpretation of the passage and says that it is only pure
animals that are mentioned in it, we must say that the passage would
otherwise have an unlikely air. The occurence is necessarily related
according to the possibilities of the story. It could not have been
narrated that a herd of any other animals than pure ones had found access
to the temple, nor could any have been sold there but those used for
sacrifice. The Evangelist makes use of the known practice of the merchants
at the times of the Jewish feasts; they did bring in such animals to the
outer court; this practice, with a real occurrence He knew of, were His
materials. Any one, however, who cares to do so may enquire whether it is
in agreement with the position held by Jesus in this world, since He was
reputed to be the Son of a carpenter, to venture upon such an act as to
drive out a crowd of merchants from the temple? They had come up to the
feast to sell to a great number of the people, the sheep, several myriads
in number, which they were to sacrifice according to their fathers' houses,
To the richer Jews they had oxen to sell, and there were doves for those
who had vowed such animals, and many no doubt bought these with a view to
their good cheer at the festival. And did not Jesus do an unwarrantable
thing when He poured out the money of the money-changers, which was their
own, and overthrew their tables? And who that received a blow from the
scourge of small cords at the hands of One held in but slight esteem, was
driven out of the temple, would not have attacked Him and raised a cry and
avenged himself with his own hand, especially when there was such a
multitude present who might all feel themselves insulted by Jesus in the
same way? To think, moreover, of the Son of God taking the small cords in
His hands and plaiting a scourge out of them for this driving out from the
temple, does it not bespeak audacity and temerity and even some measure of
lawlessness? One refuge remains for the writer who wishes to defend these
things and is minded to treat the occurrence as real history, namely, to
appeal to the divine nature of Jesus, who was able to quench, when He
desired to do so, the rising anger of His foes, by divine grace to get the
better of myriads, and to scatter the devices of tumultuous men; for "the
Lord scatters the counsels of the nations(1) and brings to naught devices
of the peoples, but the counsel of the Lord abideth for ever." Thus the
occurrence in our passage, if it really took place, was not second in point
of the power it exhibits to any even of the most marvellous works Christ
wrought, and claimed no less by its divine character the faith of the
beholders. One may show it to be a greater work than that done at Cana of
Galilee in the turning of water into wine; for in that case it was only
soulless matter that was changed, but here it was the soul and will of
thousands of men. It is, however, to be observed that at the marriage the
mother of Jesus is said to be there, and Jesus to have been invited and His
disciples, but that no one but Jesus is said to have descended to
Capernaum. His disciples, however, appear afterwards as present with Him;
they remembered that "the zeal of thine house shall devour me." And perhaps
Jesus was in each of the disciples as He ascended to Jerusalem, whence it
is not said, Jesus went up to "Jerusalem and His disciples," but He went
down to Capernaum, "He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples."

17. MATTHEW'S STORY OF THE ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN
IT FOR THOSE WHO TAKE IT LITERALLY.

   We have now to take into consideration the statements of the other
Gospels on the expulsion from the temple of those who made it a house of
merchandise. Take in the first place what we find in Matthew. On the Lord's
entering Jerusalem, he says,(2) "All the city was stirred, saying, Who is
this?" But before this he has the story of the ass and the foal which were
taken by command of the Lord and found by the two disciples whom he sent
from Bethphage into the village over against them. These two disciples
loose the ass which was tied, and they have orders, if any one says
anything to them, to answer that "the Lord has need of them; and
immediately he will send them." By these incidents Matthew declares that
the prophecy was fulfilled which says, "Behold, the King cometh, meek and
sitting on an ass and a colt the foal of an ass," which we find in
Zechariah.(1) When, then, the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded
them, they brought the ass and the colt, and placed on them, he says, their
own garments, and the Lord sat upon them, clearly on the ass and the colt.
Then "the most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way, and
others cut down branches from the trees and strewed them in the way, and
the multitudes that went before and that followed cried, Hosanna to the Son
of David, blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the
highest." Hence it was that when He entered Jerusalem, the whole city was
moved, saying, Who is this? "and the multitudes said," those obviously who
went before Him and who followed Him, to those who were asking who He was,
"This is the prophet Jesus of Nazareth of Galilee. And Jesus entered into
the temple and cast out all those that sold and bought in the temple, and
overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the seats of them that sold
doves: and He saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a
house of prayer; but ye make it a den of robbers." Let us ask those who
consider that Matthew had nothing but the history in his mind when he wrote
his Gospel, what necessity there was for two of the disciples to be sent to
the village over against Bethphage, to find an ass tied and its colt with
it and to loose them and bring them? And how did it deserve to be recorded
that He sat upon the ass and the foal and entered into the city? And how
does Zechariah prophesy about Christ when he says,(2) "Rejoice greatly,
thou daughter of Zion, proclaim it, thou daughter of Jerusalem. Behold thy
king cometh unto thee, just is He and bringing salvation, meek and sitting
on an ass and a young foal"? If it be the case that this prophecy predicts
simply the material incident described by the Evangelists, how can those
who stand on the letter maintain that this is so with regard to the
following part also of the prophecy, which runs: "And He shall destroy
chariots from Ephraim and horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of the warrior
shall be destroyed, and a multitude and peace from the Gentiles, and He
shall rule over the waters as far as the sea, and the rivers to the ends of
the earth," etc. It is to be noted, too, that Matthew does not give the
words as they are found in the prophet, for instead of "Rejoice greatly,
thou daughter of Zion, proclaim it, thou daughter of Jerusalem," he makes
it, "Tell ye the daughter of Zion." He curtails the prophetic utterance by
omitting the words, "Just is He and bringing salvation," then he gives,
"meek and sitting," as in the original, but instead of "on an ass and a
young colt," he gives, "on an ass and a colt the foal of an ass." The Jews,
examining into the application of the prophecy to what is recorded about
Jesus, press us in a way we cannot overlook with the enquiry how Jesus
destroyed chariots out of Ephraim and horse from Jerusalem, and how He
destroyed the bow of the enemy and did the other deeds mentioned in the
passage. So much with regard to the prophecy. Our literal interpreters,
however, if there is nothing worthy of the appearance of the Son of God in
the ass and the foal, may perhaps point to the length of the road for an
explanation. But, in the first place, fifteen stades are not a great
distance and afford no reasonable explanation of the matter, and, in the
second place, they would have to tell us how two beasts of burden were
needed for so short a journey; "He sat," it is said, "on them." And then
the words: "If any man say aught unto you, say ye that the Lord hath need
of them, and straightway he will send them." It does not appear to me to be
worthy of the greatness of the Son's divinity to say that such a nature as
His confessed that it had need of an ass to be loosed from its bonds and of
a foal to come with it; for everything the Son of God has need of should be
great and worthy of His goodness. And then the very great multitude
strewing their garments in the way, while Jesus allows them to do so and
does not rebuke them, as is clear from the words used in another
passage,(1) "If these should hold their peace, the stones will cry out." I
do not. know if it does not indicate a certain degree of stupidity on the
part of the writer to take delight in such things, if nothing more is meant
by them than what lies on the surface. And the branches being cut down from
the trees and strewn on the road where the asses go by, surely they are
rather a hindrance to Him who is the centre of the throng than a well-
devised reception of Him. The difficulties which met us on the part of
those who were cast out of the temple by Jesus meet us here in a still
greater degree. In the Gospel of John He casts out those who bought, but
Matthew says that He cast out those who sold and those who bought in the
temple. And the buyers would naturally be more numerous than the sellers.
We have to consider if the casting out of buyers and sellers in the temple
was not out of keeping with the reputation of one who was thought to be the
Son of a carpenter, unless, as we said before, it was by a divine power
that He subjected them. The words addressed to them, too, are harsher in
the other Evangelists than in John. For John says that Jesus said to them,
"Make not My Father's house a house of merchandise," while in the others
they are rebuked for making the house of prayer a den of robbers. Now the
house of His Father did not admit of being turned into a den of robbers,
though by the acts of sinful men it was brought to be a house of
merchandise. It was not only the house of prayer, but in fact the house of
God, and by force of human neglect it harboured robbers, and was turned not
only into their house but their den--a thing which no skill, either of
architecture or of reason, could make it.

