The Divine Lamp

Text in red, if any, represent my additions. More commentaries on the daily readings can be found at my primary blog.

Mat 17:22  (17:21) And when they abode together in Galilee, Jesus said to them: The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

Christ reiterates His prophecy concerning His Cross and Passion, which He uttered first at Cæsarea Philippi (Matt 16:22), that the disciples might not be affrighted, nor scandalized when the time came, nor fall from faith in Him as the Messiah, because He suffered such a shameful death. For the Cross was an offence to the Apostles, so that they all forsook Him and fled. The Cross therefore needed to be again and again preached to them, and impressed upon them, so that they might know that Christ did not suffer it because He was compelled, but of His own will, and in obedience to the Father’s will; that He might redeem mankind. Moreover He reiterated this preaching of the Cross in Galilee, after He had healed the lunatic when He came down from Tabor, and the Galileans on account of that miracle had given Him great praise and honour, as we may learn from SS. Mark and Luke, in order that He might repress any vain-glorious thoughts which were likely to arise in the minds of the Apostles, by putting them in mind of His Cross and Passion.

Mat 17:23  (17:22) And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again. And they were troubled exceedingly.

And shall kill Him, &c. When the Apostles heard speak of Christ being put to death, because they were unwilling that He should die, and that they should be separated from Him by death, He alleviates this their sorrow by adding, And the third day He shall rise again. But they did not understand these words of Christ. They were not able to receive them. Whence they were, for a long time, doubtful concerning His resurrection. And this was why Christ by many apparitions and miracles was obliged to convince them that He had really risen again, so that He might root out all doubt from their minds.

Mat 17:24  (17:23) And when they were come to Capharnaum, they that received the didrachmas, came to Peter, and said to him: Doth not your master pay the didrachma?

And when they were come, &c. . . . didrachmus, the Syriac adds, poll tax, as paid by each individual. Pay tribute, the Arabic has, pay what is due. The collectors do not make an assertion, but ask a question, because these tax-gatherers were newly in office, or at least had fresh servants, who did not know, or did not remember that in the year which was past, Christ had paid the tribute at Capernaum, as other people did.

Didrachmus.  That is, a half shekel, equal in value to two Spanish reals. The shekel weighed four didrachma. See what I have said on Ex 30:13. Baronius and others are of opinion that this didrachma was the sacred half shekel, which was required by the Divine law to be paid to the temple. (Ex 30:13.)

There God ordained that every Israelite male of twenty years old and upward should pay a half shekel for the service of the Sanctuary. This was when a census was taken. But subsequently, the Jews of their own accord, out of devotion, and that they might more entirely fulfil the law, decreed that all should pay this half shekel every year for the sustentation of the Priests and Levites, for repairing the temple, for furnishing victims for the sacrifices, and many other similar purposes. All this is plain from 2Chron 24:5-7: also from Josephus, who shows that the Jews who lived at a distance from the Holy Land were accustomed to collect this sacred didrachma, and send it to the temple at Jerusalem. (Jos. Ant. xviii. 12).

But the tribute here spoken of was a civil tax, and payable either to the Romans, or to Herod Antipas. This is seen from Christ’s words to Peter—The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or custom, of their own children, or of strangers? This then was royal tribute, and payable either to a king or an emperor. The same thing is plain from xxii. 21, where the Herodians ask Christ, “whether it were lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar or not?” The origin of this tribute being levied was a little before the time of Christ, when, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the grandsons of Simon Maccabæus were contending which should have the high priesthood. Pompey, being called in to arbitrate between them, adjudged it to Hyrcanus: but the people of Jerusalem, who favoured the other candidate, restored it to Aristobulus. After that Pompey took Jerusalem, and reduced Judea to subjection to Rome, and exacted an annual tribute. Moreover because the Jews were accustomed to pay a didrachma to the temple, they were also ordered by the Romans to pay the same sum to them, until after the rebellion, when Jerusalem was besieged and captured by Vespasian, and the temple destroyed, he ordered them to pay that didrachma to the Roman capitol. The Jews greatly disliked paying this tribute to the Romans. They said that they were the people of God, and therefore free; and that they ought to pay tribute to Him, not to Cæsar. This feeling it was which gave rise, about the time of Christ, to the sect of the Galilæans, whose leader was Judas of Galilee, who refused all payment of tribute to Cæsar, and all acknowledgment of his authority. Christ and His Apostles were suspected of belonging to this sect, because they were Galilæans, and were preachers of the new, heavenly kingdom. In order therefore that Christ might show the groundlessness of this imputation, He, on the present occasion, paid the didrachma. So S. Jerome, Bede, Jansen, and others. The collectors of the tribute did not venture to ask Christ Himself for it, on account of the fame of His sanctity and miracles; but they said to Peter, in private, is not your Master accustomed to pay the didrachma?

Mat 17:25  (17:24) He said: Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying: What is thy opinion, Simon? The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or custom, of their own children, or of strangers?
Mat 17:26  (17:25) And he said: Of strangers. Jesus said to him: Then the children are free.

He said, yeas: Peter asserted that it was Christ’s custom, as he had seen in previous years, always to pay this tribute.

When He was come into the house, hired by Christ at Capernaum, as I have said, Matt 4:13. Personally, I think the view that Christ stayed in Peter’s house when in Capernuam is more plausible.

Jesus prevented him. Christ being conscious in His spirit of the conversation which had passed between Peter and the tax collectors, prevented him, i.e., first asked him about the matter, and showed that He was not under obligation to pay this tribute. The kings of the earth, &c. It is an argument from the less to the greater, as S. Chrysostom teaches: in this way, the children of kings, of common right, are free from the tribute paid to kings. Much more therefore am I, together with My Apostles, who are My family; I, I say, who am king of kings, and the true and only begotten Son of God Himself, free from every kind of tribute which the kings of the earth impose upon their subjects. So S. Jerome and others.

Wherefore certain Canonists are wrong in gathering from this reasoning of Christ that the clergy, by Divine right, are exempt from all taxes. For by parity of reasoning it might be concluded that all Christians are exempted from payment of taxes, as the Anabaptists assert. For Christians are the adopted children of God, born again in baptism. The falsehood of this idea is shown by the Apostle (Rom_13:7) and the whole Church: for this adoption pertains to a higher order of inheritance, even a Heavenly one. Properly, however, in accordance with these words of Christ, kings and princes have exempted ecclesiastics, who are of the household and family of Christ, from the payment of taxes. And this is all which is meant by S. Jerome and the Canons when they say that the clergy are exempt from taxes, not only by human but Divine right; because, in truth, Divine right intimates that this exemption ought to be conceded. (See Lessius de Justitia, l. 2, c. 33, dub. 4, where he shows that the exemption of the clergy from paying taxes is not of Divine but of human right.)

Mat 17:27  (17:26) But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast in a hook: and that fish which shall first come up, take: and when thou hast opened it’s mouth, thou shalt find a stater: take that, and give it to them for me and thee.

But that we may not scandalize, &c. It is as though He said, lest the collectors should be offended, and think we despise Tiberius Cæsar, as a Gentile, and reject his authority, like Judas of Galilee. Piece of money, Greek and Vulgate stater: this is the same as the Hebrew shekel, namely a pound. For formerly money not stamped was paid by weight. The shekel weighed four drachmæ, which were equivalent to four Spanish reals, or a florin of Brabant. Observe, Christ here afforded an example of justice, humility and obedience, and taught that Christianity is not opposed to civil government, but is rather an aid and advantage to it.

For Me and thee. You will ask why Christ only paid this tribute for Himself and Peter? I answer, He did not pay for the rest of the disciples, either because, as Lyra thinks, only the heads of families were bound to pay this tribute, or because the disciples of Christ were poor men. Wherefore Christ tacitly desired that they should be excused by the tax gatherers on account of their poverty or because they belonged to other places, and had already paid the tribute in those cities. Lastly, Abulensis thinks that for all the Apostles, who had wives and children, and therefore were heads ot families, this didrachma was paid out of the common coffer which Judas carried; and that Matthew only related the payment of Christ’s didrachma because of the miracle of its being found in the mouth of the fish, that He might show that He was not under an obligation to pay it, nor was subject to Cæsar. For Peter, however, Christ paid, both because Peter was the instrument of the exaction, as well as of the payment, as also because Peter had a house and family at Capernaum. It was also honoris causa, to intimate that Peter was the vicar of his Church and household, and destined by him to be the head and prince of the rest of the Apostles. So SS. Chrysostom, Jerome, Origen, and others.

Moraliter: Learn from hence Christ’s zeal for poverty, that He had not at home so much as one shekel to pay the tribute, but obtained it miraculously from a fish that he might teach that God by means of fishes and the rest of the creatures provides necessary things for the poor in spirit, as He provided food for Elias by the ministry of ravens.

Joh 10:11  I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep

I am the good Shepherd, &c. I, the one only Prince of Shepherds, who will lay down My life for My sheep, to redeem them by My death from death, and confer on them both present and eternal life. Neither prophets, nor apostles, nor any one else could do this. For though they were slain for the sake of the faithful, yet they did not redeem them, sanctify, or beatify them. So Rupertus, Chrysostom, &c. S. Augustine adds that the prophets and apostles are counted as one and the same shepherd with Christ, as being under Him, sent also and guided and protected by Him. Christ therefore is that special and singular Pastor foretold by Ezekiel 34:23. (See notes in loc.)

Christ passes from the parable of the door to the more striking parable of the Shepherd. He is the door by which the sheep enter, and also the Shepherd of the sheep: that is not any ordinary one, but the chief, special, and Divine Shepherd. And He enters through the door, that is, by Himself and His own authority.

Besides this Christ rejoices in the title of Shepherd, as being most appropriate and most sweet. He used to be thus represented in very ancient pictures, at Rome, as carrying a sheep on His shoulders. Many of the patriarchs, who were types and ancestors of Christ, were shepherds, learning thereby (says Philo) to be shepherds of men, &c. “If therefore thou wishest to know and to discharge the office of a true Pastor, see how a shepherd treats his sheep. Be so eminent in doctrine and sanctity among thy faithful ones, as to appear like a rational pastor among the irrational sheep, and as an angel among men.” (S. Chrysostom) He attends to his sheep one by one; let him lead them into richer pastures. He goes before them by his virtuous example, as S. Paul exhorts Titus (Titus 2:7). As a parish priest he drives away all heretics and hurtful persons. And let him feed his flock with sound doctrines and sacraments, and not fatten himself on the milk of his flock (Ezek. xxxiv. 2). Let him not be mercenary, seeking his own profit, paying court to the well-to-do and noble, and despising the rustics and mean of his flock. For Christ went about villages and towns, preaching the Gospel to the poor (Matt.xi.). Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, was a noble example of this; he refused to exchange his poor bishoprick for a wealthier one, saying that he could render a better account at the day of judgment for his few sheep and small gains than he could for greater ones. For he said, “If men did but know how exact an account would be required, they would not seek to obtain great and wealthy bishoprics.” (Sanders in Schism. Angl.) A good shepherd tenderly feeds and fosters the lambs and delicate ones of his flock (see Ezek 34:4). And so does a parish priest and a bishop. (See the life of S. Abraham written by S. Ephrem.) He came from being an anchoret to be the pastor of a wild and barbarous people, and though cruelly entreated by them, brought them by his indomitable patience, gentleness, and charity, to submit to the laws of Christ.

Jacob, like a true shepherd, watched over his flock by day and night (Gen 31:40); and shepherds were watching over their flocks by night when Christ was born. So too should a parish priest or a bishop vigilantly watch over his flock, as his first duty. A shepherd risks his own life in guarding his sheep. So should a parish priest, when persecution or pestilence threatens; as did SS. Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil, Ambrose. Lastly, S. Peter, the chief pastor of the Church, lays down notes for the pastors under him (1 Pet 5:2). See also S. Gregory (in Pastorali), S. Bernard (de Consider. ad Eugenium), and S. Augustine (Tract de Pastoribus et Ovibus).

All these duties are summed up in charity, for charity supremely loves God, and for His sake the faithful committed to its care by God. (See also chap. xxi. 15.)

The good Shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. This does not relate so much to the parable itself, as to that which is signified by it. For the natural Shepherd ought to count his own life of greater value than the lives of his sheep. And yet he ought to protect his sheep even at the risk of his life. But the shepherd of souls is bound, by his duty, to expose his bodily life to danger, for the spiritual life of the faithful committed to his charge. And hence he is bound to stand by them in the time of the plague, or provide some other qualified person to administer the sacraments to the sick, as did S. Charles Borromeo: and for this reason was canonised. And so also all the apostles, excepting S. John, suffered martyrdom for the sake of the faithful committed to their care. And so also nearly all the Roman Pontiffs down to S. Sylvester. But the leader of them all was Christ, who alone, as the best of Shepherds, laid down His life as a ransom, while all the others did so merely to manifest their faith, and as a pattern of virtue.

Joh 10:12  But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

But he that is an hireling, &c. An hireling seeks not the good of the sheep but merely his own profit. “Hirelings are they,” says S. Augustine, “who seek their own things, and not the things of Christ and of the sheep.” So too S. Basil. But the apostles, though they fed not their own sheep, but the sheep of Christ, were not hirelings, because they sought not their own temporal gain, but the spiritual and eternal gain of the faithful. “He is called a hireling, and not a shepherd,” says S. Gregory (Hom. xiv.), “who feeds the Lord’s sheep, not from deepest love, but for worldly gain. The hireling is he who holds the post of a shepherd, but seeks not to gain souls; is eager for earthly advantages, rejoices in the honour of the prelacy, feeds on temporal gains, delights in the reverence paid to him by men.”

Seeth the wolf coming. “For in a time of tranquillity,” says S. Gregory, “very often the hireling, as well as the true shepherd, stands on guard over the flock. But the approach of the wolf shows the temper of mind with which they did so. The wolf attacks the sheep when the violent and the spoiler oppress those who are faithful and humble. But he who seemed to be a shepherd and was not, leaves the sheep and runs away, because through fear for himself he does not venture to withstand his injustice.”

Fleeth: “Not by change of place,” says S. Gregory, “but by withdrawing support. He flies, because he saw injustice and held his peace: he flies, because he conceals himself by silence. To whom the prophet well says, “Ye have not gone up against him, nor raised up a wall for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord” (Ezek 13:5).

And the wolf catcheth them, i.e. A heretic, or any wicked man, who strives to pervert the faithful by word or example, or (as S. Gregory says) “the devil, who seizes them when he draws away this man to luxury, inflames another with avarice, puffs up another with pride, parts asunder others through anger, stimulates another with envy, supplants another by deceit. The devil therefore scatters the flock when he kills the faithful by temptations. But the hireling is not inflamed by zeal against such attacks, is not enkindled by any warmth of love. Because by looking after mere outward advantages, he carelessly takes no account of the inward injury which is done to the flock.”

And hence, Christ leaves it to be gathered by contrast that the good shepherd when he sees the wolf coming neither flies nor forsakes his sheep, but stands firm and fights for them even to death, and in this way lays down his life for them. But when it is allowable for a pastor to fly when persecuted, and when not, see notes on S. Matt 10:23. Also S. Augustine (Epis. clxxx. ad Honoratum). I use on this matter the words of S. Gregory the more freely, because he had full experience of those things in his own person.

Joh 10:13  The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. As though it were said directly, he who loves not the sheep, but worldly gain, cannot stand firm when the sheep are in danger. For while he is aiming at honour, and rejoicing in worldly gain, he is afraid of exposing himself to danger, lest he should lose that which he loves. For no one takes such diligent care for that which is another’s as he does for his own. And therefore the hireling cares more for his own life than for the sheep which are not his; and flies when the wolf comes, as caring more for his own life than for the sheep.

Joh 10:14  I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

I am the good shepherd, and know My sheep. Christ knows His sheep not merely with the watchful and tender eyes of His Godhead (as 8. Cyril says), but also with the eyes of His manhood (for it is as man that He is the Pastor of His Church). He knows who are His faithful ones, what are their gifts, and also what are their weaknesses, that He may increase the one, and heal the other. He knows them therefore not merely speculatively, but practically, and heaps on them all His gifts, benefits, and graces.

And am known of Mine, with the eyes of faith, hope, and charity, because they believe in Me, hope in Me, and love Me above all things. “Because I love them, they love Me in return, for love is the loadstone of love: if thou wishest to be loved, thou thyself must love. Love is the powerful allurement of love.” So Theophylact. And besides this His love of us, He inspires in us love for Him in return. And this love is our highest good, leading us to heaven and making us blessed.

Joh 10:15  As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

As the Father knoweth Me, &c. By this comparison Christ points out both the origin and also the greatness of the love which He bestows on His sheep. The boundless knowledge and love which exists between the Father and Myself, is the source of the love which exists between Myself and My faithful ones. Both because divine and uncreated love is the source of all human and created love; and also because it is the Father’s will that I should love My faithful ones with great and special love, as He loves Me, and I love Him with boundless affection; for He wishes to adopt My faithful ones through Me who am His Son by nature, and He therefore loves them supremely as His children. And I do the same, because I submit in all things to the love and will of the Father; nay more, My love is the same as the Father’s, as our will, our nature, and our Godhead is the same.

But here note the word “as” signifies similarity, not equality. For the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father with uncreated, and therefore infinite love. But the Son, as man, loves His own with a created and finite love, and is loved with a like love by them in return. But there will be here also a kind of equality, if with Maldonatus you explain it thus: “When Christ says, I know My sheep, He speaks as God; but when He says, The Father knoweth Me, and I know My Father, He speaks of Himself as man. For just as Christ (as God) knows His sheep, and His sheep as men know Him in return; so the Father, as God, knows the Son as man, and the Son, as man, acknowledges His Father, and calls Him Father, as we do ourselves. ‘I ascend to My Father, and your Father’” (Joh_20:17).

And I lay down My life for My sheep. This refers back to verse 14. “I know My sheep,” I love them, i.e., most ardently, and therefore I lay down, i.e., I will shortly lay down, My life for them. He put in the words, “as the Father knoweth Me,” to represent the source and the intensity of His love for His people, by His love for the Father, for it was this love which urged Him to lay down His life for His sheep. But the words “I lay down” signify that the death of Christ was not compulsory, but voluntary, self-chosen, and even loved for their salvation. So Leontius. And Christ thus expresses Himself below (ver. 18). “No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.” And the words also signify, “I lay it down for a time, in order to take it again.” The death of Christ therefore was not so much a death as the placing His soul for three days in Limbus.

Joh 10:16  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

And other sheep I have, &c. Other sheep, i.e., those who will be My sheep. This is spoken by anticipation. He means the Gentiles, and thus predicts their call and conversion, to show that He was to be the King and Shepherd of all nations, just as up to this time He had been of the Jews: and that, consequently, He did not care (comparatively) whether the Jews (few as they were in number) would be unbelieving and rebellious, since He was about to put countless Gentiles in their place. So Rupertus, who adds, “and they will hear My voice,” striking quietly at the Jews.

And there will be one fold, and one shepherd. Some suppose that in the end of the world, God will convert all the Jews by Elias, and all the Gentiles by Enoch, and thus there will become one Church, made up of them both, and one Pastor, Christ, and His Vicar the Supreme Pontiff, who will be called the Angelic Pastor. (See the list of hopes, described symbolically, in the life of S. Malachi.) But they are in error. For neither will Elias convert all the Jews, nor Enoch all the Gentiles. For there will be then many unbelievers and followers of antichrist. But this is far from being the meaning of Christ. It was, that after His death and resurrection His apostles would be dispersed among all nations, and convert them, so that both Jews and Gentiles would be gathered into one Church of believers, under one Shepherd, Christ, and His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff. This is not to be looked forward to as something future, for it took place in the time of Constantine the first Christian emperor, who christianised nearly all the nations which were subject to him. The Apostle graphically sets this before us (Eph.2)

Joh 10:17  Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.

Therefore doth the Father love me, &c. Lest the Jews should despise Him as a mere man who would die on the Cross, He meets the objection by saying that His death would be glorious, and an object of desire, because He could of His own accord submit to it from love of, and obedience to the Father, and therefore to be loved, honoured, and exalted, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, &c. (Philippians 2:10).

I lay down My life, i.e., My soul. So S. Augustine and others, who from this passage prove that Christ had a human soul, in opposition to Apollinarius, who maintained that His Divinity was in the place of a soul. But others understand by it “life,” which is caused by the union of soul and body. It comes to the same thing. That I may take it again. I do not destroy it but only lay it aside for a short time, that I may rise and take it again. S. Cyril refers back to the words “My Father loveth Me.” He loves Me not merely because I set My sheep free by My death, but also because I quicken them by My rising again. As S. Paul says, Rom 4:25.

Joh 10:18  No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself. And I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. For though the Jews are about to slay Me by force, yet this force of theirs would not avail against Me, unless I allow it of My own accord. And again, “Though I allow it, yet it is still in My power to die, or not to die. For by My Godhead I can impart such strength to My manhood, that it cannot be destroyed by any nails, blows, scourgings, or wounds which I suffer by My own will; just as I support the bodies of the beatified, and render them impassible.” So Toletus. And hence Christ on the Cross cried aloud and gave up the ghost to show that He died without compulsion, and of His own accord, when He might, had He so willed, have lived on. For He who had strength to cry aloud, had strength also to live, so that the centurion beholding this said, “Truly this was the Son of God” (Matt 27:54).

I have power, &c. By My mighty and glorious Resurrection, which My soul will effect through the Power of My Divinity, hypostatically united to it. He here signifies that He is God as well as man; as man He lays down His life, as God He resumes it. So S. Cyril.

This commandment have I received of My Father. This was the reason for laying down His life. He was so ordered by the Father, lest the Jews should object “You have taken this duty on yourself, that Thou mightest be worshipped, as the Mediator, Messiah, and Saviour of the world.” It is hence clear that it was a weighty commandment He received, that of suffering and dying on the Cross. “He became obedient” (to the commandment of the Father, for obedience properly so called presupposes a command, and is in fact its correlative; for obedience is that which is ordered, and a command implies obedience, for it is the formal object of obedience) “even to the death of the cross.” So S. Cyril, S. Ambrose (de Fide, v. 5), & Thomas, Suarez and others. But this command did not physically compel the will of Christ to obey it. It left it free. But it pertained to the Person of the Word to “prevent” the will of Jesus by supplies of grace, to which It foresaw it would willingly consent, and obey the command. And it was in this respect, that is in consequence of the continual keeping (custodiam) of the Word, that the manhood of Christ was said to be extrinsically impeccable, not because the Word predetermined It, but because It supplied It with fitting aids, with which It foresaw it would freely obey the command. For by this foreknowledge of future conditional events the freedom of Christ’s will is fully preserved (see Suarez, part iii. Quæst. xviii.). And by this generous obedience in so difficult a matter, Christ obtained salvation for us, and glory for Himself. Set then, 0 Religious, this command of the Father, and this obedience of Christ before thine eyes, when any difficult task is imposed on thee by thy Superior.  R. Juda says admirably (Pirke Avoth. cap. v.), “Be daring as a leopard, swift as an eagle, nimble as a deer, courageous as a lion, to do the will of thy Father which is in heaven”

More resources for this coming Sunday’s Mass can be found on my primary blog.

