Christ’s departure to the Gentiles served as a message to those who sought to kill him: If they did not cease their mad foolishness of persecuting and destroying their benefactor, Christ would give himself completely to the outsider and depart to the Gentiles.

It appears here that a considerable time had passed since the last events. For when our Lord sat upon the mount, it was near the feast of the Passover, and now, it is the Feast of Tabernacles. In the five intermediate months, then, the Evangelist has related nothing but the miracle of the loaves and the conversation with those who ate of them. As our Lord was unceasingly working miracles and holding disputes with people… the Evangelists could not relate all [events] but only aimed at giving those in which complaint or opposition had followed on the part of the Jews, as was the case here.

What the Feast of Tabernacles is, we read in the Scriptures. They used to make tents during the festival, like those in which they lived during their journey in the desert, after their departure from Egypt.^[1] Tractates on the

The law of Moses commanded that the Jews should hurry to Jerusalem from the surrounding countryside to celebrate there in a type the Feast of Tabernacles.^[1] And the spiritual person will from this perceive the gathering together of all the saints into Christ when they shall be brought together from the whole world after the resurrection of the dead to the city that is above, the heavenly Jerusalem, there to offer the thank offerings of the true pitching of tabernacles, that is, of the framing and permanence of bodies, corruption having been destroyed and death fallen into death.

His brothers, being led by their human thoughts, spoke these words to him. They wanted him to reveal himself before everybody through his signs so that they might also be glorified through him. They did not possess a perfect faith in him if they believed that he needed to reveal himself completely before everybody concerning the nature hidden in him and that he had to be exalted over everybody.

Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul. But all that time, while strangers were keenly interested in him, his closest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up and keep outside, but they do not go in, because they did not think much of what was going on within. They do not even wait, as if they had something that they could contribute more necessary than that which he was so earnestly doing; rather, they prefer to interrupt him and to call him away from his great task.

They advised him to pursue glory and not allow himself to remain in concealment and obscurity, appealing to altogether worldly and secular motives…. But our Lord was laying down another road to that very exaltation, that is, humility…. My time, he says, that is, the time of my glory when I shall come to judge on high is not yet come; but your time, that is, the glory of the world, is always ready…. And let us, who are the Lord’s body, when insulted by the lovers of this world, say, your time is ready: ours is not yet come.

The Savior very kindly reproves his brothers who are still too worldly-minded and disposed. And so, he brings forward a second skillful defense whereby he shows not only that they are ignorant of who he is by nature but that they are still so far removed from love toward him that they choose to live in a way conformed to those who admire living in the world instead of cultivating virtue…. [He says to them]: The world does not hate you (for you still savor that which is of it), but it hates me, nor does it take kindly to its being accused by me for its unseemly actions. Therefore, you go up safely to the feast, but I will not because I shall surely dispute with them and, being present, tell them what is for their own good. However, reproof is bitter to lovers of pleasure and good for kindling wrath in the one that receives it without a sober mind….

For the world loves sin. The Lord is a corrector of those who do not act rightly. And correction must often be attained by reproof. For the mere calling of a sin a sin is already a rebuke to those who love that sin, and the reproof of iniquity already lays blame on those who have that iniquity. And so, when necessity calls for the teacher to administer reproof, and the mode of cure requires it to happen in this way, and the one being instructed by such a rebuke against his will is exceedingly angry, then the ills of hatred must surely arise. Therefore, the Savior says that he is hated by the world in that it cannot yet bear exhortation with rebuke when it really needs to do so in order to profit from it. For the mind that is in bondage to evil pleasures gets quite angry with the advice that would persuade it to shape up. And the Savior says these things, not altogether saying that he will not go to Jerusalem or refusing to give the reproofs that may be profitable to the sinners, but minded to do this too and everything else at the proper time.