18.THE ASS AND THE COLT ARE THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. SPIRITUAL
MEANING OF THE VARIOUS FEATURES OF THE STORY. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JOHN'S
NARRATIVE AND THAT OF THE OTHER EVANGELISTS.

   Now to see into the real truth of these matters is the part of that
true intelligence which is given to those who can say,(1) "But we have the
mind of Christ that we may see those things which are freely given to us of
God; "and doubtless it is beyond our powers. For neither is the ruling
principle in our soul free from agitation, nor are our eyes such as those
of the fair bride of Christ should be, of which the bridegroom says,(2)
"Thy eyes are doves," signifying, perhaps, in a riddle, the observant power
which dwells in the spiritual, because the Holy Spirit came like a dove to
our Lord and to the lord in every one. Such as we are, however, we will not
delay, but will feel about the words of life which have been spoken to us
and strive to lay hold of that power in them which flows to him who touches
them in faith. Now Jesus is the word of God which goes into the soul that
is called Jerusalem, riding on the ass freed by the disciples from its
bonds. That is to say, on the simple language of the Old Testament,
interpreted by the two disciples who loose it: in the first place him who
applies what is written to the service of the soul and shows the
allegorical sense of it with reference to her, and in the second place him
who brings to light by the things which lie in shadow the good and true
things of the future. But He also rides on the young colt, the New
Testament; for in both alike we find the word of truth which purifies us
and drives away all those thoughts in us which incline to selling and
buying. But He does not come alone to Jerusalem, the soul, nor only with a
few companions; for many things have to enter into us before the word of
God which makes us perfect, and as many things have to come after Him, all,
however, hymning and glorifying Him and placing under Him their ornaments
and vestures, so that the beasts He rides on may not touch the ground, when
He who descended out of heaven is seated on them. But that His bearers, the
old and the new words of Scripture, may be raised yet higher above the
ground, branches have to be cut down from the trees that they may tread on
reasonable expositions. But the multitudes which go before and follow Him
may also signify the angelic ministrations, some of which prepare the way
for Him in our souls, and help in their adorning, while some come after His
presence in us, of which we have often spoken, so that we need not now
adduce testimonies about it. And perhaps it is not without reason that I
have likened to an ass the surrounding voices which conduct the Word
Himself to the soul; for it is a beast of burden, and many are the burdens,
heavy the loads, which are brought into view from the text, especially of
the Old Testament, as he can clearly see who observes what is done in this
connection on the part of the Jews. But the foal is not a beast of burden
in the same way as the ass. For though every lead of the latter be heavy to
those who have not in themselves the upbearing and most lightening power of
the Spirit, yet the new word is less heavy than the old. I know some who
interpret the tied-up ass as being believers from the circumcision, who are
freed from many bonds by those who are truly anti spiritually instructed in
the word; and the foal they take to be those from the Gentiles, who before
they receive the word of Jesus are free from any control and subject to no
yoke in their unbridled and pleasure-loving existence. The writers I am
speaking of do not say who those are that go before and who those follow
after; but there would be no absurdity in saying that those who went before
were like Moses and the prophets, and those who followed after the holy
Apostles. To what Jerusalem all these go in it is now our business to
enquire, and what is the house which has many sellers and buyers to be
driven out by the Son of God. And perhaps the Jerusalem above to which the
Lord is to ascend driving like a charioteer those of the circumcision and
the believers of the Gentiles, while prophets and Apostles go before Him
and follow after Him (or is it the angels who minister to Him, for they too
may be meant by those who go before and those who follow), perhaps it is
that city which before He ascended to it contained the so-called(1)
"spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places," or the Canaanites and
Hittites and Amorites and the other enemies of the people of god, and in a
word, the foreigners. For in that region, too, it was possible for the
prophecy to be fulfilled which says,(2) "Your country is desolate, your
cities are burned with fire, your land, strangers devour it in your
presence." For these are they who defile and turn into a den of robbers,
that is, of themselves the heavenly house of the Father, the holy
Jerusalem, the house of prayer; having spurious money, and giving pence and
small change, cheap worthless coinage, to all who come to them. These are
they who, contending with the souls, take from them what is most precious,
robbing them of their better part to return to them what is worth nothing.
But the disciples go and find the ass tied and loose it, for it cannot have
Jesus on account of the covering that is laid upon it by the law.(3) And
the colt is found with it, both having been lost till Jesus came; I mean,
namely, those of the circumcision and those of the Gentiles who afterwards
believed. But how these are sent back again after Jesus has ascended to
Jerusalem seated upon them, it is somewhat dangerous to say; for there is
something mystical about it, in connection with the change of saints into
angels. After that change they will be sent back, in the age succeeding
this one, like the ministering spirits,(4) who are sent to do service for
the sake of them who will thereby inherit salvation. But if the ass and the
foal are the old and the new Scriptures, on which the Word of God rides, it
is easy to see how, after the Word has appeared in them, they are sent back
and do not wait after the Word has entered Jerusalem among those who have
cast out all the thoughts of selling and buying. I consider, too, that it
is not without significance that the place where the ass was found tied,
and the foal, was a village, and a village without a name. For in
comparison with the great world in heaven, the whole earth is a village
