Since our Lord was known in Galilee, they invite him to the marriage. And he comes because he cares more about our good than his own dignity. The one who did not despise taking on himself the form of a servant^[1] would much less despise being present at the marriage of servants.

The wedding was not held in Jerusalem but outside of Judea, as it were, in the country of the Gentiles—Galilee of the Gentiles,^[1] as the prophet said. It is, I suppose, altogether obvious that the synagogue of the Jews rejected the Bridegroom from heaven and that the church of the Gentiles [gladly] received him.

Consider whether this first miracle of our Savior that took place in Cana of Galilee, where he changed water into wine, is not foretold in the beginning of this prophecy where it says, Drink this first. Act quickly, land of Zebulun and Naphtali, Galilee of the Gentiles.^[1] And this miracle was a sign of the mystic wine—that wine of the faith of the new covenant that is transformed from bodily joy to a joy of mind and spirit.

It is evident that this third day should be calculated as the third day after the baptism. He said that the first day was that in which Andrew and his companion followed him and then passed the night with him. The second day relates the events concerning Philip and Nathanael. The third day points to the events of this wedding party. Clearly all these events took place in Galilee. Immediately after his baptism he left and lived there.

According to the theoria^[1] [of this passage], the Word of God descended from heaven in order that the bridegroom, having made the punishment of the human nature his own, might persuade [his bride] to become pregnant with the spiritual seed of wisdom. He convened the wedding on the third day, that is, in the last times of the age. For he struck the transgression that was in Adam and again bandaged us on the third day, that is, in the last times when, becoming human for us he took on the whole fleshly nature that he resurrected in himself from the dead. Therefore, because of this [John] mentions the third as the day when he consecrated the wedding.

The third day is the mystery of the Trinity, while the miracles of the nuptials are the mysteries of heavenly joys. It was both a nuptial day and a feast for this reason, because the church after the redemption was joined to the spouse who was coming—to that spouse, I say, whom all the ages from the beginning of the world had promised. It is he who came down to earth to invite his beloved to marriage with his highness, giving her for a present the token of his blood and intending to give later the dowry of his kingdom.

The third day was now come from Jesus’ baptism, and there was a marriage taking place in Cana of Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there when, on the failure of the wine, he made wine out of water…. Jesus being Maker of man and woman does not refuse to be called to a marriage; it was he who after forming Eve brought her to Adam. Therefore in the Gospel he says about this union, What God has joined together let no man put asunder.^[1] Let the heretics therefore be put to shame who reject marriage, since Jesus was called to a marriage and his mother was there.

The Lord was invited and came to a wedding. Is it any wonder that he who came to that house for a wedding came to this world for a wedding?… Therefore he has a bride here whom he has redeemed by his blood and to whom he has given the Holy Spirit as a pledge.^[1] He wrested her from enslavement to the devil, he died for her sins. He arose again for her justification. Who will offer such great things to his bride? Men may offer some trinkets or other from the earth such as gold, silver, precious stones, horses, slaves, farms or estates. Will anyone offer his blood? For if he gives his blood to his bride, he will not be alive to take her as his wife. But the Lord, dying free of anxiety, gave his blood for her in order that when he arose, he might have her whom he had already joined to himself in the womb of the Virgin. For the Word was the bridegroom, and human flesh was the bride. And both are the one Son of God and likewise the Son of man. That womb of the Virgin Mary where he became the head of the church was his bridal chamber. He came forth from there like the bridegroom from his bridal chamber, as Scripture foretold: And he, as a bridegroom coming forth from his bridal chamber, has rejoiced as a giant to run the way.^[2] He came forth from the bridal chamber like a bridegroom; and having been invited, he came to the wedding.

The Son of God went to the wedding so that marriage, which had been instituted by his own authority, might be sanctified by his blessed presence. He went to a wedding of the old order when he was about to take a new bride for himself through the conversion of the Gentiles, a bride who would forever remain a virgin. He went to a wedding even though he himself was not born of human wedlock. He went to the wedding not, certainly, to enjoy a banquet but rather to make himself known by miracles. He went to the wedding not to drink wine but to give it.

As one who was renewing and refashioning the very nature of humanity for the better, Christ not only imparts his blessing to those already called into being but also prepares grace in advance for those soon to be born and sanctifies their entrance into existence. And yet, there is still another reason why Jesus was at this wedding. God had said to the woman. . . in pain you shall bring forth children.^[1] How else could we escape a condemned marriage unless this curse was annulled? This curse too the Savior removes because of his love for humankind. For he who is the delight and joy of all honored marriage with his presence so that he might expel the ancient sadness of childbearing.