The one who blesses those who mourn because of the present age now utters similar words, saying with reference to himself something that is common to all the saints and pertains to them: It is not the time for us to feast in the middle of the present tribulations, insofar as evil still wages war and truth is rejected by the majority of people and the will of God does not hold sway on earth. For these reasons our Lord said that it was not yet his time. For the good one could not feast with the wicked, nor could he who was hated dine with those who hated him.

My time is not yet fully come. It was at the next Passover that he was to be crucified.

Or, my time, that is, the time of my glory is not yet come. That will be my feast day, not a day that passes and is gone, like holidays here. Rather, it will be a feast that remains forever. At that time there will be festivity, joy without end, eternity without stain, sunshine without cloud.

Let us examine, then, what thing to come was foreshadowed in this feast day. I have explained what this Feast of Tabernacles was. It was a celebration of tabernacles because the people, after their deliverance from Egypt wandered through the wilderness on their way to the promised land dwelling in tents. As we begin to observe what this feast is, we will see how it applies to us if we are members of Christ —but we are, he having made us worthy, not we having earned it for ourselves. Let us then consider ourselves, brothers: We have been led out of Egypt, where we were slaves to the devil as to Pharaoh, where we applied ourselves to works of clay, engaged in earthly desires and worked exceedingly hard. And, while laboring, as it were, at the bricks, Christ cried aloud to us, Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden.^[1] From there we were led out by baptism as through the Red Sea—red because it is consecrated by the blood of Christ. All our enemies that pursued us were dead, that is, all our sins were blotted out, and we have been brought over to the other side.

At the present time, then, before we come to the land of promise, namely, the eternal kingdom, we are in the wilderness in tabernacles. Those who acknowledge these things are in tabernacles; for it was destined that some would acknowledge this. That person who understands that he is a stranger in this world is, as it were, in a tabernacle. That person understands that he is traveling in a foreign country when he sees himself sighing for his native land. But while the body of Christ is in tabernacles, Christ is in tabernacles. But at that time he was so secretly and not out in the open. For as yet the shadow obscured the light. When the light came, the shadow was removed. Christ was in secret: he was there in the feast of tabernacles, but hidden. At the present time, when these things are already made known, we acknowledge that we are journeying in the wilderness. If we recognize it, then we are in the wilderness.

What is it to be in the wilderness? It is to be in the desert wasteland. Why in the desert wasteland? Because it means we are in this world, where we thirst in a way in which there is no water [to satisfy]. Yet, let us thirst that we may be filled. For blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.^[2] And our thirst is quenched from the rock in the wilderness. For the Rock was Christ, and it was struck with a rod so that the water might flow. But that it might flow, the rock was struck twice, suggesting the two beams of the cross.^[3] All these things, then, that were once done in a figure are now made known to us. And it is not without meaning that it was said of the Lord, He went up to the feast day, but not openly, but as it were in secret. For himself being in secret was what was prefigured because Christ was hid in that same festal day. For that very festal day signified Christ’s members that were to sojourn in a foreign land.

He goes up, not to suffer, but to teach. But why does he go up secretly? If he had gone up openly, he would not only have been among them, but also would have kept the violence and impetuosity [of the Jews] in check, as he had often done before. But he couldn’t keep doing this all the time, because if he had gone up openly and again blinded them, he would have disclosed his divinity to a greater degree which, for the moment, he did not want to do. And so he concealed it…. The things that Christ did in a human way were done, in other words, not only to establish the fact of his incarnation, but also to educate us on how to be virtuous. For if he had done everything as God, how would we know what to do when things happened to us that we didn’t want to have happen?

Whoever had any spark of grace said, He is a good man.… The rest say, No, he seduces the people. That something like this was said of him who was God is a consolation to any Christian of whom the same may be said. If to seduce is to deceive, Christ was not a seducer, nor can any Christian be. But if by seducing you mean bringing a person by persuasion out of one way of thinking into another, then we must inquire what the way of thinking is that you are calling them from and to. If from good to evil, the seducer is an evil person; if from evil to good, he is a good one. If only we were all called, and really were, that sort of seducers!