where the ass is found tied and the colt, and it is simply called "the
village" without any other designation being added to it. From Bethphage
Matthew says the disciples are sent out who are to fetch the ass and the
colt; and Bethphage is a priestly place, the name of which means "House of
Jaw-bones." So much we have said, as our power allowed, on the text of
Matthew, reserving for a further opportunity, when we may be permitted to
take up the Gospel of Matthew by itself, a more complete and accurate
discussion of his statements. Mark and Luke say that the two disciples,
acting on their Master's instructions, found a foal tied, on which no one
had ever sat, and that they loosed it and brought it to the Lord. Mark adds
that they found the foal tied at the door, outside on the road. But who is
outside? Those of the Gentiles who were strangers(1) from the covenants,
and aliens to the promise of God; they are on the road, not resting under a
roof or a house, bound by their own sins, and to be loosed by the twofold
knowledge spoken of above, of the friends of Jesus. And the bonds with
which the foal was tied, and the sins committed against the wholesome law
and reproved by it,--for it is the gate of life,--in respect of it, I say,
they were not inside but outside the door, for perhaps inside the door
there cannot be any such bond of wickedness. But there were some persons
standing beside the tied-up foal, as Mark says; those, I suppose, who had
tied it; as Luke records, it was the masters of the foal who said to the
disciples, Why loose ye the foal? For those lords who subjected and bound
the sinner are illegal masters and cannot look the true master in the face
when he frees the foal from its bonds. Thus when the disciples say, "The
Lord hath need of him," these wicked masters have nothing to say in reply.
The disciples then bring the foal to Jesus naked, and put their own dress
on it, so that the Lord may sit on the disciples' garments which are on it,
at His ease. What is said further will not, in the light of Matthew's
statements, present any difficulty; how(1) "They come to Jerusalem, and
entering into the temple He began to cast out them that sold and bought in
the temple," or how(2) "When He drew nigh and beheld the city He wept over
it; and entering into the temple He began to cast out them that sold." For
in some of those who have the temple in themselves He casts out all that
sell and buy in the temple; but in others who do not quite obey the word of
God, He only makes a beginning of casting out the sellers and buyers. There
is a third class also besides these, in which He began to cast out the
sellers only, and not also the buyers. With John, on the contrary, they are
all cast out by the scourge woven of small cords, along with the sheep and
the oxen. It should be carefully considered whether it is possible that the
changes of the things described and the discrepancies found in them can be
satisfactorily solved by the anagogic method. Each of the Evangelists
ascribes to the Word different modes of action, which produce in souls of
different tempers not the same effects but yet similar ones. The
discrepancy we noticed in respect of Jesus' journeys to Jerusalem, which
the Gospel now in hand reports quite differently from the other three, as
we have expounded their words, cannot be made good in any other way. John
gives statements which are similar to those of the other three but not the
same; instead of branches cut from the trees or stubble brought from the
fields and strewed on the road he says they took branches of palm trees. He
says that much people had come to the feast, and that these went out to
meet Him, crying, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord," and
"Blessed is the King of Israel." He also says that it was Jesus Himself who
found the young ass on which Christ sat, and the phrase, young ass,
doubtless conveys some additional meaning, as the small animal afforded a
benefit not of men, nor through men, but through Jesus Christ. John
moreover does not, any more than the others, reproduce the prophetic words
exactly; instead of them he gives us "Fear not, O daughter of Zion; behold
thy King cometh sitting" (instead of "mounted") "on the foal of all ass"
(for "on an ass and a young foal"). The words "Fear not, daughter of Zion,"
are not in the prophet at all. But as the prophetic utterance has been
applied by all in this way, let us see if there was not a necessity that
the daughter of Zion should rejoice greatly and that the greater than she,
the daughter of Jerusalem, should not only rejoice greatly but should also
proclaim it when her king was coming to her, just and bringing salvation,
and meek, having mounted an ass and a young colt. Whoever, then, receives
Him will no longer be afraid of those who are armed with the specious
discourses of the heterodox, those chariots of Ephraim said to be destroyed
by the Lord,(1) nor the horse, the vain thing for safety,(2) that is the
mad desire which has accustomed itself to the things of sense and which is
injurious to many of those who desire to dwell in Jerusalem and to attend
to the sound word. It is also fitting to rejoice at the destruction by Him
who rides on the ass and the young foal of every hostile dart, since the
fiery darts of the enemy are no longer to prevail over him who has received
Jesus to his own temple. And there will also be a multitude from the
Gentiles with peace(3) at the Saviour's coming to Jerusalem, when He rules
over the waters that He may bruise the head of the dragon on the water,(4)
and we shall tread upon the waves of the sea and to the mouths of all the
rivers on the earth. Mark, however, writing about the foal,(5) reports the
Lord to have said, "On which never man sat;" and he seems to me to hint at
the circumstance that those who afterwards believed had never submitted to
the Word before Jesus' coming to them. For of men, perhaps, no one had ever
sate on the foal, but of hearts or of powers alien to the Word some had
sate on it, since in the prophet Isaiah the wealth of opposing powers is
said to be borne on asses and camels.(6) "In the distress and the
affliction," he writes, "the lion and the lion's whelp, whence also the
offspring of flying asps, who carried their riches on asses and camels."
The question occurs again, for those who have no mind but for the bare
words, if according to their view the words, "on which never man sat," are
not quite meaningless. For who but a man ever sits on a foal? So much of
our views.