When Christ was present at the marriage feast, and the crowd of guests were faring sumptuously,

The supply of wine failed them, and their joy was turned into distress;

The bridegroom was upset; the cupbearers muttered unceasingly;

There was this one sad display of penury,

And there was no small clamor in the room.

Recognizing it, the all-holy Mary

Came at once and said to her son: They have no wine,

But I beg you, my son, show that you can do all things,

Thou who has in wisdom created all things.

We beg of you, holy Virgin, from what sort of miracles did you know

How your son would be able to offer wine when He had not harvested the grapes

And had never before worked wonders, as John, inspired of God wrote?^[1]

Teach us, how, when you had never gazed upon

And never made trial of His miracles,

How did you summon Him to this miracle?

For the question now posed to us in this matter is not simple,

As to how you said to your son: Give them wine,

He who has in wisdom created all things.

Let us learn the word which the mother of the God of all said to us:

Listen, she said, my friends, instruct yourselves and know the mystery;

I have seen my son working miracles even before this miracle.^[2]…

For I know that I did not know a husband,

And I bore a son—beyond natural law and reason,

And I know that I remained a virgin as I had been.

Do you, O man, ask for a miracle greater than this birth?

Gabriel came to me saying how this one would be born,

He who has in wisdom created all things.

After my conception, I myself saw Elizabeth call me Mother of God before the actual birth;^[3] after the birth, Simeon praised me in song;^[4]

Anna greeted me with joy;^[5] the Magi from Persia hastened to the manger,

For a heavenly star proclaimed the birth in advance;

Shepherds with angels heralded joy,

And creation rejoiced with them.

What would I be able to ask for greater than these miracles?

Indeed from them I have faith that it is my son Who has in wisdom created all things. KONTAKION ^[1]

Perhaps his mother, as mothers do, incited him to perform a miracle, wishing that the greatness of her son would be revealed—and thinking that the lack of wine offered the right occasion for the miracle.

We know from the Gospel of St. Luke that Jesus greatly honored his mother since he tells us that Jesus was subject to his parents.^[1] … For where parents throw no obstacle in the way of God’s commands, it is our duty to be subject to them. But when they demand anything at an unseasonable time or cut us off from spiritual things, we should not be deceived into compliance.

He chides his mother for having importunely reminded God, who has no need to be reminded of anything. It is as if he had said, Do not regard me only as a man but also as God. Not yet has the time of my manifestation come. Not as yet is it known who I am.

Although the Evangelist himself mentions Jesus’ mother by her very name, Jesus nevertheless addresses her with the words Woman, what have I to do with you? But here he is not pushing her away from himself since he had received flesh from her. Rather, his purpose is to convey the conception of his divinity, which is especially appropriate at this time when he is about to change the water into wine. This is the divinity that had made that woman [Mary] rather than being made in her.

The most blessed Mary said to him, They have no wine. Jesus answered as though he were displeased. Woman, he said, is that my concern or yours? It can hardly be doubted that these were words of displeasure. However, this I think was only because his mother mentioned to him so casually the lack of earthly wine, when he had come to offer the peoples of the whole world the new chalice of eternal salvation. By his reply, My hour has not yet come, he was foretelling the most glorious hour of his passion and the wine of our redemption, which would obtain life for all. Mary was asking for a temporal favor, but Christ was preparing joys that would be eternal. Nevertheless, the Lord in his goodness did not refuse this small grace while greater graces awaited.

With [Jesus], nothing is incomplete or done at the wrong time, just as with the Father there is nothing haphazard. The Lord checked Mary’s untimely haste when she was urging him to perform the wonderful miracle of the wine and wanting him to partake of the cup, which would have so much emblematic significance later on. This is why he said, Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come—waiting for the hour that was foreknown by the Father.

There is… nothing that would compel us to deny the mother of the Lord occasioned by the words spoken by him, Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come.^[1] Rather, he admonishes us to understand that, in respect of his being God, there was no mother for him. [When he spoke to her] it was as he was preparing to demonstrate of his personal majesty^[2] in the turning of water into wine. But as regards his being crucified, he was crucified in respect of his being man. And that was the hour that had not come as yet.

But Christ, seeing His mother saying, Grant me this request,

At once said to her: What do you wish, woman, my hour has not come.