Chap. xi. 1, 2. Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha. And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.

With a purpose does the Evangelist make mention of the names of the women, showing that they were distinguished for their piety. Wherefore also the Lord loved them. And of the many things which probably had been done for the Lord by Mary, he mentions the ointment, not at haphazard, but to shew that Mary had such thirst after Christ that she wiped His feet with her own hair, seeking to fasten to herself more really the spiritual blessing which comes from His holy Flesh; for indeed she appears often with much warmth of attachment to have sat close to Christ without being distracted by interruption, and to have been drawn into friendly relationship with Him.

3      His sisters therefore sent unto Him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick.

The women send to the Lord, ever wishing to have Him near them, but on this occasion sending under a fair pretext on account of him who was sick. For they believed that if Christ would only appear the sufferer would be set free from his disease. And they gently remind Him of the love which He had for the sick man, drawing Him thither especially by this means; for they knew that He took thought for this man. And He was able, even though absent, to heal him, as being God and tending all things; nevertheless, they thought that if He were present, He would put forth His hand and awaken him. Not even they possessed as yet the perfection of faith, wherefore also they are troubled, as it seems probable, with the thought that Lazarus would not have been ill at all, had not Christ neglected him: for, say they, since such as are beloved by God possess all good things, why is he whom Thou lovest, sick? Or perhaps they even say: Great is the audacity of the sickness, because it dared to attack such as are beloved by God. And it may be too that they |111 seem to say something of this sort. Since Thou lovest and healest even Thine enemies, much rather oughtest Thou to confer such benefits on them that love Thee. For Thou art able to do all things by merely Thy Will. Therefore their language is full of faith and proves their close relationship to Christ.

4 But when Jesus heard it, He said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.

The Lord now says this, not that the men may go away and report it to the sisters of Lazarus, but as God foretelling what should come to pass, because He saw that the conclusion of the affair would be for the glory of God; not that the sickness came upon the man for this reason, that He should be glorified; for it would be silly to say this; but since it had come, He also saw that it would result in a wonderful end. And He says that Himself is in His Nature God, for that which is done, is done for His glory. For after saying that the sickness was for the glory of God, He added: That the Son of God may be glorified thereby, speaking concerning Himself.

And if He Himself said that the sickness of Lazarus was not unto death, and yet his death took place, there is nothing to marvel at. For looking on to the final result of the affair, and seeing that He was going to raise him up after a little time, we do not consider anything that took place in the interval, but only how the end would result. For the Lord determined to set forth the weakness of death, and to shew forth all that happened as for the glory of God, that is, of Himself.

6 When therefore He heard that he was sick, He abode at that time two days in the place where He was.

And He deferred His arrival in order that He might not heal him while sick, but raise him when dead; which is a work of greater power, so that He would be more greatly glorified. |112

7, 8 And after this He saith to His disciples, Let us go into Judaea again, His disciples say unto Him. Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone Thee; and goest Thou thither again?

Now when the Lord said: Let us go into Judaea again, He seems almost to declare “Even though the people there are unworthy of kindness, yet now that an opportunity presents itself of conveying them some advantage, let us go back to them;” but the disciples in their love for Him think it right to try to hinder Him, and moreover as men they suppose that He would be unwilling to put Himself in peril by going amongst the Jews. Wherefore also they remind Him of the madness of the Jews against Him, all but saying: “Why again dost Thou seek to be amidst the unbelieving and ungrateful people who are not softened either by Thy words or even by Thy works? who even yet are of murderous intent against Thee, and who are boiling with passionate rage?” Either then they say this, or their language signifies that He is leading them into evident danger. Nevertheless, they are obedient to their Teacher, as to One Who knows what is best.

9, 10 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If therefore a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he may see the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because the light is not in him.

Perhaps He compares to the ever-moving course of the day, the easily-swayed and novelty-loving mind of men, which is not established in one opinion, but vacillates from one way of thinking to another, just as the day changes from one hour to another. And thus also thou wilt understand the words: Are there not twelve hours in the day? That is, “I,” says He, “am the Day and the Light. Therefore, just as it is not possible for the light of the day to fail, without having completed its appointed time; so it is not among possibilities that the illumination which proceeds from Me should be shrouded from the Jews, without having fully reached its fitting measure of |113 philanthropy.” And He speaks of the time of His presence as “day,” and of that before it as “night;” as also when the Lord says: We must work the works of Him that sent us, while it is day. This therefore is what He here says: “It is not now a time for Me to separate Myself from the Jews, even though they be unholy, but I must do all things that pertain to their healing. For they must not now be punished, by having the Divine grace (like the light of the sun) withdrawn from them. But just as the light of the day does not fail until the twelve hours have been completed, so the illumination that proceeds from Me is not shrouded before the proper time; but until I am crucified I remain among the Jews, sending forth unto them like light the understanding of the knowledge of God. For since the Jews are in the darkness of unbelief, and so stumble at Me as at a stone, I must go back to them and enlighten them, that they may desist from their madness in fighting against God.”

11     These things spake He: and after this He saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep: but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

“A worthy cause draws Me towards Jerusalem;” for so much is signified by the words: Our friend is fallen asleep; “and if we should let it pass neglected, we should incur the reputation of being devoid of compassion. Wherefore we must avoid the disgrace of such conduct, and run to the help of our friend, despising the plots of the Jews.” And shewing His own God-befitting power, He calls the departure of the human soul from the body by the name of sleep, and very rightly: for He does not think it proper to call it death, Who created man for immortality, according as it is written, and made the generations of the world to be healthful. Moreover, the language is also true, because the temporary death of our body is in the sight of God really a sleep and nothing different, brought to an end by a mere and single sign from that which is by nature Life, namely, Christ. And |114 notice that He did not say: “Lazarus is dead and I go to raise him to life,” but says: “He is fallen asleep,” avoiding boastfulness, for our instruction and profit; for [without some such good reason] He would not have uttered a sentence so obscure in its hidden meaning that not even the disciples themselves understood what was said. For He did not say: “I go to quicken him into life” or “to raise him up from the dead,” but “that I may awake him out of sleep;” which was at the time insufficient to suggest His real meaning.

12, 13 His disciples therefore said, Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover. Now Jesus had spoken of his death; but they thought that He spake of taking rest in sleep.

They, not understanding the force of the words, thought that Jesus spake of taking rest in sleep, which when sick men can do, they generally experience refreshment; wherefore the disciples say: “It is not worth while to go and disturb Lazarus from his sleep, for it does not benefit a sick man to awake him out of sleep.” And this they said, wishing to hinder Him from the journey by remarking that it was not meet to go into the midst of those murderers for the sake of doing something which would produce no good result.

14, 15 Then Jesus said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

The disciples therefore not understanding that He had called death by the name of sleep, He made His meaning clearer, saying: He is dead. And He says that He is glad, not out of a love of glory, because He was going to do the marvellous deed, but because this was going to become for the disciples a ground of faith. And the words: I was not there, signify as follows: “If I had been there, he would not have died, because I should have had pity on him when he was suffering only a little; but now in My absence his death has taken place, so that, by raising him |115 life, I shall bestow upon you much advantage through your faith in Me.” And Christ says this, not as being able to do God-befitting deeds only when He was present; but because if He had been present, He could not have neglected His friend until the occurrence of death. And He says: Let us go unto him, as unto a living person; for the dead, inasmuch as they are destined to live, are alive unto Him as God.

16 Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with Him.

The language of Thomas has indeed zeal, but it also has timidity; it was the outcome of devout feeling, but it was mixed with littleness of faith. For he does not endure being left behind, and even tries to persuade the others to adopt the same resolution: nevertheless he thinks that they are destined to suffer [death] at the hands of the Jews, even against the will of Christ, by reason of the murderous passion of the Jews; not looking at the power of the Deliverer, as he ought rather to have done. And Christ made them timid, by enduring with patience beyond measure the sufferings He experienced at the hands of the Jews. Thomas therefore says that they ought not to separate themselves from their Teacher, although undoubted danger lay before them; so, perhaps with a gentle smile, He said: Let us go, that is, Let us die. Or he speaks thus: Of a certainty if we go we shall die: nevertheless let us not refuse to suffer, for we ought not to be cowardly to such a degree; because if He raises the dead, fear is superfluous, for we have One Who is able to raise us again after we have fallen.

17, 18, 19 So when Jesus came to Bethany, He found that he had been in the tomb four days already. Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, fifteen furlongs off; and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.

He mentions also the length of days that had intervened after the death of Lazarus for this reason, that the miracle |116 may be the more marvelled at, and lest any one should chance to say that He had come after one day, and that Lazarus was not dead, but He had raised him up from sickness. And he says that many Jews were in Bethany, although the place was not a populous one, being come out of Jerusalem; for the distance of road between the two places was not so great as to hinder their sincere friends from being with Martha and Mary. And since the miracle was talked about by all in Jerusalem and the country round about, he gives the reason, that as there were many people there, the story was naturally spread abroad in all directions; some telling what had been done from admiration, and others through envy, to attach a false accusation to the miracle through their lying account of it.

20 Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him; but Mary still sat in the house.

Perhaps Martha was the more eager to do such things as might be necessary; wherefore also she first went and met Him: but Mary was the more intelligent. Wherefore, as possessing a more sensitive soul, she remained at home, receiving the attentions of her consoling friends; but Martha, as a simpler person, started off, intoxicated indeed with her grief, but nevertheless acting with more vigour.

21, 22, 23, 24    Martha therefore said unto Jesus, Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. And even now I know that, whatsoever Thou shalt ask of God, God will give Thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha answered Him, 1 know that he shall rise again at the last day.

What Martha says, amounts to this. “Not for this reason,” she says, “did my brother die, because the nature of man is subject to death; but because Thou wast not present, Who art able by Thy word to conquer death.” But in her grief, wandering beyond propriety, she considered that the Lord was no longer able to do anything, as the time for help had gone by; and she thought that |117 He had come, not for the raising again of Lazarus, bat that He might console them. For softly and gently she reproaches Him for His tardiness in not immediately coming when it would have been possible for Him to help them, when they sent saying: Lord, behold, he whom Thou lovest is side. And the words: Whatsoever Thou shalt ask of God He will give Thee, are the words of one who is almost afraid to ask plainly what she wishes; nevertheless she stumbles concerning the truth in that she speaks not as to God, but as to one of the saints; His being seen in the flesh causing her to think that whatsoever He should ask as a saint, He would receive from God; not indeed knowing that, being in His Nature God and the Power of the Father, He possesses irresistible might over all things. For if she had known that He was God, she would not have said: If Thou hadst been here; for God is everywhere. Through His aversity to arrogance, however, the Lord did not say: “I will raise up thy brother,” but: “He shall rise again;” all but softly rebuking her and saying: “He indeed rises again as thou wishest, but not as thou thinkest. For if thou supposest that it will be accomplished by prayer and supplication, take upon thyself the part of prayer, but do not bid Me do it, Who am a Wonder-worker, able by My own Might to raise the dead.” The woman having heard this and being ashamed now to say: “Raise him to life,” yet in some degree instigating Him to do the work at once, seems somewhat to be saddened at the postponement of the time, saying: “I know that he shall rise again at the last day, but I long to see before that time the resurrection of my brother.” Again when the Lord said: Thy brother shall rise again, the woman all but signifies her agreement with this doctrine, saying: “I know that; for I believe that the dead will be raised, according as Thou didst teach: For the hour cometh, and they shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done ill, unto the resurrection of judgment. And likewise Isaiah also in the Spirit said: The dead shall be raised and they that are in the tombs shall |118 be awakened. For I do not disbelieve in the doctrine of the resurrection, as the Sadducees do.”

25, 26, 27 Jesus said unto her, I am the Resurrection and the Life; he that believeth on Me though he die, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth on Me, shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto Him. Yea, Lord: I have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even He that cometh into the world.

Assuredly a fruit and reward of faith in Christ is eternal life, and in no other way does this come to the soul of man. For although we are all raised to life through Christ, yet this [eternal life given to the faithful] is the true life, namely, to live unendingly in bliss; for to be restored to life only for punishment differs nothing from death. If therefore any one notices that even the saints, who have received promises of life, die; this is nothing, for it is only what naturally comes to pass. And until the proper time has been reserved the display of the grace [of resurrection], which is powerful, not partially, but effectually, in the case of all men, even of those saints who have died in time past and are tasting death for a short time, until the general resurrection. For then, together, all will enjoy the good things. And in saying: Though he die, yet shall he live, the Saviour did not take away the death in this present world: but admits that it has such might against the faithful that it naturally happens to them, and no more; because He has reserved the grace of resurrection until the proper time. He certainly says: “He that helieveth on Me shall not be without a participation in the death of the flesh in the ordinary course of human nature, but nevertheless he will suffer nothing worthy of fear in this, as God is able easily to make alive whomsoever He will.” For he that believeth on Him, hath in the world to come an endless life in bliss and perfect immortality. Wherefore let not any of the unbelieving mock: for Christ did not say: “From this present moment he shall in no wise see death,” but when He said |119 absolutely: “He shall never see death in any wise,” He spake concerning the world to come, reserving the end of the promise until then. And saying unto Martha: Believest thou? He demands the confession of faith as the parent and patron of the [eternal] life; and she readily assented and accurately confesses: not simply believing that He is a Christ and a Son of God; for a prophet also can be a christ, by reason of being anointed, and the same person can be understood to be a son [of God]: but using the definite article and saying: “The Christ, the Son of God,” she confessed the Only and Preeminent and True Son. Therefore her faith was on the Son, not on a creature.

Believest thou in this?

Having previously explained the force of the mystery in Himself, and shown plainly that He is by Nature Life and Very God, He demands assent to the faith, furnishing in this matter a model to the Churches. For we ought not quite vainly to cast our words into the air when we confess the venerable mystery, but to fix the roots of the faith in heart and mind and then to let it bear fruit in our confession; and we ought to believe without any hesitation or double-mindedness. For the double-minded man is insolent and halting as regards the faith; wherefore also he is unstable in all his ways. Nevertheless, it is necessary to know that we make the confession of our faith unto God, although we are questioned by men, I mean those whose lot it is to minister in sacred things, when we say the “I believe” at the reception of Holy Baptism. Certainly therefore to speak falsely and to slip aside towards unbelief is a most aweful thing; lest we may have as both Judge and Witness of our folly the Lord of all Himself, saying: Even I am a Witness, saith the Lord. And we must observe that, as Lazarus was lying dead, on his behalf in a certain way the assent to the faith is demanded of the woman, that the type in this also may have force among the Churches; for when a newborn babe is brought, either to receive the chrism of the catechumenate, or that of the complete- [Christian] -condition at Holy Baptism |120 the person who brings it repeats aloud the “Amen” on its behalf. And on behalf of those who are assailed by extreme sickness, and on that account are going to be baptized, certain persons make the renunciation [of Satan] and the declaration of attachment [to Christ], by an act of charity lending as it were their voices to those who are disabled by sickness: a thing which we see to have been done in the case of Lazarus and his sister. And Martha wisely and prudently first sows the confession of faith, that afterwards she may reap the fruit of it.

28, 29 And when she had said this, she went away, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is here, and calleth thee. And she, when she heard it, arose, and went unto Him.

She went away to call her sister, that she also might share the happiness which arose from the expected event, and receive at once in common with herself the dead one raised again beyond all hope. For she had heard the words: Thy brother shall rise again. And she told the good news of the coming of the Saviour to her sister secretly, because there were sitting by her some of those Jews who felt ill-will towards Christ for His wondrous works.

And we shall not find in the Gospels that Christ said: “Call thy sister to Me;” but Martha taking the undeniable emergency of the affair and the right due to her sister of being invited to come, as equivalent to an uttered command, she speaks as she does. And Mary readily ran towards Him, and was willing to go to meet Him. For how could she help doing this, when she was in such great grief at His absence, and had such a warm feeling of piety and great love towards Him?

30, 31 Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met Him. The Jews then which were with her in the house, and were comforting her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up quickly and went out, followed her, saying that she was going unto the tomb to weep there.

The Jews therefore who were present, thinking she had run to the tomb to tear herself [in her grief], follow her; |121 doing this by the will of God, in order that they might go in a body to see the marvellous deed, even without wishing to do so. For had this not taken place by the providence of God, the Evangelist would not have mentioned it; neither would he have written down the concurrent causes of each matter, had he not been everywhere very zealous for the truth. Therefore he stated the cause wherefore many ran to the tomb, and were found there, and became beholders of the marvellous deed, and reported it to others.

32 Mary therefore, when she came where Jesus was, and saw Him, fell down at His feet, saying, Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

Certainly Mary says that death had happened to her brother prematurely through the absence of the Lord, and says that He had come to the house, when the time for healing had passed by: and it is possible also from this to conjecture that she said this as to God Himself; although she did not speak accurately, from thinking that He was not present even though absent in the body. But being more accurate and intelligent than Martha, she did not say: Whatsoever Thou shalt ask of God God will give Thee. Wherefore to her the Lord says nothing, whereas to Martha He spake at some length. And Mary intoxicated with her grief, He does not reprove for saying: ” If Thou hadst been here“ to Him Who fills all creation; doing this also for our example, that we should not reprove those who are in an agony of mourning: and He condescends still further, revealing His human nature, and weeps and is troubled, when He sees her weeping and the Jews who came with her also weeping.

33, 34 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, He groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, and said, Where have ye laid him?

Now since Christ was not only God by Nature, but; also Man, He suffers in common with the rest that which is human; and when grief begins somehow to be stirred |122 within Him, and His Holy Flesh now inclines to tears, He does not allow It to indulge in them without restraint, as is the custom with us. But He groans in the spirit, that is, in the power of the Holy Spirit He reproves in some way His Own Flesh: and That, not being able to endure the action of the Godhead united with It, trembles and presents the appearance of trouble. For this I think to be the signification of “He was troubled;” for how otherwise could He endure trouble? Shall that Nature which is ever undisturbed and calm be troubled in any way? The flesh therefore is reproved by the Spirit, being taught to feel things beyond its own nature. For indeed on this account the Almighty Word of Glod was made in Flesh, or rather was made Flesh, that He might strengthen the weaknesses of the flesh by the energies of His own Spirit, and withdraw our nature from too earthly feelings, and transform it as it were to such feelings only as are pleasing to God. Surely it is an infirmity of human nature to be abjectly overcome by griefs, but this as well as the rest is brought into subjection, in Christ first, that it may be also in us.

Or thus we must understand the words: He groaned in the spirit and was troubled, viz:—-as equivalent to: “Being moved to compassion by reason of many weeping, He in a manner gave commandment to His own Spirit to overthrow death before the time, and to raise up Lazarus.” And it is not as being ignorant that He asks: Where have ye laid him? For He Who had known of Lazarus’ death when He was in another part of the country, how could He be ignorant about the tomb? But He speaks thus as being averse to arrogance: therefore He did not say: “Let us go to the tomb, for I will awaken him,” although asking the question particularly in the way He did has this significance. Moreover also by saying this, He prepared many to go before Him that they might shew Him that which He sought. With a set purpose therefore He said this also, drawing by His words many to the place, and appears not to know, not at all shrinking from the poverty of |123 man’s condition, although in His Nature God and knowing all things, not only those which have been, but also those which shall be, before their existence.

And the asking a question therefore does not imply any ignorance in Him Who for our sakes was made like unto us, but rather He is shown from this to be equal to the Father; for He too asks a question: Adam, where art thou? Christ also feigns ignorance and inquires: Where have ye laid him? so that through the inquiry a multitude might be gathered together to the manifestation, and that by His enemies, rather than by others, testimony should be given to the miracle of restoring to life one who was already corrupt.

36, 37 The Jews therefore said, Behold how He loved him! But some of them said, Could not this Man, which opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should not die?

Certainly the Evangelist, seeing the tearless Nature weeping, is astonished, although the suffering was peculiar to the flesh, and not suitable to the Godhead. And the Lord weeps, seeing the man made in His own image marred by corruption, that He may put an end to our tears. For for this cause He also died, even that we may be delivered from death. And He weeps a little, and straightway checks His tears; lest He might seem to be at all cruel and inhuman, and at the same time instructing us not to give way overmuch in grief for the dead. For it is one thing to be influenced by sympathy, and another to be effeminate and unmanly. For this cause therefore He permitted His own flesh to weep a little, although it was in its nature tearless and incapable of any grief, so far as regards its own nature. And even they who hate the Lord, admire His tears. For they who follow philosophy to an extreme and have a brilliant reputation therein, shed tears with the greatest reluctance, as overcoming by manly vigour every misfortune. And the Jews thought that He wept on account of the death of Lazarus, but He |124 wept out of compassion for all humanity, not bewailing Lazarus only, but understanding that which happens to all, that the whole of humanity is made subject to death, having justly fallen under so great a penalty. And others, being wounded by envy, said nothing good; for in truth they did not find fault with the Lord for suffering Lazarus to die; for this would have been the language of men who believed that He was able to stay death: but they almost speak thus: “Where is Thy might, O Wonder-worker? For behold, even when Thou wert unwilling, He who was beloved by Thee has died. For that Thou didst love him is evident from Thy weeping. If therefore that which was done to the blind man was the work of Thy might, Thou wouldst be able also to stay death, which is a similar deed beyond the nature of man.” As malignantly rejoicing therefore, because they saw His glory in a manner diminished, they say this.

38, 39 Jesus therefore again groaning in Himself cometh to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone lay against it. And Jesus saith, Take ye away the stone.

Here we understand the groaning as if it were the will struggling with a sort of movement according to its power, both because He rather sternly reproved His grief, and the tears which were about to be shed from His grief. For, as God, He in the way of a master reproves His Manhood, bidding it be manly in sorrowful circumstances; or by His God-befitting movement He distinctly lays it down that we must hence forward overthrow the powerful influence of death. And this He makes manifest by His very own Flesh, and signified by the movement of His Body that which was concealed within. And this is shown here by the expression: “He groaned,” which means, that through the outward action of His Body He indicated His hidden commotion.