19. VARIOUS VIEWS OF HERACLEON ON PURGING OF THE TEMPLE.

   Let us see what Heracleon makes of this. He says that the ascent to
Jerusalem signifies the Lord's going up from material things to the
spiritual place, which is a likeness of Jerusalem. And he considers that
the words are, "He found in the temple," and not "in the sanctuary,"(1)
because the Lord is not to be understood as instrumental in that call only,
which takes place where the spirit is not. He considers the temple to be
the Holy of Holies, into which none but the High-Priest enters, and there I
believe he says that the spiritual go; while the court of the temple, where
the levites also enter, is a symbol of these psychical ones who are saved,
but outside the Pleroma. Then those who are found in the temple selling
oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting, he took to
represent those who attribute nothing to grace, but regard the entrance of
strangers to the temple as a matter of merchandise and gain, and who
minister the sacrifices for the worship of God, with a view to their own
gain and love of money. And the scourge which Jesus made of small cords and
did not receive from another, he expounds in a way of his own, saying that
the scourge is an image of the power and energy of the Holy Spirit, driving
out by His breath those who are bad. And he declares that the scourge and
the linen and the napkin and other things of such a kind are symbolic of
the power and energy of the Holy Spirit. Then he assumes what is not
written, as that the scourge was tied to a piece of wood, and this wood he
takes to be a type of the cross; on this wood the gamblers, merchants, and
all evil was nailed up and done away. In searching into the act of Jesus,
and discussing the composition of the scourge out of two substances, he
romances in an extraordinary way; He did not make it, he says, of dead
leather. He wished to make the Church no longer a den of robbers, but the
house of His Father. We must here say what is most necessary on the
divinity, as referred to in Heracleon's text. If Jesus calls the temple at
Jerusalem the house of His Father. and that temple was made in honour of
Him who made heaven and earth, why are we not at once told that He is the
Son of no one else than the Maker of heaven and earth, that He is the Son
of God? To this house of the Father of Jesus, as being the house of prayer,
the Apostles of Christ also. as we find in their "Acts," are told(2) by the
angel to go and to stand there and preach all the words of this life. But
they came to the house of prayer, through the Beautiful Gate, to pray
there, a thing they would not have done had they not known Him to be the
same with the God worshipped by those who had dedicated that temple. Hence,
too, they say, those who obeyed God rather than men, Peter and the
Apostles, "The God(1) of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging
Him on a tree;" for they know that by no other God was Jesus raised from
the dead but the God of the fathers, whom Jesus also extols as the God of
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who are not dead but living. How, too, could
the disciples, if the house was not that of the same God with the God of
Christ, have remembered the saying in the sixty-ninth Psalm, "The zeal of
thy house shall devour Me;" for thus it is found in the prophet, and not
"hath devoured Me." Now Christ is zealous principally for that house of God
which is in each of us; He does not wish that it should be a house of
merchandise, nor that the house of prayer should be a den of robbers; for
He is the Son of a jealous God. We ought to give a liberal intepretation to
such utterances of Scripture; they speak of human things, but in the way of
metaphor, to show that God desires that nothing foreign should be mixed up
with His will in the soul of all men, indeed, but principally of those who
are minded to accept the message of our most divine faith. But we must
remember that the sixty-ninth Psalm, which contains the words, "The zeal of
thy house shall devour me," and a little further on, "They gave Me gall for
My drink and for My thirst they gave Me vinegar," both texts being recorded
in the Gospels, that that Psalm is spoken in the person of the Christ, and
nowhere shows any change of person. It shows a great want of observation on
Heracleon's part that he considers the words, "The zeal of thy house shall
devour Me," to be spoken in the person of those powers which were cast out
and destroyed by the Saviour; he fails to see the connection of the
prophecy in the Psalm. For if these words are understood as spoken by the
expelled and destroyed powers, it follows that he must take the words,
"They gave Me vinegar to drink," which are a part of the same psalm, to be
also spoken by those powers. What misled him was probably that he could not
understand how the "shall devour Me" could be spoken by Christ, since He
did not appreciate the way in which anthropopathic statements are applied
to God and to Christ.

20.THE TEMPLE WHICH CHRIST SAYS HE WILL RAISE UP IS THE CHURCH.. HOW THE
DRY BONES WILL BE MADE TO LIVE AGAIN.

   "The Jews then answered and said unto Him, What sign showest Thou unto
us, seeing that Thou doest these things?(1) Jesus answered and said unto
them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Those of
the body, and those who incline to material things, seem to me to be meant
by the Jews, who, after Jesus has driven out those who make God's house a
house of merchandise, are angry at Him for treating these matters in such a
way, and demand a sign, a sign which will show that the Word, whom they do
not receive, has a right to do such things. The Saviour joins on to His
statement about the temple a statement which is really one with the former,
about His own body, and to the question, What sign doest Thou, seeing that
Thou doest such things? answers, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up." He could have exhibited a thousand other signs, but to
the question, "Seeing that Thou doest such things," He could not answer
anything else; He fittingly gave the answer about the sign connected with
the temple, and not about signs unconnected with the temple. Now, both of
these two things, the temple and the body of Jesus, appear to me, in one
interpretation at least, to be types of the Church, and to signify that it
is built of living stones,(2) a spiritual house for a holy priesthood,
built(3) on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being
the head corner-stone; and it is, therefore, called a temple. Now, from the
text,(4) "Ye are the body of Christ, and members each in his part," we see
that even though the harmonious fitting of the stones of the temple appear
to be dissolved and scattered, as it is written in the twenty-second
Psalm(5) that all the bones of Christ are, by the plots made against it in
persecutions and afflictions, on the part of those who war against the
unity of the temple in persecutions, yet the temple will be raised again,
and the body will rise again on the third day after the day of evil which
threatens it,(6) and the day of consummation which follows. For the third
day will rise on the new heaven and the new earth, when these bones, the
whole house of Israel,(7) will rise  in the great Lord's day, death having
been overcome. And thus the resurrection of the Saviour from the passion of
the cross contains the mystery of the resurrection of the whole body of
Christ. But as that material body of Jesus was sacrificed for Christ, and
was buried, and was afterwards raised, so the whole body of Christ's saints
is crucified along with Him, and now lives no longer; for each of them,
like Paul, glories(1) in nothing but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
through which He is crucified to the world, and the world to Him. Not only,
therefore, is it crucified with Christ, and crucified to the world; it is
also buried with Christ, for we were buried with Christ, Paul says.(2) And
then he says, as if enjoying some earnest of the resurrection, "We rose
with Him,"(3) because He walks in a certain newness of life, though not yet
risen in that blessed and perfect resurrection which is hoped for. Either,
then, he is now crucified, and afterwards is buried, or he is now buried
and taken down from the cross, and, being now buried, is to rise at some
future time. But to most of us the mystery of the resurrection is a great
one, and difficult of contemplation; it is spoken of in many other passages
of Scripture, and is specially announced in the following passage of
Ezekiel:(4) "And the hand of the Lord was upon me, and He led me out in the
Spirit of the Lord, and set me in the midst of the plain, and it was full
of human bones. And He led me round about them in a circle, and behold
there were very many on the face of the plain, and behold they were very
dry. And He said to me, Son of man, shall these bones live? And I said,
Lord, Lord, Thou knowest. And He said to me, Prophesy to these bones, and
thou shall say to them, Hear the word of the Lord, ye dry bones;" and a
little further on, "And the Lord spake to me, saying, Son of man, these
bones are the house of Israel. And they say, Our bones are become dry, our
hope is lost, we have breathed our last." For what bones are these which
are addressed, "Hear ye the word of the Lord," as if they heard the word of
the Lord? They belong to the house of Israel, or to the body of Christ, of
which the Lord says,(5) "All My bones are scattered," although the bones of
His body were not scattered, and not even one of them was broken. But when
the resurrection itself takes place of the true and more perfect body of
Christ, then those who are now the members of Christ, for they will then be
dry bones, will be brought together, bone to bone, and fitting to fitting
(for none of those who are destitute of fitting (harmoni'a) will come to
the perfect man), to the measure(1) of the stature of the fulness of the
body of Christ. And then the many members(2) will be the one body, all of
them, though many, becoming members of one body. But it belongs to God
alone to make the distinction of foot and hand and eye and hearing and
smelling, which in one sense fill up the head, but in another the feet and
the rest of the members, and the weaker and humbler ones, the more and the
less honourable. God will temper the body together, and then, rather than
now, He will give to that which lacks the more abundant honour, that there
may be, by no means, any schism in the body, but that the members may have
the same care for one another, and, if any member be well off, all the
members may share in its good things, or if any member be glorified, all
the members may rejoice with it.