Certain men made use of this saying as a pretext for impiety;

They said that Christ submitted to necessity,

They said that He was a slave to periods of time.^[1]…

Now answer, my child, said the all-holy mother of Christ,

Thou who dost control with measurement the periods of time, how, my son and Lord, dost Thou await a time?

Thou who hast regulated the division of the seasons, how dost thou await a season?

Thou who art the creator of the visible and the invisible,

Thou who, as master, dost day and night regulate

The ceaseless revolutions, as Thou dost will them—

Thou who hast defined the years in beautifully ordered cycles—

How, then, dost Thou await a time for the miracle which I ask of Thee

Who hast in wisdom created all things?

I knew before you told me, revered Virgin, that the wine was just beginning to give out for them,

The Ineffable and Merciful straightway answered His holy mother.

I know all the concerns of your heart which you set in motion in this matter;

For within yourself you reasoned as follows:

‘Necessity now summons my son to a miracle,

And He puts it off under the pretext of the time. ’

Holy mother, learn now the meaning of the delay,

For when you know it, I shall grant you this favor,

I, who in wisdom have created all things. KONTAKION ^[1]

At the time when I brought forward Heaven and Earth and all things from a state of nonexistence,

I would have been quite able at that time to arrange in order at once all that I had produced;

But I introduced a certain well-regulated order.

Creation was accomplished in six days—

Not that I did not have the power,

But in order that the chorus of angels, seeing what I did, each deed in turn,

Would deify me, singing a hymn: ‘Glory to Thee, Powerful One,

Who hast in wisdom created all things.’…

Mark what I say, holy one; for at this time I was willing first

To announce to the Israelites and to teach them the hope of faith,

In order that in the presence of miracles they might learn thoroughly who has sent me,

And that they might know with certainty the glory of my Father,

And his will, for He desires that in every way

I be glorified along with Him by all.

For what He who engendered me has done, these things I also do,

Since I am consubstantial with Him and His Spirit,

I, who have in wisdom created all things.

For if they had understood all these things at the time when they saw the awesome miracles,

They would understand that I am God before time, even though I have become man.

But now, contrary to order, before the teaching, you have asked for miracles;

And it is for this reason that I delayed a short time in answer to you:

If I was waiting for the time to perform miracles,

It was for this reason alone.

But, since it is necessary that parents be honored by their children,

I shall pay observance to you, Mother, for I am able to do all things,

I, who have in wisdom created all things. KONTAKION

Why, after he had said, My hour has not yet come, and denied his mother’s initial request, did he do what his mother told him to do? The main reason was so that those who opposed him and thought that he was under subjection to the hour might have sufficient proof that he was subject to no hour. For if he was, how could he have done this miracle before the hour appointed for it? He also wished to show honor to his mother and let it eventually become evident, in the company of so many, that he had not contradicted the woman who had bore him.

He would not dishonor his mother, since he orders us to honor our father and mother.

There was a reason why the Evangelist says, After the manner of the purifying of the Jews. [He said this] so that none of the unbelievers might suspect that lees had been left in the vessel and then water was poured upon them and mixed with them in order to make a very weak wine. Therefore he says, After the manner of the purifying of the Jews, to show that those vessels were never receptacles for wine. Palestine is an arid country with few fountains or wells. They used to fill water pots with water so that they would not always have to go to the rivers if they became defiled, but rather could have the means of purification readily at hand.

Why did our Lord change nature at the beginning of his signs, if it was not to show that the divinity that changed nature in the interior of the jars was the same that changed nature in the womb of the virgin? And at the conclusion of the signs, he opened the tomb to show that the insatiable nature of death would not keep hold of him; he confirmed and ratified these two uncertainties of his birth and of his death. As to their nature, these waters were turned into the [fruit of] the vine; their stone vessels were not changed within their own nature. They were a symbol of his body, which was wonderfully conceived in a woman, and in a marvelous way by [the intervention of] no man within the virgin. He thus made wine out of water to teach about the manner of his conception and birth. He called upon the six jars as witness to the one virgin who gave birth to him; for the jars conceived in a unique way that was not customary for them, and they brought forth wine, and then they did not continue to produce [it]. Thus did the virgin conceive and give birth to Immanuel, and then she ceased and did not continue [to give birth]. The offspring of the jars was from smallness to grandeur, and from vileness to excellence, for from water came good wine. In this case [the birth from the virgin], however, it was from grandeur to weakness and from glory to contempt. Yet in the case of these jars, they were for the purification of the Jews, and our Lord poured his instruction into them, to teach that he came in the way [found in] the Law and the Prophets, and he transformed everything by his teaching, just as wine [was made] from water.