And He did not roll away the stone Himself for these two reasons: first, to teach that it was superfluous to work wonders when there was no necessity for them; and |125 secondly, [to teach] that He Himself awakes the dead, but His angels will be at hand to minister in the event, whom indeed the Lord elsewhere in a parable calls reapers.

Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto Him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

It is usual to refuse to believe in the possibility of great deeds, and to be somewhat reluctant to admire is a feeling which naturally is consequent upon things beyond our experience. It seems to me that even the good Martha suffered this; for the excessive greatness of the event took from her the sure confidence of faith, and the strangeness of the hope bewilders her proper reason. And it is nothing astonishing if she who had confessed her faith is again overtaken by littleness of faith through the excessive greatness of the marvellous deed. And either solely out of honour to Christ she said: By this time he stinketh; that He might not be disgusted by the bad smell of the corpse: or she says this as if from shame. For the relatives of the dead hasten, before the body becomes ill-smelling, to bury it down in the earth, out of consideration for the living, and deeming it a dishonour to the dead that it should become an object of loathing to any.

40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou believedst, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

A most excellent thing is faith, when it is produced from an ardent mind; and it has such great power that not only is the believer healed, but in fact others also have been healed besides them that believed; as the paralytic let down [through the tiles] at Capernaum, by the faith of those who carried him; and as Lazarus, by that of his sister, to whom the Lord said: If thou believest, thou shall see the glory of God; all but saying: “Since Lazarus, being dead, is not able to believe, do thou fill up that which is lacking of the faith of him that is dead.” And the form of faith is twofold: first, dogmatic, |126 consisting of an assent of the soul to something, as: He that believeth on the Son is not judged; and secondly, a gift by the participation of grace from Christ: For to one, He says, is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another faith, which is not merely dogmatic, but also capable of effecting things beyond human power, so as even to remove mountains. The faith of Martha however, by the feebleness of her reason, fell away into unbelief. But the Lord does not permit it to remain so: He effects a speedy remedy for the suffering. For He says she must believe, that she may behold what was beyond hope. For double-mindedness is a great infirmity and deprives us of the gracious gifts of God. Wherefore, by rebuking her, [Christ] warned the whole human race not to be detected in the evil ways of double-mindedness. And shunning vainglory, the Christ did not say: Thou shalt see My glory, but: the glory of God. And the glory of God was the raising the dead. Surely therefore He Himself Who said: I am the Resurrection, is by Nature the God Whose glory He says not long afterwards the woman should see, since Thou wilt suppose that the Truth—-and the Christ is the Truth—-does not lie. And it was promised to her that her dead brother should rise again. And Mary, being more intelligent, utters no word of doubt; but Martha was affected by the disease of double-mindedness.

42 And Jesus lifted up His eyes, and said, Father, I thank Thee that Thou heardest Me. And I knew that Thou hearest Me always: but because of the multitude which standeth by I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me.

Of course it is agreeably to His self-humiliation as a Man that the Christ thus speaks in a lowly manner, not according to the excellency of the Godhead: and He offers His thanks to the Father not on account of Lazarus only, but for the life of all men. For being good, He is of one mind with the Father in bringing back to life the nature of man which had fallen into liability to corruption through its disobedience; and there is no distinction |127 between His goodness and that of the Father. And just as we ourselves even are persuaded by our own reasonings to leave undone what we had intended to do, so also the Lord, being the Word and Counsel of the Father, has made the Father friendly to us. And of course we do not say that what is Divine indulges in anger, but that [God], being just and good, knows when it is the proper time to rebuke, and when it is the proper time to relax. However, the Lord gives thanks, and this He does as a Pattern for us, honouring the Father. But when an equal gives thanks to an equal, he by no means does this as a mark of inferiority of essence. And on this account [Jesus] notifies that because of the multitude He spake thus, all but saying: “I have simulated the outward appearance of prayer, and I gave thanks, in conformity with My assumed condition.” For I knew that Thou hearest Me always. For the one Nature of the Godhead is not disobedient to itself, since the Mind of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit, is One. Knowing therefore, He says, that Our purpose is one and Our will one, because of the multitude I spake thus. And the Christ thus speaks because of the Jews, giving thanks to the Father as if effecting by Him His God-befitting deeds, that they might no more say it was by Beelzebub He did signs. And He also explains His conduct with regard to the outward appearance of prayer, that we may not be caused to stumble, saying: because of the multitude I did this. Moreover, He says: Thou didst send Me, because of the suspicions of the Jews: for I came not of Myself, as do the false prophets; but with Thy approbation and good will I emptied Myself, taking the form of a servant, that I might restore the life to all. The manner of the prayer therefore was in agreement with His assumed condition and suitable to His outward appearance in the flesh, not to the excellency and incomparable splendour of the Godhead. For to ask and to receive would be actions altogether befitting a servant rather than a lord, and are usual with such as are under dominion. Nevertheless, |128 Christ does even these things without blame; for having accepted for Himself the condition of a Man, how could He any longer decline the characteristics of humanity?

For the Son is in every respect perfect in Himself, and in no way does He lack any single excellence. For He is begotten of the Essence of God the Father, and is full of power and of God-befitting glory. Everything is under His feet and there is nothing which His power cannot effect. For, according to the voice of the saint, He can do everything. Yet, although it is true that everything is in His possession, He asks, it is said, from the Father, and receives the heathen and the uttermost parts of the earth as a glorious inheritance. But it is necessary that we should ask how He receives or when: for this is in truth fitting and necessary, I mean, that we should in such matters ask about the times, and investigate the occasions, and make a diligent inquiry as to their significations. When, therefore, He became Man; when He emptied Himself, as it is written; when He humbled Himself to the form of those to whom it is befitting that they should ask; then it was that He both did and spake those things that are befitting to men, and we are told that they were made perfect concerning Him from the Father. For where did He exhibit the outward appearance of humility, or how did that self-emptying show itself victoriously, except that contrary to His Majesty He endured something willingly, when for our sake He emptied Himself? For in the same way that He was weary from the fatigue of the journey, although He is the Lord of Powers; and as He was in need of food, although He is the Bread which came down from heaven, and giveth life to the world; and as He endured death in the flesh, although it is He in Whom we move and have our being; so it is said that He asked, although He is the Lord of all. That when the Only-Begotten became Man, He was not then at first called to His kingdom, we might |129 easily show. But to dispute much about this would be not far removed from folly. Therefore we maintain that what thou hast spoken of was done rather for the same reason. Thinkest thou that the Lord prayed for Lazarus, and thus obtained for him life? But thou wilt not continue to think this at all, when thou art reminded of the words that remain. For He not only said: Father, I thank Thee that Thou heardest Me; but He added further: Because of the multitude which standeth around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me. And thou seest here the occasion of the prayer clearly. For because the Jews were wicked and bold, so that they made an accusation when the Lord was working miracles, and said that by Beelzebub He performed those God-befitting deeds; therefore He justly refuted the thought that was in them, and shewed that He performed everything together with the Father as God, and did not (like those men the false prophets) come of His own will. Moreover, as regards His choosing to speak words which seemed not right for God, He said: Because of the multitude which standeth around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me. Had it not therefore been meet to correct the notion of those standing around, in order that it might be understood that the miracle, which He received for Lazarus’ sake, was from above, and from the Father, He would not have said at all these words: Father, I thank Thee that Thou heardest Me. For He was both the Will and the Word, and the Counsel of the Father as regards all excellencies. What counsel did He ask, or what will, or what word, of Him Who begat Him, that He might receive some works,—-when He had the Father in Him by Nature, and He was in the Father, because He was of His Essence? How as one far removed did He ask of the Father, or how was He not able to expel from a corpse sad death, Who even at the beginning formed man out of inanimate matter, and exhibited him animated and rational? We will accept therefore the explanation which does not err in the faith, not of those men who speak foolishly, but of the Scripture |130 spoken by the Spirit, in which there is nothing crooked or perverse.

43, 44 And when He had thus spoken, He cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin.

O the marvel! the ill-smelling corpse, even after the fourth day from death, He brought forth out of the tomb; and him that was fettered fast and bound hand and foot, He commanded to walk! And immediately, the dead man started up, and the corpse began to run, being delivered from its corruption and losing its bad smell, and escaping through the gates of death, and without any hindrance to running being caused by the bonds. And although deprived of sight by the covering which was over his face, the dead man runs without any hindrance towards Him Who had called him, and recognises the masterful voice. For Christ’s language was God-befitting and His command was kingly, having power to loose from death, and to bring back from corruption, and to exhibit energy beyond expression. The use of a piercing cry, however, was altogether strange and unwonted in the Saviour Christ. For instance, God the Father somewhere says concerning Him: He shall not strive nor cry aloud, and so on. For the works of the true Godhead are without noise or tumult of any kind; and this was the case with Christ, for He is in His Nature God of God and Very God. So then what do we say when we see that He cried aloud in an unusual manner? For surely no one will degrade himself to such a depth of folly as to say that Christ ever went beyond what was fitting or indeed ever erred from absolute perfection. How then is it to be explained? Certainly the cry has a reason and a purport, which we feel it necessary to state. It was for the good of the hearers. Christ wrought the miracle upon Lazarus as a sort of type of the general resurrection of the dead, and that which was fulfilled in the case of an individual He set forth as a |131 beautiful image of what will be universal and common to the whole race. For it is part of our belief that the Lord will come, and we hold that there will be a cry made by the sound of a trumpet, according to the language of Paul, proclaiming the resurrection to those that lie in the earth, although it is manifest that the deed will be effected by the unspeakable power of the Almighty God.

For on this account also the Law given by Moses, when laying down directions concerning the feast of Tabernacles, says: Celebrate it as a memorial of trumpets. For when human bodies are about to be set up again, as tabernacles, and every man’s soul is about to take to itself its own bodily habitation in a way as yet unknown, the masterful command will be previously proclaimed, and the signal of the resurrection will sound forth, even the trump of God, as it is said. As a type therefore of this, in the case of Lazarus Christ uttered a great and audible cry, not much heeding His usual habit, that He might exhibit the type of what is to be expected hereafter.

Jesus saith unto them, Loose him and let him go.

For their good therefore He bade them with their own hands to loose him, that they might have no opportunity of misrepresenting what had been done, but might be witnesses of the miracle. And this too is representative of the general resurrection, when, being loosed from sin and the corruption of death, every one will be set free. For, falling into sin, we have wrapped the shame of it like a veil about the face of our soul, and are fast bound by the cords of death. When therefore the Christ shall at the time of the resurrection bring us out from our tombs in the earth, then in very truth does He loosen us from our former evils, and as it were remove the veil of shame, and command that we be let go freely from that time forward; not under the dominion of sin, not subject to corruption, or indeed any of the other troubles that are wont to cause suffering; so that there will be fulfilled in us that which |132 was said by one of the holy prophets: Ye shall both go forth and leap as calves let loose from bonds.

And consider I pray you the miracle as regards its inner meaning. For if our mind be dead like Lazarus, it behoves our material flesh and our nobler soul, like Martha and Mary [respectively,] to approach the Christ with a confession of faith, and to entreat His help. Then He will stand by us, and command the hardness that lies upon our ¹ memory to be taken away, and cry with the loud voice of the Evangelic trumpet: “Come forth from the distractions of the world,” and loose the cords of our sins; so that we may be able in full vigour to devote ourselves to virtue.

45, 46 Many therefore of the Jews, which came to Mary and beheld that which Jesus did, believed on Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them that which Jesus had done.

Overcome by the miracle many believe; but others, wounded with envy, deem the marvellous deed a fit opportunity for carrying into effect the intentions of the envious, and reported to the leaders what had taken place; that when those men also were grieved at the works which the Christ had wrought, they might have some consolation of their own grief in the knowledge that others shared their feelings and were partakers of the same foolish grief; and that, as they were unable themselves to injure Him Who had done no wrong, they might rouse to anger against Him those who possessed more power. Source.

Notes in red, if any, are my additions to the commentary. This post appeared recently on my primary blog. You can view other resources for this coming Sunday’s Mass there..

Joh 4:4. And he was of necessity to pass through Samaria.

And he was of necessity to pass through Samaria. That is, on the supposition that He desired to take the shorter route generally taken by Galileans. The stricter Jews, desirous of avoiding contact with the Samaritans, went round by the east of the Jordan, through Perrea.

Joh 4:5.  He cometh therefore to a city of Samaria which is called Sichar; near the land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

A city of Samaria which is called Sichar (Sychar). The site is marked by two notes: it was “near the land which Jacob gave to Joseph,” and “Jacob’s well was there.” The well is called both a fountain (πηγη, verse 6) and a pit (φρεαρ, verses 11, 12). Now the land bought by Jacob was near Sichem (Shechem, now Nablus = Neapolis) (Gen 33:18, 19; 48:22). Is Sichar, then, identical with Sichem? St. Jerome, who is followed by many, thought so; he suggested that
Sichar was a copyist s error for Sichem. Others have thought that Sichar was either a nickname (drunkard, or liar), or a descriptive appellation (commercial). Both suggestions are quite groundless. As early as the fourth century Eusebius and the Bordeaux Pilgrim mention a Sichar distinct from Sichem. In the Samaritan Chronicle (fourteenth century) it is spelt Ischar; but the Samaritans themselves, in translating their chronicle into Arabic, call Ischar Askar. This name still attaches to a few ruins at the foot of Mount Ebal, about one mile and three quarters east-north-east from Nablus, and little over half a mile north from Jacob s well. The well is nearly two miles from Sichem (Nablus).

But granted that Sichar is either Nablus or Askar, is it likely that any one seeking water should have come past streams in their immediate neighbourhood to the more distant, the deep and scanty well of Jacob? There are eighty springs of water in and around Sichem; there is a copious fountain in Askar.

But the real difficulty is not why the woman should have come to the well, but why a well should have been dug so deep in the neighbourhood of so many springs. Its existence is a proof that the woman would have a reason for using it. Perhaps in those far away summers the surface streams ran dry; perhaps the waters of the well were more suitable. It is not uncommon in the East to send to a great distance for a supply of drinking water. The springs at Nablus are, as the natives express it, very ‘heavy’. They not unjustly attribute many of their complaints to this cause. The fountain at Askar is of particularly ‘heavy’ water. Now, Jacob’s well has a reputation among them of containing good water, free from the deleterious qualities of their other supplies. The woman, therefore, would gladly have come to get a supply. (Dr. Smith, l.c.., 367~375, 676.)

Joh 4:6. Now Jacob s well was there. Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well. It was about the sixth hour.

Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey, sat thus (ουτως)
on the well. The ουτως is very obscure. It cannot mean “tired as
He was,” because in that case the ουτως would have been placed before
the verb (Acts 20:11; 27:17). Most probably it means, just as He was, without any preparation.

The sixth hour, i.e., mid-day (see on Jn 1:39).

Joh 4:7  There cometh a woman of Samaria, to draw water. Jesus saith to her: Give me to drink.

A woman of Samaria. One designation = a Samaritaness. She came from Sichar (see verses 9, 28, 39).

Joh 4:8  For his disciples were gone into the city to buy meats.

Into the city, i.e., the only city so far mentioned Sichar. to buy meats (τροφας) = simply food.

Joh 4:9  Then that Samaritan woman saith to him: How dost thou, being a Jew; ask of me to drink, who am a Samaritan woman? For the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans.

How dost thou, being a Jew.  The disciples themselves would have asked the question if they had been present.  The woman would have recognised our Lord’s nationality not only by His speech and appearance, but also by His phylactery and by the white fringes on the border of His garment. The Samaritan fringe is blue.

Joh 4:10  Jesus answered and said to her: If thou didst know the gift of God and who he is that saith to thee: Give me to drink; thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
Joh 4:11  The woman saith to him: Sir, thou hast nothing wherein to draw, and the well is deep. From whence then hast thou living water?

If thou didst know the gift of God. Our Lord takes occasion from the woman’s question to speak to her of spiritual things. The gift of God means the opportunity now given of obtaining the means of salvation. (Cf. “If thou hadst known the things that are to thy peace” Luke 19:42.) The words that follow explain what the opportunity is, the και (“and who is is that siath to thee…”) being exegetical. “If thou didst know thy opportunity, and who I am.”

Thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him. Perhaps is not genuine.

Living water. By living water our Lord meant Divine grace, which is so frequently compared in Scripture to living water the water of life; but the Samaritaness took the words literally of spring-water, as contrasted with water accumulated in pools or cisterns. She is therefore surprised. Our Lord had not wherein to draw trom the well: whence then the living water? (verse 11)

Joh 4:12  Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank thereof, himself and his children and his cattle?

Since our Lord had not wherein (αντλημα = rope and bucket) to draw from Jacob’s well (verse 11), He must be able to provide other living water. She therefore asks, Art thou greater (μη συ μειζων = thou! surely thou art not able to provide better) than our father Jacob? Her tone of respect had deepened (verse 11,  “sir”), but still there was a great difference between an unknown Jew and Jacob. We need not inquire whether Jacob was father of the Samaritans.

Who gave us the well. It is nowhere said in Scripture of Jacob that he dug a well; but it is said of Abraham and Isaac, and is possibly true of Jacob also.

And his cattle (θρεμματα, things that are fed). Perhaps better = sheep and goats. The word is sometimes used of slaves and of children.

Joh 4:13  Jesus answered and said to her: Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him shall not thirst for ever.

Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but he that shall drink of the water that I will give hitn, shall not thirst for ever. Our Lord implies that He is greater than Jacob, and can bestow a better gift water by which a man is for ever set free from thirst (Jn 6:35). Divine grace is the root of immortality; it makes a man the child of God, and heir of heaven. Hence, as by grace a man obtains the right of citizenship in heaven, it is truly called eternal life. In that life man’s longing for happiness is perfectly satisfied. “They shall not hunger, nor thirst, neither shall the heat nor the sun strike them” (Isa 49:10). Since, then, eternal life is looked upon as an actual possession, and grace is its title; grace is described in language that belongs to eternal life itself. In this lies the force of our Lord’s contrast. On the one side, there is earthly water with its “fleeting bodily refreshment,” and on the other side, grace with its fruit in the perfect and enduring joys of heaven.

Joh 4:14  But the water that I will give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting.

The water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water springing up into life everlasting. He in whom the Holy Spirit dwells (Jn 3:5, 6) has within himself an overflowing fountain of grace, springing up with full impulsive force until it reaches heaven (cf. Jn 1:16, 6:27). As water seeks its level, so grace, which comes from heaven, tends heavenward.

Joh 4:15  The woman said to him: Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come hither to draw.

Sir, give me this water. The woman has not yet guessed the deeper meaning of our Lord’s words. Even the significant phrase “into life everlasting” has suggested no more than a vague length of time (cf. “O king, live for ever,” Neh 2:3).

Joh 4:16  Jesus saith to her: Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

Go, call thy husband, and come (ελθε =come back) hither. The sequel shows that our Lord is now touching the plague-spot of the woman’s life. By thus bringing her suddenly face to face with her sin, He prepares her for repentance, and gives proof of His superhuman knowledge.

Joh 4:17  The woman answered and said: I have no husband. Jesus said to her: Thou hast said well: I have no husband.

I have no husband. She seeks to cover her fault by evading the request.

Thou hast said well (καλως =rightly), I have no husband. There is a marked emphasis in the Greek on husband thou hast said rightly, husband I have not. This emphasis is a warning to the woman that her subterfuge has been detected.

Joh 4:18  For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband. This, thou hast said truly.

For thou hast had five husbands. This unexpected revelation of her past now makes clear to the woman that our Lord is possessed of supernatural knowledge.

Joh 4:19  The woman saith to him: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Not yet Messiah, but still a prophet.

Joh 4:20  Our fathers adored on this mountain: and you say that at Jerusalem is the place where men must adore.

Our Fathers adored (i.e., offered public sacrifice) on this mountain (Gerizim). The temple on Gerizim had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus; but the site was held sacred.

The stages in the woman s mental change are clearly marked: (1) flippancy and aloofness (v. 9); (2) dawning respect for our Lord’s impressive seriousness (v. 11); (3) readiness to accept His words, although not  understood by her (v. 15); (4) belief in Him as a prophet of God (v. 19); (5) anxiety to learn the truth from Him (v. 20).  She, remembering the warning of our Lord, “if thou didst know who it is that speaketh to thee” (verse 10), and now being convinced that He is a prophet, at once desires to know by which worship that of the Jews or that of the Samaritans God is most pleased. A prophet, although a Jew, will faithfully tell her the truth. Her question is the question of one anxious to be guided aright, not the evasion (for how would our Lord have consented to such evasion?) of one desirous of putting off the hour of repentance.

Joh 4:21  Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father.

Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh (“and now is,” verse 23). The phrase “believe me”, occurs but once; the usual form is, “I say unto thee.” Our Lord’s first reply is that the question between Jerusalem and Gerizim is over; it has now lost all meaning. In the new dispensation both are on the same footing; for the Mosaic law is dead.

You shall . . . adore the Father. This is spoken from the stand point of the new dispensation. This first reply marks the fulfilment of the ancient prophecy, “I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down (i.e., from east to west = over the whole world) my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice (i.e., the sacrifice of the Mass), and there is offered to my name a clean (i.e., unbloody) oblation”
(Mal 1:10, 11).

Joh 4:22  You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know. For salvation is of the Jews.

You adore that which you know not. In this second reply our Lord says that, although the question raised by the woman has lost all significance, yet in a deeper matter the truth belongs to the Jews. Theirs are “the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the promises” (Rom 9:4). “The law shall come forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa 2:3). With the Jews will be found a true idea of God and of His worship; and the reason is because, by the Divine appointment and promise, “salvation
is of the Jews.”

Joh 4:23  But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him.

But the hour cometh. Although the true idea of God could not be altogether destroyed from amongst the Jews, nevertheless a fuller knowledge and more perfect worship were at hand.

The true (αληθινοι: see Jn 1:9) adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. The phrase “in spirit and truth” characterises Christian worship as contrasted with Jewish; but since the Jewish was true, the phrase must mean more truly spiritual and real. The knowledge of God shall be deeper and clearer; He shall be known as Father : and in agreement with that knowledge the adoration shall be more perfect (in spirit) and more real (in truth). Christians are the true adorers, because their reverence springs from more abundant grace, and from a clearer revelation. But the perfect excellence of Christian worship is found in the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein God’s own true Son offers Himself as a sacrifice to the Father. What sacrifice so real and perfect as this? What adoration so true? What love so intense and spiritual? But Christ is offered for all ; and in uniting ourselves to Him, we also, in Him and through Him, become true adorers in spirit and in truth.