The former, I think, was the opinion of the multitude, the one, that is, who pronounced him a good man. The latter is the opinion of the priests and rulers, as is shown by their saying, He deceives the people not He deceives us.… Observe that the corruption is in the rulers. The common people are sound in their judgment but do not have freedom of speech, as is generally the case.

If a skilled horseman—who is able to control even the swiftest team of horses with checks of the reins and directs them wherever he likes—if he were to dash the carriage wheels against a stone, the blame would not fall on the horses but on their driver. In a similar manner, I suppose, the rulers of the Jews, who are not only honored by their people but are served and feared by them as well, if they manage their people contrary to the divine commandments, then it is they who will justly bear the responsibility for the loss of all.

The Evangelist does not say what his teaching is. That it was very wonderful, however, is shown by its effect even on those who had accused him of deceiving the people, those who turned round and began to admire him. And the Jews marveled, saying, How is this man so learned when he has never been instructed? See how perverse they are even in their admiration. It is not his doctrine they admire, but another thing altogether.

All, it would appear, admired, but all were not converted. Where then did the admiration come from? Many knew where he was born and how he had been educated but had never seen him learning letters. Yet now they heard him disputing on the law and bringing forward its testimonies. No one could do this who had not read the law; no one could read who had not learned letters; and this raised their wonder.

Their wonder might have led them to infer that our Lord became possessed of this learning in some divine way and not by any human process. But they would not acknowledge this and contented themselves with wondering. So our Lord repeated it to them when he answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Doctrine that is of God, then, is one thing; doctrine that is human is another. So when the Jews, regarding him as man, called into question his teaching and said, How does this man have such learning when he has never been taught? Jesus answered and said, My teaching is not mine. For in teaching without elegance of letters, he seems to teach not as [a] man but rather as God who, instead of learning his doctrine, originated it. For he has found and devised the entire way of discipline, as we have read above, inasmuch as of the Son of God it has been said, This is our God; no other can be compared with him. He has uncovered the whole way of knowledge and shown it to his servant Jacob and to Israel, whom he loved. Only then did [Wisdom] appear on earth and live among human beings.^[1] How, then, could he, as divine, not have his own doctrine—he who has found the entire way of discipline before he was even seen on earth?

My doctrine, he says, is not mine, but his that sent me. This is the first profundity. For he seems as if in a few words to have spoken contrary things. For he does not say, This doctrine is not mine but My doctrine is not mine. If it is not yours, then how is it yours? If it is yours, then how is it not yours? For you say both my doctrine and not mine. For if he had said this doctrine is not mine, there would have been no question…. The subject of inquiry, then, is that which he says: My, not mine. This appears to be contrary. What does he mean by my and not mine? If we carefully look at what the holy Evangelist himself says in the beginning of his Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, this is where the solution of this question hangs. What then is the doctrine of the Father, but the Father’s Word? Therefore, Christ himself is the doctrine of the Father, if he is the Word of the Father. But since the Word cannot be of no one but [must be] of someone, he said both his doctrine, namely, himself, and also not his own because he is the Word of the Father. For what is so much yours as yourself? And what is so much not yours as yourself, if what you are is of another?… Therefore, to speak briefly, beloved, it seems to me that the Lord Jesus Christ said, My doctrine is not mine, meaning the same thing as if he said, I am not from myself.

Jesus says that his teaching belongs to God the Father either because Jesus’ teaching is exactly like that of God the Father or because Jesus himself is the wisdom of the Father, through which the Father speaks and orders all things.

He tells them, You will fully know that my doctrine comes from God the Father when you choose to follow his will rather than your own…. He justly accuses them because they unreasonably mock what he teaches, even though God the Father consents and agrees with what he is teaching, and (what is also true) even co-teaches and co-interprets [with Jesus]… No person of sound mind would ever think that Jesus here casts aspersions on his own words. Rather, he is saying that his words will never be anything other than in agreement with the will of God the Father. For the Father speaks by his own Word and Wisdom and offspring. But that [offspring] in no way speaks differently from the [Father]. How could it?