21. WHAT THE SON WAS RAISED UP BY THE FATHER. THE CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST
JESUS AT HIS TRIAL WAS BASED ON THE INCIDENT NOW BEFORE US.

   What I have said is not alien to the passage now engaging us, dealing
as it does with the temple and those cast out from it, of which the Saviour
says, "The zeal of thy house shall devour Me;" and with the Jews who asked
that a sign should be showed them, and the Saviour's answer to them, in
which He combines the discourse on the temple with that on His own body,
and says, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." For
from this temple, which is the body of Christ, everything that is
irrational and savours of merchandise must be driven away, that it may no
longer be a house of merchandise. And this temple must be destroyed by
those who plot against the Word of God, and after its destruction be raised
again on that third day which we discussed above; when the disciples also
will remember what He, the Word, said before the temple of God was
destroyed, and will believe, not only their knowledge but their faith also
being then made perfect, and that by the word which Jesus spoke. And every
one who is of this nature, Jesus purifying him,(3) puts away things that
are irrational and things that savour of selling, to be destroyed on
account of the zeal of the Logos that is in Him. But they are destroyed to
be raised again by Jesus, not on the third day, if we attend to the exact
words before us, but "in three days." For the rising again of the temple
takes place on the first day after it has been destroyed and on the second
day, and its resurrection is accomplished in all the three days. Hence a
resurrection both has been and is to be, if indeed we were buried with
Christ, and rose with Him. And since the word, "We rose with Him," does not
cover the whole of the resurrection, "in Christ shall all be made alive,(1)
but every one in his own order, Christ the first fruits, then they that are
Christ's at His coming, and then the end." It belongs to the resurrection
that one should be on the first day in the paradise of God,(2) and it
belongs to the resurrection when Jesus appears and says, "Touch Me not; for
I am not yet ascended to My Father,"(3) but the perfection of the
resurrection was when He came to the Father. Now there are some who fall
into confusion on this head of the Father and the Son, and we must devote a
few words to them. They quote the text,(4) "Yea, and we are found false
witnesses for God, because we testified against God that He raised up
Christ, whom He raised not up," and other similar texts which show the
raiser-up to be another person than He who was raised up; and the text,
"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," as if it
resulted from these that the Son did not differ in number from the Father,
but that both were one, not only in point of substance but in point of
subject, and that the Father and the Son were said to be different in some
of their aspects but not in their hypostases. Against such views we must in
the first place adduce the leading texts which prove the Son to be another
than the Father, and that the Son must of necessity be the son of a Father,
and the Father, the father of a Son. Then we may very properly refer to
Christ's declaration that He cannot do anything but what He sees the Father
doing and saying,(5) because whatever the Father does that the Son also
does in like manner, and that He had raised the dead, i.e., the body, the
Father granting Him this, who must be said to have been the principal agent
in raising up Christ from the dead. But Heracleon says, "In three days,"
instead of "On the third day," not having examined the point (and yet
having noted the words "in three"), that the resurrection is brought about
in three days. But he also calls the third the spiritual day, in which they
consider the resurrection of the Church to be indicated. It follows from
this that the first day is to be called the "earthly" day, and the second
the psychical, the resurrection of the Church not having taken place on
them. Now the statements of the false witnesses, recorded in the Gospel
according to Matthew and Mark(1) towards the end of the Gospel, and the
accusation they brought against our Lord Jesus Christ, appear to have
reference to this utterance of His, "Destroy this temple, and I will build
it up in three days." For He was speaking of the temple of His body, but
they supposed His words to refer to the temple of stone, and so they said
when accusing Him, "This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God
and to build it up in three days," or, as Mark has it, "We heard Him say,
that I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will
build up another temple not made with hands." Here the high-priest stood up
and said to Him, "Answerest Thou nothing? What do these witness against
Thee? But Jesus held His peace." Or, as Mark says, "And the high-priest
stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus saying, Answerest Thou nothing? What
do these witness against Thee? But He held His peace and answered nothing."
These words must, I think, necessarily have reference to the text now
before us.

22.THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON DID NOT TAKE FORTY-SIX YEARS TO BUILD. WITH REGARD
TO THAT OF EZRA WE CANNOT TELL HOW LONG IT TOOK.  SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
NUMBER FORTY-SIX.

   The Jews therefore said, "Forty and six years was this temple in
building,(2) and wilt thou raise it up in three days?" How the Jews said
that the temple had been forty-six years building, we cannot tell, if we
adhere to the history. For it is written in the third Book of Kings,(3)
that they prepared the stones and the wood three years, and in the fourth
year, in the second month,(4) when Solomon was king over Israel, the king
commanded, and they brought great precious stones for the foundation of the
house, and unhewn stones. And the sons of Solomon and the sons of Hiram
hewed the stones and laid them in the fourth year, and they founded the
house of the Lord in the month Nisan and the second month: in the tenth
year in the month Baal, which was the eighth month, the house was finished
according to the whole count and the whole plan of it. Thus comparing the
time of its completion with the period of building, the building of it
occupies less than eleven years. How, then, do the Jews come to say that
the temple was forty-six years in building? One might, indeed, do violence
to the words and make out the period of forty-six years at all costs, by
counting from the time when David, after planning about the building of the
temple, said to Nathan the prophet,(1) "Behold I dwell in a house of cedar,
and the ark of God dwelleth in the midst of the tent," for though it is
true that he was prevented, as being a man of blood,(2) from carrying out
the building, he seems to have busied himself in collecting materials for
it. In the first Book of Chronicles,(3) certainly, David the king says to
all the congregation, "Solomon my son, whom the Lord hath chosen, is young
and tender, and the work is great, because he is not to build for man but
for the Lord God. According to my whole power I have prepared for the house
of my God, gold, silver, brass, and iron, wood, stones of Soom, and stones
for filling up, and precious stones of many kinds, and all sorts of
precious wood, and a large quantity of Pariah marble. And besides this, for
the pleasure I have taken in the house of my God. the gold and the silver I
possess, lo, I have given it for the house of my Lord, to the full; from
such supplies(4) I prepared for the house of the saints, three thousand
talents of gold from Suphir, and seven thousand talents of stamped silver.
that the houses of God may be overlaid with them by the hands of
artifiers." For David reigned seven years in Hebron and thirty-three years
in Jerusalem;(5) so that if it could be shown that the beginning of the
preparations for the temple and of David's collecting the necessary
material, was in the fifth year of his reign, then, with some forcing, the
statement about forty-six years might stand. But some one else will say
that the temple spoken of was not that built by Solomon, for that it was
destroyed at the period of the captivity, but the temple built at the time
of Ezra,(6) with regard to which the forty-six years can be shown to be
quite accurate. But in this Maccabean period things were very unsettled
with regard to the people and the temple, and I do not know if the temple
was really built in that number of years. Heracleon pays no attention to
the history, but says that in that he was forty-six years preparing the
temple, Solomon was an image of the Saviour. The number six he connects
with matter, that is, the image, and the number forty, which he says is the
tetrad, not admitting of combination, he connects with the inspiration and
the seed in the inspiration. Consider if the forty cannot be taken as due
to the four elements of the world arranged in the building of the temple at
the points at issue,(1) and the six to the fact that man was created on the
sixth day.