Joh 4:24  God is a spirit: and they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth.

God is a spirit. Therefore [και is illative] the worship He accepts must be spiritual, i.e., from an inward principle of grace and reverence. Outward ceremony is little worth without faith and inward fervour. Both should enter into our worship. “These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone” (Matt 23:23).

Joh 4:25  The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ): therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things.

I know that the Messias Cometh. Messiah (without the article here) is used as a proper name by the woman. Cometh either, is at hand, or is sure to come. The Samaritans could not have been ignorant of an expectation which was known, about this time, even to Romans. The Samaritan name for the Messiah was the Returner, or the Restorer. Speaking to a Jew she used the Jewish name.

Joh 4:26  Jesus saith to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.

I am he. Her expression of unreserved obedience to the Messiah was rewarded by this revelation. Such revelation to the Samaritans was not likely to cause the dangers which would have attended a similar revelation to the Jews generally, and on account of which our Lord s language amongst the Jews was more reserved (see Matt 16:20, 17:9).

Joh 4:27  And immediately his disciples came. And they wondered that he talked with the woman. Yet no man said: What seekest thou? Or: Why talkest thou with her?

And they wondered. It was contrary to all Jewish notions that a Rabbi should talk with a woman, even his own wife, in the street. Hence the disciples wondered that “He was talking with a woman” (Greek), and she, moreover, a Samaritan. Yet, in their reverence, they asked not the reason of Christ’s condescension.

Joh 4:28  The woman therefore left her waterpot and went her way into the city and saith to the men there:

The woman therefore, i.e., because the coming of the disciples interrupted the colloquy. But, with her mind excited, she forgot her errand and hurried to the city.

Joh 4:29  Come, and see a man who has told me all things whatsoever I have done. Is not he the Christ?

Who has told me all things. What had been disclosed was sufficient proof that everything in her life could have easily been disclosed.

Is not he the Christ? (μητι ουτος). In form this expects a negative answer Is it possible that he is the Christ? But the apparent doubt comes from mere wonderment at the greatness of the discovery. Greek questions can take a form which indicates that the speaker expects a negative answer; such is the case here. See also the gate-keeper’s question to Peter (Jn 18:17), and Pilate’s question to Jesus (Jn 18:33).

Joh 4:30  They went therefore out of the city and came unto him.

And came unto him (ηρχοντο: imperfect tense = and were coming). It is the language of an eye-witness. While I do not wish to call into question the eye-witness nature of the gospel, I would note that the imperfect tense used here is probably meant to emphasize the fact that the townspeople are making their way to Jesus at the very same time as he begins speaking to his disciples in verses 31 ff.

Joh 4:31  In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat.

In the meantime, i.e., after the departure of the woman and before the arrival of the Samaritans (their arrival is noted in verse 40).

Joh 4:32  But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not.
Joh 4:33  The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat?
Joh 4:34  Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

My meat is to do (ινα ποιησω = “to do”). This expression may be simply equivalent to the infinitive, or it may express desire, i.e., my delight is in doing.

Joh 4:35  Do not you say: There are yet four months, and then the harvest cometh? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and see the countries. For they are white already to harvest.

There are yet four months and then (then is omitted in Greek and Vulg.) the harvest cometh. Many take this as a proverbial saying; and although the saying has not elsewhere been found, parallels have been found. But in matters of this kind, to argue from parallels is precarious. On the other hand, absence of evidence is not always a proof of non-existence: the saying might have been current, although no extant writing contains it. The simplest explanation sees in the words a plain statement of fact which is adopted as the ground of a spiritual comparison (see Jn 3:8, 29; 4:10): “You say the harvest is yet four months off, but I say that the countries are white for the harvest even now (ηδη, translated above as “For they are white already for harvest”). The Greek ηδη (already, even now) should be seen in relation to the imperfect tense construction of verse 30 noted above; and, also with the opening phrase of verse 31: “In the meantime.” As Jesus spoke with his disciples the townspeople were making their way towards him and are now in the very field he is sitting in (Jn 4:5-6). They are like grain, ripened and ready for harvest.

Harvest began in the middle of Nisan, the month of new corn. The words were, therefore, spoken about the middle of December, when the seed, sown at the beginning of November, was beginning to appear above ground. Consequently our Lord had made a stay of about eight months in Judea (Jn 2:13, 23; 3:22; 4:3, 4). This is the common opinion; but in the second opinion just mentioned the time was near Pentecost.

Joh 4:36  And he that reapeth receiveth wages and gathereth fruit unto life everlasting: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

He that reapeth receiveth wages (i.e., a reward for himself), and gathereth fruit unto life everlasting (συναγει  καρπον εις = stores up as in a granary), i.e., brings souls to heaven.

That both he that soweth (i.e., Christ Himself, who was then sowing
the seed of faith), and he that reapeth (i.e., every apostle of Christ), may
rejoice together.

Joh 4:37  For in this is the saying true: That it is one man that soweth, and it is another that reapeth.

For in this (i.e., in this instance at least) is the saying true (αληθινος = genuine true indeed). The saying follows: “It is one man that soweth”, &c. The saying is verified, but yet so that sower and reaper rejoice together.

Joh 4:38  I have sent you to reap that in which you did not labour. Others have laboured: and you have entered into their labours.

I have sent you to reap (απεστειλα = I sent. All the other verbs are in the perfect). I sent you to reap that which you have not laboured. The mission of the Apostles had already been practically determined, and, in an informal way, even begun (3:22, 26; 4:2).

Others have laboured. Moses, the Prophets, and John had been preparing the ground for the seed of Christ s sowing. But chiefly Christ Himself (Jn 1:4, 9).

Joh 4:39  Now of that city many of the Samaritans believed in him, for the word of the woman giving testimony: He told me all things whatsoever I have done.
Joh 4:40  So when the Samaritans were come to him, they desired that he would tarry there. And he abode there two days.

They desired him: ηρωτων =kept beseeching Him.

Joh 4:41  And many more believed in him, because of his own word.
Joh 4:42  And they said to the woman: We now believe, not for thy saying: for we ourselves have heard him and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.

We now believe, not for thy saying (λαλιαν). A Hebraism = not so much for thy saying. λαλιαν = speech, utterance, as distinct from the thought uttered (λογος). In classical Greek used for mere talk, chatter; but this connotation of contempt had disappeared in later Greek, in which it means simply discourse, speech (cf. Jn 8:43).

This is indeed the Saviour of the world (A.V. the Christ, the Saviour: but the words the Christ are not genuine). Therefore our Lord must have revealed Himself as Saviour of the world. This truth underlies verses 21-24.

This was also posted on my primary blog, where one can find more resources for the Fourth Sunday of Advent.

Mat 1:18  Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. The Birth of Christ happened in this manner. For Birth, the Greek has not דםוףיע, i.e., generation, properly so called, but דםםחףיע, i.e., rise, conception, generation, nativity. When any one arises he is conceived, is begotten, is born.

When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. Syriac, “of the Spirit of holiness”—that is, the Spirit who is holy, and the Author and Fountain of all holiness.

God willed the Blessed Virgin to be betrothed to Joseph—1. Because Joseph appears to have been the nearest heir of David’s kingdom, that it might devolve from him upon Christ, as from a father to a son, by due order and right of succession, as I have said, ver. 16. 2. Because Joseph was a most holy man, like unto the patriarch Joseph, of whose chastity and virtue he partook, as well as of his name. He was called Joseph—i.e., increased—for he was enriched with great gifts and graces from God. Thus S. Bernard, Hom. 2 super Missus est.

You may ask whether it be here meant that the Blessed Virgin was espoused to Joseph only by betrothal, or by an actual marriage contract and celebration of nuptials; and so, whether Christ was incarnate, and conceived of a virgin who was betrothed only, or of one who was actually married? For to a virgin thus betrothed Gabriel was sent to announce the Incarnation of Christ. (Luke 1:38.) And the Virgin, consenting to his message, and saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word,” immediately, in that very instant, conceived Christ. Many are of opinion that the Blessed Virgin was only espoused by betrothal, or per verba de futuro, by which only a promise of marriage takes place. So S. Hilary, in loc.; S. Basil, Hom. on the Human Generation of Christ; Origen, Hom. I, on divers passages of the Gospels. But others think, with better reason, that the Virgin was espoused not merely by betrothal, but by marriage, per verba de prזsenti—by an actual nuptial contract. This is proved:—1. Because Joseph is called in the verse following, and in ver. 16, the husband of Mary. This must mean that he had married her. 2. Joseph wished to put her away, as being with child, as it is said in the verse following. He had therefore taken her to him to wife; for no one puts away what he has not. 3. Because “betrothed” (Luke 2:5) is interpreted to mean married. Yea, Joseph called her his wife. She was therefore already married, and introduced into the house of her husband, Joseph, as his wife, that, by this means, Joseph might be the attesting witness of her virginity, and the guardian and nourisher both of herself and her Child Jesus. Consider, also, that the Blessed Virgin, as soon as she had received Gabriel’s message, being now full of the WORD, visited Elizabeth, and abode with her three months. From whence it does not seem that she there celebrated her marriage with Joseph, nor yet after her return to Nazareth, for there exists no trace of such an event. So that she must have celebrated this marriage before Gabriel’s message, and the Incarnation of the WORD. Neither would it have been becoming that an unmarried virgin should undertake so great a journey into a mountainous country, without a husband, or companion, or without her guardian sending a maid, or some female relation with her. 4. Because it was plainly befitting that Christ should be born of a woman who was actually married, in order that he might not be despised by the Jews as illegitimate, but might be received as a legitimate son. And this is why Joseph is called Christ’s father. Finally, offspring is the proper fruit of wedlock. Thus Jerome, Haymo, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Jansenius, Suarez, and others, passim.

It may be objected—1. That the angel says to Joseph, “Fear not to take Mary thy wife.” Therefore, he had not taken her to wife, but only espoused her by betrothal. I reply—to take, here means the same thing as to keep, and retain: for the angel calls her his wife. They were therefore married. The Hebrew verbs often signify not only inchoate, but continuous action. The meaning, therefore, is—”Dismiss not, O Joseph, thy wife Mary, but keep and retain her.” For nothing is put away save what has been received and possessed.

2. The Virgin is here called betrothed, before they came together, therefore before marriage. In reply, I deny the consequence. To come together does not here signify to contract marriage, nor yet to cohabit, but to make use of marriage already contracted.

3. Why is she here spoken of, not as married, but as espoused? I reply, she is called espoused or betrothed, because her husband had not known her; and therefore she was as a bride, not yet married to her husband, but only promised. So S. Chrysostom. Hence Peter Chrysologus (Serm. 175) says, Joseph was a husband in name only, by consent of his spouse; that is, he was accounted her husband by the bond, not the consummation of marriage.

That there was, however, a real marriage between Joseph and the Blessed Virgin is certain from the words of the Gospel, and the common agreement of theologians; and the axiom of lawyers, that—”Consent, not consummation, validates marriage.” Whence S. Augustine (lib. 1, de Nuptiis, c. 11) says—”The good of marriage was fulfilled in those parents of Christ. There was offspring, fidelity, a sacrament (for these are the three goods of marriage). We recognize the offspring, the Lord Jesus Himself; the fidelity, for there was no adultery; the sacrament, for there was no divorce.” He teaches the same more at large against Julian the Pelagian (lib. 5), who denied the marriage of Joseph and Mary. In chap. 9, he maintains that the jus matrimonii is not repugnant to a vow of chastity. By marriage, I possess a right over my wife, but because of my vow, I cannot use that right lawfully. If I do use it, I sin against my vow, not my marriage. That is, I do what is, technically, an irreligious, not an unjust act. For there is not adultery, as it would be, if the wife were joined in marriage. Joseph, therefore, had by matrimony, a power over the Blessed Virgin, but by his purpose, and as it would seem by his vow of chastity, he would not use this power. To have a right or power to do a thing, and to use that power, are wholly different things. The first is necessary for valid matrimony, but not the second.

This right of cohabitation, and quasi dominion over a wife, in the case of married virgins, has several true and real, not fictitious consequences. The first is, that a virgin bride cannot marry another husband. The second is, that although the vow be broken by cohabitation, it is not fornication. The third, that offspring divinely granted and born (as Christ in the present instance was conceived of the Holy Ghost) is accounted legitimate as being born in wedlock.

From all this, it may be gathered that the marriage of the Blessed Virgin Mary with Joseph was not only real matrimony, but lawful, yea, holy—real, because the essence of wedlock consists in the mutual delivery of power over each other’s body, even though this power be never exercised. And a vow of virginity takes away this power and right from no one, but only renders its exercise unlawful. It is after a similar manner that the power is separated from the use of a thing, in the case of certain religious, who remain owners of their paternal inheritance, but who, on account of their vow of poverty, are not able to make use of it. It was lawful marriage, because, although the Blessed Virgin had made a vow of virginity, yet she lawfully, and without peril of a breach of her vow, engaged in marriage, because she knew by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that Joseph would never use his power and marital rights to the detriment of her vow. So S. Augustine, de S. Virgin., c. 4, and theologians, passim. It is, moreover, probable that the Blessed Virgin Mary had revealed this, her vow, to Joseph before marriage, and that he had consented to it. Some add, that he had promised to be the guardian of her vow. It was holy marriage, because by means of it Joseph protected the good repute and the virginity of Blessed Mary; and became the guardian, nourisher, and educator of the Child Jesus. What were more holy than this?

See S. Thomas, 3 part 29. 2. 1. in corpore, where he assigns many reasons why Christ was born of an espoused virgin. And he adds that there might be a fifth reason why the Mother of the Lord was espoused and a virgin, in order that in her person both virginity and matrimony might be honoured against the heretics, who attack either one or the other. The holy martyr Ignatius, cited by S. Jerome, gives yet another reason—in order that her child-bearing might be concealed from the devil, so that he thought that Christ was not born of a virgin, but of a wife.

Observe here, tropologically, in the Blessed Virgin and Joseph the utmost height of angelic purity and virginity. And thus, the Blessed Virgin has communicated this gift of conjugal chastity to several eminent persons, specially devoted to her, as to S. Pulcheria, and Martian, to SS. Julian and Basilissa, to whom, in the first night after their vow of chastity, Christ appeared, accompanied by a vast throng of men in white robes, on the one hand, and the Blessed Virgin, girt about with a virgin throng, on the other hand. They who were with Christ chanted forth—”Thou hast conquered Julian, thou hast conquered.” And they who were with the Blessed Virgin replied—”Blessed art thou, Basilissa, who hast despised earthly marriage, and prepared thyself for eternal glory.” Wherefore Julian was the spiritual ancestor of innumerable believers in Christ and martyrs, and Basilissa, by word and example, was the mother of innumerable virgins of Christ.

Also S. Henry I., or as some say, II., Emperor of Germany led such a life with his wife Cunegundes, of whom, when he was dying, he said to her parents—”Lo! a virgin I received her from you, a virgin I restore her to you.” Such, too, were S. Cזcilia, with her spouse Valerian, to whom the Blessed Virgin sent by the hands of angels crowns of roses and lilies.

Symbolically, in this marriage and family union of Joseph with Mary there was an image of the Sacred Trinity. For Joseph represented the Eternal Father, the Blessed Virgin the Holy Ghost, both because she was most holy, and because she had conceived by the Holy Spirit. Christ represented Himself, even the Son of God. Whence, 1. As there is in the Sacred Trinity an essence of Deity in Three Persons, so here was there one marriage and one perfect family, consisting of three persons, namely, Joseph, Mary, and Christ.

2. As in the Holy Trinity the Father spiritually begets the Son, and breathes the Holy Ghost, so here the Blessed Virgin spiritually—not carnally, but by the power of the Holy Ghost—conceived and brought forth Christ. 3. In the Holy Trinity, the Father begets the Son, as light emits light: whence we sing in the Creed, “Light of Light, very God of very God;” so the Blessed Virgin, as the Star of the Sea, brought forth Christ, who is “the Brightness of Eternal Light,” and the “Mirror without a spot.” (Wisd. vii. 25.) Whence, like as a star, without any diminution of itself, sends forth its rays, so did the Blessed Virgin, without any derogation to herself, bring forth Christ the Light of the world. “Neither do the star’s rays diminish its lustre, nor did the Son of the Virgin take away her maiden purity and integrity,” says S. Bernard. (Hom. 2 super Missus est) Whence also those words of Simeon concerning Christ, “A Light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.”

This family was then, as it were, a heaven upon earth—a family, not so much of three human persons as of three embodied angels—yea, symbolically, as it were, of three Divine Persons. Therefore it is not doubtful that it was thronged with angels, ministering to the Virgin, as Queen of Heaven, and to Christ, as their Lord and their God. Yea, they were amazed, and had the utmost desire to behold the WORD Incarnate. Therefore, that house, as it were heaven, was concealing an admirable mystery. Black without, but fair within, “as the tents of Cedar, as the curtains of Solomon” (Song i. 5), says Rupert. Whence John Gerson (Sermon on the Nativity) exclaims in wonder—”O, how delectable to the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was that house’s Trinity, Christ, Mary, Joseph. Nothing dearer, nothing better, nothing on earth more excellent. Heaven envied earth such inhabitants—inhabitants more befitting heaven than earth.”

Tropologically, Let husbands and wives imitate the Blessed Virgin and Joseph in purity, in sanctity, in patience, and charity, bearing one another’s burdens. There was in this family of Joseph, Mary, and Christ, the utmost concord amongst all, the utmost love, the utmost reverence, humility, piety, help, and mutual compliance. From it, not only all bickering was absent, but even the very lightest suspicion of any evil thing. Hence such a family deserved to have Christ, the Holy of Holies, for its offspring. In our day, there are often in families depraved, disobedient, proud, quarrelsome, impure children, because their parents are such. Like father, like child. What he sees and hears his father and mother do, that he also imitates and imbibes. Children ever ape their parents.

Before they came together. Understand this not as though they afterwards came together for the marital debt, as the impure Helvidius maintained, who denied that the Blessed Virgin was always a virgin, and asserted that she afterwards became by Joseph the mother of those who, in the Gospel, are called the Lord’s brethren. S. Jerome confutes him at length, and shows that nothing is meant here except the miraculous conception of Christ by a pure virgin. Thus we say in common speech, “Such a one had grey hairs before he was an old man,” meaning that it was remarkable that he was early grey-headed, even though he never became an old man, but died before he came to old age. Similarly also we say, “His boy was wise before he came to man’s estate,” meaning that he was of precocious intellect, even though he died before he was of mature age; as those who are precocious do thus often die. Moreover, the brethren of the Lord are called His kinsmen. For, as S. Jerome says (Cont. Helvid.), brethren are so called in four ways: by nature, race, relationship, affection. People are brethren by nature, who are born of the same parents, by race, who belong to the same nation, as S. Paul calls the Jews his brethren (Rom. ix. I), by kinship, as cousins are called brethren in Scripture, by affection, as when Christians love one another with mutual fraternal love. For this is the love of the brotherhood, which S. Paul so often commands.

She was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. Observe that Joseph understood by her appearance, that his wife, the Blessed Virgin, had conceived. But whether he knew that she was with child by the Holy Ghost, or not, is doubtful. S. Basil, Origen, Theophylact, and others, hold the affirmative. But the contrary is more probable, because Joseph wished to put her away, but is forbidden by the angel, who removes his scruple, adding, “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Therefore, before the revelation of the angel, he did not know this, because had he known it, he would not have wished to put her away.

It is said, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was found with child of the Holy Ghost, because she had verily conceived by Him. The expression, of the Holy Ghost, must be referred to the words with child, not to was found. So the rest of the Fathers and Interpreters, passim. Origen adds that, “She was found by the angels, for they knew that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost.”

Of the Holy Ghost. Not as though Christ were framed of the substance of the Holy Spirit, as is the case with other offspring, nor of the Holy Ghost as a father; because Christ, quא man, was not like to the Holy Ghost, who in His nature is God; but of the Holy Ghost as an agent and artificer. Thus S. Ambrose, in Luc. i. 35. Of the Holy Ghost, not, therefore, as of the Father, but, as it were, supplying the concourse of the father. For the Holy Ghost supplied the place of a father to Christ, through His power and operation. So S. Ambrose c. 2, de Spiritu Sancto, c. 5, and S. Augustine, Enchiridion, c. 39. For the substance of our Lord’s body was supplied by the Blessed Virgin, as His only human parent. Strictly speaking, by denotes the efficient cause, of the material cause—as we say in the Creed: “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.”

You may ask—why does not Matthew say also, “With child by the Eternal Father, and by the Son. as well as by the Holy Ghost?” It is replied that he might have said this with equal truth. For it is an axiom among Theologians, that the operations of the Holy Trinity, ad extra—that is, with reference to the universe of created things—are common to all the Three Divine Persons. But he preferred to say, “By the Holy Ghost,” because, as power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son, so love, goodness, and grace, which especially shine forth in this work of the Incarnation, are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son by spiration, being, as it were, the term of the ideal love of the Father and the Son.

Moreover S. Thomas (3 part, quזst. 32, art. 1 et seq) teaches that the words “by the Holy Ghost” signify three things: 1. That of the pure love of God and the Holy Spirit, without any human merits, the Incarnation of the Lord was accomplished. 2. Of the same Grace of God and the Holy Spirit, without previous merits, He was conceived. Whence S. Augustine, c. de Prזdest. Sanct. c. 15, proposes Christ, as it were, the ideal of election and the elect. “Whatsoever man is a Christian, he becomes such from the beginning of his faith by that self-same grace by which, at the first, Christ was made man: by the same Spirit a Christian is born again, by whom Christ was born; remission of sins is effected in us by the self-same Spirit by whom it was brought about that Christ should have no sin.” 3. Christ was holy, by virtue of his conception. For, like as a man, who, by ordinary generation, is propagated from Adam, a sinner, is by virtue of his conception born a sinner, so Christ, who was conceived, and, as it were, propagated by the Holy Ghost, was conceived holy by virtue of his conception. For that which the Holy Ghost worketh can be nothing else save warmth and fire. 4. By the Holy Ghost, signifies that He, in the formation of the Humanity of Christ, transposed all His sanctity into It (so far as a creature’s capacity would allow of such a thing, and so far as a creature can become like the Creator), and, as it were, transformed It into Himself: so that, next to Himself, He made It to be a pattern and prototype of holiness, that from It and according to It He might, as it were, express and depict all other holiness, both of all angels, and all men. Therefore the humanity of Christ was the most perfect, special, and most holy work of the Holy Ghost, in which He Himself constituted a fount of all sanctity, which, by its own purity, might wash away the filth of all sins, and, so far as it is concerned, sanctify all sinners.