Let Cana thank you for gladdening her banquet!

The bridegroom’s crown exalted you for exalting it,

And the bride’s crown belonged to your victory.

In her mirror allegories are expounded and traced,

For you portrayed your church in the bride,

And in her guests, yours are traced,

And in her magnificence she portrays your advent.

Let the feast thank him, for in multiplying his wine

Six miracles were beheld there:

The six wine jugs set aside for water

Into which they invited the King to pour his wine. HYMNS

When these words of the Gospel, which are certainly clear, are understood, all those mysteries that lie hidden in this miracle of the Lord will be opened…. He omitted none of the ancient Scriptures, that is, the water, and for that reason they were called senseless by the Lord because they still tasted water, not wine. But how did he make wine from water? When he opened their understanding to them and explained the Scriptures to them, beginning with Moses through all the prophets. Now, intoxicated by this, they said, Was not our heart burning on the road when he opened to us the Scriptures?^[1] For they understood Christ in these books in which they had not known him.

Therefore our Lord, Jesus Christ, changed water into wine; and what was tasteless acquires taste, what was not intoxicating intoxicates. For if he has ordered the water poured out of them and so himself put in wine from the secret hollows of creation from which he also created the bread when he satisfied so many thousands… thus he could have also, after the water had been poured out, poured in wine. But if he had done this, he would have seemed to have repudiated the old Scripture.

But when he turned the water itself into wine, he showed us that the ancient Scripture comes from him too; for by his order the jars were filled. This Scripture, too, is indeed from the Lord. But it has no taste if Christ is not understood in it.

Addressing the expectant servants, he said, Fill the jars with water. The servants promptly obeyed, and suddenly in a marvelous way the water began to acquire potency, take on color, emit fragrance and gain flavor—all at once it changed its nature completely! Now this transformation of the water from its own substance into another testified to the powerful presence of the Creator. Only he who had made it out of nothing could change water into something whose use was quite different. Dearly beloved, have no doubt that he who changed water into wine is the same as he who from the beginning has thickened it into snow and hardened it into ice. It is he who changed it into blood for the Egyptians and bade it flow from the dry rock for the thirsty Hebrews—the rock that, newly transformed into a spring, was like a mother’s breast refreshing with its gentle flow a countless multitude of people.

He did not add up to the brim without reason, but so that the suspicion might not arise that if there had only been a little bit of water, the wine had been mixed [with it] and that he, by cheating their taste, had just simulated the change of the water into wine. Those who drew the wine [from the jars] also distributed it.^[1]

Our Lord wanted the power of his miracles to be seen gradually, little by little. And, if the servants had related what had happened they would have been thought mad in testifying to something that was done by someone who at the time appeared to be a mere man. Although they knew for certain what they had experienced (for it was unlikely that they would disbelieve their own hands), yet that would have been insufficient to convince anyone else. And so Jesus did not reveal it to everyone but to the one who was best able to understand what had happened, reserving a clearer understanding of what had happened for a later time…. And [he had made] not just any wine, but the best wine.

According to the will of the one who gave the command, the water was changed into wine, slaking the thirst of those who drank but also providing wine more abundantly for the couple’s future.

He who did not want to change stones changed water at Cana.

On the wedding day in Galilee, water was made wine. Do we have appropriate words or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared and was replaced by the full flavor of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation that was not a beginning but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing entity perished, and a new entity came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperiled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not get up or busy himself. He does the work without any effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the one who draws it out. Those who poured expect water to be drawn; those who draw out think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.

That it was wine then, and the best of wine that had been made, not the servants only, but the bridegroom and the steward of the feast would testify. Those who drew the water would testify that it was made by Christ. Thus, although the miracle was not revealed right at that moment, yet in the end it could not be passed by in silence since so many and such convincing testimonies had been provided by Christ for the future. The servants were witnesses that Jesus had made the water wine. The steward of the feast and the bridegroom [could testify] that the wine that was made was good.

It was not what they saw happening that the disciples believed but what could not be seen by bodily eyes. They did not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of the Virgin—that was something they knew. Rather, they believed that he was the only Son of the Most High, as this miracle proved. And so let us too believe wholeheartedly that he whom we confess to be the Son of man is also the Son of God. Let us believe not only that he shared our nature but also that he was consubstantial with the Father; for as a man he was present at the wedding, and as God he changed the water into wine. If such is our faith, the Lord will give us also to drink of the sobering wine of his grace.