23. THE TEMPLE SPOKEN OF BY CHRIST IS THE CHURCH. APPLICATION TO THE CHURCH
OF THE STATEMENTS REGARDING THE BUILDING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE, AND THE
NUMBERS STATED IN THAT NARRATIVE,

   "But He spake of the temple of His body.(2) When, therefore, He was
raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this, and they
believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said." This refers to
the statement that the body of the Son is His temple. It may be asked
whether this is to be taken in its plain sense, or whether we should try to
connect each statement that is recorded about the temple, with the view we
take about the body of Jesus, whether the body which He received from the
Virgin, or that body of Christ which the Church is said to be, as we are
said by the Apostle(3) to be all members of His body. One may, on the one
hand, suppose it to be hopeless to get everything that is said about the
temple properly connected with the body, in whatever sense the body be
taken, and one may have recourse to a simpler explanation, and say that the
body (in either of these senses) is called the temple, because as the
temple had the glory of God dwelling ill it, so He who was the image and
glory of God, the first-born of every creature, could rightly be called, in
respect of His body or the Church, the temple containing the image. We, for
our part, see it to be a hard task to expound every particular of what is
said about the temple in the third Book of Kings, and far beyond our powers
of language, and we defer it in the meantime, as a thing beyond the scale
of the present work. We also have a strong conviction that in such matters,
which transcend human nature, it must be the work of divine wisdom to make
plain the m cabin g of inspired Scripture, of that wisdom which is hidden
in a mystery, which none of the rulers of this world knew. We are well
aware, too, that we need the assistance of that excellent Spirit of wisdom,
in order to understand such matters, as they should be understood by
ministers of sacred things; and in this connection we will attempt to
describe, as shortly as we may, our view of what belongs to this subject.
The body is the Church, and we learn from Peter(1) that it is a house of
God, built of living stones, a spiritual house for a holy priesthood. Thus
the son of David, who builds this house, is a type of Christ. He builds it
when his wars are at an end,(2) and a period of profound peace has arrived;
he builds the temple for the glory of God in the Jerusalem on earth, so
that worship may no longer be celebrated in a moveable erection like the
tabernacle. Let us seek to find in the Church the truth of each statement
made about the temple. If all Christ's enemies are made the footstool of
His feet,(3) and Death, the last enemy, is destroyed, then there will be
the most perfect peace. Christ will be Solomon, which means "Peaceful,"(4)
and the prophecy will find its fulfilment in Him, which says,(5) "With
those who hated peace I was peaceful." And then each of the living stones
will be, according to the work of his life here, a stone of that temple,
one, at the foundation, an apostle or a prophet, bearing those placed upon
him, and another, after those in the foundation, and supported by the
Apostles, will himself, with the Apostles, help to bear those in more need.
One will be a stone of the inmost parts, where the ark is, and the
cherubim, slid the mercy-seat; another will be on the outer wall, and
another even outside the outer wall of the levites and priests, a stone of
the altar of whole burnt offerings. And the management and service of these
things will be entrusted to holy powers, angels of God, being,
respectively, lordships, thrones, dominions, or powers; and there will be
others subject to these, typified by three thousand six hundred(6) chief
officers, who were appointed over the works of Solomon, and the seventy
thousand of those who bore burdens, and the eighty thousand stone-cutters
in the mountain, who wrought in the work, and prepared the stones and the
wood. It is to be remarked that those reported as bearing burdens are
related to the Hebdomad. The quarrymen and stone-cutters, who make the
stones fitted for the temple, have some kinship to the ogdoad. And the
officers, who are six hundred in number, are connected with the perfect
number six multiplied into itself. The preparation of the stones, as they
are taken out and fitted for the building, extends over three years; this
appears to me to point solely to the time of the eternal interval which is
akin to the triad. This will come to pass when peace is consummated after
the number of years of the transaction of the matters connected with the
exodus from Egypt, namely, three hundred and forty, and of what took place
in Egypt four hundred and thirty years after the covenant made by God with
Abraham. Thus, from Abraham to the beginning of the building of the temple,
there are two sabbatic numbers, the 700 and the 70; and at that time, too,
our King Christ will command the seventy thousand burden-bearers not to
take any chance stones for the foundation of the temple, but great stones,
precious, unhewn, that they may be hewn, not by any chance workmen, but by
the sons of Solomon; for so we find it written in the third Book of Kings.
Then, too, on account of the profound peace, Hiram, king of Tyre,
cooperates in the building of the temple, and gives his own sons to the
sons of Solomon, to hew, in company with them, the great and precious
stones for the holy place, which, in the fourth year, are placed in the
foundation of the house of the Lord. But in an ogdoad of years the house is
finished in the eighth month of the eighth year after its foundation.

24.THE ACCOUNT OF THE BUILDING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE CONTAINS SERIOUS
DIFFICULTIES AND IS TO BE INTERPRETED SPIRITUALLY.

   For the sake of those, however, who consider that nothing further than
the narrative itself is meant to be indicated in these words, it may not be
unfitting to introduce at this point some considerations which they can
scarcely withstand, to show that the words ought to be regarded as those of
the Spirit, and that the mind of the Spirit should be sought for in them.
Did the sons of the kings really spend their time in hewing the great and
precious stones, and practise a craft so little in keeping with royal birth
And the number of the burden-bearers and of the stone-cutters and of the
officers, the duration, too, of the period of preparing the stones and
marking them, is all this recorded as it really was? The holy house, too,
was got ready in peace and was to be built for God without hammer or axe or
any iron tool, that there might be no disturbance in the house of God. And
again I would ask those who are in bondage to the letter how it is possible
that there should be eighty thousand stone-cutters and that the house of
God should be built out of hard white stones without the noise of hammer or
axe or any iron tool being heard in His house while the building was going
on? Is it not living stones that are hewn without any noise or tumult
somewhere outside the temple, so that they are brought ready prepared to
the place which awaits them in the building? And there is some sort of an
ascent about the temple of God, not with angles, but with bends of straight
lines. For it is written,(1) "And there was a winding staircase to the
middle, and from the middle to the third floor;" for the staircase in the
house of God had to be spiral, thus imitating in its ascent the circle,
which is the most perfect figure. But that this house might be secure five
ties are built in it.(2) as fair as possible, a cubit high, that on looking
up one might see it to be suggested how we rise from sensible things to the
so-called divine perceptions, and so be brought to perceive those things
which are seen only by the mind. But the place of the happier stones
appears to be that called Dabir,(3) where the ark of the covenant of the
Lord was, and, as I may say, the handwriting of God, the tables written
with His own finger. And the whole house is overlaid with gold; "the whole
house," we read,(4) "he overlaid with gold until all the house was
finished." But there were two cherubim in Dabir, a word which the
translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek failed to render satisfactorily.
Some, failing to do justice to the language, render it the temple; but it
is more sacred than the temple. Now everything about the house was made
golden, for a sign that the mind which is quite made perfect estimates
accurately the things perceived by the intellect. But it is not given to
all to approach and know them; and hence the veil of the court is erected,
since to most of the priests add levites the things in the inmost part of
the temple are not revealed.