Moreover, S. Thomas (quזst. 32, art. 2) teaches that the preposition “by,” in the expression by the Holy Ghost, signifies that Christ is consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, as touching his Godhead, not as touching his manhood, which He wrought in Christ. This, however, S. Augustine denies.

Mat 1:19  Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

1. S. Chrysostom (in loco), S. Augustine (Epist. 52, ad Macedon.), Justin M. (contra Tryphon.), are of opinion, that Joseph suspected evil of the Blessed Virgin, as though she had conceived by another man. They think that this is hinted at in the expression, not willing publicly to expose her. But we say, far be any such suspicions concerning a virgin so holy, or a man so just. How, indeed, could Joseph have suspected adultery in such a wife, or uncleanness in her parents’ house?

2. Others think that Joseph wished to put away the Blessed Virgin out of extreme reverence, because he thought himself unworthy to have to wife one who was with child by the Holy Ghost. Whence they are also of opinion that S. Joseph accompanied the Blessed Virgin when she visited Elizabeth, and heard her saluted as Mother of God, and therefore thought himself unworthy of her. This is the opinion of Origen, S. Basil, Theophylact, S. Bernard (Hom. 2 super Missus est). S. Brigit asserts that the same was revealed to her (lib. 7, Revelat. c. 25). Whence Salmeron (lib. 3, c. 30) supports the same opinion by thirteen reasons.

But, 3, plainly and surely, Joseph, seeing the Blessed Virgin with child, was astonished at the novelty of the thing, and his mind was agitated by contending and fluctuating emotions, and he reasoned somewhat in this way: “I know that this Virgin is most holy, wherefore I do not believe that she has been false to her troth, plighted to me. Still, she is with child, and I know not by me. But by whom I know not. Can it be by a former husband? Or can she have suffered violence on her journey, when she went to visit Elizabeth? Can she have suffered illusion from some spirit during sleep? Or, what would be more consonant with her sanctity, is she with child by an angel, or by the Deity Himself? Well, however the case may be, I am unwilling to retain her, if an angel, or God Himself, desires to have her. Wherefore I will resign her, and put her away from me.”

God permitted this to take place in order that the conception of the Blessed Virgin by the Holy Ghost might be attested unto all, both by Joseph and by the Angel. Thus God permitted S. Thomas to doubt concerning Christ’s Resurrection, that he, touching Christ’s very wounds, might bear an irrefragable testimony to the same Resurrection.

Joseph, who was a righteous man, teaches husbands and believers not to suspect evil concerning just and holy persons upon slight grounds, but to wait for proofs. They should not be too ready to infer guilt, but should put the most favourable construction they can upon everything.

You may ask, why did not Joseph interrogate the Blessed Virgin, wherefore, and by whom she was with child? I reply, that it is merely the first thought which arose in Joseph’s mind, which is referred to, and which, out of modesty, he kept to himself. And he was shortly afterwards anticipated by the Angel, who answered in behalf of the Virgin, and exonerated him by saying that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost.

The Blessed Virgin was unwilling, of her own accord, to make known this divine secret to Joseph, in order that she might not seem to boast of her own gifts, so wonderful and so divine; but she confided all to God, and God’s providential care, most certainly trusting that God would defend her good repute and her innocence, and either in His own time open out the whole matter, as she had seen that He had lately done in the case of her cousin Elizabeth, or else would order all things to His own greater glory, and therefore to the greater honour and reverence of this, her conception. From whence, see here and admire the greatness of soul, and the lofty resignation and confidence of the Blessed Virgin in God, whereby she put away from her all this peril and fear of dark suspicion and infamy. And herein she has given a singular example of equanimity and confidence to wives who have jealous husbands, that they, too, should put their trust in God, that God will make clear their innocence and chastity, will protect them, and make them a praise, as he did in this case of the Blessed Virgin. Thus S. Jerome says: “This is the testimony to Mary’s purity, that Joseph, knowing her chastity, and wondering at what had happened, hides in silence the mystery of which he was ignorant.” And S. Ambrose (in Luc. i.) says: “The Lord preferred that some should rather doubt concerning His own generation, than concerning His Mother’s purity.”

It appears from all this that Joseph did not accompany the Blessed Virgin when she, very shortly after her Conception of Christ, visited S. Elizabeth. For if he had been in her company, and had seen and heard the great and wonderful things which befell her, they would have removed all his scruples, and he would not have thought of putting her away. And especially when S. Elizabeth said to the Blessed Virgin: “Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? He would have known from thence, that not only had she conceived of God, but that she had conceived God Himself, and that she was carrying Him in her womb.

Observe that Joseph is here called just—that is, a man of probity—forasmuch as he was one who wished, out of charity, to consult for the good fame, yea, even for the dignity of his spouse, when he thinks of putting away privily one whom he thought himself unworthy of. S. Jerome and Theophylact think that husbands were commanded by the old law to traduce and accuse before the judges their wives, if they were guilty of adultery. But they adduce no place in which such a precept is given. For the passage in Num. v. 2 only permits such a thing to be done, but does not order it.

Not willing publicly to expose her. Not, to send her away to her own house, as Abul. thinks. For the Greek is,απολυσαι—that is, to disgrace, to defame, or, as S. Augustine (Epist. 59, ad Paulinum) says, rendering literally, “to make an example of.” It was the custom in Crete to lead adulteresses through the midst of the streets, as they did captives at Rome, that they might be gazed at and derided. Whence that ancient punishment by law against bawds: “Let bawds and adulterers be caned through the public streets of the city, that they may be reviled and derided.” And the line of Propertius: “Not even if the infamous one should traverse the whole city.”

(He) was minded to put her away privately. By the way of secret divorce, giving her privily a bill of divorcement, as Abul. says on the passage, quזst. 39; or rather, and in a more honourable way for her, by leaving her on the plea of travel, as going away into a far country. So Maldonatus. Whence the Syriac translates: “And he thought of leaving her secretly:” and the Arabic, “Since he did not wish to put her to public shame, he thought upon a private dismissal.”

Mat 1:20  But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

But while he thought on these things. He had evidently not resolved upon them. For this was his first thought, and, as it were, the first motive of his mind. Behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

Conceived: that is at one and the same time, conceived, formed, and animated, for this is the proper meaning of γεννηθεν—that is, begotten, born. See Abul., quזst. 52, and S. Thomas, 3 part. quזst. 33 & 34, where he teaches that the Body of Christ was in the very instant of its Conception, as regarded all its members, 1, perfectly formed and organized by the Holy Ghost; 2, animated with a reasonable soul; 3, assumed by the WORD. 4. That the soul of Christ was filled with all wisdom, and the grace of that Headship which flows from thence into all the members—i.e., to all the faithful. 5. That the same soul saw God through the Beatific Vision. 6. That the same had the use of reason, even apart from the Beatific Vision, by means of infused knowledge, and that, in this way, It knew that It was hypostatically united to the Word, and therefore gave God highest thanks because of this vision and exaltation: and that God revealed to the soul of Christ His own will, concerning His death upon the Cross, that He might thereby redeem and save mankind; and that the soul of Christ forthwith accepted this, and offered himself to God as a whole burnt-offering, a victim for sin for the salvation of the world, with the utmost humility, obedience, reverence, love, exultation, and joyfulness of mind, saying—”Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, that I should do thy will. Yea, O my God, I am content to do it: Thy law is written in my heart.” (Ps. xxxix. 8, and Heb. x. 7.)

Mat 1:21  And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.

She shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. If Jesus, as follows from this, is Emmanuel, that is, God with us; if He is the offspring and the Son of Blessed Mary, as is here said, then she is not only Mother of Christ but Mother of God, as defined by the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius. For Mother and Son are relative terms. Moreover, Valentinus is condemned by this passage, who taught that Christ brought down a celestial body from heaven, and passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a conduit-pipe. But she who bears a son is really the mother of the son; and furnishes, and indeed provides his body and all his limbs.

Jesus, that is, Saviour. This was Christ’s proper name, here foretold by the Angel, but given Him at circumcision, a name which signifies and represents His office and dignity—yea, compendiously His whole life.

Mat 1:22-23  Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Emmanuel…God with us.  The Syriac is: And they shall call his name Amanuil, which is explained, God with us. The Persian has, Immanuil, that is, because God dwelleth in us. The Egyptian version—And they shall give him the name Emmanuel, the interpretation of which is, for God is with us. S. Matthew to the reader, or, as some think, the Angel to Joseph, here brings forward the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14, to signify that it was now being fulfilled in this Conception of the Blessed Virgin, his wife, and would be perfectly fulfilled when she brought forth. And therefore he called Joseph the son of David, because the same thing was promised by God to David. I have fully expounded this prophecy in my commentary on Isa. vii., which see.

Behold. A word exacting attention, consideration, and admiration. As it were, “Behold, O ye angels, and all mankind, see and admire a new and wonderful thing, a thing unheard of in all ages. For a virgin shall conceive and bring forth Emmanuel, that is, God made man.” Whence Jeremiah, overcome with astonishment at the same event, exclaims (xxxi. 22), “The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man.”
Cyrus, the first king of Persia, according to the testimony of Xenophon, never admired, and taught his friends to admire nothing on earth. For this is the mark of a great and a regal mind, to despise all things as being beneath him, as being of less importance than himself. And Seneca said that a wise man admired nothing, because, being above the earth, he despised all things lower than himself. But in Divine matters all things are worthy of admiration; because they are great, yea, the greatest things, especially the mystery of Emmanuel, because it is the great mystery of Divine Godliness, as the Apostle says, 1 Tim. iii. 10. Therefore, the goodness of the great God is a thing to be astonished at and admired. “Who through the bowels of his mercy visited us, the day-spring from on high.” “Behold, therefore, the infant Word, the wise Child, the God-Man,” says S. Bernard. Theologians and contemplative writers teach that we can consider and meditate upon this mystery in various ways, as by the method of compassion, of joy, of thanksgiving, of love, of imitation, but most loftily by wonder, as though we were always stumbling, amazed and astounded at this so great condescension of our God, whereby He deigned to descend to us worms of the earth so as to become a worm with us; and this, not for His own sake, but for ours, that He might unite men as worms to Himself, and make them gods. Thus the Blessed Virgin was amazed, and thus, too, S. Paul, S. Bernard, and Francis, and other especially saintly persons, who plainly and entirely despised the world, and all the things which are in the world, as being petty, brief, and transitory, and fixed their whole love, thought, and amazement on the Word Incarnate, and had their conversation always with Jesus, despising all other things.

Emmanuel. The Syriac has Amman Elohan—i.e., our God with us; but the word our is not in the Hebrew Emmanuel. From the Syriac it appears possible that S. Matthew, if he wrote in Syriac (as, many think, because the Jews for whom he was writing, in the time of Christ spoke in Syriac), interpreted the Hebrew Emmanuel by the Syriac Emman Eloha, or God with us. Munster, and others who have translated the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Latin into Hebrew, render the single Hebrew word Emmanuel by two, Immanu Elohim.

Some think that this interpretation was made by the Greek translator, who was followed by the Latin. The French shorten Emmanuel into Noel, which they duplicate and sing at Christmastide. Now, the name Emmanuel signifies the Incarnation of the WORD, and His whole Economy in the Flesh, because by It He was properly and physically God with us, by means of His flesh and His conversation, and ethically by reconciliation and grace. So S. Chrysostom.

You may say: How is the name Jesus the same as Emmanuel, as S. Matthew here intimates? Tertullian (lib. contra Judזos) answers that it is the same in sense if not in sound. For that God should be with us is the same thing as that a Saviour—i.e., Jesus—should be with us. For none other than God could be our Saviour.

Observe the Hebraism by which called is put for be. He shall be called Emmanuel, that is, He shall be Emmanuel. This is by the figure of speech metonymy, to which the following passages are clearly similar: Jer 23:6, Zech8:3, and Is 9:6—”And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God: the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace.” For all these things are signified, either explicitly or implicitly by the name of Jesus.

Note, also, that Christ is not called by Matthew and Isaiah Emmanu Jehovah, or Emmanu Adonai or Elohim, though all these are names of God, because Jehovah connotes the essence of God, or signifies God as He is the first, chief, and uncircumscribable Entity, from whom all other entities derive their existence. Adonai connotes the dominion of God, and signifies God as He is the Ruler, the Judge, and the Avenger of all things. But El connotes the might and omnipotence of God, and signifies God as He is strong and omnipotent, because God manifested His utmost might and power in the Incarnation, and in Christ, for through Christ He hath vanquished His strongest enemies, even the devils, hell, death, and sin, yea, and all sins and vices, however many and however great. Whence, also, the Angel who announced this mystery, was called Gabriel—i.e., the strength of God.

Hence, also, tropologically, observe: God is with us, not only in essence, presence, and power, as He is in all and every creature; but by the Incarnation He is also with us truly, properly, and really, as a Brother, living, speaking with us in the human nature assumed by Him, Therefore—2, He is with us, as a Head with its members. For Christ, as the Head of the faithful, causes to flow into them spiritual sense and motion, together with direction and government. 3. The Same, being Incarnate, is with us in the Eucharist, as it were our Food, feeding us with his own Flesh, and giving us to drink of His own Blood. So far, physically. 4. Christ, ethically, is with the Church as a bridegroom with a bride, assisting, protecting, sustaining, adorning, making her fruitful. Whence the Psalmist: “For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me.” (Ps23:4). Therefore the believer, in every difficulty, labour, or tribulation, invokes Emmanuel, that is, God with us, conversant in our flesh. And joyfully he cries, “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall lack nothing. He shall lead me in a green pasture, and lead me forth beside the waters of comfort.” And, Ps27:1, “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom, then, shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? If armies in camp should stand together against me, my heart shall not fear; if a battle should rise up against me, in this will I be confident.” And with Paul, “If God be for us, who is against us?” so now, to any believer, but especially to a saint or a martyr, it is lawful to say what the Angel said to Gideon, “The Lord is with thee, O most valiant man.” (Judges 6:12).

Mat 1:24  And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.

And took unto him his wife, that is, did not put her away, but retained her with him, for this was what the Angel commanded him.

Mat 1:25  And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

1. S. Hilary, in loc., cited by S. Thomas in Catena, Dionys. Carthus., and Gagneius expound as follows: As the Jews were not able to look upon and recognize the face of Moses on account of the rays of light which God had, as it were, breathed into him when He talked with him on Mount Sinai, so neither was Joseph able to look upon and to know the Blessed Virgin, forasmuch as she had God in her womb, and therefore her face was most radiant. But after Christ was born, this glory and effulgence left her face, and then she could be seen and known by Joseph.

2. On the contrary S. Epiphanius, Hæresi 30—that is, his treatise against the Ebionites—expounds thus: Joseph knew her not in mind. He did not discover the sanctity and the dignity of the Blessed Virgin, his wife, until she brought forth Christ. But these expositions are either incorrect or else symbolical and mystical.

3. According, therefore, to the true literal meaning, to know one’s wife signifies in Scripture the conjugal act. This, therefore, is excluded with reference to Christ, so as to signify that He was not conceived of Joseph, but by the Holy Ghost.

Until. From hence the heretics have taken occasion to say that Joseph knew her after she had brought forth her Son. Whence they deny that the Blessed Virgin always remained a Virgin, and that after bearing her Child she lost her virginity. Thus Helvidius, Jovinian, the Ebionites, and the rest of the Antidicomariani, who are confuted by S. Epiphanius, S. Jerome, S. Augustine and others, who teach that the word until, in this place, only signifies what took place up to the time of the birth, not what happened after the birth, which is not here referred to. For by this word until, Matthew wished to assert a wonderful thing—a thing hitherto unheard of, and, according to nature, incredible—even the Conception of Christ, without a father, by a virgin mother. Similarly, until is used, Ps110:1., “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool,” not because Thou shalt not after that sit any longer, but because Thou shalt then sit far more gloriously, as victor and triumphant at my right hand. And in Matt5:26, “Thou shalt not go out from thence until thou shalt pay the last farthing;” that is, thou shalt never come out from the fire of hell. And 2Sam 6:23, “Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death,” i.e., never. And, Gen 8:7, concerning the raven, which Noah sent forth out of the ark: “Which went forth and did not return until the waters were dried up;” i.e., it never returned. Thus, too, we say, “S. Agnes continued a virgin until death;” i.e., she always remained a virgin, for she could not lose her virginity after she was dead.

You may urge, S. Matthew says, until she brought forth her firstborn son; therefore she had other sons, by Joseph, namely those who in the Gospel are called the Lord’s brethren. I reply by denying the conclusion. For, in Scripture, any one is called a first-born son, who has no elder brothers, even though he be an only son. This is plain from Exo_4:22, and 14:2. The word “first” denies the existence of any previous sons, but does not require, or presuppose, that there were any subsequent. Thus, an only son is even now called the first-born.

Therefore it is a doctrine of the faith that the Blessed Virgin always remained a virgin, as is plain from S. Luk_1:34, Eze_44:2, and by the universal consent of the Fathers, and the common consent, and perpetual tradition of the Church. (See S. Jerome, contra Helvid., init. tom. 2.)

This was originally published on my primary blog.

The Religion Of The Antichrist.

St john tells us that “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come on the flesh, is that spirit of Antichrist, which even now already is in the world.” It was the characteristic of the Antichrist, that he should openly deny our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Son of God come in the flesh from heaven. So exactly and fully was this description to answer to him, that to deny Christ might e suitably called the spirit of Antichrist; and the deniers of Him might be said to have the spirit of Antichrist, to be like Antichrist, to be Antichrists. The same thing is stated in a former chapter. “Who is the Liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? he is the Antichrist, that denieth the Son, the same has not the Father;” from which words, moreover, it would appear that Antichrist will e led on from rejecting the Son of God to the rejecting of God altogether, either by implication or practically.

I shall now make some further observations on the characteristic marks of the predicted enemy of the Church; and, as before, I shall confine myself to the interpretations of Scripture given by the early Fathers.

My reason for doing so is simply this,-that on so difficult a subject as unfulfilled prophecy, I really can have no opinion of my own, nor indeed is it desirable I should have, or at least that I should put it forward in any formal way. The opinion of any one person, even if he were the most fit to form one, could hardly be of any authority, or be worth putting forward by itself; whereas the judgment and views of the early Church claim and attract our special regard, because for what we know they may be in part derived from traditions of the apostles, and because they are put forward far more consistently and unanimously than those of any other set of teachers. Thus they have at least greater claims on our attention than those of other writers, be their claims little or great; if they are little, those of others are still less. The only really strong claim which can e made on our belief, is the clear fulfillment of the prophecy. Did we see all the marks of the prophecy satisfactorily answered in the past history of the Church, then we might dispense with the authority in the parties setting the proof before us. This condition, however, can hardly be satisfied, because the date of the Antichrist comes close upon the coming of Christ in judgment, and therefore the event will not have happened under such circumstances as to allow of being appealed to, Nor indeed is any history producible in which are fulfilled all the marks of Antichrist clearly, though some are fulfilled here and there. Nothing then is left us, (if we are to take up any opinion at all,-if we are to profit, as Scripture surely intends, by its warnings concerning the evil which is to come), but to go by the judgment of the Fathers, whether that be of special authority in this matter or not. To them therefore I have had recourse already, and now shall have recourse again. To continue, then, the subject with the early Fathers a my guide.

1.

It seems clear that St Paul and St John speak of the same enemy of the Church, from the similarity of their descriptions. They both say, that the spirit itself was already at work in their day. “That spirit of the Antichrist,” says St John, “is now already in the world.” “The mystery of iniquity doesa lrea d y work,” says St Paul. And they both describe the enemy as characterized by the same especial sin, open infidelity. St John says that “he is the Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son;” while St Paul speaks of him in like manner as “the adversary and rival of all that is called God, or worshipped;” that “he sitteth as God in the Temple of God, setting forth himself that he is God.” In both these passages, the same blasphemous denial of God and religion is described; but St Paul adds, in addition, that he will oppose all existing religion, true or false, “all that is called God, or worshipped.”

Two other Scripture passages may be adduced, predicting the same reckless impiety; one from the eleventh chapter of Daniel: “The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished…Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, no the Desire of women, nor regard any god-for he shall magnify himself above all.”

The other passage is faintly marked with any prophetic allusion in itself, except that all our Savior’s sayings have a deep meaning, and the Fathers take this in particular to have such. “I am come in My Father’s Name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” This they consider to be a prophetic allusion to Antichrist, whom the Jews were to mistake for the Christ. He is to come “in his own name.” Not from God, as even the Son of God came, who if any might have come in the power of His essential Divinity, not in God’s Name, not with any pretense of a mission from Him, but in his own name, by a blasphemous assumption of divine power, thus will Antichrist come.

To the above passages may be added those which speak generally of the impieties of the last age of the world, impieties which we may believe will usher in and be completed in Antichrist:-

“Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased…Many shall be purified and made white, and tried: but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.” “In the last days perilous times shall come, for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.” “Scoffers walking after their own lusts, and saying, ‘where is the promise of His coming?’” “Despising government, presumptuous…self-willed, not afraid to speak evil of dignities…promising men liberty, while themselves servants of corruption,” and the like.

2.

I just now made mention of the Jews: it may be well then to state what was held in the early Church concerning Antichrist’s connection with them.

Our Lord foretold that many should come in His name, saying, “I am Christ.” It was the judicial punishment of the Jews, as of all unbelievers in one way or another, that, having rejected the true Christ, they should take up with a false one; and Antichrist will be the complete and perfect seducer, towards whom all who were previous are approximations, according to the words just now quoted, “If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” To the same purport are St Paul’s words after describing the Antichrist; “Whose coming,” he says, “is…with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, becuase they receive not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the Truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Hence, considering that Antichrist would pretend to be the Messiah, it was of old the received notion that he was to be of Jewish race and to observe the Jewish rites.

Further, St Paul says that Antichrist should “sit in the Temple of God;” that is, according to the earlier Fathers, in the Jewish Temple. Our savior’s own words may be taken to support this notion, because He speaks of “the Abomination of Desolation” (which, whatever other meanings it might have, in its fullness denotes Antichrist) “standing in the holy place.” Further, the persecution of Christ’s witnesses which Antichrist will cause, is described by St John as taking place in Jerusalem. “Their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, (which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt), where also our Lord was crucified.”