By this sign he made manifest that he was the King of glory,^[1] and so the church’s bridegroom. He came to the marriage as a common human being, but as Lord of heaven and earth he could convert the elements as he wished. How beautifully appropriate it is that when he began the signs that he would show to mortals while he was still mortal he turned water into wine. [But] when he had become immortal through his resurrection, he began the signs that he would show only to those who were pursuing the goal of immortal life…. Therefore, let us love with our whole mind, dearly beloved, the marriage of Christ and the church, which was prefigured then in one city and is now celebrated over the whole earth.

[Jesus] once changed water into wine by a word of command at Cana of Galilee. Should we not believe him when he changes wine into blood? It was when he had been invited to an ordinary bodily marriage that he performed the wonderful miracle at Cana. Should we not be much more ready to acknowledge that to the sons of the bridal chamber^[1] he has granted the enjoyment of his body and blood?

When Christ, as a sign of His power, clearly changed the water into wine

All the crowd rejoiced, for they considered the taste marvelous.

Now we all partake at the banquet in the church

For Christ’s blood is changed into wine

And we drink it with holy joy,

Praising the great bridegroom,

For he is the true bridegroom, the Son of Mary,

The Word before all time who took the form of a servant,

He who has in wisdom created all things. KONTAKION

The other three authors of the Gospels say that after the Lord’s struggle with the devil, he withdrew into Galilee.^[1] Matthew and Luke, however, say that he was in Nazareth first after these events and that he left there and went to settle in Capernaum.^[2] Matthew and Mark also mention a reason for his withdrawal from there: he had heard that John had been delivered up.^[3]…

We must let the reader know, then, that the truth of these accounts lies in the spiritual meanings, because if the discrepancy is not solved, many will dismiss the Gospels as not credible, or not written by a divine spirit or not successfully recorded. The composition of these Gospels, in fact, is said to have involved both. Let those who accept the four Gospels and who think the apparent discrepancy is not to be solved through the anagogical sense tell us when the Lord came to Capernaum in relation to the difficulty we mentioned earlier concerning the forty days of temptation that can have no place at all in John. For if it occurred six days after the time when he was baptized, since his ministry at the marriage in Cana of Galilee took place on the sixth day, it is clear that he has not been tempted, nor was he in Nazareth, nor had John yet been delivered up….

The four Evangelists… made full use of many things done and said in accordance with the prodigious and unexpected power of Jesus. In some places they have interwoven in Scripture something made clear to them in a purely intellectual manner, with language as though it were something perceptible to the senses. But I do not condemn the fact that they have also made some minor changes in what happened so far as history is concerned, with a view to the usefulness of the mystical object. Consequently, they have related what happened in this place as though it happened in another, or what happened at this time as though at another time, and they have composed what is reported in this manner with a certain degree of adaptation. For their intention was to speak the truth spiritually and materially at the same time where that was possible but, where it was not possible in both ways, to prefer the spiritual to the material.

We must ask, however, why his brothers are not invited to the wedding (nor were they present, for they are not mentioned), but they go down to Capernaum with him and his mother and the disciples.

It tends to disturb some people that in the opening portion of this Gospel reading it is said that when our Lord went down to Capernaum, not only his mother and his disciples followed him, but also his brothers. There have been heretics who supposed that Joseph, the husband of the blessed Virgin Mary, begot of another wife those whom the Scriptures call the Lord’s brothers. Others, with greater lack of faith, have supposed that he begot these of Mary herself after our Lord’s birth. But we, dearly beloved brothers, without any hesitation or questioning must be aware and confess that not only the blessed Mother of God, but also Joseph, the most blessed witness and guardian of her chastity, always remained wholly aloof from the conjugal act; and further, that those who after the customary manner of the Scriptures are called our Savior’s brothers or sisters were not their children but their relatives. Abraham spoke to Lot in the following way, I beseech you, let there be no wrangling between you and me, and your shepherds and mine; for we are brothers.^[1] Laban [said] to Jacob, Because you are my brother, why should you have to serve me for nothing?^[2] It is a fact that Lot was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother,^[3] and Jacob the son of Rebekah, Laban’s sister;^[4] but on account of their kinship they were called brothers. Because of this most common practice in the holy Scriptures, we should, as I have said, understand that the relatives of Mary and Joseph are called our Lord’s brothers.