25. FURTHER SPIRITUALIZING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE-BUILDING.

It is worth while to enquire how, on the one hand, Solomon the king is said
to have built the temple, and on the other the master-builder whom Solomon
sent and fetched,(1) "Hiram of Tyre, the son of a woman who was a widow;
and he was of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a
worker in brass, and filled with wisdom and understanding, to work all
works in brass; and he was brought in to King Solomon and wrought all his
works." Here I ask whether Solomon can be taken for the first-born of all
creation,(2) and Hiram for the man whom he assumed, from the constraint of
men--for the word Tyrians means" constrainers "--the man who derived his
birth from nature, and being filled with all manner of art and wisdom and
understanding, was brought in to cooperate with the first-born of all
creation, add to build the temple. In this temple there are also
windows,(3) placed obliquely and out of sight, so that the illumination of
the divine light may enter for salvation, and--why should I go into
particulars?--that the body of Christ, the Church, may be found having the
plan of the spiritual house and temple of God. As I said before, we require
that wisdom which is hidden in a mystery, and which he alone can apprehend
who is able to say, "But we have the mind of Christ, "--we require that
wisdom to interpret spiritually each detail of what is said in accordance
with the will of Him who caused it to be written. To enter into these
details is not in accordance with our present subject. What has been said
may suffice to let us understand how "He spake about the temple of His
body."

26.THE PROMISES ADDRESSED TO JERUSALEM IN THE PROPHETS REFER TO THE CHURCH,
AND ARE STILL TO BE FULFILLED.

   After all this it is proper to ask whether what is narrated as having
taken place about the temple has ever taken place or ever will take place
about the spiritual house. The argument may seem to pinch in whichever way
we take it. If we say that it is possible that something like what is told
about the temple may take place with regard to the spiritual house, or has
already taken place in it, then those who hear us will, with difficulty, be
brought to admit that a change can take place in such good things as these,
firstly, because they do not wish it, and secondly, because of the
incongruity of thinking that such things admit of change. If, on the other
hand, We seek to maintain the unchangeableness of the good things once
given to the saints, then we cannot apply to them what we find in the
history, and we shall seem to be doing what those of the heresies do, who
fail to maintain the unity of the narrative of Scripture from beginning to
end. If we are not to take the view proper to old wives or Jews, of the
promises recorded in the prophets, and especially in Isaiah, if, that is to
say, we are to look for their fulfilment in connection with the Jerusalem
on earth, then, as certain remarkable things connected with the building of
the temple and the restoration of the people from the captivity are spoken
of as happening after the captivity and the destruction of the temple, we
must say that we are now the temple and the people which was carried
captive, but is to come up again to Judaea and Jerusalem, and to be built
with the precious stones of Jerusalem. But I cannot tell if it be possible
that, at the revolution of long periods of time, things of the same nature
should take place again, but in a worse way. The prophecies of Isaiah which
we mentioned are the following:(1) "Behold I prepare for thy stone
carbuncle and for thy foundation sapphire; and I will make thy battlements
jasper, and thy gates stones of crystal, and thy outer wall choice stones;
and all thy sons shall be taught of the Lord, and in great peace shall thy
children be, and in righteousness shall thou be built." And a little
further on, to the same Jerusalem:(2) "And the glory of Lebanon shall come
to thee with cypress, and pine, and cedar, along with those who will
glorify My holy place. And the sons of them that humbled thee and insulted
thee shall come to thee in fear; and thou shalt be called the city of the
Lord, Sion of holy Israel, because thou weft desolate and hated, and there
was none to help thee. And I will make thee an eternal delight, a joy of
generations of generations. And thou shall suck the milk of the Gentiles
and shall eat the riches of kings, and thou shall know that I am the Lord
that saveth thee and the God of Israel that chooseth thee. And instead of
brass I will bring thee gold, and instead of iron I will bring thee silver,
and for wood I will bring thee brass, and for stones iron. And I will
establish thy rulers in peace and thy overseers in righteousness. And
wickedness shall no more be heard in thy land, nor affliction and distress
in thy borders, but thy walls shall be called salvation and thy gates
sculpture. And the sun shall no longer be to thee for light by day, nor
shall the rising of the moon give light to thee by night, but Christ shall
be to thee an everlasting light and thy God thy glory. For thy sun shall no
more go down, and thy moon shall not fail, for thy Lord shall be to thee an
everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be fulfilled." These
prophecies clearly refer to the age still to come, and they are addressed
to the children of Israel in their captivity, to whom He was sent and came,
who said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."(1)
Such things, though they are captives, they are to receive in their Own
land; and proselytes also are to come to them at that time through Christ,
and are to fly to them, according to the saying,(2) "Behold, proselytes
shall come to thee through Me, and shall flee to thee for refuge." And if
all this is to take place with the captives, then it is plain that they
must be about their temple, and that they must go up there again to be
built up, having become the most precious of stones. For we find with John
in his Apocalyse,(3) the promise made to him that overcomes, that he will
be a pillar in the temple of God, and will go no more out. All this I have
said with a view to our obtaining a cursory view at least of the matters
pertaining to the temple, and the house of God, and the Church and
Jerusalem, which we cannot now take up systematically. Those, however, who,
in their reading of the prophets, do not shrink from the labour of seeking
after their spiritual meaning, must enquire into these matters with the
greatest particularity, and must take account of every possibility. So her
of "the temple of His body."