Now here a remark may be made. At first sight, I suppose, we should not consider that there was much evidence from the Sacred Text for Antichrist taking part with the Jews, or having to do with their Temple. It is, then, a very remarkable fact, that the apostate emperor Julian, who was a type and earnest of the great enemy, should, as he did, have taken part with the Jews, and set about building their Temple. Here history is a sort of comment on the prophecy, and sustains and vindicates those early interpretations of it which I am reviewing. Of course I must be understood to mean, and a memorable circumstance it is, that this belief of the Church that Antichrist should be connected with the Jews, was expressed long before Julian’s time, and that we still possess the works in which it is contained. In fact we have the writings of two Fathers, both Bishops and Martyrs of the Church, who lived at least one hundred and fifty years before Julian, and less than one hundred years after St John. They both distinctly declare Antichrist’s connection with the Jews. The first of them, Irenaeus, speaks as follows: “In the Temple which is at Jerusalem the adversary will sit, endeavoring to show himself to be the Christ.” And the second, Hippolytus: “Antichrist will be he who shall resuscitate the kingdom of the Jews.”

3.

Next let us ask, will Antichrist profess any sort of religion at all? Neither true God nor false god will he worship: so far is clear, and yet something more, and that obscure, is told us. Indeed, as far as the prophetic accounts go, they seem at first sight incompatible with each other. Antichrist is to “exalt himself over all that is called God or worshiped.” He will set himself forcibly against idols and idolatry, as the early writers agree in declaring. Yet in the book of Daniel we read, “In his estate shall he honor a god of forces; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strongholds with a strange god whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory.” What is meant by the words translated “god of forces,” and afterwards called “a strange god,” is quite hidden from us, and probably will be so till the event; but anyhow some sort of false worship is certainly predicted as the mark of Antichrist, with this prediction the contrary way, that he shall set himself against all idols, as well as against the true God. Now it is not at all extraordinary that there should be this contrariety in the prediction, for we know generally that infidelity leads to superstition, and that the men most reckless in their blasphemy are cowards also as regards the invisible world. They cannot be consistent if they would. But let me notice here a remarkable coincidence, which is contained in the history of that type or shadow of the final apostasy which scared the world some forty or fifty years ago,-a coincidence between actual events and prophecy sufficient to show us that the apparent contradiction in the latter may easily be reconciled, though beforehand we may not see how; sufficient to remind us that the all-watchful eye, and the all- ordaining hand of God is still over the world, and that the seeds, sown in prophecy above two thousand years since, are not dead, but from time to time, by blade and tender shoot, give earnest of the future harvest. Surely the world is impregnated with the elements of preternatural evil, which ever and anon, in unhealthy seasons, give lowering and muttering tokens of the wrath to come!

In that great and famous nation over against us (France), once great for its love of Christ’s Church, since memorable for the deeds of blasphemy, which leads me here to mention it, and now, when it should be pitied and prayed for, made unhappily, in too many respects, our own model-followed when it should be condemned, and admired when it should e excused,-in the Capital of that powerful and celebrated nation, there took place, as we all well know, within the last fifty years, an open apostasy from Christianity; nor from Christianity only, but from every kind of worship which might retain any semblance or pretence of the great truths of religion. Atheism was absolutely professed;-and yet in spite of this, it seems a contradiction in terms to say it, a certain sort of worship, and that, as the prophet expresses it, ‘a strange worship,’ was introduced. Observe what this was.

I say, they avowed on the one hand Atheism. They prevailed upon a wretched man, whom they had forced upon the Church as an Archbishop, to come before them in public and declare that there was no God, and that what he had hitherto taught was a fable. They wrote up over the burial places that death was an eternal sleep. They closed the churches, they seized and desecrated the gold and silver plate belonging to them, turning, like Belshazzar, those sacred vessels to the use of their impious revelings; they forced mock processions, clad in priestly garments, and singing profane hymns. They annulled the divine ordinance of marriage, resolving it into a mere civil contract to be made and dissolved at pleasure. These things are but a part of their enormities.

On the other hand, after having broken away from all restraint as regards God and man, they gave a name to that reprobate state itself into which they had thrown themselves, and exalted it, that very negation of religion, or rather that real and living blasphemy, into a kind of god. They called it LIBERTY, and they literally worshipped it as a divinity. It would almost be incredible, that men who had flung off all religion should be at pains to assume a new and senseless worship of their own devising, whether in superstition or in mockery, were not events so recent and so notorious. After abjuring our Lord and Savior, and blasphemously declaring Him to be an impostor, they proceeded to decree, in the public assembly of the nation, the adoration of Liberty and Equality as divinities: and they appointed festivals in honor of Reason, the Country, the Constitution, and the Virtues. Further, they determined that tutelary gods, even dead men, may be canonized, consecrated, and worshiped; and they enrolled in the number of these some of the most notorious infidels and profligates of the last century. The remains of the two principal of these were brought in solemn procession into one of the churches, and placed upon the holy altar itself; incense was offered to them, and the assembled multitude owed down in worship before one of them-before what remained on earth of an inveterate enemy of Christ.

Now, I do not mention all this as considering it the fulfillment of the prophecy, nor, again, as if the fulfillment when it comes will be in this precise way, but merely to point out, what the course of events has shown to us in these latter times, that there are ways of fulfilling sacred announcements that seem at first sight contradictory,-that men may oppose every existing worship, true and false, and yet take up a worship of their own from pride, wantoness, policy, superstition, fanaticism, or other reasons.

And further, let it be remarked, that there was a tendency in the infatuated people I have spoken of, to introduce the old Roman democratic worship, as if further to show us that Rome, the fourth monster of the prophet’s vision, is not dead. They even went so far as to restore the worship of one of the Roman divinities (Ceres) by name, raised a statue to her, and appointed a festival in her honor, This indeed was inconsistent with exalting themselves “above all that is called god;” but I mention the particular fact, as I have said, not as throwing light upon the prophecy, but to show that the spirit of old Rome has not passed from the world, though its name is almost extinct.

Still further, it is startling to observe, that the former Apostate, in the early times, the Emperor Julian, he too was engaged in bringing back Roman Paganism.

Further still, let it be observed that Antiochus too, the Antichrist before Christ, the persecutor of the Jews, he too signalized himself in forcing the Pagan worship upon them, introducing it even into the Temple.

We know not what is to come; but this we may safely say, that improbable as it is that Paganism should ever be publicly restored and enforced by authority for any period, however short, even three years and a half, yet it is far less improbable now than it was fifty years ago, before the event occurred which I have referred to. Who would not have been thought a madman or idiot, before that period, who had conjectured such a portentous approximation towards Paganism as actually then took place?

4.

Now let us recur to the ancient Fathers, and see whether their further anticipations do not run parallel to the events which have since happened.

Antichrist, as they considered, will come out of the Roman Empire just upon its destruction;-that is, the Roman Empire will in its last days divide itself into ten parts, and the Enemy will come up suddenly out of it upon these ten, and subdue three of them, or all of them perhaps, and (as the prophet continues) “shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws, and they shall be given into His hand until time, and times, and the dividing of time.”

Now it is very observable, that one of the early Fathers whom I have already cited, Hippolytus, expressly says that the ten states which will at length appear, though kingdoms, shall also be democracies. I say this is observable, considering the present state of the world, the tendency of things in this day towards democracy, and the instance which has been presented to us of democracy within the last fifty years, in those occurrences in France to which I have already referred.

Another expectation of the early Church was, that the Roman monster, after remaining torpid for centuries, would awake up at the end of the world, and be restored in all its laws and forms; and this, too, considering those same recent events to which I have referred, is certainly worth noticing also. The same Father, who anticipates the coming of democracies, expressly deduces from a passage in the 13th chapter of the Apocalypse, that “the system of Augustus, who was founder of the Roman Empire, shall be adopted and established by him (Antichrist), in order to his own aggrandizement and glory. This is the fourth monster whose head was wounded and healed; in that the empire was destroyed and came to naught, and was divided into ten diadems. But at this time Antichrist, as being an unscrupulous villain, will heal and restore it; so that it will be active and vigorous once more through the system heestablishes.”

I will but notice one other expectation falling in with the foregoing notion of re-establishment of Roman power, entertained by the two Fathers whom I have been quoting; viz ., one concerning the name of Antichrist, as spoken of in the 13th chapter of the Revelation: “Here is wisdom,” says the inspired text; “let him that hat understanding count his number, for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred threescore and six.” Both Irenaeus and Hippolytus give a name, the letters of which together in Greek make up this number, characteristic of the position of Antichrist as the head of the Roman Empire in its restored state,viz ., the word Latinus, or Latin king.

Irenaeus speaks as follows: “Expect that the empire will first be divided into ten kings; then while they are reigning and beginning to settle and aggrandize themselves, suddenly one will come and claim the kingdom, and frighten them, having a name which contains the predicted number (666); him recognize as the Abomination of Desolation.” Then he goes on to mention, together with two other words, the name of Lateinos as answering to the number, and says of it, “This is very probable, since it is the name of the last empire;for the Latins” (that is, the Romans) “are now in power.” (he adds that he himself prefers one of the other words).

And Hippolytus: “Since…the wound of the first monster was healed…and it is plain that the Latins are still in power, therefore he is called the Latin King (Latinus), the name passing from an empire to an individual.”

Whether this anticipation will be fulfilled or not, we cannot say. I only mention it as showing the belief of the Fathers in the restoration and re-establishment of the Roman Empire, which has certainly since their day been more than once attempted.

It seems then, on the whole, that, as far as the testimony of the early Church goes, Antichrist will be an open blasphemer, opposing himself to every existing worship, true and false,-a persecutor, a patron of the Jews, and a restorer of their worship, and further, the author of a novel kind of worship. Moreover, he will appear suddenly, at the very end of the Roman Empire, which once was, and now is dormant; that he will knit it into one, and engraft his Judaism and his new worship (a sort of Paganism, it may be) upon the old discipline of Caesar Augustus; that in consequence he will earn the title of the Latin or Roman King, as best expressive of his place and character; lastly, that he will pass away as suddenly as he came.

5.

Now concerning this, I repeat, I do not wish to pronounce how far the early Church was right or wrong in these anticipations, though events since have seriously tended to strengthen its general interpretations of Scripture prophecy. It may be asked, however, what practical use is there in speaking of these things, if they be doubtful?

I answer, first, that it is not unprofitable to bear in mind that we are still under what may e called a miraculous system. I do not mean to maintain that literal miracles are taking place now every day, but that our present state is a portion of a providential course, which began in miracle, and, at least at the end of the world, if not before, will end in miracle. The particular expectations above detailed may be right or wrong; yet an Antichrist, whoever and whatever he be, is to come; marvels are to come; the old Roman Empire is not extinct; Satan, if bound, is bound but for a season; the contest of good and evil is not ended. I repeat it. in the present state of things, when the great object of education is supposed to be the getting rid of things supernatural, when we are id to laugh and jeer at believing everything we do not see, are told to account for everything by things known and ascertained, and to assay every statement by the touchstone of experience, I must think that this vision of Antichrist, as a supernatural power to come, is a great providential gain, as being a counterpoise to the evil tendencies of the age.

And next, it must surely be profitable for our thoughts to be sent backward and forward to the beginning and the end of the Gospel times, to the first and the second coming of Christ. What we want, is to understand that we are in the place in which the early Christians were, with the same covenant, ministry, sacraments, and duties;-to realize a state of things long past away;-to feel that we are in a sinful world, a world lying in wickedness; to discern our position in it, that we are witnesses in it, that reproach and suffering are our portion,-so that we must not “think it strange” if they come upon us, but a kind of gracious exception if they do not; to have our hearts awake, as if we had seen Christ and His Apostles, and seen their miracles,-awake to the hope and waiting of His second coming, looking out for it, nay, desiring to see the tokens of it; thinking of ten and much of the judgment to come, dwelling on and adequately entering into the thought, that we individually shall be judged. All these surely are acts of true and saving faith; and this is one substantial use of the Book of Revelation, and other parts of Scripture, quite distinct from our knowing their real interpretation,viz ., to take the veil from our eyes, to lift up the covering which lies over the face of the world, and make us see day by day, as we go in and out, as we get up and lie down, as we labor, and walk, and rest, and recreate ourselves, the Throne of God set up in the midst of us, His majesty and His judgments, His Son’s continual intercession for the elect, their trials, and their victory.

This was originally posted on my primary blog.

The Time Of The Antichrist.

The Thessalonian Christians had supposed that the coming of Christ was at hand. St Paul writes towarn them against such an expectation. Not that he discountenances their looking out for our Lord’s coming, the contrary; but he tells them that a certain event must come before it, and until that had arrived the end would not be. “Let no man deceive you by any means,” he says; “For the day shall not come,except there come a falling away first,”- and he proceeds”and” except first “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”

As long as the world lasts, this passage of Scripture will be full of reverent interest to Christians. It is their duty to be ever watching for the advent of their Lord, to search for the signs of it in all that happens around them; an above all to keep in mind this great ans awful sign of which St Paul speaks to the Thessalonians. As our Lord’s first coming had its forerunner, so will the second have its own. The first was “One more than a prophet,” the Holy Baptist: the second will be more than an enemy of Christ; it will be the very image of Satan, the fearful and hateful Antichrist. Of him, as described in prophecy, I propose to speak; and in doing so, I shall follow the exclusive guidance of the ancient Fathers of the Church.

I follow the ancient Fathers, not as thinking that on such a subject they have the weight they possess in the instances of doctrine or ordinances. When they speak of doctrines, they speak of them as being universally held. They are witnesses to the fact that those doctrines having been received, not here or there, but everywhere. We receive those doctrines which they thus teach, not merely because they teach them, but because they bear witness to all Christians everywhere then held them. We take them as honest informants, but not as a sufficient authority in themselves, though they are an authority too. If they were to state these very same doctrines, but say, “These are our opinions: we deduced them from Scripture, and they are true,” we might well doubt about receiving them at their hands. We might fairly say, that we had as much right to deduce from Scripture as they had; that deductions from Scripture were mere opinions; that if our deductions agreed with theirs, that would be a happy coincidence, and increase our confidence in them; but if they did not, it could not be helped-we must follow our own light. Doubtless, no man has any right to impose his own deductions upon another, in matters of faith. There is an obvious obligation, indeed, upon the ignorant to submit to those who are better informed; and there is a fitness in the young submitting implicitly for a time to the teaching of their elders; but beyond this, one man’s opinion is not better than another’s. But this is not the state of the case as regards the Fathers. They do not speak of their own Private Opinion; they do not say, “This is true, because we see it in Scripture”-but, “this is true, because in matter of fact it is held, and has ever been held, by all the Churches, down to our times, without interruption, ever since the apostles: “Where the question is merely one of testimony, viz., whether they had the means of knowing that it had been and was so held; for if it was the belief of so many and independent Churches at once, and that, on the ground of its being from the Apostles, doubtless it cannot be true and Apostolic.

This, I say, is the mode in which the Fathers speak as regards doctrine; but it is otherwise when they interpret prophecy. In this matter there seems to have been no catholic, no formal and distinct, or at least no authoritative traditions; so that when they interpret Scripture they are for the most part giving, and profess to be giving, either their own private opinions, or vague, floating, and merely general  anticipations. This is what might have been expected; for it is not ordinarly the course of Divine Providence to interpret prophecy before the event. What the Apostles disclosed concerning the future, was for the most part disclosed to them in private, to individuals-not committed to writing, not intended for the edifying of the Body of Christ,-and was soon lost. Thus, in a few verses after the passage I have quoted, St Paul says, “Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” and he writes by hints and allusions, not speaking out. And it shows how little care was taken to discriminate and authenticate his prophetical intimations, that the Thessalonians had adopted an opinion, that he had said-what in fact he had not said-that the Day of Christ was immediately at hand.

Yet, though the Fathers do not convey to us the interpretation of prophecy with the same certainty as they convey doctrine, yet, in proportion to their agreement, their personal weight, and the prevalence, or again the authoritative character of the opinions they are stating, they are to be read with deference; for, to say the least, they are as likely to be right as commentators now; in some respects more so, because the interpretation of prophecy has in these times become a matter of controversy and party. And passion and prejudice have so interfered with soundness of judgment, that it is difficult to say who is to be trusted to interpret it, or whether a private Christian may not be as good and expositor as those by whom the office has been assumed.

Now to turn to the passage in question, which I shall examine by arguments drawn from Scripture, without being solicitous to agree, or to say why I am at issue, with modern commentators: “That Day shall not come, except there come a falling away first.” Here the sign of the second Advent is said to be a certain frightful apostasy, and the manifestation of the man of sin, the son of perdition-that is, as he is commonly called, Antichrist. Our Saviour seems to add, that the sign will immediately precede Him, or that His coming will follow close upon it; for after speaking of “false prophets” and “false Christs,” “showing signs and wonders,” “iniquity abounding,” and “love waxing cold,” and the like, He adds, “When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.” Again He says, “When you shall see the Abomination of Desolation…stand in the holy place…then let them that be in Judea flee into the mountains.” Indeed, St Paul also implies this, when he says that Antichrist shall be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming.

First, then, I say, if Antichrist is to come immediately before Christ, and to be the sign of His coming, it is manifest that the Antichrist is not come yet, but still to be expected; for, else Christ would have come before now.

Further, it appears that the time of Antichrist’s tyranny will be three years and a half, or, as Scripture expresses it, “a time, and times, and the dividing of time,” or “forty-two months,”-which is an additional reason for believing he is not come; for, if so, He must have come quite lately, his time being altogether so short; that is, within the last three years, and this we cannot say he has.

Besides, there are two other circumstances of his appearance, which have not been fulfilled. First, a time of unexpected trouble. “There shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world to this time, nor ever shall be; and except those days should be shortened, there should be no flesh saved.” This has not yet been. Next, the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come.”

Now it may be objected to this conclusion, that St Paul says, in this passage before us, that “the mystery of iniquity does already work,” that is, even in his day, as if Antichrist had in fact come even them. But he would seem to mean merely this, that in his day there were shadows and forebodings, earnests and operative elements, of that which was one day to come in its fullness. Just as the types of Christ went before Christ, so the shadows of Antichrist precede him. In truth, every event of this world is a type of those that follow, history proceeding forward as a circle ever enlarging. The days of the Apostles typified the last days; there were false Christs, and risings, and troubles, and persecutions, and judicial destruction of the Jewish Church. In like manner, every age presents its own picture of those still future events, which, and which alone, are the real fulfillment of the prophecy which stands at the head of them all. Hence St John says, “Little children, it is the last time; and as you have heard that the Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” Antichrist was come, and was not come; it was, and it was not the last time. In the sense in which the Apostles’ Day might be called the “last time,” and the end of the world, it was also the time of Antichrist.

A second objection may be made as follows: St Paul says, “Now you know what withholds him, that he (Antichrist) may be revealed in his time.” Here a something is mentioned as keeping back the manifestation of the enemy of truth. He proceeds: “He that now withholds, will withhold, until he be taken out of the way.” Now this retraining power was in early times considered to be the Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire (it is argued) has long been taken out of the way; it follows that Antichrist has long since come. In answer to this objection, I would grant that he “that withholds,” or “hinders,” means the power of Rome, for all the ancient writers o speak of it. And I grant that as Rome, according to the prophet Daniel’s vision, succeeded Greece, so Antichrist succeeds Rome, and the second coming succeeds Antichrist. But it does not follow hence that the Antichrist is come: for it is not clear that the Roman Empire is gone. Far from it: the Roman Empire in the view of prophecy, remains even to this day. Rome had a very different fate from the three other monsters mentioned by the Prophet (Daniel), as will be seen by his description of it. “Behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with the its feet: and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.” These ten horns, an Angel informed him, “are ten kings that shall rise out of this kingdom” of Rome. As, then, the ten horns belonged to the fourth beast, and were not separate from it, so the kingdoms, into which the Roman Empire was to be divided, are the continuation and termination of the Empire itself,-which lasts on, and in some sense lives in the view of prophecy, however we decide the historical question. Consequently, we have not yet seen the end of the Roman Empire. “That which withholds” still exists, up to the manifestation of its ten horns; and until it is removed, Antichrist will not come. And from the midst of those horns he will arise, as the same Prophet informs us: “I considered the horns, and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.”

Up to the time, then, when Antichrist shall actually appear, there has been and will be continual effort to manifest him to the world on the part of the powers of evil. The history of the Church is the history of that long birth. “The mystery of iniquity does already work,” says St Paul. “Even now there are many Antichrists,” says St John,-”every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, of which you have heard that it should come, and even now is already in the world.” It has been at work ever since, from the time of the Apostles, though kept under by him that “withholds.” At this very time there is a fierce struggle, the spirit of Antichrist is attempting to rise, and the political power in those countries which are prophetically Roman, firm and vigorous repressing it. And in fact, we actually have before our eyes, as our fathers also in the generation before us, a fierce and lawless principle everywhere at work-a spirit of rebellion against God and man, which the powers of government in each country can barely keep under with their greatest efforts. Whether this which we witness be that spirit of Antichrist, which is one day at length to be let loose, this ambitious spirit, the parent of all heresy, schism, sedition, revolution, and war-whether this be so or not, at least we know from prophecy that the present framework of society and government, as far as it is the representative of Roman powers, is that which withholds, and Antichrist is that which will rise when this restraint fails.

It has been more or less implied in the foregoing remarks, that the Antichrist is one man, an individual, not a power or a kingdom. Such surely is the impression left on the mind by the Scripture notices concerning him, after taking fully into account the figurative character of prophetical language. Consider these passages together, which describe him, and see whether we must not so conclude. First, the passage in St Paul’s Epistle: “That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the Son of perdition, who is the adversary and rival of all that is called God or worshipped; so that he sits as God in the Temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God…Then shall that Wicked One be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming…whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders.”

Next, in the prophet Daniel: “Another shall arise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall not sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto the end.” Again: “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exult and magnify himself above every God, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished…Neither shall he regard the God of his Fathers, nor the Desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate he shall honor a god of forces, and a god whom his fathers knew not shall be honor with gold and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.” Let it be observed, that Daniel elsewhere describes other kings, and that the event has shown them certainly to be individuals,- for instance, Xerxes, Darius, and Alexander.