The fact that Jesus does not teach anything foreign to the law is clear proof that he does not labor for his own glory through his teaching, for if he did, he would speak of himself. Rather, he is exhorting them to be obedient to the former prophecies while he removes only the unprofitable and coarse shadow of the letter and transforms it persuasively into the spiritual sense, which already lay hidden in types. Here, Christ intimates what he says in the Gospel according to Matthew, I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.^[1]

If, he says, I wanted to avert you from God and draw you to me, it would have been evident that I was teaching you a doctrine contrary to God. But since I lead you to him through my words, it is clear and evident that these words that are said to you are just and that those who want to reprove them as sinful words have no reason to do so.

If, he says, you really defend the law of Moses, prove to me that you actually preserve it, and tell me why you want to kill me: this is contrary to the law more than any other violation.

The people return an answer quite distant from the subject, only showing their angry feelings…. He who cast out devils was told that he had a devil…. Our Lord, however, in no way disturbed but retaining all the serenity of truth, returned not evil for evil or railing for railing.

For all that they saw going on in the world was of his working, but they did not see him who made all things. But he did one thing—he made a man whole on the sabbath day—and they were all in commotion. They almost seem to imply that if any one of them had recovered from a disease on the sabbath, it was someone else who had made them well rather than he who had offended them by making one man whole on the sabbath.

Jesus then employs a very convincing argument: Moses, he says, established circumcision and the sabbath and ordered that men were to be circumcised on the sabbath. But Moses established the sabbath out of convenience. Indeed, at that time nobody observed it…. He also established circumcision needlessly because it had been already established by the patriarchs. But he established this rule [about circumcision] too, in order to teach that this observance [of the sabbath] does not exist when there are cases of necessity and that sometimes it must be broken. If the sabbath can be broken for circumcision, because Moses ordered it so—and this is not considered to be a violation of the law—why then do you think the fact that a man was healed on the sabbath is a violation of the law? And, he added, making them ashamed: Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment. If a transgressor of the law is one who performs something on the sabbath, the first one to be blamed should be Moses. But if Moses is not considered to be a transgressor of the law, my action is the more excellent and I am even more above reproach.

Many sources in Scripture tell us that we should do no work on the sabbath. We are to rest as it were and quit doing all those tasks that invite sweat and labor. For he says in Exodus, Six years you shall sow your land and gather in the fruit, but in the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie still.^[1]… Now, it is not the land—which does not even know what work is—that he releases; nor is it to the land that he gives this law. It was given to those who possessed the land. He gave rest to the land so that they would not work on it. In this and many other ways he pointed toward our feast with Christ, a feast in which those who have lived in divine fear will hurry toward that perfect and complete liberty that is in holiness and will run to that most wealthy grace of the Spirit. This is clear in the commands themselves of Moses. It is written, If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.^[2] We, who were originally slaves to sin, had, after a fashion, sold ourselves to the devil by taking pleasure in evil. But now, being justified in Christ through faith, we shall mount up to the true and holy keeping of the sabbath, clothed with the liberty that comes through grace and glorified with the good things of God.

Tell me, did God want the priests to sin when they offer the sacrifices on the sabbath? Or did he want those to sin who are circumcised and do circumcise on the sabbaths, since he commands that on the eighth day—even though it happens to be a sabbath—those who are born shall always be circumcised? Or could not the infants be operated upon one day previous or one day subsequent to the sabbath, if he knew that it is a sinful act on the sabbaths? Or why did he not teach those who are called righteous and pleasing to him, who lived before Moses and Abraham, who were not circumcised in their foreskin and observed no sabbaths—why did he not teach them to keep these institutions?

The Lord reproved those who unjustly blamed him for having healed on the sabbath days. For he did not make void but fulfilled the law by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for people, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick and himself suffering death, that exiled people might go forth from condemnation and might return without fear to their own inheritance.