In examining the precision of the most wise John, I asked myself what the addition of the Jews means for him. For what other nation has a feast of the Pasch? For this reason it would have been sufficient if he had said, And the Pasch was near. But perhaps, since there is a human Pasch for those who do not celebrate it according to the intention of the Scripture, and a divine one, which is the true one that is executed in spirit and truth by those who worship God in spirit and truth,^[1] he has contrasted the one said to be of the Jews with the divine one.

This account of the multitude of sellers who were cast out of the temple is given by all the Evangelists, but John introduces it in a remarkably different order. After recording the testimony borne by John the Baptist to Jesus and mentioning that he went into Galilee at the time when he turned the water into wine, and after he has also noticed the sojourn of a few days in Capernaum, John proceeds to tell us that he went up to Jerusalem at the season of the Jews’ Passover, and when he had made a scourge of small cords, drove out of the temple those who were selling in it. This makes it evident that this act was performed by the Lord not on a single occasion but twice over; but that only the first instance is put on record by John, and the last by the other three.

He found in the temple, which is also said to be the house of the Savior’s Father, that is, in the church or in the proclamation of the sound message of the church, some who were making his Father’s house a house of merchandise.

Nevertheless, in order to seek the mystery of the deed in the figurative meaning, who are they who sell the oxen? Who are they who sell the sheep and doves? They are those who seek their own interests in the church rather than those of Jesus Christ.^[1] Those who have no desire for redemption have everything for sale. They do not want to be bought; they want to sell. Yet surely it is for their good that they be redeemed by the blood of Christ so that they may attain the peace of Christ. For what profit is there in acquiring anything temporal or transitory in this world—whether it be money, or gorging oneself on food or achieving high honors from your fellow human beings? Are not all things smoke and wind? Do not all things pass on in a moment? And woe to those who want to hang on to passing things, for they pass with them!… My brothers, those who seek such things sell them. For Simon [Magus] too wanted to buy the Holy Spirit for that very reason—because he wanted to sell the Holy Spirit^[2]—and he thought that the apostles were the kind of merchants that the Lord drove out of the temple with a scourge. But he was the one who was actually such a merchant, wanting to buy what he might sell. He was of those who sell doves. For the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.^[3] Therefore, brothers, who are those who sell doves—who are they except those who say, We give the Holy Spirit? Why do they say this and at what price do they sell? At the price of their own honor. They receive for a time bishops’ seats as their price, that they may seem to sell doves. Let them beware of the scourge of ropes. The dove is not for sale; it is given gratis, for it is called grace.

He, who was to be scourged by them, was first the one who scourged.

But why did Christ use such violence? He was about to heal on the sabbath day and to do many things that appeared to them transgressions of the law. However, so that he might not appear to be acting as a rival to God and an opponent of his Father, he takes occasion to correct any such suspicion of theirs…. He did not merely cast them out but also overturned the tables and poured out the money, so that they could see how someone who threw himself into such danger for the good order of the house could never despise his master. If he had acted out of hypocrisy, he would have only advised them, but to place himself in such danger was very daring. It was no small thing to offer himself to the anger of so many market people or to excite against himself a most brutal mob of petty dealers by his reproaches and the disruption he caused. This was not, in other words, the action of a pretender but of one choosing to suffer everything for the order of the house. For the same reason, to show his agreement with the Father, he did not say the holy house but my Father’s house. See how he even calls him Father, and they are not angry with him. They thought he spoke in a more general way, but when he went on and spoke more plainly of his equality, this is when they become angry. ^[1] THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE WHIP. HERACLEON (VIA ORIGEN): [Heracleon says] that those found in the temple selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting, represent those who give nothing away free but suppose the entrance of foreigners into the temple to be a matter of merchandise and profit. They furnish the sacrifices for the service of God for the sake of their own profit and greed…. The whip, in turn, was made from cords by Jesus, who did not receive it from another…. The whip is an image of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit who blows away the wicked…. The whip, the cord, the linen, and all such things are an image of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit…. The whip was tied to a piece of wood.^[1] The wood is a type of the cross… that the gamblers, the merchants and all evil have been nailed upon and destroyed by this wood. ^[2]

Having a symbolic purpose in mind, Jesus obscured his intent with allusions instead of stating plainly what he was doing. He thought that his hearers could not understand yet what he said. The disciples themselves did not understand either, as the Evangelist observes. They believed that by driving away the sellers of cattle and sheep, he abolished the market, but in truth what he meant was that the sacrifices of animals would be abolished.