And in like manner St John: “There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His Name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given to him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them; and power was given him over all people and tongues and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in th book of life of the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world. “

Further, that by Antichrist is meant some one person, is made probable by the anticipations which, as I have said, have already occurred in history, of the fulfilment of prophecy. Individual men have arisen actually answering in a great measure to the above description; and this circumstance creates a probability, that the absolute and entire fulfillment which is to come will be in an individual also, the most remarkable of these shadows for the destined scourge appeared before the time of the apostles, between them and the age of Daniel, viz., the heathen king Antiochus, of whom we read in the book of Maccabees. This instance is the more to the purpose, because he is actually described (as we suppose) by Daniel, in another part of his prophecy, in terms which seem also to belong to the Antichrist, and, as belonging, imply that Antiochus actually was what he seems to be, a type of that more fearful future enemy of the Church. This Antiochus was the savage persecutor of the Jews, in their latter times, as Antichrist will be of Christians. A few passages from the Maccabees will show you what he was. St Paul in the text speaks of an apostasy, and then of Antichrist following upon it; and thus is the future of the Christian Church typified in the past Jewish history. “In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us: for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow. So this device pleased them well. Then certain of the people were so forward herein, that they went to the king, who gave them licence to do after the ordinances of the heathen; and made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief.” Here was the falling away. After this introduction the enemy of truth appears. “After that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again,…and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, and entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light and all the vessels thereof, and the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple; all which he pulled off. And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken proudly.” After this he set fire to Jerusalem, “and pulled down the houses and the walls thereof on every side…Then built they the city of David with a great and strong wall,…and they put therein a sinful nation, wicked men, and fortified themselves therein.” Next, King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, and everyone should leave his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king, Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath.” After this he forced these impieties on the chosen people. All were to be put to death who would not “profane the sabbath and festival days, and pollute the sanctuary and the holy people, and set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine’s flesh and unclean beasts,” and “leave their children uncircumcised.” At length he set up an idol, or, in the words of history, “the abomination of desolation upon the later, and built idol altars throughout the cities of Judea on every side…and when they had rent in pieces the books of the law which they found, they burnt them with fire.” It is added, “Howbeit many in Israel were full resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat anything unclean, wherefore they chose ather to die…and there was very great wrath upon Israel.” Here we have presented to us some of the lineaments of Antichrist,who will be such and worse than such, as Antiochus.

The history of the apostate emperor Julian, who lived between 3oo and 400 years after Christ, furnishes us with another approximation to the predicted Antichrist, and an additional reason for thinking he will be one person, not a kingdom, power, or the like. And so again does Mahome, who propagated his imposture about 600 years after Christ came.

Lastly, that Antichrist is one individual man, not a power,-not a mere ethical spirit, or a political system, not a dynasty, or succession of rulers,-was the universal tradition of the early Church. “We must say,” writes St Jerome upon Daniel, “what has been handed down to us by all the ecclesiastical writers, that, in the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there will be ten kings, to divide the Roman territory between them, and an eleventh will rise up, a small king, who will subdue three of the ten, and thereupon receive the submission of the other seven. It is said that ‘the horn had eyes, as the eyes of a man,’ lest we should, as some have thought, suppose him to be the evil spirit, or a demon, whereas he is one man, in whom Satan shall dwell bodily. ‘And a mouth speaking great things;’ for he is the man of sin, the son of perdition, so that he dares to ’sit in the Temple of God, making himself as God.’ ‘The beast has been slain, and his carcass has perished;’ since the Antichrist blasphemes in that united Roman Empire, all its kingdoms are at one and the same time to be abolished, and there shall be no earthly kingdom, but the society of the saints, and the coming of the triumphant Son of God.” And Theodoret: “Having spoken of Antiochus Epiphanes, the prophet passes from the figure to the antitype; for the antitype of Antiochus is Antichrist. As Antiochus compelled the Jews to act impiously, so the man of sin, the son of perdition, will make every effort for the seduction of the pious, by false miracles, and by force and by persecution. As the Lord says, “Then will be great tribulation, such as never was from the beginning of the world till this time, nor ever shall be.”

What I have said upon this subject may be summed up as follows:-that the coming of Christ will be immediately preceded by a very awful and unparalleled outbreak of evil, called by St Paul an Apostasy, a falling away, in the midst of which a certain terrible Man of sin and Child of perdition, the special and singular enemy of Christ, or Antichrist, will appear; that this will be when revolutions prevail, and the present framework of society breaks to pieces; and that at present the spirit which he will embody and represent is kept under by “the powers that be,” but that on their dissolution, he will rise out of their bosom and knit them together again in his own evil way, under his own rule, to the exclusion of the Church. It would be out of place to say more than this at present. I will but insist on one particular circumstance contained in St Paul’s announcement which I have already in part commented on.

It is said there will “come a falling away, and the man of sin will be revealed.” In other words, the Man of Sin is born of an Apostasy, or at least comes into power through an Apostasy, or is preceded by an apostasy, or would not be except for an apostasy. So says the inspired text: now observe, how remarkably that course of Providence, a seen in history, has commented on this prediction.

First, we have a comment in the instance of Antiochus previous to the actual events contemplated in the prophecy. The Israelites, or at least great numbers of them, put off their own sacred religion, and then the enemy was allowed to come in.

Next the apostate emperor Julian, who attempted to overthrow the Church by craft, and introduce paganism back again: it is observable that he was preceded, nay, he was nurtured, by heresy; by that first great heresy which disturbed the peace and purity of the Church. About forty years before he became emperor, arose the pestilent Arian heresy which denied that Christ was God. It ate its way among the rulers of the Church like a canker, and what with the treachery of some, and mistakes of others, at one time it was all but dominant throughout Christendom. The few holy and faithful men, who witnessed to the Truth, cried out, with awe and terror at the apostasy, that Antichrist was coming. They called it the “forerunner of the Antichrist.” And true, his shadow came. Julian was educated in the bosom of Arianism by some of its principle upholders. His tutor was that Eusebius from whom it partisans took their name; and in due time he fell away to paganism, became a hater and persecutor of the Church, and was cutoff before he reigned out the brief period which will be the real Antichrist’s duration.

And thirdly, another heresy arose, a heresy in its consequences far more lasting and far-spreading; it was of a twofold character; with two heads, as I may call them, Nestorianism and Eutychianism, apparently opposed to one another, yet acting towards a common end: both in one way or other denied the truth of Christ’s gracious incarnation, and tended to destroy the faith of Christians not less certainly , though more insidiously, than the heresy of Arius. In spread through the east and through Egypt, corrupting and poisoning those Churches which had once, alas! been the most flourishing, the earliest abodes and strongholds of revealed truth. Out of this heresy, or at least by means of it, the impostor Mahoma sprang, and formed his creed. Here is another Shadow of the Antichrist.

These instances give us warning:-Is the enemy of Christ, and His Church, to arise out of a certain special falling away from God? And is there no reason to fear that some such Apostasy is graduallypreparing, gathering, hastening on in this very day? For is there not at this very time a special effort made almost all over the world, that is, every here and there, more or less in sight or out of sight, in this or that place, but most visibly and formidably in its most civilized and powerful parts, an effort to do without religion. Is there not an opinion avowed and growing, that a nation has nothing to do with Religion; that it is merely a matter for each man’s conscience?-which is all one with saying that we may let the Truth fail from the earth without trying to continue it in and on after our own time. Is there not a vigorous and united movement in all countries to cast down the Church of Christ from power and place? Is there not a feverish and ever-busy endeavour to get rid of the necessity of Religion in public transactions? for example, an attempt to get rid of oaths, under the pretense that they are too sacred for affairs of common life, instead of providing that they be taken more reverently and more suitably? an attempt to educate without Religion?-that is, by putting all forms of religion together, which comes to the same thing;- an attempt to enforce temperance, and the virtues which flow from it, without Religion, by means of Societies which are built on moral principles of utility? an attempt to make expedience, and not truth, the end and the rule of measures of State and the enactments of Law? an attempt to make numbers, and not the Truth, the ground of maintaining, or not maintaining, this or that creed, as if we had any reason whatever in Scripture for thinking that the many will be in the right and the few in the wrong? An attempt to deprive the Bible of its one meaning to the exclusion of all others, to make people think that it may have an hundred meanings all equally good, or in other words, that it has no meaning at all, is a dead letter, and may be put aside? an attempt to supersede Religion altogether, as far as it is external and objective, as far as it is displayed in ordinances, or can be expressed by written words,-to confine our inward feelings, and thus, considering how variable, how evanescent our feelings are, an attempt, in fact, to destroy Religion?

Surely, there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshaling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of Christ as in a net, and preparing the way for a general Apostasy from it. Whether this very Apostasy is to give birth to Antichrist, or whether he is still to be delayed, as he has already been delayed so long, we cannot know; but at any rate this Apostasy, and all its tokens and instruments, are of the Evil One, and savour of death. Far be it from any of us to be those simple ones what taken in that snare which is circling around us! Far be it from any of us to be seduced with the fair promises in which Satan is sure to hide his poison! To you think he is so unskilful in his craft, as to ask you openly and plainly to join him in his warfare against the Truth? No; he offers you baits to tempt you. He promises you civil liberty; he promises you equality; he promises you trade and wealth; he promises you a remission of taxes; he promises you reform. This is the way in which he conceals from you the kind of work to which he is putting you; he does so himself, and induces you to imitate him; or he promises you illumination,-he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind. He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which revers them. He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how become as gods. Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his.

Shall we Christians allow ourselves to have lot or part in this matter? Shall we, even with our little finger, help on the Mystery of Iniquity, which is travailing for birth, and convulsing the earth with its pangs? “O my soul, come not thou into their secret: unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united.” “What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness? Wherefore, come out from among them, and be you separate,”…lest you be workers together with God’s enemies, and be opening the way for the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition.

This was posted earlier in the week on my primary blog. The following commentary begins on verse 9. Notes in red represent my additions.

9. Therefore we also, from the day we heard, cease not praying for you and imploring that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10. That you walk worthily of God through all, pleasing in every good work, fruit-bearing and growing in the science of God;
11. In all virtue strengthened according to the might of his glory in all patience and long suffering, with joy,
12. Giving thanks to God the Father, who made us worthy of a portion of the lot of the saints in light;
13. Who delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the son of his love,
14. In whom we have the redemption through his blood, the remission of sins.

Having returned thanks to God for the graces bestowed on the Christians of Colossae, Saint Paul proceeds to pray for them. He repeats in verse 9 what he said in verse 3, that he had not ceased to pray for them since he heard of their conversion to Christ. His prayer was that they might be filled with the knowledge of God’s will, and with all wisdom, the apprehension of the great mysteries of faith, and spiritual understanding, or prudence, in the application of these mysteries to practice in their daily lives. Saint Chrysostom thinks this is said in special reference to the efforts of the heretics to mislead them by a false wisdom, which was not spiritual, but mundane and human. The Vulgate has in verse 9 agnitione voluntatis ejus (agnitione = recognizing or knowing voluntatis = the will  ejus = of Him), the power of recognition of what is truly the will of God, when the truth and the error are placed in contrast side by side before their minds. The recognition of God’s will and determination to reconcile mankind to himself, not by the ministry of angels, but through his own only-begotten Son. So that knowing this you may walk worthily of God in every respect. The Greek has worthily of the Lord, that is of Christ, as befits his disciples, and
therefore pleasing to God the Father, whose pleasure is in the Son of his love, and in those who belong to Him. Pleasing God in every good work. In the Greek this is attached to the words that follow: in all pleasing, and in every good work fructifying and growing in the knowledge of God. This is to please God, and to walk worthily of him. To walk is to continue and persevere. The word rendered in the Vulgate by scientia in this verse is the same which is translated agnitione (knowledge, recognition) in verse 9. There it was the knowledge of God’s will, for the redemption of the world through Christ, which may be fully known and understood; here the knowledge of God’s nature, in which we may continually fructify and grow;
but never know fully. Next the Apostle prays that the Christians of Colossal may be strengthened in all virtue (the Greek has, in all strength) according to the power of his glory, in all patience and long-suffering and joy. That is,
the very strength of God’s strength, the victorious splendour of God’s glory, is put in action and exhibited to the world, by the persecutions which his saints are exposed to, because they bear them, not only with complete and unfailing patience and endurance, to the utmost extent—in all patience and long suffering—but actually with joy. The Apostles, having been scourged, went from the presence of the council rejoicing. Act 5:41. Greater courage is shown in suffering than in action. Scævola said fortia agere Romanovum est, but fortia pati is equally a mark of Christians. The Syriac version attaches the words with joy at the end of verse 1 1 to the opening words of verse 12; with joy giving thanks to God the Father. It was part of the Apostle’s prayer that the Colossians should so give thanks. But Saint Chrysostom and Theodoret are of opinion, with greater probability, that Saint Paul uses the words giving thanks to God the Father of himself, in continuation of the orantes et postulantes (pray and beg) of verse 9. He is passing on to a new subject, and there is a change of person in verse 12, for
whereas he has before said impleamini (you may be filled, vs 9), ambuletis (you may walk, vs 10), he now says dignos nos fecit (made us worthy). He enters here upon what is in fact the principal object of the whole Epistle, namely to state and maintain the evangelical doctrine of Christ as the true Saviour of the world, in opposition to the errors of the heretics. He begins therefore by thanking God the Father, who has made us worthy of a portion of the inheritance of the saints in light. You, and me, and all Christian people, previously unworthy of any such promotion, as being God’s enemies, he has rendered, by his grace alone, worthy to be written and numbered among his Saints, and receive a portion of their eternal inheritance. In light signifies either the means by which this inheritance is attained, namely, the light of faith ; or else it is said of the lot and inheritance of the Saints, which is in light, in the clear vision of God. Or possibly both meanings may be included, for the light of faith on earth, and the light of glory in heaven, are both portions of the inheritance of the Saints. God the Father has further delivered us from the power of darkness, the tyranny of evil spirits, who are the princes of darkness, from infidelity and sin, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love. The Son of his love is a Hebraism for his beloved Son, as they said the mountain of
holiness for the holy mountain. This translation is effected by Baptism, by which we are delivered from the power of the devil, and grafted into the mystical body of Christ, his Church, which is the kingdom of light; and through the blood of Christ have obtained redemption or deliverance, that is, the remission of sins.

15. Who is the image of God the invisible, firstborn of all creation;
16. Because in him all things were created, in the heavens and in earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers; all were created through him and in him;
17. And he is before all, and in him all things consist.

God the Son is the image ol God the Father, who is  invisible, whom no man has seen nor can see (1 Tim 6), in all things like him, equal to him, consubstantial with him, proceeding from him per intellectum, his equal Word. And through this consubstantial Image of the Father, painted in the colours of the flesh, he becomes visible in time, who is invisible in eternity. Firstborn of all creation, that is, born before all creation, and therefore higher in dignity than anything created; elder than creation by all eternity, himself its Creator in time. First born, Saint Chrysostom observes,
not first created. It is generation, not creation, which is predicated of him. Because, this marks that what follows is an explanation of the statement just made. Christ is the firstborn of creation in this sense, that in him all things were made. Made by God the Father through the agency or intervention of God the Word. In heaven or in earth, visible or invisible, and including therefore the angels (this is stated in opposition to the doctrine of Simon Magus) however lofty their dignity, however great their powers and faculties. All created things were made through Christ, and, in the Greek, to or for him. God the Father did not create the universe by himself, or for
himself, but it was made through the agency of the Son, and for the pleasure of the Son. He is before all creatures in time, and in him they consist and are kept in being.

18. And he is the head of the body, the Church, who is the principle, the first-begotten from the dead; that he may in all things hold primacy.
19. Because in him it pleased God that all fullness should dwell.

Christ is the head of the Church, and the head is the seat and source of life, will, and sensation. And he is the Principle, Principium. Saint John applies this term to God the Father: In Principio, in the Principle, in the great First Cause, in the bosom of the Father from eternity, was the Word. But Moses seems to apply it to the Son, as the Principle or beginning of the Creation: In Principio, in the Principle, in the Divine Word, God the Father created the heavens and
the earth. But some Greek writers instead of ἀρχή read àπἀρχή, which means literally the beginning of a sacrifice, and was usually a lock of haircut from the head of the victim and thrown into the fire. Generally it came to mean the firstfruits, the representative or more valuable part of anything. Saint Chrysostom says: He calls him the first-fruits, implying that he has hallowed us all by the oblation of his sacrifice. The first-fruits of the human race, offered for the rest in sacrifice to God; and also the Prince of the resurrection,
the first-born from the dead. Thus in all things he holds primacy and pre-eminence, as the only-begotten son of the Father, as the author and beginner of the creation, as the Victim for mankind, as the Head of the Church, as the leader of the resurrection. For it pleased the Father, of his own love and generosity, of free grace, not the merit of Christ, that in Christ all fullness should dwell, the perfection of wisdom, grace, and power. Men receive these gifts in part, Christ has them all, and in all fullness. And in him they dwell, perpetually and inseparably, both by grace and in his Divine nature. But the life that dwells in the head flows also into the body, and having recourse to Christ we draw from the fullness of the fountain of divine grace.

20. And through him to reconcile all things to himself, making peace through the blood of his Cross, whether the things that are on earth, or the things that are in the heavens.

The infinitive depends upon complacuit (pleased) in the previous verse. It was the good pleasure of the Father to reconcile all things to himself by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross. The words in ipsum (unto Himself) are a Hebraism, and equivalent to sibi. Sin had introduced enmity between heaven and earth, but by the Cross of Christ sin is done away. By the blood of Christ angels and men are made at peace.

This was posted earlier in the week on my primary blog.

Note: Although the second reading this Sunday is on verses 12-20 of Colossians I’ve included Father Callan’s commentary on verses 9-11 and 21-23 into this post. Also, I’ve included his summaries of verses 9-14 and 15-23.

THE APOSTLE’S PRAYER FOR THE COLOSSIANS: A Summary of Col 1:9-14~The report of the Colossians given to St. Paul by Epaphras has enabled the Apostle properly to direct his prayers for them. Accordingly he prays that they may receive a clearer knowledge of the divine will and purpose, to the end that they may lead lives more pleasing to God and more fruitful in good works, thus manifesting the results of the blessings of redemption they have received.

9. Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for you, and to beg that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will, in all wisdom, and spiritual understanding:

Therefore, i.e., in view of the report given by Epaphras in the preceding verses 4-8.

We heard it, i.e., heard of their faith in Christ (ver. 4).

Cease not to pray, etc., means to pray frequently, as in Rom 1:9; 1 Thess 1:2, 2:13, 5:17; 2 Tim 1:3.

Wisdom is such an illumination of the mind as to enable the judgment to go back to the supreme cause of things, and, thus enlightened, to direct particular things to their proper ends (Cajetan).

Understanding is that perception of things which enables us rightly to grasp their nature and character, and thence to formulate rules for action. The term “spiritual” here qualifies both wisdom and understanding, showing the Spirit of God to be the source of both.

10. That you may walk worthy of the Lord in all things pleasing: being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God:

This verse gives the purpose of the gifts just requested for the Colossians.

The Deo of the Vulgate should be Domino, according to the Greek.

11. Strengthened with all might, according to the power of his glory, unto all patience and long-suffering with joy,

Besides a deeper knowledge of God’s will and divine mysteries, the Apostle asks that the Colossians may also be strengthened from on high, so as to be able to resist all their temptations and bear all their trials.

According to the power of his glory, i.e., in a manner worthy of His supreme nature as manifesting itself.

Unto all patience, etc., i.e., the effect of the divine power implored is to enable the faithful to bear their suffering and trials with a spirit of holy endurance and perseverance, and with a joyful heart. The phrase “with joy” more properly belongs to what immediately precedes than to what follows.

In the Vulgate we should read in omnem patientiam et longanimitatem, to agree with the Greek.

12. Giving thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light:

Giving thanks to the Father, etc., as becomes dutiful and grateful children whom the heavenly Father, the fountain and source of all blessings, has admitted to a share in the glorious inheritance of the saints, which is a life of grace here and eternal beatitude hereafter. This kingdom to which we are admitted in Baptism is “in light,” as opposed to the kingdom of darkness over which Satan presides (Eph 5:8, 6:12; 1 Thess 5:5; Rom 13:12).

The Deo of the Vulgate is not in the Greek.

13. Who delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love,
14. In whom we have redemption, the remission of sins:

13-14. These verses show how the Father has made us Christians “worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light.” It was by delivering us from the power of sin and Satan and making us members of the kingdom of His beloved Son, through the redeeming blood of that same divine Son.

Power of darkness, i.e., the dominion of Satan who rules that part of the world which has not been regenerated by Christ.

Delivered . . . translated. These verbs are aorist in Greek, the first expressing the negative and the second the positive aspect of the one and same process of regeneration and sanctification.

Kingdom means the Church Militant.

Son of his love is a Hebraism meaning beloved Son.

Per sanguinem eius of the Vulgate is not according to the best Greek MSS.; it was perhaps introduced here from Eph 1:7, which see.

THE SUPREME DIGNITY OF CHRIST: A Summary of Col 1:15-23~In the preceding verses St. Paul has shown, against the false teachers who were trying to pervert the Colossians, what great blessings we owe to our Lord. And now in this section he goes further, and shows that Christ is the image of the invisible God, anterior to all creation; the Son in whom and by whom all things were created and are sustained. And not only is the Son the head of the universe, but He is also, in a very special manner, the head of the Church; in Him dwells the fullness of Divinity, and through His sacrificial death on the cross all things have been reconciled to the Father (ver. 18-20). The Colossians are included in this redemption, for they were formerly enemies of God, but have now been reconciled to the Father through the atoning death of the Son. The goal of this reconciliation was that they might be spotless before God here and now; and this they will continue to be, if only they hold fast to the faith which they have received, which is the same everywhere, and of which Paul is the minister (ver. 21-23) .

15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature:

Verses 15-20 here are the most important part of the present Epistle. They constitute a compendium of Christology, and, taken in conjunction with Eph. 1:20-23, Phil 2:6-1 1 and Heb 1:1 ff., they represent St. Paul’s most sublime writings relative to the person and dignity of Christ (Sales, hoc loco).

Who is the image, etc., i.e., the inward utterance and perfect expression of His Father, the Word of God (Rickaby, hoc loco). Christ is the substantial and perfect image of the Eternal Father, having the same divine nature and essence and having been begotten as the Eternal Son of the Father from eternity: “Philip, he that seeth me, seeth the Father also” (John 14:9).

The first-born of every creature, i.e., born of the Eternal Father from eternity, as is clear from the two following verses.

16. For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations or principalities, or powers—all things were created by him and unto him.

That the Son was begotten before all ages, before anything was created or made, is now proved; “for in him,” as effects are in their cause, “were all things created,” i.e., produced and brought into being; which shows that He existed prior to and above all creation, all succession, all becoming.