It requires a lot of work in this world to stay clear of the vice our Lord has noted in this place. It is difficult to maintain sound judgment and to stop judging by appearances. His admonition to the Jews is an admonition to us as well…. Let us not judge, then, by appearances, but hold to sound judgment. But who is it who does not judge according to appearances? It is the one who loves [all] equally. When there is equal love for all, then we do not accept people on the basis of who they are. We are not talking about a situation where we honor people in a different way because of their different degrees of status. This is not an instance where we should be afraid that we are accepting people on the basis [of who they are]. For instance, there may be a case to decide between father and son. We should not put the son on an equal footing with the father in point of honor. But, in respect of truth, if the son has the better cause, we should give him the preference. In this way we give each their due so that justice does not destroy merit.

The Evangelist adds, from Jerusalem, for the greatest display of miracles had been there. And there the people were in the worst state, seeing the strongest proofs of his divinity and yet willing to give up all to the judgment of their corrupt rulers. Was it not a great miracle that those who raged for his life, now that they had him in their grasp, all of a sudden became quiet?

Now the power appears that was thought to be timidity: he spoke publicly at the feast, so much so that the multitude marveled…. They knew the fierceness with which he had been sought for. They marveled at the power by which he was not taken.

So, not fully understanding Christ’s power, they supposed that it was owing to the knowledge of the rulers that he was spared…. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

This notion did not arise without foundation. We find indeed that the Scriptures said of Christ, He shall be called a Nazarene^[1] and thus predicted where he would come from…. And the Jews again told Herod, when he inquired, that Christ would be born in Bethlehem of Judah and adduced the testimony of the prophet.^[2]… How then did this notion of the Jews arise, that, when Christ came, no one would know where he came from? It arose from this reason, that is, that the Scriptures asserted both. As man, they foretold where Christ would come from. As God, he was hidden from the profane but revealed himself to the godly…. This notion they had taken from Isaiah, Who shall declare his generation?

Our Lord replies that they both knew him and knew him not, as if to say, you both know where I come from and do not know where I am from. You know where I am from, that I am Jesus of Nazareth, whose parents you know. The birth from the Virgin was the only part of the matter unknown to them:… with this exception, they knew all that pertained to Jesus as man…. So he says rightly, You both know me and know where I am from, that is, according to the flesh and the likeness of man. But in respect of his divinity, he says, I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true.

No one knows the Father; the Son often assures us of this. The reason why he says that no one knows him but himself is because he is from the Father. Is it, I ask, as the result of an act of creation or of a genuine birth that he is from him? If it is an act of creation, then all created things are from God. How then is it that none of them know the Father, when the Son says that the reason why he has this knowledge is that he is from him? If he is created, not born, we shall observe in him a resemblance to other beings who are from God. Since all, on this supposition, are from God, why is he not as ignorant of the Father as the others are? But if this knowledge of the Father is peculiar to him who is from the Father, must not this circumstance also be peculiar to him, that is, that he is from the Father? That is, must he not be the true Son born from the nature of God? For the reason why he alone knows God is because he alone is from God. You observe, then, a knowledge that is peculiar to himself, resulting from a birth that also is peculiar to himself. You recognize that it is not by an act of creative power but through a true birth that he is from the Father. And you realize that this is why he alone knows the Father who is unknown to all other beings that are from him.

The Lord introduces two opinions about himself: (1) that they know where he comes from, since his mother is Mary; and (2) that he has something they do not know, since he is and has come from God. Therefore, he would not be a presumptuous person or a self-appointed teacher but had rather arrived at his teaching because God the Father sent him. Moreover, God who had sent him was not known to them because they kept themselves as far apart as possible from the God of true knowledge inasmuch as they revolted from his purpose and deeds. It is quite reasonable that he would know the Father, since he himself was with him. One knows one’s relatives and household best.