Now Christ is especially jealous for the house of God in each of us, not wishing it to be a house of merchandise or that the house of prayer become a den of thieves, since he is the son of a jealous God…. [These words] set forth the fact that God wishes nothing alien to his will to be mingled with the soul of anyone, but especially with the soul of those who wish to receive [the teachings of the] most divine faith.

He says that this handiwork is the temple of God, thus declaring, Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.^[1] Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to himself, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. He was speaking, however, it is said, of the temple of his body. And not only does he [the apostle] acknowledge our bodies to be a temple, but even to be the temple of Christ.

Our Lord’s driving out of the temple people who were seeking their own ends, who came to the temple to buy and sell, is symbolic. For if that temple was a symbol it obviously follows that the body of Christ, the true temple of which the other was an image, has within it some who are buyers and sellers, or in other words, people who are seeking their own interests and not those of Jesus Christ.

But the temple was not destroyed by the people who wanted to turn the house of God into a den of thieves, and neither will those who live evil lives in the Catholic church and do all they can to convert God’s house into a robber’s den succeed in destroying the temple. The time will come when they will be driven out by a whip made of their own sins.

This temple of God, this body of Christ, this assembly of believers, has but one voice and sings the psalms as though it were but one person. If we wish, it is our voice; if we wish, we may listen to the singer with our ears and ourselves sing in our hearts. But if we choose not to do so it will mean that we are like buyers and sellers, preoccupied with our own interests.

He then is eaten up with zeal for God’s house who desires to correct all that he sees wrong there. And if he cannot correct it, he endures and mourns…. Let the zeal for God’s house consume every Christian wherever he or she is a member…. In your house you busy yourself in trying to prevent things going wrong. In the house of God, where salvation is offered, ought you to be indifferent?… Do you have a friend? Admonish him gently; a wife or husband? Admonish them too…. Do what you are able, according to your station.

But was there a need for a sign before putting a stop to their evil practices and freeing the house of God from such dishonor? Was not the fact that he had such great zeal for the house of God the greatest sign of his virtue?… They did not however remember the prophecy but asked for a sign, at once irritated that their shameful traffic was cut off, while at the same time expecting to prevent him from going further. For this dilemma, they thought, would oblige him either to work miracles or give up his present course of action. But he refuses to give them the sign, as he did on a similar occasion, when he answers them that an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet^[1]—only the answer is more open there than here. He however who even anticipated people’s wishes and gave signs when he was not asked, would not have rejected here a positive request, had he not seen that their minds were wicked and false and their intention was treacherous…. As it was, Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

It is likely, moreover, that what has been recorded in the Gospels according to Matthew and Mark in the name of the false witness who accuses our Lord Jesus Christ at the end of the Gospel^[1] contains a reference to the saying, Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days. For he… was speaking about the temple of his body, but they, supposing that the things said here were said about the temple built from stones, accused him.

By the power to take his soul again and to raise the temple up, he declares himself God and the resurrection his own work: yet he refers all to the authority of his Father’s command. This is not contrary to the meaning of the apostle, when he proclaims Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God,^[1] thus referring all the magnificence of his work to the glory of the Father. For whatever Christ does, the power and the wisdom of God does…. Christ was raised from the dead by the working of God, for he himself worked the works of God the Father with a nature indistinguishable from God’s. And our faith in the resurrection rests on the God who raised Christ from the dead.

Both, however (I mean the temple and Jesus’ body), according to one interpretation, appear to me to be a type of the church, in that the church, being called a temple,^[1] is built of living stones, becoming a spiritual house for a holy priesthood,^[2] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone.^[3] And through the saying, Now you are the body of Christ and members in part,^[4] [we know] that even if the harmony of the stones of the temple appear to be destroyed, [or,] as it is written in Psalm 21,^[5] all the bones of Christ appear to be scattered in persecutions and afflictions by the plots of those who wage war against the unity of the temple by persecutions—we know that the temple will be raised up and the body will arise on the third day after the day of evil that threatens it and the day of consummation that follows. For the third day will dawn in the new heaven and the new earth,^[6] when these bones, the whole house of Israel,^[7] shall be raised up on the great day of the Lord, once death has been conquered.^[8] Consequently, the resurrection of Christ too, which followed from his passion on the cross, contains the mystery of the resurrection of the whole body of Christ.