27. OF THE BELIEF THE DISCIPLES AFTERWARDS ATTAINED IN THE WORDS OF JESUS.

   "When He was raised from the dead.(4) His disciples remembered that He
spake this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had
said." This tells us that after Jesus' resurrection from the dead His
disciples saw that what He had said about the temple had a higher
application to His passion and His resurrection; they remembered that the
words, "In three days I will raise it up," pointed to the resurrection;
"And they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said." We are
not told that they believed the Scripture or the word which Jesus said,
before. For faith in its full sense is the act of him who accepts with his
whole soul what is professed at baptism. As for the higher sense, as we
have already spoken of the resurrection from the dead of the whole body of
the Lord, we have now to note that the disciples were put in mind by the
fulfilment of the Scripture which when they were in life they had not fully
understood; its meaning was now brought under their eyes and made quite
clear to them, and they knew of what heavenly things it was the pattern and
shadow. Then they believed the Scripture who formerly did not believe it,
and believed the word of Jesus which, as the speaker means to convey, they
had not believed before the resurrection. For how can any one be said in
the full sense to believe the Scripture when he does not see in it the mind
of the Holy Spirit, which God would have us to believe rather than the
literal meaning? From this point of view we must say that none of those who
walk according to the flesh believe the spiritual things of the law, of the
very beginnings of which they have no conception. But, they say, those are
more blessed who have not seen and yet believe, than those who have seen
and have believed, and for this they quote the saying to Thomas at the end
of the Gospel of John,(1) "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have
believed." But it is not said here that those who have not seen and yet
have believed are more blessed than those who have seen and believed.
According to their view those after the Apostles are more blessed than the
Apostles; than which nothing can be more foolish. He who is to be blessed
must see in his mind the things which he believes, and must be able with
the Apostles to hear the words spoken to him, "Blessed are your eyes, for
they see, and your ears, for they hear,"(2) and "Many prophets and
righteous men have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not
seen them, and to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them."
Yet he may be content who only receives the inferior beatitude, which
says:(3) "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed." But
how much more blessed are those eyes which Jesus calls blessed for the
things which they have seen, than those which have not attained to such a
vision; Simeon is content to take into his arms the salvation of God, and
after seeing it, he says,(4) "Now, O Lord, lettest Thou Thy servant depart
in peace, according to Thy word; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation." We
must strive, therefore, as Solomon says, to open our eyes that we may be
satisfied with bread; "Open thine eyes," he says, "and be satisfied with
bread." What I have said on the text, "They believe the Scripture and the
word which Jesus had said unto them," may lead us to understand, after
discussing the subject of faith, that the perfection of our faith will be
given us at the great resurrection from the dead of the whole body of Jesus
which is His Holy Church. For what is said about knowledge, "Now I know in
part,"(1) that, I think, may be said in the same way of every other good;
and one of these others is faith. "Now I believe in part," we may say, "but
when that which is perfect is come, then the faith which is in part will be
done away." As with knowledge, so with faith, that which is through sight
is far better, if I may say so, than that which is through a glass and in
an enigma.

28.THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BELIEVING IN THE NAME OF JESUS AND BELIEVING IN
JESUS HIMSELF.

   "Now, when He was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many
believed in His name, beholding His signs which He did. But He, Jesus, did
not trust Himself to them, because He knew all(men) and because He needed
not that any should testify of man, for he Himself knew what was in
man."(2) One might ask how Jesus did not Himself believe in those of whom
we are told that they believed. To this we must say it was not those who
believed in Him that Jesus did not trust, but those who believed in His
name; for believing in His name is It different thing from believing in
Him. He who will not be judged because of his faith is exempted from the
judgment, not for believing in His name, but for believing in Him; for the
Lord says,(3) "He that believeth in Me is not judged," not, "He who
believes in My name is not judged;" the latter believes, and hence he is
not worthy to be condemned already, but he is inferior to the other who
believes in Him. Hence it is that Jesus does not trust Himself to him who
believes in His name. We must, therefore, cleave to Him rather than to His
name, test after we have done wonders in His name, we should hear these
words addressed to us which He will speak to those who boast of His name
alone.(4) With the Apostle Paul(5) let us seek joyfully to say, "I can do
all things in Christ Jesus strengthening me." We have also to notice that
in a former passage(1) the Evangelist calls the passover that of the Jews,
while here he does not say that Jesus was at the passover of the Jews, but
at the passover at Jerusalem; and in the former case when the passover is
called that of the Jews, it is not said to be a feast; but here Jesus is
recorded to have been at the feast; when at Jerusalem He was at the
passover during the feast, and many believed, even though only in His name.
We ought to notice certainly that "many" are said to believe, not in Him,
but in His name. Now, those who believe in Him are those who walk in the
straight and narrow way,(2) which leads to life, and which is found by few.
It may well be, however, that many of those who believe in His name will
sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, the
Father's house, in which are many mansions. And it is to be noted that the
many who believe in His name do not believe in the same way as Andrew does,
and Peter, and Nathanael, and Philip. These believe the testimony of John
when he says, "Behold the Lamb of God," or they believe in Christ as found
by Andrew, or Jesus saying to Philip, "Follow Me," or Philip saying, "We
have found Him of whom Moses and the prophets did write, Jesus the Son of
Joseph from Nazareth." Those, on the other hand, of whom we now speak,
"believed in His name, beholding His signs which He did." And as they
believe the signs and not in Him but in His name, Jesus "did not trust
Himself to them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should
testify of man, because He knew what is in every man."

29. ABOUT WHAT BEINGS JESUS NEEDED TESTIMONY.

   The words, "He needed not that any should testify of man," may fitly be
used to show that the Son of God is able of Himself to see the truth about
each man and is in no need of such testimony as any other could supply. The
words, however, "He had no need that any should testify of man," are not
equivalent to "He had no need of testimony about any being." If we take the
word "man" to include every being who is according to the image of God, or
every reasonable creature, then He will have no need that any should
testify to Him of any reasonable being whatever, since He Himself, by the
power given Him by the Father, knows them all. But if the term "man" be
restricted to mortal animated reasonable beings, then it might be said, on
the one hand, that He had need of testimony respecting the beings above
man, and while His knowledge was adequate with regard to man it did not
extend to those other beings. On the other hand, however, it might be said
that He who humbled Himself had no need that any should testify to Him
concerning man, but that He had such need in respect of beings higher than
men.

30. HOW JESUS KNEW THE POWERS, BETTER OR WORSE, WHICH RESIDE IN MAN.

   It may also be asked what signs those many saw Him do who believed on
Him, for it is not recorded that He did any signs at Jerusalem, though some
may have been done which are not recorded. One may, however, consider if
what He did may be called signs, when He made a scourge of small cords, and
cast them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen, and poured
out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables. As for those who suppose
that it was only about men that He had no need of witnesses, it has to be
said that the Evangelist attributes to Him two things. that He knew all
beings, and that He had no need that any one should testify of man. If He
knew all beings, then He knew not only men but the beings above men, all
beings who are without such bodies as ours; and He knew what was in man,
since He was greater than those who reproved and judged by prophesying, and
who brought to the light the secret things of the hearts of those whom the
Spirit suggested to them to be thus dealt with. The words, "He knew what
was in man," could also be taken as referring to the powers, better or
worse, which work in men. For if any one gives place to the devil, Satan
enters into him; thus did Judas give place, and thus did the devil put it
in his heart to betray Jesus, and "after the sop," therefore," the devil
entered into him."(1) But if any one gives place to God, he becomes
blessed; for blessed is the man whose help is from God, and the ascent is
in his heart from God.(2) Thou knowest what is in man, Thou who knowest all
things, O Son of God. And now that our tenth book has come to be large
enough we will here pause in our theme.


Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (ANF 9, Menzies). The digital version is by The Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
  Provided courtesy of:

       EWTN On-Line Services
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.