Every person is born in the flesh; yet does not universal consciousness make every person spring from God? How then can Christ assert that either he or the source of his being is unknown? He can do so only by assigning his immediate parentage to the ultimate author of existence. And, when he has done this, he can demonstrate their ignorance of God by their ignorance of the fact that he is the Son of God…. Now he who came is not the author of his own being; but he who sent him is true whom the blasphemers do not know. He it was who sent him; and they do not know that he was the sender. Thus the sent one is from the sender; from him whom they do not know as his author. The reason why they do not know who Christ is, is that they do not know from whom he is. None can confess the Son who deny that he was born; none can understand that he was born who has formed the opinion that Jesus is from nothing. And indeed Jesus is so far from being made out of nothing that the heretics cannot tell from where he is.

[Jesus says this] to debar heresy from the violent assumption that his being from God dates from the time of his advent. The gospel revelation of the mystery proceeds in a logical sequence. First he is born, then he is sent. Similarly, in the previous declaration, we were told of ignorance, first as to who he is and then as to from where he is. For the words I am from him, and he sent me contain two separate statements, as also do the words You know me, and you know where I am from.

His saying, however, Whom you know not, irritated the Jews, who professed to have knowledge. And they sought to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. Mark the invisible check that is kept on their fury, though the Evangelist does not mention it but preserves purposely a humble and human way of speaking in order to impress us with Christ’s humanity. Therefore, he only adds, Because his hour was not yet come.

They wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him—as if they were prevented by divine power—because the time had not come yet in which his passion had to be accomplished. From this it appears that he could not be arrested by them if he did not want to be.

[They did not lay hands on him] because he did not want them to…. For our Lord was not born subject to fate. You must not believe this even of yourself, much less of him by whom you were made. And if your hour is in his will, is not his hour in his own will? His hour then here does not mean the time that he was obliged to die, but the time that he decided to be put to death.

The Lord made whole the humble and the poor. The rulers, however, were mad and therefore not only did not acknowledge the Physician but even were eager to kill him. There was a crowd of people that quickly saw its own sickness, though, and without delay recognized his remedy. Look at what that very crowd, moved by his miracles, said: When Christ comes, will he do more signs than these? Unless there are two Christs, this is surely the Christ.

Why, he says, are you eager to arrest me, and why do you try to do something that is not in your power? Just wait a little bit, and I will give myself over to you. Indeed, after my death, I go to my Father, and by directing myself to him, I will certainly withdraw from you. And I will be exalted over you so that, even though you look for me, you may not find me. And even though you want to, you cannot come to where I am because I will be exalted over you in glory and honor. But the Jews did not understand a single word of this. And this is not surprising, because not even the disciples, as we have already demonstrated many times, could understand the words that were said at that time. At the end they learned these things from the facts.

Here Jesus is saying: I was sent to give you life, and with long suffering to bring back to God those who had stumbled through sin. I came to remove death which had fallen upon human nature because of transgression. I came to instill the divine and heavenly light in those in darkness and, moreover, to preach the gospel to the poor, to give recovery of sight to the blind, to preach deliverance to the captives, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.^[1] But, since it seems good to you in your senselessness to drive away the one who offers you such a rich bounty of heavenly goods, after a little while I will take myself back to him from whom I came, and you shall repent. Then, consumed by unavailing hindsight you will weep bitterly for yourselves and while you eagerly look to find the giver of life, you shall not be able to enjoy the one for whom you long. Having once turned aside and departed from my love towards you, I shall wholly deny you that which you seek.

Will he go to the Gentiles and teach them? They did not understand this at all. And yet even their mistake is an unwitting prophecy of our salvation. The Lord would indeed go to the Gentiles, not in his own person, but by his feet. What were his feet? Those which Saul desired to trample upon by persecution when the Head cried out to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?^[1]… He sent to us those whom he had made his members, and so made us his members.

They did not mean that our Lord was going to the Gentiles for their harm but rather to teach them. Their anger had subsided, and they believed what he had said. Otherwise, they would not have thought of asking each other what the saying was, [i.e., You shall seek me, and shall not find me and Where I am, you cannot come.]