Why is it that the Evangelist did not pass over this but added a correction when he said, He was talking about the temple of his body? For he did not say destroy this body but the temple, in order to reveal the God who resided within [it]. Destroy this temple, which is much greater than the Jewish one. For the latter held the law, but the former held the lawgiver; the latter had the letter that kills, but the former had the life-giving Spirit.^[1]

With perfect justice he banished the wicked from the temple, since the temple represented the temple of his body, in which there was no stain of any kind of sin.

[Christ] meant that his passion would be brief and that when he was put to death… he would raise himself up on the third day. For he himself was the true temple of God…. For when there was no justice on the earth, [God] sent a teacher, a living law, as it were, to establish his name and a new temple, to sow the seeds of true and loving worship throughout the whole earth by his words and example.

It was not the Father who divested himself of the flesh; for not the Father, but, as we read, the Word was made flesh.^[1] You see, then, that the Arians, in dividing the Father from the Son, run into danger of saying that the Father endured passion. We, however, can easily show that the words treat of the Son’s action, for the Son himself indeed raised his own body again, as he himself said: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. And he himself quickens us together with his body: For as the Father raises the dead and quickens them, so also the Son quickens whom he will.^[2]… He, therefore, who has achieved the work of our resurrection, is plainly pointed out to be truly God.

See that he was God, equal with the Father. My brothers, the apostle says, who raised him from the dead.^[1] About whom is he speaking? About the Father. He says, He became obedient unto death, even to death on a cross. For this reason, God also has raised him from the dead and has given him the name that is above every name.^[2] The Lord was raised up again and exalted. He raised him up again. Who? The Father, to whom he said in the Psalms, Raise me up, and I shall requite them.^[3] Therefore the Father raised him up again. Did he [the Son] not raise himself? But what does the Father do without the Word? What does the Father do without his only One? For hear that he also was God: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Did he say, Destroy the temple which the Father will raise up in three days? But just as when the Father raises up, the Son, too, raises up; so also when the Son raises up, the Father, too, raises up, because the Son said, I and the Father are one.^[4]

Even though it is said that the Father raises Christ, the meaning of this expression is not dubious. The unity that is between them both in all operations causes both Father and Son to be attributed with equal rights.

But how was it that many believed in him from seeing his miracles? For he seems to have performed no supernatural works at Jerusalem, unless we assume Scripture has passed over them. May not however the act of his making a scourge of small cords and driving all out of the temple be considered a miracle?

Christ does not yet commit himself to such novices, showing that affinity with God is a great thing and most worthy of love. It does not just lie there before those who want to have it but is achieved by an intense desire for good, along with diligence and time. Let the stewards of the mysteries of the Savior learn then not to suddenly admit just anyone within the sacred veils or to permit them to approach the divine tables who are neophytes who might be untimely baptized and importunely believing on Christ the Lord of all. As an example to us in this also in teaching us whom rightly to initiate, he indeed receives the believers but is seen not yet to have confidence in them in that he does not commit himself to them, making clear that it is only right that novices spend no small time under instruction, for rarely even then will they become faithful.

See how they already believed in Jesus but Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them. Why? Because they were not yet born again of water and the Spirit. Because of that we have encouraged and do encourage our brothers, the catechumens. For if you should ask them, they have already believed in Jesus. But because they do not yet receive his body and blood, Jesus has not yet trusted himself to them. What are they to do that Jesus may trust himself to them? Let them be born again of water and the Spirit. Let the church, which is pregnant with them, bring them forth. They have been conceived; let them be brought forth into the light. Let them have breasts where they may be nourished. Let them not fear that they may be choked after their birth. Let them not withdraw from their mother’s breasts.

If they believed, why did he not entrust himself to them? Clearly the words many believed in him are not said about a firm and true faith, such as the faith of those who, after believing once that his words were true, considered him as a doctor of truth, without doubting the things said by him. That kind of faith is typical of the true believers. But here, John refers to people who were astonished by the events that happened and praised him as a great and admirable man. In fact, not all of them approved his words by showing their respect for him to others. Such respect, too, is typical of true believers. So, he added, But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them. In these words there is a particular doctrine of the true faith. Indeed, the virtue of the knowledge of Christ is revealed through which he was not cheated by the outward appearance of those coming to him. Rather by recognizing precisely each of them for who they were, he knew already who were the true disciples and who were in doubt and coming to him under false pretenses.