In heaven and on earth, etc., i.e., everything in the whole created universe was made by the Son. To emphasize his doctrine against the false teachers who were denying Divinity to the Son and maintaining a chain of angelic mediators between God and the world, the Apostle repeats at the end of the verse that “all things were created by him,” as by their first cause, “and unto him” (εἰς αυτω= eis auto),i.e., for Him, as their final cause and goal. (Some manuscripts read εν = en in place of εἰς).

Thrones, dominations, etc. See on Eph 1:21.

17. And he is before all, and in him all things consist.

To stress the pre-existence and pre-eminence as well as the creative power of Christ, the Apostle here repeats against the false teachers that the Son was prior and superior to all created things, and that all were not only created by Him, but are maintained in their existence by Him.

Consist. Better, “stand together,” hang together, cohere; all things were created by the Word, and all continue in existence and are conserved by Him.

The Vulgate ante omnes should be ante omnia, denoting all creation, as in the Greek.

18. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead ; that in all things he may hold the primacy;

Christ is not only the creator and conserver of all things in the universe, but He is also the creator of the new spiritual order of things inasmuch as He has repaired and redeemed all things; for He is the Founder and Head of that mystical body which is His Church (see on Eph 1:22).

Who is the beginning, i.e., the efficient cause and creator of that organization which is the Church; He is the fountain and author of grace and glory.

The first-bom from the dead, i.e., the first in time to be raised from death to a glorious and immortal life, thus becoming the principle and model of the final resurrection of all who belong to Him. Just above, in ver. 15-16, it was said that Christ was the “first-born” of all things in general, that is, the creator of all, and here it is said that He is the “first-bom” of His redeemed creation. In both orders, the natural and the supernatural. He holds “the primacy” of power and dignity; He is the creator of all things in the natural order, and He is the redeemer and saviour of all in the supernatural order of grace and glory.

19. Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all the fullness should dwell;

Here and in the following verse the Apostle further shows how the Word holds the primacy in all things. First, “because in him, etc.,” i.e., at the time of the Incarnation it pleased the Father, or God, that “all the fullness” of Divinity, and consequently of grace and truth (John 1:14), through the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in the one Person of the Word, should take up its permanent abode in Christ.

The Father is not expressed in Greek, but it is most natural to take it as the subject of the verb “hath well pleased” in view of the subject in verses 12 and 13 and the context of verses 15-18.

Fullness, i.e., plenitude, totality—”the fullness of the Godhead,” as it is expressed in 2:9 below. See on Eph 1:23.

Should dwell. The Greek implies permanency of dwelling.

20. And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven.

In the second place, it has pleased God the Father “through him” (i.e., through Christ) “to reconcile all things unto himself” (cf. Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:18, 19). These references to Romans and 2 Corinthians show that we should understand eis auton here to mean the Father rather than the Son.

Making peace through the blood of his cross. The meaning is that through the sacrificial death of the Son on the cross peace was effected with the Eternal Father (cf. Rom 5:).

Both as to the things that are on the earth, etc. See on Eph 1:10. The Apostle is stressing the point here, against the false teachers at Colossae, that Christ is the one and only medium of reconciling with the Father all things, spiritual and material, human and angelic. Men, indeed, needed reconciliation in the strict sense of the word; but as regards the material creation and the angelic world see on Eph 1:10. Here, however, there is no question of reconciling men and angels with one another, but of reconciling all with God the Father. Therefore, to explain how the sacrificial death of Christ effected reconciliation and peace between the angelic world and the Father some have had recourse to the meaning of  Eph 3:10, and explain the difficulty in the sense of that passage. Thus, men are really cleansed and restored to divine favor, while angels acquire greater knowledge and joy as a result of man’s salvation (so Knabenbauer, hoc loco). Others think that reconciliation, as applied here to angelic beings, must be taken in a wide sense, meaning that Christ’s propitiation brought the world of angels into closer union with God, thus making them less alien than they had been before that august event (so Alford, Moule, etc.).

21. And you, whereas you were some time alienated and enemies in mind in evil works,
22. Yet now he hath reconciled you in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unspotted, and blameless before him:

In verses 21-23 St. Paul applies to the Colossians what he has been saying in general regarding the redemptive work of Christ. Formerly, in their pagan state, they also had been alienated from God; their mental attitude was hostile to Him, as was proved by their evil deeds. But now they have been reconciled to the Father through the atoning sufferings and death on the cross of God’s only Son.

In the body of his flesh, etc., i.e., in His own mortal, passible body, as distinguished from His mystical body, the Church: “For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, etc.” (2 Cor 5:19).

To present you holy, etc. The purpose of this reconciliation was the sanctification of the Colossians, so that they might appear in the sight of God here and now free from vice of every kind and adorned with all virtues.

23. If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immovable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister.

Here the Apostle tells the Colossians that they will continue in their holy state only if they preserve unsullied the faith which they have received from Epaphras, and which is the same as that preached everywhere else by St. Paul and his disciples.

Grounded and settled, etc. See on Eph 3:17.

The hope of the Gospel, which is eternal salvation.

Which is preached, etc. St. Paul wants to assure the Colossians that the Gospel they have heard is the same as the authentic Gospel preached elsewhere.

Whereof I am made the minister. Some think these words were added to show the identity between the Gospel preached by Paul and that delivered by Epaphras; but it is more likely that they were intended as a link between what the Apostle has been saying and what he is about to say regarding his work in behalf of the pagans.

This post was originally published on my primary blog.

Mat 18:1  At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?

At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, &c. There seems to be a discrepancy here with Mar_9:31, where it is said that the disciples disputed about this matter in the way, and that afterwards, when they were in the house, Christ prevented them, and asked them what they were doing in the way? S. Chrysostom answers that the Apostles had often disputed about this same matter, and at length Christ anticipated them with this question. When, therefore, they saw that their thoughts were known to Christ, they opened the matter to Him of their own accord, and asked him to resolve their question for them. Various things gave rise to these disputations, but the immediate cause was Christ having paid the didrachma for Peter only. Hence they envied him, as preferred to them, and then each began to be anxious that he might be promoted to the first rank. Hear S. Jerome, “Because they saw that the same piece of money had paid the tribute both for the Lord and Peter, from the equality of the payment, they thought Peter was preferred above the rest of the Apostles. Therefore they asked, who, thinkest thou, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Jesus knowing their thoughts, and understanding the cause of their error, desired to heal their desire of glory by teaching them to contend in humility.” Again, they saw that Peter, James and John had been taken apart by Christ on Tabor, and they grieved that they too had not been taken. Lastly, they had heard that Christ was shortly to die, and rise again, and enter into His glorious kingdom, and they prematurely were occupying themselves about these things, and seeking how they might become chiefs.

The greatest, i.e., in the kingdom of Messiah, which the Apostles expected Christ would establish on the earth indeed, though a heavenly and Divine kingdom, that is, in the Church. For the Church Militant on earth is tending towards the Church Triumphant in Heaven, as to the kingdom promised it by Christ. Maldonatus understands the passage as follows: He who is less, i.e., more humble in the Church is greater in the Church, and therefore greater in the kingdom of Heaven. He proves this: 1, from the occasion of this question, because from Christ’s having paid the didrachma for Peter, the Apostles conjectured he was to be the future head of the church; 2, because Christ regarded the question as a mark of ambition: and it is ambition to seek the first place in the Church, but not in Heaven. Charity persuades us to seek the first places in Heaven. This explanation is probable; but we may understand the passage more simply, by taking the kingdom of Heaven to mean literally Heaven. The Apostles are charged by Christ with ambition, because they looked upon the kingdom of Heaven like an earthly kingdom, which is often compassed because of pride, and even seized by force of arms.

Mat 18:2  And Jesus, calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them.

And Jesus called a little child, &c. Mark adds that He took him in His arms. It is thought, says Jansen, that this little boy was S. Martial, who afterwards became a disciple of S. Peter, and was sent by him to preach the Gospel in Gaul, and converted the inhabitants of Limousin, of Toulouse, and Bourdeaux. But others say that S. Martial was one of the seventy-two disciples. He could not, therefore, have been a little child at this time.

Mat 18:3  And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Converted, i.e., from this emulation and ambition of yours, which is at least a venial sin, and therefore an impediment to entrance into the kingdom of Heaven.

As little children: for, speaking generally, they do not envy others, nor covet precedence, but are simple, humble, innocent, and candid. I say generally, for S. Augustine (Confess. l 1, c. 7) testifies that he had seen an infant at its mother’s breasts growing pale with envy, because he saw his twin brother sucking at the same breasts. But there is no little child who is ambitious of a kingdom, or of the first place in a kingdom, as the Apostles were.

Christ bids us become like little children. Briefly, and to the point, does S. Hilary sum up their characteristics which ought to be imitated by believers. “They,” he says, “follow their father; they love their mother: they wish no evil to their neighbour; they regard not the care of riches; they are not wont to be insolent, nor to hate, nor to tell lies. They believe what they are told; they regard as true what they hear. Let us return, therefore, to the simplicity of little children, for when we have that, we bear about with us a likeness of the Lord’s humility.”

The way, therefore, to Heaven is humility; and the entrance and the door of Heaven is humility, because, save through it, there is no access to Heaven. S. Antony saw in spirit the whole world full of gins, and souls who desired to fly to Heaven caught in them, and being thus ensnared by the demons, thrust into hell. He cried out with groans, “0 Lord, who shall escape all these snares?” And he heard the answer, “Humility shall escape them all.” Christ, that He may cure the ambition of His disciples by a zeal for humility, makes use of three reasons to persuade them. The first is in this verse, in which he declares that none who are devoid of it shall enter Heaven. The second is in the following verse; that humility exalts, and that if you wish to be great in the kingdom of Heaven you must be small and humble on earth. The third is in the fifth verse; that humility is conformity to Christ, Who humbled Himself below the Apostles and all men, Who humbled Himself even unto death. Therefore, whoso receiveth him that is humble receiveth Christ.

Mat 18:4  Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself, &c., i.e., shall be as humble through virtue as this little child is by nature: or who shall be lowly in mind as he is little in body. Christ then bids us become like little ones, not in want of wisdom but in simplicity and innocence, and directly in humility. Thus the Apostles (1Co_14:20). “Brethren be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be ye men.” Origen gives the reason, “A little child has no overweening ideas of himself, and does not boast of rank or riches. We see that infants until their third or fourth year, even if they belong to the nobility, put themselves on an equality with boys of lowly birth, and are as ready to love poor children as rich ones.”

Moraliter: learn here the paradox of Christian wisdom. If you wish to be great in heaven, desire to be unknown on earth, and to be little among men, to be despised and made of no account. If you wish to be raised to the chief thrones in the empyrean, place thyself even below the feet of Judas, as S. Francis Borgia did. For it has been fixed and sanctioned by the eternal law of God, that “whoso exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” There once was seen a lofty and glorious throne among the Seraphim, and a voice was heard which said, “This seat is kept for the lowly Francis.” So Bonaventura in his life.

Humility is grateful and honourable with God, with angels and with men. Even if you would act upon mere policy, you must embrace humility, because it is in favour with all men. Hence courtiers, be they as ambitious as they may, yet marvellously humble themselves both in word and deed; but because they labour under the secret arrogance of the mind, it is difficult for them not to betray their hauteur from breaking out by some indication in their countenance. S. Jerome, or rather S. Paulinus (Epist. ad Celant. 14), says, “You can have nothing more excellent, or more loveable than humility. She is the chief preserver, and as it were the guardian of all virtues. And there is nothing which can make us so pleasing to God and men, as that when we are deservedly great by reason of our life, we should be the lowest by reason of humility.” As the Scripture says, “The greater thou art, humble thyself in all things, and thou shalt find favour before God.” Moreover S. Jerome says (Epis. 45, ad Anton.), “Our Lord as a teacher of humility to His disciples, when they were disputing about dignity, took a little child and said, whosoever of you shall not be converted to be like an infant, cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. But that He might appear not only to teach, but also to do, He fulfilled this by His example, when, whilst washing His disciples’ feet, He kissed His betrayer; when He conversed with the Samaritan woman; when He talked with Mary sitting at His feet about the kingdom of heaven; when, rising from the dead, He appeared first to the women. But Satan fell from the state of an archangel for no other cause than pride, which is the vice contrary to humility.” Humility, therefore, makes man to become an angel, even as pride made an angel become a devil. The first gift which is given to a man from beholding the Divine light is self-knowledge, says S. Denys (Epist. 7, ad Titum), and this is humility. For humility is a virtue by which a man thinketh vilely of himself through self-knowledge, and reckons himself inferior to all; either because he esteems himself viler, weaker, or more wretched than all, or because he piously thinks others are endowed with greater grace and other gifts of God than he is. That is a golden saying of blessed Nilus: “Blessed is he whose life is lofty, his spirit lowly.” Hear, too, the words of Cæsarius (Hom. 30): “As from an earthly fountain, or a terrestrial river, no one can drink unless he be willing to stoop, so also no one can draw living water from Christ, the Fountain of Life, and from the river of the Holy Ghost, unless he shall humble himself, according to that which is written—’God resisteth the proud.’” Lastly, S. Jerome gives a mirror of humility in S. Paula, of whom he writes thus in her epitaph: “She shines, amongst a multitude of gems, as the most precious of all, and, as a ray of the sun, obscures the little sparkles of the stars. Thus she surpassed the virtues of all by the power of her humility. She was the least of all, that she might become greater than all; and the more she cast herself down, the more she was lifted up by Christ. She was obscure, and yet she could not lie hid. By flying from glory, she merited renown, which follows virtue like its shadow, and—deserting those who hunger after it—seeks those who despise it.”

Mat 18:5  And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.

Whoso receiveth, &c. That is in hospitality, to his table, by favour, or by assisting in any other way. By receive is here meant any kind of benefit or charity, or benevolence. Observe, Luke has this little child. From this it appears that Christ speaks: 1. Of a child who is truly a little one: 2. Of a mystical child, viz., of a person who is lowly and humble. He rises from one to the other, playing upon the expression little one (parvulus). It is as though Christ said, So pleasing is humility to Me, that I delight in children, because they bear humility about with them, in appearance, in their stature, their age, their innocence: and I would have all My disciples become little children, and imitate little children, and so deserve to be received by all men. For men will think that in them they receive Me, because they receive them for My sake. For of Me Isaiah prophesied “Unto us a child (pavulus) is born, to us a son is given.” Like unto this is the voice of Christ in the following chapter, verse 14. S. Jerome observes that a little one is here spoken of, “because he who is offended is a little one; for those who are older do not take offence.” Mark and Luke add, And whosoever shall receive me receiveth not me but him that sent me. Luke gives the reason, For he that is the lesser among you all, i.e., who is the most humble of you all, he is the greater, that is to say, with Me and My Father which is in Heaven. “He is lowly,” says S. Augustine, “who chooses rather to be an abject in the house of the Lord than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners.” (Vulg.) This saying of Christ, S. Elizabeth, the daughter of the King of Hungary, stamped upon her very inmost heart. She fed and served daily nine hundred poor people, sick, full of scabs and ulcers. The lepers she washed with her own hands, wiped and kissed their ulcers. In such offices she delighted, and was wont to say, “How good and kind the Lord is to me, in that He suffers me to wash and wipe these people.

Mat 18:10  See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

See that You despise not one of theses little ones viz., those who are lowly, whom the world despises as poor and miserable. For although they may be weak, yet have they guardian angels who are strong, who may accuse you to God the Father, whom they always behold, and by His command may severely avenge and punish all offences and wrongs done to those who have been committed to their charge.

For I say unto you, &c. From this passage, and from Gen_48:16, and Act_12:15, and from the general tradition of the Fathers, doctors teach that all Christians, yea indeed all men, have an angel who is appointed by God to be their guardian from birth unto death. Hear S. Jerome “Great is the dignity of souls, that each has from his birth an angel appointed to watch over him.” And again, “The angels offer daily, through Christ, the prayers of those who are to bc saved. It is therefore a perilous thing to despise one whose desires are carried to the eternal and invisible God by the ministry of angels.” All the rest of the Ancients, and even the Protestant doctors, teach the same thing. Suarez cites them (lib. 6 de Angelis, c. 17, n. 8). He shews in opposition to Calvin and the Centuriators that it is an error to deny that a guardian angel is given by God to all men, not only to believers and the righteous, as Origen seems to have supposed, but even to unbelievers and the reprobate. Wherefore Antichrist will have his guardian angel, as S. Thomas teaches (1 part. quæst. 113, art. 4, ad. 3). Suarez teaches the same, and that guardian angels are ordinarily of the ninth, or lowest order of the angelic hierarchy, who are designated by the common appellation of angels. But to some special individuals of surpassing excellence or dignity, as Apostles, Prophets, Patriarchs, Bishops, Kings, guardians have been assigned of the eighth order, who are called archangels. Hence Gabriel was the guardian of the Blessed Virgin, and he is thought by many to belong to the order of the Seraphim. In saying that all men have a guardian angel, I except Christ, for He needed not an angel, whose Divinity was a sufficient guardian of His humanity. Nevertheless Christ had many angels, always at hand to minister to His wants. On this subject we must read Origen with caution, who pretends that guardian angels sometimes sin through negligence in their guardianship, and therefore are deprived for a time of the vision of God. But this is an error, for all the angels are blessed, and therefore immutable and impeccable.

The offices of the guardian angels are as follows:—1. To avert dangers both of the body and the soul. 2. To illuminate and instruct those committed to their charge, and to urge them to good works. 3. To restrain the demon, that he may not suggest wicked thoughts, or furnish occasions of sin. 4. To offer to God the prayers of him whom he guards. 5. To pray for him. 6. To correct him if he sin. 7. To stand by him at the hour of death, to comfort and assist him in his last struggle. 8. After death to convey the soul to Heaven, or if it need purgatory, to accompany it thither, and when there to console it from time to time, until purgatory being over, he carries it to Heaven.

You will ask why the expression their angels connotes not only the little ones who believe in Christ, which is the direct antecedent, but all other men? S. Chrysostom replies that angels denote not any angels, but those of surpassing dignity, as though the care of the little ones were committed to the highest angels. S. Thomas interprets the highest angels to mean not the chief of the highest order the Seraphim, but the chief of the ninth order of angels, so that the highest angels in that order are the guardians of men; those in the middle ranks, of animals; and the lowest, the guardians of trees and plants. To this we may add the opinion of Maldonatus, who thinks that the guardians of little ones are higher in rank than those of other men. And by little ones he understands not children, but the humble and the righteous, for whom God has greater care than for other men, as the whole of Scripture testifies. He proves that the angels of the little ones are greater and more honourable for this reason, that they always behold the face of God. Not that the other angels do not see It, but because by this expression the Hebrews signify one who is near to God, and His friend. It is a metaphor taken from courts, where the most honourable are those who are nearest to the king, and therefore most frequently see His face. Thus the Queen of Sheba says of the servants of Solomon, “Blessed are these thy servants, who stand before thee, and hear thy wisdom.”

2. Their angels, denotes that the angels of little ones have special care of them, more than the angels of those who are grown up. Of little ones, I say, both those who are so in age and faith, as well as in their lot and condition. For these, since they are weak in judgment and prudence, have the greater need of the care and guardianship of angels. It is a saying of the common people, that infants and idiots are the chief objects of angels’ care, for truly, unless angels had special care of infants, they would continually fall into the fire or water, and would be injured by pigs and beasts, and run over by horses and carriages.

3. Their angels, means that they are the peculiar friends of the little ones. For the angels marvellously love little children and the humble, because they, as it were, belong to them, and are most like them. For the angels are very humble, and by their humility they overcame Lucifer, saying, with S. Michael, their captain, mi ca el, i.e., who is as God? (See Philo Berlemont, in the Paradise for Children).

Moraliter: Learn from hence, first, how great is the dignity of souls, that they have angels for their guardians. In the next place how great is the condescension of God, that he assigns to us such guides. For these are they of whom it is said in Psalm civ., “Who maketh His angels spirits, His ministers a flaming fire.” In the last place, how great is the humility and love of the angels, who do not disdain these offices, but delight in them, because they see their Lord and God made man, as S. Bernard says. Wherefore the same S. Bernard says, on the words of the Psalm, He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways, “What reverence ought these words to instil into thee, what devotion, what confidence. Reverence for the angel’s presence, devotion for his kindness, confidence for his guardianship. Walk warily, even as one to whom angels are present, in all thy ways. Whithersoever thou turnest aside, in whatever corner thou art, reverence thy angel. Do not dare to do in his presence what thou wouldst not dare to do if I saw thee.”

Again, since the angels make it their business to purify, illuminate and perfect us, it is right that we should obey them by striving with all our might to attain to great sanctity and perfection, that we should emulate the life and habits of the angels, as those who are to be by and bye their companions in Heaven, for as the Apostle says, “Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” And, “Ye are come unto the city of the living God, to an innumerable company of angels.” Wherefore let us put away far from us all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, and especially all pride and contention. Nothing so provokes the angels to indignation as quarrels and scandals, as Christ here teaches, for they are the very angels of peace and edification.

In fine, let us often converse with our angels in spirit, as St. Bernard says, “Have the angels, my brethren, for your friends, and often go to them in earnest thought and devout adoration, for they are always present to guard and comfort you.”

Always see the face of my Father, &c., that is, the shining essence of God. The angels always see clearly without a veil, as it were face to face. The angels, says S. Augustine (lib. 9. de Civit. c. 22.), enjoy the immutable and ineffable beauty of God, with the holy love of Whom they burn. they despise all lower things, and themselves among them, that they may enjoy wholly, because they are good, that Good, by which they are good. The face of God then is the beauty and the brightness of the Divinity, clearly manifesting Itself to the angels, and making them blessed; for otherwise, strictly speaking, God has not a face, even as he has not a body.

Who is in Heaven: S. Gregory (2 Moral. c. 2.), and S. Bernard (Serm. 5, de dedicat. Eccles.) observe that the angels, even when they go forth from Heaven, always behold the face of God. For they are blessed wheresoever they are; therefore, wheresoever they are, they are said to be in Heaven. For where there is the vision and glory of God, there is Paradise and Heaven. Hence S. Gregory says, “They both stand before God, and are sent; because through this, that they have been circumscribed, they go forth; and through this, that they are also present within, they never go away. And therefore they always see the face of the Father, and yet come to us, because they go forth abroad to us in spiritual presence, and yet they keep themselves there by interior contemplation.” And a little before, “What can they be ignorant of in things that can be known, who know Him who knoweth all things?” They are not therefore called away from the guardianship of the humble through desire of returning to God, because they never depart from God, but wheresoever they are, they have Him present. They do all things, and guard the little ones in God, and for the sake of God.